Organic / Natural Fragrances? - Page 2

BHT has been a suspected carcinogen for years. Just because the FDA considers it safe doesn't mean too much. They're whole structure is ridiculous - they used to do tests for 7 years before allowing a new product or chemical, and now they basically use the American population as test subjects for 7 years instead. BHT is alot older though, but it's safety is still widely debated.

LOL! They list all their ingredients - like the "liquid amber from the Himalayas" in Dans L'amour? I would like to know her source for this; oh, I forgot, she is an alchemist, it must be something she conjured up in her alembic.

Yep, this is what the public wanted. Back in the 80's, when the AIDS epidemic was first recognized, it took many years to bring a new drug to market - a segment of very vocal activists claimed that this was a conspiracy by the FDA and Drug Companies against gays and consequently the approval process was changed to make these vocal activists happy. I always thought that these activists were being used and that it was really the drug companies who benefited from the change but no one seems to remember how it was that this change came about.

But, what does this have to do with BHT?

That's Liquidamber Orientalis. A wonderful smelling resin that is a key ingredient in many amber compounds, particularly ones that do now use synthetic molecules. It's not particularly expensive, but it's luxurious and an ingredient a perfumer should not be caught without. Alchemists, by the way, were the first chemists really. They spent hours trying to extract the essence of all beings - what is referred to as extracting either the gold or the silver from things. Gold alchemy was trying to turn minerals, rocks and objects into gold. Silver alchemy was trying to find the silver in plants. This was all done by heating the said objects or plants in alembics, which eventually, after lots of scorching, burnings, trials and errors, resulted in the first extraction of essential oils. If it wasn't for those restless alchemists there wouldn't be perfumery (nor chemistry) today.

Well, I think it's a good idea to fast track drugs for people with fatal illnesses, but you're absolutely right, that change in laws was a wet dream for big pharmaceuticals. THey could easily have made the change only apply to experimental drugs for lethal illnesses. Instead we got these lethal vioxx drugs which killed 30,000 people and no one cares.

It relates to BHT in that you said BHT has been declared safe for food. My point was that just because the FDA says it's safe doesn't mean too much.

I love these kinds of stories - did any of these people end up turning to perfumery twith their discoveries, or were they chucked in the rubbish bin as failures in the quest for silver?

Most people call this Styrax. What is a commercial source for this material from the Himalayas?



Ah, a New Age version of alchemy.

Here is one source for liquidambar/styrax (I've sampled theirs and liked it) but it's from Honduras, not the Himalayas:

http://www.edenbotanicals.com/essent...ml#liquidambar

I read about Ajne perfumes in "In Style" -- it was a quick mention but enough to catch my attention. I live in California, so I made a pilgrimage to Carmel to check it out for myself. The line is fantastic. This is the first time I have been able to wear a fragrance without enduring a massive headache from the synthetics. And, the scents are great. The owner has some already blended, or she will make custom fragrances. The shop has dozens of samples of pure, natural fragrances so you can test what works for you.
Simply put, I am in heaven, I didn't know anything like that existed.
About the debate over liquid amber, what am I missing? The scents are divine, the fragrances are natural, what is there to argue about. I love the romanticism of the label.

Rich Hippie are all natural and they have some frags for men too. richhippiestuff.com

Personally, as a natural perfumer, I didn't get into this field for health reasons. I love the beauty of natural aromatics, period. I got aroma chemicals back in the 70's when a perfume salesman retired and gave me his sample case. They were flat to me compared to the naturals. In the decades since, new synths came on the market that caused a lot of respiratory distress to certain people.

As Ayala and I can attest, our natural perfumes never cause sneezes, itchy, watery eyes, etc. That said, I'm more concerned about creating gorgeous perfumes that are part of a new aesthetic, an evolution in perfumery. The fact they don't cause allergic reactions is a plus. If some can cause skin irritation, and they can, the perfumer should know to stay below recommended levels, or recommend that the wearer put the potential sensitizer on their hair or clothing, or on a piece of fabric or cotton in a piece of aromatic jewelry.

I also wear mainstream juice occasionally, because some of them, even modern ones, like Mugler's Cologne, are exquisite.

Do you avoid allergenic substances like oakmoss? If not, I don't see how you can claim that your perfumes *NEVER*cause allergenic reactions like sneezes etc.

There are maximum amounts allowed by law. I stay under that amount. I'm sensitized to oakmoss on my left hand due to a spill years ago that I didn't clean off immediately (highly concentrated). I can use my one perfume with oakmoss with no reaction. Please note, also, when I was talking allergenic reactions, I was mostly speaking of respiratory and eye reactions, which is what everyone in the 70s and 80s started to complain about with the intro of aggressive synths. I put a warning in my perfume packets that the user should do a patch test first, and I give instructions how to conduct that. I also recommend using aromatic jewelry if you think you might have a derm reaction.

I don't remember anyone complaining of dermatitis from second-hand fumes, just first-hand use and those caught in the diffusion and sillage.

Does anyone know which companies are known to use natural ingredients? Do high-end companies use natural ingredients more often? Anyone know anything about Hermes, Lalique, Creed, Serge Luten regarding this? Also, from what I hear Creed still uses real ambergris? I've also read an article which I believe came from their french website that claims him to use true tonkin musk. From what I understand about musk this is just about impossible. Any thoughts on the above would be great. Thanks.

David

a great perfume is executed and composed with the highest natural and synthetic quality ingredients. after all there are all natural fragrances that are in the end both average or poor in quality and execution.
the Creeds have high percentage of natural ingredients but they 're not considered all natural fragrances, I also find their executions very classic, "safe" and non innovative or groundbreaking when it comes to artistic creativity. Serge Lutens claims using the most precious and rarest perfume ingredients, natural and synthetic, most of his perfumes are perfumes with strong personality and character, to him perfume is not just a scent but also a point of view and extreme luxury. Hermes under Jean-Claude Ellena uses high grade natural ingredients, at Sephora they 're probably the most high end fragrances when it comes to prestige and quality, the style is minimalist. Caron uses the most expensive natural ingredients of all classic perfume houses.

Guerlain uses 80% natural, I have recently heard. BPAL uses a high%. Atlier is 100%. There is an entire site for Natural Perfumary with lots of links. Opus Oils has a natural line.

I like to see that companies are using at least real flowers in their blends (I can easily be seduced by Grasse tuberose, mayrose, and violets) such as Chanel and Caron. Top notes are tricky in natural perfumary. Usually sour citrus or pungent spices are used to give them lift, which I don't care for. I have always gone for the "darker" natural perfumes, usually oils (Eden Botanicals makes the most wonderful natural ambers) to avoid the tops. I am learning to love green notes and aldehydes in "regular" perfumes to go a bit lighter than my usual dark tastes, which are usually human-made, but I don't care. They smell good! I, too, have heard that Creed uses real ambergris. I want to smell them for just this reason.

Profumo used to sell real civit and musks. Most sources I've asked say that this is illegal. I don't really know. Ambergris does not harm the animal (it's a byproduct that washes up on the shore) and there are a few natural perfumers that use it. It's very expensive, as are many of the fine natural materials, which is why, I think, not a lot of companies use it.

I make natual perfumes on the side, and have had many people have unexpected reactions to citrus, ambrette, and even flowers at 10% or less dilutions. "Natural" isn't always "better" or "safer", but it is nice to stay connected, at least by a thread.

JP Guerlain confirms the 80-20 rule in his book My Journey in the World of Perfumes (p.51), but I doubt it still applies under LVMH ownership.

I love natural oils, but consider that thge smells of violet, lilac, lilly of the valley, honeysuckle, gardenia and others in perfume are the result of synthetics. Modern perfumery would not exist without the chemical revolution of the 19th century. Nor would we have affordable musk, sandalwood, ambergris. A quality perfume will employ the best ingredients required for the purpose, wheter natural or synthetic. The "cheap synthetic" smell of many mass market perfumes is owed to the unimaginative (over)use of cheap and ever-similarly blended ingredients, such as calone or dihydromercenol.

I always wonder if the 'we want natural stuff' -people think they put chopped real flowers into the perfume or something like that.

First of all, a scent of - for example - a certain flower is composed out of many different kind of molecules. There is not one type of molecule responsible for the whole scent. If you want to recreate the scent synthetically, you try to recreate the most pungent or important molecules of the whole group. Whether you have a 'naturally extracted molecule' or a synthesized one *does not matter*. A molecule is a molecule. It's like saying I like my sodium chloride better when it's taken from the sea. No! You might like sea salt better because it's 'polluted' with other salts, but your sodium chloride is just sodium chloride.

Second, using natural extracted scent molecules might NOT yield what people perceive as a 'natural' scent. Often by tweaking perception using synthetic molecules, you might give the perception of a 'natural' scent, while the real thing might seem to smell way off or artificial.

These days the words 'organic' and 'all natural' are being attributed more positive superpowers than they often deserve credit for.
--------------------------------------
Actually, the_good_life explains it much better than myself.

No and you can try to justify it anyway you like, some people can tell when something is synthetic. Synthetics also do not have the aromatherapy qualities real essences do. I don't have to have something 100% natural, but it had better have a good deal in it. I think some people bash those who want natural fragrances because the ingredients are more expensive for you to use or you cannot create something beautiful with what you can find. Well, if you can find buyers, then knock yourselves out.

This is exactly what I mean. You are confusing two entirely seperate things. If you take a lemon scent for example, I hope you understand that there are many molecules responsible for the lemon scent. The most important one of them though is citronellal, or 3,7-dimethyloct-6-en-1-al. If you want to recreate the scent of a lemon synthetically, you need to include citronellal, plus all the other scent molecules that together are the scent of a lemon. What you would like to call 'synthetic' smells often lack one of the less important ingredients or maybe the proportions are mixed up.

It is complete hogwash however, to say some people can tell the difference between naturally extracted 3,7-dimethyloct-6-en-1-al or a synthetically created batch. Or that natural citronellal molecules 'don't break down as fast' as synthetically made ones. That's BS. The same molecule is the same molecule when all the parameters such as chirality are the same, no matter if nature made it or if a laboratory made it.

I know people who don't want to eat - what they call - 'normal table salt' in their food because 'they made it in the factory'. No, they want to eat naturally organically whatever extracted sea salt. That is 'natural and organic'. My god. Sodium chloride is sodium chloride, get over it!

It might not be as romantic, but fragrances are an art form of molecular chemistry. But in the end, it stays molecular chemistry. It's engineering. Famous perfumers need technical skills and thorough understanding of chemical engineering to succeed. Only having a sensitive nose is only half of the equation. I'm sure it's more romantic and fulfilling to say a certain citrus scent has naturally extracted citronellal inside and that many real lemons were killed for that, but don't think the same molecule is any different when moleculary engineered in a lab.

There's no such thing as an 'ambergris scent molecule'. The scent ambergris gives is comprised of many different kind of molecules that need to be either extracted naturally or synthetically recreated. Often, extracted essence does not smell 'natural' at all to 'natural loving'-people (and all others) so sometimes the industry is simply forced to tweak and engineer molecules that give people the *perception* of the real thing.


Say what?

There are synthetic molecules which are more expensive than natural essences. There are also smells which cannot be captured via natural essence extraction; iris is an example. Every perfume on earth which claims to use iris utilizes a synthetically created iris molecule. Its not possible to extract the essence of iris from the iris flower. However, there are cheap iris molecules and there are expensive iris molecules (I forget their name but one of them is called ionone and the other is irone); which one a perfumer uses in their composition depends on the budget.

This site might be of interest:
http://www.leffingwell.com/chirality/chirality.htm

People often want natural sea salt because it contains other elements that are either beneficial in and of themselves or add to the nutritional value of the whole. Salt that has been stripped down to just sodium chloride is just like the pure sugar that has been stripped of any remaining nutritional value that is causing so many problems now. Natural ingredients are generally easier on the body, save some kind of allergic reaction, often good for the body, and can react with the body to have positive effects either immediately or in the future. I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure, from the things that I've read, that a synthetic molecule will not react with the body in the same way as natural molecules,hence the previous paragraph. Any aromatherapist would tell you the same. It is funny how people seem to come down on something they probably know little about. Anyhow, it seems like the thread got a little sidetracked from my original post so anyone that has anything to offer regarding the original post would be great. Thanks.
--------------------------------------
Also, iris scent comes from the root and not the flower.
--------------------------------------
Also, some houses do still use REAL ingredients(Flowers, roots, resins) in the fragrances. People do use REAL chopped flowers in their perfumes.

Iris root does not smell like iris flowers, it smells of violets. A fragrance that smells of iris flowers contains synthetics (or a brilliant natural perfumer has combined numerous oils so as to achieve an iris flower effect)

Of course perfumers use natural essences. I just feel there is an inherent dogmatism in avoiding synthetics at all cost, as if they're "evil" in some kind of way. and believe me, I hate most designer scents, because they are "synthetic" meaning 90% cheap synthetics. I've smelled horrid natural perfumes as well. I like many Creeds, Lutens, Villoresis, which combine naturals and synthetics. The best of both worlds seems the obvious choice for me.

While I consume mostly organic products, for very rational reasons, I am amazed at some of the myths surrounding them and "natural" products in general. I use untreated salts because the impurities it includes enhance the flavor, and because industrial salt is treated with additives I can do without. I doubt it is healthier though. To believe the negligible amounts of minerals and nutrients in unrefined sugars make that sugar healthier is naive - the amounts are much too low and you're basically still talking - unhealthy - sugar. Same applies for honey, the health effect is simply negligible, and if you use it for baking, most of the healthy elements decompose anyway. So I use muscovado sugar or honey for hedonistic purposes only - flavor. Much organic fruit tastes better not primarily because of the organic farming (though that is better for the environment, and undepelted soil may be a minor factor in flavor), but because organic farmers grow varietals which may be more susceptible to transport or disease, but contain much more flavor (my local demeter-farmer has created an incredibly carroty carrot, but it has to be kept in dirt and needs to be eaten within a week or two or it rots - worthless from an agrobusiness perspective, but immensely tasty)

There are a number of threads on this issue here, and as scentemental, I believe, explained in some detail, the line between naturals and synthetics in perfumery is anything but clear - to produce natural concretes or absolutes, the essential oils go through massive chemical processes and transformations, on the other hand numerous synthetics are derived by chemical transformations from vegetal raw materials - I would say it's rather difficult to claim the one as more "natural", if that means taken from nature and unadulterated, than the other. I'd also wager most people would prefer a synthetic sandalwood component in their perfume, than some very low grade natural oil with serious, possibly hazardous, impurities. And I doubt most people can actually tell the difference between a natural and a synthetic product. To cite a food example: about 80% of the extra virgin olive oil on the world market is substandard trash which is manipulated to superficially evince the characteristics of extranative, when legally it would have to be declared as lamp oil. But do you hear complaints from consumers? I heard a Diptyque SA lie to a customer who asked whether these perfumes were natural. She said yes, of course. That's what happens when an industry fails to properly inform people about its production methods and lives with a lie for over 100 years.

If we create two categories of molecules, "natural" and "synthetic," we are faced with a number of difficulties.

First, what is "natural?" Quinine may be naturally extracted from the bark of a South American tree, but it is more generally synthesized from tar. Either way, we have the same molecule: same smell, same taste, same effect on the body.

Second, do these categories tell us anything useful? "Natural" substances are not automatically more healthy. "Natural" oakmoss in perfume triggers an allergic reaction in some people; the "synthetic" alternatives do not.

These issues are important to perfumery and beyond. Illogically fetishizing "natural" substances leads to overharvesting (sandalwood), deforestation (sandalwood), animal cruelty (musk), and endangering species (musk).

Refined salt is like the refined high fructose corn syrup that's recieving so much attention in the media today. It's purified, and not in a good sense, to the point of being so out of whack that it throws things out of balance. It's like so many of the plants that have been used for hundreds of years without problems but scientists now isolate one chemical and test it on animals in rediculous amounts and wonder why it's now all of a sudden cancerous, etc.?

"because industrial salt is treated with additives I can do without"

For what reason other than health reasons can you do without these additives? Additives usually make things more tasteful to most people. However, most people are so used to eating additive laden foods they can't appreciate natural foods anymore, the way food is supposed to be.

I'm not saying synthetics don't have their place, especially in the case of musks and the like, but so many fragrances I'm sure are primarily, if not all synthetic and probably very poor quality synthetic to boot, which can't be good for a variety of reasons. So many of the man made products(plastics,etc.) don't even break down in landfills or turn into horrible gases. Like I said, synthetics have their place, but within reason. They're like so many of the "modern conveniences" that have ultimately served to complicate things even more. Excesses that have gotten out of hand as a result of our foolish ego's. Peace.

This actully isn't true. Pure sodium chloride might be the same either way, but the difference between refined table salt and unrefined sea salt are the cofactors (other minerals) which make the sodium chloride less harmful to the body. Nature provides molecules, or minerals, or vitamins, in accompaniment for a reason.

The sodium chloride is the same in refined or unrefined salt, but one is missing the other minerals which are needed by the body to assimilate and excrete the chloride properly. Normal table salt causes water retention and mineral loss over time for that reason, as the chloride calls on the body's mineral reserves in order to be processed.

As for fragrances, I have never smelled a synthetic rose blend, even the really good ones, that gives me any of the satisfaction of smelling a real rose (or rose oil). Because it is missing the co-factors, the other molecular elements. And considering natural rose consists of hundreds of molecules in various proportions, it is unlikely that it will ever be synthetically replicated properly.

Cite?
--------------------------------------

Such as?

I was quoting one of the other members about the refined salt containing additives they could do without. One of the same members who questioned the validity of natural/organic products.
--------------------------------------
Advocate, do you actually question the poor/questionable quality of so many of the mass produced food products manufactured in the world today? It's funny how people are so averse to natural products and are so for synthetic/technologically advanced products when there's so much evidence for the negative effects of many of the latter and positive evidence for the former. It's like people thinking they're better or more "civilised" because they live in a technologically advanced society and all the people in the tribal hut way out in the woods are below them because they don't have a computer or an ipod in their pocket. Anyhow, again it seems like this thread has gotten off topic. If anyone has any information on my original post that would be great. Anyone trying to disprove or argue against natural ingredients/products, please hold your comments. Thanks.

Evidence . . . such as? I have provided an example of a scent chemical that is "natural" but harmful, and an example of a scent chemical that is "synthetic" but beneficial. Any evidence supporting the equations natural == good and synthetic == bad would certainly be appreciated.

A chemical is a chemical is a chemical. Some do good things to humans when inhaled or ingested. Some, not so much. Labeling a chemical "natural" or "synthetic," which is itself a man-made distinction rather than one arising from objective circumstances, contributes nothing to my knowledge of the particular chemical, whether it is in my fragrance or my food.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problematic synthetics - degradibility is a frequent issue. For example, sythetic musks are now widely present in air, water, fish, mammals, and breast milk. There are dozens of academic papers on this. It's just important to be conceptually clear that it is not "syntheticness" that makes a substance hazardous, but certain specific qualities, just as natural substances are not automatically beneficial, but are so due to specific properties.
menthol: good for adults with a cold, kills babies
lead: never good (traditionally used in "natural" cosmetics in past history, and, as lead sugar, to sweeten wine, for lining vessels and making water pipes. All very unwise choices)
treemoss: smells great, but also an allergen. Etc. etc.

This is a very difficult question. As the good_life already said: the perfume industry has been living with a big lie for maybe a hundred years or longer. I think it is fair to say that the bulk of perfumes produced in our days mainly relies on synthetic fragrance compositions (half products sometimes, like all the top notes of a pyramid). What's listed in fragrance pyramids isn't the real thing any longer. You are wise reading the individual components of most perfumes with the prefix 'smells of..' (lime, lavender, civet...whatever! ). I prefer to believe that Caron's Pour Un Homme is still made with lavender oil. But the bad thing is: we don't really know. Chanel insists that the jasmin in No.5 isn't only derived from natural jasmin - it's said to be the jasmin of Grasse in France (all of it)! We have also learned from experts that Chanel actually uses three different formulas for the concentrations of that perfume. One of them really doesn't smell good, and I wonder if perhaps a lesser jasmin may be responsible.

My information about natural ingredients for Creed fragrances is from Creeds own press, multiplied by Creed traders and perfume bloggers. Whether it's true, or not - who really knows? The rest of the industry never says anything specific about ingredients. If it were not for certain experts from outside, we wouldn't even know about the many formula changes that happen over the years. The makers try and keep most of that secret. To support the illusion of 'natural' ingredients, they will continue to include a minimum of natural oils, essences, tinctures and balms, I am sure. But what will they consider a minimum if only the most expert noses could smell the difference?

I think it is still justified to have more confidence in
(a) traditional, less known perfume companies in Grasse
and elsewhere (small exporters, also in Italy in other countries)
(b) Independent niche companies, one-man entities.

The development of the mainstream industry during the past fifty years has made it possible for smaller outfits to pursue specific goals, and some of these outfits seem to stay dedicated to tradition and quality products. No surprise is their sudden success. Known names are Villoresi and Divine. Smellwise I am tempted to mention Etro/Italy, but I really know not much about them. Particularly popular or known within BN: LesNez, A.Tauer, Profumo.it, A.Moriel, Anyas Garden, and Michael Storer. These are just names from the top of my head. More will pop up later, I am sure. I am not familiar enough with Editions de Parfums to speak about natural components in any of these. Lutens have been mentioned - not niche, of course, but independent from French empires, and dedicated to Nature by philosophy! I see Montale on a similar mission. They too stand a little apart from all other French perfume producers I know of, and I wouldn't be surprised, if we were told one day, that Montale is in fact a Saudi investment, directed by Monsieur Pierre. Caron have 'modernized' a lot of their perfumes during the past 20 (?) years, says Turin. I have no idea how many natural components have been deleted in the process. Only occasionally my nose gets this extra kick sniffing at bottles from the sixties and seventies, that maybe a felt presence of ambergris or something 'organic' - hard to tell.

It's best to be sceptical, though: the Saône valley is also not big enough for all the Beaujolais and Bourgogne wines in this world .

The older ntro musks and polycyclic musks have problems with lack of biodegradability but the newer macrocyclic musks are biodegradable and do not bioaccumulate.

Natural musky aromas can be find in the white musk rose and ambrette seed. Annick Goutal, Parfums de Nicolai, and i Profumi di Firenze use natural essences, as well as some small lines from Provence, Italy and the US. I'm sure there are many more that I'm not aware of. Recently, I've been sampling a Lemon Verbena Splash made by Bonny Doon Farm which is really quite pleasant.

Creed and Serge Lutens claim to use natural ingredients, but something in those fragrances turns *off* on my skin or causes a gag reaction in the back of my throat, which indicates to me there are chemicals of some kind added, since I don't react that way to anything natural *that I know of.* The same holds true for MPG. I cannot wear anything I've sampled from these lines, but I haven't tried everything.

I can often tell when synthetics are used in fragrances, but not always. There are also many medical warnings now regarding the use of some synthetics, like white musk. It is true that many perfume lines use synthetics to save money or make their fragrances more interesting, but I don't think they always smell better. Aldehydes are synthetic and they have never bothered me, but some of these newer synthetic clones of natural essences are downright disgusting or just smell flat and lifeless. Some people are more sensitive to tastes and smells than others, just as some have a better ear for sound. It's not an excuse for anger or abuse.

I might add that we can become sensitized to these chemicals or molecules over time. What might not bother us at first, can eventually cause allergic or adverse reactions, if exposed to regularly. Household cleaning products and sunscreens are two examples.

message deleted

Hey thanks Narcus for your neutral response and staying on topic with my original question. Thanks to anybody else who at least tried to help and didn't jump on the bandwagon of trying to bash the inclination toward natural ingredients. Peace.

Hey ddorris,

My apologies, I was certainly guilty of going off topic. Back to your original question. Lorenzo Villoresi is supposed to use a lot of naturals in his creations. The by Kilian line also contains lots of naturals, as a matter of fact you can go to the site and read the formulas for all six fragrances. I have samples of all, and as someone posted in another thread, they reek of quality. The word 'reek' being used in the most complimentary way! A Taste of Heaven is truly beautiful.

Hi David

You can check out the natural perfumers at http://naturalperfumersguild.com/mlist.htm They use only natural aromatics and some use animal essences, most typically ambergris, hyrax, castoreum, etc. Musk ambrette seed, not to be confused with the banned synthetic musk ambrette is also used.

Creed cannot use tonquin musk, it is banned. HTH.

Advocate, if you really care and can navigate around this website, you can certainly do your own homework using search engines like Google. There's enough information around, look for yourself. If you need help getting started, try typing in "synthetic musk" and "nerve damage" in the search box and see what you come up with.... anymore than that, and you'll have to pay me for my time. HAGD

Just to clarify, Beachroses is talking about an aromachemical that hasn't been used for more than 20 years.

This is way off topic, but since I brought it up: cheap salt contains anti-caking agents such as sodiumhexacyanoferrate.

As to natural ingredients in perfumes. To avoid synthetics you'll have to resort to certified organic or explicitly declared natural perfumes. While many Creeds, especially older ones, contain high amounts of natural oils, as do Lutens and Villoresi, it's impossible to say just how much. There's inevitably a lot of conjecture involved - e.g. contrary to narcus I perceive Etro perfumes to be more synthetic than those mentioned above - but these are merely hunches.

Yes, I am familiar with Google, thank you. In fact, this topic is an area that I have been interested in for some time, and I have done quite a bit of reading on my own about it.

However, for several thousand years, the party that is trying to prove something has had the burden of producing its own evidence. Asking me to look for evidence that might prove your theory is . . . let's just say suboptimal.

PWNED! am i allowed to say that here?

in any case, I think we have to make a strong distinction here between synthetics that just happen to smell like an organic ie: some synthetic musks vs. real musks, and between synthetically extracted citrus as mentioned before, which is the same whether extracted out of a real lemon or out of wherever else they may source it.

I have been reading about the petroleum based synthetic components in almost all colognes. Having read some startling information about their effect on the body, ive been trying to find some organic alternatives.

Does anyone have any suggestions? I've found Dusk Blend by Organic Grooming as well as Starring Fragrances.

L'Artisan makes an organic fragrance called L'Eau de Jatamansi.

http://www.basenotes.net/ID26127160.html

This is a beautiful one. I highly recommend it. Longevity is only moderate, but the bottle is appropriately big. I find it amazing that they could make something so distinctive in an organic frag. This could easily be a signature fragrance for the right person. It's definitely unisex, but not in a muddled way.

Take a look at Whole Foods Markets.

I was in Southern California recently and they had several different choice, some of them were pretty damn good! They were all equal to designer fragrances in quality, longevity (more or less), and price.

One of them could have been Dusk Blend by Organic Grooming, but there were others.

Your best bet are natural perfumers
http://naturalperfumers.com/

I've only heard good things in particular about Ayala Moriel and www.profumo.it

Lorenzo Villoresi's Acqua di Colonia is all natural and excellent.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you get alot more exposure to dangerous chemicals by breathing in air, washing in non-filtered water, driving your car, etc.
Unless you're intending to walk around in a hazmat suit with an gas mask on 24/7, I wouldn't let it bother you.

I'll second the comment about artisan perfumers. Many have as a distinctive point their use of natural (rather than synthetic) ingredients. A good example, noted above, Is Ayala Moriel perfumes. I've been in her studio and seen her infusions and some of the raw materials.
There is a trade-off between naturals and synthetics, and this issue has prompted a lot of discussion on threads. Naturals smell great in a "natural" way, but if a scent has a high proportion of them, it tends to be subtle, have low sillage and longevity. Synthetics "pump up the volume". Sometimes they mimic a particular scent quite well, sometimes they have (to my nose) an artificial sort of "tang" that I find unpleasant.
Check out Ayala's website and see if anything interests you.
Cheers,

Any comments on Burt's Bees colognes: http://www.burtsbees.com/webapp/wcs/...ategoryId=-119 or aftershaves by Aubrey Organics: http://www.aubrey-organics.com/categ...36&startpage=0
?

Thank you

I used Aubrey shampoo before, it smelled good. Also used burt's bees lip balm, smelled good. Smelled the burt's bees edt at Merz downtown, and while it did smell good, it wasn't near as impressive as some of my own eo creations. Interested in hearing reviews for the Aubrey aftershaves.

And I co-sign whoever said buy your favorite eo, and experiment.

L'Artisan alos just put out:

What is this joke that 'natural ingredients' do not cause irritation or allergic reactions?

The poison of a cobra is 100% natural: do you think it will cause irritation to you body? Have you ever inhaled sulphor damp from an active volcano? It's 100% natural, do you think your body will like it?

Natural extracted ingredients does NOT mean by definition it's harmless for your body! In fact, your skin might burn away if you apply certain essential oils in too high concentractions.

Both Burt's Bees and Aubrey Organics use synthetics in their fragranced products.

All perfumes are diluted to proper proportions, so nobody is buying undiluted stuff if it's labeled a perfume. A patch test is good to conduct if you think you might have overly-sensitive skin.

I'm with you there. Might as well die for something. Make it good.

Anyway, I've never seen ANY fragrance with benzene in it listed on the ingredients. Most of my frags come out of the European market. And as much health standards as the massive EU bureaucracy has, I think I will hold off on throwing away a very good hobby.

If one is that paranoid, you might as well give up red meat, cheese, wine, cognac, whiskey, beer, sex (might pull something or have a heart attack in the middle), coffee, tea, soda, etc. ad nauseum.

OK. First of all, I'm aware that some people say no fragrance is 100% natural, and I'm sure they have a point to make. My question is which particular perfume houses concentrate on using, as much as possible, natural high-quality essential oils and other ingredients. So far I've checked out L'Occitane, Santa Maria Novella and Maitre Parfumeur et Gantier (MPG only a little bit, they're a bit hard to find in the UK at the moment). What other houses are there I should look at? I got into fragrances partly through an interest in aromatherapy, hence my desire for natural essential oil based fragrances. Thanks for your help.

As far as I know, none of those are all-natural houses.

I suggest checking out the following website, particularly its members list: http://naturalperfumers.com/

Personally, my favorite natural perfumer is Ayala Moriel: http://www.ayalamoriel.com/

Korres www.korres.com use natural botanicals. They happen to have some really excellent products.

Here is the declaration from the side of their fragrance boxes:

86.5% Natural content
NO Mineral Oil
NO Silicone
NO Parabens
NO Propylene Glycol
NO Ethanolamines
NO PEG
No Sulfates
NO Phthalates
NO Synthetic dye
YES fragrance
NO Nitro Musks
NO PCM-compounds
YES Alcohol
NO Retinol / AHAs
NO Wheat
NO Nuts
NO Animal By-products
NO Animal Testing
YES Suitable for Vegans


Even if not 100% natural (who is these days?), 86.5% is an excellent step in the right direction.

D Dubrana who trades from his website profumo.it is an all natural perfumer who I thoroughly recommend. There is lots of great information on his site too. He also posts here at basenotes with the name profumo.

Not to rule out this idea - I'm all for synthetics used well - but 86.5% doesn't really guarantee much when it comes to a fragrance. You can have an Eau de Toilette that's 90% all-natural alcohol and 10% synthetic aromachemicals.