Question:
Originally Posted by helg
It all reads as a ploy to spread the use of aromachemicals (synthetics) into production more agressively. Yes, that makes sense but I would like to know WHY. What can we trace this back to. It benefits whom? There must be a financial or politically-based reason for this. Because I see no other way to explain it...

Answer:
Originally Posted by helg Yes, another perfume lover on another forum had received an email from Guerlain some while ago that confirmed that Guerlain is conforming to the regulations of IFRA and EU.(they put it like this)

Now.....to bring you all even more down........

That ALSO means a reformulation of Vol de Nuit and for different reasons Jicky.

It all reads as a ploy to spread the use of aromachemicals (synthetics) into production more agressively. VOL DE NUIT TOO??
*THUD!* as tinker faints

Answer:
Originally Posted by mochi227 Yes, that makes sense but I would like to know WHY. What can we trace this back to. It benefits whom? There must be a financial or politically-based reason for this. Because I see no other way to explain it...
Well, isn't it obvious??? *incredulous gaze here*
It benefits the companies who produce synthetics for perfume-production and we all know that the 6 big perfume-making companies (IFF, Quest, Givaudan etc.) all have chemists up to their sleeves in the research of less expensive and more pliable synthetics for use in perfumes: cut of cost, ease of production. There you have it.
Naturals do not cost little and they have slight variations from batch to batch.
Now, if some Big Brother uber-goverment/organisation is insisting that natural essences can cause some trouble it's all the more to the above mentioned companies' benefit. They could feed them with info themselves even!!
All about the money.....

Answer:
Originally Posted by mochi227 I urge everyone to sign that petition linked to in the article. Beyond a perfumery issue, this really IS a consumer rights issue. Consumers should be allowed to choose for themselves and this is about as forceful on assault on our ability to choose what we purchase/use as I can remember! The analogy to peanuts is a great one. Why are peanuts exempted but oakmoss is not? I would really like to understand the logic behind that one.
=
I'm eating a peanut now in protest! Grrrr! I think part of the reason is that while one can choose not to eat peanuts, one cannot choose not to breathe in the Mitsouko worn by the woman next to you on a train, plane, or in a store. I recall reading that there is some big increase in respiratory difficulty these days and some have linked this to the use of fragrance in general.
I think the improvement in diagnostic equipment and the wide availability of inhaled medication, any allergy medication really, could provide another explanation. Pharma markets these things aggressively. Lately I've noticed many overweight people with exertional dyspnea using inhalers...must be the fragrance...lol.
Pass the peanuts!

Answer:
Originally Posted by helg Well, isn't it obvious??? *incredulous gaze here*
It benefits the companies who produce synthetics for perfume-production and we all know that the 6 big perfume-making companies (IFF, Quest, Givaudan etc.) all have chemists up to their sleeves in the research of less expensive and more pliable synthetics for use in perfumes: cut of cost, ease of production. There you have it.
Naturals do not cost little and they have slight variations from batch to batch.
Now, if some Big Brother uber-goverment/organisation is insisting that natural essences can cause some trouble it's all the more to the above mentioned companies' benefit. They could feed them with info themselves even!!
All about the money..... Hmm, if you actually read the IFRA site you will see *many* more synthetics than naturals are being restricted. This 'it is a conspiracy against naturals' song is simply untrue, but apparently gaining momentum. The whole cosmetic industry has been up in arms about it for a while, including those who have never used a single natural substance. It affects all of them.
It is all very well saying that it should be up to the consumer to decide whether they want to risk the possible exposure to harmful substances (and incidentally I personally agree with this position) BUT if the consumer is only educated by half truths and rumours on bulletin boards, instead of doing some minimal research for themselves, then what price safety?
Is it reasonable to expect the consumer (that's us) to be able to evaluate for themselves whether a product is a risk - in fact is it reasonable to even expect them to know that there is a risk - or is it more reasonable for the manufacturer to stop production of something once it has been shown to be a risk?
The question that is being raised by Tony Burfield et al is whether the risk assessments on certain aromachemicals found in plant-derived essential oils has been thorough enough to take into account the possible counter effects of other aromachemicals in some oils, and whether there is enough evidence gathered for others. He has never stated that 'natural is safe' or that all these natural-sourced oils are safe. In fact he was one of the first to propose the outright banning of several essential oils, and to highlight the dangers of others. None of this is financially or politically motivated, and it would be a shame to skew what is a very valid and scientific point of view into cartoon soundbites.

Answer:
Thanks Nutmeg! That offers a lot of clarification

Answer:
I second the thanks to Nutmeg, very intelligent post.

Answer:
Well, Nutmeg is assuming that a certain amount of infantile characteristics exist in the consuming population, yes?? We do have certain responsibilities to educate ourselves on what we eat, wear, drive, etc.. As my driving instructor said about my Volkswagen, "This is just a guided missile. It's up to you to do the right thing." Yet we allow cars, motorcycles, beer, and heavens, even sex to exist!! So many dangers!! How can we survive??? Oh, the goverment must protect me right now in every possible way!! Help help! Oh, please. Life is a fatal condition. Get over it. Anyone heard of warning labels?? That should satisfy the lawyers.... Now let me buy real Mitsouko.

Answer:
Well, Nutmeg, I assure you I have done my homework (I do not rely solely on bulletin boards for my information, thank you very much; in fact I am a scientist as well, albeit my expertise is in Humanities) and I know that the synthetics opposed to have already known substitutes that smell the same. Lab manipulation is easier there, you see. So this is not a grave issue as regards perfumery as much as some of the natural essential oils is. (Jasmine grandiflorum anyone?)
Of course natural does not equate safe, I would be daft to think so. Poison ivy is natural, so are lots of poisons, but you have to take into account the use of each.
Oakmoss would not hurt the person inhaling Mitsouko next to the wearer in a plane or a supermarket aisle. (unless the wearer sprayed it on them too). It would only affect the wearer.
On the other hand a ventilating system which is aromatized with a synthetic version of something (which is pretty standard practice in most shops, offices and malls now) could indeed be harmful and it does not segregate between "users" and "non users". We all breathe it in.
Leaving a leeway to the consumer to choose is the basis of democracy. Otherwise, OK, say I become governor or a legislature body and decide that sex is bad for you and do you know how many VD are out there? The risk is real! There is real scientific evidence to back this up, not just cartoon bubbles and bulletin boards. Promiscuity is dangerous to you and if you're not aware of it, I will ban it any way I can to protect you, people.
See? We're in for fascism, that way......
The issue is complex because apart from the safety issue raised by so many sustances today - and I know there has been valid scientific background work on them- those are small potatoes in relation to perfume for ourselves (I mean EDT, EDP, EDC, Parfum/extrait here).
I think the vast greater issue is the amount of fragranced products that cirulate in the market, much like the ventilating aromas I mentioned above. Almost anything is fragranced today from cleaning stuff to baby wipes, it's really hard to avoid and find genuinely unfragranced products.
So by elminating those they would be doing the world a great service. But no, those are all allowing companies who produce them to bring out a million permutations of the same product with difference only as regards smell, so that the consumer is swamped with choice and has to buy one of them.
They attack perfume, which in a puritanical frame of mind seems frivolus, a luxury and a non-necessity.
That's skewed and hypocritical in my opinion......
Of course it's just an opinion :-)

Answer:
Originally Posted by sherrie11 My sincerest condolences to all Mitsouko lovers. Moi aussi.