Those 80 "not used anymore" materials split into two piles when you sort by FEMA number

About 4 minutes.

Last time I compared the cosmetic_uses value "not used anymore" against the category field, found that 62 of the 80 records still carried a flavour or fragrance category, and described it as two fields contradicting each other.

That was imprecise, and I had picked the wrong field to test with.

category is this database's own housekeeping label, and it is loose. Chloroform's category is "substances for use only as components of…", dibutyl phthalate's is "indirect food additives". That field says roughly what kind of thing something is, not who has approved it.

Switch fields and it comes apart cleanly.

Cut by FEMA number

A FEMA number is the registration the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association gives a flavour ingredient, and the regulatory field carries the matching JECFA, CoE and FLAVIS listings alongside it. Having a number means some body still treats it as a usable flavour material.

Running the 80 "not used anymore" records against it:

	Records	Share
Still has a FEMA number	26	32%
No FEMA at all	54	68%

That single cut splits the 80 into two piles that mean completely different things.

Pile one: out of cosmetics, still a legal flavour material

The 26 with FEMA numbers mostly have the full set in regulatory: "JECFA, FEMA GRAS, CoE, FLAVIS".

The representative case is dihydrocoumarin (119-84-6): 55 suppliers, FEMA 2381, JECFA 1171, FLAVIS 13.009, CoE 535, and FCC listed Yes — with cosmetic_uses reading "not used anymore".

That is not a contradiction; it is two uses moving separately. It left cosmetics and stayed on the flavour register. (Its full record, and a 2006 PLoS Genetics paper about it, are in Material guide: dihydrocoumarin.)

The same pile holds allyl isothiocyanate (53 suppliers, the heat in mustard), massoia lactone (32), furfuryl alcohol (31) and costus root oil (21).

What it means for you: you will still meet these in a flavour context. Do not use them in a cosmetic or perfume one.

Pile two: genuinely gone

For the 54 with no FEMA number, the list is the answer:

Kind	Materials
Solvents and industrial chemicals	chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, diethylene glycol, hexane, 2-ethoxyethanol, morpholine, diethanolamine
Plasticisers	dibutyl phthalate (14 suppliers), benzyl butyl phthalate
Known carcinogenicity or phototoxicity concerns	safrole, psoralen, naphthalene, catechol, cobalt sulfate
Nitro musks	moskene, musk tibetene, versalide
Coumarin derivatives	7-methyl coumarin, 8-tert-butyl-4,6-dimethyl coumarin, hexahydrocoumarin
Others	savin oil (juniperus sabina), geranyl nitrile (20), bromstyrol (13), glyceryl PABA, colourant CI 45380

Not one item in this pile is "still usable somewhere else". They have been moved out entirely.

And note: geranyl nitrile still has 20 suppliers, dibutyl phthalate 14, bromstyrol 13, hexane 18, diethanolamine 18. Supplier count is no guide at all to usability, and this pile makes that clearer than the last article did.

So the order to check a material in

1. Does cosmetic_uses say "not used anymore"? If so, continue.
2. Does regulatory still carry FEMA / JECFA / CoE / FLAVIS?
   • Yes → what it left is cosmetics; the flavour line is still open. Do not put it in a perfume.
   • No → it is out everywhere. Do not use it.
3. Either way, go and check the IFRA standards and your region's cosmetic regulation. These two database fields are a prompt, not a verdict.
4. Ignore supplier count.

What this article corrects

Last time I wrote that "62 of the 80 still carry a flavour or fragrance category, so the two fields contradict each other". The number is right, but category was the wrong field to test with — it is loose enough to put chloroform and dihydrocoumarin under the same impression of "still a fragrance material".

Cut by FEMA it is 26 against 54, and the two piles mean entirely different things. Last time's conclusion — do not use cosmetic_uses to decide usability — still stands; this adds the usable next step.

What this doesn't establish

• This is still a field audit, not a regulatory check. The FEMA numbers exist in this database's fields; I did not check each against FEMA's own register, nor whether any have been withdrawn.
• "Has a FEMA number, so it is legal as a flavour" is a simplification. FEMA GRAS is a US industry self-determination process, and food regulation elsewhere does not necessarily follow it.
• The groupings in the 54-item table are mine, made for explanation, not the database's classification.
• I did not trace which regulation removed each one from cosmetics, or when.
• Some materials with no FEMA number were never flavour materials — colourants, plasticisers, solvents. For them the absence means "never registered", not "withdrawn". That is the biggest limit on this cut.
• The 26 and 54 come from an August 2026 snapshot of the database.