Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
Alisha Minielly was mystified as rashes suddenly started appearing all over her body, including one that persisted on her left leg for six months.
She figured something in her makeup or shampoo could be the culprit and began switching to personal products labelled as having "natural" ingredients but that did not help. Neither did a steroid cream prescribed by a doctor at one of the walk-in clinics she visited because she didn't have a general practitioner.
A patch test, which had a dermatologist placing small amounts of various fragrance mixes on her back and covering them with patches for five "very itchy" days, revealed she was allergic to a long list of common fragrances used in products ranging from face wash and moisturizer to shampoo, conditioner and hair dye.
The allergens included propolis, which smells like beeswax, as well as nickel, geraniol, limonene, linalool and anise alcohol. The fragrances add floral, citrus, woodsy and other scents, which sometimes mask unpleasant smells. For Minielly, they caused contact dermatitis.
However, learning about the allergens that were making her miserable was only half the battle for Minielly, even after she shunned every product that could possibly cause a rash. She realized she breaks out just from being around others who have used something her body reacts to, restricting her social interactions.
"Now, all my close friends and family know when they see me to not wear cologne or perfume. And to try and limit the fragrances that they're wearing, like a fragrant shampoo, for example. It's really hit and miss and it is tough," she said from New Hamburg, Ont., about an hour's drive west of Toronto.
Minielly is hoping proposed regulations by Health Canada to require the cosmetics industry to disclose 24 fragrance allergens on product labels will provide some relief for people like her.
The agency is currently doing a 70-day online consultation, ending April 22, of the cosmetics industry and the public as part of a requirement that would have the industry include the 24 allergens on labels. It can currently use the term "parfum" to represent a mixture of substances.
The move would bring Canada in line with the European Union, where that regulation was established in 2005.
"When certain fragrance allergens come in contact with skin, this can sometimes cause or lead to allergic reactions, resulting in irritations such as redness or rashes," Health Canada said in a statement. "This requirement would allow consumers to be aware of, and avoid, products that contain certain fragrance ingredients to which they may be sensitive, in order to protect their health."
It said disclosure would be required if the substances are present in a cosmetic at a concentration greater than 0.01 per cent in rinse-off products and 0.001 per cent in leave-on products — a level "sufficient to protect Canadians."
Fragrance mixtures may also include trace amounts of other ingredients that fall below this threshold, however it would be impractical to disclose hundreds of them on a label, Health Canada said.
"There are no jurisdictions that require the entire fragrance composition of a cosmetic on the product label."
Globally, the composition of fragrance mixtures is considered proprietary information.
Minielly is allergic to 13 of the 24 fragrances that would have to be listed on labels and others that will not be included. She said the change would be a good start to inform people about what they're exposing themselves to.
"It seems like a very basic right but even for people who aren't allergic they may develop an allergy. And even if they don't develop an allergy and aren't allergic it just seems like a basic level of transparency," she said.
"Any time you can hold industry to some kind of standard is a good thing."
Minielly said a lack of education around managing her symptoms, even after she learned about her fragrance allergies, left her vulnerable because fragrances are added to so many everyday products. Much of what she gleaned about her condition and how to protect herself has come from an online support group based in the United States, from where she orders shampoo, she added.
Even products labelled "fragrance free," "dermatologist tested" and "for sensitive skin" can be problematic for people whose immune systems react to certain ingredients.
Susan Nieuwhof, spokesperson for Cosmetics Alliance Canada, said the trade organization representing the cosmetics and personal care products industry supports the federal government's proposal.
It's time that regulations in Canada aligned with those in other countries, including the European Union and the United States, she said.
While Canada imports personal products from other jurisdictions, Nieuwhof said, it also manufactures a significant supply, mostly in Ontario and Quebec, and between 70 to 90 per cent of it is exported to other markets.
"Cosmetics and personal care products are a global industry and, as such, the harmonization of regulations is important to us to simplify trade and protect consumers," she said in an emailed statement.
Cassie Barker of Environment Defence Canada said the group participated in the consultation and has been pushing the federal government to follow the European Union's model for nearly 20 years so consumers can make informed choices about common products.
"The assumption people have is that if it's on the shelf, then it's safe. In reality, our system is post-market regulatory whereby something is sold, someone has a reaction, they have to report that reaction to Health Canada in order for the system to pick up on these kinds of impacts," Barker said.
However, she called on the federal government to go further than just requiring the cosmetics industry to disclose fragrance allergens.
"Labelling is the floor. We want the disclosure to drive manufacturers to reformulate," she said, adding ingredients that don't cause allergic reactions should be used instead.
Health Canada said comments received during the consultation period will be reviewed and considered before the proposed regulations are finalized.
The industry would have two years to disclose the 24 fragrance allergens on labels, it said.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 24, 2023.
Canadian Press health coverage receives support through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. CP is solely responsible for this content.
Comments
Scent in products other than perfumes is so unnecessary! Even garbage bags are scented!!! Many of us go out of our way to avoid buying scented products because we get reactions ranging from mild headaches and runny noses to migraines and skin rashes. Many young men, especially, seem to douse themselves in scent in the mistaken belief that it is attractive. When I worked at one university library, a colleague and I were on the reference desk when such a young man approached. My colleague got up abruptly and left him to me. As he got closer, I realized why...he was doused in scent and she would've gotten a migraine had she dealt with him. As it was, I tried hard to hold my breath and talk at the same time. Putting ingredient labels on scented products is the least the government can do.
Yeah, I empathize, and notice the young men, but not just them, girls too. I've started to think of them as our "chemical young" far more of whom are overweight than before.
I think laundry products are the worst offenders though because the fragrance now associated with "clean" has become embedded in many minds, and bodies, because one of the selling points is how long it lasts. And its apparently an endocrine disruptor. To me it smells like an ashtray or a smoky bar, and can be summed up as "Febreze" which really got the ball rolling.
When we go for a walk in our neighbourhood we also breathe it in as it's emitted from so many dryer vents....
Ditto to the above.
A useful place to start with considering exposures to scent is:
https://www.drsteinemann.com/
To begin to get a handle on how significant the issue is, here's one table from one of the publications (studies) listed on her webpage:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-019-00699-4/tables/3
And as an indicator of the preference of the general public for scent-free environments, see another table from the same study:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-019-00699-4/tables/4
She has done other studies, specifically on scented laundry products, analyzing the toxicity of what comes out of dryer vents. In addition to endocrine disruptors, they include carcinogens, teratogens, and more.
I have got to where I almost subconsciously hold my breath waiting for approaching people on sidewalks to pass: sometimes, on a still day, the stench lingers for a block or more. I can smell the scent "Eternity" when someone's wearing it on the schoolgrounds, a block from me.
Many institutions with "scent policies" pay no heed to the cleaning products used by their cleaning staff, and few people consider their body-care and laundry products to be "scent."
It's not a matter of "preference" ... I've had people say to me, when I ask them to back up toward the front gate because the smell is coming into the house even before I open the storm/screen door, "I don't like the way you smell, either." Even my family thought it was me just being "fussy", till I collapsed, unable to speak or move, when a gym-bag of freshly-laundered clothing was brought in to the house, out of my sight.
For the most part, I don't think the problem is "allergy" per se, but rather toxicity. Somewhere between 10 and 30% of the populace has genetic variations that mis-match the efficiency of two main phases of breaking down toxics (as well as medications and some constituents of foodstuffs) before they are eliminated from the body.
I am so grateful to the small number of people who, even if they don't understand the mechanisms, are willing to believe that I'm not Just A Drama Queen, and that they cause physiological and metabolic repercussions.
It's not just a matter of "putting up with" or "getting over it" ... it is literally, physically, mentally and emotionally debilitating. Doing the best I know how to do, I no longer go into a crying jag just from the smell of peanuts.
I think we, as a society, have no idea how much these things affect people's behaviour, mentally and behaviourally. And it doesn't stop with air quality: we also put this stuff into food, into water, into soil ...
I'll bet I'm not the only person who cannot go into some community centres, because the pool is so heavily chlorinated. It took me a long, long time to realize that half my problem learning how to swim was being "gassed" by the pool-water air at indoor pools.
Apparently we in Canada are soon to have a "right" to a healthy environment. But that's still based on industry guesses as to how much we "should" be able to tolerate, plus a margin for the manufacturer. We understand now the concept of "throw away" environmental zones: areas governments decide are OK to pollute to the point of making them extinction zones.
There isn't sufficient general understanding to realize that we are also designating 30% of the human gene-pool as a "throwaway" genetic class. It increases health-care costs, decreases human productivity, causes learning disabilities, mental disorders and behavioural problems, makes for talented individuals, sometimes brilliant thinkers, to have no possibility of developing their talents and abilities, or even living a full life-span.
It's not as though "we" can afford to throw away 30% of the gene pool. Most of those genetic variants come with potential downsides show up so frequently because they also contributed to evolutionary survival. Examples are the sickle-cell variant, which confers protection against malaria, and an immune-system variant that allowed people to survive, or not even be affected by, the Black Death plague ... and today makes their descendants more susceptible to auto-immune conditions.
Just providing names of some ingredients, without labelling their potential or known toxic effects, isn't even putting a dent in the problem, even with a broad education program. We need to get over the idea that if "science" makes it, industry is entitled to use it, and shareholders are entitled to make money despite the costs to society and the suffering of people.
Perfume itself is unnecessary. So are deodorizers, and any number of other commonly used products.