Glenn Roberts
1602 I Street Northwest
Suite 925
Washington, D. C. 2006
January 3, 1999
Dear Mr. Roberts,
The RIFM gave me your name as the person to get in contact with when I had questions on
safety testing conducted on fragrance materials. There is growing concern about the safety
of fragranced products. This concern is fueled by increasing numbers of people that are
adversely affected by others use of fragranced products. The industry has some choices to
make. It can continue to ignore and down play the significance of this or it can
responsibly address it.
In 1988, I developed asthma after using a general purpose cleaner. I had neither a
previous history of asthma nor a family history of asthma. Ten years later, I still have
asthma only when exposed to fragranced products. Though my asthmatic response seemed to be
to a specific substance and not fragrances in general, it was very difficult to find out
what that substance was. Companies refused to give me any information, doctors had no idea
what to test for, and the FDA did not have the information either. Searching for
information has been a ten-year journey that has been quite a learning experience.
At first my interest was only in pinpointing what I was sensitized to in hopes that
allergy shots would be available and my life could return to normal. My respiratory
reaction to exposures was instant and severe. Asthma medications either did little good or
I did not tolerate the side effects. Avoiding exposures was the only way to prevent
getting ill. Avoidance of exposure to fragrances is extremely difficult, as they are
ubiquitous in the environment. I had to give up my nursing career and my life had been
drastically altered. Even day to day tasks such as grocery shopping was difficult.
Attending church and social functions were impossible.
As I searched for information, I began to realize that I was not the only one adversely
affected. In 1995, I got online access and found there was a growing network of people
that were sensitive to fragrances. Others were also being made ill by "second
hand" fragrance and having to alter their lives because of it. Like me, most had no
idea what in fragrances was making them ill.
In 1996 with the help of a fragrance chemist I pinpointed the specific chemical that
triggered my asthma. It was the chemical amlycinnamaldehyde. I was very disappointed to
find that no allergy shots were available for chemicals. However, learning what triggered
my asthma did provide a lot of answers that helped me better understand. The chemist
explained that amylcinnamaldehyde is common in things with a wet application because it
helps hold the scent even after washing and rinsing. This was the reason that cleaners,
personal care products, and laundry products often caused me more problems than perfumes.
It also explained why there was no connection to a specific odor.
I had to accept that there was little that could be done other than the avoidance that I
was already practicing. The thought then occurred to me, if I could be sensitized, others
could be also. Perhaps there was a connection between the increased fragrance use over the
past few decades and the increasing asthma rates. I started gathering as much information
as I could on fragrances, the fragrance industry, regulation, and health affects.
The more I learned the more I have become convinced that at the least fragrances are
responsible for exacerbation of asthma and at the worst may be one of the causes of
asthma. Fragrances are well known skin sensitizers, but little has been done in the way of
research on their potential as respiratory sensitizers. Fragrances also are triggers for
migraine headaches and multiple problems for those with chemical sensitivities.
I contacted several fragrance industry organizations with varying results. The Fragrance
Foundation sent me information on how fragrances can add to my quality of life. The RIFM
suggested that I write to Dr. Richard Ford, which I did. I received a very nice, but
somewhat patronizing letter that did not address my concerns. The IFRA responded to my
inquiry with a letter that seemed more like a public relations organization than one
concerned with establishing safety of fragrance materials. In general my concerns were
ignored, brushed off, or not addressed.
I understand the Fragrance Industry at the present time has little to fear from
regulation. But there is one aspect that can certainly cause great concern. The industry
is based on image. And focusing on the health effects of fragranced products can do much
damage to image. The industry's lack of effort to ensure fragranced products are safe
leaves those of us that are fragrance sensitive only one choice ... to become very vocal
on the issue.
There is a growing grass root vocalization on this issue. Online has provided a great way
of contacting and sharing information with others. Those of us that are fragrance
sensitive now realize there are many others that also have problems. Our efforts are much
more effective collectively than they are individually.
There is also increased attention in the media. The Washington Post published a letter to
the editor that I wrote in August on the topic. Various newspapers across the country have
addressed the issue. Nicholas Regush, author of ABC's online column SecondOpinion
addressed this issue in the November 25th column. As you are aware the Environmental
Health Perspectives, a NIH-National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
publication, December issue addresses the topic.
Some things that you may want to check out online. These sites may give you insight on how
people are affected by others fragrance use.
http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm
http://archive.abcnews.com/sections/living/SecondOpinion/secondopinion_17_response.html
http://www.user.globalnet.co.uk/~aair/perfume_corr.htm
You were quoted in the EPH article as saying there had been no increase in complaints
about fragrances. This is not accurate. There were more complaints registered with
Cosmetic Adverse Reaction Monitoring Database of the Office of Cosmetics and Colors in
1997 than there were in 1995.
The above sites may prove enlightening. When a person has complaints, whom should they
contact? For those that are fragrance sensitive it is often difficult. Most do not use
fragranced products and are made ill by others use of them. Most of the time the offending
product names or manufacture is not known. Is there a program set up to register
complaints of non-users of fragranced products? The FDA program is not adequate as it only
addresses consumer complaints about fragrances that are considered cosmetics. Many
fragranced products are not considered cosmetics.
This is a general health issue that affects many people. Those with
asthma, allergies, rhinitis, sinusitis, COPD, migraines and other health problems are
affected by others use of fragranced products. The numbers of people with these problems
are increasing. As more of the population is affected there will be more focus on it.
Recent studies have shown fragrances impact indoor air quality. Synthetic musk chemicals
are showing up in human breast milk and fat tissue. There are environmental issues as
well, as fragrance chemicals show up in aquatic wildlife.
This issue needs to be addressed with the cooperation of the fragrance industry. But so
far cooperation has not been forthcoming from the industry. I have a few suggestions. In
order to determine how significantly fragrances affect health, data must be gathered.
Specific substances that trigger problems need to be pinpointed. At the present collecting
this data is very difficult. Due to trade secret status, is very difficult to pinpoint
what in a fragrance may be causing the problem.
1. Set up a means by which doctors could have access to information to
determine what their patients are having problems from. This could be done without
jeopardizing companies' formulas. The doctor could provide the name of several products
their patient had problems from. This would narrow the problem substances to the chemicals
that the products had in common. A record could be kept documenting which products and
specific chemicals seemed to be causing problems. Then industry can replace these specific
chemicals with safer ones. And companies whose products were frequently cited as causing
problems would know that changes needed to be made.
2. Industry needs to start testing common combinations of materials. This would shed light
on the synergistic potential of the materials.
3. Testing needs to be done on the respiratory affects of fragrance chemicals. This
includes effects on both upper and lower breathing passages.
4. Testing needs to be done on the neurological affects of fragrance chemicals.
5. Industry needs to acknowledge that for some fragrances can cause health problems (i.e.
asthmatics, migraine suffers, those with chemical sensitivities, etc.) and encourage users
to be courteous.
6. The industry should recommend and encourage that fragrance formulation in products
designed to be used around and for children and infants should be extensively tested for
safety via all routes of exposure.
None of these things are unreasonable requests and should be within the scope of a
responsible industry. A self-regulated industry must take responsibility for regulating
itself.
Sincerely,
Betty Bridges, RN
Site last updated: 07/03/00