Green Aspiration

Most fragrance trends are created by the perfumer skillfully adding a new nuance or "note" to an existing theme. The time honored example is Coco Chanel mistakenly adding too much Aldehydes to her floral creation. This provided a sophistication and an attractive uniqueness. This mistake became Chanel #5. As people encoded this odor memory as they were exposed to the #5 Perfume form or the hundreds of adaptations that followed in skin products, a trend was born and tracked. 

This "conditioning" of recognizing new fragrances and inputting borrowed demand has repeated itself in nearly every fragranced product. Even when something was technically deemed impossible like chlorine based cleaners, R&D was devoted and rewarded with positive results.

Today consumers are so manipulated that they have created a real economy based on products that they adorn themselves, their clothing, living space and everyday cleaners with every evolving trends. Most of this actually serves a common good and should thrive. People are healthy, feel better about themselves and how they want others to relate to them. Houses are cleaner and germ free as the fragrance products promote correct usage and hygienic habits. And despite the so-called synthetic chemical backlash, what people put on themselves is a free choice and causes virtually no harm. 

Now the tasks are to inform people that there is a small population sector that has a real sensitization and we should all try to minimize contact when known. And we should all voice opinion and try to influence consumers that they do not need fragranced cleaners that imitate every odor trend when the raw materials, both of Natural and Synthetic origins are tested for its environmental impact. We can actually start this in 2009 when the EPA DfE (design for the environment) program provides the Perfumers a method to access raw material data for environmental persistence, sensitization, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and target organ toxicity. Thereafter, the consumer can intelligently decide and aspire to make their space a healthier place while contributing to a safer planet.  

 

Rocket Scientist

Referring back to the GCI article on "Materials: Scent of a Winner" September 2008, I could not help noticing the claim, that was recently repeated by a RIFM representative, that material bans often seem to have no basis in valid scientific research.   An example was given in the GCI article, that some ingredients in fragrance formulations are used in very small concentrations, "say, one part in a billion, which in scientific terms means  "VIRTUALLY UNDETECTABLE."  In terms for those without scientific backgrounds, that's the equivalent of one inch in 15,782 miles.  But if legislators see a given ingredient as a risk, a valuable ingredient that has served the industry safely and effectively for years may be lost.  This hurts perfumery."

Lets assume since the article was in a trade journal, that the readers have some scientific background and understand or appreciate why the example was given.  And that the readers know that the practice and prior safe use of a perfumery material does not likely include an environmental test standard such as water or soil phase toxicity as these are currently being assembled.  

Tests like, Level 1 Fugacity are used to determine the relative concentrations of a chemical in water or soil phases at equilibrium.  And since all perfumery items have different tendencies of "fleeing" or accumulating, it is scientifically impossible to relate ingredient dosage to dilution miles.  

The Green Nose just wants to remind the Fragrance industry that the use of many longstanding materials is based on attractiveness, skin safety and performance.  Performance by evaluation techniques is most liked by consumer panels when the ingredient's effect is long lasting and has awareness.  Environmental behavior is a new standard and now a product registration requirement.  Therefore the inadvertent use of materials that are recognized as an environmental hazard can not be excused away today.  Success is judged by the absence of aromatic ingredients in the waste stream. 

In non-scientific terms, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that compounds for example, that were designed for fabric fixation and to survive a cold or warm washing and drying cycle and last for weeks in storage, will accumulate in water and soil in our population centers.   They were scientifically designed to not flee.