Why is the fragrance industry so secretive?

Smoke in a jar

(This is a follow-up post to the earlier article: “What is a perfumer and how to become one.”)

Why aren’t perfume ingredients listed in full?

Why do we have to rely on a generic list of everything that could possibly be in fragrance, issued by IFRA (which rather puts a dampener on the scaremongers who claim that fragrances are full of “secret chemicals”. Having said that, the list is probably not exhaustive – the rise of kitchen sink amateur perfumery, and of independent natural perfumery means that there are people tincturing, distilling and otherwise producing some of their own materials).
Why does the fragrance industry insist on apparently circumventing laws which affect other cosmetic products (fine fragrances are, after all, classed as cosmetics as far as regulators go)? Or food – let’s look at food. Why should fragrances earn special treatment when food companies must list all of their ingredients?

With gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), surely every competitor will know what is in the fragrance anyway?

Good questions. However, there are some answers which may shed light on the reasons. I don’t pretend to know all of them, nor do I wish to attempt to defend, or speak for the industry as such, but there are many reasons why fragrance remains a special case.

Two magicians

The cooking analogy seems so attractive. There seems to be no difference between cooking and perfumery. Except, of course there is. Some rather big differences, actually. Flavours in processed food can be hidden from us, much the same way as fragrances can be in cosmetics or household products. “Natural flavour” on the ingredients list could mean a complex formula, and there are good commercial reasons for keeping them secret. What would happen to the Coca Cola company if they had to list their flavour on the bottle? We all know that other cola brands exist, and while they’re all recognisably ‘cola’ (a mix of citrus and spice), none of them taste like Coca Cola*.

With food, if you start with cheap ingredients, you may be able to transform them to something edible (and some cheap ingredients like lentils are actually very good for you), but if you took a piece of cheap meat, you’d never transform it into a good steak. With cooking, one usually can tell what one is eating (unless you’re eating a very clever dish from Heston Blumenthal). With perfumery, the whole concept is based on a kind of olfactory illusion. Good perfumers are illusionists. They exploit the combinational nature of our olfactory perception, and create accords; mixtures of ingredients which together smell of their own smell, rather than of an obvious combination of the materials used. In other words, a perfume is greater than a sum of its parts. The cost of ingredients doesn’t necessarily determine the finesse of the finished fragrance.

Accords form the basis of conventional fragrance families (chypre, oriental, fougere and so on). When we perceive a fragrance, our brains create a cognitive construct of the smell based on many factors, including our genetic make-up, scent memories, cultural preferences and so on (about which I wrote extensively for ODOU, Issue 1). Everyone’s cognitive construct is slightly different, and will recall familiar smells, imagery, emotions and events unique to that person.

Ask yourself – would it be fair for us to insist that before we go to see an illusionist, or a stage macician, we should be given full disclosure of exactly the tools and techniques used to achieve their magic? Would it enhance their performance, or ruin it? Would it affect their earning potential?

Safety is a consideration, of course. Perfume safety is mostly looked after by an industry-controlled body, IFRA, which responds to the recommendations of an independent research body (RIFM), and tries to communicate with regulators to reach reasonable conclusions about fragrance safety. Unfortunately, this process hasn’t been perfect, and has left fragrances needlessly over-regulated. There are many conspiracy theories about IFRA, too, one of the most popular ones being a ‘destruction of naturals so that the main members can take over the market with synthetic alternatives’ which doesn’t ring true the moment one explores the topic further. Just check out the revenue each of the main IFRA members earns from the production and distribution of natural materials, and think whether it would make good business sense to kill that part of the industry. Never mind the astronomical cost to fragrance manufacturers, should everything have to be re-formulated (that’s right – the cost of reformulation has to be covered by the fragrance supply house, not the downstream users). I will write more about that another time. Nevertheless, this post is also partly an attempt to explain the need for an industry-controlled body; there should be reasonable expectations to keep certain things a trade secret, providing consumers are protected. While the interface between the industry and law-makers leaves a lot to be desired (talk about cracking a walnut with a hammer, anyone?), the current system could still be a basis for a healthier appreciation of real risk vs. just banning fragrance outright (which could happen if scaremongering organisations like the Environmental Working Group get their way – this is the type of lobbying* which leads to EU and international pressure to ban and over-regulate fragrances). We must promote scientific literacy, and proper evaluation of risk (context and dose matter). For example, we all know that radioactivity is bad, right? However, all living things are radioactive. Ruh-oh! Now what? Ban all the things!

Ban all the things

Perfumes can create extraordinary associations for us. Scents can instantly remind us of things. That, combined with the suggestibility of the human mind (and its preference for narrative structure to information) means that perfume marketing has always been full of stories and fantasy. We love stories, and they help sell products. When the scent of a consumer product matches expectations, its users perceive the product to be more effective. This has been studied – give people two identical shampoo formulas, and the one with a successful fragrance will be perceived as having left the hair cleaner and shinier than the other.

A hypnotist

Listing ingredients for a perfume is about as informative as listing every paint used to paint a picture.

Actually, even less. By the time colours have been blended, they will look different to the prime colours they originally were. Mona Lisa contains blue, green, yellow, red, black and white. Can you tell, based on that, what it looks like and whether you’ll like it?
Lily of the valley

Good perfumers also know that rose oil doesn’t smell of roses in bloom, it smells of rose oil, and to construct a rose-in-bloom, one must construct a rose accord (which can be enhanced by the use of natural rose oil, of course). To construct a lily-of-the-valley, one must use many synthetic materials because the flowers don’t yield an essential oil. Using a little bit of bergamot or ylang-ylang in a lily-of-the-valley accord can enhance it. If one were to list ylang-ylang on the ingredient list of the finished product, one could put off a consumer who loathes the smell of ylang-ylang itself. In a well-built lily-of-the-valley accord, the ylang-ylang would not stand out, and would instead form part of the rich, floral aspect of the lily-of-the-valley scent.

A good perfumer can make cheap materials smell expensive, and a bad perfumer can make expensive materials smell cheap. (There is a breaking point with the former; if you have an extremely low budget, or are developing a fragrance for a hostile base product, say bleach, you’re a bit stuffed).

Cooking is a basic survival skill, and simple forms of cooking should be taught to all. Perfuming things is more of a frivolity, and not essential to survival (though I have many friends who would disagree), so the skills to make fragrances for consumer products have not been essential general knowledge. On the other hand, in Victorian times, cooks were regularly concocting fragranced creams and other products in the kitchen, and barbers might also have been perfumers, and amateur perfumery is once again on the rise. I don’t think the industry has considered this aspect of fragrance safety enough, and it might be better to find ways to reliably inform the general public without giving too many trade secrets away, than risk a kind of perfumery black market, which is already establishing itself.

Ingredient lists

Familiarity and the feeling of safety are essential when marketing products.

Listing the names of natural materials that the accords in the fragrance are meant to represent is much more effective than listing the ingredients used to create the effect.
Consumers are far more likely to have positive feelings towards a product which lists “lily of the valley” as an ingredient, than a product which lists “hydroxycitronellal, citronellol, alpha-terpineol, phenylethyl alcohol, indole, lilial, florosa…”. Another issue is practicality. I made a very simple lily-of-the-valley accord last week, and the ingredients ran to over a dozen (about 15, if I remember correctly). If I were to use that fragrance base at, let’s say, 1% in a fragrance compound consisting of 10 ingredients, I’d end up with a list of 25 ingredients before I even added the finished fragrance to a product. The product itself might have 20 ingredients, so you’d end up with a list of 45 ingredients on a label. Not only would they be highly unlikely to fit on a label, the long list would needlessly scare consumers who have been taught that a) “simple is best”, b) “chemicals are bad” and c) “unless you can pronounce the ingredient, it’s bad for you”. (a) everything is made up of chemicals, b) not necessarily, c) try some of these).

We all love the idea of natural materials. The concept is just so safe and… wholesome. Natural jasmine absolute smells wonderful, and can do wonderful things to a fragrance. Natural oakmoss is tough to mimic. All-natural perfumery seems like a superior concept; safer, unaltered from how Nature intended (replace that with God if you’re religious). Marketers and product manufacturers have always appealed to our emotions. We instinctively gravitate towards the word “natural”. There are silent words between-the-lines. Natural = safe, in our minds.

Say, would you like some natural arsenic?

In safety terms, and in terms of appropriate use, “natural” is a meaningless concept. We shouldn’t confuse an emotional and aesthetic argument with one about safety.

There are, therefore, some parallels with the cosmetic industry here; many ingredients on cosmetic product labels sound very scary and synthetic, but are actually there just to perform a function, rather than to do anything for the consumer. Waxes, opacifiers, thickeners, emulsifiers, foaming agents and preservatives are needed to create cosmetic products, and the role of these materials is to make the product what it is. The list of active ingredients (let’s say, a humectant like hyaluronic acid), can actually be quite small. It can be difficult to reassure consumers that a preservative is a necessary evil, or that some scary chemical-sounding ingredient is actually a completely benign wax, used to thicken the product.

Rose

In an ideal world, everyone would be scientifically literate; we’d all be comfortable evaluating risk and context, and we’d skip and hop through fields, not only naming the plants we’re seeing along the way, but knowing that they’re all little chemical factories. In this ideal world, we would be more comfortable about labelling all products in a totally transparent way. It could be an interesting experiment to insist natural products are labelled similarly, as per the James Kennedy example. Rose oil is made up of hundreds of chemicals, though (over 300, I believe), so it could get logistically impossible.

In fact, the main argument over the several dozen new fragrance ‘allergens’ identified by the SCCS is about how manufactures will label their products with the total number of ingredients and ‘allergens’ which must be listed soon running into silly numbers. There has been some talk about listing everything on a peel-off label, or on websites, but there has not been a decision yet at the time of writing.

An alchemist

Back before gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) became commonplace in the fragrance industry, chemists and the fragrance material producers they worked with, were able to create chemicals and mixtures with deliberately obscure trade names, in an attempt to mask the true nature of the substances in question. That’s why ‘aldehyde C14’ is not really an aldehyde, for example (it’s really a lactone, gamma undecalactone, to be precise).

However, even with a GC-MS machine and a good database, a skillful operator is needed – the readouts can be matched to entries in a database, but it takes a knowledgeable person to identify what the likely answers are. A single peak can be matched to several potential molecules. In natural materials, certain chemicals go together (biological processes and chemical reactions create recognisable chemical “fingerprints”). So if you’re analysing a natural oil which contains anethole, you should also find estragole (methyl chavicol).

Perfume bottles

Fragrance mixtures can’t be patented or trademarked.

This is a problem for an industry which relies on selling fragrance mixtures to brands and product manufacturers. There are various methods with which to make copying fragrances tougher. Even a simple fragrance formula can contain one or two proprietary chemicals (that is, fragrance molecules developed by the company manufacturing the fragrance compound. New molecules can be patented and held “captive” for the duration of the patent, thereby giving the producer of said molecule a commercial advantage). I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask that a company whose income relies on creating and selling formulas to a third party (whilst said formulas cannot be patented or trademarked) should be allowed to keep aspects of the formula secret (allergens and IFRA-regulated constituents have to be revealed).

Bases are a common other trick – let’s say I wanted to make a floral fragrance and use some of the lily-of-the-valley accord I made earlier; I could add that, plus a two or three other bases to a skeleton formula. The finished fragrance compound could end up with a hundred ingredients or more, many of them present at justΒ  trace in the finished (diluted) product. There are many fragrance materials which impart a noticeable effect on the smell, even at trace amounts (aldehydes, animalic materials and lactones, for example), but when they are present at low quantities, the GC-MS trace will have numerous small peaks, which can be tricky to analyse correctly. The trace is not like a Tesco receipt; it takes skill and a good-quality database to interpret it correctly.

A technical perfumer, quality controller, evaluator or a chemist can perform the GC-MS analysis, and the job has to be finished by a creative perfumer, who may be able to create a more convincing reconstruction by smelling the scent. Deliberately inducing selective anosmia is a popular trick for copying fragrances.

The fragrance industry is somewhat peculiar, also, in how many of the competitors are each others’ customers. A perfumer in one company may wish to use a material created by another company. One company might specialise in natural materials, while another is strong on aroma chemicals. I’ve listened to sales conversations in which both participants are selling something to oneanother. One person is buying in a base, and at the same time, selling a natural absolute to the other.

Buying in materials directly from the source is a fantastic way for a supplier to ensure a competitive edge, but it’s wise to keep the sources to oneself or a competitor might snap up next season’s crop. Natural materials do run out all the time – and natural material suppliers offer opportunities to reserve a part of the season’s supply for important customers. Keeping various internal networks and relationships secret therefore doesn’t stretch to just the fragrance supplier-(brand)-consumer; it is absolutely vital to certain aspects of how the industry operates internally.

All of the above goes some way towards explaining why the industry relies on relationships and a degree of secrecy to stay viable. There are many situations in which it would be detrimental to the whole industry to ‘let the cat out of the bag’ to the degree that many campaigners seem to want.

This represents a difficult entry to the world of perfumery for people who attempt to study it on their own.

Rubber band ball

Self-studying perfumery is like trying to accurately describe the inside of a ball of rubber bands, whilst only being able to see the outside of it.

Or like looking for a needle in a haystack, complete with several fake needles and fake haystacks. Or like the Indian parable of blind men and an elephant. Not knowing what you don’t know can lead to mistakes, frustration, and to incorrect assumptions about the true nature of things.
The main benefit of getting mentored by a conventionally-trained perfumer, is the passing down of insider knowledge, and of known combinations and good accords. A perfumery tutor today carries the knowledge of decades of experimentation. You could spend a week trying to create the creamiest possible incarnation between vanillin and ethylvanillin, when an experienced perfumer, carrying in his or her head the received wisdom of all the generations before, could tell you in seconds what works. And once you know the basics, it’s easier to be creative. Amateur-would-be-indie perfumers are at a disadvantage because they have to re-invent everything, and much of the information in the public domain is outdated, misleading or plain wrong. Those who make it, and produce beautiful, commercially successful perfumers despite of this, are a celebration of human creativity and endeavour.

The biggest obstacle to amateur perfumery is time.

I think it’s fair for perfumery to retain some of its magic. I think it’s fine for the notes lists in perfumery marketing materials to be somewhat fictitious (but I don’t think it’s fine to lie to consumers that a product which contains synthetic materials is “all-natural” because that only goes towards creating a false divide between natural and synthetic chemicals).

What the industry needs, however, is far more accessible education for both consumers and people who wish to work in it (independently or not).

————————————————————————————————————————————-

Copyright Pia Long. You may not reproduce this article in any publication without explicit prior written permission. If you want to use this post for staff training, or for any internal educational purpose (at a school, university or any other organisation), please use it under these conditions: 1) it must remain complete, unaltered and include this notice, 2) you must include the complete URL to this page and my name, 3) you must not include it as part of any training for which you are charging a fee (without explicit prior written permission).

This was a follow-up post to the earlier article: “What is a perfumer and how to become one.”

————————————————————————————————————————————-

* The Coca Cola point was added by Walter Paget in a lively discussion about this article on the Perfumer & Flavorist LinkedIn page.

* Please take everything you see at the EWG with a pinch of salt. Its mission seems to be to scare consumers, not to inform them. Whilst some of the data they use is undoubtedly of interest, the way it’s represented is not designed to help anyone make correct judgements – it seems to be designed to scare consumers into buying “safe shopping” guides, and into making donations. The way many of their articles are written seems to suggest that safety is a binary condition; that things are either safe or not safe. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Water is safe until you drink too much of it in one sitting (at which point your salt balance goes out of whack, your brain swells and you die), or end up with a thimbleful in your lungs (at which point you could drown).

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Why is the fragrance industry so secretive?

  1. Do you see perfumery heading toward a very small scale whereby individuals could create their own in a short time frame for low costs? I’m thinking 3D printing but for perfume…
    As someone very interested in technology I’m excited by this prospect, making perfumes “Open Source” if you will.

  2. I think it has potential to head that way, but there are some fairly major obstacles in the way. One of the biggest ones is availability of materials. The large fragrance ingredient suppliers (who invent and manufacture new fragrance molecules, manufacture common aroma chemicals, and supply natural raw materials) tend to have very high minimum order quantities, and they also tend to be quite strict about selling their stuff to just anybody. So distributors step in, and purchase, say 10kg or 100kg, or 400kg of a material, and re-sell it to even smaller re-sellers, who may then package the materials in starter kits, or bottles as small as 10ml. Not all materials are available this way, and there is quite a lot of adulteration going around (partly because it’s not profitable to sell in tiny quantities; the regulatory burden and staff costs are exactly the same whether you pour out 100ml or 100kg of a material and sell it on). There’s definitely a business opportunity there, if someone manages to work out how to sell perfume creation kits profitably.

    • Hmm… Barriers to entry indeed…
      I was hoping more for a machine that worked like the reverse of your smell analyser – You would enter the composition and it would create it using technology and a few generic ingredients.
      I may be getting carried away with this but I’ve seen a working wrench built in minutes out of powder and imagined if something similar happened for fragrance creation, it would be awesome πŸ˜€
      (Link to the wrench video if you’re interested – http://youtu.be/jQ-aWFYT_SU)

      • *Maybe* one could build a fragrance compounding machine with the scents in refill packs, which would be supplied a bit like pods for coffee machines. And providing the manufacturer of the fragrance compound would also produce (via sub-contract, probably), the machine itself, you’d have a nice situation. There would have to be a limited set of “formulas”, though, because the machine wouldn’t hold 3000 ingredients. But that could totally work. There are some other issues. Fragrances, when mixed, usually benefit from being left to chemically react for a week or more (certain materials react with oneanother to form new compounds once blended, and others just need some time to settle down, like indole). So you wouldn’t really be able to just push a button and get a usable perfume (unless the pre-programmed perfume formulas had been designed not to require maceration time).

        That’ll be Β£2000 consultancy fee. :p

  3. Kudos on a very well-written article Pia, I think it was written clearly for both for lay people and fragrance professionals. As an active member of the fragrance community, I am very discouraged that consumers are as confused as ever (read: EWG). What makes anyone thing that adding more to the label will do any good? I think more words may as well be skull and crossbones.

    The bottom line is that the interface between industry and law-makers lacks the main ingredient…someone who can translate so it can be presented to consumers and independent (amateur or professional) perfumers in a concise and understandable way. I am of a mind that this is possible. In any case, it is ground worth covering with you in detail during our chat for an episode of my new Podcast – WondAROMA – which will launch first week of September (a shameless plug i hope you will allow).
    -Thanks,
    Christine (www.perfumersupplyhouse.com)

  4. Hi Pia,

    It’s always such a pleasure to read your articles, they are very well written and researched!

    This one touches upon a topic that is close to my heart. I share your opinions and follow your arguments. Especially the one on: why are natural ingredients allowed to be listed using laymen terms, even when they are comprised of hundreds of ‘scary’ chemicals.
    I also agree with your point on the struggles of artisan perfumers, but also how all the safety issues that the explosion of kitchen sink manufactured products (will) impact consumers and the industry as a whole.

    What I would like to add. The food industry is filled with at least the same amount of secrecy as the fragrance one, hence the term F&F (flavours & fragrances). Flavours are also allowed the comfort of the trade secret blanket, a simple ‘aroma’ or ‘flavour’ sometimes pared with a connotation of ‘natural’ suffices on the list of foods.

    I totally applaud the call for more education, that’s why I created SomethingSmelly.com, to educate on all things smelly without forgetting that the sense of smell is huge fun.

    On the other hand I still struggle on the daily basis with confidentiality terms when trying to help others, gathering information on raw materials, publishing research or something as simple as publicly sharing testimonials and recommendations on the web. Sometimes I stand in my lab doing a bad impression of Al Pacino in The Godfather: ‘just when I thought I was out, they pull me right back in’ πŸ˜‰

    Thanks again for writing this!
    Irina

    • Thank you, Irina! The trouble with education is that there is a mistrust of expertise, and of authority, big business and the like. So once you get to a level of being able to understand a complex topic well enough to inform people, you might be viewed as an industry apologist or a shill. It’s one tough nut to crack.

      • Indeed, Pia. I guess time will tell (given enough patience & perseverance). The independent consultant is an even rarer bird than the independent perfumer πŸ˜‰

        Ow I wanted to add 1 thing that dawned on me on the topic ‘why the secrecy’. Imho the fragrance industry as a whole isn’t really an united front like other industries, because of the whole secrecy and the competition spirit you have accurately described. It’s also imho 1 of the reasons why there is so little (open) rebellion against over-regulation. And why the natural lobby is much stronger, they form a much more united and vocal front.

  5. Great article Pia. We agree on lots of things, especially training & development and love of perfume and the industry! Being devils advocate, the doubters (read consumers susceptible to messages from EWG / Natural marketing / anti-chemical / anti-big-business) will assume the secrecy comes for negative reasons and be concerned. I agree that putting everything on a physical consumer label is a bit bonkers, and also think that the majority of consumers don’t want or even care about the information (happy to trust the system). However, there is a vocal minority who I fear will never drop the secrecy scare tactics. It is not helped that even mainstream marketing still hooks so strongly into ‘less chemicals’ (so, a smaller pack right?), ‘fragrance free’ (on products containing essential oils), natural (as you say, natural arsenic!). There are confusing messages given to consumers and these aid scare stories. So, the wider industry does need to also look to itself. Somewhat perversely, the cosmetic regulation is expected to help here. If the ‘common criteria’ in the regulation works as expected, companies will have to be much better with claims they make about products. As we know, ingredients that smell aren’t always perfume and perfume ingredients don’t always smell. It is no wonder it’s confusing from the consumer angle!

    • Totally agree, Penny! I wrote an article about the claim ‘100% fragrance free’. This allows the use and labeling of several plant extracts & essential oils that are definitely smelly. Thus adding to the scare mongering and misinformation implying fragrance=bad, naturals=good…

      • Yep! For something which seems so simple, it’s really rather tricky. I do love using natural ingredients and I love using aromachemicals too. I wish they were more equally regarded. I know a brilliant natural Perfumer who only knows more about natural oils than I could ever hope to. And I know more about aromachemicals (and blending them with naturals!) than he will get the experience to learn – we are each a little jealous of the other I suspect!

  6. There is a great concern from the consumer’s perspective especially from the people who embrace holistic health n wellness such as myself!! I don’t wear perfume for two reasons 1 all of the synthetic ingredients that it contains good or bad are unhealthy for the skin and 2 like with anything else in the country the people who regulate are nor in our best interest to begin with for example look at all the VERY BAD stuff the FDA allows I TRUST NOTHING THEY DO!! ITS ABOUT MONEY BOTTOM LINE NOT GOOD!!

    • Dear Deana, I understand how things can seem. Just wanted to pick up on your comment “all of the synthetic ingredients …are unhealthy for the skin”. You might not be aware that the main problem with fragrance materials is with many natural materials which contain irritating, corrosive, cytotoxic and allergenic constituents. Things like eugenol, linalol, limonene which are found in natural essential oils. However, just the presence of a chemical doesn’t mean it’s automatically doing us any harm (and that goes for both synthetic and natural chemicals). A proper risk assessment is needed, taking into account the dose, method and frequency of exposure.

  7. Very interesting article. As someone who entered the perfumery industry (briefly) some nearly 50 years ago and has an interest in conjuring I can see where you are going but find the analogy incorrect. The simple fact, which we must acknowledge, is that some people react to, or are allergic to, some things. Now, we may consider a ‘trace’ of something in a formula something not worth reporting or specifying but to someone who is highly allergic to it that ‘trace’ could kill them. I’ve seen someone in anaphylactic shock from inhaling dust from a packet of peanuts. It isn’t pretty and it can be fatal. It seems to me that food labelling lists all the ingredients in descending order of constitution, so why not perfume? It doesn’t have to be on the bottle – but it could be on the box the bottle comes in or on an enclosed leaflet. Just a thought. (BTW my conjuring tricks don’t have the capacity to kill any one – yet!)

    I am also still amazed at the apparent lack of education available for those who wish to become perfumers. One of the reasons I didn’t pursue it was that, in my day (sorry for sounding so old), the only way you could learn was to work for a cosmetics company and learn from whoever was in charge of perfumery there. That, in itself, was limiting. Although there was a university course on offer some years ago that seems to have disappeared and the only genuine course I can think of now is that run by a single manufacturer. It’s lovely that people do their own thing, of course, but self-education is rarely enough. The world of perfumery is vast and encompasses more than just mixing smells together, which is something that is too easily forgotten.

    • Perhaps I could have expanded the section on fragrance safety and elaborated further just what lengths the industry goes to to ensure fragrance safety. I decided not to expand that section too much here because I am working on a piece about fragrance regulation. To date, I don’t believe anyone has died from or is at the risk of dying from fragrance, and the regulations are actually over-cautious, not the other way around. The conjuring analogy was not about safety, but about the artistry. And the artistic aspect of perfume is very poorly protected. Imagine what would happen if there was no copyright protection for authors. Labelling all perfume ingredients in descending order would destroy a great deal of the remaining protection (which is rather thin these days), and would not actually help consumers make informed decisions any more than the current system. All potentially allergenic substances must already be labelled, and the EU has presented an Opinion on a further 80 to be added to the list. This approach, combined with IFRA guidance and bans, is an attempt to make fragrances as safe as possible. Ironically, many consumers who worry about fragrance safety probably don’t realise that the aforementioned measures are mostly hitting hard at natural materials like lavender, lemon oil, rose oil…

      • But my point was that ‘safety’ in the hands of self-trained amateurs isn’t necessarily going to be all that safe. In the industry, hardly any problem because the money is there to throw at it. To perform a magic trick well may not be all that difficult but knowing what’s behind it is. That’s a great deal of the ‘artistry’. And, in perfumery, artistry just isn’t enough. I recognise the way that the list of problem ingredients may be a problem and I equally recognise that listing ingredients might enable a good perfumer to run up a copy but those things do apply currently to foodstuffs.

  8. Thanks Pia, Again, For a great thought provoking article…

    Maybe you’ll enjoy my craziness from the first WondAROMA podcast episode…?

    πŸ™‚

    Paul Kiler
    PK Perfumes

  9. All

    I am not a perfumer or a working in the industry. I have read many article on successful projects that use a combination of perfumes to make a fragrance by providing a digital recipe. Why has the concept of the cartridges to “print fragrances” not been successful.

    Sheldon

    • It’s a really lovely concept until you want to have something more sophisticated/customised. I suspect that’s the problem – nuanced, sophisticated fragrances can sometimes have over 100 ingredients (some of which are in the formula only as traces but still have an impact on the overall odour). I think there’s definitely potential in exploring this type of scent technology, though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s