As something of a perfume collector, I thought I owed it to myself to read this book and find out more about what is in those fragrances in the cupboard.

Kate Grenville has long known that she has an intolerance for fragrances that give her headaches. When it reached a point where she was almost totally incapacitated during a book tour, she decided to research the matter and wrote this book.

Grenville points out that, in modern society, fragrance is almost inescapable. It's not just the perfumes that we wear. It's also added to every imaginable household product from toilet paper to laundry liquid. Stores, restaurants and hotels spray fragrance in the air. It's ubiquitous, and that's a problem for people that are affected by it, like Grenville.

Any attempt to identify what is causing these problems founders on a few issues. First, trade secrets legislation means that the contents of "fragrance" ingredients don't have to be revealed. Second, there are thousands of ingredients commonly used in fragrance, and only a subset of these have ever been tested for safety. Finally, nearly all of the testing and certification is done by the fragrance industry itself, so conflict of interest issues apply.

Even what we do know is somewhat alarming. Grenville provides an extensive list of compounds known or suspected to be carcinogenic that are either used in fragrances or can form when fragrance ingredients interact with the air (as they unavoidably will). Chief among these is formaldehyde, although there are others.

Another concern is the prevalence of synthetic musk compounds that have proven to be almost indestructible. These compounds bioaccumulate so that they become more prevalent the higher up the food chain you go. That means that the very highest levels are seen in the most vulnerable: breastfeeding babies and foetuses in utero. These musk compounds can mimic the action of hormones such as oestrogen, creating over-supply which can lead to birth defects, genetic abnormalities and cancer.

Grenville is quick to point out that it is impossible to pin this on fragrance specifically, because there are so many other potential triggers for such conditions to emerge over a lifetime. Indeed "the case against fragrance" is largely a circumstantial one. Grenville shows that there are potentially harmful chemicals in fragrances, they have reached a point of ubiquity in the environment, and people are having adverse reactions. But there is no smoking gun; it is impossible to say for sure that there is causality here, and no scientific study would draw the kinds of conclusions that Grenville invites us to make here.

So what to do? The author's solution is a bit simplistic. For one, she advocates embracing fragrance-free versions of products. That's fine, except she does not apply anything like the same scrutiny to those alternatives. Just as decaffeinated coffee is not necessarily better for you due to the added chemicals, how does one know whether or not a fragrance-free detergent contains no harmful chemicals either?

More interesting is Grenville's suggestion that fragrance-free workplaces may become the norm. If a scientific institute such as the US Centres for Disease Control can adopt a policy that says "Fragrance is not appropriate for a professional work environment", then it's possible to imagine that this may one day become more widespread particularly if, as in the US, there are OH&S lawsuits decided in favour of people with fragrance intolerances.

Decades ago the idea of passive smoking was seen as cranky, now it is enshrined in law. We do not have the right to deprive others of a healthy and safe work environment; that is a very clear legal precedent. So maybe one day people who wear perfume will be like the smokers of today, skulking out the back giving themselves a shot of Shalimar before washing it off and heading back inside. ( )

I know some fragrances get up my nose more than others but had never really thought too deeply as to why. Kate Grenville has given us the benefit of her in depth research into the fragrance industry and exposed it for what it is - the big unknown! We just don’t know what all the ingredients are, that go into all the products available these days, to make us, our homes, our cars, our clothes even our animals smell nice. Too many people use too many products and for those who suffer with a fragrance sensitivity things are finally changing. Many work places, hospitals and event complexes are now enforcing - No Fragrance policies under occupation health and safety guidelines. This book was a real eye opener! ( )

I have long had an interest in the science of smell; Partly after reading Proust and his wonderful descriptions of memory being invoked so powerfully by the memory of madelines and tea; partly after working on a thesis in philosophy investigating the role of the emotions in fashioning values; and partly just because I'm interested in the chemistry of smelling. What makes one substance attractive to us and another repellant. I remember producing octyl alcohol in one of my biochemistry experiments at University and finding that it was pleasant smelling and quite tasty. (Normally, I would never taste ANYTHING from my experiments). I had also suffered from headaches for most of my life.....some of which I postulated, might be related to fragrance. I hated the section in Department stores.....always on the ground floor where one had to pass to get to the rest of the store......where the perfumes and cosmetics were being proffered. So it was with great interest that I approached this book by Kate Grenville about fragrance and it's negative effects.
There is some seriously interesting stuff in here. Many people experience very negative reactions to fragrances...headaches, migraines, asthma, nausea, breathing difficulties and other nasty reactions. And most people who use fragrances are oblivious to their impact on others. They may be oblivious to the impact on themselves.
As the science of chemistry developed, increasingly fragrances have been synthesised so that the fragrance (or flavour) that you are exposed today has a very high probability of being synthetic. There is some useful stuff here. For example, Grenville points out that Rose essential oil is NOT just one chemical but is actually a mixture of about 150 different chemicals.The thing that mainly makes it small like a rose is beta-damascenone but it's less than one percent of the whole. But we are very sensitive to it. Most of the claims made for essential oils are not backed up by research. And some essential oils such as sassafras oil are carcinogenic. And the international Fragrance Association lists about 20 essential oils that are prohibited or restricted for use in fragrance.
Over the millennia we have learned about concentrating the potent substances. It takes up to 4,000 kg of rose petals to make 1kg of rose essential oil..so when you smell rose essential oil it's 1,000 x more concentrated than smelling an actual rose. And 5mg of natural rose oil (containing .05gm of Beta damasenone) costs about $300. But you can get 1000 gm of synthetic Beta-damascenone for $200. Do the math The natural active ingredient costs $6,000 per gram vs 20 cents per gram for the synthetic beta damascene. So pretty much, these days all fragrance makers use synthetics. And thanks to labelling laws only the manufacturer knows what's synthetic. And because it's cheap you can get a dose of the pure compound that is 10 to 20 times as potent as one could get in the natural environment. (That maybe ok but may be not).
Now some of the synthetics are not exact copies....they might have removed a nitro group for example. So many fragrance substances do not occur in nature. And most fragrances in nature come in mixtures (like rose oils with 150 other chemicals) and the significance of having some of these other chemicals in the mix is either unknown, or untested. Some fragrances change with UV light or they oxidise so UV blockers or anti oxidants may be added.....and again the interactions with these additional chemicals are either not known , not tested or not well understood.
Ambergris used to be used as a solvent/preservative but is eye-wateringly expensive so a synthetic is used : diethyl phthalate. If the product has fragrance on the label it almost certainly contains diethyl phthalate. (See the book "Slow death by Rubber Duck" for some of the effects of Pthalates). Many....maybe most, of the fragrances imitate hormonal chemicals or interact with them...which is rather worrying. Boys, in particular appear to be subjected to higher levels of androgens with consequent negative impact on fertility and vitality.
Most of the fragrances and synthetics have not been subjected to rigorous safety testing. And most of the tests that have been done are actually done by the manufacturers. (Hardly a trustworthy source). In 2011 Johnson and Johnson removed 2 carcinogens from its baby products and announced that by 2015 they had removed phthalates from baby products. (Great...but what about exposure before this?.....like I've had).
Grenville suggests that if you are going to take any one action that the best thing you can do is to switch to a synthetic fragrance free laundry powder. (Incidentally, the fresh laundry smell is actually due to an artificial fragrance not the washing).
Quite an impressive book. Grenville has simplified down the chemical concepts but has highlighted the big issues fairly effectively. I think she makes a very powerful case for reducing the use of artificial fragrances and I hope her small book is influential in changing attitudes towards the use of fragrances in industry, in the home and in the workplace generally. ( )