"No Chemicals" equals "No Smell"

I heard it again the other day, from a woman who should have known better. She was selling a bar of fancy soap and she "explained" to her customer that this soap was made "without chemicals." I bit my tongue but didn't say a word. After all, she was a friend.

"No chemicals" means no smell. You can't have an aroma without chemicals. The nose can only smell chemicals. And you can't make soap (or perfume!) without chemicals. In fact, you can't make ANYTHING without chemicals. (Even your DREAMS require chemicals!) Chemicals are the building blocks of our physical universe.

Pressed, the soap maker might argue, "I use only NATURAL materials (chemicals). There are no SYNTHETIC chemicals in my soap and certainly no petrochemicals." Now the claim could very well be true, but it's interesting to look at its implications.

No perfumer is likely to question the proposition that natural aroma materials can impart a beauty to a perfume which no synthetic or combination of synthetic aroma materials can match. The reason for this, as every perfumer knows, is that natural aroma materials -- essential oils, for example -- are spectacular arrays of dozens or perhaps one hundred or more CHEMICALS, some of which can easily be identified; some of which can barely be detected as they make their appearance only in trace amounts.

Thus while we can name five or six of the major chemicals that give a rose, for example, its characteristic odor, the natural rose also has, within its aroma, chemicals we can barely detect, even with the most sophisticated equipment. And, as any supplier of essential oils well knows, the chemistry -- and thus the aroma -- of any particular essential oil can vary widely depending on soil conditions (moisture, nutrients, drainage, etc.), temperature, sunlight, wind and weather, rain or draught, altitude, growing and harvesting techniques, and, of course, processing techniques and technology.

Thus while we can name the major chemicals found in the aroma of a rose, it is entirely possibly or even likely that the chemistry of a rose grown on one side of a hill will differ somewhat from a rose grown on the other side of the same hill. This variability gives natural materials their charm but it creates challenges for the perfumer striving for CONSISTENCY in his or her formula.

While the praise of natural aroma materials makes perfect sense, the disparagement of synthetic aroma materials makes no sense at all. Historically, the development of synthetic aroma chemicals (which began in the mid-19th century) gave the perfumer a greatly expanded palette. As early as 1850 forward thinking perfumers were beginning to appreciate the contributions that might soon be made to their art by modern chemistry. By 1900 this revolution was well under way. By the last quarter of the 20th century, commercial perfumery was already "going green" ... years ahead of today's movement to "save the planet." Toxic aroma chemicals ("naturals" for the most part) that were formerly in widespread use were weeded out; synthetic materials replaced "naturals" gathered from endangered species, both botanical and animal. Older perfumers mourned the loss of some of their most beautiful and reliable aroma materials but they adjusted by learning to work with new, synthetic, substitutes.

Why then is "all natural" such a selling point? Wherein lies the prejudice against the work of wonderfully creative chemists and perfumers? While the best and truest users of "all natural" materials in fragrance creation are the first to acknowledge the technical LIMITATIONS of their products, a less ethical group of "all natural" promoters would like to suggest to the scientifically innocent that the fruits of laboratory chemistry are harmful, dangerous and (!!!) morally evil. Sadly, in a society uneducated in science (and chemistry in particular!) and willing to equate "technology" with "evil" (except when making use of it themselves), anti-scientific warnings of the dangers of synthetic aroma chemicals -- "petro" chemicals -- can elicit mind blinding fear.

Now let me be clear on one point. We ALL can have chemical sensitivities but these sensitivities have nothing to do with the ORIGIN of the chemical, of whether they are "natural" or synthetic. I have personally been overwhelmed by a very natural aroma material (lime oil) which I once spilled on my desk. Likewise, during the winter months when I work with my windows closed (mostly), the combined effect of the aroma materials I'm working with CAN get to me ... and I open the window! Most of us, after having a bowel movement, strive to fumigate the bathroom before the next visitor arrives, with fresh air or air freshener -- and feces is certainly a "natural" odorant.

The real SAFETY issue isn't whether an odor is objectionable. Rather, it is whether the chemical producing that odor is HARMFUL when used in the AMOUNT in which it is being used.

Yes, some guys overdo it with cologne. That bums out my nose too.

But when we talk about "harmful," we have to boil it down to a source material. To just say "I'm allergic to fragrance" or "I'm allergic to synthetic perfumes" seems a bit silly to me as the argument is too generic. Which fragrances? Which chemicals? Does the person really have a clue? Do they really care? Are they aware that some of the chemicals they are condemning might easily be found in any flower garden? Are they allergic to flowers? Or to ALL beautiful aromas? Can they really tell -- by their nose -- whether they are smelling a "natural" or a synthetic aroma material?

One of the great beauties of the nose is that, when working properly, it can be a warning device, to warn us of danger such as fire by detecting the aroma of smoke (to use a very obvious example.) But the nose can also expose us to great beauty, hence the world of perfume.

Not all perfume is "nice" perfume. Some perfumes stink. But others can be incredibly beautiful. A lot depends on personal taste but a lot more depends on the skill of the perfumer. Do you love or hate a particular perfume? Try closing your eyes and smelling it on a test blotter (or you skin). Wait twenty minutes and smell again. Wait an hour and smell again. What has happened over that period? Has the beauty of the fragrance faded? Or has it evolved into a new beauty?

Test without reference to HOW the perfume was manufactured or what ingredients the promoter claims. Let your nose be the judge. Develop your appreciation of the fragrance itself, not what people say about it. Graphic designers make bottles and packaging, advertising people make swell sounding claims. But perfumers make perfume and perfume itself can be appreciated, not by words but by the nose alone.