Communications with SPEIAC
-----Original Message-----
From: bcb56 <bcb56@ix.netcom.com>
To: ccarter@scentedproducts.on.ca <ccarter@scentedproducts.on.ca>
Date: Sunday, March 21, 1999 8:32 PM
Subject: Sensitivity to fragrances
I am urging the fragrance industry to step back and take an
objective look at the issue of fragrance safety. At this point
the fragrance industry is pretty much self-regulated. If it wants
to remain this way, it will have to address the issue of
fragrances negatively impacting health in a responsible manner.
My story is not one of multiple chemical sensitivity, rather one
of specific sensitization to a fragrance chemical. In my case
fragrance caused asthma. I urge the industry to carefully address
the points raised. Though I am using my experience as an example,
my focus is not my own health. It is simply the easiest way to
demonstrate the concerns over fragrance safety and the lack of
avenues for pinpointing fragrance materials that pose health
risks.
In 1988 I developed respiratory symptoms after using a cleaner at
work. Onset was immediate after use and I had not history of
asthma. I was able to pinpoint the ingredient in the product that
triggered the problem as the fragrance portion. Another product
that contained all of the same ingredients with the exception of
fragrance did not trigger any problems. This product has very
little perceptible odor, so odor was not a factor. I could walk
into the building and tell if the product had been used without
ever being aware of an odor.
My employer accommodate me and at first it was simply a minor
inconvenience. As time went on, I found other fragranced products
would cause immediate onset of wheezing and chest tightness. I
could not tell until exposed what would cause a problem. There
was no connection to a specific odor or even to the intensity of
the odor. A wide variety of products caused problems, but I found
laundry products, cleaners, and personal care products were just
as likely to be culprits as perfumes.
I was certain that it was a specific ingredient that was common
in fragrances that triggered respiratory symptoms. Though I was
diagnosed with asthma, my asthma was not typical. Onset was
almost immediate with an exposure and initially resolved very
quickly once removed from the exposure. General irritants did not
seem to cause me any problems. My airways did not seem to be
hyperactive in general. I found asthma medication were of only
limited benefit.
Gradually the severity of the respiratory response increased and
took longer to resolve. I found myself with frequent respiratory
infections following an exposure, that would not resolve without
taking oral steroids. It became apparent that avoidance of
exposures were essential to prevent illness. As my life was more
and more impacted, I begin to consider that perhaps "allergy
shots" would desensitize me and my life could return to normal.
By 1991, I was no longer able to function in a public environment
enough to work and I had given up my nursing career.
I approached my allergist with the possibility of allergy shots,
only to be told since they had no idea what I was sensitized to,
this was impossible. When I requested allergy testing, I was told
that there was no testing available for fragrance chemicals as
inhalant allergens and there was no way to pinpoint what I was
reacting to.
My next thought was to contact manufactures and see if they would
give me information. I found two products by the same
manufacture, one triggered symptoms and one did not. I asked if
they would tell me what was different in the fragrance in the two
products, hoping to pinpoint the offending chemical. The company
would not give me any information. I asked would they give the
information to my doctor, and was told they would not.
My next step was to contact the FDA, only to be told that they
had no way of knowing what was in the product either.
By 1995, I was no longer able to attend church, school functions,
or social activities. Though respiratory symptoms were the
primary concern since they were so severe, I had developed other
symptoms after exposures such as muscle/joint ache similar to
those encountered with the flu, difficulty in concentration and
short term memory, and extreme fatigue. Fortunately my husband
was self-employed in a business that required little contact with
the general public and I could work with him, even though it was
an environment most with asthma would have never tolerated. I did
encounter problems with one specific product, but we stopped
using it and I had no further problems. I made conscious choices
about the activities I participated in because there was always
the potential of exposure to an offending product, even at
outdoor events. At this point, I had never heard of anyone else
having such problems from fragrances, and I thought the problem
was unique to me. My doctor was supportive and never questioned
the physical basis of my problems, but he had little to offer as
far as treatment other than for infections and episodes that
required medication before they resolved.
In 1995, I got access to the Internet and a whole world of
information opened up for me. For the first time I became aware
of others that had similar sensitivities. I learned about
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities. Though I had similar symptoms as
with MCS, my symptoms seemed to be triggered by exposure to a
specific substance and not chemicals in general. I was convinced
that MCS was not my problem and continued to search for answers.
Any where there was anything on asthma, allergies, or perfume I
would post a note saying I was allergic to something in
fragrances and was trying to find out what it was. A chemist that
worked in the fragrance industry wrote me back and told me he
would help me figure it out. He told me to check my response to
four specific perfumes, which I did. Two triggered respiratory
symptoms and two did not.
He then sent me little strips of paper that had been dipped in
fragrance chemicals that were common in the two products I
reacted to. I went to my family doctor who performed a simple
challenge test. Since my reaction was so immediate, it was simply
a matter of taking a whiff and seeing if I had symptoms. Peak
flow readings were taken before and after each exposure. Only one
chemical triggered a respiratory reaction and that was the
chemical "amylcinnamaldehdye" CAS# 122-40-7. Interestingly, it
did not have a strong odor. What odor it did have was not
perfumery, but rather harsh. By the second whiff of the chemical,
my peak flow readings had dropped 30% and I was wheezing badly.
The chemist then provided me with information that explained a
lot. This chemical was common in things with a wet application
such as cleaners, laundry products, and personal care products.
It had the ability to hold the odor of a product even after
washing and rinsing. It was often used for this characteristic
rather than for it's odor quality. At last I knew why there was
no connection to odor and why I reacted to so many different
things.
I took this information to my allergist thinking allergy shots
would be available. I was very disappointed to learn that there
is no treatment for chemical allergies other than avoidance and
supportive care. By this time, I realized there were many people
that had problems from fragrances, many people with main stream
health problems. I had become convinced there was serious safety
concerns involving fragrances, concerns that were not being
addressed.
To be perfectly honest, I think the fragrance industry prefers
this to be a multiple chemical sensitivity issue, but it is not .
. . it is a general health issue and impacts the lives of
millions on a daily basis.
There is ample information in the medical literature that
establishes perfumes and fragranced products are triggers for
asthma, sinus problems, allergies, migraine headaches, and
chronic lung disease. In the US there are 17 million asthmatics,
14-20 million people with COPD, 25 million with migraine
headaches, and 20% of the population suffers from allergic
diseases. Fragrances are known to impact indoor air quality and
thus impact everyone's health.
There is increasing medical literature to support serious
concerns over fragrance safety. 1-2% of the population has
adverse skin reactions to fragrances. Up to 72% of asthmatics are
triggered by perfumes. Most lung and asthma associates list
perfumes and fragrances as triggers for asthma and respiratory
problems. Even when blinded to odor, exposure to fragrance still
triggers asthmatic symptoms.
Using known databases for fragrance materials, I have looked up
chemical information on fragrances, information from the
companies that sell the products. Most all are respiratory
irritants and harmful to the respiratory system. Some are even
listed as respiratory sensitizers. Most have not had adequate
safety testing, yet they are applied to the skin and breathed in
on a daily basis my virtually everyone.
In spite of past history and concerns over years of use of
chemicals like AETT and musk ambrette, neurological testing is
still not including in testing routinely done by the fragrance
industry. Synthetic musk chemicals are being found in water ways,
aquatic wildlife, human fat tissue, and breast milk.
WHEN is the industry going to address these concerns? They are
legitimate concerns and there is ample solid data to support
them. The industry is using MCS as a diversion not to address
these issues.
Betty Bridges
For information on health effects of fragrances, visit:
http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm
3/22/99
-----Original Message-----
From: bcb56 <bcb56@ix.netcom.com>
To: ccarter@scentedproducts.on.ca <ccarter@scentedproducts.on.ca>
Date: Monday, March 22, 1999 8:58 PM
Subject: Seeking information on Iso-E Super
I am compiling available safety and toxicology data on fragrance
chemicals. I have been able to find very little on the chemical
Iso-E Super. According to industry literature this is a very
commonly used material at relatively high levels in some
fragrances. Any available information on safety testing would be
greatly appreciated.
Betty Bridges
For information on health effects of fragrances, visit:
http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm
4/2/99
-----Original Message-----
From: bcb56 <bcb56@ix.netcom.com>
To: ccarter@scentedproducts.on.ca <ccarter@scentedproducts.on.ca>
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 8:10 PM
Subject: Health aspects of fragrances
I have sent two e-mails and have not received a response. SPEIAC
states part of it's mission is to:
"Address questions about scented product ingredients, safety and
regulation"
I have concerns that have not been addressed. I have done
extensive reading and research into fragrances regulation,
formulation, and health concerns. There are legitimate concerns
that are not being addressed by the fragrance industry. I have
had several fragrances analyzed by GC. So my concerns are not
based on speculation, but rather formulations of popular
fragrances. The fragrance industry seems unwilling to address
these concerns. Rather diversionary tactics such as focusing on
the controversy over Multiple Chemical Senstivities seem to be
the industry's answer to concerns.
If the industry thinks the issue is going to go away, they are
wrong. Asthma rates are increasing at a phenomenal rate.
Fragrances are respiratory irritants that trigger asthma attacks.
As the asthma rates continue to rise, so will the focus on
fragrances. When enough people are getting ill from exposures,
there will be a public outcry and the fragrance industry will be
under scrutiny as why they have not addressed this issue.
A much better solution is for the industry to address the issue
in a responsible way. The following suggestions hardly seem
unreasonable.
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.
In ignoring the issues of fragrances and their impact on health
the industry has left little choice for those that are fragrance
sensitive. We have to utilize available means to make our voices
heard. Unfortunately, our numbers are increasing and with
increased numbers, our impact is greater. The fragrance industry
is at a pivotal point, it can responsibly address the issue or it
can continue its present path.
Betty Bridges
For information on health effects of fragrances, visit:
http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm
The information contained on this site has been compiled by
E-Fax:: (801)340-3578
Site last updated: 03/05/00