Just one word, listed on the label of numerous consumer products has sparked intense debate among environmental groups, scientists, legislators and industry.

That word is "fragrance" and -- when it appears in small print on a bottle of perfume or a container of laundry detergent -- represents the potentially hundreds of chemicals that give a product its characteristic scent.

Since all sides agree that reforms need to be made and outdated chemical safety laws updated, at the heart of the debate lies a deceptively simple question: are these chemicals dangerous?

While representatives from the industry say the answer is no, some research suggests otherwise.

Two recent reports, The Environmental Working Group and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics' "Not So Sexy: Hidden Chemicals in Perfume and Cologne" and the Women's Voices for the Earth's "What's that Smell? How the Pine Forest in Your Cleaning Product May be Hazardous to Your Health" -- detail the harmful effects of chemicals not printed on the ingredients label in cosmetics and cleaning products, respectively. Some of those chemicals, legally included in a product under the catch-all "fragrance," can cause health problems ranging from skin irritation to increased risk of breast cancer to reproductive and developmental harm, according to the reports. In short, they indicate that some chemicals may be doing a whole lot more than smelling nice.

Anne Steinemann, professor of civil and environmental engineering and public affairs at the University of Washington and one of the researchers behind the "What's that Smell" report, published two studies about toxic chemicals in fragrance products in 2009. In one, she found that nearly one-third of the national population experienced some sort of adverse effect in response to fragrance. In another, she found numerous volatile organic compounds -- some of which are regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal law -- in a variety of air fresheners and laundry supplies.

Jennifer Abril, executive director of the Fragrance Materials Association, an industry trade group, said recent reports of the dangers of chemicals are subjective and "unnecessarily alarming." Ms. Abril said she herself is a mother who has no qualms about using fragrance products in her home.

But others are saying some concern is warranted.

Only a small subsection of the thousands of chemicals in use today have been tested, said Maziar Movassaghi, acting director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and from DDT to lead history suggests that sometimes chemicals only seem safe until science advances enough to prove they're not.

"If you look at risk very narrowly, like industry tends to do, you might think things are fine," said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group. "If you look at complex mixtures, the many hundreds of chemicals we're exposed to in a day, things don't look quite so rosy."

The industry points to the over 100,000 studies in the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials database as proof of safety. An independent expert panel at RIFM evaluates scientific studies on the chemicals, and then the information is published in peer-reviewed journals. The conclusions of the panel form the basis for safety standards set by the International Fragrance Association, according to the RIFM website. In an annual review process, either a restriction or ban is placed on any ingredient of concern in a move which can be very costly for the industry, Ms. Abril said.

But there is an "inherent conflict of interest" when a system is allowed to largely regulate itself, and it's time that an outside regulatory agency is given some real authority, said Erin Switalski, director of Women's Voices for the Earth, a national non-profit devoted to improving women's health by eliminating toxic chemicals in the environment.

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration can't recall products if it believes they are harmful. The Environmental Protection Agency hasn't tried to ban a chemical since its attempt to ban asbestos in 1990 failed because it couldn't definitively prove asbestos was causing specific harm.

"Instead of using the U.S. population as a testing ground for chemicals, we need to be thoroughly examining them before allowing them to be on the market," said Ms. Switalski. "Prevention is really the cure here."

Consumers and industry should take a precautionary approach with chemicals already on the market that may be dangerous, agreed Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis, director of Women for a Healthy Environment, a local group dedicating to educating people about environmental issues and encouraging them to take action.

"If there is any potential for linkages to serious health effects, then at this point we eliminate that particular ingredient from the products that we use and our daily routine," she said.

That potential certainly seems apparent, and consumers have already begun demanding greater transparency from the industry.

The fragrance industry responded, beginning a voluntary initiative to disclose the 3,163 ingredients that could be making up each scent in January 2010.

The American Cleaning Institute, an industry trade group that has approximately 100 members, also began the Consumer Product Ingredient Communication Initiative, a uniform system for providing ingredient information, excluding those in fragrance. Ninety percent of eligible member company products are participating in the initiative, said Douglas Troutman, the group's senior director of government affairs.

But companies are resistant to detailing the exact make-up of each fragrance in a product because they only have a limited number of chemicals to choose from, and it's their creativity in combining ingredients to create a scent that really sets each company apart, Ms. Abril said.

Mr. Troutman added that legislation to disclose ingredients would halt innovation and isn't necessary at this time due to the overwhelming success of the voluntary initiative.

But just disclosing information on a voluntary basis could lead to an uneven playing field, with some companies disclosing information at potentially some expense to themselves while others do not, Mr. Movassaghi said.

The California bill released by his department -- which has a target implementation date of January 2011 -- seeks to reform the way the industry is regulated by prioritizing toxic chemicals and products and requiring manufacturers to seek safer alternatives.

And since one in eight consumers live in California, it might make sense for manufacturers to make available in places like Pittsburgh what they make available in California, he added.

Late last month, two bills were also introduced in Congress to address the issue of chemicals in products.

Sponsored by U.S. Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill., the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 would require companies to demonstrate that chemicals are safe instead of requiring the EPA to prove that they are not. The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., would give the FDA authority over personal care products, phase out potentially harmful ingredients, and create a standard of safety that seeks to protect even the most susceptible populations, including children.

"It's time to really start addressing the fact that we need to shift the paradigm," said Ms. Switalski, adding that the common adage applies: "Better safe than sorry."

A list of fragrance chemicals and their suspected safety concerns can be found at www.ewg.org/notsosexy.

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.