Fragrance Free Products: Australia

I’ve not been around or blogging as much because I’ve been busy completing my assignments after applying for special consideration at Victoria University (VU) so that I could have more time to complete them. It was either that or quit. And I’m not quitting! I have until the 10th of December to do this, so I’m pushing it, but just may actually do it. It’s not easy not being able to attend classes due to fragances yet still being a member of class and doing the work. VU have been awesome in helping me (I have a post coming up on this later), not only have I had my own notetaker, attended my poetry workshopping class via Skype, and had digital recordings produced of the actual classes, but I just had a private meeting with the teachers. Isn’t that just cool? I did attend and complete one class, InDesign, this semester. I cannot put my finger on the formula that makes some classes accessible and others  inaccessible, but when I do, I’ll be sure to blog or write an article about it.


Here is a link to what I’ve been working on. A list of Fragrance Free products that are available in Australia, which I’ve devoted a whole page to. (My plan is to do one for the US, Europe etc… So if you know of places that specialise in Fragrance Free products drop me a link or the name of it, down in the comments section, and that way, I can add it to the list. This will be much appreciated: these lists are so that others who are looking for these products can find them easier!)  Just remember that not all products are safe to be used by everyone or around everyone; and if you’re not sure, and you’re using the product yourself, then test it; and if you’re using it around someone else, ask. But these products are a damn good start! Hell, I use most of these myself!


Be ready for my blog posts: Acceptance of a Blog Award, Moi?; How to Have a Fragrance Free Xmas; How to Foil a Room; Walking on the Wild Side, and much more.



Michellina Van Loder is a Professional Writer, Journalist and Blogger. This is where she shares her tales about trail blazing her way out of the Labyrinth of Chemical Sensitivities and Mould. This is also where you will find the latest Research on related topics.

Chemicals in Banana Boat Sunscreen Burns Consumers

Australian authorities are desperately trying to contact Banana Boat Sunscreens distributers after a batch of over 500,000 products of UltraMist sunscreen in the US were recalled after a handful of people caught on fire after using the product and coming in contact with an open flame.

More from the Brisbane Times:

“Energizer Holdings said on Friday that it was pulling 23 varieties of the UltraMist sunscreen off store shelves due to the risk of the lotion igniting when exposed to fire.

A spokeswoman for Australia’s drugs regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), said it was trying to get in touch with local distributors.

‘‘The TGA is urgently contacting the distributors to see if this exact product is available in Australia, as well as liaising with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration in the US) and other overseas regulators,’’ the spokeswoman said.

Comment was being sought from Banana Boat’s local distributor.

The recall in the US includes aerosol products like UltraMist Sport, UltraMist Ultra Defense and UltraMist Kids.

The problem was caused by UltraMist’s spray valve, which was over-applying the product, Energizer said in a statement.

 As a result, the lotion was taking longer to dry, increasing the flammability risk. ‘‘If a consumer comes into contact with a flame or spark prior to complete drying of the product on the skin, there is a potential for the product to ignite,’’ the company said.

In Stow, Boston, Brett Sigworth was severely burned on his neck, chest and back after he sprayed Banana Boat’s Ultramist Sport as he stood in front of his grill.

In the UK, Dan Dillard, executive director of the Burn Prevention Network said, after being contacted earlier in the year about two burns related to UltraMist, that another woman suffered burns while working with welding equipment.

Dillard pointed out that the ingredients used in aerosol sprays are known to be flammable:

‘The alcohol and petroleum products listed on the containers are flammable, so the only thing you’re missing in the heat triangle is an ignition source,’ Dillard said.

There are chemically sensitive people who react to minute amounts of the ingredients in these products—proof that these products are not safe—yet they are still sold to consumers. It’s not warning enough that a small slice of the population are excluded from society because of symptoms caused from breathing the air contaminated by these aromatic solvents worn by others, and that in itself, proves that these products are destructive to human health; now, the burden of proof has fallen on the everyday consumer! Surely, it’s time for the governments of the world to make sure the precautionary principle be applied to all products before they are allowed onto the market?

You can read more here



Michellina Van Loder is a Professional Writer, Journalist and Blogger. This is where she shares her tales about trail blazing her way out of the Labyrinth of Chemical Sensitivities and Mould. This is also where you will find the latest Research on related topics.

Perfume and Histamine

But mine are designer fragrances…

I used to use a lot of perfume; it was one of my most favourite things. Ever. Before I became sensitised to the chemical ingredients in fragrances, I liked nothing better than to not only spritz on my darling L’Air du Temps (a fragrance by Nina Ricci), but also bathe in it, using the matching scented soap, then finish off with the L’Air du Temps talcum powder, and then, in the same luxurious, self-pampering vein of things, I’d lavishly apply the moisturiser as well. I would also use other designer perfumes: one named, ludicrously enough, ‘Poison’, which I didn’t wear much—not that that makes a difference to my situation now; Chanel no.5, for special occasions; Gucci Rush, another favourite (it’s weird, but I miss being able to enjoy the scent of this one—I  especially remember the heady, intoxicating bouquet of musky-jasmine, hidden amongst top notes of orange, and how I used to delight in surrounding myself in clouds of it. Adored it!), I used to wear this one so much, and I’d spray it on everything: my books, my bookmarks, my bags, scarves, even in my car!

When I was younger, for everyday use, I’d use Impulse deodorant; I can also just about still recall that scent too, it was called Inspiration—it had a cheap fragranty-chemical aroma, but still, I loved it. It  made me feel fresh. It was in an aqua blue spray can, and I’d carried one of many that I’d purchased throughout my lifetime, in my handbag since the age of fifteen.

At the age of 34, I was surprised to find myself experiencing symptoms bought on when applying my perfumes; it was one of the first chemicals that I reacted to, and the most troublesome: my eyelids would swell up, my eyes would dry out and everything—cleaning products, car fumes, fresh newspaper ink—would either sting or itch them. There was no escape. On hot windy days, the air touching my eyeballs was pure agony. At night, I’d wake up with my eyelids stuck to my eyes, and I’d scatter and grope for my Bion Tears: my eye drops. After extensive testing with an immunologist, using sublingual drops, I was diagnosed as sensitive to various chemicals. Because of the amount of perfume, I used to use, I had to throw out, give away or sell most of my possessions, all of my clothing, and a hell of a lot of my books… Heartbreaking is the only way I can describe it.

Although I never tried Opium–the fragrance that is–a while ago I came across this study, where an analysis was done on this particular fragrance’s chemicals.

(For anyone who has just landed on this page, and does not follow my blog, or have any understanding of chemical sensitivities, know this: perfumes and aftershaves are made up of mostly synthetic (and some natural) chemicals that make people, like myself, ill. Yes, people who are not wearing it, can become ill just from breathing in a fragrance that another person wears into a room or public space. It’s not the smell; it’s the chemicals used to make it, and it’s the chemical ingredients used to disperse and atomise the product as well: these make it linger and hang about in the air, around the person wearing it. There are even people who can’t go out to public places where others might be wearing it. Can’t go out. At all. Ever. And then there are people, like myself, who have to take precautions such as wearing a mask, showering straight after exposures, and asking others to please, please not wear it. And even then, after going to outlandish lengths to avoid them, I can experience symptoms bought on by exposure to these abominable products because they get on my hair, skin and clothes just from being in a room with people wearing them. Products I used to use; products I can no longer use because they make me ill… Think about that for a second… For your own sake, and if not your own (because, perhaps you think this will never happen to you), then for people like me. Please…)

The perfume used for this study was ‘Opium®’, (Yves Saint Laurent, Paris France).The designer scent has been on the market since 1977 and it is in the top ten of the most sold perfumes in Europe. An Analysis of the chemicals has shown that the fragrance chemicals in this perfume are also used in other brands. The following is part of an extract of the study:

Summary: Background Environmental perfume exposure may cause respiratory symptoms. Individuals with asthma and perfume contact allergy report such symptoms more frequently than others. However, immunologic mechanisms have not been demonstrated and the symptoms are not associated with IgE-mediated allergy. The study aimed to investigate whether basophils from patients with respiratory symptoms related to perfume released more histamine in the presence of perfume as compared with healthy volunteers.

Methods: Histamine release was measured by the glass fibre method. Blood was obtained from healthy volunteers (n=20) and patients with respiratory symptoms related to perfume (n=17) attending a dermatological outpatient clinic for patch testing. The effect of an international brand perfume was investigated using the basophil histamine release test with perfume. Furthermore, basophils from a healthy non-atopic donor were incubated with participant’s sera and histamine release induced by perfume was measured.

Results: In both groups incremental perfume concentrations showed a positive and significant (P<0.001) dose-response effect on the release of histamine. At the highest perfume concentration, the basophils released significantly (P<0.05) more histamine in patients as compared with healthy volunteers. No difference was found between the groups when sera were incubated with basophils from a healthy non-atopic donor.

Conclusion: Perfume induces a dose-dependent non-IgE-mediated release of histamine from human peripheral blood basophils. Increased basophil reactivity to perfume was found in patients with respiratory symptoms related to perfume.”

Basically, from what I can gather here, this study is telling us that people who experience either a skin reaction or respiratory reaction are having an allergic reaction where the body is releasing histamine… Um, I kind of figured that:

Obviously not my best look, but, perhaps I should be proud of my body’s effort to produce histamine?

What I find weird is this: I wasn’t born with an allergy to fragrance chemicals, it developed, or showed itself, 25 years after I’d been using them. There was no warning; it just happened to me. Of all the chemicals that make me ill, fragrance, solvents and hydrocarbons produce the worst affects. Isn’t there something strange about that? Is it me? Am I the strange one here, or is there something ‘not right’ going on with the companies who make these products? That question is rhetorical, but the this one is not: If some people are becoming ill after using these products, who, exactly, carries the burden of proof here? You see, when a product causes harm, it’s the consumer who bears the burden of proof (to prove that the products is safe). When enough people are made ill, and health care professionals and the public make complaints about ill health effects, the product is then proven to be unsafe, therefore it’s taken of the market.

The true cost to our environment:

“Of the more than 75,000 chemicals registered with the Environmental Protection Agency, only a fraction have gone through complete testing to find out whether they might cause problems for human health. Many that are produced in enormous quantities have never been tested at all. Usually, it takes dramatic episodes of workplace injuries or wildlife poisonings, combined with rigorous scientific proof of harm and public outcry, before the government will act to restrict or ban any chemical. And that is no accident. The current regulatory system allows synthetic chemicals into our lives unless proven beyond doubt to be dangerous.”

If the laws where changed to reflect the principles of the Precautionary Principle instead, the world would be a better, fairer place for people affected by these types of products because before a product could be sold, the manufactures would have to err on the side of caution…

What exactly is the Precautionary Principle?

“The precautionary principle (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992) holds forth that a point can presumably be reached when human well-being and environmental health are put at risk by a large-scale human activity or man-made system over which humans have control. At such a point the problem could be identified, a course charted, and precautionary actions taken to ameliorate or prevent a potential threat to human and environmental health on behalf of current and future generations.”

Many fragrance ingredients are respiratory irritants and sensitizers, which can trigger asthma attacks and aggravate sinus conditions, so it makes sense to apply the principle rather than make the public carry the burden of proof. More about the Precautionary principle from The Ecology Centre:

“The majority of the more than 2,000 chemicals that come onto the market every year are not subjected to even the simplest tests to determine toxicity. In addition, the ways that these chemicals react with each other and with our bodies is even less studied. A better way to create public policy is by using the Precautionary Principle as a guide to protect us and the environment from harm:

When an activity (or product) raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponents of an activity (the product manufacturer), rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (to prove that the product is safe). The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties (the public and consumers).”

You can find the rest of the study here



Clinical & Experimental Allergy, Volume 37, Issue 11, Page 1676-1680, November 2007

Sources / Resources

Environmental Health Perspectives,
Environmental Working Group,
Health Care Without Harm,
Home Safe Home, Debra Lynn Dadd, (Penguin Putnam, 1997) (extensive information on health and toxics)

(Image source:

Michellina Van Loder is a Professional Writer, Journalist and Blogger. This is where she shares her tales about trail blazing her way out of the Labyrinth of Chemical Sensitivities and Mould. This is also where you will find the latest Research on related topics.

Information, products and views presented by guest bloggers @The Labyrinth are not necessarily the same as those held by this blog's author, Michellina van Loder. Reviews are my own personal opinions (unless stated otherwise); and satire is used throughout personal posts. Any health topics discussed are not to be taken as medical advice. Seek out medical attention if needed and do your own research; however, you're welcome to use mine as a start.
Translate »