This is an introduction to my incinerates, part of a trashion project where I convert household paper into incense. While recycling is always the best think you can do with paper, this is… well… fun. There has been no testing into how this affect air quality or contributes to air pollution: right now I’m operating on “white smoke possibly OK, black smoke SMOTHER.”

Share on Facebook

There are a lot of reasons I’m opposed to the opposition to cloning, one of which is the possibilities it would have in cosmetics testing not to mention organ donation. It’s possible to clone specific tissues: grow a fresh liver, say, or a canvas of skin to test cosmetics on. Yes, it’s still a little bit macabre, but much better than torturing living beings to see whether that lipstick may cause a rash, death, or dismemberment. I know that science fiction has had us scared for years over the implications, but that’s what science fiction is supposed to do. On its better days, science reality removes the scary or at least puts it to good use.

So Engadget’s post about the coming use of robots over rabbits intrigues me. The National Institute of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency have come together to fund and guide this plan. According to the Guardian UK, this may also have implications for the EU’s reach legislation which right now requires such testing of all synthetic chemicals.¹

This has potential to replace the ex vivo testing model where pig skin is used from animals slaughtered for food use, which while slightly better than using live animals, still violates the principles of many vegans and some vegetarians.²

Share on Facebook

1. US to replace animals with robots in toxic chemical tests Alok Jha. The Guardian. London (UK): Feb 15, 2008. pg. 15 [↩]
2. Ex Vivo Animal Testing Alternative Introduced. Global Cosmetic Industry (1523-9470) 1/1/2008. Vol.176,Iss.1;p.8-8 [↩]

This article in the New York Times about the decline of the perfume industry gives me a touch more insight into why the perfume industry has developed this paranoia about the effects of the natural perfume market.

Says the article, “Last year, about 15 percent of women said they did not wear fragrance, up from 13 percent in 2003, according to a survey of 9,800 women conducted by NPD.”

((image by canonsnapper on flickr))

This isn’t wrong. I have worked for multiple workplaces that had scent policies, requesting that their employees try to only use unscented bathing products and even deodorants when possible. The tighter the cube farm I worked at, the stricter the policy. After one day behind one person’s overpowering perfume/shampoo combination, I learned to appreciate those policies.

I’ve also been stuck on airplanes where people are forced to get publicly  intimate with each other. There was one point recently where, after I had just had a rough flight, I had to endure a woman bragging to me about how she would liberally spray herself and all her bags with a favorite perfume from the duty free shop. Given what I’d just endured from the flight, I felt it necessary to tell her that she was going to hell.¹ The sheer selfishness of this woman’s behavior, and her complete lack of empathy for those around her,  still boggles me.

Why does this give me insight into the growing fear of naturals taking over? Well, first, those women who aren’t dropping scent altogether are switching over to naturals for two reasons: first, many are claiming to react allergically to the synthetics² and second, essential oils disadvantage in that only a few carry as far or as strong as synthetics is actually turning out to be a strength. While synthetics can push off a scent for an extended period of time, essential oils fade and can’t be smelled at the distance away that synthetic fragrancing agents can be. This means that one of the very reasons so many manufacturers opted for synthetics has turned on them.

This tendency not to linger isn’t true of all natural materials. I’ve found that clove essential oil will leak through six layers of plastic on incense and is quite aggressive; it also can disturb sensitive noses because of its sheer strength. And one of the paradoxes of a perfumer’s life is that I personally rarely wear scent – I use a lot of unscented lotions and deodorants in part because I need to keep my nasal palate clean to do my work, but also because I myself am highly sensitive.

Perfume is going to go through a social reset very soon, and this is one of the warning knells. Our society changes, our biochemistry changes, and consequently, our methods of beautification change. It may get the major perfumers of the industry in a panic, but it’s not the comet heading for earth. It’s just people, being people, with changing tastes and attitudes.

Share on Facebook

1. My religion doesn’t necessarily believe in hell, but with people with a character as self-centered as this woman was in the world, I sometimes which I could make an exception. [↩]
2. all my data on  this is strictly anecdotal; about seven people per public showing tell me their eyes water, they hive, or they have suppressed breathing when visiting perfume counters [↩]

Greenwashing first started in 1990, when the US made Earth Day a holiday. Few things are quite as effective in advertising and product promotion as aligning them with holidays, and this opened up whole new venues for corporations to jump on. While the corporations that tried to hop on the environmental wagon were quickly debunked, the entire practice of greenwashing is getting much more slippery now, as this essay over on Alternet points out.

Even those of us who practice naturalism have a somewhat negative effect on the environment. Some of our essential oils are still distilled through the use of a petroleum-based solvent, while others are from plants so rarified that they are on the endangered species list. While the advent of CO2 extractions has helped reduce some of the petroleum use issue, the method doesn’t work for everything and it’s a new enough method that we may not yet have discovered some surprising byproducts of the method.

The hardest part of managing a sustainable business is, ultimately, managing all the paradoxes. Customers want preservative free goodies, but they don’t want the risks that comes with not using preservatives. They want all-natural materials that are animal friendly, yet a lot of those concerned with animal cruelty unthinkingly ask for something “musky.” It’s been a long time since simply promising not to test on Thumper was enough to satisfy consumers that a brand uses ethical practices.

Going natural alone will not be the ultimate solution to the environment’s problems. There’s a lot of unnatural stuff out there that doesn’t biodegrade, so we need to figure out what to do with that, too, especially in cases where recycling alone doesn’t work. The environment really is our entire lives, every single aspect of it right down to our oxygen supply – all we can really do is work on one aspect of it, our own corner of it, at a time.

Share on Facebook

While researching greenwashing for a future post, I found a tidbit relevant to a post made prior this week about chemicals and how a great deal if misinformation about what chemicals are is being spread. A marketing agency called TerraChoice printed a pamphlet about the “Six Sins of Greenwashing.”

Under the Sin of Vagueness, I thought this point particularly important given the conversation that triggered the post earlier this week:

” ‘Chemical Free.’ In fact nothing is chemical-free. Water is a chemical. All plants, animals, and humans are made of chemicals as are all of our products.”

Further down the list under the same sin is ” ‘All Natural.’ Aresenic is natural. So are uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde. All are poisonous.” As I’ve said before, natural does not mean safe.

Share on Facebook

If wishes were horses, I’d have an Arabian farm. Seriously, I have no idea how that particular figure of speech is supposed to end. In any case, a common wish that people come to me with is that I make perfume or some other product that’s “hypoallergenic.”

I am the woman who breaks out from use of a hypoallergenic fabric softener. I’m among the first in line to tell you that there ain’t no such thing as “hypoallergenic.” Your body can decide it’s allergic to anything it wants to at any time – there are even people with allergies to water (usually skin only which is still deeply uncomfortable.)

I don’t know how the term hypoallergenic came about, but I know that the US government doesn’t see it as having meaning. From the FDA, “There are no Federal standards or definitions that govern the use of the term “hypoallergenic.” The term means whatever a particular company wants it to mean. Manufacturers of cosmetics labeled as hypoallergenic are not required to submit substantiation of their hypoallergenicity claims to FDA.”

I would LOVE to claim that my goodies are hypoallergenic. I might contemplate even trading an eyeball for it if I didn’t enjoy depth perception so much . But I can’t. I have customers tell me that they don’t react as harshly to my perfumes as they do to over-the-counter synthetics, but I just don’t have the means to gather the data to prove that mine are less allergenic than theirs – and sadly, the chemicals that produce synthetics know this.

All I’ve got is customer testimony to an absence of allergic response from much too small of a data sample. So still, use with caution. You never know when your body might turn on you.

Share on Facebook

I’ve admitted before I was a disaster of hazmat proportions at high school chemistry. Even now as a perfumer, I’m not too enthused about linalools and santalols, and forget all about the citronellols. But since my days as a rash 16 year old creating peanut brittles that Should Not Be (TM) I’ve learned a few things, and I’ve come to witness some assumptions that just make trouble for us all in the long run.

The first is that no one under the age of 30 seems to know how to crack a damn book anymore. Seriously, people, quit using the damn computer for your sole source of information and learn how to use a print index – reference books like encyclopedias at least have fact checkers for a starting point. The reason misinformation about naturals and natural materials spreads is because no one checks with a source, but just rips off of websites and repeats. I bring this up first because of a very nasty email I received from the author of DIY Naturally blog. Let’s say that the author favors her politics over dissemination of accurate information – or basic fact checking. I weep for generation Y; the Internet has done you no favors in teaching you to take criticism or engage in intelligent exchange.¹

Second, this whole fuss about the the words chemical and natural. Both words should have meaning, and both words have been reduced to nothing more than pseudo-political buzzwords. It’s annoying, as a lot of people are going to get seriously hurt and likely have been seriously hurt by operating on the following incorrect assumptions:

1. If it’s chemical, it’s “bad.”

2. If it’s natural, it’s “safe.”

On point 1, EVERYTHING is a chemical. If you don’t want to check it in a sourebook or use your library card to look it up online, then check out the definition on about.com. Why do I trust this source? They tend to read the resumes of their writers before they hire and select people with qualifications on the given topic.

On point 2, I can tell you from the number of times and ways I’ve managed to hurt myself working with perfumery materials that natural does NOT automatically mean “safe.” Natural also does not always mean – paradoxical as this may sound – “environmentally friendly.” Cinnamon oil can burn you until you dilute it enough. Plenty of plants carry poison, and well, let’s say mercury was found in nature long before fish started eating it. There are some human made decisions that have led to mercury being way more of a danger, but it wasn’t created in a lab, that’s for sure.

Natural does not equal safe. Chemical is a neutral term. If you want to indicate a chemical does a Bad Thing (TM) it’s a good idea to refer to the specific chemical or specific effects of a chemical; broad brush painting of what chemicals do helps no one.

I too hope for the day when I can read an ingredients label and not need to pull out a McNally guide just to start figuring out what’s in something, but approaching it with the zealousy of a religious fanatic and using “good versus evil” terms is not going to help anyone.

Share on Facebook

1. For those concerned about my possibly skirting libel law, this wouldn’t even make it to court because what I’m saying happened is verifiably true . I got that degree in mass communications, and sometimes, I USE that knowledge! [↩]

If you think I’m posting my treasury listings because it’s easier than writing a blog post, you’re absolutely right. I fear I’ve bitten off one heck of a lot, and it’s going to take me some time to chew. But at least I’m not chewing on your brains. Which is why I sell Zombie Repellent.

Share on Facebook

Our Sinus Blend Aromatherapy was included in a treasury:

Share on Facebook