We are all made of chemicals!

I have yet to see definitions of the words "natural" and "synthetic" that satisfy me with regard to production and consumption of aromatic materials. To go further, I think the construction of these two categories and of a distinction between them is more artificial than Calone.

Terms that I am more interested in that lead to questions and investigations of importance to me are: "derived from plant sources", "cruelty free", "sustainable", bio-accumulative" and so on.

Some of the so-called "natural" fragrance companies would have you believe that "synthetics" are all derived from sludge scraped from the very bottom of the catalytic cracking towers of the evil petrochemical industry.

In fact many synthetic aroma materials are synthesised or refined from plant sources (terpenes, alcohol esters).

In the production of high quality synthesised aromatics, redundant chemicals are eliminated with only the desired aromatic component retained.

Production methods of "naturals" often retain, capture or even produce chemicals that do not contribute to the aroma and may cause unwanted side-effects.

Extraction methods for naturals are not flawless ways of capturing scent. Distillation, expression, solvent extraction, enfleurage even CO2 extraction result in raw materials that differ (sometimes substantially) from the scent of the source.

On the whole I'm delighted for synthetics. They allow consistency of aromatic profile, particularity (allowing precision in composition), purity (elimination of chemicals in the raw material that are redundant to the aroma).

It has been claimed (in a comment below) that IFRA is trying to drive small producers out of business. I only know a few small producers (of ingredients and finished perfumes) and they seem all to think it's worth their while continuing in business. I certainly do not have the commercial insider knowledge to judge whether there is any basis to this claim. However, I have noticed in my own investigations of merchants at the small quantity end of the market catering to amateurs, that you do get what you pay for. Costs of raw materials we might call “naturals” (which usually refers to concretes, absolutes, essential oils, crystals and the like) are immensely variable and these costs are related to the rarity, difficulty of extraction and cost of production amongst other factors.

I see a similar range of pricing in what we might call “synthetic” raw ingredients, and understand that some aromachemicals are much more difficult to synthesise, isolate and purify than others. Differences in quality between different grades (and costs) of similar materials are certaily apparent in my limited experience.It certainly seems that the big companies compete for business with their both the odor profile and cost to purchase on their synthetic raw materials – witness the variety of synthetic ambergris' or convenience bases on offer for instance. I have seen enough of the world that it would not surprise me to know that price-fixing and other shady practices occur across and between the big companies, but I have no evidence to indicate that such things do or do not happen.

The large flavour and fragrance companies sell many raw materials that qualify as "naturals" by the usual definitions, so I'm not sure they are trying to force their own products out of the marketplace.

A wonderful pursuit in the arts is finding and communicating beauty in media and contexts with unreasonable constraints. I think IFRA is far from imposing "unreasonable" constraints. I still see perfumers on their own or at the behest of companies small and large, creating things of transporting loveliness. The small makers buy the ingredients they can and seem to have riches at their disposal to compose these delights. I love to read perfumers’ blogs when they wax lyrical about a novel raw material they have sourced and how they intend to employ it. Although I know such energy and investment of time and materials are expended at the development stage, my understanding is that the greater costs and hurdles lie beyond this, in getting the product to market and on shelves.

What I suspect is mainly at issue with ingredient restrictions, is a growing culture of business erring on the side of caution with their products. In increasingly litigous times, and in a context of businesses increasingly being required to bear the burden of cost for their waste and damage, companies are necessarily paying more attention to the safety of their products for their consumers and the environment more generally.

I am delighted to know that dangerous bio-accumulative compounds are being restricted. It is also reassuring to know that this completely frivolous and lavish spritzing I do is unlikely to result in liver damage in the long term. I am also hopeful that today's business environment is edging closer to transparency of process and responsibility for the whole life cycle of products. I'm sure most people know of, and have been chilled by histories of secrecy, dishonesty and disregard for individual, community and environmental safety in cigarette, motor vehicle, chemical industies (to name just a few).

All of us living are going to die of something, so I would hate to be nannied out of fun entirely. I've gotten up to all sorts of risky things in my time, and will continue to do so, but there is certainly room to balance risks with benefits, and in the world of perfumery there is still more beauty within the bounds of the IFRA sanctioned ingredients than I will ever be able to take in. Still and all, I will keep (sparingly) using my deliciously nitro-musky #22 - it exists and I'm enjoying it, liver be damned! But I would find it difficult to advance an argument for the production of more unnecessary nitromusks.

Meh. This in a world where the destructive weapons industry is booming. Could I afford to care less? Or could we all do to care more?