Perfumery Restrictions and Why Everything We Say in Public Matters

There is a show on Greek TV called “Proof” in which famous journalist Nikos Evaggelatos reveals the scandals of various industries by having reporters infiltrate and report back in audio and video every gory detail to the shock, repulsion and wrath of the audience. Actual names are not revealed, no one is brought to task in practice and although there is an expert’s panel and a participating audience at the studio, no specific solution is proposed at the end of the show and the issues are left hanging there.

In more ways than I would be comfortable with, the latest NZZ Folio article by Dr.Luca Turin, proclaiming “Perfumery, a hundred-year-old art, has taken a long time dying, but on January 1, 2010 it will be officially dead”, reminded me of that sensationalist approach. The issue has been already addressed and the restrictions had been warned of, premonitored and fought against by several writers and activists. It’s not really news, especially to Turin-reading perfume enthusiasts, since he has been writing about it at every opportunity for years. My dissenting voice is not disputing the seriousness of the latest reformulations in the industy (yes, they’re dire and largely irrational) but an attempt to bring logic to what is apparently an impassioned subject that makes us momentarily lose our powers of reasoning.

A brief recap: Regulatory body IFRA (International Fragance Association) regularly issues a catalogue of perfumery ingredients’ guidelines with which major manufacturing companies (ie.the companies who make the juice, such as IFF, Givaudan, Takasago etc. as opposed to those who commision it ~the Lauder Group, LVMH Group who owns Guerlain and Dior among others, the Gucci Group etc.) comply with, so as to minimise potential consumers’ complaints & lawsuits; a stance that has been sanctioned as law by the EU Commission at Brussels, which is the real “news”. Now let’s go back a few years: In Nov.2004 a NZZ Folio Duftnote by Luca warns about the reformulation of one of Guerlain’s masterpieces (Mitsouko). His newly-published blog "Perfume Notes" debuts in 2005, pronouncing "The End of Civilization as We Know it” concerning the changes at Guerlain: the perfume community sounds its barbaric yawp through the rooftops of the world and Guerlain PR Isabelle Rousseau's mail gets spammed. For many this was a first; oblivious to the inner workings of the industry, whatever doubt they had on the altered smell of their favourites was not directly attibuted to reformulation. But the approach created an unprecedented turmoil within the perfume community and it indirectly acted as a test of power. Although in mid-2007 the pneuma of the original Mitsouko was pronounced living on in the reformulated juice (by Edouard Fléchier) by Luca, it seems brought back to task just now in April 2009, along with other perfumes.

What changed in the interim? The perfume community came together tight as a fist (commendable), perfume blogging in general became a springboard for careers (predictable), Luca Turin close a book contract (desirable) and perfume companies have continued –or, should I say, escalated- reformulating their juices regardless on their merry way to the bank (lamentable). If anything the historical scope proves that forceful articles and community outcries do not hold the power to inflict changes in the industry!

All written word in the public domain and transmitted through a network of interested parties should have a purpose. If the purpose is not informational journalism (the issue is well known and addressed in the latest supplement of Pefumes the Guide, while the IFRA amendments are downloadable for all to see) or activism manifestation (to which we have already seen that the corporate world pays little attention to), I am at a loss on what purpose that latest article serves!
A couple of issues obscure the justified plea for change and the criticism on Dr.Rastogi: Demonization (environmentalist chemist Suresh Chandra Rastogi, Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, IFRA itself, the perfume companies), argumenting ad hominem (“I am not disputing the veracity of Dr Rastogi’s research, though it makes mind-numbingly dull reading”), argumenting ad populum ( “fragrance has no demonstrable benefit other than beauty” and “beauty cannot be measured” with which readers en masse agree), and of course first and foremost argumentum ad verecundiam, aka appeal to authority ~ that of the author himself! Is the biblical simile of The Man Who Cried Doom lost on everyone but me?

In talking about Dr.Rastogi’s work, Luca says “you discover some real but minor problem in a fragrance ingredient. Nice work and you can tell your family when you get home”. That’s the main difference between Rastogi and Turin: reach! Dr.Turin has been given a public podium read by a specific niche of readership who cares very much for those issues and who accepts any such news with fear, panic and wrath (“In another scientific paper titled “The Composition of fragrances is changing” Dr Rastogi analyses old and new perfumes and notes that his work is having an effect”). Dr.Rastogi has not. For what is worth I can see that he is Senior Reseach Scientist at the National Environmental Research Institute of the Ministry of the Environment at Roskilde, Denmark and he has a solid body of publications on allergens research, so I deduce he is serious. In all probability nevertheless his self-defence will be conducted through closed doors of university laboratories and scientific publications which, as a fellow scientist of another field, I know are only read by a specific niche: namely, scientists in the field ~ergo not the perfume enthusiasts’ community. The fight is thus unequal and it feels like a test of power. I would hate to see it as a Philippic interpreted à la Jacqueline de Romilly (ie. a raison d 'être) and thus I am giving both Luca and Rastogi every benefit of a doubt till further notice.

The 43rd IFRA amendment includes several “threatening” essences: jasmine absolute (both sambac and grandiflorum), ylang ylang, heliotropin, frankincense, eugenol and isoeugenol (spicy notes)…. . Please note nevertheless that Restricted is not the same as Prohibited. Restricted means allowed to be used up to certain levels and under certain circumstances. Costus had no chance in any form (oil, absolute or concrete), nor does masoia bark for flavours; but neither does the very new Majantol (a quite new lily of the valley synthetic). Oakmoss/mousse de chêne however somehow might and we will talk about it and other ingredients in some length in the following post.
IFRA was imposing recommendations for a variety of compounds such as oakmoss for a while, the industry following them resulting in numerous reformulations across the brands for at least 10 years now. Thus, for most modern fragrances these standards are not a big issue.

The dream of bypassing the EU by making perfumes on non-EU soil however is futile: the EU cosmetics legislation would only move to the American FDA. It's all about economics and the location of the target market of any specific house. In the words of independent pefumer Andy Tauer:

“Who are the members of IFRA? You will see that the big industry is in there, as members, like IFF*. Thus, all regulations are basically influenced by the big industry, too. There seems to be a mutual interest (commission/big industry) and the entire process is driven by industry, too. I feel that the EU Commission is just proving once more that it does not really care about economic growth, about the citizens it's representing, or small and medium -sized enterprises ( SMEs) but rather plays its game with the big ones, meeting with the who is who; thus the smaller enterprises have to either accept what comes out of these dances or perish.” *{quote from IFRA page: Since the GA of October 17, 2007, companies may also become Direct Ordinary Members of IFRA"}.

It has to do with papework as well, because several cosmetics and toiletries are produced locally for tax reasons, so not all products of one brand are produced at one place.
IlseM points out on the Perfume of Life board which is ruffled:

“IFF is being sued by hundreds of microwave popcorn factory workers because the diacetyl in their butter flavorings caused those workers to contract the irreversible lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans. I remember when Consumer Reports tested fragrances for phthalates after they were supposedly removed from all fragrances. CR found them in many of those fragrances and even in ones where
the companies claimed never to have used pthalates. In a few cases the level was even higher than when testing was done before their removal! It's hard to believe that the fragrance industry is motivated by product safety concerns.”

But the perfume community itself has responsibilities too! When perfume writing broke into the Internet and Press scene in 2005 ~an epoch seemingly as far back as the Pleistocene for most people’s memories~ there was heated discussion concerning the use or not of aromachemicals (ie.materials synthesized in the lab for use in perfumery) as opposed to natural ingredients. Authors breaking into the scene championed synthetics ~deeming them no less important or more important than naturals. I distinctly remember people saying that it didn’t matter what their perfumes were composed of, “as long as they smelled good”. Those words are now coming to kick them in the butt in a not-as-nice way. Why the delayed outcry on the axing of several natural essences? We’re catered for with what we asked!
“Smelling good” is a relative term and perfumers can create new compositions tapping as yet unknown resources and new frontiers -which might produce the classics of tomorrow; it would be both hypocritical and rushed on our part to en masse condemn everything that comes out of the labs of companies as an original composition complying to the newest regulations. After all, some fragrances which have been deliberately constructed to bypass restrictions have already gained critical acclaim. Some, like Futur by Piguet, have even been reworked with the help of Luca Turin himself! As mentioned by the president of Piguet, Joe Garces, on Sniffapalooza magazine March 19th 2009:

"With the help and guidance of the most diverse fragrance critic from across the pond who loved “Futur” from its original launch, I have been fortunate to find the final road map with his guidance to the glamorous fragrance that once was. Because of the genius and passion of Luca Turin we will present the perfect “Futur”.)

Although restrictions have really gone over the edge and this is shared as a concern by all the perfumers with whom I have been in discussion, not everything is doom and gloom. In a previous interview with Sandrine Videault, when asked about it, she told me new perfumers have no great difficulty working with the palette proposed, as they do not feel restraint in not being able to use what they have not worked with before. The creativity will change. On top of that, small niche firms can continue to use questionable ingredients in higher ratios than those complied with by the bigger firms (provided they can still source the supplies, which is the main issue. To quote Tauer again: “The restrictions imposed by EU will kill many suppliers or essential oils and absolutes, as the longer the regulations remain, the more a burden. Thus, I am faced with a narrowing market for high quality essential oils”. Outlaw is like outlaw does! So the real problem is classics coming from big brands. But those have been already seriously altered, which is something we have been witnessing for decades now and reporting. Classics will remain a museum piece by their very evanescent nature; it’s inevitable, alas. In the words of Jean Claude Ellena who is taking the modernist approach (and who makes interesting perfumes with the questionable ingredients, such as Iso-E Super, at well-below recommended ratio, bless his heart) “we can’t build the future only on history”.
If you need to do something about it you can mail Société Française des Parfumeurs: 36, rue du Parc de Clagny 78000 Versailles, France. Tél: (+33) 01 39 55 84 34 Fax : (+33) 01 39 55 73 64. Or the Commission for Cosmetics and Legal devices, mail to: staffdir@ec.europa.eu

Bottom line, obituaries might be a little premature and indignation with no suggestions offered is akin to pissing in the wind.


©Elena Vosnaki for the Perfume Shrine.

Oakmoss, Treemoss and Chypre: you've come a long way baby!

Oakmoss has got to be the most controversial ingredient in perfume in recent history. For years used for its mossy, sensual quality and an integral constituent of chypre compositions married to a citrusy top note, traditionally bergamot, it has gone under the strict scrutiny of European regulations and IFRA -the regulatory body for scent materials. And it became the controversial issue in relation to the alleged reformulation of classic Guerlain perfumes, resulting in brouhaha of gigantic proportions. Let's try to sort the mess out a bit.

Basically oakmoss is a type of light green to green black lichen, a fungus growing on trees found in many mountainous temperate forests throughout the Northern Hemisphere, including parts of France, Portugal, Spain, North America, and places in Central Europe (Yukoslavian oakmoss was very popular). It forms clumps of bushy thalli. The growth of such lichens indicates good air-conditioning in those areas, as the organisms abhor pollution.
Oakmoss grows primarily on the trunk and branches of oak trees, hence the name (mousse de chêne in French); but lichen is also commonly found on the bark of other deciduous trees and conifers (fir and pine). Technically oakmoss belongs to the genus Evernia and is named Evernia prunastri, differentiating it from its cousin tree moss growing on pines and firs, Evernia Furfuracea. Interestingly, this last ingredient has been found packed into Egyptian mummies.

In perfumery oakmoss has been prized for its aroma, heavy and oriental-like at first, becoming very refined when dried, reminiscent of bark, seashore and foliage. It imparts a wet forest floor aroma in compositions resulting in a naturalness and rich earthy, damp and creamy undercurrent when used with restraint. Its remarkable quality is its ability to render a velvety softness to floral bouquets, green fragrances and heavy orientals alike, also possessing fixative properties imparting longevity in the perfumes that contain it and anchoring the more volatile notes.

Francois Coty, contrary to popular myth, was not the first one to capitalize on its fragrant properties in his Chypre in 1917, which inaugurated a new fragrance family. He did make it popular though and is indirectly responsible for the birth of many wonderful spawns, so a belated huge thanks is in order.
Chypre means of course Cyprus, the greek island of Venus with the rich history, and this is where the composition originated, albeit in a less standardised form, even from the time of Romans who created a mix of storax , labdanum and calamus (ingredients also present in chypre perfumes) in the island of Cyprus; this gave rise to the Middle Ages and Rennaisance alloys with oakmoss at its base.
We learn from Ayala’s excellent Smelly blog that as early as the 12th century AD pastilles and “Oyselets de Chypre” (Chypre Birds) were made by mixing labdanum (a resinous material combed off the hair of goats grazing on cistus labdanum/rockrose), styrax and calamus, with the addition of tragacanth. This was burned as incense, alluding to the ancient ritual origins of perfume “perfumum” (=through smoke); while the birds served decorative purposes and scented the air. It wasn’t until the 14th century that oakmoss was added to these pastilles. Two recipes from 1777 for chypre compositions include oamoss as well as civet, ambergris, musk and various resins and plant aromatics, two of which are rose and orange blossom.

With Coty’s Chypre though a new direction emerged resulting in a plethora of variations with such prestigious members such as Femme, Mitsouko, Bandit, Jolie Madame, Tabac Blond, Cabochard, Cuir de Russie, Aromatics Elixir, Miss Dior, Diorella, Knowing, Ma Griffe, Paloma Picasso and hundreds of others.
The inclusion of oakmoss in those compositions was a foregone conclusion.

However the European Union allergens regulations have changed our understanding of that last part. Deeming oakmoss - and not only that one- an ingredient that has been tied to specific dermatological averse reactions they issued a list of restricted ingredients. The Colipa site and especially the 7th and 36th amendment are of great interest to anyone researching this issue.
More specifically the IFRA regulation states that

"Oak moss extracts (e.g. absolute, resinoid, concrete, etc.) obtained
from Evernia prunastri should not be used such that the level in consumer
products exceeds 0.1%. In the presence of tree moss extracts the level of oak
moss has to be reduced accordingly such that the total amount of both extracts
does not exceed 0.1% in the final product.
Furthermore, oak moss extracts
used in perfume compounds must not contain added tree moss. Tree moss contains
resin acids. The presence of resin acids can be detected by using a routine
analytical method available from IFRA*. However, traces of resin acids are
unavoidable in current commercial qualities of oak moss. As an interim standard,
these traces must not exceed 0.1% (1000 ppm) dehydroabietic acid (DHA).
This
recommendation is based on test data on the sensitising potential of oak moss
and tree moss extracts, their cross-reactivity and the absence of sensitisation
reactions when tested at 0.6%. In addition, it has been shown that oxidation
products of resin acids contribute to the sensitising potential. This adaptation
to the Standard aims at reducing exposure to resin acids, while waiting for the
final outcome of a current research program.”

This ascertains that it is not oakmoss that is the culprit here, but probably its combination with tree moss. The issue however puts a spin on the reformulation of certain perfumes. Since the rise of the controversy it has been suggested that a warning label on the box of the perfume stating those specific ingredients included (more on that will be the theme of another article) might be the saving grace for those well-respected, nay treasured formulae of yore, especially the historic Guerlain ones. Mitsouko and Parure were prime candidates for a sweeping metamorphosis that would leave them harmed beyond any recognition. Lots of others as well. The official line of Guerlain PR had been denial of any reformulation up to a certain point in time, while in the last couple of years they admitted that the whole commercial line would be re-vamped by the end of 2005 to conform to IFRA regulations. No matter what solution might be suggested the result is that some amount of reformulation has indeed taken place (for the record, some people were in favour of the inclusion of the potential allergens with a warning on the box; others were championing the idea of including them only in parfum concentration or in the boutique exclusives, an idea that frankly reeks of elitism to me).

How could one preserve the use of oakmoss and where would one find it still then?
The “quenching” hypothesis is a fascinating proposition (Opduke as far back as 1976) and consists of the suggestion that inclusion of the anti-inflammatory azulene (naturally occurring in soothing chamomile) might cut down the risk of irritation presented by various objectionable ingredients.
However the odour profile of azulene coupled with its blue colour have presented the perfumer with a challenge as how to incorporate it in such a way as to remain in the wings.
The inclusion of eugenol and limonene at defined ratios to some other sensitising agents (cinnamaldehyde, citral, phenylacetaldehyde) is also worth exploring in regard to oakmoss.
It is debatable if the risk of a rash is so great a concern to warrant complete ban on specific ingredients for everyone. After all fyrocoumarin in elevated doses is also as much a suspect and even methyl eugenol which occurs in basil and rose oil has been called a systematic carcinogen. I do not see a ban on those however.
Many products still use Evernia prunastri (oakmoss) in their formula , they even state so on the box, often with tree moss also included in defined ratios, while others capitalize on the alluring notion of bringing out our inner dryad while using this sensuous forest ingredient still.
Master perfumerArcadi Boix Camps claims to have succeeded in substituting oakmoss for other combinations that produce a comparative smell, however there is not enough searchable info on what exactly that might be.
Natural perfumers are continuing to use oakmoss absolute rendered by solvent extraction and state its constituents as evernic acid, d-usnic acid, atranorine and chloratronorine. According to Robert Tisserand it is indeed a dermal and mucous sensitiser that should be avoided in pregnancy and epilepsy, but its risks for general use are in direct proportion to the manner of use and ratio in a mix.
Like with everything else, an informed choice is the way to go and hopefully some aspects of oakmoss have been highlighted here.
A newer crop of perfumes that assume the identity of chypre under the alias “mossy woods” in Michael Edwards' classification of perfumes has cropped up in recent years resulting in offerings such as Narciso for Her, Lovely by Jessica Parker, Lauren’s Pure Turquoise and Comme des Garcons White. Those pleasant perfumes substitute oakmoss with a grassy background of patchouli and vetiver that somehow does not smell distinctly chyprish like the classic ones. Whether this is the only way to go for the chypres of tomorrow or there is still a place for traditional oakmoss-laden chypres remains to be seen.

Pic of oakmoss growth from biopix.com