Reply to comment

How about some facts here? I found this info about the study on the web:

The Steinemann study found 58 different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at levels above a concentration of 300 parts per billion but did not list the concentration of each chemical. To put this in context, 300 parts per billion is just above the level of analytical detection for these materials. Ingredients which sound scary when listed by their chemical names are materials that occur naturally in everyday items, often in much larger quantities than may be used in fragranced products. Some examples include: alpha-Pinene (pine forests); Acetone (cheddar cheese, apple juice, strawberries); 2-Butanone (coffee, citrus fruit, grapes); Benzaldehyde (white bread – at >40,000 ppm, roasted coffee – at 2,000 ppm, apple juice – at around 300 ppm); Ethanol (blackberries, cauliflower, cherries, cucumbers); Ethyl acetate( honey, tomatoes, vinegar).

It would be folly to declare the numerous pine forests lining the west and east coasts toxic or hazardous just because they give off the VOC, alpha-pinene. Even more folly to put a hazard warning on a tomato which naturally contains 8501 parts per million of benzaldehye. Or even to require forests and tomatoes to be labeled with their constituent chemicals. So why does Steinemann want the fragrance industry to label the very low levels of these same chemicals when contained in our products, and why does she impute that these chemicals are hazardous when clearly that is not the case?

Adds a little balance doesn't it?