Code of Conduct
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 60 of 130
  1. #1
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    77

    Default Natural vs synthetic

    So I've read a lot of posts saying how you have to have aroma chems to create something good or usable. But at the same time reviews of such top perfumes like CREED always say that they use and smell natural and the cost so much due to the fact that they use expensive natural ingredients so where does the truth lie. Is it somewhere in the middle or is the whole thing a clever marketing campaign to charge ridiculous amounts of money for something that's not all that costly to make.
    I'm not saying it's away to do or that charging a lot of money for someone's creativity is wrong but the truth would be nice. I would rather pay for something knowing why it cost what it does.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Creed don't state that they only use naturals.
    Very few fragrances indeed are made without the use of aroma chemicals for various reasons and this has been the case for a very long time indeed.
    In some cases, there are also ethical reasons for using synthetics in place of naturals.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    As lpp was saying. The cost of materials is just a small fraction of the price,so indeed, for most brands it is really marketing. Besides, most natural materials are now restricted by IFRA, so perfume brands wouldn't use them even if they wanted to.

    cacio

  4. #4

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Creed are somewhat of an exception though in that their marketing is largely nonsense -- their fragrances are fairly basic, without any really top-shelf materials in them -- they just have an excellent marketing team to pump them up. Their "Royal Oud" for example contains no oud and is certainly not royal, despite some of the laughable stories they attach to the scents. For mainstream releases such as Creeds, it's just not cost effective to use high-end or pricey materials when mass producing scents, but you'll find perfumers out there (and in these forums) who lean toward rare / expensive naturals because they have greater dimensions and a deeper scent profile. Synths can be wonderful, and there are some great, creative blends to be had from them, but make no mistake that Creed's primary goal is to move units -- and they do so through their marketing tactics more than anything.

  5. #5
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Would it make more sense(cents) to use cheap chems when your bottom line is money but is there any big companies who can do both? Can you not make money and make a quality natural based product. I'm sure there are a few out there but none come to mind. It's too bad you have to sacrifice quality for profit. But without a public willing to buy into a co like creed selling an overpriced overhyped product they might have to resort to other options. It will never happen but one can dream. I know aroma chems are an important part of modern perfumery and no doubt they are needed but are they not just a short cut to creativity or am easy way of finding an answer that would take a true artist to find using naturals. Balancing a formula using naturals is an art unto itself

  6. #6

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    I'm sure that others will make better comments, but do remember that large companies are profit driven and need to be able to market a consistent product at a competitive price and also that many more of the indie artists out there utilise synthetics than not - whether or not they manage to make any profit!
    Totally 'natural' products have drawbacks other than consistency & price.

    It's all mixing chemicals in the end - with different aims and intentions perhaps.

    Limiting your choice to naturals only is not a choice taken by many - how many really highly regarded fragrance lines do this?
    Last edited by lpp; 29th December 2013 at 10:44 PM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Cason View Post
    I know aroma chems are an important part of modern perfumery and no doubt they are needed but are they not just a short cut to creativity or am easy way of finding an answer that would take a true artist to find using naturals. Balancing a formula using naturals is an art unto itself
    Plainly I will answer, No, Aromatic chemicals are not simply a short cut to compensate for a lack of skill in the hands of a Perfumer.

    There is as you say, an art to balancing a formula completely with naturals. As there is an Art to balancing all perfumes, made with all materials. But selling an all natural perfume is selling an idea, a philosophy, before it is selling a perfume. And this philosophy is based on a fallacious ideology that synthetic materials are bad for you, or that they have no "Life-Force" mumbo-jumbo, or that a chemical found in an essential oil isn't the same chemical that is processed by lab techniques into that material, in a cheaper manner than by using the natural material.

    The entire Natural Perfume movement is a fallacious fractionated inane irrationality. To use nice words.

    A molecule is a molecule is a molecule.
    Last edited by pkiler; 6th March 2014 at 03:45 PM.
    Paul Kiler
    PK Perfumes
    http://www.PKPERFUMES.com
    Gold Medal for "Best Aroma"; Los Angeles Artisan Fragrance Salon

  8. #8

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Thank you, Paul!

  9. #9

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Cason View Post
    So I've read a lot of posts saying how you have to have aroma chems to create something good or usable. But at the same time reviews of such top perfumes like CREED always say that they use and smell natural and the cost so much due to the fact that they use expensive natural ingredients so where does the truth lie. Is it somewhere in the middle or is the whole thing a clever marketing campaign to charge ridiculous amounts of money for something that's not all that costly to make.
    I'm not saying it's away to do or that charging a lot of money for someone's creativity is wrong but the truth would be nice. I would rather pay for something knowing why it cost what it does.
    I think it's mostly hype, though not always, depending on the perfumer. A perfume's cost does vary greatly with the expense of ingredients, and many natural ingredients are among the most expensive. The cost of those items is related to the demand for them versus the supply.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Cason View Post
    Would it make more sense(cents) to use cheap chems when your bottom line is money but is there any big companies who can do both? Can you not make money and make a quality natural based product. I'm sure there are a few out there but none come to mind. It's too bad you have to sacrifice quality for profit. But without a public willing to buy into a co like creed selling an overpriced overhyped product they might have to resort to other options. It will never happen but one can dream. I know aroma chems are an important part of modern perfumery and no doubt they are needed but are they not just a short cut to creativity or am easy way of finding an answer that would take a true artist to find using naturals. Balancing a formula using naturals is an art unto itself
    It will on the average be cheaper the more synthetics you use, all things being equal. But all things are not equal, and some aromachemicals are very, very expensive, more than some natural materials. A committment to mostly natural materials can often make your product cost more to make.

    On the other hand, if you objective is a beautiful perfume and making art, using aromachemicals gives you more options; and it is probaby fair to say you can make perfumes over the long haul that better meet a wide variety of artistic visions if you use both aromachemicals and naturals. Both have their qualities and advantages.

    Aromachemicals can be used in the way you fear, but that is not due to their "nature". That is due to an inferior artist or company in that respect.

    Balancing a formula using only naturals is indeed a difficult, fun art. So is balancing a formula using aromachemicals, or using both.

    With single chemicals, single molecules, you have more control over narrow, precise notes.

    With naturals, nature has balanced them for you, their arrays of chemicals; but combining them requires that one accounts for the complexity created, and often there appears to be chaos to deal with. There is a skill to that, or several skills.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 30th December 2013 at 05:51 AM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    I also have some frustration with any strict naturals movement, as you can prefer the wonders of nature and still want to add some beautiful note or notes to achieve your vision that are possible only via single chemicals, or non-nature identical chemicals.

    Notwithstanding, I believe there is certainly a value to natural materials. It is not as if they have no advantages. Their beauty is the beauty of nature, and their beauty is built in, depending on their quality.

    Part of the unique value of naturals can be seen via biology. These natural substances, which are themselves combinations of scented and nonscented chemicals, have evolved in, and with, a relationship with humans and other members of the environment. Human history can be told as a relation with the scents of nature, and has been.

    Humans have a scent as well, and have evolved with other scent producing organisms. Psychology is also important, as humans have evolved with particular behaviors and emotional responses in response to specific scents.

    People have also evolved to form close relations with plants and organisms that are a benefit to them somehow, in numerous ways. Many of these plants, for example, are foods, or resemble bioactive scents such as musks or pheromones (see Pherobase library for a scientific view on this, as related to insects and their relation with nature based aromachemicals). Many plants are medicines, or are otherwise useful, and these qualities are in a sense inherent in their DNA.

    There are biological reasons that particular foods, herbs, and other species smell good. These relations make species more adaptive to their environment, and enhance their survival and flourishing.

    Smell has a biology as well as a chemistry, in other words.

    Lavender, for example, is antinflammatory, as is wintergreen. Valerian root relaxes you. Rosemary wakes you up a little bit, as does grapefruit or menthol. Vanilla is comforting, whether through it's inherent biochemistry, or through classical conditioning. Eucalyptus helps your breathing. Clove can relieve a toothache, as can eugenol alone.

    But I don't see any reason to elimenate single chemicals, or single chemicals that are not nature identical. That would be sad for perfuming, indeed. I appreciate the value of naturals, but my interest in perfumery as an art requires that I use both. My deepest love is for natural materials. I enjoy coaxing nature into a specific direction, and I can't really imagine creating a perfume using only synthetics. It is possible, just not my preference. I value unbridled artistic vision, but as it happens, I always have something from nature in my mind's eye. Here I am reminded of Japanese gardens, which are themselves a spellbinding expression of the combination of nature and human art. They express natural art in combination with human art. Humans in that case are molding the growth of, and ornamenting, nature. Notwithstanding, humans are part of nature, and so there is a sense in which a chemical created by humans is also natural.

    So there should be no taboo about chemicals, even thought the fascinating biopsychology of scent is what it is.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 30th December 2013 at 06:57 AM.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    I'm not sure how this natural perfumery movement 'behaves', but if they're
    as militant as the neo-vegans are, then it's purely pathological in my eyes.
    However, people are entitled to know what's in their products (though the
    law doesn't always think so), and marketing products that were built using
    molecules fabricated or isolated as natural is a bit misleading.

    Regarding this -
    And this philosophy is based on a falacious ideology that synthetic materials are bad for you, or that they have no "Life-Force" mumbo-jumbo
    I don't really agree with this view, but that might take us far off
    the topic, and will make people think less of me

  13. #13
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    62

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    The Natural Perfumery group on Yahoo seems to be losing members to the Perfumery group. I blame this on the militant No Fermenting rule. However its intentions are good and inspirational.

    I hope this coming year there will be more 'natural isolates', fermented or not, that will enable more people to try natural perfuming. In Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell Classen wrote:"Today's synthetic scents...are evocative of things which are not there, of presences which are absent...These artificial odours are a sign without a referent, smoke without fire, pure olfactory image.... The question is, will smell, seduced by an endless procession of olfactory simulacra ... remind us of our organic nature and even hint at a realm of the spirit."
    Last edited by nemenator; 31st December 2013 at 01:47 PM.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    I blame this on the militant No Fermenting rule.
    What does this mean? They don't use ferments as well? Weird.

    As for simulacra - an interesting implication in regards to aroma chemicals. I'm
    not sure I wholesomely agree, because for me simulacra refers to a much more
    pungent form of illusions than the aroma chemicals evoke.. Will probably need to
    give this some thought.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    There's a world of difference between trying to succeed within dictated/agreed limits and being free to be creative with the whole, wonderful selection of available materials.

  16. #16
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    When I started this thread I was in no way saying that only naturals is the way to go. I was just questioning the cost and marketing of some perfumes. Sure aroma chems are important and just as hard to master as naturals if not harder. I agree that it's like an artist having access to more materials. The life force or the soul of naturals is all well and good but that's more aroma therapy than perfumery. I say use whatever it takes to create what your after and use them however you wish.
    We are not all trying to do the same thing some of us want nothing to so with nature and wish to create something that doesn't exist naturally so to each his own and have fun.

  17. #17
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    687

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by nemenator View Post
    The Natural Perfumery group on Yahoo seems to be losing members to the Perfumery group. I blame this on the militant No Fermenting rule. However its intentions are good and inspirational.

    I hope this coming year there will be more 'natural isolates', fermented or not, that will enable more people to try natural perfuming. In Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell Classen wrote:"Today's synthetic scents...are evocative of things which are not there, of presences which are absent...These artificial odours are a sign without a referent, smoke without fire, pure olfactory image.... The question is, will smell, seduced by an endless procession of olfactory simulacra ... remind us of our organic nature and even hint at a realm of the spirit."
    I find it puzzling, to say the least, that within the realm of natural medicine probiotics, fermented foods and many other bacteria based products are widely lauded as an essential part of "proper nutrition" and yet anything fermented or that is a product of fermentation is bad for the outside of the body according to the natural perfumery guild? I'm curious to see/hear the logic and science behind this... (my guess is that there isn't any and the NPG site says as much). It seems as though there is a lot of fear mongering and guru-ism going on here. I don't think that there is any question as to whether or not some natural substances are harmful to our health but I find it highly suspect to make the blanket statement that ANYTHING man made is inherently bad or somehow "evil" - according to whichever relative religious definition one might choose - within the context of perfumery.

    My guess is that the tenets espoused by the natural perfumers guild are an extension of some other belief system or are the personal beliefs of a woo-guru as it doesn't seem to follow any form of logic or science that I'm familiar with. I actually take the side of "naturalist" ideologies in the case of both GMO foods/plants and fluoride in the water supply and I practice many beliefs espoused by some evidence based/empirical based natural medicine advocates, so, I'm not a "mainstream" or corporate industry chear-leader in any sense of the word. Unfortunately the natural perfumery guild doesn't make any scientific claims, nor can they back up their stance with any clear logic. Also, the fact remains that the current popular industry trend with regards to natural products has grown exponentially and to the point that demand is far outstripping natural resources faster than they can be grown. It can also be argued that stripping the earth of it's natural resources with reckless abandon is a very poor practice that negatively impacts natural biodiversity and human health worse than any fermented scent soup we intentionally spray onto ourselves.
    Justin E. Beasley

  18. #18

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Personally my view is that this isnít a competition. Natural materials have advantages (complexity, familiarity) and disadvantages (complexity, variability). Synthetics can give you scent components that are either unavailable in nature (marine notes for example) or prohibitively expensive (ambergris notes for example). Synthetics are also vastly simpler, which makes them easier to use.

    In my experience working with naturals alone is harder: hence I have only one fully natural fragrance in my range. Only once was I satisfied that Iíd produced a natural perfume as opposed to a blend of essential oils . . .

    On the fermentation question this seems to me to be the worst kind of hypocrisy on the part of many who espouse this philosophy, who happily sell their products diluted in ďorganic grain alcoholĒ . . . produced by fermentation. I dare say many of them cheerfully eat leavened bread too . . .

    Final thought, if you do buy into the idea that natural is better, that life-force factors change the nature of the ingredients in some beneficial way and so on, I invite you to remember that fraudsters exist in every field:

    On 11th October 2013 I shared a post by the authors of Scent and Chemistry on the Pell Wall Perfumes Facebook page in which they give an analysis of the perfume Calling All Angels by April Aromatics, who appear to be still claiming itís all-natural despite the clear evidence of the GC-MS that it contains 9% Amber Core (a cheap synthetic amber manufactured by Kao and normally used in low-end functional perfumery). To my mind thatís a bit like finding your beef contains 9% horse-meat.

    It causes me to wonder whether it was really bottled on the full moon, "channelled" with the aid of a "clairvoyant healer" with messages from archangels Michael and Raphael, but of course those things donít show up on a GC-MS so itís impossible to be sure . . . at 14Euro for 2.5ml I should think the ďElohim" were well paid. The fragrance is fully IFRA compliant though, so itís definitely on the side of the angels!
    Chris Bartlett
    Perfumes from the edge . . .

    www.perfumedesigner.co.uk
    Twitter: @PellWallPerfume

    If you are looking for a perfumery consultation Iím happy to quote: if you want free advice, thatís what these forums are for
    You can also join my blog if you wish to ask questions of me.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    ??

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    687

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Bartlett View Post
    Final thought, if you do buy into the idea that natural is better, that life-force factors change the nature of the ingredients in some beneficial way and so on, I invite you to remember that fraudsters exist in every field:

    On 11th October 2013 I shared a post by the authors of Scent and Chemistry on the Pell Wall Perfumes Facebook page in which they give an analysis of the perfume Calling All Angels by April Aromatics, who appear to be still claiming it’s all-natural despite the clear evidence of the GC-MS that it contains 9% Amber Core (a cheap synthetic amber manufactured by Kao and normally used in low-end functional perfumery). To my mind that’s a bit like finding your beef contains 9% horse-meat.

    It causes me to wonder whether it was really bottled on the full moon, "channelled" with the aid of a "clairvoyant healer" with messages from archangels Michael and Raphael, but of course those things don’t show up on a GC-MS so it’s impossible to be sure . . . at 14Euro for 2.5ml I should think the “Elohim" were well paid. The fragrance is fully IFRA compliant though, so it’s definitely on the side of the angels!
    I'm certain that this is more common than most would like to believe, especially in the US where marketing is king. Buyer beware.
    Justin E. Beasley

  21. #21

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    most people think (hope and believe) her perfume that she would love absolutely natural.

    And if a perfume is very expensive and rare, then it must be, of course, without chemicals. Expensiv = natural.

    But for how many bottles and packaging is, the content would be purely natural?

    I can think of not a lot of manufacturers. They are available. No doubt about it.

    And the more chemicals we use, the stronger is the belief for a content without chemicals.
    http://www.aromatisches-blog.de
    Here`s something for the tip of your nose!

  22. #22

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Chris - that doesn't contradict the life-force idea..
    It seems that sometimes marketing is more important than content in the perfume industry.. I guess it's the nature or this sense, that it works better with a mental image..

  23. #23

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Whilst I'm perfectly happy to believe that some plant matter may have beneficial (or detrimental) effects on our bodies & minds (pass the vetiver please!), the claims on some websites just look so far-fetched that my 'buyer beware' alarm tends to cause a rapid shift to a different website!
    After a quick chuckle, anyway.

  24. #24
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    The all mighty dollar dictates everything

  25. #25

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    My personal opinion is that natural oils are especially useful for natural medicine. I would enjoy natural lavender oil to relax at home or natural lemongrass on my skin to ward off insects...
    But in perfumery, I would rather use synthetics. Reason being, I love flowers, and it hurts my heart (and head) to imagine all of them being crushed/distilled just so it would be mixed with some other oils. So if there's a good aroma chemical that is exactly like the real thing, I'd rather use it than crush tons of flowers/leaves.

  26. #26

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Nizan View Post
    Chris - that doesn't contradict the life-force idea..
    It seems that sometimes marketing is more important than content in the perfume industry.. I guess it's the nature or this sense, that it works better with a mental image..
    No indeed it does not. As I regard that belief as a matter of faith I donít believe it can be contradicted by any amount of scientific evidence: faith, in this context, being defined as belief without the need for evidence.

    My point was not to disprove the idea, but to point out that there are people around ready to take advantage of other peopleís belief in that idea and defraud them. I may not share the idea but I believe passionately that everyone is both entitled to their faith and to expect other people to respect it and not to attempt to take them for a ride on the basis of it.
    Chris Bartlett
    Perfumes from the edge . . .

    www.perfumedesigner.co.uk
    Twitter: @PellWallPerfume

    If you are looking for a perfumery consultation Iím happy to quote: if you want free advice, thatís what these forums are for
    You can also join my blog if you wish to ask questions of me.

  27. #27

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    One of the problems stems from the perfume industry itself, in that they have solicited naturals as being the epitome of their own mostly synthetic perfumes by describing them as such. The ‘notes’ in every ad will proclaim natural products as their components, and will even adamantly identify their perfumes with them.

    So is it the least bit surprising that the easily-led public has evolved to believe that ‘natural’ equals ‘good’?

    I adore essential oils for many reasons, but it doesn’t preclude my loving synthetics any less. The faithful naturalists and occultniks hide behind the ‘natural’ banner for whatever myopic reasons that people blindly follow anything without much real thought and science.

  28. #28
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    687

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Thank you Mr. Bartlett, I couldn't agree more. There are loopholes in just about everyones belief system that can be exploited intentionally or unintentionally and unfortunately when it comes to selling product(s) and making money the line between intentional and unintentional has the potential to become extremely blurry for people who are in a position to exercise this opportunity to exploit those loopholes for their own benefit.
    Justin E. Beasley

  29. #29
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Like I originally said creed has such fantastic marketing people will buy into the myth not the reality. Like isn't the new creed fragrance made with unicorn horn and four leaf clover essence and wasn't it made for the king of Fantasia. That's what I heard anyway. I could be mistaken.

  30. #30
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    687

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Cason View Post
    Like I originally said creed has such fantastic marketing people will buy into the myth not the reality. Like isn't the new creed fragrance made with unicorn horn and four leaf clover essence and wasn't it made for the king of Fantasia. That's what I heard anyway. I could be mistaken.
    You've given me an idea!
    I'm going to start making unicorn ambergris for sale (at exorbitant prices of course) and then I'll write an entire web site about it which will make it an instantaneous and indisputable truth - Don't worry, for validation I'll write a bunch of testimonials and sign other peoples names to them. Then I'll write a book about unicorn poop as a perfumery ingredient and sell that on my web site too - because writing books about something is all the validation anyone needs to be pronounced as an expert. Just for value added I'll state that the book was written by a channelled alien or famous perfumer. Every purchaser will receive 1g of complimentary unicorn horn powder (really just ground toenail powder but nobody will know the difference). I'll be pronounced as THE unicorn guru and victoriously crowned by all of my unicorn ambergris loving friends. I will then establish the world unicorn ambergris society, ask all of my friends (or whoever kisses my butt the most) to be on the official board for said establishment and charge everyone else for membership. At which point I will rule the world. Yes, you heard correctly, I WILL rule the world!... [air twisting imaginary salvador dali mustache]
    Justin E. Beasley

  31. #31
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Brilliant. I wish I would have thought of it first. I could be the first unicorn poop billionaire. Well one can dream can't he?

  32. #32

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by pkiler View Post
    The entire Natural Perfume movement is a falacious fractionated inane irrationality. To use nice words.
    Oh, Paul, I'm surprised to hear you say that. You participate in the salons with natural perfumers, and yet you have such a terrible opinion of their choice of art?
    Anya McCoy - http://anyasgarden.com/
    Best of the Best awards - Perfume: MoonDance, StarFlower, Amberess, Light, Royal Lotus and as
    Project Leader: Outlaw Perfume and Mystery of Musk
    Basic Perfumery Course with lifetime access to the website - http://perfumeclasses.com
    America's First Natural Perfume Line 1991
    First Artisan Perfumer Voted in as member of the American Society of Perfumery 2013

  33. #33

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis View Post
    Part of the unique value of naturals can be seen via biology. These natural substances, which are themselves combinations of scented and nonscented chemicals, have evolved in, and with, a relationship with humans and other members of the environment. Human history can be told as a relation with the scents of nature, and has been.

    Humans have a scent as well, and have evolved with other scent producing organisms. Psychology is also important, as humans have evolved with particular behaviors and emotional responses in response to specific scents.

    But I don't see any reason to elimenate single chemicals, or single chemicals that are not nature identical. That would be sad for perfuming, indeed. I appreciate the value of naturals, but my interest in perfumery as an art requires that I use both. My deepest love is for natural materials. I enjoy coaxing nature into a specific direction, and I can't really imagine creating a perfume using only synthetics. It is possible, just not my preference. I value unbridled artistic vision, but as it happens, I always have something from nature in my mind's eye. Here I am reminded of Japanese gardens, which are themselves a spellbinding expression of the combination of nature and human art. They express natural art in combination with human art. Humans in that case are molding the growth of, and ornamenting, nature. Notwithstanding, humans are part of nature, and so there is a sense in which a chemical created by humans is also natural.
    Your take on naturals reminds me of the writings of Salaam, touching upon the psychology and evolution of plants with humans. The fact that you chose to use single aromachems is your choice, and good luck with your perfuming endeavors! We all need to be accepting of other's choices, and respect their art.
    Anya McCoy - http://anyasgarden.com/
    Best of the Best awards - Perfume: MoonDance, StarFlower, Amberess, Light, Royal Lotus and as
    Project Leader: Outlaw Perfume and Mystery of Musk
    Basic Perfumery Course with lifetime access to the website - http://perfumeclasses.com
    America's First Natural Perfume Line 1991
    First Artisan Perfumer Voted in as member of the American Society of Perfumery 2013

  34. #34

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by nemenator View Post
    The Natural Perfumery group on Yahoo seems to be losing members to the Perfumery group. I blame this on the militant No Fermenting rule. However its intentions are good and inspirational.
    As the founder of that group, I would like to inform you, we have lost only a handful of members in the past year, probably less than ten have unsubbed, and we gain new members on a steady basis. We don't chat much, probably due to the fact that the mods and I are very busy with our businesses, so don't put as much energy and posts into it as we should, to maintain conversations. Like any entity, a group requires nourishing, and we have been absent in doing that. It is the greatest source of information, links, etc. on natural perfumery existing, and many quietly do research there.

    The "no fermenting" rule you mention has nothing to do with that group, and, is, in fact, misleading. A bit too detailed to get into here, but I can't remember if there was ever any discussion of it on the group. Let me go check. OK, there is a post from 2010 on fermenting alcohol, another from the same author about isolates, a bit more about alcohol that are more recent, and that's mostly it. Nothing recent. So, no loss of members, no fermentation fomentation. Please don't make public statements that aren't researched and accurate. Thanks for understanding.
    Anya McCoy - http://anyasgarden.com/
    Best of the Best awards - Perfume: MoonDance, StarFlower, Amberess, Light, Royal Lotus and as
    Project Leader: Outlaw Perfume and Mystery of Musk
    Basic Perfumery Course with lifetime access to the website - http://perfumeclasses.com
    America's First Natural Perfume Line 1991
    First Artisan Perfumer Voted in as member of the American Society of Perfumery 2013

  35. #35

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by JEBeasley View Post
    I find it puzzling, to say the least, that within the realm of natural medicine probiotics, fermented foods and many other bacteria based products are widely lauded as an essential part of "proper nutrition" and yet anything fermented or that is a product of fermentation is bad for the outside of the body according to the natural perfumery guild? I'm curious to see/hear the logic and science behind this... (my guess is that there isn't any and the NPG site says as much).
    My guess is that the tenets espoused by the natural perfumers guild are an extension of some other belief system or are the personal beliefs of a woo-guru as it doesn't seem to follow any form of logic or science that I'm familiar with. I actually take the side of "naturalist" ideologies in the case of both GMO foods/plants and fluoride in the water supply and I practice many beliefs espoused by some evidence based/empirical based natural medicine advocates, so, I'm not a "mainstream" or corporate industry chear-leader in any sense of the word. Unfortunately the natural perfumery guild doesn't make any scientific claims, nor can they back up their stance with any clear logic.
    You certainly are interested in the workings of the Guild, my goodness. You got a few facts wrong, so I'll address them here. There are some aromatics that are produced via a slight fermentation process, e.g., patchouli, anise seed, and others whereby the process enhances the yield. We use them. There are other aromatics that are produced via a complex series of lab processes that extract a singular (general statement) aromachem that is part of the original natural plant, yes, but we prefer our aromatics to come from the original source. For instance, you can get citral from citrus fruit via fractional distillation, we'll use that. You can get citral from tomato and tamarind via other, more complex processes, we don't use that.

    The members voted on the standards for aromatics, and all of the scientific background on both sides was presented before the vote. How the term "natural" is defined by various governments was also studied. To put all that on our website? Why? If a member wants to see the process/conversations/scientific/governmental background on that, we can point them to the archives of our discussion group.

    I know some who are obsessed with us, and yes, I'll use that phrase, because they seem to fixate on what we're doing, like pointing out alcohol is fermented, so how can we use that? Yes it is fermented, has been for thousands of years, in fact. Yes, then it's distilled. Natural process, like the patchouli I mentioned previously. Hope I've cleared up some misconceptions. Thanks for listening, and no, I can't get into a series of defenses of the Guild, it's counterproductive. I'm just sharing some points to address issues raised here. This could go on forever, but what if we were a weavers guild, and we wanted to use natural fibers, and made that a standard. And, you are weavers, but like to use synthetic fibers mixed in. Would you keep criticizing or mocking us for our standard? I don't think so.
    Anya McCoy - http://anyasgarden.com/
    Best of the Best awards - Perfume: MoonDance, StarFlower, Amberess, Light, Royal Lotus and as
    Project Leader: Outlaw Perfume and Mystery of Musk
    Basic Perfumery Course with lifetime access to the website - http://perfumeclasses.com
    America's First Natural Perfume Line 1991
    First Artisan Perfumer Voted in as member of the American Society of Perfumery 2013

  36. #36

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Thanks for posting, Natural_Juice - the whole 'angels' thing mentioned below (probably not one of your members) is a bit off to me.

  37. #37

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    I don't seen any 'angels' thing mentioned in your post.
    Anya McCoy - http://anyasgarden.com/
    Best of the Best awards - Perfume: MoonDance, StarFlower, Amberess, Light, Royal Lotus and as
    Project Leader: Outlaw Perfume and Mystery of Musk
    Basic Perfumery Course with lifetime access to the website - http://perfumeclasses.com
    America's First Natural Perfume Line 1991
    First Artisan Perfumer Voted in as member of the American Society of Perfumery 2013

  38. #38

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    It's referred to in post #18
    This is a link to the product mentioned.
    http://aprilaromatics.com/store/inde...ngels-2ml.html

  39. #39

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural_Juice View Post
    I know some who are obsessed with us, and yes, I'll use that phrase, because they seem to fixate on what we're doing, like pointing out alcohol is fermented, so how can we use that? Yes it is fermented, has been for thousands of years, in fact. Yes, then it's distilled. Natural process, like the patchouli I mentioned previously.
    Why is fermentation considered to be any more natural than other chemical processing? Yes, it's something that occurs naturally, but it's also being done by humans. If I were to synthesize cis-3-hexanal using the same chemical reactions that grass uses, would that also be natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural_Juice View Post
    This could go on forever, but what if we were a weavers guild, and we wanted to use natural fibers, and made that a standard. And, you are weavers, but like to use synthetic fibers mixed in. Would you keep criticizing or mocking us for our standard? I don't think so.
    No, absolutely not. I think the philosophy some people try to sell to rationalize using only "natural" products is bunk and can even be harmful, but I respect those who choose to limit their materials and work within the constraints of an interesting challenge, the same as I feel about anyone who tries to work with only synthetics.

  40. #40

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    I'm just wondering whether I'd be eligible for a refund on a bottle of 'Calling All Angels' if purchase & use didn't result in my experiencing the higher realm of the Elohim?
    This is no cheap 'head shop' product @ 169 Euro (plus shipping) for 30ml.

    That's possibly a slightly different issue from the ingredient problem.

    Might just go with that Hard Leather stuff 'though for now.

    Quote from April Aromatics website
    (copy/paste - screenshot is a bit too small to be easily legible).
    Calling all Angels 2.5 ml Tester


    Qty:ADD TO CART
    OR


    Quick Overview

    NEW!!!
    Eau de Parfum: 2,5ml
    A new Incense scent:
    A rather dark and complex angelic scent, with a sweet incense/ honey like note, implementing the elements of Earth, Ether and Air. Made with love, inspired and guided by Angels. This will be a series of Angel scents, starting with "Calling all Angels #1"....






    Details

    Natural Perfume, 2,5 ml
    A new Incense Perfume:
    (LIMITED EDITION, only samples available, until full production is completed)
    A rather dark and complex angelic scent, with a sweet incense/ honey like note, implementing the elements of Earth, Ether and Air. Made with love, inspired and guided by Angels. This will be a series of Angel scents, starting with "Calling all Angels #1".

    Notes: Incense, Labdanum, Tonka Bean, Vanilla Accord, Benzoin, Elemi Resin, Frankincense, Amber Accord, Honey Accord, Precious Woods Accord,Opoponax, Rose Otto, Love and Angel Guidance
    This scent is infused with clear crystal and Herkimer diamond.
    Bottled on Full Moon.

    How this scent came about:
    I channeled this perfume with the intend of bringing the healing messages of the angels into a scent and to the wearers.
    My friend Mari Nil a clairvoyant healer, then channeled the message of the angels and this is what they want to tell us:
    by Mari Nil: Author of the "Essence of God", http://www.mari-nil.de/

    CALLING ALL ANGELS:
    This scent is connecting all dimension and realms with each other and this way our beloved friends are able to be very close to us and to help us. Conciously we can use this scent and say the following prayer:
    " May the angels, the heavenly beings listen to my callings and walk with me to help me get healing, love, enlightment, light, abundance, confidence and oneness".
    Through these silently spoken words, we are calling our celestial friends and are giving them the permission to accept their presents and abilities.We are then protected and can safely start our day.The rays of love are able to spread over us. Worry, stress and negative thoughts will be able to fall away from us. Our souls and our spirit are being able to connect to higher realms and dimensions and will feel fulfillment.This "scent" Calling all Angels", the ingredients and essential oils it contains, our intention and prayers will act as a bridge.
    The angels of creativity, of the song of songs, of self realization, of love and abundance are connected with this "scent".
    Also Archangel Michael and Raphael with their special blessing, will bring protection, strength and healing upon us.We will even be able to experience the higher realm of the "Elohim", it is at the level of the highest creation.
    All heavenly beings will be able to support us, if we are opening up and are inviting them in.They are helping us to be able to feel spiritual bliss, grandeur and a state of elevation, if we ask the from the deepest place of our spiritual heart.The positive forces of the angels are crossing through time and space, nothing is too small or too large for them.They present us with solutions, through the earthly and heavenly planes.CALLING ALL ANGELS is the bridge of love, the cosmic scent of the angels that touches souls and gives us inner fulfillment.


    Link to page with FB price
    Main product page Calling All Angels
    About Us page http://aprilaromatics.com/store/inde...nto-demo-store
    Last edited by lpp; 5th January 2014 at 08:49 PM.

  41. #41
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    687

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural_Juice View Post
    The members voted on the standards for aromatics, and all of the scientific background on both sides was presented before the vote. How the term "natural" is defined by various governments was also studied. To put all that on our website? Why? If a member wants to see the process/conversations/scientific/governmental background on that, we can point them to the archives of our discussion group.
    Why? Because it is necessary to understand. The fact that you don't get this does concern me.
    If natural medicine and natural skin care and natural perfumery is ever going to come out of the fringe and into the empirical realm or even into the "results based" arena (legitimacy) it's going to have to play by similar rules... but it doesn't and doesn't want to because the people involved like to be gurus and experts and leaders and cheerleaders and shamans and because most naturalists only have rudimentary understanding of the science and methodologies and don't know squat about scientific studies, how they should be conducted and how to read them. First of all you have to know how to properly set up an empirical study to begin with. If the study and all of it's variables aren't fully taken into account then the study is flawed but those papers are still out there - on all sides of the fence - for everyone to read. Regulatory bodies and officiators and corporations from all walks (yes, the natural industry too ) and the news, makes sure those papers (flawed studies) stay right where they are so that everyone can read them. In fact, many people educated in science fields don't know squat about reading scientific studies either and yet some of them become the "official word" for any given number of things. This isn't just a vendetta I have against natural modalities mind you, this industry BS is in all aspects of corporate lobby money backed crony capitalism and the science it pays for.

    I understand placebo and many theories behind health and the natural stance, I get it and ascribe to many aspects of this belief system and lifestyle , I've experienced health benefits from different aspects of it but I've also vetted/used more modalities in my lifetime than most could ever comprehend and I can say definitively that 95% of it is placebo, faith based concepts backed only by anecdotes and wishful thinking. I happen to be ok with placebo to a certain extent but I don't want my placebo served up by bullshit artists who wish their brand of religion into every aspect of my life and who want to drain my bank account. The part that I REALLY don't get into with placebo and all of the natural movement is the guruism and fanfare and false science behind these faith based concepts because at the end of the day all it amounts to is faith because, let's face it, there isn't a whole lot of real science to back up most of what the natural perfumery guild represents, just a handful of things written by other people from within the industry (sound familiar?).

    So, yes, we could go round and round about this and all it will amount to nothing. The bottom line is that the natural products industry is first and foremost an industry, just like any other and in the capitalist US this means that it has corporations and lobbyists and money and lots of people backing up it's claims in order to make sure there is a steady stream of revenue flowing in their direction. Whenever money is involved the zombie cheerleaders start popping up everywhere wanting a piece of the pie singing ra-ra-ra. I'm not going to stop being critical of the organization in the same sense that I won't stop being critical of my government until I see some things change. If you see criticism as "obsession" then so be it but that's too bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural_Juice View Post
    I know some who are obsessed with us, and yes, I'll use that phrase, because they seem to fixate on what we're doing, like pointing out alcohol is fermented, so how can we use that?
    Cute use of condescension (in so doing anything I post is automatically labeled as an obsessive rant to be dismissed ) however by trying to make me or anyone critical out to be an "obsessed" person who really just wants to be part of your super awesome thing isn't going to win you any points either. You were half right about something, I'll give you that I was interested in the natural perfumery guild until I realized how similar it is to every other guru system I've encountered in my life. I've been around the block and suffice it to say I've seen the inner workings of many aspects of the "natural" industry from the ground up and I can tell you it's just as full of charlatans and snake oil salesmen and gurus and profiteers and blind believers and zombie cheerleaders as any other business in the world (I'm telling you as if you didn't already know ). The difference is that everyone involved in the natural industry believes "I'm not blind and I'm good and my friends 'have their eyes open' too so we all deserve the money mother nature brings us" and "so what if it's not backed by science, it's natural and therefore mother nature gets my money and my vote because mother nature is always right and always good". But it does matter because otherwise it all just amounts to big orgy of feel-good hippies wanting the party to never end in some fictitious mother nature cartoon land blinding themselves to the fact that mother nature has her fair share of poisons too and they don't just kill "bad" people. Natural perfumery is merely riding the current wave of naturalism-mania that's part of a massive advertising campaign backed by cheerleader fanfare and industry push. Fact is, this movement is outstripping the worlds supply of natural resources and as much as I would like to believe there is purpose behind it... most of what I see are profiteers swashbuckling their way through the natural underbrush, chopping everything down in order to make another dollar.

    You are right in that we could go round and round about this for a long time but in the end it will amount to a really long faith based discussion that will lead to absolutely nowhere and this is the crux of the issue with me. So, I will continue to "obsess" on your organization, as you call it and you can continue to ignore the "criticism" as I call it.

    BTW, the 'Angels' thing Ipp spoke of was in response to Chris Bartlett's post reference to Calling All Angels by April Aromatics. post #18
    Justin E. Beasley

  42. #42

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    I'm just wondering whether I'd be eligible for a refund on a bottle of 'Calling All Angels' if purchase & use didn't result in my experiencing the higher realm of the Elohim?
    This is no cheap 'head shop' product @ 169 Euro (plus shipping) for 30ml.
    From what I know of the perfumer, she would be shocked to know she used a synth. I'm not speaking for her, of course, just going on past experience. Perhaps she's not using 100% natural materials now, I don't know. I'm come across many natural perfumers over the years that bought "from a trusted supplier", only to find out they were using a synth, the most being duped by "lily of the valley". It's an ongoing problem.
    Anya McCoy - http://anyasgarden.com/
    Best of the Best awards - Perfume: MoonDance, StarFlower, Amberess, Light, Royal Lotus and as
    Project Leader: Outlaw Perfume and Mystery of Musk
    Basic Perfumery Course with lifetime access to the website - http://perfumeclasses.com
    America's First Natural Perfume Line 1991
    First Artisan Perfumer Voted in as member of the American Society of Perfumery 2013

  43. #43

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by JEBeasley View Post
    Why? Because it is necessary to understand. The fact that you don't get this does concern me.
    If natural medicine and natural skin care and natural perfumery is ever going to come out of the fringe and into the empirical realm or even into the "results based" arena (legitimacy) it's going to have to play by similar rules..
    Thank you for your lengthy reply. Noted. If we could only be as knowledgeable as you, but we're just folks finding our way and doing the best we can. Such passion about our art! I can only say all this was addressed in our lengthy discussion - as an internal function of a private organization - and, as such, proved valid to our members, all of whom I regard as highly-educated and passionate, several of whom are perfume chemists, some who use synths, some of who don't use animal extracts or anything other than essential oils. We're tolerant of a range of perfume arts, from the Certified Natural Perfume to the Associate Perfumer, who uses synths, they're welcome in the Guild. The fact we don't live up to your standards and answer your insults means nothing to us, really. We just like using what we regard as natural materials - or not. I hope you can respect that.
    Anya McCoy - http://anyasgarden.com/
    Best of the Best awards - Perfume: MoonDance, StarFlower, Amberess, Light, Royal Lotus and as
    Project Leader: Outlaw Perfume and Mystery of Musk
    Basic Perfumery Course with lifetime access to the website - http://perfumeclasses.com
    America's First Natural Perfume Line 1991
    First Artisan Perfumer Voted in as member of the American Society of Perfumery 2013

  44. #44
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    687

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural_Juice View Post
    Thank you for your lengthy reply. Noted. If we could only be as knowledgeable as you, but we're just folks finding our way and doing the best we can. Such passion about our art! I can only say all this was addressed in our lengthy discussion - as an internal function of a private organization - and, as such, proved valid to our members, all of whom I regard as highly-educated and passionate, several of whom are perfume chemists, some who use synths, some of who don't use animal extracts or anything other than essential oils. We're tolerant of a range of perfume arts, from the Certified Natural Perfume to the Associate Perfumer, who uses synths, they're welcome in the Guild. The fact we don't live up to your standards and answer your insults means nothing to us, really. We just like using what we regard as natural materials - or not. I hope you can respect that.
    Well, the fact that most of the natural industry is incapable of handling constructive criticism or otherwise is my biggest reason for leaving it's ranks and your continued condescension and patronizing remarks in the face of criticism is a big part of why I have little to do with people in this industry. Due to the fact that it is primarily faith based there is little in the way of conversation that can be had because most people who have faith in it don't want to have their faith shaken or shattered, most people defent their fiath based beliefs in the same way and everyone has them. I understand religious comfort and understand that sometimes it's hard to venture outside of ones comfort zone, I am no different from any other human and at every chance to be self deprecating I will take it in the name of humanity and all of the paradox we hold, I am human after all. I don't profess to be any kind of relative expert or the last word in any of this, that is the difference between what you are saying and what I am saying, I'm merely acting as a sounding board and ctritic in the best way I know how. I'm being critical and you are defending your position. If you were a scientist working for a corporation or government I would be just as critical. I fully respect your right to believe in whatever you choose to believe in the same sense that I have a right to shine light on fallacies when I see them and I have a right to not stand back and accept that others are intentionally or unintentionally being fleeced. I know you see what I am saying as "insults" because criticism is often seen that way and that's ok with me, I'm not into blind positivism just for the sake of making sure everyone stays happy in the superficial sense, especially when it means everyone on the bus is turning a blind eye to the cliff it's racing toward. Ra, ra, ra!
    Last edited by JEBeasley; 5th January 2014 at 10:17 PM. Reason: punctuation and clarity
    Justin E. Beasley

  45. #45

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural_Juice View Post
    Oh, Paul, I'm surprised to hear you say that. You participate in the salons with natural perfumers, and yet you have such a terrible opinion of their choice of art?
    I don't have to agree with people on their life philosophies and religions to work with them, enjoy their company and enjoy their perfumes even. I don't love them any less.

    And I certainly don't agree with your support of Barack Obama, do I?

    My positions have not been private, anybody who reads me knows where I stand.

    PK
    Last edited by pkiler; 5th January 2014 at 10:36 PM.
    Paul Kiler
    PK Perfumes
    http://www.PKPERFUMES.com
    Gold Medal for "Best Aroma"; Los Angeles Artisan Fragrance Salon

  46. #46

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by JEBeasley View Post
    Well, the fact that most of the natural industry is incapable of handling constructive criticism or otherwise is my biggest reason for leaving it's ranks and your continued condescension and patronizing remarks in the face of criticism is a big part of why I have little to do with people in this industry. Due to the fact that it is primarily faith based there is little in the way of conversation that can be had because most people who have faith in it don't want to have their faith shaken or shattered, most people defent their fiath based beliefs in the same way and everyone has them.

    .... I know you see what I am saying as "insults" because criticism is often seen that way and that's ok with me,
    For the first part, I understand your passion, but I have to defer to those who voted, many of whom have great CVs that rank them as professionals, and not a 'religious' or 'faith based' fanatic among them - or those who voted, either.

    as far as the "insults", yes, words like "gurus and experts and leaders and cheerleaders and shamans and because most naturalists only have rudimentary understanding of the science and methodologies and don't know squat about scientific studies", "zombie cheerleaders"?!, and other hot button names you call people invalidate your credibility, IMO. Paul Kiler writing "The entire Natural Perfume movement is a falacious fractionated inane irrationality. To use nice words." and others that feel they need to denigrate us and call us names are best ignored. I wonder how his NP friends would feel if they knew of his insult? Anyway, time to put an end to this, as one of the Guild Associate Perfumers just wrote in our forum, when we were chatting about all this "“Non ti curar di lor, ma guarda e passa” "No fame of them the world permits to be; misericord and justice both disdain them. Let us not speak of them, but look and pass." And that's what I'll do, sorry I got roped into this, I'll just move on, not insulting anyone. BTW, that perfumer in the Guild? Uses synthetics.
    Anya McCoy - http://anyasgarden.com/
    Best of the Best awards - Perfume: MoonDance, StarFlower, Amberess, Light, Royal Lotus and as
    Project Leader: Outlaw Perfume and Mystery of Musk
    Basic Perfumery Course with lifetime access to the website - http://perfumeclasses.com
    America's First Natural Perfume Line 1991
    First Artisan Perfumer Voted in as member of the American Society of Perfumery 2013

  47. #47

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by JayH View Post
    Why is fermentation considered to be any more natural than other chemical processing? Yes, it's something that occurs naturally, but it's also being done by humans. If I were to synthesize cis-3-hexanal using the same chemical reactions that grass uses, would that also be natural?
    hi jayH,

    i think the answer to that is a no brainer.... who says it is not natural?

    let me ask you this,
    would alpha-ionone made by an approved EU natural method, part of which might include a fermention step
    be natural alpha-ionone?

  48. #48

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by luigi_g View Post
    hi jayH,

    i think the answer to that is a no brainer.... who says it is not natural?

    let me ask you this,
    would alpha-ionone made by an approved EU natural method, part of which might include a fermention step
    be natural alpha-ionone?
    There is such a method - involving extraction from raspberries - and according to the International Standards Organisation it qualifies as natural. Other people may disagree.
    Chris Bartlett
    Perfumes from the edge . . .

    www.perfumedesigner.co.uk
    Twitter: @PellWallPerfume

    If you are looking for a perfumery consultation Iím happy to quote: if you want free advice, thatís what these forums are for
    You can also join my blog if you wish to ask questions of me.

  49. #49
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    687

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural_Juice View Post
    For the first part, I understand your passion, but I have to defer to those who voted, many of whom have great CVs that rank them as professionals, and not a 'religious' or 'faith based' fanatic among them - or those who voted, either.

    as far as the "insults", yes, words like "gurus and experts and leaders and cheerleaders and shamans and because most naturalists only have rudimentary understanding of the science and methodologies and don't know squat about scientific studies", "zombie cheerleaders"?!, and other hot button names you call people invalidate your credibility, IMO. Paul Kiler writing "The entire Natural Perfume movement is a falacious fractionated inane irrationality. To use nice words." and others that feel they need to denigrate us and call us names are best ignored. I wonder how his NP friends would feel if they knew of his insult? Anyway, time to put an end to this, as one of the Guild Associate Perfumers just wrote in our forum, when we were chatting about all this "“Non ti curar di lor, ma guarda e passa” "No fame of them the world permits to be; misericord and justice both disdain them. Let us not speak of them, but look and pass." And that's what I'll do, sorry I got roped into this, I'll just move on, not insulting anyone. BTW, that perfumer in the Guild? Uses synthetics.


    I should also add that I completely respect the field of natural perfumery as a means to an end and I respect and value your experience in that realm but I will always be a fierce critic Anya and I'm not going to cut you or anyone else any slack in the name of cronyism. I know magical thinking has it's value and it's place and I understand the good that can come of it (along with creative visualization, meditation, etc) but I have also seen how the practice of magical thinking can lead to complete disfunction as it's darker side often leads one down a path of utter denial, detrimental fantsy or worse. In many ways the part of me you will never see is that I am a staunch advocate for natural therapies and natural modalities. However, I am also a staunch advocate for making sure that ideas are well vetted and that everyone approaches these modalities with the knowing that the REAL science has barely just begun. I also will not make myself amenable or passive to people who have conflicts of interest or agendas, I'm pretty hard headed and self sabotaging in that respect. Because everyone knows that going with the flow (any flow) certainly has it's rewards, doesn't it You say that my words have "invalidated my credibility" this is an opinion of yours that I do not share and once again I will state that you do not hold the key nor power to make that true.

    As for the things you see as personal insults, it's unfortunate that you can't separate self from other and choose to identify generalized statements made about an entire industry as personal attacks. This seems more like you wanting to see them as direct personal attacks in order to justify refuting my opinion in it's entirety instead of addressing any of my observations. I'm not personally attacking you, I don't know you, have anything against you or know anything about you for that matter. I was speaking generally about an industry and you internalized what I said. I'll watch my colorful metaphors in future as doing harm is definitely not my intention.
    Last edited by JEBeasley; 6th January 2014 at 12:47 AM.
    Justin E. Beasley

  50. #50

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Bartlett View Post
    There is such a method - involving extraction from raspberries - and according to the International Standards Organisation it qualifies as natural. Other people may disagree.
    hey chris,

    yes, that is correct, and it would indeed be natural, however this is an extraction rather than
    an EU approved natural synthesis, I should have been more clear in my question.

  51. #51

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by luigi_g View Post
    hey chris,

    yes, that is correct, and it would indeed be natural, however this is an extraction rather than
    an EU approved natural synthesis, I should have been more clear in my question.
    Ah I understand. Well Iím not convinced that EU approval confers truth upon a theory or process - I donít agree with the designation of the 26 allergens for one thing - but in principle if a synthesis were devised for alpha-Ionone based on, for example, a fermentation process I see no reason that would not meet with widespread approval as a natural product.

    However as raspberries are not an endangered species Iíd rather see effort put into devising an economic, natural, synthesis of the santalols; the unique components of oud or civet and other products in limited supply where the species providing it may be eliminated or caused to suffer through exploitation of the natural resource.
    Chris Bartlett
    Perfumes from the edge . . .

    www.perfumedesigner.co.uk
    Twitter: @PellWallPerfume

    If you are looking for a perfumery consultation Iím happy to quote: if you want free advice, thatís what these forums are for
    You can also join my blog if you wish to ask questions of me.

  52. #52

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Bartlett View Post
    Ah I understand. Well Iím not convinced that EU approval confers truth upon a theory or process - I donít agree with the designation of the 26 allergens for one thing - but in principle if a synthesis were devised for alpha-Ionone based on, for example, a fermentation process I see no reason that would not meet with widespread approval as a natural product.

    However as raspberries are not an endangered species Iíd rather see effort put into devising an economic, natural, synthesis of the santalols; the unique components of oud or civet and other products in limited supply where the species providing it may be eliminated or caused to suffer through exploitation of the natural resource.
    well the EU has definitive criteria for determining a natural molecule;

    1, it must be found in nature
    2, it must be identical to the molecule found in nature.

    period, no if ands or buts....

    In nature alpha-ionone is opticaly active, the approved natural bio-methods produce racemic alpha-ionone.
    so those are not natural molecules.

    Now there is certainly nothing wrong with using racemic alpha-ionone in natural products...
    and it would be in complete compliance with an all natural product, as long as the Label did not state
    that molecule was natural alpha-ionone, Natural Flavors or Natural Fragrance materials would be used.

    Your above mentioned extracted alpha-ionone would be natural alpha-ionone and could be labeled as such.

    The NPG, did not make any statements to what is considered natural or not natural, the EU regs, were simply used.
    And to simplify those regs, they choose to allow molecules / isolates that have been extracted, as in the case of your
    raspberry alpha-ionone.

    We aksed one of the head PHD chemists that is on the board of the EFFA (European Flavour Association) in Brussels, these same questions, this is the board where these methods are approved and worked up,

    His reply was;
    "This is of course a more conservative approach but certainly absolutely defendable:
    with this view/approach nobody can contest that your "vanillin" is natural since you isolate
    it from the original natural (named) source and you are only applying
    physical isolation/extraction methods,
    so your process would without any doubt be fully natural."

    So I really do not get the misunderstanding and or the misrepresentation, that the NPG has issues with fermentation and the other
    spun statements taken completely out of context by a few individuals that had economic agendas...


    With regard to the refernce to alpha-ionone, this was his reply;


    Lets consider alpha-ionone, a naturally occurring molecule, that can be isolated from a number of sources, it is also made by a number of EU acceptable natural processes. However those processes create a racemic molecule.
    The naturally occurring alpha-ionone is optically active, thus the acceptable natural synthesized material is not identical to what is found in nature.
    Would you consider the synthesized racemic alpha-ionone a natural material?


    Good point: we had in the past a very interesting discussion specifically on that point with our working group, based on a scientific paper (was it not KH Engel and his group? Or was it Mosandl, I don't remember).


    With regard to optical/geometric isomers we must be very strict: if only one of the optical isomers of the (E)-alpha-ionone is naturally occurring (and has been identified in nature), then the other optical isomer would not be regarded as occurring in nature and can never be considered as natural, nor the racemic mixture of (E)-alpha-ionone.

    The same will be true for (Z)-alpha-ionone (if the Z-form has been identified in nature at all, I am not sure).

    So only one of the isomers can have "natural" status (as being the isomer that has been identified in nature); if the other isomers have not been identified in nature, nor these isomers can be regarded as "natural", nor any mixture that contains the not identified isomers.

    So what is so wrong with a conservative approach, besides nothing more than an economic agenda?

  53. #53

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    I was certainly shocked to see how the civet is still inhumanely exploited - we can't alter the past but surely, when alternatives are available, we should consider altering the future?

  54. #54

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by luigi_g View Post

    So what is so wrong with a conservative approach, besides nothing more than an economic agenda?
    Nothing, but then there is nothing right with it either: itís simply a philosophical choice I donít share. Iím not sure what the point of all this is, you asked a question and I answered it.

    My own philosophy is very simple: My mission is to make fragrances that some people will love (as distinct from fragrances everyone will like).

    To that end Iím interested in how a material smells, how it behaves in a blend and how safe it is to use. Everything else is secondary.

    For olfactory, ethical and commercial reasons Iím concerned that anything I buy should be what it says it is - I donít expect to buy an essential oil and discover that it is in fact synthetic - nor a finished perfume that is sold at a premium price on the basis it's all-natural but in fact contains large amounts of cheap synthetics.

    As an ethical (rather than olfactory) choice I do not use any material that involves what I regard as cruelty to animals, so I use synthetic civet. Also for ethical reasons I prefer to use materials that are produced and sourced in a sustainable way consistent with maintaining the biodiversity of our planet and with minimal exploitation of its poor - to that end I use a range of synthetic musks, sandalwood oil from Vanuatu and synthetic linalool or ho wood rather than rosewood as examples. Iíve written extensively about these ethical considerations here on Basenotes previously.

    Finally for commercial rather than olfactory reasons, I have to consider regulations - EU and IFRA primarily but not exclusively - to ensure that anything I produce is capable of retail sale. Plus of course I have to be able to produce something people can afford to buy and so the cost of any material is also relevant.

    These, it seems to me, are the only considerations necessary: whether someone in an organisation such as the NPG, the EU or anyone else for that matter, considers a particular material natural or not isnít a concern unless I wish to make a claim of naturalness for a product: something Iíve done in only one case, where I avoided any tiresome controversy by using only traditional essential oils and absolutes: though I guess some people would argue that even those are not Ďnaturalí because they are processed, but if thatís how you think thereís really very little point in being in the business of making or buying perfume as youíll be limited to copaiba balsam and expressed citrus oils most of which are not safe to put your skin unless you stay in the dark . . .
    Chris Bartlett
    Perfumes from the edge . . .

    www.perfumedesigner.co.uk
    Twitter: @PellWallPerfume

    If you are looking for a perfumery consultation Iím happy to quote: if you want free advice, thatís what these forums are for
    You can also join my blog if you wish to ask questions of me.

  55. #55

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural_Juice View Post
    From what I know of the perfumer, she would be shocked to know she used a synth. I'm not speaking for her, of course, just going on past experience. Perhaps she's not using 100% natural materials now, I don't know. I'm come across many natural perfumers over the years that bought "from a trusted supplier", only to find out they were using a synth, the most being duped by "lily of the valley". It's an ongoing problem.
    That's actually a very interesting point - if a product is claimed to be totally natural (as still stated on the quoted website, for example) but adulteration is an 'ongoing problem', are there any safeguards in place to protect the consumer who is probably not even aware of that possibility?

    April Aromatics About Us page
    Last edited by lpp; 6th January 2014 at 01:57 PM.

  56. #56

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Jeb, we have a lot in common in terms of experience in all sorts of alternative, spiritual, and natural movements, our respect for the scientific method (I can pretty much critically evaluate any scientific study and have studied research design and methods extensively), as well as some ambivalence about the different complex dynamics within all these alternative movements. That's a long set of conversations meant for a beer.

    Nonetheless I remain overwhelmingly positive about most of it, what I saw as the essence of most of it as genuine and open-minded and positive, even brilliant and inspired. But I was always the critic who wanted all the insight, but also wanted it to fit with science, philosophy, psychology, biology, and critical thinking. So to this day I try to have both, if that makes sense. My above post about the biology of naturals was a direct result of that type of experience.

    In other words, I do think most of the naturals movement (not the extreme version, just the "nature is good" version) has science that supports it. If I were motivated, I could find tons of research on aromatherapy (defined as using essential oils or naturals for any theraputic purpose whatsoever, like clove on a toothache, for ex), just like we can for herbal remedies (saw palmetto, etc.). Yes many of the studies are poorly designed, but that doesn't mean you can't get any information from them at all, necessarily. Many "establishment" studies are poorly designed too.

    I'm not familiar with this lady's website. But I hate to run someone off in a "hail of gunfire" If all they're really saying is "nature is good", or "there's more to nature than meets the eye". I mean, nature really is full of legitimate mysteries that stand the test of critical thought.

    But I agree with Chris that there is no competition between natural and synthetic. I really don't understand where the debate is supposed to be. Nature is amazing and infinite. Yes, and..??

    Sounds like you really had some rotten experiences, and I share your distaste for greed in the name of cynical, fake enlightenment or corporate hegemony.

    But I don't believe that essential oil enthusiasts and aromatherapists are full of crap. I believe the main thrust is reasonable and positive. If I was forced to break out scores of studies and defend it among other scientists I could. There are peer reviewed journals.

    That was my middle path, personally speaking. Take the openmindedness and insights, and then tie them to critical thinking, and see what happens. Fascinating line to try to walk. And discuss over a frosty beverage one day. Sorry if this was too much rambling.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 6th January 2014 at 10:02 AM.

  57. #57
    Super Member hoschhti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Elsenfeld, Franconia
    Posts
    350

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    An interesting thread! I can only speak as an consumer, but only natural or mostly natural perfumes are able to move me. Synthetic perfumes smell synthetic and are just more or less nice smelling smells which trigger absolutely no emotions (with a few exceptions). And I believe that I have found the sources whom I can trust. My interest in perfumes really started when I found out about natural perfumes. So-called "Oud-perfumes" are often synthetic and it would be an insult to even compare them with natural, unadulterated Oud-oil.
    FAVOURITES:

    1. Dia Man
    2. Tawaf
    3. Skin Graft
    4. Vitrum
    5. Norne
    6. Incense Extreme

  58. #58

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by nemenator View Post
    The Natural Perfumery group on Yahoo seems to be losing members to the Perfumery group. I blame this on the militant No Fermenting rule. However its intentions are good and inspirational.

    I hope this coming year there will be more 'natural isolates', fermented or not, that will enable more people to try natural perfuming. In Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell Classen wrote:"Today's synthetic scents...are evocative of things which are not there, of presences which are absent...These artificial odours are a sign without a referent, smoke without fire, pure olfactory image.... The question is, will smell, seduced by an endless procession of olfactory simulacra ... remind us of our organic nature and even hint at a realm of the spirit."
    I may be stupid, but I have absolutely no idea what this means. I also do not understand what is wrong with creating smells that do not occur in nature. There is no flower that smells like Chanel 5; neither is there a flower that smells of Lavender, Geranium and Bergamot. How lucky we are, that we can create them, and enjoy them.

    I have not participated in this forum before because I was away when it started and because I wanted to see in which direction it would go. I feel it is now time for me to put in my six pennyworth. There is nothing wrong in using Essential Oils, nature identical chemicals and chemicals which do not occur naturally but have been made in a laboratory. There is nothing inherently evil is chemicals, nor anything inherently good or "spiritual" is using Essential Oils and other "naturals". Surely the best way is to use whatever is to hand to achieve the desired result. If you wish to restrict your palette of materials, for whatever reason then you must expect to achieve less. There is a similar example when painting. If you chose to restrict your colours to only Blues and Greys you will be able to achieve much (just look at what Picasso did with such a restricted palette) but don't expect to paint a realistic sunflower.

    The arbitrary laying down of the law (especially when the "law" itself is so spurious) makes my blood boil. For awhile; then I just get bored. Bored with those who wish to tell me things based purely on faith, with not a shred of evidence; bored with those who argue their case backed up with ignorance. We have evolved a sense of smell, and the ability to create fragrances using a variety of materials. One of the functions of our sense of smell is to provide pleasure. Surely that's enough.

    There, I've finished now.

  59. #59
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Boy I started this thread to docs little creed bashing and look what happened it really took off. I think it's fantastic that so many of us have such hardcore beliefs and that we can share them here and hopefully learn something. But you know what I got out if all this is the fact that people are stubborn sometimes to a fault. But I love it. I also think that The claims of CReed and others are laughable. I read something online about the fantastic lineage of creed perfumes and you know what i was fooled. I guess everything on the internet isn't true imagine that. No oud in royal oud and no royalty either shame shame creed and I was so close to wasting hundreds of dollars on a lie in a bottle. Oh well back to the internet to read about the spirit of the flowers and essence of angel sweat used in the natural perFumery business.

  60. #60

    Default Re: Natural vs synthetic

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Bartlett View Post
    Nothing, but then there is nothing right with it either: it’s simply a philosophical choice I don’t share. I’m not sure what the point of all this is, you asked a question and I answered it.

    My own philosophy is very simple: My mission is to make fragrances that some people will love (as distinct from fragrances everyone will like).

    To that end I’m interested in how a material smells, how it behaves in a blend and how safe it is to use. Everything else is secondary.

    For olfactory, ethical and commercial reasons I’m concerned that anything I buy should be what it says it is - I don’t expect to buy an essential oil and discover that it is in fact synthetic - nor a finished perfume that is sold at a premium price on the basis it's all-natural but in fact contains large amounts of cheap synthetics.

    As an ethical (rather than olfactory) choice I do not use any material that involves what I regard as cruelty to animals, so I use synthetic civet. Also for ethical reasons I prefer to use materials that are produced and sourced in a sustainable way consistent with maintaining the biodiversity of our planet and with minimal exploitation of its poor - to that end I use a range of synthetic musks, sandalwood oil from Vanuatu and synthetic linalool or ho wood rather than rosewood as examples. I’ve written extensively about these ethical considerations here on Basenotes previously.

    Finally for commercial rather than olfactory reasons, I have to consider regulations - EU and IFRA primarily but not exclusively - to ensure that anything I produce is capable of retail sale. Plus of course I have to be able to produce something people can afford to buy and so the cost of any material is also relevant.

    These, it seems to me, are the only considerations necessary: whether someone in an organisation such as the NPG, the EU or anyone else for that matter, considers a particular material natural or not isn’t a concern unless I wish to make a claim of naturalness for a product: something I’ve done in only one case, where I avoided any tiresome controversy by using only traditional essential oils and absolutes: though I guess some people would argue that even those are not ‘natural’ because they are processed, but if that’s how you think there’s really very little point in being in the business of making or buying perfume as you’ll be limited to copaiba balsam and expressed citrus oils most of which are not safe to put your skin unless you stay in the dark . . .
    sorry Chris,
    my post was not directed towards you, i asked JayH the question in response to his question of leaf-alcohol....that is all...

    i use aroma chems, and some naturals....so i could care less what is used in a fragrance....or who uses what....

Similar Threads

  1. natural vs synthetic
    By flashpoint321 in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 3rd October 2010, 11:18 PM
  2. Synthetic = Natural?
    By moon_fish in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 20th July 2010, 04:22 PM
  3. Natural vs Synthetic
    By Eau_Boy in forum Fragrance DIY
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2nd July 2006, 08:34 AM
  4. natural vs. synthetic
    By rilke in forum Feedback and Suggestions archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28th December 2005, 05:35 PM
  5. Natural vs. Synthetic...
    By iMaverick in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 28th November 2005, 09:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •