A recent study by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM) published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology addresses the critical distinction between a chemical's inherent hazard and its actual risk to consumers, emphasizing that toxicity data is often misinterpreted without the context of real-life exposure.
"Hazard describes what a substance might do at different, often extremely high, doses," said Kaushal Joshi, PhD, DABT, RIFM principal scientist and study co-author. "Risk reflects what actually happens at real-world levels. This study reinforces why exposure is the key driver of safety."
To illustrate the safety of everyday products, researchers compared the no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAEL) of common ingredients, such as benzaldehyde and p-cymene, with typical consumer usage. The findings revealed that the doses required to trigger adverse effects are functionally impossible to reach through normal use; for example, a person would need to apply 276,660 sprays of benzaldehyde or 37,220 sprays of p-cymene in a single day to reach those levels.
Titled "The difference between hazard and risk: the dose range prevalent in toxicological studies vs real life fragrance exposure," the report further notes that for the past decade, RIFM has ensured fragrance safety without relying on new animal studies, instead utilizing sophisticated aggregate exposure models to provide realistic estimates of consumer risk. These models show that even "loyal" users at the 95th percentile of exposure encounter extremely low levels of fragrance materials—equivalent to just 0.2 to 0.3 drops of the neat ingredients over an entire year across all personal care and household products.
Anne Marie Api, Ph.D., fellow ATS, RIFM president, and study co-author, noted, "When hazard information is combined with realistic exposure data, it's clear the risk associated with normal fragrance use is extremely low."
By communicating risk through these practical analogies, the study aims to reinforce consumer confidence and move the industry toward more science-driven, realistic safety assessments that prioritize real-world exposure over theoretical hazards.
