The organisation announced back in July that following random testing of 50 consumer products it had found a banned substance in one product, although it was not prepared to name the product or the substance.
IFRA’s investigation concluded that the product did definitely contain a recently banned substance, but after contacting the manufacturer and the fragrance supplier it had to then determine whether or not it was a case of non-compliance with the IFRA code of practice.
The organisation said that both the supplier and the manufacturer fully complied with the investigation, whereby it was established that the fragrance containing the substance in question was actually supplied before the IFRA standard was implemented.
IFRA prepared to 'name and shame'
At the beginning of the investigation, IFRA had said that if it did not have full compliance from either the manufacturer or the supplier, it would have no problem to ‘name and shame’.
From its investigation the organisation was able to conclude that the supplier was fully compliant with its code of practice and not liable to disciplinary action.
Ensure compliance for safety standards
“This incident demonstrates that the IFRA Compliance Programme is robust and effective ensuring that IfRA standars are adhered to worldwide and that consumers can continue to enjoy the safe use of fragrances,” said Jean-Pierre Houri, IFRA director general.
About 90 percent of fragrances in the global marketplace are manufactured by IFRA members who are obliged to comply with the code, so although the association has no legal standing its influence is wide reaching.
Last year, when two cycles of 100 percent compliance had been reported, IFRA said self regulation had two advantages: compliance was high and standards were stricter than wider regulation.
“We ban more then the EU. On receiving new science about the safety of an ingredient we can move within a year, much faster than government,” said Stephen Weller, director of communications at IFRA.