the aromaconnection blog

Melissa Oil & IFRA Policy (cont’d): The Further Details

by Tony Burfield, Cropwatch, 6^th Sept 2009

For previous posts on this topic see here and here.

Preamble

Those of us who have worked in the aroma trade for most of their working lives, have, at times, been highly skeptical of the knowledge & abilities of those unelected officials who would impose baffling & seemingly nonsensical regulations and codes of practice upon the trade. Sometimes we felt that we were being regulated by those who had little in-depth knowledge or experience of the subject - a feeling which has never really gone away.

Perhaps safety-orientated organisations like IFRA would have gained more credibility from some of us old-timers if they had more openly owned up to their previous errors. Yes, we accept that with improvements in experimental design and better techniques, many of IFRA’s earlier (nineteen seventies’) findings on ingredient toxicology are now suspect, or have been superseded. Most importantly, the failure to use rigorously purified aroma chemicals for toxicology testing by researchers reporting to RIFM, and the use of complex botanical materials from non-expertly identified botanical sources, has thrown large sections of IFRA’s previous toxicological findings into doubt since impurities and adulterants have often been responsible for adverse effects rather than the pure ingredients. From a personal standpoint, when you have been drenched in perfume & essential oils on a daily basis for 30-odd years, as many of us at the coalface have, you may feel some intuition (rightly or wrongly) for what aroma materials might be posing any handling risks. This is why many of us laughed openly over IFRA’s Quenching Hypothesis (now discredited). It is why we are still cynical over the disproportionate IFRA classifications of many materials which are supposed to be sensitising, according to the corporate-toxicological methodology involved in the QRA approach. But many of these ingredients indicated as sensitisers have failed to produce any significant numbers of adverse reactions amongst the end-users of fragranced cosmetic & household products in which they occur.

Melissa Oil: Lesson Learned

The curious case of the previous banning of Melissa oil as a fragrance ingredient by IFRA, gave Cropwatch an opportunity to explore IFRA’s ingredient policies in detail (see previous Cropwatch reports). In so many instances, a veil of secrecy obscures the detailed experimental facts on which IFRA/REXPAN ingredient status decisions are made. Following requests by Cropwatch, Robertet Grasse, to their immense credit, were willing to share their toxicological findings on Melissa oil testing, referred to in the RIFM data-base but otherwise not available to the general public. Subsequently we can now clearly see (in our opinion) that there was no good reason to ban Melissa oil from perfumery use in the first place, and a case for its continued restriction is heavily based on Robertet’s evidence, which was not comprehensive across a range of dosages, but based on a strategy to reduce costs. This involved contriving experiments at doses which were likely to produce a positive safety outcome, rather than the prospect of funding a more extensive range of tests proving its skin safety at higher dosages. That’s OK - we can easily deal with this, because it represents the truth. It’s just that IFRA didn’t previously reveal these particular facts about the economic restraints which have materially affected the testing strategies, for this particular ingredient.

Where do we go from here? It is apparent that we need an independent body to openly ascertain the facts about ‘pure’ toxicological science – as against the corporate-funded version of toxicology which we are forced to follow. It is also apparent from the mail that Cropwatch receives that there are other expert opinions out there – why must these individuals be sidelined and denied places on expert committees? Above all, Cropwatch is concerned that the low standards set out in many IFRA commercial standards may be rubber stamped & adopted by the EU Commission, as of course has happened previously, and which may come to be an increasing trend.

Melissa Oil – the Further Details

With a few minor punctuation changes, the reply from Catherine Gadras is set out below (we had asked for the exact botanical identification of the Melissa spp distilled for essential oil (since IFRA had failed to properly define it), and for its’ geographic origin & compositional details. We had further asked the Robertet team for any views on the presented HRIPT & EC3 data. We also had an exchange of mails with Michel Meneuvrier of SAPAD who provided the oil for testing (see below) & who confirmed that the Melissa plants distilled for oil were produced organically from Diois region plants.

Catherine writes:

As I mentioned below Melissa EO used for testing is Melissa officinalis subsp. officinalis L cultivated in the South East of France in the region of Di (Drôme). This genuine essential oil has been provided to us by the SAPAD (Société Anonyme des Plantes Arômatiques du Diois).
The sample was taken from the crop 2008. 7 to 8 levels of fresh leaves plus the flower part are used for the distillation.
Please find below the range of the main constituents provided to us by SAPAD and the composition of the sample used in the most recent tests. (See attached file: Melissa-EO Composition.pdf).[This file consists of the tables included an the end of the post – Ed.]
The crop results from the distillation of 3 cuts: one at the end of May and the two others from the beginning of July and at the end of August/beginning of September. The producer finds that the citral content is maximum in the third cut (greater than 50%) and that citronellal is below 10%.
2) Comments regarding safety data (HRIPT and EC3)
The LLNA has been made to determine a level of concentration at which one begins to observe induction of sensitisation. In our case 4500µg/cm².
Considering the high cost of this EO (5 to 7 tons of fresh plants to
produce 1 Kg of essential oil) on one hand and the fact that we did not want to risk a positive reaction in the HRIPT, we have chosen this conservative 1470µg/cm². 1470µg/cm². This is more than adequate for perfumery use which is our business. It is quite possible that a higher safe limit for melissa EO exists but in my opinion it must be verified by testing my opinion it must be verified by testing.
PS: I take advantage of our e-mail exchanges to make some comments concerning the Cropwatch report on Melissa (page 3) that I found on internet :
I have 2 comments on this sentence below: :
"Under the draft proposals for IFRA’s 44th Amendment, melissa oil (which they describe as ‘genuine Melissa officinalis L.’) has been downgraded from an outright ban in fragrances, to a concentration restriction in the fragrance compound (as opposed to the finished cosmetic product). QRA data for melissa oil, which is categorised as a weak sensitiser, is presented by IFRA for the various established product categories, based on a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 1400µg/cm²."

1) Did you really mean "downgraded" ? My poor English would have expected "upgraded". (Cropwatch comments: downgraded from a negative position (a ban) but upgraded to more positive position (just a restriction) - it all depends on how you look at it!).

2) I confirm to you that the QRA limits are in finished consumer products and not in fragrance compounds.” (Cropwatch comments: on this latter point we stand corrected. Thank you Catherine!).

Addenda – Analysis Data received from Robertet.

Analysis of Melissa EO sample used in HRIPT test.

Component	% FID CW
Myrcène	0,16
Limonène	0,37
Cis Ocimène	0,12
Trans Ocimène	1,14
Para cymène	0,15
Methylheptenone 1	1,76
Octène 1 ol 3	0,4
Citronellal	1,3
Alpha copaene	0,34
Beta bourbonene	0,4
Linalool 1,38	1,38
Cis + Trans Isocitral	1,6
Beta Caryophyllene	14,2
Neral	23,8
Methyl geraniate	0,32
Germacrene	4,3
Geranial	33
Geranyl acetate	2,2
Delta Cadinene or delta Amorphene 7	0,7
Citronellol	0,2
Nerol	1,1
Isogeraniol (cis+trans)	0,24
Geraniol	1,7
Epoxydes de caryophyllene (cis+trans)	1,8
Germacradienol	0,3
Muurolol T	0,4
Thymol	2,1
carvacrol	0,25
Alpha Cadinol	0,6
Neric acid	0,1
Geranic acid	0,3
TOTAL 96,73

Information Stat from SAPAD

	Mini %	Maxi%	Moyenne %	Escart Type %
Methyl heptenone	1.05	3.36	1.8	0.7
Limonene	0.04	0.48	0.18	0.13
Citronellal	0.6	19	4.9	4.4
Neral +citronellol	6.4	28	18.7	5.4
Geranial + Geraniol	9	38.3	25.6	7.4
Caryophyllene beta	10.1	29.6	18.3	4.4

Technorati Tags: Melissa officinalis,Melissa,IFRA,Robertet,RIFM

Notes and News

Those involved in natural cosmetics and the manufacture of aromatherapy products  in the United States are not always aware of what’s percolating in regulatory circles across the pond.  There is a searchable database, COSING, established by the EU, which is extremely helpful to quickly find pertinent information.  These regs may or may not appear in our own rules here at home as the FDA continues to masticate on the globalization act of 2008.   Of the greatest interest, rules regarding the 26 fragrance allergens now required to be labeled on cosmetic packaging if in products above 10 ppm in leave-on products, or 100-ppm in wash-off products.  Perhaps 50% of these allergens are found naturally in limonene, citronellal and linalool . . . all which occur in essential oils.  In this directive, fragrance allergens are considered regardless if they come from essential oils or synthetic manufacture. 

We owe great thanks to Tony Burfield for his diligence over the past two years to provide information here on aromaconnection about EU directives, IFRA and other regulatory issues.

The volunteers at aromaconnection have all been very busy with other aspects of their lives for a bit of time, however, we hope to be back stronger than ever by the fall.      

Robertet Reveals its Evidence on Melissa Oil to Cropwatch

by Tony Burfield July 2009

You may remember that Cropwatch was quite puzzled by any need for IFRA’s new restrictive Standard for Melissa oil in IFRA’s 44^th Amendment, and had requested details of three unpublished toxicology reports from both RIFM & Robertet, Grasse, which were not available in the public domain, but which were cited by IFRA as containing evidence sufficient to restrict its use in perfumery. The back-story on this matter is available in the Cropwatch Files at http://www.cropwatch.org/Meliissa officinalis - Cropwatch article archive.pdf, but to briefly recap, although Melissa oil & extracts occupy an important place in aromatherapy and herbal medicine, Melissa oil is virtually unused in corporate perfumery. Nevertheless IFRA had previously seen fit to ban it as an ingredient on the basis of undisclosed evidence. There seemed to be no such body of evidence within the RIFM data-base to support such a ban, and it is a complete mystery to many of us how REXPAN could have come to such a conclusion. The ban has now been transformed into a concentration restriction under IFRA’s hyper-bureaucratic QRA system. In the interests of Freedom of Information, Cropwatch has compiled a comprehensive bibliography of the available literature on Melissa oil in the Cropwatch Files section of its website, to enable any interested parties amongst the general public at large to make their own minds up about the need for any restriction.

Although RIFM has ignored Cropwatch’s request for the withheld evidence on Melissa oil as noted above, Catherine Gadras of Robertet, Grasse very kindly responded with a summary of the test data, which is displayed at http://www.cropwatch.org/Melissa EO testing summery.pdf, and offered to answer any further points. Accordingly we asked Robertet (on 14^th June) to accurately define the botanical nomenclature of the Melissa species employed (was it, for example, the oil from Melissa officinalis L. subsp. officinalis?), the geographical origin of the Melissa herbage used to steam distill the essential oil, and the compositions of the oils employed in the research (since commercial Melissa oils vary widely – see Cropwatch’s Melissa oil bibliography). We also asked, in as many words, if the Robertet team would like venture any comments on the fact that there was a complete lack of adverse human reactions in the Robertet HRIPT studies, contrary to the numerical indications of possible sensitiser activity shown by the EC3 value? Without going into too many further details, this data would seem to offer further support as to the flawed ability of the LLNA test to accurately predict sensitiser potency for aromatic ingredients, and its questionable place of this animal-based test within the over-bureaucratic QRA system. But presumably, unless a notable such as Professor Axel Schnuch stands up and gives a paper on perfume ingredients with indicatory EC3 values which do not produce a significant number of adverse reactions per 10,000 dermatitis patients, no action will be taken by IFRA or by the `EU’s ‘expert’ committees to scrap this flawed QRA system (we make this comment since Schnuch’s evidence seems to have contributed to the pressure on the EU Cosmetics Commission to belatedly review the situation regarding notorious 26 Allergens debacle - see Cropwatch Files).

If we receive a further reply from Robertet regarding further details of the toxicological studies on Melissa oil, we will post it in the public interest. We should point out that in asking these questions, we did not mean to place Robertet in an awkward position (Robertet being a Direct Company Member of IFRA). However as Martin Watt noted when presented with the Robertet studies summary recently: “(the data presented)… is all typical in-house testing and certainly NOT suitable for ANY scientific evaluation purposes.” And further: “My key point is that RIFM data is only trade recommendations.  The EU committee is attempting to turn those 'recommendations' into EU law.  So far without success, but they keep trying. Only publicly discrediting that committee and the administrators in the European court will anything change.”

Cropwatch’s feeling is that the IFRA/RIFM/REXPAN conglomerate is struggling: better toxicological facilities & superior expertise in specialized subject areas are available outside the organisation, and this situation together with the fact that people are better informed on toxicological matters is stretching the credibility of many of IFRA’s policies and its decision-making generally. The perfume industry certainly needs a safety organisation to protect its interests – but maybe not this one, which is guilty of over-regulating the industry, and confuses the career interests of its composite toxicologists over and above its function to be a balanced safety policy-making unit for the trade.

Technorati Tags: Melissa officinalis,Melissa,IFRA,Robertet,Martin Watt,RIFM,REXPAN,IFRA 44th Amendment

IFRA’s Proposed 44th Amendment. More Grief.

Copyright © Tony Burfield, May 2009

Update on Melissa Oil

You may recall the recent Cropwatch posting to Aromaconnection on a proposed IFRA restriction for Melissa oil, and the non-availability of the relevant evidence in the public domain. Following separate Cropwatch requests to the holders of the privately-held information (Robertet & RIFM), Catherine Gadras, in charge of the regulatory and safety department of Robertet, Grasse, has mailed promising to forward a summary to Cropwatch by 15^th June 2009, in respect of the LLNA and HRIPTs  tests that have been conducted on behalf of Robertet, ‘in order to allow the use of this EO for perfumery use’. This is a welcome development. RIFM have not, as yet, either replied or acknowledged the request.

Further Points on IFRA’s Proposed 44^th Amendment

We are looking below at three further proposed IFRA Standards under the forthcoming 44th Amendment, which have recently been circulated to IFRA membership groups for comment, with a 3^rd June 2009 deadline.

Vanillin – Some Brief Notes

The first consideration is a proposed new IFRA Standard for vanillin. Readers will be aware that amongst flavour & fragrance ingredients, vanillin is possibly the most important aromatic aldehyde, with its easily recognisable & attractive powdery sweetness. It is available as a costly natural product via isolation from the vanilla pods of Vanilla planifolia G. Jacks, in which it occurs at up to 23,000 ppm, & via various biofermentation routes from natural starter materials (e.g. Rhodia have a microbiological biotranformation process using ferulic acid from rice bran). The production of vanilla itself was estimated at 2,000 tons in 2001 (Biolandes 2001), with 70% of the total production going to the US & Canada. Production rose to 3,600 tons in 2008 (Manceau 2009), but there are problems ahead, including pricing & compositional issues for vanilla from Uganda & Papua New Guinea, the effects of Madagascar’s political crisis, and from the damage caused by the fungi Fusarium oxysporum & Phytophthora spp. infecting Malagasy vanilla vines (see Gleason 2009; Manceau 2009). This is sufficiently serious that Dominiques Roques of Biolandes (through Gleason 2009) estimates a 1,200 ton/annum vanilla production loss from Phytophthora infection. Perfumery ingredients produced from Vanilla spp. (absolute, oleoresin, tincture, oil, CO₂ extract etc.) are too familiar to describe in detail here. Vanillin also occurs as a minor component of a number of essential oils (e.g. star anise, clove bud & asafetida oils), and in absolutes, and balsams (e.g. Peru balsam, benzoin Siam, benzoin Sumatra).

The production volume of the cheaper & more easily available synthetic vanillin (which has previously run at approx 1% or less of the price of natural vanillin) has been estimated at about 6,000 tons/annum, & the material has been historically prepared from feedstocks such as guaiacol, catechol, ortho-dinitrochlorobenzene & lignin; nowadays synthetic vanillin is mainly derived from guaiacol and glyoxylic acid. Opdyke (1977) previously found vanillin to be relatively non-toxic, non-irritant & non-sensitising. The OECD SIDS report on >99% pure vanillin (20.08.1996) concluded that in animal tests, vanillin was sensitising in 5 out of 10 studies, but was not sensitising in the only test conducted under GLP. Vanillin was also said to be non-sensitising at 2% in maximisation tests carried out on 25 human volunteers.

According to information seen by Cropwatch, the true situation may be even more complex, since in trials with human volunteers >99% pure vanillin ex lignin was found to be non-sensitising, whereas vanillin ex guaiacol. or via the former ortho-nitrochlorobenzene process, provoked sensitising reactions in some individuals. Vanillin prepared from certain natural sources may also be slightly sensitising [of the 110 separate Vanilla spp., only 3 are cultivated: V. planifolia G. Jacks (Bourbon or Indonesian vanilla), V. tahitensis Moore (Tahitian vanilla), and V. pompona Schneide (Guadeloupe vanilla; vanillons; W. Indian vanilla). Eighty percent of vanilla production occurs in Madagascar; other producing areas include/have included Uganda, Papua New Guinea, Comoros & Reunion (the latter producing vanilla “Bourbon”), Java, Tahiti, Martinique, India (production hit by Fusarium infection), Sri Lanka, Tanzania & the Seychelles].

Cropwatch believes that there is more to learn about the alleged weakly sensitising properties of vanillin, and the effects of minor impurities, just as was about coumarin, although this has still to be recognised by the legislators.

.

Vanillin – Uses in Perfumery

Vanilla occupies a important position in perfumery, having been widely employed in formulations, especially as a key ingredient in orientals, for more than a century. First use in Jicky (Guerlain1889) was followed by Narcisse Noir (Caron 1912), Shalimar (Guerlain 1925), Old Spice (Shulton 1937), Opium (Yves St. Laurent 1977) & Lagerfield (Lagerfield 1978), Vanillin has also featured in more recent orientals like Joop! Femme (Parfums Joop 1987). Vanillin is also employed in florientals, & in modern perfumes like JP Gaultier's le Male, & in the class of Vanilla fragrances themselves which were very popular in the mid ‘nineties e.g. Vanilla Fields Coty 1993). Today vanillin is also key material in sweet foody type perfume notes e.g. toffee, chocolate and berry notes, such as strawberry.

Vanillin under IFRA’s 44^th Amendment

Proposed Limitations for vanillin in the finished product under the QRA system fan out as follows:

Category 1 0.03 % (Lip products, toys, insect repellents)

Category 2 0.04 % (Deodorants/Antiperspirants)

Category 3 0.17 % (Hydroalcoholic Products for Shaved Skin, Eye Products, Men’s Facial Cream & Balms, Tampons)

Category 4 0.50 % (Hydroalcoholic Products for Unshaved Skin, Hair Styling Aids & Sprays, Body Creams)

Category 5 0.26 % (Women’s Facial Cream/Facial Make-up, Hand Cream, Facial Masks, Wipes/Refreshing Tissue for Hands, Face, Neck, Body)

Category 6 0.80 % (Mouthwash, Toothpaste)

Category 7 0.08 % (Intimate Wipes, Baby Wipes, Insect Repellent (intended to be applied to the skin)

Category 8 1.10 % (Make-up Remover, Hair Styling Aids Non-Spray, Nail Care)

Category 9 5.00 % (Shampoo, Rinse-Off Conditioners, Bar Soap, Feminine Hygiene Pads & Liners)

Category 10 2.50 % (Detergents, Hard Surface Cleaners, Diapers, Toilet Seat Wipes)

Category 11 “Should not exceed the usual concentration of the fragrance compound in the finished product”. (All Non-Skin or incidental skin contact products)

IFRA’s newly proposed restrictions under the 44^th Amendment for the extremely weak sensitiser, vanillin, seem to be largely based on three reports, two of which are internal RIFM reports (and one of which is only in draft form). These are not freely in the public domain. These are as follows:

Basketter D.A., Wright Z.M., Warbrick E.V., Dearman R.J., Kimber I., Ryan C.A., Gerberick, G.F., White I.R. (2001). “Human potency predictions for aldehydes using the local lymph node assay.” Contact Dermatitis, 45, 89-94.

RIFM (Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.), 1970. Maximization study with vanillin. RIFM report number 1760, October 7. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).

RIFM (Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.), 2009. Human repeated insult patch test. DRAFT REPORT. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).

It is impossible for fragrance companies to approve or make comment on the scientific robustness of the evidence for making these restrictions, if they cannot see all the evidence. It would seem important therefore IFRA/RIFM to make these studies available in the public domain, especially since the newly reported evidence flies in the face of previous conclusions about the sensitising potential of vanillin. It is slightly unclear, too, whether the newly proposed IFRA Standard just refers to deliberately added vanillin in fragrance compounds, or to the total vanillin content of the fragrance (i.e. including contributions from vanillin-containing natural materials).

As a final point, many have written in to Cropwatch pointing out that the toxicological investigation / restriction of components which are found in natural complex materials, is being pointedly pursued, whereas the toxicology of closely related & commercially available synthetic materials is being ignored. In this particular case, no mention is made of the any investigation of closely related synthetic, ethyl vanillin. Good to see people are thinking for themselves, but previous investigators [e.g. Patlewicz et al. (2001) & Basketter et al. (2001)] found ethyl vanillin to be non-sensitising, which may rather deflate the argument! Other investigations which show a similar lack of breadth in the selection of natural & synthetic ingredients to investigate, include the studies made by Hagvall et al. regarding possible mechanisms for dermal sensitisation by linalol & geraniol (see updated Cropwatch article at http://www.cropwatch.org/The Trouble with Oxidation of Essential Oils.pdf). We have also been treated by the academics concerned, via the trade press & websites dealing with health matters, to opinions about what these studies indicate for the users of cosmetics containing linalol- & geraniol-rich essential oils. Regarding the linalol studies, to our knowledge no investigation has been made of the widely-used & closely related synthetic, ethyl linalol, and many have concluded, rightly or wrongly (& bearing in mind their reported remarks in the press) that these researchers are riding on an anti-naturals ticket. Cropwatch considers a more likely explanation is that the academics concerned have a limited experience of the cosmetics trade & the available choices of commercial aromatic ingredients.

Estragole (methyl chavicol)

The draft document showing the IFRA proposal for the restriction / prohibition of estragole to 0.02% in fragrance compounds looks like an unfinished piece of work. The grounds cited for the restriction / prohibition, are those of alleged carcinogenicity, but, somewhat surprisingly, no supporting evidence or references are supplied in the circulated draft of the new Standard.

The restrictions, if applied to the total estragole content of a fragrance compound, including naturally-occurring estragole from natural ingredients and not just to added estragole, will severely impact on the use of those essential oils in which estragole naturally occurs in cosmetic products. These include star anise (to 6.4%), exotic basil (to 90%), fennel sweet (to 6.4%) and tarragon (to 82%), as well as more minor amounts in bitter fennel, cananga & ylang ylang oils & absolutes, and the oils from certain Pinus spp. The point was also made by Cropwatch at the SCS Symposium (Burfield 2009) that limitations on substances like safrole, methyl eugenol & estragole have already had significant effects on the fragrance styles entering the marketplace - traditional aromatic masculine fougères and rich spicy notes are very difficult to achieve at the so-called ‘safe’ levels for these materials. There is little prospect of substitution either – the contribution of estragole, for example, to the odour profile of naturals and finished fragrances, is virtually irreplaceable. So here we have another prospect of IFRA further restricting the art of the possible in the fragrance art with the progressive introduction of their restrictive Standards.

So what is the evidence? Animal experiments using high doses of estragole have led to its classification as a possible weak genotoxic hepatocarcinogen (SCF 2001). Other expert committees have come to different conclusions. The FEMA Expert Committee concluded that dietary exposure to estragole did not constitute a cancer risk, and ventured that a non-linear relationship exists between dose, profiles of metabolism, and covalent binding of estragole to protein and DNA (Smith et al. 2002). We in the aroma industry do not need to be caught in the crossfire of differing toxicological opinions anymore – rather we need firm evidence that this same situation (of zero cancer risk) does not similarly apply to bio-available estragole from the application of estragole-containing fragrances to human skin.

Benzaldehyde

Continuing the potential damage to the usage of natural aromatic products, IFRA are also introducing a new Standard limiting benzaldehyde concentration in fragrance compounds. Benzaldehyde is, of course, the major component in bitter almond oil, and is used to create almond and cherry notes in perfumes & flavours. Because of its pungency and odour character, it is also used in reodourants perfumes. Benzaldehyde is a minor component of many other natural products, including cinnamon leaf oil; cassia oil; cassie, narcissus & champaca absolutes; some cistus oils; clove oils & rosewood oil. Natural benzaldehyde is available from peach, cherry & plum stone processing, and via biofermentation routes e.g. starting from natural cinnamaldehyde ex cassia oil.

The grounds for the proposed restriction of benzaldehyde in perfume compounds by IFRA are based on the alleged weak sensitising properties of benzaldehyde, for which three references are quoted by IFRA:

Basketter, D.A., Wright, Z., Gilmour, N.J., Ryan, C.A., Gerberick, G.F., Robinson, M.K., Dearman, R.J., Kimber, I., 2002. “Prediction of human sensitization potency using local lymph node assay EC3 values.” The Toxicologist, 66(1-S), 240.

RIFM (Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.), 1973. Maximization study with benzaldehyde. RIFM report number 1802, October 11a. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).

RIFM (Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.), 2009. Human repeated insult patch test. DRAFT REPORT. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA).

Again, the clincher for many of us in being able to judge the robustness of the scientific evidence necessitates the public availability of the draft RIFM report listed above.

Comments

In conclusion, these three IFRA proposals appear to be incompletely assembled and over-hastily produced. As we previously noted, until we know any further judgment from the EU legislators on the acceptability of the corporate-science styled QRA technique (following the SCCP’s severe criticisms in SCCP/1153/08), it would seem expedient to hold back on the implementation of this further set of IFRA Standards, if only to avoid unnecessary industry costs. Any communication on these matters from the authors of documents cited above, from RIFM or from the EU Cosmetics Commissioner, will be circulated by Cropwatch.

References

Basketter D.A., Wright Z.M., Warbrick E.V., Dearman R.J., Kimber I., Ryan C.A., Gerberick G.F. & White I.R. (2001) "Human potency predictions for aldehydes using the local lymph node assay." Contact Dermatitis 45(2), 89-94.

Biolandes (2001) – figures quoted in Biolandes Letter No 30 July 2001.

(Burfield 2009) – see http://www.cropwatch.org/Legislators & Natural Aromatics on PowerPoint.ppt

Gleason J. (ed.) (2009) “The state of vanilla: challenges & opportunities.” Perf & Flav. 34, 20-22.

Manceau M. (2009) “Thugs, Bugs & Vanilla.” Perf & Flav. 34, 24.

Patlewicz G., Basketter D.A., Smith C.K., Hotchkiss S.A.M. & Roberts D.W. (2001) "Skin-sensitization structure-activity relationships for aldehydes." Contact Dermatitis 44(6), 331-336.

Smith R.L., Adams T.B., Doull J., Feron D.J., Goodman J.I., Marnett L..J., Portoghese P.S., Waddell W.J. et al. (2002) “Safety assessment of alkyloxybenzene derivatives used as flavouring substances –methyl eugenol & estragole” – FCT 40,851-870.

Technorati Tags: IFRA,IFRA 44th Amendment,Melissa Oil,Vanillin,melissa officinalis,Vanilla planifolia,vanillin,vanillin uses in perfumery,ethyl vanillin,ethyl linalol,estragole,methyl chavicol,benzaldehyde,RIFM,SCCP,EU Cosmetics Commissioner

Cropwatch at the SCS Symposium, Grantham UK, 2009

Tony Burfield gave a talk entitled “Legislators & Natural Aromatics: a Modern Day Vendetta” at the Symposium on Cosmetic Controversies –Seeing the Whole Picture organised by the Society of Cosmetic Scientists, May 17-19th 2009. Power Point and pdf versions of the above presentation can be viewed in the newly reorganised Cropwatch Files section of the Cropwatch website. Matthias Vey of IFRA spoke immediately after Cropwatch, his talk being entitled “How Safe are Fragrance Raw Materials? The IFRA Principles for Safety Assessment.” In the interests of balance, we hope it eventually becomes possible to run both talks side by side, and for both parties to answer the other’s criticisms.

Looking to the future, Cropwatch has plans to become a funded operation later this year. Although we continue to expand our available data on natural products on the Cropwatch website, and to attract new Cropwatch Newsletter subscribers, and we continue to regularly receive pledges of support from many quarters, we feel that there is a limit to what can be practically achieved without funding. Our intention therefore is to run a series of courses in order to raise the necessary finance, which is to be spent on research into some of the contentious areas of aroma ingredient toxicity, which Cropwatch has previously identified. We hope to be able to announce the subjects and venues for the courses in due course.

Tony Burfield
Cropwatch.

Technorati Tags: Cropwatch,Natural aromatics,aromatics regulation,perfumery regulation,IFRA

Brussels makes a conciliatory move over the ‘26 Allergens’ debacle

by Tony Burfield March 2009

Cropwatch has been campaigning for a number of years to change the situation regarding the 26 alleged allergens (16 of which occur in natural products) which carry a labeling obligation where the concentration of any one identified fragrance substances in the final cosmetic product is 0.01% or above for products rinsed off the skin, or 0.001% or above in leave-on products. This requirement was incorporated into Council Directive 2003/15/EC, whereby these materials were moved into Annex III of the Cosmetics Directive. The basis for the inclusion of these substances as allergens has never been explained by the SCCP (Storrs 2007).

Independent papers/peer-reviews/comments (e.g. Schnuch (2004),  Vocansen (2006 & 2007), and several by Hostynek & Maibach) have indicated that there is no robust clinical or experimental evidence to support many of these 26 ingredients as allergens. Up to now there has seemed to be no mechanism to independently review the SCCP’s Opinion, or undo Directive 2003/15/EC, although Schnuch (2008) had openly asked the EU to rethink their policy.

In a new move, a request for an updated scientific opinion on the labeling of 26 fragrance substances has been made by Brussels to the SCCP, apparently being described as a spin-off from the public consultation (Nov 2006) on the Commission proposal of regulation of some fragrance substances.

"Scientific information of general and specific nature has been submitted to DG ENTR in order to ask the SCCP for a revision of the 26 fragrances with respect to further restrictions and possible even delisting.“

“At that time there were not sufficient scientific data to allow for determination of dose response relationships and/or thresholds for these allergens.”

…And that’s presumably the nearest we will ever come to an apology from Brussels, for the imposition of over-precautionary and unnecessary legislature, which cost the industry millions of Euros in reformulation and labeling costs at the time, and presumably will again, with any new situation. The passage of the original legislation depressed the production of some essential oils worldwide for at least two years afterwards, reflecting their reduced usage in cosmetics. This arises from the fact that the large majority of essential oils, absolutes & resinoids contain several of the 26 named allergens, and cosmetic manufacturers wished to avoid excessive product labeling. The decline in the overall usage of essential oils in fragrances from this cause is still felt today.

What is needed now is an independent impact assessment, sponsored by DG-Environment, to find out the damage caused to industry, and especially to SME’s, over the whole 26 allergens legislatory debacle. Cropwatch identifies one of the problems as the chemophobic attitudes of some European governments, who have been led by the nose by career toxicologists, who have exaggerated the ingredient risks posed by allergens. This pressured situation has pushed the EU Cosmetics Commissioner into over-hasty legislation over this matter. What has been missing in this situation is a realistic overview and the application of common sense, and we can only hope that lessons have been learned In Brussels, before the aroma industry, or parts of it, are totally bankrupted.

References

Schnuch A. (2008) – remarks attributed to Schnuch by the trade media during the IFRA workshop on Allergy Prevalence in Fragrance Nov. 2008 e.g. by Montague-Jones in Cosmetics-Design Europe 18.11.2008

Storrs F.J. (2007) “Allergen of the year: fragrance.” Dermatitis 18(1),3-7 [linked version is a Medscape reprint]

Technorati Tags: fragrance,26 allergens,allergens,SCCP,cosmetics ingredients

Notes and News

• According to several Turkish newspapers are reporting that an Explosion at perfume shop injures 16 in Eski_ehir (in the central Anatolian part of Turkey. An investigation is underway, but apparently there was no gas connection to the shop, so it is possible it had something to do with perfume making.
• Cosmeticsdesign has a feature “Cosmetics Compact” that has an audio news component.  This week they are featuring news about essential oils and their ability to turn into allergens upon contact with the skin. For more information on that topic, see Tony Burfield’s blog from earlier this month, in which he questions these findings and points out that there is conflicting research.
• ScienceBooksChemistry reviews The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs and Biologicals, which contains information about safety and toxicity and lots of other things, of interest to us are biologicals and natural products; plants and traditional medicines; nutraceuticals and cosmeceuticals; agriculturals, pesticides and herbicides; Organic chemicals used in research; and Food additives and supplements. Over 2500 pages in the book, and now includes a CD-ROM with additional information and a searchable database.
• The Daily Green is reporting that Colony Collapse Disorder is showing up again in East coast bee hives. While you’re reading the article, scroll down to the bottom of the screen and read some of the (alarming to me) related articles. If this news doesn’t concern you, then remember that many aromatic plants are pollinated by bees, not to mention food plants.

Technorati Tags: perfume explosion,essential oil oxidation,Merck Index,colony collapse disorder

The Trouble With Theories About The Oxidation of Essential Oils

by Tony Burfield Feb 2009.

Judging by the response from Cropwatch supporters, many of you may have already read about a doctoral thesis and remarks made by Lina Hagvall, distributed via the cosmetics trade press. Many professionals have found the reported remarks condescending, as we are well aware and may have a wider understanding of the context of oxidized aroma materials than the source of the remarks. But I digress. The thesis in question is entitled “Formation of skin sensitizers from fragrance terpenes via oxidative activation routes: Chemical analysis, structure elucidation”, and Katie Bird (Bird 2009) recently covered the story for Cosmetics Design Europe, although, as with any news knocking natural products, the article is being very widely circulated on websites dealing with health interest and other matters. Many of us have found the Bird-penned article makes for confusing reading: for example what is ‘geraniol oil’? A better recourse is maybe to download the thesis itself from the University of Gothenburg website at http://gupea.ub.gu.se/dspace/handle/2077/18951. You will then be able to gather that the thesis is primarily concerned with the consideration of substances without contact allergenic properties, but which can be activated either via autoxidation in contact with air, or via cutaneous metabolism, to reactive products which can cause contact allergy. Primarily the study looks a five published articles for which the author has had a major involvement, studying the oxidation of geraniol, geranial (a conformational isomer of citral), linalool, linalyl acetate & lavender oil. For convenience these articles are referenced below (Hagvall et al. 2007; Hagvall et al. undated; Hagvall et al. 2008; Skold et al. 2008; Hagvall et al. 2008a).

If I were one of Hagvall’s invigilators, I would have insisted on a re-write of a number of parts of the thesis, where the science as presented is dubious, incomplete or, most importantly, does not present an accurate overview of the topic. Some knowledge of industrial practices would have aided its general acceptability as well, and a collection of these points will constitute a future article from this author.

Overall this author is not saying that the elucidation of underlying mechanisms whereby oxidized essential oils, which may be the cause of type IV allergy and acute contact dermatitis, is not important. But an overview to enable to put this work in perspective is importantly missing. Further, the mention of Axel Schnuch’s work (Schnuch et al. 2007) is selective, and a major omission to include the toxicological reviews of Hostynek & Maibach’s on geraniol & linalool (Hostynek & Maibach 2007a; Hostynek & Maibach) is almost unforgivable, however inconvenient their conclusions to Hagvall’s work. The reader is thus left to form his/her own independent opinion on the relevance of the study, especially against a background of an increasing number of published studies on the anti-oxidative properties of essential oils, the declining concentrations & use of essential oils in fragrances generally, the use of cold-storage & nitrogen-blanketing (amongst other measures) to prevent the oxidative deterioration of stored essential oil and natural isolate ingredients, and the addition of anti-oxidants, UV-filters and stabilizers to finished fragrances & cosmetics to extend shelf-life One is also tempted to mention that a major contributor to the cost of the studies was RIFM, a primary instigator to the culture of toxicological imperialism which has overtaken the regulation of cosmetics/fragrances in the West.

How does this thesis change anything? The lack of evidence of a clear cause-effect relationship between geraniol and linalool and cases of allergic contact dermatitis has been previously emphasized by Hostynek & Maibach (2004 & 2008), and Cropwatch would guess from its’ own experience that adverse end-user effects would tend to support the same conclusion for lavender oil. Hostynek & Maibach (2008) also comment on the relative stability of linalool, its low oxidation rate kinetics and speculate negatively about how readily linalool would oxidize in fragrances & cosmetics, as well as low consumer exposure levels to the ingredients. Great store seems to have been put on the Hagvall thesis by IFRA/RIFM juggernaut, but considering the importance of the sensitiser issue to the perfumery trade, and its impact on the use of natural ingredients in perfumery, the sponsoring of just one researcher to look (mainly) at the oxidation of geraniol & lavender oil seems an exceptionally disproportionate response to the problem. Unless of course you believe that RIFM sees the future of perfumery as entirely synthetic.

Cropwatch is trying to work towards the sponsorship of toxicological research which emphasises a risk/benefit approach towards the elucidation of the safety of natural products - otherwise we will all drown in a sea of over-cautious toxicological negativity, which, it is becoming clear, has little relevance in terms of safety risks presented to the general public from natural-product containing products.

References.

Bird K. (2009) “Essential oils can become allergens on contact with air and skin, says researcher.” Cosmetics-Design Europe 5^th Feb 2009. Link

Hagvall L. (2009) “Formation of skin sensitizers from fragrance terpenes via oxidative activation routes: Chemical analysis, structure elucidation.” PhD Thesis University of Gothenberg. Link

Hagvall L., Bäcktorp C., Svensson S., Nyman G., Börje A. & Karlberg A-T. (2007) “Fragrance Compound Geraniol Forms Contact Allergens on Air Exposure. Identification and Quantification of Oxidation Products and Effect on Skin Sensitization.” Chem. Res.Toxicol. 20, 807-814. Link to HTML Version

Hagvall L., Börje A. & Karlberg A-T. (date unknown) “Autoxidation of Geranial.” (Unpublished?) Manuscript.

Hagvall L., Baron J. M., Börje A., Weidolf L., Merk H. & Karlberg A-T (2008) “Cytochrome P450 mediated activation of the fragrance compound geraniol forms potent contact allergens.” Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 233, 308-313. Link to Abstract

Hagvall L., Sköld M., Bråred-Christensson J., Börje A. & Karlberg, A.T. (2008a) “Lavender Oil Lacks Natural Protection Against Autoxidation, Forming Strong Contact Allergens on Air Exposure.” Contact Dermatitis 59, 143-150. Link to Abstract

Hostynek J.J. & Maibach H.I. (2004) “Is there evidence that geraniol causes allergic contact dermatitis?” Exogenous Dermatology 3(6), 318-331. Link to Abstract

Hostynek J.J. & Maibach H.I. (2008) “Allergic contact dermatitis to linalool.” Perf. & Flav. 33 (May 2008), 52-56. Link to Excerpt

Schnuch A., Uter W., Geier J, Lessmann H. & Frosch PJ. (2007) "Sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation. Results of the IVDK and review of the literature." Contact Dermatitis 57(1), 1-10. Link to html version

Sköld M., Hagvall L. & Karlberg A-T (2008).”Autoxidation of linalyl acetate, the main component of lavender oil, creates potent contact allergens.” Contact Dermatitis 58, 9-14. Link to Abstract

Technorati Tags: oxidation of essential oils,geraniol,geranial,linalool,linalyl acetate,lavender oil,fragrance sensitization,essential oil oxidation

Cropwatch Newsletter Jan 2009 Published

The most recent Cropwatch Newsletter Jan 2009 [pdf] has been sent to subscribers and posted on the Cropwatch website. There is also an html format post elsewhere on the web, and several of the articles in it were previously posted on this blog, so we won’t do more than summarize it.

The Newsletter starts out with an Editorial on the theme 2008: A Bad Year for Natural Aromatic Ingredients.  A Good Year for Industry Consultants and Ingredient Clerks, in which Tony discusses the REACH Process, Corporate Influence over IFRA and its affect on the use of Natural Products, and the effects of increasing market demand for natural ingredients on the sustainability of the natural environment.

The articles included in the Newsletter are:

1. The REACH Pre-registration Exercise – an Autopsy
2. Sandalwood – A Critical View of Developments
3. IFRA Gives Up Supporting Two More Natural Aromatics:
Opoponax & Styrax Next for the Chop
4. Frankincense – A Brief Catch-Up
5. The Art of Natural Perfumery: Under Threat from Natural &
Organic Cosmetic Certifying Organisations?
6. The Oakmoss & Treemoss Saga – Slight Return
7. GM Fragrance Anyone? – Hopefully No Takers
8. IFRA Workshop - Allergy Prevalence in Fragrance, November
4, 2008, Brussels, Belgium
9. More on Ylang-ylang oil

Articles 2, 3 and 4 are updated and slightly expanded from articles previously published on this blog. Click on the number for links to the posts here: 2 3 4 however you may want to read the PDF version to get the latest information.

Article 5 on the Art of Natural Perfumery is a detailed analysis and response to the various attempts by various organizations to develop Organic and Natural Standards to control the ingredients used. This topic has been previously discussed on this blog; you can find the articles filed under the category Standards. Tony takes several of the standards to task and closes his article with:

We could review proposals from other organisations, but we think you get the idea ….. both natural & organic cosmetics are a long way from living up to the promise of their descriptions. The lack of common sense is also worrying – for example, banning added synthetics such as UV filters (one thing that Cropwatch would allow) which as well as increasing the shelf-life of the product, arguably
help protect against the risk of solar/UV-induced skin cancer. This ban, taken with other considerations, means that evolving versions of natural & organic cosmetics may be in danger of becoming considerably less safe than conventional cosmetics.

Regarding natural fragrances, it can be guessed that many of us who have been involved in the teaching, promotion & development of the art of Natural Perfumery over the past several years may be getting a bit hot under the collar when whole classes of raw natural aromatic ingredients are suddenly declared “not natural” by the self-proclaimed officials of certifying organisations, who don’t appear have experience across all the areas they are proposing to regulate. The exclusion of concretes, absolutes & resinoids from an inventory of natural aromatics for fragrances intended for natural cosmetics may well pander to the more chemophobic amongst cosmetics customers. But the banning of petrochemical solvents cannot be justified on health grounds relating to supposedly harmful amounts of solvent residues that remain in these materials – since there is no health risk. We should also mention that there is a move to allow solvent extraction in the form of allowing CO2 extracts and bio-ethanol. The protagonists of these proposals do not make clear how they are going to determine whether the CO2 used in such processes is natural (i.e. produced by fermentation of natural materials etc.), or how they will propose to police the matter. Cropwatch’s guess is that (a) they haven’t thought about it and (b) they can’t guarantee it (thanks to Daniel Joulain for bringing this to our attention). The
proposed allowable use of bio-ethanol is welcome, but does not substitute for the elimination of other solvents.

We can clearly see that attempts by these certifying organisations to redefine natural cosmetics, and natural cosmetic/aromatic ingredients clearly bow to the business interests of the major international cosmetic companies and their customers, who are the potential cash-cows that these organisations are trying to milk. The multinational’s interests in the natural personal care sector has been plain enough for all to see – L’Oréal bought out The Body Shop, Estée Lauder did the same with Aveda & Clarins took over Kibio, just to mention three. That doesn’t mean to say that those of us working with natural products now have to dance to a tune played by the big corporates, or the organisations that suck up to them. We feel that many of the above-cited proposals & guidelines will be rejected by those purists who have been involved with natural perfumery to its
present point. You probably do not need Cropwatch to tell you that many experienced older perfumers have been found surplus to requirements lately by some of the Aroma Giants, probably because they are too expensive compared with younger perfumers. Many of these more experienced professionals are now working independently, making a living by creating natural perfumes. It is
unlikely, we feel, that this group will accept many of the definitions currently proposed by these Natural & Organic Cosmetic Certifying Organisations, and hopefully this group will become a growing influence in this area, for better values, independent of big industry’s requirements.

The Oakmoss/Treemoss article updates an article in this blog several months ago and announces that a detailed review of the lichens is planned for publication in Flavour and Fragrance Journal by mid-February 2009.

The GM Fragrance article discusses the progress? made in the floral products industry to increase the fragrance of flowers through GMO manipulation and the possibility that this will be a back door entry into the aromatics industry in spite of public opposition (especially in the EU) to Genetic Modification. The article contains several references and additional reading.

Brief comments on the IFRA workshop on Allergy Prevalence in Fragrance suggest a possible out for IFRA on the current over-regulation of the European cosmetics industry with a report that

sensitization to fragrance ingredients has decreased considerably over the years, and for some weak allergens, the rate of incidence is now so low that several thousands of subjects now need to be tested
to obtain one genuinely positive result.

The Ylang Ylang article is an update and correction to comments made in the previous Cropwatch Newsletter (Sept 2008) having to do with coniferyl benzoate in (or not in) ylang-ylang oil. Tony goes on to clarify the current status of the Ylang market.

All in all, a useful and interesting issue. Recommended reading for a variety of topics and interests.

Technorati Tags: REACH,Sandalwood,IFRA,Frankincense,Natural Perfumery,Oakmoss,Treemoss,GM Fragrance,Ylang-ylang

IFRA Gives Up Supporting More Natural Aromatics: Opoponax & Styrax Next for the Chop

by Tony Burfield December 2008

For a long time, many of us have suspected, rightly or wrongly, that IFRA’s underlying policy agenda is primarily to support synthetic aroma chemicals at the expense of natural aromatic ingredients. This is because synthetics have attractions over natural aromatics for the major aroma industry players, who, after all, financially support the IFRA/RIFM/REXPAN toxicology juggernaut. These perceived advantages include the fact that synthetic aroma chemicals are compositionally non-complex, which infers paybacks for simpler regulatory safety compliance. They are invariably cheaper, they can sometimes be produced in-house, & they and their applications may be patentable. Their composition is constant, and unlike natural aromatic ingredients, their price stability & constancy of supply are variables which are not so subject to the vagaries of the world’s ever-changing climate.

To set the scene further, IFRA have failed recently to properly support the continued use of citrus oils in perfumery in relation to the EU Cosmetic Commissioner’s proposed draconian restrictions arising from possible photo-carcinogenic risks from contained FCF’s, and look equally likely to cave in over SCCP proposals to limit atranol & chloratranol in lichen products (oakmoss, treemoss, cedarmoss etc.). IFRA’s failure to support santolina oil and melissa oil can also be added to the list. This policy of abandoning of ingredients they regard as less important, indicates that IFRA are not supporting the wider interests of the perfumery art, but merely reflecting the narrower business interests of their major sponsors. There is a vacancy to be urgently filled, therefore, for a competent safety organisation with a wider brief.

In a new departure, IFRA’s Information Letter 815 indicates that opoponax (which they claim botanically derives from ‘Commiphora Erythrea var. glabrascens Engler’ – we have reproduced their incorrect botanical formatting) does not have robust enough data to allow application of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) methodology, and that there is a need for more ‘up to date’ sensitization data. IFRA claims it cannot support the required studies financially, and without these studies there is a high risk that IFRA will prohibit the material. Similarly for styrax (which they claim, with slightly more botanical accuracy, is obtained from exudations of ‘Liquidambar Styraciflua L. var. macrophylla or Liquidambar Orientalis Mill.’). It is not our fault, however, that IFRA have adopted a policy over sensitiser potency estimation (i.e. the QRA methodology) which it seemingly can’t afford, and which both the SCCP & Cropwatch have widely criticised as being flawed in practice (see Cropwatch Newsletter at http://www.cropwatch.org/newslet13.pdf).

Bear with me whilst we revisit the botany again. Mabberley (1998), Langenham (2003), Gachathi (1997) and others, describe opoponax qualities deriving not only from Commiphora erythraea Engl. var. glabrescrens Engl. growing in Somalia, Kenya, E. Ethiopia, and S. Arabia, but also from other species such C. guidottii (Chiov) from S. Somalia & Ethiopia, which Mabberley, the ANLAP data-base and Cropwatch regard as the primary source of opoponax. Other species used as a source of opoponax include C. kataf (Forssk.) Engl., C. holtiziana Engl. spp. holtziana & C. pseudopaoli JB Gillet. Cropwatch previously briefly reviewed the chemistry of the essential oils from these species at http://www.cropwatch.org/cropwatch11.htm. Let’s also remember that the SCCP Opinion on opoponax oil (Sensitisation only) SCCP/0871/05 adopted 15^th March 2005 can be found at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_025b.pdf. Here the SCCP committee concluded that “The provided data do indicate that Commiphora Erythraea Glabrescens has an allergenic potential.” Cropwatch, you might remember, declared the SCCP Opinion on opoponax sensitization scientifically invalid on a number of points, not the least that the RIFM evidence cited failed to accurately identify the botanical & geographic origins of opoponax qualities used in the sensitivity protocol testing, and failed to establish the absence of adulteration, and dismissed the remainder of the evidence too flimsy to merit serious consideration.

Opoponax oil is a useful material that the perfumery art cannot afford to lose. Freshly dipped on a perfumers strip it is sweet, oily, and balsamic and almost effervescent in character, and is used in oriental accords, and to reinforce opoponax resinoids. It also finds use to freshen top notes in apple accords and to give a sweet lift to chypre fragrances. Whereas opoponax oil is primarily a top-note material, the sweeter, buttery, toffee-like and balsamic opoponax absolute is used in oriental-type fragrances as part of the sweet balsamic base notes. Under the existing IFRA Standard, opoponax extracts and distillates prepared from the gum must not exceed 0.6% concentration in product.

Styrax also, apparently, to be potentially abandoned by IFRA on QRA testing-cost grounds, also has an important place in the art of perfumery and is derived from a number of Liquidambar spp.: Liquidambar styraciflua L. var. macrophylla; L. styraciflua L. var. orientalis; L. styraciflua L. var. integriloba, & L. styraciflua L. var. formosana. Styrax gums have been banned IFRA since 1977; only extracts & distillates are permitted under the existing IFRA Standard, and the final concentration in product must not exceed 0.6%. Styrax resinoid has a complex odour comprising sweet, balsamic & fresh elements and possesses a great deal of lift & radiance. It has been used in perfumery as a fixative in oriental fragrances, and in chypres. It is also useful in constructing hyacinth and leather notes, and for powdery accords, with vanillin, heliotropin etc. As Cropwatch points out in its latest Threatened Species Data-base A-Z listing, styrax qualities used to be heavily used as fragrance ingredients, but IFRA requirements to produce a skin-neutral product have resulted in ingredients with less useful attractive odour characteristics, and so its fragrance ingredient usage has plummeted. So not only has IFRA been instrumental in the decline of styrax usage in perfumery, it is now apparently performing the last rites over a fatally disabled ingredient. Although commercially available from several producing areas, Honduras (‘American’) and Turkish (‘Asian’) styrax from Liquidamber styraciflua & L. orientalis respectively have dominated the market, but the US has always favoured the Honduras material. However with worries that the Liquidamber orientalis forest in the Eastern Mediterranean/Turkey is now greatly reduced through wood-felling and resin extraction (Topal et al. 2008 say the species is facing extinction), Cropwatch can no longer support the use of commodities from this species in perfumery.

The inevitable reduction in availability of Asian styrax as the Turkish forests disappear, will probably result in the increased extraction of other styrax sources. Just as long as they leave the styrax trees alone in the Valley of the Butterflies on the island of Rhodes.…

References.

Gachathi F. N. (1997) “Recent Advances on Classification and Status of Main Gum-Producing Species in the Family Burseraceae” available at http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/X0098e/X0098e01.htm

Langenham J. (2003) Plant Resins: Chemistry, Evolution, Ecology, Ethnobotany Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Mabberley D.J. (1998) The Plant Book 2^nd rev edn. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Topal U., Sassaki M., Goto M. & Otles S. (2008) “Chemical compositions and antioxidant properties of essential oils from nine species of Turkish plants obtained by supercritical carbon dioxide extraction and steam distillation.” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 59(7-8), 619-634.

Technorati Tags: IFRA,opoponax,Commiphora Erythrea,Styrax,Liquidambar Styraciflua,QRA,SCCP,Cropwatch