Little did we know when we launched our new e-newsletter P&Fnow in January that we would cause a firestorm in the industry over a poll that accompanied a story on IFRA’s 40th Amendment.
     This poll asked readers to give their view on two opposing sides of the issue. After posting the initial poll results we received numerous letters citing the fact that the poll allowed individuals to vote multiple times. Hoping to correct this situation, we relabelled and reposted the poll.
     Almost immediately we received further letters from readers asking that the poll be removed. Among those was a letter from IFRA’s director general, Jean-Pierre Houri, which he asked we print (see below). Those opposing the amendment felt we reposted the poll so that the other side could place additional votes, which was not the case, and wanted the initial results to stand. Those in favor of the amendment maintained that the poll could not be used as a true barometer of the industry because of its unscientific nature. With this in mind we removed the poll from our Web site.
     Perfumer & Flavorist’s goal is to be an advocate for and to report the developments in the industry. Instead, we unintentionally created a wedge, further dividing two deeply committed organizations. We regret any controversy or ill will that running the poll and subsequent results might have caused.

-P&Fnow

TO THE EDITOR:
We were very surprised and disappointed to see the so-called Cropwatch “poll” on the Newsletter website, which resulted in pitting one segment of the fragrance industry against another. Instead of organizing an objective, informative and honest forum for the discussion of IFRA’s new QRA methodology, and what it means for the fragrance industry, this exercise became an immediate focus of controversy, fueled by a call from one segment to “stuff the ballot box.”
     IFRA believes that consumer health and environmental issues are not negotiable and must be addressed in a serious and consistent way. The position espoused by Cropwatch is diametrically opposed to this philosophy. In addition, the opportunity for manipulation of your poll has undermined any potential value.
     As we have already pointed out, the QRA represents scientific progress in assessing the safety of fragrances and fragrance ingredients. The QRA has been developed by well-respected experts from industry segments, both large and small, and recognized independent scientific authorities. We request the opportunity to explain to P&F readers why we have moved to the QRA and why it represents significant scientific progress over the former IFRA approach, in an article or an interview in your magazine.
     IFRA is always open to collaborate with serious and responsible organizations having as an objective the development of the fragrance industry, but we strongly object to attempts by any special interest group that would put at risk the health of consumers and the protection of the environment.

-Jean-Pierre Houri
Director General
IFRA