---

Introduction

---

Ever since I can remember I have had a very strong reaction to certain perfumes and air-fresheners.

Whenever someone comes near me after using a strongly scented substance I feel very sick and get a headache.

This can often be accompanied by eye irritation, a runny nose and wheezing - being an asthmatic with lots of allergies these are rather worrying signs!

It has caused me to avoid such substances as much as possible.

This is not an easy task, it is hard to buy any toiletry or household product that is not (strongly) artificially scented.

You also pay a hefty price premium to buy more natural/neutral scented products.

Further I am still exposed to them all the time because everyone else uses them.

I always assumed it was some kind of weird reaction that was unique to me because nobody else ever seemed to speak about it.

As I have said before I have quite bad asthma which predisposes me to all sorts of allergies and weird reactions so I assumed I was the only one with this problem.

That was until a few days ago when I heard an interesting interview:

---

Kate Grenville on Mysterious Universe

---

Whilst listening to one of my favourite podcasts (Mysterious Universe) I came across an interview with author Kate Grenville.

You can listen to the episode here.

The interview starts at 4:42 and ends at 31.58 and is really worth listening to.

---

The Case Against Fragrance

---

Grenville has recently published a book called "The Case Against Fragrance".

In it Grenville talks about her own responses to fragrances in products that were eerily similar to my own.

The podcast interview makes some very important points and there is also a summary of Grenville's research on her website.

---

Main Points Grenville Discusses

---

I will try to summarise the points that she makes in the interview and on her website (as well some of my own additional thoughts on the subject):

---

1. Artificial fragrances are in almost every household product

It is not just the obvious things like perfumes, aftershave, air fresheners or soaps.

Think of a powder or spray you use and they are likely scented.

Washing up liquid, dishwasher powder, and fabric softeners contain them.

More surprisingly even things like toilet paper and bin (garbage) bags these days are scented.

---

2. They are used because they are cheap

In times past scents were created using natural ingredients like flowers and animal products.

These required tonnes of flowers to produce a kilogram of fragrance which is why these things were unaffordable luxuries for most people.

After World War II chemical companies started to use artificial compounds which were thousands of times cheaper.

---

3. The fragrance industry is self-regulated

There is no independent oversight of the chemicals being used as fragrances.

Of particular concern is the industry practice where the actual fragrant compounds are not declared.

These are considered trade secrets and therefore the fragrant component which may consist of several hundred chemical compounds can simply be listed as "Fragrance" or "Parfum".

---

4. Most fragrance compounds are untested in humans or animals

As a result of the lack of oversight most chemicals used in this way are completely untested.

We have no idea what health effects they have in the short or long term, either in animals or in humans.

---

5. Those that have been tested have been linked to a number of health problems:

These include:

• Allergies, asthma, allergic skin reactions
• Potential neurotoxicity - one substance (AETT) was banned in the late 70s after being used for decades and incidentally found to have destroyed myelin (a substance which insulates nerves) in a similar way to multiple sclerosis.
• Carcinogenesis with long term exposure.
• Hormonal disruption (artificial musks), some of these substances mimic oestrogens - causing gender disturbances in wildlife (e.g. fish).

---

6. They can persist in the environment

Of particular concern is the fact that some of these substances persist in the environment.

They find their way into the water supply and are not eliminated by water or sewage treatment plants.

This seems to particularly be the case with artificial musks which have been found to have gender altering effects on fish and other river based animals (see section on literature below).

This can also cause them to concentrate in human food due to our position in the food chain.

High levels have been found in breast milk and umbilical cord blood.

---

7. Even less is known about the combined effects

According to Grenville the average person is exposed to at least 15 different fragrance products before they even have breakfast.

Each of those may contain several hundred unlisted compounds which may impact on health.

What is even more worrying is the fact that the little evidence and research there is tends to cover the effects of individual compounds.

We have even less idea what the combined effects of all these substances would be:

---

Batman (1989) Movie Image Source

Joker Gas Analogy

This actually brought to my mind the original 1989 Batman movie.

The Mysterious Universe guys even mention this later in the show!

In that movie, the Joker contaminates all toiletries with a set of substances which when used in a particular combination, create the deadly "Smilex" gas.

As a result the whole of Gotham city is forced to stop using these products until Batman figures out the right combination which people must avoid to be safe.

The potential problems from fragrance products may not be as immediately life threatening but the long term consequences could be just as serious.

In some ways one could say that we are all being used as guinea pigs in a vast experiment.

---

A Quick Look At the Literature

---

I wanted to have a quick look at the medical literature to see what definite information we do have to support what Grenville discussed in the interview.

Looking at Pubmed 621 studies come up if one searches for "perfume toxicity", - "fragrance toxicity" reveals 828 studies.

Most of these are in obscure food and toxicology journals and don't even have abstracts.

They are closed access and not available on DeepDyve (a journal subscription site I use) so the ones I was able to actually access were limited (in some cases to just abstracts).

Those which were accessible do confirm what Grenville said in her interview:

---

AETT

---

Illustration of Myelin on Nerves from Thinkstock

I mentioned AETT earlier which was withdrawn due to it's effects on myelin.

In the abstract from their 1979 paper Spencer et al [1] state:

"Acetyl ethyl tetramethyl tetralin (AETT), a component of soaps, deodorants, and cosmetics, produces hyperirritability and limb weakness in rats repeatedly exposed to the compound. Brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves are discolored blue, show progressive neuronal ceroid degeneration, and develop spectacular myelin bubbling. These neurotoxic properties of AETT provide the basis for industry's decision to withdraw the compound from consumer products."

I also found other studies with similar results including one by Akasaki et al [2]from 1990.

---

Open Review of Nitro Musks

---

Nitro Musk Structures Taken from Taylor et al Supplementary Materials

There is an open review paper on a subset of musks by Taylor et al [3] which you can download here.

This largely confirms what was said before. These substances are found in many household products.

They persist in the environment and are not eliminated by water/sewage treatment.

They have been found to increase mortality in certain animals as well as mimicking oestrogens (although there is some conflicting data as to the actual effects).

Of even greater relevance is a study they cite by Eisenhardt et al.[4] that showed an association between levels of these compounds and gynaecological and endocrine (hormone) related problems including infertility:

"Significant associations between MX (musk xylene) and MK (musk ketone) concentrations were found in blood and different clinical parameters of the endocrine system. MX and MK may act centrally as a disrupter of the (supra-) hypothalamic-ovarian axis, which may result in a mild ovarian insufficiency. On the basis of our data, a reproductive toxicity and an endocrine effect of NMCs in women cannot be ruled out. Further experimental and clinical studies should be conducted."

I was only able to access the abstract for this paper but according to Taylor et al these substances are lipophilic (fat soluble) and likely to concentrate in breast milk which may lead to even greater exposure in babies.

These substances also seem to promote tumours/cancers although the exact mechanism is not understood.

One hypothesis is that they interact with other chemicals which directly damage DNA.

They may also have metabolic effects which increase the risk.

Taylor et al. conclude:

"The body of literature supports the conclusion that not only are we being exposed to nitro musks, we are also bioaccumulating them and passing them on to our offspring through breast milk and perinatal exposures.

In light of the evidence, the precautionary principle should be taken into account. This can be done through a reduction in the use and production of products containing nitro musks.

---

Ingredient Database

---

Ford et al [4] published a paper in 1999 looking at developing an independent fragrance ingredient safety database.

At the time they stated that over 2000 ingredients were being used by the industry then.

I had a quick look online to see if such a database had been created and didn't find one.

Maybe it is just well hidden or maybe I am bad at finding things.

There is an EU inventory of fragrance ingredients.

This is 1880 pages long and consists of a list of ingredients and their rather vague purposes (pdf here).

There appear to be rather more than 2000 ingredients (although some of them are natural) it would suggest that a lot have been added since 1999.

Notably this inventory does not have any safety or toxicity data.

I did find a paper from Comiskey et al [6] in 2015 which was similarly looking at creating a database.

This one was to collect exposure data and try to do analysis of the combined effects of these types of compounds.

I have not been able to find any more on it and was only able to see the abstract - it might be too soon though.

Hopefully it will have more success.

---

Conclusion

---

This is just a brief consideration of the issues raised by the podcast.

I would strongly urge you listen to it if you are interested in the subject.

It is also a great show in general (if you are interested in a mix of the esoteric, paranormal and science).

We are exposed to a vast multitude of artificial fragrance compounds on a daily basis.

Grenville seems to be expressing a legitimate concern as it pertains to the unregulated and untested nature of substances which we are being exposed to on a large scale.

Even if you don't have an immediate extreme response to them (like I do), the literature would suggest that they may still be having long terms effects on you.

These may include increasing the risk of cancer, hormonal abnormalities and even neurological problems.

The most pressing concern is our current ignorance and lack of knowledge on the vast majority of these substances and the potential combinatory effects.

A database of the sort suggested by Comiskey et al would be a good starting point for collating information.

I have ordered Grenville's book and will try to return to the subject once I have read it.

Hopefully by then I will have better journal access so I can look at this in a bit more depth and maybe we will have more research.

Finally please let me know if you have any kind of problems with fragrances yourself.

It would be interesting to hear the experience of others.

---

References

---

1. Spencer, P. S., A. B. Sterman, D. S. Horoupian, and M. M. Foulds. 1979. “Neurotoxic Fragrance Produces Ceroid and Myelin Disease.” Science 204 (4393): 633–35.

2. Akasaki, Y., S. Takauchi, and K. Miyoshi. 1990. “Cerebellar Degeneration Induced by Acetyl-Ethyl-Tetramethyl-tetralin(AETT).” Acta Neuropathologica 80 (2): 129–37.

3. Taylor, Kathryn M., Marc Weisskopf, and James Shine. 2014. “Human Exposure to Nitro Musks and the Evaluation of Their Potential Toxicity: An Overview.” Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 13 (1): 14.

4. Eisenhardt, S., B. Runnebaum, K. Bauer, and I. Gerhard. 2001. “Nitromusk Compounds in Women with Gynecological and Endocrine Dysfunction.” Environmental Research 87 (3): 123–30.

5. Ford, Richard A., Bruce Domeyer, Otho Easterday, Kurt Maier, and John Middleton. 2017. “Criteria for Development of a Database for Safety Evaluation of Fragrance Ingredients - ScienceDirect.” Accessed February 24. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913624?via%3Dihub.

6. Comiskey, D., A. M. Api, C. Barratt, E. J. Daly, G. Ellis, C. McNamara, C. O’Mahony, et al. 2015. “Novel Database for Exposure to Fragrance Ingredients in Cosmetics and Personal Care Products.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology: RTP 72 (3): 660–72.

---

Thank you for reading

---

---

---

---

Before you go have you filled in the Coinbase form to list STEEM? It only takes a few seconds. THIS POST shows you how.

---

If you like my work please follow me and check out my blog - @thecryptofiend and follow me on Twitter : Soul_Eater_43

---

Uncredited Images are taken from my personal Thinkstock Photography account. More information can be provided on request.

---

Are you new to Steemit and Looking for Answers? - Try:

---