Regulations to address toxic scents

The Philippines has seen this story before — only the packaging has changed.

A few years ago, public attention focused on “killer alcohol,” where methanol contamination in illicit liquor caused blindness and death. The danger was clear: methanol is a toxic industrial chemical with no place in products intended for human consumption.

Today, a disturbingly similar issue appears to be emerging in an unexpected industry: perfume.

Recent independent tests reportedly conducted by the Philippine Institute of Pure and Applied Chemistry found that several locally manufactured perfume products allegedly contained methanol at levels reaching as high as 67%. If validated by regulators, this should immediately trigger alarm bells across government agencies responsible for public health and consumer protection.

The numbers matter.

Under EU and US cosmetic regulations, as well as ISO standards governing fragrance safety, methanol is generally tolerated only as a trace impurity — typically below 0.1% to 0.3%. In other words, global safety standards do not recognize methanol as an acceptable perfume ingredient. Anything beyond trace contamination levels is considered unsafe.

A finding of 67% is therefore not a technical lapse. It points to a possible systemic problem.

Methanol is not ordinary alcohol. It is commonly used in industrial solvents, fuel, and antifreeze. Scientific literature has long documented its dangers. Excessive exposure — whether through ingestion, inhalation, or prolonged skin contact — may lead to headaches, nausea, neurological injury, blindness, and in severe cases, death.

Ethanol, not methanol, is the accepted alcohol base for fragrances worldwide.

Yet the Philippine fragrance market has grown rapidly in recent years. Local perfume brands have flourished through social media marketing, online selling platforms, and aggressive pricing. What was once dominated by imported luxury brands has evolved into a thriving entrepreneurial sector catering to cost-conscious consumers.

This growth should actually be welcomed. It reflects Filipino creativity and enterprise.

But rapid industry expansion without equally strong safeguards creates risks.

The commercial incentives are obvious. Methanol is significantly cheaper than cosmetic-grade ethanol. In a highly competitive market where many brands compete largely on affordability, the temptation to substitute inputs or cut corners becomes real.

That is precisely why regulation exists.

Unfortunately, the current issue suggests that enforcement may not be keeping pace with industry growth. Product registration alone is clearly insufficient if dangerous substances can still allegedly enter consumer products.

Government regulators must now step in decisively.

The Food and Drug Administration, together with the Department of Trade and Industry, should immediately establish stricter testing and certification protocols for locally manufactured alcohol-based perfumes and cosmetic sprays.

At present, many small manufacturers rely heavily on supplier declarations and self-certification. That is no longer enough.

There must be mandatory laboratory validation of alcohol composition before products are released commercially. More importantly, regulators should conduct regular random post-market testing of products already being sold in stores and online platforms.

Testing protocols need not be overly burdensome. The country already possesses scientific institutions and laboratories capable of performing gas chromatography and related analytical procedures to determine methanol content accurately. What is lacking is not technical capability but regulatory resolve.

The government should also consider requiring manufacturers to disclose the type and source of alcohol used in formulations. Consumers deserve transparency about products applied directly to their skin and inhaled daily.

Equally important are meaningful penalties.

If proven violations merely result in minor fines or warnings, irresponsible manufacturers may simply treat compliance as optional. Public health regulations only work when enforcement creates real deterrence.

At stake is not merely industry reputation but consumer safety.

Perfume is not viewed by the public as a risky product. It is sprayed on the body, used repeatedly throughout the day, and often applied in enclosed spaces such as offices, vehicles, and bedrooms. Many consumers — including students and young professionals — may unknowingly expose themselves to harmful substances over prolonged periods.

The irony is painful. A product associated with personal confidence and self-expression may instead become a hidden health hazard.

Responsible local perfume manufacturers should actually welcome tighter standards. Stronger regulation protects legitimate businesses from unfair competition by unscrupulous players using substandard or unsafe ingredients to undercut prices.

In the long run, stricter standards strengthen — not weaken — the industry.

The Philippines has an opportunity to build a credible local fragrance sector capable of competing regionally. But credibility cannot rest solely on clever branding or viral marketing. It must be anchored on safety, transparency, and consumer trust.

The science surrounding methanol is already settled. The acceptable limits are already clear. The alleged findings are serious enough to warrant urgent regulatory action.

The question now is whether authorities will act before a public health incident forces them to.

The views expressed herein are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of his office as well as FINEX.

Benel Dela Paz Lagua was previously EVP and chief development officer at the Development Bank of the Philippines.  He is an active FINEX member and an advocate of risk-based lending for SMEs. Today, he is independent director in progressive banks and in some NGOs.