Australian Sandalwood: The Golden Harvest

Australian Sandalwood is a unique native tree crop, grown for its high value aromatic heartwood, with potential to generative income from the oil rich nuts. Well adapted to wheatbelt conditions, sandalwood plantations can aid in managing agricultural risk through diversification and contribute towards reducing salinity and erosion in wheatbelt farming systems.



clip produced by In Shot Productions Video Production Perth http://www.inshotproductions.com/

IFRA 46th Amendment is Out

The International Fragrance Association (IFRA) has officially issued the 46^th Amendment to the IFRA Code of Practice as part of the industry's ongoing safety program*.
There are six new restrictive Standards based on the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)** and one new Standard prohibiting the use of 2,4-Octadienal.
IFRA has also withdrawn the Standard for Vanillin, which was first put in place with the 44^th Amendment. This Standard was put on hold on 1^st December, 2009, has now been officially withdrawn. Following the Vanillin Standard's notification additional information was submitted, which allowed for a re-evaluation of the material. After further additional testing and a critical evaluation of all available data today, IFRA has decided to withdraw the Standard and not set a revised Standard.
IFRA has also updated various guidance documents as part of the 46^th Amendment.

• QRA Information Booklet Version 6.0 Final 2011 (including guidance on classes for IFRA Certificates)
• Annex 1 to the IFRA Standards which has been updated with contributions from other sources for o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde and Safranal
• Index (list of all IFRA Standards)
• Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the implementation of IFRA Standards

All the new Standards and related guidance documents are freely available on the IFRA website: http://www.ifraorg.org
1.    Six new Standards, based on the QRA

CAS             Name                                      Status
                                                            
    7492-44-6     alpha-Butylcinnamaldehyde                   
    39189-74-7    2-Heptylidene cyclopentan-1-one                  NEW
    1504-74-1     o-Methoxycinnamaldehyde                       RESTRICTED
    68922-13-4    3-Methyl-2-(pentyloxy)cyclopent-2-en-1-one      (QRA)
    13257-44-8    2-Nonyn-1-al dimethyl acetal
    13144-88-2    1-(2,4,4,5,5-Pentamethyl-1-cyclopenten-1-yl)
                  ethan-1-one

2.    One new Standard prohibiting the use of 2,4-Octadienal

2,4-Octadienal has been reviewed by the RIFM Expert Panel and, due to lack of adequate data (Dermal DNA Adduct study), it was concluded that it should not be used as or in fragrance ingredients in whatever application until additional data is available and considered sufficient to support its use. The presence of a structural alert as defined in the Human Health Criteria Document justifies this ban which already concerns several materials of the same structural family.

CAS           Name                     Status

    30361-28-5    2,4-Octadienal            PROHIBITED

How the whole thing works, for those who missed our previous posts on the subject of perfumery ingredients restrictions:
The fragrance industry's safety program is founded on testing fragrance materials and either establishing 'Safe Use Levels', or prohibiting their use, based on studying their potential effects on people and the environment. Currently the safety program contains 186 'Standards', which restrict, or prohibit, the use of selected fragrance materials.
To ensure that the fragrance industry adheres to its safety standards the International Fragrance
Association (IFRA) has a Compliance Program. Every year 50 products from a selection of 450, gathered from stores in 10 different countries, are tested. If a product does not comply with its Code of Practice and Standards, IFRA works with the manufacturer to ensure compliance.
The IFRA Code of Practice is a comprehensive document that supports the IFRA commitment to provide products that are safe for use by the consumer and to the environment.
The Code of Practice applies to the manufacture and handling of all fragrance materials, for all types of applications and contains the full set of IFRA Standards. Abiding by the IFRA Code of Practice is a prerequisite for all fragrance supplier companies that are members of IFRA (either directly or through national associations). The majority of client companies (including producers of toiletries and household products) expect their fragrances to comply with IFRA Standards as set out in the Code.
The IFRA Code of Practice is distributed worldwide and is in the hands of all member associations and their member companies, in addition to governmental regulatory bodies and many other stakeholders. It is also available to all on our website: http://www.ifraorg.org

**Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)

In 2005 IFRA introduced a new Quantitative Risk Assessment or QRA approach to restrict fragrance materials that have a potential to induce contact sensitization. This new approach is a much more refined approach for evaluating sensitizing materials, and so provides more precise guidance on use levels of materials depending on the situation and the product in which they are used; ultimately it should better protect the consumer from becoming sensitized to a specific material.

SOURCE: The International Fragrance Association (IFRA), Brussels 27th June 2011

PERFUMism: What Will be the Talk of Town Soon

Today is a very special day! Contrary to many others, I don't usually broadcast what I'm doing outside the scope of Perfume Shrine on these pages. But today is an exception because it is beyond the merely personal and it embraces the community. I have been working alongside two dedicated people on a common cause which is groundbreaking, innovative and will hopefully rekindle the discourse on the genuine love of perfumery and help the industry take notice.

PERFUMism.com is a new platform, totally uncommercial, completely independent, and utterly respectful to those who will partake of its content. It is unlike anything else that exists in the perfume community today in that it aims to communicate serious thoughts on scents and the people involved with them (we have invited acclaimed perfumers, industry insiders, distributors and exhibitors) beyond the overused concept of niche and "art" which is brandished like the latest It-bag in the blogosphere and the discussion fora. Art will feature naturally too, but will it be a pretentious facade to make money or stroke fragile egoes? No, most assuredly not! We're totally against vanity projects!

PERFUMism is a kick in the groin in that it will tell truths! It will not fear, it will not hold back, it will not mollify or caress ears and will question everything! Along with mme Rebecca Veuillet-Gallot, the renowned author of Le Guide du Parfum and the Patricia de Nicolai Parisian boutique-keeper, and Andy Tauer, the well-loved artisan perfumer who financed this new platform, we have been brainstorming on making a difference in the industry. With our passion and with the fertile discourse which you are invited to provide, we hope to effectuate the changes which we have been all praying for for a long while now...
So, without further ado, you're invited to check out the PERFUMism site, to leave a message at the ShoutBox (on the right hand corner, please leave a comment if you feel like it), take a tour and see if something catches your eye, and to subscribe ~entirely for FREE~ to our quarterly newsletter for news and press. Just click the link! There is also a Facebook page and a Twitter page, from where you can follow us.

My personal aim in participating on PERFUMism is to get a powerful message across that perfumery shouldn't be exploited as the new "It" money-maker, but as the only refuge of sensualists in an increasingly sensory-deprived and sterilised world! I am leaving you with a couple of words by Andy which resonate his thought-process behind this innovative concept championing true art in perfumery: "I am finally here, at the starting point, of something new and exciting, collaborative and driven by the quest to move. I am finally here, and I can make a statement. I am not niche! And now, we will start inviting others to join us. We are not many, but we are the few who will make a difference. That's what PERFUMism is about: Making a difference in the world of perfumes".

Perfume Appreciation & the Quest for Objective Beauty

It is all too often that I come across pronouncements having to do with differing perceptions on fragrances that end with "Everyone is different and perfume is so subjective" or "One woman's poison is another woman's meat" (no reference to any specific Dior fragrance infered!). I fully realise that it is a polite way to agree to disagree. Nevertheless it accounts for a severe skewing of perception of art forms and muddling of "beauty"(i.e. harmony) vs. "attractiveness" (i.e. personal associations and quirks). The two are not interchangeable, nor mutually exclusive or inclusive.

If we are to consider perfumery as an art form (a concept that was pioneered by Edmond Roudnitska and increasingly popular in our days of niche brands plethora) such pronouncements present something of an oxymoron. Something can be beautiful and nevertheless not attract you personally, just as much as something can be ~by virtue of the common denominator~ termed ugly and yet you find yourself madly enamored with it! This is because beauty and attraction are two completely different qualities and to muddle between the two amounts to a confusion of aesthetic principles. So without escalating this into a manifesto, let's disentangle the matter as pertains to perfumery and its aesthetics.

If perfumery is to be held as an art form, then it should capitulate to the rules of other art forms: It should be judged on aesthetic grounds and present measurable qualitative and quantitative criteria. Aesthetics is generally viewed as the "critical reflection on art, culture and nature." and as such it is subordinate to axiology (a branch of philosophy). The very word has an interesting etymology that brings us closer to its true core: αξία in Greek means value, as in monetary value, but more importantly in this case as moral value, i.e. as an ideal to be reached. Therefore aesthetics and art philosophy in general aim at establishing and questioning the moral values shaping any specific art form (NB. By "moral" I do not refer to Judeo-Christian nuances of the term).

The experience of "beauty" often involves interpreting an entity (a human being, a painting, a perfume...) as being in balance with nature or presenting a view of harmony; in essence this is the classical ideal, a concept that considers the context as important, thus rendering a replica of Capella Sixtina's dome in the lounge of a Las Vegas casino ultimately kitch, same as wearing an extrait de parfum by Chanel in order to denote one's superior taste or social status [But more on that on our article on kitch here].
This harmonious coexistence might in turn produce feelings of attraction and emotional well-being. Because this is a subjective experience, the pronouncement that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is often referenced. Defenders of this view consider beauty to engender a salient experience, reflecting on the meaning of their own existence, therefore imbuing beauty with personal resonance. However as with everything a little more in depth exploring is warranted.

The classical Greek adjective for "beautiful" is καλός (ka-LOS), as in καλός καγαθός in Homer (It denotes excellence in character, social status and physical attributes, all at once). The Koine Greek word for beautiful in contrast was ὡραῖος (hō-RE-os) which derives from ὥρα (hōra), meaning "hour." Therefore being of "one's hour", in context with time and place was considered the mark of true beauty. Our society that produces fruit outside their normal time-frame in greenhouses and puts women under the knife for them to appear younger (or encourages teenagers to abandon their fresh looks in favour of an oversexualised, mature image) is clearly out of synch with this concept. Consider how when judging a perfume we are ascertaining its place within its historical context, like we did with Chanel No.46 or Patou's Ma Collection fragrances, but also how it should present a quality of timelessness, like for instance the classical vetiver colognes that shaped the genre. Certainly there are fragrances 'of their time' and 'for all time' and sometimes the two wonderfully interlap (Eau Sauvage, Coty Chypre, Guerlain Shalimar to name but a few).

But agreeing on specific terms doesn't always come naturally. Immanuel Kant brings the example of a man: "If he says that Canary wine is agreeable he is quite content if someone else corrects his terms and reminds him to say instead: It is agreeable to me," because "Everyone has his own (sense of) taste" (1790). The case of "beauty" differs from mere "agreeableness" nevertheless because, "If he proclaims something to be beautiful, then he requires the same liking from others; he then judges not just for himself but for everyone, and speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things."
This truth may appear almost fascist to today's political correct sensibilities of tolerance and acceptance of difference, but like with accessing Leni Rifensthal's Triumph of the Will, there might be moral reasons to feel horror because of it, but aesthetic reasons to feel awe all the same. The axiom that emerged in the 19th century romanticism milieu became "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" evoking a perception of ugliness as potentially mistaken or short-sighted. Popular fairy tales taught from the cradle onwards, such as The Ugly Duckling by Hans Christian Andersen, helped cement this idea.

Yet the saying is a perverted twist on the most unexpected source: Plato! Plato argued powerfully in favour of the objectivity of certain values, such as good, beauty and truth, mapping them outside an individual's sphere of perception or belief. Talk about irony! In his philosophical system ~as displayed most famously in the Allegory of the Cave~ there are two worlds, the physical one in which we live and another, abstract world of unchanging truth; the physical world seen as a mere reflection of the more perfect abstract world (A modern twist of which is found in The Matrix of all things). In Symposium, the Greek idealist philosopher advises: "Remember how in that communion only, beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities (for he has hold not of an image but of a reality), and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may." A mental judgement of beauty does not exclude that there is a specific idea of beauty, in fact αξία, a moral value! (On that note Drew A. Hyland wrote an interesting book named Plato and the Question of Beauty)

The ambiguity of the Sophists movement in 5th century BC Athens ("everything is relevant, everything is subjective") culminated (via the Neoplatonics) into the romantic notion of subjective beauty, which coincided with the "widening" of the world into empires that spun two hemispheres: The shift from Victorian to Edwardian ideals as pertains to beauty and art are a mere example. Judgments of aesthetic value were also linked to judgments of economic or political value, focusing on what a thing symbolises and thus judging the thing through its symbolic value. The emergence of luxury perfume houses and purveyors of fine cosmetics (Guerlain, Houbigant, L.T. Piver, Lancome) bore a role of ascertaining a social position that was marked by acknowledging beauty and reaping its benefits.

Aesthetic judgment usually goes beyond sensory discrimination. David Hume proclaims delicasy of taste as "the ability to detect all the ingredients in a composition" (discerning all notes in a perfume?), but supplements it with the sensitivity "to pains as well as pleasures, which escape the rest of mankind", indavertedly jump-starting the whole modernist theory of art that is conceived to shock or repel (compare this with the desire of perfumephiliacs to explore the arcane and the initially "weird"). Sensory discrimination is therefore linked to a capacity for "pleasure" and when pleasure arises from sensation then we have "enjoyment" (as per Kant) But this sensation as explained in The Critique of Judgment correlates the "beautiful" with engaging reflective contemplation, rendering any pronouncement on beauty a sensory, emotional and intellectual endeavour all at once.

Therefore in order to ascertain the beauty of a perfume, one should employ beyong the gut feeling of like/dislike some other criteria:

• How well does the fragrance converse what it has to say? (And does it have something to say in the first place?) 
• How well does it intergate into its genre and into its time-frame? 
• How well does it balance the facets and create its message? 
• How well does it stay on skin? 
• Is the perfumer or art director in possession of a distinct style uniquely his/her own? (For instance Jean Claude Ellena, Isabelle Doyenne, Serge Lutens, Michel Roudnitska and some others clearly are) 

One can absolutely dislike something that they respect as a work of art and vice versa.  Not everyone likes the Taxi Driver, but it's a great movie for several reasons. Many people love the Beach Boys but they're not on an artistic par with the Beatles, say, again for several reasons.
There needs to be an end to the political correctness of "everyone smells differently/ perhaps it's my chemistry" in order for the perfume community to accept fragrance not merely as a sent bon (nothing wrong with that, per se) but as an art form.
Perhaps the wittiest epilogue is decidely low-brow but, ah, so apt: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."

So, on to you: what do you think?


Light bulbs with flame via cache.wists.com. Painting of fat nude by Jenny Saville via blog.robbiecooper.org. Parisian illustration from 1922 via lovesponge03/photobucket.

Inspired by 1000frsgrances

Art by Women: an Equal Opportunity Manifestation?

Through the course of history, men have left a more prominent relief on the gauze that seperates present from past deeds. Even the term "history" is arguably problematic, a priori denoting a heightened importance to gender.
Expanding this thought into the realm of art and more specifically perfumery, it is easy to see that the emblematic fragrances of modern perfumery have been mostly conceived and composed by men, with the notable exceptions of pioneers Germaine Cellier (nose behind Vent Vert, Fracas, Bandit and Jolie Madame, among others) or Joséphine Catapano (the true creator of Youth Dew, despite tales to the contrary). Later on of course women took the reins and composed many interesting fragrances. I was inspired to think on those matters for today's post by the very interesting interviews of women perfumers hosted by Osmoz, which brought many facets of le métier into focus.

Before proceeding, however, one has to think about art by women: Is it any different in its structure and message than men's? And more importantly, should it be and why/why not? Is there some substance into the differentiation of feminine vs masculine produced Art?

In my opinion, which I had the chance to find out is also shared by Václav Havel, leader writer of the Velvet Revolution, it should not and should it do it ultimately becomes inferior Art. Because appreciation should focus on the content and not the creator it does not, in my opinion, make a lot of difference whether the artist is a woman or a man. I am personally no more lenient to art created by women and/or for women than I am with the equivalent by men (interestingly, you never see that latter advertised as addressing mainly men, do you?) This might explain why I do not generally read chic lit (the term is mirth-producing), but perhaps this is besides the point.

To revert to our question: Does a fragrance created by a woman reverberate into some subconsious desire and need di femina that is mostly incommunicado to men? Do women perfumers hold the secret to what other women desire in this most effervescent of arts?

Dutch-Canadian Ineke Rühland, founder of the INEKE line, is adamant on that point: "I honestly don’t see gender as being a major influence on my work", seguing to elaborate that the only difference is in her creating process for masculine fragrance ~she envisions how she would like men to smell rather than guessing how they themselves want to smell like. Clara Molloy of Memo fragrances agrees:

"I think it’s quite difficult to assign a gender to fragrances, characters,behaviors…It’s a very cultural thing. When you’re very sensitive, even the weather can influence you. Putting on a fragrance is an infinitely precious, delicate and intimate gesture that implies taking one’s time, letting oneself go, being gentle and languorous. Which can all be considered masculine too… "

On the other hand, Annie Byzantian of Firmenich, the creator of mega-blockbuster Aqua di Gio and co-author of Pleasures and Safari pour Homme, disagrees. To her, in contrast with the afore mentioned creators, being a woman plays a role in interpreting the goal of any given fragrance creation.

Perhaps the common thread running through the fabric of those artists' thinking process when creating is the importance of emotion.

Sarah Horowitz Thran of Creative Scentualisation brings the multi-sensory experience to the table, focusing on the inherent acceptance of sensuality in girls growing up. Indeed little boys are not as encouraged or condoned in their exploration of the sensual world, at least in my experience. I was especially interested by Sarah's comment that this appreciation and inspiration by the natural world has been heightened ever since becoming a mother: this is a true differentiation between women and men and as such it poses its own fascinating little questions.

Isabelle Doyen, resident nose at Annick Goutal and creator of 3 Les Nez perfumes, places highest importance to the creative effort above other things. In contrast to Nathalie Larson (who prefers soft, rounded compositions, often with rosy-woody accord, more traditionally feminine), Isabelle goes for the shorter formulae. They instigate a certain idea in no uncertain terms right from the start and thus she describes this effect as "a little brutal". Of course, anyone familiar with the Annick Goutal line might take this last bit in a less literal sense. Nevertheless I deduce that what Isabelle means is that she strives for a clear, hard-hitting vision that is immediately perceptible without roundabouts and frilly details. Quick to admit her own admiration for colleagues' oeuvre however she mentions the infamous Mousse de Saxe base used in the Caron fragrances by laboratoires Laire, but shuns the sensibility of most men's fougère scents. In this instance we could argue that her feminine disposition is showing through.

One of the most illuminating comments was made by Nathalie Larson, creator of Bulgari Pour Femme, Encre Noir and Perles by Lalique as well as Kate Moss:

"as a woman, some brands’ images suit me better than others"

This is something that has to do with the prevalent objectification of women in many mainstream brands that capitalize on a raw sexuality for the sake of shock-value; but also, I surmise, with the concern about brands projecting images that could be safely emulated by women instead of unrealistic ideals of men-imagined archetypes.


It is also interesting to note that when asked to name some of the fragrances that have made an indelible impression on them and which they would have liked to have created themselves, the choices named are composed by male perfumers. But to round out things, ending on the same note as we began, that might have to do with men gaining recognition more easily than women in the past anyway.

For two interviews with women perfumers on Perfume Shrine click here for Anya McCoy and here for Vero Kern.


I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on those questions posed.

Pics of Isabelle Doyen and Clara Molloy courtesy of Osmoz

It's the end of the world as we know it (perfume ingredients banned)

The above line from a well-known REM song unfortunately does not leave me feeling fine, like the song repeated time after time again in its refrain. Maybe it has to do with my abhorrence for state intervention of any kind in what I perceive as my consumer’s choice. Maybe it has to do with the prospect of endangered aromas, in the manner of endangered species that is looming in the horizon very shortly. Or maybe, just maybe, I am one of those who safe in their well-arranged existence likes to live precariously through the sensual pleasures that are given us, who knows for how much longer: a vivere pericolosamente mentality of eating medium-rare bovine steak, listening to alternative underground bordering on satanistic some would argue rock with covers that might bruise sensitive feministic sensibilities and -last but not least- using perfumes containing real oakmoss in amounts exceeding the prescribed percentage set by IFRA (the International Fragrance Association) and the EU (European Union).

In view of the whole debacle of oakmoss use as stated in a previous article, I was just about to resign myself to searching for vintage bottles of my favourite chypre perfumes such as Mitsouko, Femme, Bandit and Chanel#19. Not an easy task all the same, as perfume unlike wine does not come with a production year, despite the fact that we perfume-users use the oenological term vintage so often to convey a particularly good aged masterpiece. But it seems oakmoss were to be the least of our troubles.
As Anya McCoy, a talented natural perfumer whom I have interviewed in the past in this venue and the president of the Natural Perfumers Guild, brought to my attention, there is a whole list of ingredients that are about to be eradicated or strictly controlled in the formulae of perfumes produced from now on. The control of the percentage of certain natural ingredients to minute amounts in a given formula might bear no great value in the creation of a new perfume, as it could fuel the imagination of a given nose into composing new wilder arpeggios of unprecedented combinations. It would certainly signify however the destruction and bastardization of several revered masterpieces of the past, rendering them but ghosts of their former glorious shelves leaving a generation that has never smelled the originals with a skewed perception of what greatness really is all about in the olfactory kingdom.

The alphabetical catalogue of those nature-derived aromatics that are restricted follows:
Angelica root oil
Bergamot oil expressed
Bitter Orange Peel Oil Expressed
Cade oil
Cedar moss
Chenopodium oil
Citrus oils and other furocoumarins containing essential oils
Costus root oil, absolute and concrete
Cumin oil
Fig leaf absolute
Grapefruit oil expressed
Lavender
Lemon oil cold pressed
Lime oil expressed
Massoia bark oil
Massoia lactone
Melissa oil (genuine Melissa officinalis)
Oak moss extracts
Opoponax
Peru balsam
Petitgrain Mandarin Oil
Rose oil
Santolina oil
Savin oil
Styrax
Tagetes oil and absolute
Tea leaf absolute
Tree moss extracts
Verbena absolute
Verbena oil

Perusing the list one cannot but drop one’s jaw. Lavender? The quintessential essential oil that is recommended for pacifying even babies? Citrus, bergamot and bitter orange peel oils? Seriously, do they know that here in the Mediterranean we make a dessert out of the inedible bergamot fruit, using exactly the peel of the fruit boiled in syrup made with sugar? We eat the stuff for heaven’s sake. How much more harm could it do if we applied it on our skins? Yes, I am aware that those oils are photosensitizing. Surely a warning label on the box on not wearing it on exposed body parts could serve the purpose of protecting us amply? Not to mention rose oil (whose petals we also use in a dessert….the way I am going you must have formed the impression there’s precious few things we don’t make into desserts….well, it’s true, not counting the IFRA executives in those numbers….)

But the whole scenario would not bring doom futuristic Blade Runner echoes in our ears had it been chosen to just use warning labels on the boxes, stating exactly what the dangers are, so that the consumer can make an informed choice and suffer what consequences he/she has brought upon him/herself through that choice. Much like smoking…..
To cut a long story short, this whole dirty business smells more of money and lost revenues for the companies who produce aroma-chemicals and the law-firms that defend cases of demented “victims” of allegedly dangerous perfumes, than real flower and fruit oils.
It reminds me of the notorious case of an electronic goods company who lost a fortune to someone who was sick enough to microwave his cat and then plead his case in court successfully stating the instructions never warned about not putting an animal in the microwave appliance in the first place…I mean, geez…

If you want to make a difference and want to be vocal on the subject, there is a petition issued by Cropwatch, an independent watchdog for natural ingredients used in perfumery; you can vote against the 40th Amendment of IFRA that restricts those ingredients and make them come into discussion about this practice.
You can do it here



Pic of Tim Burton's "Corpse bride" comes from athinorama.