Natural or not??

You mean "hug your neighbor's wife" town?

I don't agree with the whole "niche" = "natural" thang.

Coors light is natural, as is Lindeman's Frambois Lambic.

Interesting how we associate high-quality with natural and niche, isn't it?

I think why many of us love a lot of the niche scents is partly the quality of
the ingredients and the blending. Â*Sometimes high quality means natural ingredients,
sometimes it doesn't. Â*But it means that they charge what they need to to make it
smell good. Â*I think many niche scents are marginal, just as many designer scents are
substandard. Â*But niche scents often will stray farther from mainstream tastes and/or
will give you a full range of smells to choose from. Â*And the best niche scents are
amazing. Â*Smell Bois du Portugal, for example.

Many of the scents that take their name from some clothing designer or other
product are very predictable and ho hum. Â*But there are notable exceptions to this.
Chanel would be considered a clothing designer brand, but I'll
bet more people know them for fragrances and fashion accessories such as sunglasses
than for their famous women's suits. Â*And Chanel has a fabulous line of men's and women's
fragrances, spanning a range of scent families and maintaining their scent line year after year, rarely
discontinuing anything. Â*I mean, Pour Monsieur has been around for 50 years, and it still smells
great. Â*And Chanel has the brains and confidence in their tradition to keep it available.
But many designer brands don't bother to take the care that a company like Chanel does.
Does anyone think we will be talking about the various Kenneth Cole scents years from now?

One other reason beyond breadth of line and risk taking that mke us interested in niche: Â*They bring out
new scents frequently. Â*Our curiousity is piqued and we sample them and talk about them.
So there is a lot of buzz here about niche scents. Â*That makes it look like we are niche freaks,
but from the SOTD stats we wear an awful lot of designer scents here, and Creed is the only
niche or semi-niche line that dominates the SOTD.

there are alot of natural food stores that I have been to
that stock alot of essential oils,if you want natural it is easily
accessable,I enjoy it.

There has been some talk of this before and if I'm not mistaken it was Scentemental that has also went into detail on similar issues. The thing is, just because it is synthetic does NOT mean it is necessarily worse.
In terms of beverages, Coca Cola (including almost all non-juices etc.) is like pouring a bunch of chemcicals down your throat, literally. But we live with it, they are not necessarily "life threatening" chemicals.

Just my 2 cents, synthetic is not automatically = to bad.

Synthetics are single chemicals, whereas essential oils tend to be blends of many chemicals. The result - ideally - is that essential oils smell richer, fuller and more real than synthetics. Less ideally, having all the extra chemicals in there may make the scent "muddy" instead, but of course any perfumer would strive to avoid that.

I'm not an expert, but I don't think that niche automatically means natural. In my opinion, one of the major differences between niche and mass market is the choice and orchestration of the notes rather than whether they are synthetic or not. Niche houses seem to be under less pressure from major corporations and in my experience tend to create fragrances a bit outside the mainstream.

Regards,
Steve

Niche is not synonimous with natural. Olivia Giacobetti uses many synthetics for example but the rersult is often better and more realistic than even the "real thing". Some synthetic notes are as expensive as the most noble natural essences. In IMHO it's silly to think something smells beter because it's all natural. Though natural essences can be beautiful ofcourse, they will always smell like an extract. If you want something that smells like the real living flower, ironicly you will have to use synthetics.

And don't think that niche is more expensive because they use more expensive essences, even if some do.
It's a question of brand positioning: something more exclusive = more expensive = more desirable. What's true is that because they have less points of sale, they produce less than other companies, so their cost is higher per bottle produced.

Having worked in a niche perfumerie for 2 years now, I can tell you it's not that different from the more commercial fragrance business. Those smaller houses still want your money as badly as Estée Lauder does.

My conclusion is: If a perfume is poorly blended, natural essences or synthetics, it's still poorly blended.

I'm not sure if CdG is considered 'niche', but they have the most synthetic frags I know.

I don't mind if a note is synthetic per se, but it seems like many of the synthetics are so recognizable that I get sick of them quickly. Case in point is the synthetic melon note that EVERY NEW FREAKIN frag contains.

Another thing to remember, Envyus, is that just because a chemical has a weird name, doesn't necessarily mean that it's synthetic (by synthetic I assume you mean that they are derived from petroleum products). Many popular (natural) notes have intimidating names in addition to their colloquial names: benzaldehyde, isoamyl acetate, acetaldehyde, etc are all found naturally and then extracted. I don't consider an isolated extract to be synthetic.

For your reading pleasure, here is a list of synthetic notes. These can all be prepared in the laboratory.

methyl butyrate smells of pineapple or apple
methyl salicylate (oil of wintergreen) smells of the ointments called Germolene and Ralgex in the UK
methyl benzoate smells of fruity-ylang ylang
ethyl formate smells of rum
ethyl butyrate smells of pineapple or strawberry
ethyl salicylate smells of oil of wintergreen
ethyl heptanoate smells of grape
propyl isobutyrate smells of rum
isobutyl formate smells of raspberries
butyl butyrate smells of pineapple
pentyl acetate smells of banana
pentyl pentanoate smells of apple
pentyl butyrate smells of pear or apricot
isopentyl acetate smells of pear or banana (it is used as the flavouring in the manufacturing of old fashioned Pear Drops)
octyl acetate smells of fruity-orange
benzyl acetate smells slightly of jasmine

I use to think about it this way as well until I did some independant learning on perfumery and actually tried my hand at it myself, now I definatley use some synthetics in my creations: there are many reasons. sometimes you dont want to smell exactly like a flower, lets say an actual jasmine - you'd rather smell like a mystic jasmine from happy land just past the rainbow, synthetics can be used to modify the fragrance to give it a more "fantasy" feel, other times, you can use synthetics to replace top notes which are generally muted down by by distillation processes of essential oils, so you actually regain a more natural smell

its interesting stuff! try reading up on it

if I could even just add onto something I said, I would say that with a Niche brand you pay for the artistry put into the frag as well, look for instance at a GAP brand tshirt vs. a Galliano or Dior Homme or Undercover t shirt. Sure there is a marginal increase in the quality of materials, perhaps 70% higher quality cotton, BUT the price can reach up to 500% or 1000% more. why? well because it is cut and sewn in a nicer way, the graphics on the shirt are nicer (ie: someone put some thought into an inspiring graphic on the front instead of just slapping a label in the font of the day), and its exclusive. Its a name you can attach to yourself to boost your own image. kinda like the designer logo syndrome but 10X more powerful :P

hot girl: "wow, what are you wearing? it smells so good"
you: "well, this is *puts on best french accent* un jardin en grasse par maitre du parfum honore beaugrand, its a super exclusive fragrance only available in france *acts cool*"
hot girl: "wow! well whatever it is it smelled amazing, i just want to keep smelling your neck all day"
you: *grins and silently thanks honore beaugrand*
*the girl tells all her friends the next day about how cool and unique you are*

a fragrance is more than just the sum of its notes!!!

Natural or not? I can't see the point of this question. The question would have a point if it was a valid one and by that I mean if what is smelled actually arose from a natural or synthetic source.

What is smelled does not have its source where it apparently does.

To smell a rose one has to BECOME a rose....

Cut and pasted from creed official website

"Wherever possible, Olivier Creed insists on using natural essences instead of the synthetic ones used increasingly by large perfume companies these days. This enables Olivier Creed, a perfectionist, to preserve the originality and superior quality of his fragrances. The components are then weighed, mixed, macerated and filtered, all by hand..."

Niche fragrances are not necessarily of superior quality..the price we pay is for exclusivity.

I hope people realize that there is no essential oil sac on flowers and trees that you go out and pop and get this "natural" stuff that just pours out. To make high quiality "natural oils" you have to mash up the plant bits and do a TON of chemistry (yes - with those nasty chemicals) to separate the good stuff from the bad. You can certainly find really natural stuff at your local farmer's market which are made by soaking flowers in alcohol (still a chemical, as are water and air btw), but if you've ever smelled those you know that Chanel and Creed aren't using that stuff.

On a related note, but I don't want to stray too far off topic - I have a feeling the same people that are hung up on natural perfumes are contributing to the rediculous organic food craze. People - cow shit has killed WAY more people than synthetic fertilizer, hormones, and heaven forbid - transgenics! So when you get cancer anyway, even though you avoid those pesky chemicals, you'll be begging you doctor to pump your body full of poison to kill the cancer. Perhaps by then there will some new "organotheraphy" because chemotherapy has chemicals in it.

Sorry, that was a rant. Anyway, someday very soon the "natural" trend will pass and we can all go back to just enjoying life instead of worrying about the .5mL of violently, deadly, subpar smelling poison that we spray to make ourselves smell nice.

Ok, that was still kind of a rant. At one point in history items were marketed as being superior because they were synthetic. Today things are marketed as superior because the are natural. Tomorrow there will be a new craze. Don't take this stuff too seriously.

dude! thank you... this natural perfumery stuff is starting to drive me insane. and the prices that people are paying too?? its highway robbery! a bunch of quack doctors (ie: organic aromatherapists) preying on weak minds... thats what it is.

That's hardly accurate. EOs are typically distilled.. not what I'd call "a TON of chemistry with those nasty chemicals". Absolutes are extracted with solvents, some of which are potentially more harmful than others, but there isn't really any chemistry involved there either.. at least not in the sense that you mix two substances to produce a third.

Niche fragrances dont last longer than mass produced fragrances in general.
As a matter of fact I've found that they are just about the same or slightly less in staying power.
The real strength of niche fragrances is IMO is that many have been created by thinking outside the box in terms of the variety of notes and how they are formulated.
In other words they are often unique when compared along side more commercially marketed fragrances.

These components are listed on my Serge Lutens' Tubereuse Criminelle box:

Alcohol denat.
Parfum (fragrance)
Benzyl alcohol
Butylphenyl Methylpropional
Linalool
Aqua (water)
Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane
Geraniol
Eugenol
Dipropylene Glycol
Limonene
Benzyl Salicylate
Alpha-Isomethyl Ionone
Isoeugenol
Farnesol
CI 15985 (FD&C Yellow No.6)
Cinnamyl Alcohol
Citral
CI17200 (D&C red No. 33)
CI 42090 (FD&C Blue No. 1)
CI 60725 (D&C Violet No. 2)

Similar story on other Serge Luten's boxes. I'm not a chemist, but, as I know, some of these components are just preservatives/conservants, colorants etc. It's impossible to say something about natural/synthetical essences used for this frag because the only indication we have is "parfum (fragrance)".

Those other substances (citral, isoeugenol, limonene, geraniol, etc) are in fact fragrances. From what I understand, those fragrance additives that are known irritants are required to be labeled on boxes in the EU. The 'parfum' ingredient must be the oils that they aren't required to declare. I hope I am making sense

-ben

This is an issue I am very passionate about. My mother is one of tens of thousands of people who suffer from chemical sensitivity. She is literally dying because of exposure to all the chemicals that fill our daily lives. Some people are more sensitive than others, but a recent study found 100 chemicals in a newborn's cord blood. We are killing ourselves by putting scotchguard on our furniture, eating foods with chemicals and using products (like perfume) with chemicals that seep into our skin. The all-natural parfums are more expensive, but what price are you willing to pay for your health? I discovered an absolutely fabulous parfumist named Jane Hendler. She has AJNE which is featured in this month's In Style Magazine. She has mens' and womens' fragrance lines that are 100% natural. She doesn't use ANY synthetic ingredients and her scents are divine. Check them out at www.ajne.com I'd rather pay for a fragrance I know isn't loaded with chemicals that bottom line, the human body wasn't meant to absorb.

Everything in this world is made up of chemicals, even natural stuff. Water is a chemical.

I understand that, of course. However, I'm talking about synthetic man-made chemicals. Our bodies were designed to absorb water, just not all the chemicals we've put in the water.

Chemophobia and nature worship make you look superstitious, not wise.

There are three problems with this position:

First, natural does not equal safe. Oakmoss is natural, but it is a skin irritant to some people. Arsenic is natural. Poison ivy is natural.

Second, synthetic does not equal unsafe. Many life-saving drugs, for instance, are synthetic.

Third, "natural" and "synthetic" are false dichotomies. Quinine can be extracted from the bark of a South American tree. However, the quinine in your tonic water is generally synthesized from tar. Yet, chemically, quinine is quinine, no matter how it started.

There are three problems with this position:

First, natural does not equal safe. Oakmoss is natural, but it is a skin irritant to some people. Arsenic is natural. Poison ivy is natural.

Second, synthetic does not equal unsafe. Many life-saving drugs, for instance, are synthetic.

Third, "natural" and "synthetic" are false dichotomies. Quinine can be extracted from the bark of a South American tree. However, the quinine in your tonic water is generally synthesized from tar. Yet, chemically, quinine is quinine, no matter how it started.

Pollen is 100% natural and not man made and is one of the mosr common allergens. There are plenty of natural chemicals that are very dangerous to our health. Natural does not mean safe and synthetic or man-made does not mean dangerous.

I think it's quite obvious (or apparently not) what elizabeth mink is trying to say. She's not necessarily saying (I don't think) that every single man-made chemical is bad, nor is every single "all natural 'chemical'" good. That's ludicrous. We know, you know it, she knows it, about everyone knows it. But you can't sit here and say "water is a chemical" or "Arsenic is natural" with a pompous attitude all the while discounting the facts regarding the potential health hazards and proven, detrimental consequences of numerous "man-made chemicals."

Ok, ok, before anything of nature and its inherent hazardous properties is mentioned, I think it's fair to say that it's well known in First World countries that large amounts of CO2 or NaCl (salt) or sun or, yes, DiHydrogen Oxide (joke; water) is BAD FOR YOU. NO KIDDING. Her point, which is so readily being shot down, is that a large percentage of mass produced chemicals created in laboratories with the intention of human consumption (?fragrances?, sweetener, insecticide, hormone injected cattle, etc... etc... etc...) have been proven to be carcinogens. The majority of them are made in the eye of the almighty dollar; that should tell you something. -"Screw the testing! Screw the possible side effects of these chemicals!"- Man-made, synthesized compunds are more likely to be carcinogenic than compunds found in nature. Pure and simple. Therefore, hesitating before the willful use of certain beautiful smelling chemicals becomes a habit, elizabeth mink took the route of au naturale.


I think there's question to this statement. I won't go too far into my personal views, but "chemophobia" is a strong word, as is "nature worship." Both, in this context, capricious and arbitrary. Both extrapolated through only a few sentences.

Please, don't get me wrong. There's a lot to be said of this era and its advancements. Many of us live a richer life because of it. Fragrances just one facet. Nevertheless, here we, as human beings, all sit with the longest life expectency this species has had since it's evolution/creation. That's a great thing, isn't it? I want to have more of it and that is exactly why I and others like to question the possibility of the unnecessary use of synthesized, untested and virtually unknown chemicals.


Edit: Ugh, this thread is over 6 months old isn't it?

Thank you for saying it better than I did. That is EXACTLY my point. And while this thread is old, it's new to me because I'm a new member, and apparantly it's a very passionate topic for some. I just wonder, if we all readily admit there are plenty of things in nature that are bad for us, why so many people unwilling to admit there are tons of man-made chemicals that are bad for us too? What about the recall of Teflon pans and the link to cancer? Are we still arguing that Teflon is good? We used those for years. Parabin (sp) which is found in lotion and is a plasticizer has been linked to testical shrinkage and low sperm count. Does anyone think it's still worth using lotions with parabins? And my last question what do people have AGAINST naturals?

You've made your point in the first post you made resurrecting this thread. Therefore members can read it and consider it for themselves. Can you be content with that? Further, this is a discussion board. Posts on it, including yours, get discussed.

Subjects not involving fragrance, which you mention significantly in this post, are not the subject of Basenotes interest and serve to hijack threads. Did you register to talk about these other things or to talk about fragrances?
--Chris

I agree. She's been sucked into the "nature as loving mother" mentality and is now parroting the common belief that natural substances are inherently safer, gentler, or more beneficial than synthesized ones, which are apt to be poisons created by maverick chemists messing with forces they can't understand.


Actually, I can. As someone else pointed out, the natural/synthetic dichotomy is a false one, and this is the point that people are trying to make with "pompous" statements about how water is a chemical and some natural materials are dangerous. Unfortunately, people like Elizabeth and yourself stubbornly cling to your beliefs even after they've been falsified.


This is a strawman. We are speaking of perfume, not insecticide.

Furthermore, many so-called "carcinogens", such as artificial sweeteners, are only toxic at doses that are levels of magnitude greater than would ever be used in practice. Yes, if you inject sixteen pounds of Nutrasweet into your bloodstream, you may develop tumors; do you plan to do this?


Neither capricious or arbitrary.


Man-made chemicals are generally understood as well as naturally-occuring ones, if not better.. and most synthetics in use in perfumery have been used by large human populations for years, if not decades.

Skepticism is a fine thing, but it must be tempered by reason, not paranoia or superstition.

I'm not going to argue on this matter anymore, as there are quite opposite views contending in a thread not intended for them. To say that natural compounds and chemicals are, in a general sense, more dangerous than man-made chemicals is ludicrous to me. <shrug> But that's just the hippy in me I guess. Stupid hippy. Stupid straw man making hippy.

I feel compelled to defend myself against the "nature as loving mother" comment. I am an Ms. Mink's side. I am not a hippy drippy type and I am not "paranoid" and the allegations you are making are downright insulting. I challenge you to find very many studies about the negative health effects of the chemicals found in popular fragrances, but I expect we will see more and more. We've been using OPI nail polish for years and just today OPI announced they will remove a harmful chemical called dibutyl phthalate from their nail polishes. We learn new things every day and it's best to have a skeptical attitude. Those who've argued against me so vehemntly still haven't answered her question. Why are you so AGAINST naturals, or do you just like to argue for arguement sake? DO ANY OF YOU WEAR NATURALS?

I'm not. What I'm against is the notion that there are two distinct kinds of chemicals, "natural" and "synthetic", and that a given chemical's toxicity can be inferred from its origin, and the continual attempts by paranoid hippies to spread such ignorance in a world that has too much ignorance already.

You obviously have some major disdain for "hippies" but I'd like to correct you. I am not a "pot smoking free lovin hippie" as I believe you see people who have views that are opposite yours. I am a conservative Texas businesswoman, who's read a lot of reasearch on this matter. I have no doubt that as people become more informed and push for change more and more companies (including fragrance companies) will join OPI and some of the major cosemitic companies by removing toxic chemicals from their products. It's not a bunch of paranoid hippies who got Wal Mart to start carrying organic products, it's mainstream America.

So are you our self-appointed shepherd to inform us to make this push?


I found it odd that you, Kathypape, for your first post on this thread, defend yourself. As if you'd been on it earlier and been attacked. Then I noticed that you and the member Elizabeth Mink share the same IP number, and that today you are alternately logged in. No wonder you're "an Ms. Mink's side."

The current use of multiple username memberships is against Basenotes rule (http://www.basenotes.net/cgi-bin/art...ame=forumrules) number nine:

"Members are permitted to have more than one Basenotes account, provided that the older accounts are no longer in use. Members who use multiple accounts to pretend they are more than one person, may (at our discretion) be banned or have the extra accounts deleted. They also would be advised to seek help."

--Chris

Obviously, there are natural chemicals that are appropriate for use in fragrances. If a natural chemical smells good and is safe for topical use, then I am happy to use products that contain it. For instance, Dr. Bronner's Pure-Castile Liquid Soap with Tea Tree Oil is heavenly.

Really, no one wants to put toxic chemicals on his or her skin. However, asking the wrong question ("Is this chemical natural?") will not prevent that. Perfumers have stopped using certain natural chemicals, e.g., damascones, oakmoss, and coumarin, because those natural chemicals irritate some people.

There are other problems with natural chemicals as well. The use of some natural fragrances has brought some species to the brink of extinction, e.g., sandalwood and rosewood. The use of other natural fragrances involves killing animals, e.g., the musk deer. Irrational demand for all-natural products causes some much more harmful consequences.

Obviously, there are also toxic synthetic chemicals as well. I would not put paint stripper into an atomizer and spritz it into my decolletage. However, it is simply illogical to conclude that, if I can not grow it in my back yard, I should not buy a product containing it.

Also, toxicity is not an either-or proposition. Even toxic chemicals must be introduced into the body in sufficient doses, over a sufficient period of time, to harm the body. Some chemicals are safe to spritz on the skin but not to drink straight by the liter.

Finally, some risks are simply not significant enough to spend too much time worrying about. Drakkar Noir may or may not kill me, but I probably ought to pay more attention to whether my diet will contribute to heart disease, or whether my health insurance will refuse to cover some life-saving treatment, or whether that jerk on the road is on his cell phone or had one to many at the bar.

Excellent post Advocate and welcome btw!

MMM

And by "research", you mean alarmist propaganda promulgated by well-meaning fools and superstitious axe-grinders, right?

There are places on the internet where your misbegotten disdain for all synthetics will be validated. I don't think this is one of them.

If I could stick my neck out here... I hope I don't get it chopped off. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people in this forum and your immense knowledge about fragrances. I would just like to try to unemotionally clarify a few issues that get a little muddy when the health merits of "naturals vs synthetics" get discussed. People often confuse the issue of allergies and chemical sensitivity. In the interest of full disclosure, I do sell naturals, as well as a brand that might contain some synthetics.

For people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), the problem with synthetic fragrance chemicals isn't so much about allergic skin reactions or the possibility of them causing cancer. It's about their neurotoxic effects on the central nervous system.

There are about 40 million people in the USA with some degree of MCS. People with MCS (and I'm one of them) are anywhere from 100-1000 times more sensitive to the neurotoxins in synthetic fragrance chemicals than are healthy people. This is why someone can douse themself with a synthetic fragrance and feel fine, but someone across the room can feel terrible from it.

Healthy people can break down the chemicals in their synthetic fragrances and eliminate them from their bodies. People with MCS can't, so the chemicals build up to the point that the slightest exposure can be debilitating. No one knows the cause of MCS, but it seems that people can develop it suddenly and without any warning.

Natural ingredients from essential oils or absolutes can indeed cause skin reactions in sensitive individuals. People can die from ingesting Wintergreen oil. But natural fragrances, to the best of my knowledge, are not neurotoxic.

So I do advocate using naturals as far as possible, both to reduce one's risk of developing MCS, and as an act of courtesy for others who may not be able to tolerate synthetics in public.

Humbly,

Siri Amrit

No offense, but this MCS seems very debated and not widely recognized within the medical community. I remain very sceptic. Just like with people claiming to be allergic to electricity.


links:

http://198.102.218.57/environment/mcs/toc.htm

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/mcs.html

http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=46

http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=46


Plenty of heavy governmental and serious medical info and studies to be found within those.


quotes:

"Multiple Chemical Sensitivity:
A Spurious Diagnosis

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

The expression "multiple chemical sensitivity" ("MCS") is used to describe people with numerous troubling symptoms attributed to environmental factors. Many such people are seeking special accommodations, applying for disability benefits, and filing lawsuits claiming that exposure to common foods and chemicals has made them ill. Their efforts are supported by a small cadre of physicians who use questionable diagnostic and treatment methods. Critics charge that these approaches are bogus and that MCS is not a valid diagnosis".



Multiple chemical sensitivity" is not a legitimate diagnosis. Instead of testing their claims with well-designed research, its advocates are promoting them through publications, talk shows, support groups, lawsuits, and political maneuvering (such as getting state governors to designate a Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Awareness Week). Many are also part of a network of questionable legal actions alleging injuries by environmental chemicals.

"Many people diagnosed with "MCS" suffer greatly and are very difficult to treat. Well-designed investigations suggest that most of them have a psychosomatic disorder in which they develop multiple symptoms in response to stress. If this is true -- and I believe it is -- clinical ecology patients run the risks of misdiagnosis, mistreatment, financial exploitation, and/or delay of proper medical and psychiatric care. In addition, insurance companies, employers, other taxpayers, and ultimately all citizens are being burdened by dubious claims for disability and damages. To protect the public, state licensing boards should scrutinize the activities of clinical ecologists and decide whether the overall quality of their care is sufficient for them to remain in medical practice".


MMM

Further:



"Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome

MICHAEL K. MAGILL, M.D., and ANTHONY SURUDA, M.D., M.P.H.
University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a syndrome in which multiple symptoms reportedly occur with low-level chemical exposure. Several theories have been advanced to explain the cause of MCS, including allergy, toxic effects and neurobiologic sensitization. There is insufficient scientific evidence to confirm a relationship between any of these possible causes and symptoms. Patients with MCS have high rates of depression, anxiety and somatoform disorders, but it is unclear if a causal relationship or merely an association exists between MCS and psychiatric problems. Physicians should compassionately evaluate and care for patients who have this distressing condition, while avoiding the use of unproven, expensive or potentially harmful tests and treatments. The first goal of management is to establish an effective physician-patient relationship. The patient's efforts to return to work and to a normal social life should be encouraged and supported.

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) has been described under various names since the 1940s.1,2 MCS syndrome is characterized by the patient's belief that his or her symptoms are caused by very low-level exposure to environmental chemicals. The term "chemical" is used to refer broadly to many natural and man-made chemical agents, some of which have several chemical constituents. Health care professionals who focus on MCS often refer to themselves as practicing "clinical ecology." MCS syndrome has led to great controversy among clinicians, researchers, patients, lawyers, legislators and regulatory agencies. The absence of scientific agreement on MCS has contributed to the development of emotionally charged, extreme and entrenched positions. Gots2 summarized the controversy as follows:
{short description of image}
See editorial
on page 652.
{short description of image}

"[MCS] has been rejected as an established organic disease by the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, the American Medical Association, the California Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. It may be the only ailment in existence in which the patient defines both the cause and the manifestations of his own condition. Despite this, it has achieved credibility in workmen's [sic] compensation claims, tort liability, and regulatory actions."

Position statements from a variety of medical and governmental organizations on MCS and clinical ecology are shown in Table 1.3-8 No consensus has been reached as to whether MCS is a new illness or has a biologic basis, what causes it or how it should be treated. As we await answers to these questions, clinicians must care responsibly and compassionately for patients experiencing this syndrome."




I think it´s pretty safe to say that MCS is a theory at most and more likely just peoples projections. Also just spoke to my dad who´s a physician and he heard about it and confirmed it´s not accepted in Europe either, and this after extensive studies...


MMM

Further:

From: http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/0192.html

What is the research on MCS?

Does MCS really exist? Some researchers claim it does, others claim it doesn't and some say it might. Why do they disagree?

To date, most studies of MCS have been anecdotal--isolated case studies of individuals or very small groups of people. These people have come to physicians already experiencing the reactions, so discerning cause is very difficult. Although the number of cases is increasing, there is still not a large enough mass of cases to determine any significance between or among cases. Recognizing that the definition and symptoms are vague, several research projects have identified why there are reasons to question the existence of MCS as a disease:

* There is no consistent pattern of symptoms.
* There are no consistent diagnostic test results.
* There is no known mechanism of illness (specific triggers).
* Many of the patients have psychiatric problems.
* Treatments do not work.

Although each of these factors has validity in the studies in which they were identified, other researchers have been able to address each of these five concerns by suggesting that MCS is not an "allergy" and that comparing MCS to more common allergic patterns, tests, triggers, and treatments will not work. These researchers claim that as this is a distinct type of illness, it must be viewed and managed differently. Some researchers point to Sick Building Syndrome, which, when it was first suggested as a problem, was criticized in a similar way. Other researchers have suggested that the psychiatric problems are not the explanation for the illness, but that people with depression or other problems are more likely to be affected by MCS or that the onset of MCS has created a situation in which the individual becomes psychologically troubled by stress, fear, isolation and other outcomes of having MCS. The result is depression, panic disorder, or paranoia. To determine if MCS is a disease, the real challenge is in trying to find the cause of the physical illness--which came first, the reaction to the chemicals or the emotional problems and did one cause the other, or are they simply related but not causally linked?



Btw, I don´t want to attack you Tigerflag, went to your website, it looks good. I´m sure you´re sensitivity to chemicals may very well be true. However it is the general diagnosis that I feel extremely sceptical about. I´ve read lots of stuff now and all blind, double blind etc studies on the subject point in the same direction. If you have different scientific material from credible sources, please post them.

Regards
M

To answer the original question, as long as it smells good I really don't care if it's natural or not. I've read a few people state that the reason why some niche scents don't last long is because they use only natural ingredients. I personally don't think that is a valid excuse for poor longevity. If they don't last, then they don't last. They shouldn't be defended with such a statement, which is probably false anyways. Don't get me wrong; I like my Dzing! and I hate that it only lasts 2 hours on me. But I'm not going to justify it by saying that the reason is due to natural ingredients. 4711 is very fleeting yet I don't hear anybody defending that one. When I buy a niche scent, it's not because of its "natural ingredients". I buy it because I like how it smells and for the collecting aspect of this hobby.

Topper Schroeder recreated Gendarme with a very high oil percentage along with glycerin for people with sensitive skin and allergies. But many would dismiss this scent and head straight to the more expensive scents instead since higher price = higher quality.

Tigerflag, can you please provide any piece of research that demonstrates:

a/ "neurotoxins in synthetic fragrance chemicals"

b/ "natural fragrances, to the best of my knowledge, are not neurotoxic"


It would also help if you could explain what you mean by 'natural fragrances'. Do you mean perfumes manufactured by people who label them natural? Do you mean essential oils? Do you mean fragrances in nature (eg my rose bush)?

OK, here goes. My definition of "Natural Perfumes" is: "Perfumes or fragrances made from natural sources, including plant essential oils, absolutes, enfleurages, spices, herbs, woods, shells, etc." Ethical considerations adside, animal-derived substances such as musks, civet and ambergris would be included in this definition. Synthetic fragrance chemicals are derived from petrochemicals. While oil comes out of the ground and is therefor "natural" in a sense, I think we all understand the distinction being made.

Here is a list of some EOs used in aromatherapy and natural perfumery, with their possible hazards. Glancing over it, the only one I see listed as neurotoxic is Camphor. Many of these EOs are listed as not being safe for pregnant women: Essential Oils Safety Information

Nature's Gift is widely respected as a supplier of essential oils and absolutes, and their site is a virtual encyclopedia of these oils. They have a different "take" on the safety and risks of many EOs: Essential Oil Warnings

(People with skin sensitivity to perfumes can get around it by putting a dab of perfume on a bit of clothing that doesn't contact their skin and doesn't show. Natural perfumes with their relatively short scent-life actually last a lot longer when applied this way.)

From my experience, many people who react severely to synthetic perfumes can tolerate natural perfumes. Anectdotally, I read in a natural perfumer's forum about a woman who had severe asthma attacks in the presence of synthetic perfumes. This is a common reaction to synthetics. The perfumer let this woman sit at her worktable and sniff dozens of natural absolutes with no bad affect whatsoever.

People with allergies to certain plants will not be able to tolerate them in a natural perfume. Some people with MCS have become so sensitized that they cannot tolerate any fragrances, even natural ones. But there are enough people, (me being one of them) who have no problem tolerating naturals but we have terrible problems around synthetics. This makes me believe that the naturals are probably much safer from a neurotoxic standpoint.

I have very little respect for Quackwatch. Their bias frequently ignores massive scientific evidence that contradicts their positions, and that's not good science in my book. They still list the non-toxic treatments that cured me of cancer as being unproven, and even deadly. As if chemo isn't deadly... Questions about Quackwatch

In "Twenty Most Common Chemicals Found in 31 Fragrance Products" You will see a number of volatile organic solvents present, which are the neurotoxic agents of which I speak. Wherever you see "CNS", that means the chemical adversely affects the central nervous system. The reason why is thoroughly explained by Dr. Martin Pall in the articles I list below.

It is just not true that MCS doesn't exist, or exists in only a few people with probable psychological problems. That is outdated information that does not hold up against the most recent research.

From Dr. Martin Pall, who advanced the "Elevated Nitric Oxide/Peroxynitrite/NMDA Model of MCS":

Excerpt from "MCS: The End of the Controversy"

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), where people report being exquisitely sensitive to a wide range of organic chemicals, is almost always described as being "controversial." The main source of this supposed controversy is that there has been no plausible physiological mechanism for MCS and consequently, it was difficult to interpret the puzzling reported features of this condition. As discussed below, this is no longer true and consequently the main source of such controversy has been laid to rest. There still are important issues such as how it should be diagnosed and treated and these may also be allayed by further studies of the mechanism discussed below.

MCS in the U. S. appears to be surprisingly common. Epidemiologists have studied how commonly MCS occurs in the U. S. and roughly 9 to 16 % having more modest sensitivity. Thus we are talking about perhaps 10 million severe MCS sufferers and perhaps 25 to 45 million people with more modest sensitivity. From these numbers, it appears that MCS is the most common of what are described as "unexplained illnesses" in the U. S.

Those suffering from severe MCS often have their lives disrupted by their illness. They often have to move to a different location, often undergoing several moves before finding an tolerable environment. They may have to leave their place of employment, so many are unemployed. Going out in public may expose them to perfumes that make them ill. They often report sensitivity to cleaning agents used in motels or other commercial locations. Flying is difficult due to jet fumes, cleaning materials, pesticide use and perfumes.

The exquisite sensitivity of many MCS people is most clearly seen through their reported sensitivity to perfumes. MCS people report becoming ill when a person wearing perfumes walks by or when they are seated several seats away from someone wearing perfume. Clearly the perfume wearer is exposed to a much higher dose than is the MCS person and yet the perfume wearer reports no obvious illness.

This strongly suggests that MCS people must be at least 100 times more sensitive than are normal individuals and perhaps a 1000 or more times more sensitive. Thus a plausible physiological model of MCS must be able to explain each of the following: How can MCS people be 100 to 1000 times more sensitive to hydrophobic organic solvents than normal people? How can such sensitivity be induced by previous exposure to pesticides or organic solvents? Why is MCS chronic, with sensitivity typically lasting for life? How can the diverse symptoms of MCS be explained? Each of these questions is answered by the model discussed below.

See Also"Multiple Chemical Sensitivity"

And: "NMDA sensitization and stimulation by peroxynitrite, nitric oxide, and organic solvents as the mechanism of chemical sensitivity in multiple chemical sensitivity"

Exerpt from: "Synopsis of studies proving the existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" :

A tool used by Nuclear Medicine Specialists is the SPECT brain scan. SPECT stands for Single Photon Emission Computerized Tomography. Rather than show brain structure like CAT or MRI scans, SPECT scans show functioning of the brain. "Perfusion impairment" means there is a decrease in the flow of blood.

2A. Neurotoxicologist Dr. Gunnar Heuser performed before and after SPECT brain scans in many MCS patients. The patients were scanned after chemical avoidance, and were then scanned again after being exposed to perfume. His research findings are as follows: MCS patients generally have a decreased flow of blood to the brain, which becomes further decreased upon exposure to perfumes (see Defining Multiple Chemical Sensitivity pgs. 27-30 and a response to the Interagency report by Ann McCampbell, M.D.)

2B. Nuclear Medicine specialist Dr. Theodore Simon, who trained at Harvard, and his colleagues conducted over 1,500 SPECT scans on MCS patients. 90% of these patients showed brain abnormalities and deterioration in brain function that increased upon chemical exposure. The changes that took place upon chemical exposure were "very different from the changes associated with psychiatric disease."

2C. Dr. Gerald H. Ross (M.D., C.C.F.P., D.I.B.E.M., D.A.B.E.M., F.A.A.E.M., F.R.S.M., Past President of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine), in a documentary, discusses before and after SPECT brain scans: MCS patients were scanned in a clean environment and then scanned after being exposed to a substance that by history they report being sensitive to, "in an amount that's an everyday experience (...it's not as if they're sniffing glue)." MCS patients have abnormal brain functioning. After the patients were exposed to a substance they were sensitive to a "profound" deterioration in brain function took place. The area in which this function deterioration is present correlates with the brain-related symptoms reported by the MCS sufferers.

----------------------------------------
Please forgive any typos. I tried to proof this but I'm not at my best in the morning.

Respectfully submitted,
Siri Amrit

OK. I haven't read all of your reply yet, but I will do so with the utmost attention, because you have taken a lot of trouble. Meanwhile...

I have had a look at the "twenty most common chemicals in 31 fragrance products" as it seemed to come the closest to addressing my original question. There seem to only be 13 chemicals listed(?) but a quick glance showed that all seven of the ones that are used as scent material in perfumes, occur in abundance in natural aroma materials. In fact it would be quite (I suspect very) hard to make a natural perfume without them being present. This is leaving aside ethanol and acetone, both present in natural products, which are not usual active aromachemicals. You can google all this yourself.

Back to my rose bush... Ah yes, pure natural rose oil, concrete, absolute, co2 extraction, whatever. Lovely and natural, yes? Contains methyleugenol, a suspected carcinogen - google estragole as well when you check this one. Use in fragrance is very severely restricted because of this. Which is why perfumes mostly use carefully manufactured synthetic alternatives - not because it is cheaper, or easier, not because they don't want to use anything natural, but because it is safer.

Rose oil contains between 0-5% percent Methyleugenol.
Reference: http://eethomp.com/AT/dangerous_oils.html

The IFRA puts it at 3.5%.

Assuming it has even 5% Methyleugenol, if you dilute the rose oil to 10% in a carrier (quite strong), that puts the Methyleugenol at 0.005, well within the IFRA safety guidelines for:

EdT\t\t 0.00785\trounded: 0.008
Fine fragrance\t0.01963\trounded: 0.02
Reference: http://www.ifraorg.org/GuideLines.asp

The European Cosmetic Directive 76/768/EEC – 7TH Amendment and the
The (UK) Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2003 SI 2003/835
Reference: http://www.a-t-c.org.uk/pages/index....sec=6&page=191

"These new UK Regulations are quite separate from the 7th Amendment to the European Cosmetic Directive and came into force on 15 April 2003. They take into account amendments that have been adopted since the Cosmetic Regulations were implemented in 1996. The Regulations are published by The Stationery Office and are available from TSO, PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN, Web site: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop under ISBN No: 0-11-045437-5. They prohibit the use of methyleugenol (a naturally occuring substance in many essential oils such as rose oil) when used as a fragrance ingredient except for normal content in the natural essences used and provided that the concentration does not exceed:
(a) 0.01 per cent in fragrance;
(b) 0.004 per cent in eau de toilette;
(c) 0.002 per cent in fragrance cream "

Math is not my strong point, so if I have made any errors here I would appreciate the correction.

People have been safely wearing diluted Rose oil in perfumes and attars for thousands of years. Synthetic fragrance chemicals began to be used late in the 19th century, long before there were studies about the possible carcinogenic or other health effects of synthetic or natural fragrances. Synthetics have the advantages of greatly reduced cost, as well as aromatic consistency. Synthetics are also not subject to the vagaries of weather problems or crop failures, so they were eagerly adopted by the fragrance industry.

Humbly submitted,

Siri Amrit

Siri, I work every day with fragrance materials, natural and unnatural (not that I make a distinction personally). IFRA limits and their calculation are virtually in my blood, so to speak... I take an awful lot of care that this is not literally true, either for myself or for my customers!

The point is, that what you have defined as natural, some of it, contains toxins. No ifs, no buts, no 'you can still use x amount of it' - in short it contains toxins. Anyone can find out about this - perhaps it takes a little more effort than creating a sockpuppet, but it needs the desire to learn.

In the example of methyleugenol in rose oil - it is also present in other essential oils. It is easy to go over the IFRA limit if you blindly assume that all natural oils are 'safe - can you see that? And that people have been safely using rose oils for thousands of years - well how on earth can you know that? All we know is that they used them.

That a product is natural is whatsoever no guarantee that it is not toxic, or a sensitiser, or an irritant. I really have no axe to grind about this, and I have no patience with the idea that a carefully constructed synthetic is automatcally safe either... The natural/unnatural divide strikes me as an emotional sort of thing rather than anything concrete, but that is just my opinion.

Oh come on - like Motecuzoma says the point is about is about chemicals which are not tested for long term human exposure - everyone knows what the effects of arsenic are - but the effects of inhaling or absorbing Benzoyl Benzoate through osmosis, which is comprised of benzene molecules which are 100% known to be highly carcinogenic, via 5 sprays per day of perfume is completely unknown, and there are plenty of sound scientific reasons to suspect it is detrimental to your health. I would also wonder about inhaling and absorbing 5 sprays of natural oils too, but synthetic chemicals like dioxins can have really pernicious properties than natural poisons like arnsenic or even cyanide don't.


That just isn't true - most chemicals and drugs are only tested in a very limited way, especially since food and drug testing by the Federal government in the US has been deregulated into a joke - the industry does the testing itself, gives itself a green light, and then the real test is done on the general public as we saw with vioxx and phen-phen, etc.

No one is doing any serious long term tests of chemical additives, because it's costly to do them, and incentives are against it - university researchers who take on such sujects often get in trouble as corporate donors get upset and threaten to wirthdraw funding, etc. That's been a big problem with cell phone testing for example.

It's one thing to be skeptical of an "everything natural is good/everything synthetic is evil" mentality, but it's just as childish to go to the other extreme and think "who cares, just live, water is a chemical, if it's in a bottle for sale, it's fine" and it's even more childish to insult someone who's worried about those things. Go ahead and point out that natural chemical are also dangerous, go ahead and debate about testing etc, but why insult this woman whose mother is sick. or why insult anyone who thinks about what's in the things they eat and drink and spray?

People used to think lead and asbestos and DDT and benzene were fine.

Alot of the chemicals with huge unpronounceable names in fragrances *are* fine, but as a consumer who has no idea what those things are, it's just rational to wonder what those chemicals are, and what long term effects they might have.

AFAIK, oils and other extracts from natural sources are tested no more than synthetics are.


Such as?

Their composition is utterly irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that human metabolism, or some other natural process, changes BB into a harmful substance. There are numerous examples of harmless molecules which are dangerous with only a slight change in composition.


So, we're to believe that all synthetics should be considered as deadly as cyanide, just because you say so?


Your implication here is that millions of consumers are being exposed to substances that may be harmful. However, we can see that those millions of consumers have not generally been harmed by the substances you're trying to condemn. For good or ill, that "test on the general public" has already been performed, and perfume passes.


I think that tinfoil hat is getting to you. Did you have it tested for safety?


No one is saying that. What they're doing is providing a rational scientific perspective. Your inability to distinguish one from the other lends no credit to your argument.


Many people secretly believe that those who lack the ability to think rationally can at least be persuaded to follow those who do through social pressure.


There is a difference between curiosity motivated by self-interest and blanket condemnation of an arbitrary class of chemicals motivated by fear and ignorance.

Well maybe they should be testing those too, but mostly we already know that almond oil isn't particularly dangerous, or that oakmoss is an allergen etc. Those things have been around a long time


Well you may be right that Benzoyl Benzoate is totally harmless, even though Benzene isn't but we as consumers don't know that. Plus there is serious debate in among experts on some chemicals like Sodium Benzoate which is also in some fragrances. The argument is that if it interacts with certain ions in your body (I think vitamin C was an example, I don't remember the details) then it will break down into Sodium and Benzene, and then it is harmful. Sodium Benzoate is in many beverages and in many fragrances, and there are strong arguments that it is dangerous, but the science is still debatable at this point, and tests haven't been done in terms of it being sprayed or osmosis, as they've been focused on it as a beverage additive.


You completely misread what I was saying - I said nothing of the sort. I said that some synthetic chemicals interact with the human body in really pernicious ways that are hard to understand, unlike even really deadly natural poisons like cyanide.



You're inventing my arguments - I'm not trying to condemn any particular substances, I'm just arguing that it makes sense to be cautious about substances that one knows little or nothing about. What I'm condemning is your bizarre attitude of needing to bash down anyone who is worried that these chemicals might have some negative effects, just like other chemicals in the past that weren't properly tested turned out to have.

And your argument here is really weak - how do you know these chemicals haven't had harmful effects on millions of people who've been using them. Maybe many devellopped allergies, or skin conditions or more serious illnesses after long term exposure and it just wasn't linked to the chemicals. In ancient greece people used lead to line wine kegs. Obviously this must have had serious health effects, and obviously they just didn't link it to the lead.


Well, that's enough for me. Judging from your tone and your general responses I see that you are not particularly interesting in having a discussion. You haven't heard a word I've said and injected a steretypical nonexistant viewpoint into all of my arguments.

IWhat's definitely hazardous to the public is when people ardently take positions without hearing what the opposition is saying because the sound of their own voice is ringing too loudly in their ears.

Congratulations you win, your strawman is totally defeated. Good job!

So this debate still rages on.

Caesar, gotta love your sig - my colleague in the lab cubicle behind me inquired about the sales and the swaps !

Wow, this thread has strayed far away from its original point. Let me rephrase what the original poster was trying to get across. Do you prefer fragrances that are predominantly made of essential oils or ones that are predominantly made of synthetic oils? Natural obviously wasn't the correct word choice but I doubt he ever dreamed so many uptight people were going to get butt hurt over it. The same people who are accusing hippies and others being uptight about straying away from chemicals are being uptight of word usage. Talk about hypocritical. It's a message board and no one is going to change their values because of what someone else says.
So moving on, I tend to wear predominantly synthetic fragrances at work because (just like they are designed to) they appeal to more of the masses than my predominantly essential oil fragrances do. I keep those for myself and wear them for myself because I enjoy them more and they just smell better on my skin. Not all of the essential oil fragrances do but the ones that smell great, smell better than any synthetic fragrances Ive come across.
This is not a holier than thou attitude but just my sense of smell and what it prefers. Im not wearing these fragrances to impress anyone. Honestly, Im a little bit embarrassed about the money that I would spend on a fragrance or if asked what I was wearing the inquirer would be left wondering what I had just said. Not to mention that it is not widely accepted that a straight male such as myself would have such a fondness of perfumery. Even my girlfriend asked me if I was going to come out of the closet. This was after my interest in essential oil fragrances because it is accepted that straight males wear designer fragrances or axe body spray.
I just wanted to clear that up seeing on how people are so quick to write off those that prefer essential oil fragrances, as snobs who just want something to brag about. I dont have anyone to impress on a message board.

Last I heard, we don't "mostly already know" about a lot of natural aromachemicals, and when we do know, it's because we have performed testing.


I never claimed that BB was harmless, only that it's common for harmless chemicals to be similar to harmful ones, and that the presence of benzene constituents in BB doesn't necessarily indicate that they have similar effects.


I can't speak to that, as I haven't seen the studies.

Incidentally, a debate over the potential toxicity of a different chemical isn't much of a basis for suspicion.


You are implying that there is some fundamental difference between synthetic and naturally-occurring chemicals that serves as a basis for predicting their respective effects on the human body. No such difference exists. The labels "natural" and "synthetic" are artificial, and in this context, meaningless.


Your posts are couched in the assumptions of chemophobia. Wear the shoe.


If your definition of "discussion" requires that I don't point out the obvious flaws in your claims and assumptions, then no, I'm not interested in having a "discussion" with you. You might try Kansas; I hear the people there don't understand science either.