The Canadian magazine Flare recently published a feature on the "synthetics vs naturals" debate in perfumery; the article features interviews with Mandy Aftel of Aftelier ("There is a place for both naturals and synthetics, and I think the consumer has a right to know which is which.") and perfumer Christophe Laudamiel of IFF ("In the minds of the public, natural means better. That's not true."). You can download pdf files of the two page article at Artisan Natural Perfumers Guild. Thanks to Anya for the link!
6 Comments
Leave a comment, or read more about commenting at Now Smell This. Here's our privacy policy, and a handy emoticon chart.
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Very interesting, R, to see this debate still going on. Do you think the average consumer really cares, though? Everybody I know who isn't in to perfume just says “I don't care what's in it, as long as it smells good, lasts a long time and doesn't give me a migraine.” (Just to let you know, though, it's “Flare”. Weird, eh?)
Fixed the name, thanks!
I don't know to what extent this “debate” is really still going on (or ever really did “rage”), or whether it is just something the press likes to talk about. Chandler Burr makes a big deal about it too. I think its all much ado about nothing, in fact, one of the things I noticed was that I didn't disagree with a single thing Mandy Aftel OR Christophe Laudamiel said — they aren't really debating each other (Mandy doesn't say all synthetic perfumes are bad, just that there should be choice; Christophe defends the use of synthetics, but doesn't say he thinks natural perfumes are bad, just that natural components aren't always better for you).
And no, I don't think the average consumer cares — nor do I think, as the article implies, that your average consumer is unaware that most fragrances use synthetic materials. I think some consumers would rather use all natural products, and it is a great thing that they have more and more product choices. I am tempted to add “can't we all just get along”, LOL…
Yeah, that “debate” set-up/introduction does not really describe what goes on in the actual interviews. The thing is, I think the average consumer's repsonse is a de facto argument for the synthetics “side” since it is more inclusive. And what you bring up is the only thing I disagreed with Aftel about: most people know that there are “chemicals” in there and would continue to choose “chemicals” even if they were labeled as such. But I'm happy when any perfumer with great scents is a success! And Happy Easter, R!
Oh, I guess I do sort of disagree with that too — I do think most people know, that is, if they bother to think about it either way. I certainly didn't used to bother to think about it before I got really interested in fragrance, but it would hardly have shocked me to hear that there isn't any “gardenia” in Chanel Gardenia.
But yes, that is the point — is is lovely to see anyone with great fragrances succeed, and I do think some of the natural perfumers are doing really interesting work.
Its probably the recent push by fragrance chemical companies to have their synthetic molecules be the defacto ingredients in perfumes that has caused natural ingredient proponents to come forward and stake their claim in the industry. Think about it : if perfume ingredients were all natural, they would be quite pricy and not that easy or cost efficient to incorporate into hordes of cookie cutter fragrance releases that we see each year. Easy access to generic synthetics has resulted in an explosion of fragrance releases per year.
I believe that the way forward is to use both natural ingredients and synthetic molecules – to strike the right balance between them. There are some perfume effects which natural ingredients can't create, while over reliance on synthetics can impart to a perfume an overly chemical smell (this has been discussed a lot at basenotes by many knowledgeable members). Using both synthetics and naturals increases a perfumers palette. Ofcourse theres nothing wrong in focusing on using just one type of ingredient and doing it well (and I am sure there's a market for that). If I were a perfumer, and were designing a perfume around the note of (lets say) Iris, I would try to get the best natural iris absolute to form the heart of the perfume, and probably use less costly synthetics for some or all the other supporting notes (ofcourse there are some synthetic molecules that are quite expensive). For some notes like civet etc., synthetics are the only way to go because of industry regulations.
Interesting. I don't know if the multitude of cheap synthetic components influences the explosion of fragrance releases or not. I mean, in “the old days”, natural components were far, far cheaper than they are now, and yet the number of releases was reasonably low. But you could be right. I've no idea why we're getting 800 fragrances this year. It strikes me a losing proposition for all concerned.
As far as I know, there are no industry regulations preventing the use of civet though — I think the main reason (other than cost) that most companies have turned to synthetic substitutes is because of animal rights issues — witness the recent decision of Le Labo to replace the real civet in their Labdanum scent with a synthetic after customers found out and objected.