Article: Misinformation on the AT Industry ** Was: Article: Anti-irritant Properties of EO in Antiperspirants

[Guest guest]

Hey Chris,

 

 

> I thought some folks here might find the below article interesting.

>

 

Interesting it is fer'shur .. but to me .. the reporter, Katie Bird, is NOT

interesting .. check the article below yours (herein) .. titled ..*

Toxicity of Essential Oils Questioned by Cropwatch ..*

 

That article shows that her reporting is slanted and incorrect .. and her

opinions show a lot of bias. The claimed facts in her report have mostly

been proven to be garbage and rumor and speculation .. like .. the false

information on breast development in boys .. and the so-called " experts "

warning of use of EO in early pregnancy. Claiming that Cropwatch is a

watchdog for the Aroma Industry further illustrates that she knows little of

what she speaks of.

 

Giving what appears to be credibility to the pseudo-scientific " committees "

that daily pound out Big Brother directives for the Sheeple of the Union of

Socialist European Republics also shows that she is

just repeating incorrect reporting and giving it a personal slant.

 

I think she does not understand that the IFRA represents the interests of

Commercial folks who manufacture products that are likely to be used day

after day .. and since frequency is as important as rate of dilution when it

comes to sensitization .. the IFRA puts their fingers on the scales when

they declare safety limits. Her reporting smacks of bias or a lack of

understanding of the realities of the industry.

 

The next to last paragraph where she bad mouths the Natural Products

Industry (and Cropwatch) is in fact, describing the Synthetic Chemicals

Industry.

 

Katie Bird must have some hidden talents .. cause being a credible reporter

of facts is not .. I believe .. what keeps her in her job.

 

 

> *Smile*

> Chris (list mom)

> http://www.alittleolfactory.com

>

 

Yep .. and you .. keep reading .. and keep smiling. :-)

 

Butch .. http://www.AV-AT.com

 

 

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Anti-irritant properties of essential oils in antiperspirants

>

>

>

http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/news/ng.asp?n=79986-givaudan-essential-oil\

s-antiperspirants

>

 

 

*Toxicity of essential oils questioned by Cropwatch

 

*By Katie Bird

 

http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/news/ng.asp?n=78768-ifra-cropwatch-essenti\

al-oils-fragrance-perfume

 

03/08/2007 - *Cropwatch claims that the EU's rulings on the toxicity of

certain plant based oils used in fragrances, are not based on scientific

reasoning, adding that the union does not sufficiently consult interested

parties.*

 

The statement comes in response to a recently called public consultation by

the EU to discuss the safety of, amongst others, pine, fir and spruce needle

oils.

 

The proposal argues that the oils, extensively used in male fragrances as

well as foam baths and home

fragrance<javascript:KeywordSearch('KEYWORDS=fragrance & period=all & inner=1');>pro\

ducts,

contain levels of peroxide that may lead to skin sensitisation.

 

The EU directive argues that these oils should not be used if they contain

more than 10 mmoles/L of peroxide as this could lead to adverse reactions.

 

However,

Cropwatch<javascript:KeywordSearch('KEYWORDS=Cropwatch & period=all & inner=1');>,

a watchdog for the aroma industry, has called the proposals bizarre and not

based on scientific reasoning, arguing that the normal concentrations used

in fragrances, will not cause dermal problems in consumers.

 

They argue that the peroxide concentrations of these oils will not persist

in cosmetics products at levels that could cause skin sensitisation, due to

both the low concentrations of the oils usually used in fragrances, and the

chemical treatment employed in cosmetics and fragrance manufacture.

 

In addition the watchdog criticises the haste with which the legislation is

being passed, claiming that they were given a week in order to submit

arguments on behalf of interested parties - a time frame they claim to be

insufficient.

 

The watchdog adds that it 'intends to make comments on socio-economic,

ecological and trade implications….. in its own time'.

 

The EU's recent Public Consultation on the toxicity of various perfumery

ingredients comes as part of a larger industry restructuring programme by

the International Fragrance Association (IFRA), equally unpopular with

Cropwatch.

 

IFRA introduced the 42nd amendment to its Code of Practice earlier this

year, releasing a revised Quantitative Risk Assessment booklet to educate

fragrance suppliers on the new standards set regarding dermal sensitisation

and the safety of ingredients.

 

Cropwatch created a petition to boycott the amendment arguing that it

discriminated against the small fragrance suppliers who do not have the time

or money to wade through increased red tape.

 

In addition, the organisation claimed that the programme favours synthetic

over natural fragrance ingredients, a criticism that

IFRA<javascript:KeywordSearch('KEYWORDS=IFRA & period=all & inner=1');>has

denied.

 

The association stated that they believed both synthetic and natural

fragrance ingredients should be subject to the same stringent testing

requirements and that they would not declare an ingredient to be safe simply

on the grounds of it being naturally sourced.

 

Indeed, there have been reports outlining the possible dangers of

certain essential

oils<javascript:KeywordSearch('KEYWORDS=essential+oils & period=all & inner=1');>,

for example a US study suggested a link between the use of products

containing lavender and tea tree oil and abnormal breast development in

young boys.

 

Furthermore, many experts remind potential consumers that the products,

although natural, are incredibly concentrated and should always be used in a

diluted form with some cautioning against using essential oils in early

pregnancy

 

This is not the first time the industry has come under criticism from lobby

groups that support the increased use of natural ingredients, in fact such

campaigns appear to be growing in strength and number.

 

However, some industry observers claim there may be ulterior motives behind

such protests, suggesting that the most vociferous of campaigners for the

use of natural products are often involved in the naturals market, thereby

profiting from their own campaigning.

 

Furthermore, some industry players have warned against believing all of the

science cited in such campaigns, stating that it may draw false conclusions

and mislead consumers.