Between attraction and avoidance: from perfume application to fragrance-free policies.

BACKGROUND: According to a national representative survey, 19.9% of the German population describe various adverse effects on personal health upon exposure to fragranced consumer products. This study investigates whether these fragrance-sensitive persons have a higher risk awareness compared to the general public, whether they show a different safety behavior concerning fragrances and whether they reduce exposure and hence risk. RESULTS: The presence of fragrances can have a major impact on the participation in public activities. Half of the fragrance-sensitive persons have ever been prevented from going to some place to avoid exposure to fragrances. More than half of them prefer fragrance-free alternatives (products, laundry, hotels, airplanes, health care facilities, or workplaces), while there are also fragrance-sensitive individuals, who indicate to prefer fragranced products and spaces. Half of fragrance-sensitive persons use perfumes to feel themselves more attractive. Furthermore, there is a large number of persons who prefer fragrance-free alternatives without being fragrance-sensitive. Around half of the general population indicate not to use a fragranced product if they know that it emits hazardous air pollutants. This shows that health effects associated with the presence of fragrances proved to be one out of several factors, but not the only one, which influences attitudes towards fragrances and their usage. The answers given reveal the multitude of aspects influencing risk awareness and safety behavior. According to the survey results, 7.4 workdays were lost due to illness from fragranced product exposure in the workplace per person on average, with estimated personal economic costs of 14.5 * 109 Euro/year in Germany. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of persons who correlate their health effects with exposure to fragrances shows that existing risk communication instruments are too weak, even for people who are aware of a risk, like fragrance-sensitive persons. The data substantiate how important it is to respect cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and the inadequacy of the deficit model in risk management. The issue of adverse health effects associated with fragrances has reached a dimension, which requires immediate action: The results of this study are strong supporting arguments in favor of fragrance-free policies.

Do consumers care about substances of very high concern in articles?

BACKGROUND: Consumers have the right to inquire whether a consumer article contains substances of very high concern ('SVHC right to know'). This communication tool is designed to stimulate suppliers to substitute such ingredients. A survey among 1321 consumers with high motivation and interest in harmful substances in everyday products was conducted to understand the acceptance of this 'right to know' among consumers. RESULTS: Only one out of seven survey participants stated to be well informed about the 'SVHC right to know' with nearly all of them having good self-reported chemical knowledge. Three quarters of the participants who are not working with chemicals or REACH at their workplace have never heard about the 'SVHC right to know'. Every second participant declared their interest to search for more information about an SVHC in a certain article, but, in fact, not more than 4% of all participants inquired for SVHCs with various methods. Only 1% would buy an SVHC-containing article with no strings attached. While detailed comments by some survey participants showed a high level of understanding of the issue, many respondents were not sure what the SVHC information means for their daily life. They declared that they would inform themselves, reduce the use of the article with SVHCs, circulate this information, or throw such an article into the garbage. Most study participants suggested improvements of the 'SVHC right to know'. The preferred suggestions were a ban of SVHCs, easily understandable information on the packaging, full ingredient declaration on the articles, or no need to inquire for every single item, while smartphone applications for SVHC requests were the least popular suggestion in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Various reasons could be identified why most consumers-even these motivated and interested ones-do not use the 'SVHC right to know'. This allowed developing recommendations for improving the effectiveness of this communication instrument on the way to the gradual elimination of SVHCs in consumer articles.

Fragrance allergens in household detergents.

Consumers are confronted with a large number of fragrance allergens from various sources. Until now, the discussion of exposure sources has mainly addressed cosmetic products and neglected other scented products in households. For the first time, fragrance allergens were evaluated in a complete set of detergents in households. In 131 households, we investigated the prevalence of detergents and searched their lists of ingredients for 26 fragrance allergens liable to be indicated on products according to the European Detergents Regulations. On the ingredient lists of 1447 products, these 26 fragrance substances were named almost 2000 times, most often limonene, linalool and hexyl cinnamal. Benzyl salicylate was used frequently in all-purpose cleaners. Linalool and limonene, hexyl cinnamal and butylphenyl methylpropional and citronellol and linalool co-occurred most often together in products. Fragrance allergens co-occurring together most frequently within households were eugenol, coumarin and cinnamyl alcohol. The study shows that detergents could play a relevant role for the exposure of consumers towards fragrance allergens and that they should not be underestimated as an exposure source during the exposure assessment.

Interested consumers' awareness of harmful chemicals in everyday products.

BACKGROUND: Everyday products can contain a multitude of harmful substances unnoticed by most consumers, because established risk communication channels reach only part of the society. The question is, whether at least interested and informed consumers are able to use risk communication tools and assess harmful chemicals in products. RESULTS: An online survey investigated the awareness of 1030 consumers on harmful substances in everyday items. Participating consumers' education level, knowledge in chemistry, and motivation were above society's average. Although a large number of responses showed that survey participants were familiar with several aspects of the issue, the results revealed that knowledge in chemistry helped, but was not enough. Many participants assumed that products with an eco-label, natural personal care products, products without hazard pictograms or products produced in the European Union would not contain harmful substances. Most participants indicated to use hazard pictograms, information on the packaging, reports in the media, and environmental and consumer organizations as information sources, while information by authorities and manufacturers were not named frequently and did not receive high confidence. Smartphone applications were not indicated by many participants as information sources. The information sources most trusted were environmental and consumer organizations, hazard pictograms, and lists of ingredients on the containers. The declared confidence in certain risk communication instruments did not always correspond to the use frequencies indicated. Nearly all participants considered legislators as responsible for the reduction of harmful substances in consumer products. CONCLUSIONS: Misconceptions about harmful substances in products can be dangerous for the personal health and the environment. The survey indicates that motivation, educational level, and chemical expertise do not automatically provide an appropriate understanding of harmful substances in products. If well-informed consumers are not sufficiently capable to use risk information elements as revealed in this study, then this will be even more the case for the general public. Consumer awareness should be stipulated by an improved information strategy about chemical risks in consumer products with an extensive participation of the target groups and by more efforts by authorities and manufactures to build trust and to provide easily understandable information.

Where are the SVHCs?: 10 years consumer's 'right to know' about substances of very high concern.

BACKGROUND: The European chemicals regulation REACH includes the legal duty for suppliers to inform consumers on request about the presence of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) in articles. Since this requirement has been in force now for 10 years, the intention of this study was to find out whether information on SVHCs is adequately communicated to the consumer today. Data on the presence of SVHCs in articles were collected as a prerequisite for the subsequent requests for a targeted choice of articles to examine the operability of the 'right to know.' RESULTS: Literature data show that SVHCs have been measured and described in a large variety of commodities. 32% of 334 information requests for articles which were suspected to contain SVHCs were answered by suppliers and a minor number of these answers were of good quality. Only two respondents indicated the presence of SVHCs in their articles. Suppliers are not legally obliged to respond to requests if their articles are free of SVHCs. Therefore, the absence of a response might be interpreted as an indication that SVHCs are present below 0.1% in the articles in question. However, there are certain doubts that only two out of 334 articles suspected contain SVHCs. CONCLUSIONS: The data question whether the ambitious aims of the SVHC regime can be achieved under the present conditions. Measures are proposed on how to improve implementation of the information requirement and to amend the legal criteria in the upcoming REACH revision.

Natural personal care products-analysis of ingredient lists and legal situation.

BACKGROUND: Many natural substances are classified as dangerous substances according to the European regulation on classification and labelling. Are they used in natural personal care products today? One hundred ingredient lists were analyzed to find this out. RESULTS: All products with natural substances contained dangerous natural substances or they contained natural substances, for which the information about their classification as dangerous substances is not available. 54 natural substances quoted in the ingredient lists were found to be classified, with 37 substances being classified due to hazardous effects for skin and eyes. However, the most frequently used natural substances are not classified as dangerous. Natural substances are multi-constituent compounds, leading to two main problems in personal care products: the potential interactions of a multitude of substances and the fact that dangerous constituents are not disclosed in the ingredient lists. For example, the fragrance allergens citral, farnesol, limonene, and linalool are frequent components of the natural substances employed. In addition, 82 products listed allergenic fragrance ingredients as single substances in their ingredient lists. Recommendations for sensitive skin in a product's name do not imply that the '26 fragrance allergens' are omitted. Furthermore, 80 products listed 'parfum'/'aroma', and 50 products listed ethanol. CONCLUSIONS: The data show that the loopholes for natural substances and for personal care products in the present European chemical legislation (e.g. the exception for classification and labelling of cosmetic products and the exception for information transfer in the supply chain) are not in line with an adequate consumer and environmental protection.

The hazard communication of fragrance allergens must be improved.

Contact allergy is a global health problem that could be alleviated considerably if the general public could reduce contact to sensitizers. Efficient hazard communication would be a valuable instrument to achieve this. What do current regulations concerning fragrance sensitizers in cosmetic products in Europe contribute? For example, there are bans and restrictions according to the Cosmetic Regulation, there is the "26 allergens rule" that requires that the names of some allergenic fragrance ingredients are listed on the containers, there is labeling and classification of hazardous products according to Regulation 1272/2008, and there is the regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals (REACH). Do these regulations increase consumer protection by suitable hazard communication instruments? Four main problems were identified. First, according to the 26 allergens rule, consumers carry a very large part of the responsibility for risk reduction management. They need to be capable and motivated to recognize the names of strong allergens listed in the ingredient list and decide for themselves whether they want to run the risk or not, provided that they are aware of their responsibility. Second, cosmetic products do not need to be classified and labeled like other consumer goods, according to the European Commission Regulation 1272/2008, if they contain hazardous substances. Third, some pictograms for hazardous substances, for example, the exclamation mark for sensitizers, are not well understood by the majority of the general public. Fourth, very often, the design of cosmetic containers implies health and well being, even if the respective products contain sensitizers or other hazardous substances. Against this background, the following improvements are proposed: 1) the 26 allergens rule needs revision, 2) the exception for cosmetic products from labeling and classification should be abolished, 3) a new self-explanatory pictogram for skin sensitizers and skin irritants should become mandatory for consumer products containing allergens, and 4) packaging of products containing hazardous substances should not be allowed to be attractive and evoke feelings that the products were harmless. Labeling of consumer products can be a very efficient tool for risk communication, however, the addressees must be sufficiently trained to understand the system and know the consequences of their behavior. Transparent labeling will increase the credibility of manufacturers and can lead to a subsequent improved risk management with a benefit for all stakeholders.

Occurrences and potential risks of 16 fragrances in five German sewage treatment plants and their receiving waters.

Fragrances are used in a wide array of everyday products and enter the aquatic environment via wastewater. While several musk compounds have been studied in detail, little is known about the occurrence and fate of other fragrances. We selected 16 fragrance compounds and scrutinized their presence in Bavarian sewage treatment plants (STP) influents and effluents and discussed their ecological risks for the receiving surface waters. Moreover, we followed their concentrations along the path in one STP by corresponding time-related water sampling and derived the respective elimination rates in the purification process. Six fragrance substances (OTNE, HHCB, lilial, acetyl cedrene, menthol, and, in some grab samples, also methyl-dihydrojasmonate) could be detected in the effluents of the investigated sewage treatment plants. The other fragrances under scrutiny were only found in the inflow and were eliminated in the purification process. Only OTNE and HHCB were found in the receiving surface waters of the STP in congruent concentrations, which exceeded the preliminary derived environmental thresholds by a factor of 1.15 and 1.12, respectively, indicating potential risks. OTNE was also detected in similar concentration ranges as HHCB in muscles and livers of fish from surface waters and from ponds that are supplied with purified wastewater. The findings show that some fragrance compounds undergo high elimination rates, whereas others-not only musks-are present in receiving surface water and biota and may present a risk to local aquatic biota. Hence, our results suggest that the fate and potential effects of fragrance compounds in the aquatic environment deserve more attention.

Contact allergens for armpits--allergenic fragrances specified on deodorants.

According to the so-called "26 allergens rule" 26 supposedly allergenic fragrances must be specified on the containers of cosmetic products if they are present above 0.001% in leave-on products and, 0.01% in rinse-off products. This declaration is meant to inform the consumers of potential risks of skin sensitizers in the products. As many consumers of deodorants suffer from allergic or irritant contact dermatitis in the axillae, the presence of allergens in deodorants deserves special attention. The objective of this study was to find answers to the following questions: Does compulsory labeling lead to omission of strong allergenic fragrances in deodorants? Is there a difference in the use patterns of strong and weak allergens? What is the quantitative exposure to fragrances by deodorants? Is the situation in Germany different from other European countries? Is there a difference between deodorants for men and for women? I tested the implementation of the "26 allergens rule" and compiled which allergenic fragrances are specified on the containers of deodorants. Three market studies were conducted in Germany in 2008, 2010 and 2011. The labels of a total number of 374 deodorants were analyzed as to whether any of the "26 allergens" were listed. The frequency of each allergen in the deodorants was compared with results from previous studies by other authors. It was found that up to 83% of the deodorants contain at least one of the "26 allergens" and that up to 30% of all products contain strong allergens above the threshold for labeling (0.001% in the product). The most frequently listed allergens are medium or weak allergens. In comparison with other authors, the frequency of the "26 allergens" in products is slightly smaller in these recent studies for the German market. There is no significant difference between deodorants for men and women, as far as the labeling of the "26 allergens" is concerned. The results show that the mandatory labeling procedure as designed in the "26 allergen rule" is not suitable to guarantee consumer safety for deodorants. As long as consumers are not informed about allergens in products in an easy to understand and transparent way, a compulsory pictogram on the container should inform them about possible risks.

Risk management by labelling 26 fragrances? Evaluation of Article 10 (1) of the seventh Amendment (Guideline 2003/15/EC) of the Cosmetic Directive.

BACKGROUND: Some fragrance compounds are severe contact allergens. According to the so-called "26 allergens rule" (Article 1 (10) of Directive 2003/15/EC) (EC, 2003), 26 supposedly allergenic fragrances must be listed on the containers of cosmetics products if they are present above certain mass percentages in the product. This declaration is meant to inform the consumer of potential risks of skin sensitizers in the products. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to validate whether "the 26 allergens rule" meets the expectations to improve consumer protection. METHODS: The method used for this validation was on one hand a reflection on the elements of the approach used in "the 26 allergens rule" and on the other hand a product analysis of 742 products by 4 large producers of cosmetic products on the German market. RESULTS: It was found that more than 50% of these cosmetic and washing and cleansing products contain at least one of the 26 substances above the thresholds for labelling and that there are 14% of all products which contain strong allergens. Many consumers apparently still buy these products. The indirect effect that producers reduce the amounts of these fragrances to avoid declaration seems to be small. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Several arguments were assembled which show that other instruments are needed to ensure consumer protection or protection of the environment. This paper recommends different approaches. The use of a list of single substances in such a directive is not in line with scientific standards. It is recommended to base decision making on comprehensive risk assessments or at least on valid and strong criteria. More parameters need to be involved, not only contact allergy. As illustrated in this article, the roles taken over by authorities and manufacturers in risk management of the "26 allergens" are relatively small compared with the responsibility carried by consumers. However, consumers are only able to take over their part properly if they are sufficiently trained and have the necessary infrastructure, capability and time to inform themselves. Regulations are not effective if they load the major responsibility for risk management on consumers, instead of on authorities and manufacturers. A successful risk management would include bans and restrictions of especially hazardous substances issued by governments, as well as efficient surveys to control the implementation of regulations by the responsible authorities. It would also include that producers meet the legal standards and take over voluntary action to make products safer. The evaluation of "the 26 allergens rule" is an example which can be transferred to other regulations and which could help to improve future regulatory approaches, with a focus on the roles authorities, manufacturers and consumers play in a promising risk management.

A new challenge-development of test systems for the infochemical effect.

BACKGROUND, AIM, AND SCOPE: Many-if not all-organisms depend on so-called infochemicals, chemical substances in their surroundings which inform the receivers about their biotic and abiotic environment and which allow them to react adequately to these signals. Anthropogenic substances can interfere with this complex chemical communication system. This finding is called infochemical effect. So far, it is not known to what extent anthropogenic discharges act as infochemicals and influence life and reproduction of organisms in the environment because adequate testing methods to identify chemicals which show the infochemical effect and to quantify their effects have not been developed yet. The purpose of this article is to help and find suitable test designs. MAIN FEATURES: Test systems used in basic research to elucidate the olfactory cascade and the communication of environmental organisms by infochemicals are plentiful. Some of them might be the basis for a quantified ecotoxicological analysis of the infochemical effect. In principle, test systems for the infochemical effect could be developed at each step of the chemosensory signal transduction and processing cascade. RESULTS: Experimental set-ups were compiled systematically under the aspect whether they might be usable for testing the infochemical effect of single chemicals in standardized quantifying laboratory experiments. For an appropriate ecotoxicological assessment of the infochemical effect, experimental studies of many disciplines, such as molecular biology, neurobiology, physiology, chemical ecology, and population dynamics, should be evaluated in detail before a decision can be made which test system, respectively which test battery, might be suited best. The test systems presented here are based on the knowledge of the genetic sequences for olfactory receptors, binding studies of odorants, signal transmission, and reactions of the receivers on the level of the organisms or the populations. The following basic approaches are conceivable to identify the role of an infochemical: binding studies to the odorant-binding protein or to the odorant receptor binding protein (e.g., by in situ hybridization and immunohistochemical studies), measurement of electrical signals of the receptor cells in the tissue (e.g., electroolfactograms, electroantennograms), registration of phenotypic changes (e.g., observation under the microscope), behavioral tests (e.g., in situ online biomonitoring, use of T-shaped olfactometers, tests of avoidance responses), measurement of population changes (e.g., cell density or turbidity measurements), and multispecies tests with observation of community structure and community function. The main focus of this study is on aquatic organisms. DISCUSSION: It is evident that the infochemical effect is a very complex sublethal endpoint, and it needs further studies with standardized quantitative methods to elucidate whether and to what extent the ecosystem is affected. The collection of approaches presented here is far from being complete but should serve as a point of depart for further experimental research. CONCLUSIONS: This article is the first to compare various approaches for testing the infochemical effect. The development of a suitable test system will not be easy as there are a multitude of relevant chemicals, a multitude of relevant receptors, and a multitude of relevant reactions, and it must be expected that the effective concentrations are very low. The chemical communication is of utmost importance for the ecosystem and justifies great endeavors to find solutions to these technical problems. RECOMMENDATIONS AND PERSPECTIVES: The infochemical effect is a new chapter in ecotoxicology. Will a new endpoint, the so-called infochemical effect, be required in addition to the actual standard test battery of Annex 5 to Commission Directive 92/69/EEC (EC 1992)? Finding the answer to this question is a big challenge that could be met by a comprehensive research project.

The infochemical effect-a new chapter in ecotoxicology.

BACKGROUND, AIM, AND SCOPE: Organisms use chemical cues in their surrounding, so-called infochemicals, as important source of information about their biotic and abiotic environment. The scope of this work is to transfer the knowledge on infochemicals obtained in chemical ecology into ecotoxicology, compare the observations with ecotoxicological standard tests, with other sublethal effects, and deduce consequences for the legal situation of environmental chemicals. MAIN FEATURES: General principles were elaborated from the compiled information from literature on the structures and roles of natural infochemicals. The experiences gained in chemical ecology and in ecotoxicology led to the discovery of the infochemical effect: Anthropogenic substances can influence the chemical communication of environmental organisms. This finding is supported by a close look at fragrances and other common anthropogenic substances in the environment. RESULTS: Increasing scientific knowledge shows how complex the chemical communication of environmental organisms is. Infochemicals are released by senders and detected by receivers. The relevant concentrations of infochemicals are very low, usually in the nano- to micromolar range and they do not seem to have common structural features. Knowledge about natural infochemicals is still poor and not consistent. The chemical cues fluctuate specifically in time and space resulting in dynamic response patterns in the ecosystem. Organisms can react to infochemicals in very specific ways by behavioral, morphological, or physiological responses; activities that are relevant for their survival as vital reactions such as flight, food uptake, or mating are affected. Anthropogenic substances at minor concentrations can interfere in the complex chemical communication web of infochemicals, possibly leading to increased vulnerability of populations. DISCUSSION: The findings show clearly that the actual description of the interplay of organisms in the ecosystem is still very simplified and we are far from understanding the interactions completely. Anthropogenic discharges may play a role on the chemical communication and, hence, on the behavior and interactions of organisms in the ecosystem. The description of the infochemical effect opens a new chapter in ecotoxicology. It is a challenge to develop a suitable test system for the infochemical effect with the knowledge of the multitude of possible reactions and of the high specificity of infochemicals. Problems during the performance and evaluation of standard tests might be related to reactions due to infochemicals in the test systems which have not been considered so far. CONCLUSIONS: The roles of anthropogenic infochemicals in the environment and the role of natural infochemicals in laboratory tests have been underestimated up to now. RECOMMENDATIONS AND PERSPECTIVES: The discrepancy between the biological relevance and the lack of data about infochemicals in the environment reveals the necessity of further research. According to the actual findings, infochemicals are so decisive for the interactions in the ecosystem that they should not be neglected in ecotoxicology. The discovery of the infochemical effect is comparable to the detection that environmental substances can act as hormones. Sublethal effects with impacts on the ecosystem, such as the infochemical effect, will receive higher appraisal in the ecotoxicology of the future. It needs to be clarified to which extent anthropogenic discharges disturb the natural chemical communication web. A systematic analysis of this very complex field will be needed to know whether a new ecotoxicological endpoint, the infochemical effect, will have to be taken up in the standard repertoire. The knowledge on infochemicals might require some adjustments of the legal framework on environmental chemicals in future. Looking closer at the infochemical effect will lead to a new understanding of the complexity of environmental communities.

Eco-labelling of shampoos, shower gels and foam baths.

GOAL, SCOPE AND BACKGROUND: Environmental issues of personal care products have been met with little attention in the past. Monitoring data as well as preliminary environmental risk assessments indicate that some ingredients in personal care products might be relevant pollutants in the environment. Following the precautionary principle, eco-labelling is proposed as an effective tool for source control of one major group of personal care products, shampoos, shower gels and foam baths (SSBs). Eco-labelling is a soft, but effective market driven and product specific approach to lower discharge of environmentally detrimental substances. Products that fulfil the criteria proposed help to minimise the impact of SSBs on the environment. METHODS: Available assessment tools for dangerous substances (e.g. current legislation on environmental risk assessments and classification, and labelling, eco-labelling criteria for similar products, the calculation of the critical dilution volume) were adapted and integrated into the criteria for the eco-labelling of SSBs. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A short outline of the eco-labelling criteria developed for SSBs is provided. The basic criteria concern the effects of the substances discharged into the waste water during and after use. Products with an eco-label award may exclusively contain substances for which basic information about their effects on the environment is available. They may not contain persistent, bioaccumulating, toxic or ecotoxicological substances. In addition, the basic criteria include requirements for the container and consumer information. CONCLUSION: The basic criteria for eco-labelling SSBs are based on the actual state of science and are at the same time as simple and transparent as possible to ensure the best applicability. SSBs that comply with the described basic criteria can contribute to a lower chemical burden of waste water treatment plants and surface water. RECOMMENDATION AND OUTLOOK: The proposal for basic criteria described should stimulate discussion on eco-labelling of SSBs. It should help to pass valid criteria supported by authorities, producers and consumer groups for a national or international eco-label, e.g. for the European Flower or the German Blue Angel. In future, the successful introduction of labelled SSBs into the market will raise the awareness of the general public about the environmental effects of personal care products and it will help to promote environmentally compatible products.

Fragrances in the Environment: Pleasant odours for nature? (9 pp).

GOAL, SCOPE AND BACKGROUND: Fragrance preparations or perfumes are used in an increasing variety of applications, as for example washing, cleansing, personal care products, consumer goods or in applications to modify indoor air. However, up to now, little is known to the general or scientific public about their chemical identity and the use pattern of single substances, not even for high production volume chemicals. Some toxicological data are published for a comparatively small number of substances with a focus on sensitisation and dermal effects, while other effects are neglected. Information on ecotoxicity and environmental fate are rare, especially for long-term exposure. Data for a detailed hazard and risk analysis are available in exceptional cases only. According to the current legal situation, fragrance industry is self-regulated, which means that pre-market risk evaluation is not required for most fragrances. Odour and the ability to smell play a major role for wildlife for all taxonomic groups. Reproductive and social behaviour, defence, communication and orientation depend on volatile compounds which can be identical to those used in fragrance preparations. Our interdisciplinary approach leads to the question of whether and, if so, to what extent anthropogenic fragrances may influence life and reproduction of organisms in the environment. MAIN FEATURES: Information from literature on use, exposure and biological effects was combined to analyse the state of knowledge. Following an overview of the amounts of fragrances used in different consumer products and their release into the environment, the roles of odours in nature are shown for a selection of compounds. Existing regulation was analysed to describe the data basis for environmental risk evaluation. Finally, recommendations for further action are derived from these findings. RESULTS: Three main results were elaborated: First, fragrance substances are continuously discharged in large amounts into the environment, especially via the waste water. Second, there are some indications of negative effects on human health or the environment, although the data basis is very thin due to the self regulation of the fragrance industry and the regulatory situation of fragrance substances. Third, many odoriferous substances used by man are identical to those which are signal substances of environmental organisms at very low concentrations, thus giving rise to specific mode of actions in the ecosystem. RECOMMENDATION: . For the adequate risk assessments of fragrances, test results on their unspecific as well as their specific effects as signal substances are needed. This would imply prioritisation methods and development of useful test methods for specific endpoints for appropriate risk assessments. Before a comprehensive testing and evaluation of results has been finished, a minimization of exposure should be envisaged. Eco-labelling of products containing acceptable fragrance ingredients could be a first step and provide consumers with the respective information. Transparency concerning the fragrance ingredients used and their biological potency will help to build up confidence between producers and consumers. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES: The interdisciplinary approach, bringing together chemical, biological, toxicological and ecotoxicological data with information provided by manufacturers and with legal and consumer aspects, offers new insights into the field of fragrance substances used in consumer products. The amounts and application fields of fragrance substances increases while fate and effects in the environment are hardly known. The current legal situation is not suited to elucidate the effects of fragrances on human health and the environment sufficiently, especially as it was shown that fragrances may play a considerable role in the ecosystem on the behaviour of organisms. According to the precautionary principle, the lack of knowledge should best be tackled by reducing exposure, especially for compounds such as fragrance substances where no ethical reasons object a substitution by less hazardous chemicals.