The new regulation affects Chanel on 2 important aspects - the quality and the myth. We learn that "jasmine absolute" is toxic, poison for the skin. Remember that not only the perfume extract contains a great amount of French jasmine but also this is at the heart of all marketing stories of Chanel. Chanel always insisted on the quality of its jasmine, being one of the very few to use the French type, also cultivated by Chanel (in 2007 I visited the small field in Grasse).
According to IFRA 43 the maximum amount of jasmine absolute in a finished product (perfume) is 0,7%. So, if the fragrance is a an EDT at 10% - maximum 7 % jasmine absolute in the formula. If the fragrance is an extract at 20% - maximum 3,5 % jasmine absolute in the formula.
Chanel No5 extract has already been affected by IFRA in the past. The present formula on the market is NOT the 1921 creation and the main difference are the musks. Because No5 is not a rare perfume, you can test the difference with the vintage versions available on eBay.
The perfume contains everything considered bad - from coumarine to eugenol/isoeugenol/hydroxicitronellal and oakmoss!! But the main difference with any other modern creation is the amount of jasmine absolute. With less than 3% natural jasmine absolute, there is NO Chanel No5. Take out the small (but important) oakmoss note inside the extract and there is again NO Chanel No5.
Also from a marketing point of view, how can you communicate about jasmine now? Can you show the fields, the extraction and write articles about No5 history and quality when IFRA tells that "jasminum grandiflorum" is "poison"?
Chanel No5 is not just a beautiful perfume, but the most famous and best seller of all times. It means also that many women used this perfume. It would be interesting to know how many victims, other than those of its beauty, exists, if there was one.
I see several effects of this new IFRA death sentence:
- Chanel reformulates (again) the extract until its final mutilation
- Chanel protests against the new rule
- Chanel tests Chanel No5 to prove that it is safe
But in the last case (because Chanel has the money to run tests) and a positive answer, wouldn't it be a proof that what IFRA says is nonsense?
On the other side, in France, there is a well known prize for fragrance journalism called "Prix Jasmin". With the new restriction about the use of jasmine absolute isn't it strange to have this name for an ingredient that is considered dangerous despite its secular use?
Maybe it's time to put an end to this so called "consumer safety" - a façade for other type of interests than safety?
IFRA 43 has already more than 6 months. How strange it is that no official reaction from the french industry was heard. The jasmine case is symbolic, a shame for the French perfumery tradition and its obedience for Bruxelles but also a new start.
Next on the list of restricted materials will be probably the rose because of methyleugenol !
I wish to know what would have done Coco in this war against her perfume.
Did you like my article? Sign up for updates about new fragrances and vintage reviews of artistic perfumes
23 commentaires:
I just don't understand why they feel the need to do this. What do they benefit? Don't they have better things to do with their time than regulate cosmetics? It's very, very sad
I think with the competition similarly crippled, Chanel needs not do anything, less jasmine absolute = less cost, similarly affected (by IFRA) competition means no one can step in to offer higher quality. The quality will of course suffer but Chanel needs not drop its prices to maintain market share, 80% of its consumers couldn't distinguish real quality anyways (make up, fragrance, etc). Sadly, I think in the end from a $$ perspective this will be good for Chanel.
To answer the second question I do not doubt that Coco would find a way to produce her perfume, perhaps in Suisse, they are not affected by this regulation is that true? can members of the EU still import products with restricted ingredients via the internet?
My final point is that, perhaps in a way this stupidity will cause interesting changes in the perfume industry - yes - France is shooting itself in the foot by not protesting this, but at the same time maybe we will see a great revival in American perfumery, since they are not affected ?
Every cosmetic sold in EU shops (produced or not here) should follow the cosmetic directive. But if you buy as an individual a cosmetic outside EU (and not respecting EU laws) and bring it back with you, there is no problem.
FDA has an eye on the cosmetic directive and it seems that soon they will adopt the european model.
Maybe a chinese model? hehehe
Helg from PerfumeShrine has it right: "it is not the EU that is to blame, nor IFRA itself as an organisation. This is big money, big companies (who have become members of IFRA) who impose their will so as to get the independents out of business. Anything that can't be patented (naturals can't be patented!) is lost revenue for them. Usually the first motive for most decisions is money, alas."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3792393342962796253&postID=6999757596871920505&page=1&isPopup=true
But you cannot "fight" an invisible ennemy :) My point is rather ... be aware of the changes that will occur and if you love "endangered fragrances" make your small stock for the next future. I learned too late that Après l'ondée extrait was discontinued and I had to replace it in my wardrobe.
It is also interesting to notice that the molecules on IFRA list are almost not under patent. They are "old" and can be produced by anyone anywhere (I'm not sure for 2 of them).
Will this new regulations affect the very small niche perfumers in Europe & the US?
In my opinion it's more the classics (still on the market) that are affected and less the perfumes created in the past 10 years. It is less the creativity that is in danger but more products that we know and we love.
That's exactly the point Octavian, non-patented molecules are a loss of revenue for the big fragrance companies like IFF and Givaudan. Via their lobbying IFRA (which is a form of legalized corruption), these companies enforce certain regulations so that perfumers are forced to buy their patented molecules. Everybody knows there are hundreds of non-regulated and far more toxic and carcinogenic molecules everywhere, allergens are just minor skin rashes, their regulations are a scam just so that some big companies can make more profits.
at all, seems that the end of naturals in formulas is quite near....so sad...
i agree with you Octavian, and ask if there is any medical file that confirm so many victims of the old and new fragrances that contains Jasmine absolute, oak moss absolute etc...
i dont think so...
i visit last year the Jasmine fileds owned by Chanel...if this little flower and his absolute can be malicious tome, well i want to die by smelling an entire bottle...
ciao
Roberto
Hello, Octavian,
You are as usual right. Despite Chanel's denials, since they claim only to have brought the musks in line with those restrictions, the current parfum differs noticeably from previous formulas in its floral composition. Test a current batch (a 7.5 ml parfum is about $100, per my latest purchase) against a batch from even three or four years ago and the current difference in the florals is already evident; test it against a pre-1950s bottle, which is the earliest I have (dated by the style of stopper), and the difference is striking even to persons of no perfume experience or interest. The current parfum is still distinctively and recognizably the general form of Chanel No. 5, but it is not what it used to be.
Best,
TS
That's why extracts should be labelled like wines! To find the best version for your taste.
Did you compare the pre 50's versions with Soir de Paris - the 60's version? (the drydown) :)
I like also the pre 90's version, it seems to me that it contains a different aldehyde+sandalwood+vanilla. Very round and powdery.
TS, it's one thing exposing Chanel's denials here and the restrictive IFRA EU regulations in your latest newsletter, which I purchased, but it's just the tip of iceberg, you don't tell us the full story that is those big fragrance and flavor corporations behind these regulations and profiting by reinventing perfumery via their patented lucrative molecules perfumers are forced working with.
Luca Turin is a biophysicist, I'm sure he could provide us with more details.
I am also curious, how does this affect small/niche perfume houses? Can't they choose to just ignore IFRA's recommendations?
Ah, very interesting. I need to go dig up some sixties Soir de Paris and compare! Are they very similar? Chanel has done such a good job maintaining quality control up till now, despite changing ingredients and suppliers year to year. But it is obviously going to be difficult to have anything that smells like Chanel No. 5 in coming years.
I am very disheartened over all this. Jasmine absolute. They've gone too far. Joy will be eviscerated as well. Jean-Michel Duriez must have the saddest job in perfumery.
It is utterly interesting that metaphors seem to become a testimony to material 'facts'. Thus we may call a fragrance 'intoxicating', 'dark' and other apparently subjective adjectives when we actually make reference to a substance capable not only of evoking those qualities but also of carrying those qualities. And still, acknowledging the edge of perils and demons of a substance used in fragrance should not be set out of the law while wilder hazards to health are left alone to thrive.
This is in reply to Garde Rose: If you mean to say that all biophysicists know more about IFRA than I do, I quit. (In other words, get it straight: Luca's knowledge of the industry is not due to his knowledge of biophysics.)
I will explain to you very simply why the fragrance industry does not defend itself against EU regulation.
Imagine.
PERFUME FIRM: But good madams and sirs...jasmine smells good...
IFRA: Innocent children are SCRATCHING themselves, all over the WORLD, after their BATHS, and you have the audacity to speak of a GOOD SMELL?
ANGRY CANADIANS FROM THE GALLERY: Perfumes are full of poison! They linger in the environment and give us headaches! Death and allergies! Ban it! Ban it everywhere!
PERFUME FIRM: Please, please, regulate us. We will do as you say. We do not want to hurt anyone. We only want to keep our formulas secret out of ingrained habit. Do not ban us.
IFRA: For now.
CONSUMER: Hey, what happened to my perfume?
SALES ASSOCIATE: Your chemistry has changed. Have you tried the summer version? It's good for blondes, very fresh, young and sexy.
You see the problem.
Dear Octavian,
Thanks once again for speaking what’s on your mind—you know I appreciate your candor.
I’m writing today not because I’m trying to persuade anyone on this subject but because I have so much yet to learn. Obviously it will impact our industry in numerous ways and I feel it is very important to ask all the proper questions before forming my opinions.
So please allow me to offer my two cents on your post while asking some pertinent questions:
1. “From a marketing point of view, how can you communicate about jasmine now? Can you show the fields, the extraction and write articles about No 5 history and quality when IFRA tells that "jasminum grandiflorum" is "poison"?”
In my opinion the short answer is yes: I read the IFRA standard regarding jasminum grandiflorum and currently it is not labeled a “poison”—the current status, as you mentioned in your post, is “restricted”. So while I have no intention to predict Chanel PR’s position on this issue I don’t think the marketing strategy will alter drastically unless the current regulations have been altered: Chanel, by right, is allowed to communicate to the audience that there is jasmine in Chanel No. 5 because there’s no current IFRA regulation that prohibits the addition of jasmine in fragrances so long the concentration meets the regulatory compliance.
And based on my observation Chanel can still communicate the history and the legend of No. 5, for it is a very intricate brand-building process. Just because the IFRA regulation has been very strict doesn’t discount the fact that Chanel’s culture of attention to quality, which I define as the culture of consistently meeting the customers’ expectations in the construction of goods as much as possible through viable means. So under this premise Chanel will continue sourcing the best ingredients possible—that mindset, as you know, won’t change, period. (And while we are on this subject: it would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE for Chanel to use that as an excuse to water down its philosophy—the Wertheimer brothers will NEVER allow that, period.)
2. “The perfume contains everything considered bad - from coumarine to eugenol/isoeugenol/hydroxicitronellal and oakmoss!! But the main difference with any other modern creation is the amount of jasmine absolute. With less than 3% natural jasmine absolute, there is NO Chanel No 5. Take out the small (but important) oakmoss note inside the extract and there is again NO Chanel No 5.”
This is a very complex issue but I’ll discuss oakmoss first. I absolutely agree that oakmoss is extremely important in Chanel No. 5—but we are not to the point of removing oakmoss from formulation altogether. I have been discussing this subject matter with various notable people (including Helg, who shall devote a post on this subject) and there is currently an IFRA-compliant oakmoss from Biolande that Chanel could use.
Oakmoss can be used in formulation if the moss has less than 100 ppm of atranol and less than 100 ppm chloroatranol, which the Communication Director of IFRA has officially confirmed. And having smelled the regular and the IFRA-compliant oakmoss I think they are almost identical—I actually prefer the latter because of its beautiful finish. So unless the rules change I don’t see oakmoss being an issue for now, although as you know there’s no guarantee and the industry does need to convince the appropriate regulatory bodies that it is the best solution and work on perfecting the oakmoss-production technology.
As for the rest it is even more complicated. If memory serves me well there’s a coumarin replacement that meets the IFRA standard. (Dr. Turin did a lecture on it a few months ago.) I don’t know the exact concentration of eugenol and isoeugenol found in Chanel No. 5 in various editions so you’ll have to enlighten on that, and I couldn’t find any standard listing on hydroxicitronellal on IFRA’s website so any information would be greatly appreciated too.
But let’s talk about the jasmine concentration: you are correct that natural jasmine is the necessary foundation of Chanel No. 5—then again I wouldn’t completely discount the talent of the Chanel team forever. Just because we don’t have a perfect solution I would hesitate dismissing the ingenuity of human creativity, and if I know my Chanel then the team is probably working on it already. Will it perfected right away? I doubt it, but with a brand as special as Chanel due patience is required.
3. “I see several effects of this new IFRA death sentence:
- Chanel reformulates (again) the extract until its final mutilation
- Chanel protests against the new rule
- Chanel tests Chanel No 5 to prove that it is safe.”
I see Chanel doing all three, and based on my observation it is doing its putting its best foot forward as we speak (ditto) so I wouldn’t declare the death of Chanel No. 5 yet. Again, this is life—we don’t always get what we wish for but we need to make do with what we have.
4. “But in the last case (because Chanel has the money to run tests) and a positive answer, wouldn't it be a proof that what IFRA says is nonsense?”
It’s true that the IFRA is being very aggressive in terms of pushing the rules, but I don’t have enough information yet to label IFRA’s strategy as “nonsense”—the IFRA Director of Communication just expressed his position on NST and I’m still weighing on the point of view. But if my life has taught me anything ad hominem is probably the last resort I would use—let’s find out what we can do in order to herald the best solution and do them well.
5. “Maybe it's time to put an end to this so called "consumer safety" - a façade for other type of interests than safety?”
Yes are dead on yet again that absolute political correctness can be an issue nowadays—and let’s put this in the greater context. The human civilization is filled with various zealous propositions that turn out to be less beneficial in this end so this won’t be the first nor the last time we shall be witnessing something of the sort. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. And if anyone asks for my opinion I would ask for less stringent, less rapidly implemented regulations but call for carefully phrased cautionary labels instead. But the bottom line is that the IFRA needs to listen to us more intently, and that an open dialogue needs to take place—a position which I have very vocally expressed time after time. So let’s see what happens.
6. “Next on the list of restricted materials will be probably the rose because of methyleugenol! I wish to know what would have done Coco in this war against her perfume.”
Oh, thanks for the heads up on the rose. I’ll toss that in on my list of ingredients to watch out for. I obviously can’t predict what will Coco do, for she died before I had a chance to know her well, but from what I know Coco will do all she can to strategically sway people to her favor—and whether it is cajoling or scorning it will determine what fits. Still, I think at this point she will bite the bullet and minimize the damages first by taking the time to plot the strategy but then very tactfully influencing the rule makers—most importantly, she will keep on fighting and fighting for what she believes in, which I think we are all doing in our own ways.
I suppose I’m saying all this because I came from a family full of heritage, whose fate has been cruelly altered time after time due to various unforeseen, horrific events. Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise, for I’ve learnt to be patient with the process. I thank you for your dedication on this subject—we more people like you in order to keep this industry going strong—so the important thing is to get to focus on should be focusing on the what now and be thankful of whatever we’ve had no matter how temporary it is.
Sincerely,
AlbertCAN
Dear Albert,
Thank you for the time you devoted to write your thoughts here. I also write what I think in the simplest manner using sometime metaphors (like "poison"). I have no intention to write here a 10 pages dissertation like any academic paper on ... "why I think things will go wrong". It's still a blog and I try to keep things concise and easy to read.
But let me answer to your points.
You noticed maybe that I speak only for No5 extract and not for No5 entire line including EDT and EDP.
No5 extract is a monument, a legacy from the past and I keep my position that it should not be changed under any condition.
My point was also to show the contradiction between 2 facts
- a perfume that was on the neck of sooo many women for already 90 years containing a high amount of jasmine absolute
- a new restriction on jasmine absolute that ... suddenly is "dangerous"
People buy the extract because they want the "real thing", the "pure perfume" that is the reference of Chanel history. The question here is ETHIC. Very soon there will be the next video featuring an Orient express train, Lalique decoration, etc...and I hope that the extract, which is the essence of any concept, will not be a pale version to evoke the mega campaign.
1. my point was on the ETHICS. 20 years ago nobody knew anything about what's inside the perfume. Now is sooo different, on all levels (except the naive consumer). That's why I believe brands cannot act like in the past! 20 years ago high executives in this business had little knowledge on perfumery. Now even the name coumarine can be read in Sephora's descriptions on shelves (in the shop).
2. that oakmoss is not so great!I 'm not a great fan and I cannot use it like the regular one. It's like plain cotton compared to cashmere.
coumarine - there is a coumarin on the market that has no problem. In fact it's the same molecule but produced quite different (different synthetic path if I'm not wrong). And that shows (the subject is not new in the scientific community) that IFRA is wrong. Because, like in other cases, it's not the molecule itself that is problematic but the other artefacts produced during synthesis. And this brings us another question that IFRA has not responded yet - does the same amount of coumarine synthetic has the same effects in a perfume like the coumarine present in a natural extract? But because you do not know and maybe the samples used during tests in the past are not known (any molecule can have so many "grades" on the market, from Chinese IsoE to IFF Iso E :) it is easier to restrict.
And believe me, already the coumarine used by Chanel is not the same coumarine used in an incense stick. Every ingredient comes in grades and there is the "perfumery / fine fragrance grade" and the rest, and even in the FF you have the same molecule to different prices. But the fact that we do not use the same product like the functional (or other sectors) is not taken into account. There is no Pantone code for molecules as it is for colors. In other words there is no one coumarine but .... many coumarines on the market but they follow the same rule. And this rule was based on .... which "coumarine"?
That's why the subject is complex and complicated and still not on solid grounds.
(There is also the question ... how much are you affected by the fine fragrance you use and how much by all the other fragranced products you use during a day.)
Also, I'm not interested at all in human creativity about Ernest Beaux's masterpiece as it is with any old fragrance still on the market. They'd rather use it for new creations :)
4. When it comes to perfumes (and not cosmetic products) I have my personal reasons to believe what I said. But I will not develop on that because my point is not to attack or start a war - there are still beautiful things around that I'd like to devote my time :)
Let me also propose you something to reflect. Cosmetics today are very complex and achieved a lot of things impossible in the past - like deep skin penetration and the use of particles (even nano) to transport all kind of things supposed to make us younger and beautiful. What if those creams combined with fragrances ... would transport something more "inside" the skin?
Is the oakmoss the same on a regular skin and on a skin that uses every day a Dior high tech formula? This is a complex issue (like the coumarine) and I cannot speculate but I can notice that it's easier (and less expensive) to restrict than to find the answer.
testing chanel - when you test perfumes that do not respect the regulation and if you find that the answer is positive (there is no problem with them)... wouldn't it be a proof that the number (in this case jasmine absolute) is incorrect?
5. I also believe in those labels. Also I do not think that IFRA should listen to us but the brands should do it with a lot of care.
I wish also to remember that fine fragrances are a very small part of what is produced (compositions) and that are subject to IFRA. If you look in their QRA list of categories, fragrances are lost there between a plethora of products.
The difference is that we put a soul to a perfume and we do not put a soul to a hand lotion.
And JOY extract or No5 extract are a drop in the ocean of fragranced products sold globaly and "regulated" by IFRA.
Fine Fragrance Extracts are the exception in that huge industrial world and that's why I believe we should not accept today that things simply "evolve".
The whole point of this issue is for me the Classics and less the Future.
Dear Octavian,
Thank you so much for enlightening on the complexity associated with the relevant ingredients associated with Chanel No. 5--I am aware of the different grades of different materials (yes, it isn't as simple as Pentone) and you are absolutely correct that reformulation is not going to be easy at all.
And I think we both agree that when it comes to legendary parfums like Chanel No. 5 regulatory bodies should have paid more discretions in evaluating the impacts of its rules. As I was saying in my previous post I think the whole implementation plan is too much too soon.
BTW I see what you meant when it comes to the ethics issue--if I elaborate on it people might have mistaken my position so a mere acknowledgement from me regarding your position will have to do.
And yeah, thanks for your speedy reply: once again I've learnt so much from you.
Sincerely,
AlbertCAN
TS, thank you for replying to me.
Who are those IFRA members pushing regulations? I heard the names of Givaudan and IFF, is it true or not?
If governments really cared about people's welfare, we would have a universal healthcare system in the US, cigarettes would be banned all over the world, we'd have serious restrictions on cell phones towers and wifi transmitters etc.
Don't you think someone must be profiting from these restrictive regulations?
To Octavian: Upon reading your piece again it had just occurred to me that I should have included the following assumptions...
1. It's perfectly within Chanel's reach to develop high quality, exclusive ingredients with suppliers such as LMR. So excellent IFRA complient oakmoss is definately not a problem in the near future. And the same probably applies to other ingredients as well. So while this won't be absolutely perfect maybe there's some hope.
2. I fail to understand why the fragrance industry cannot put on carefully phrased cautionary labels. After all, such device is applicable for over the counter products such as children's cough syrups and various health suppliments. Relevant EU laws in labelling is not my specialty so I am curious as to what you think.
3. I think we are observing a transition period and some firms' learning curves will get better. (Please refer to Helg's comments on Goutal.)
4. To be very fair the more I study this subject the more I'm convinced that the whole process should have been handled better from a PR perspective. I think, as Denyse pointed out, some people are feeling as if they are being left out--and had the IFRA consultation process showed some concrete intiatives to listen more intently and to openly communicate with many people from the blogshere we wouldn't have been so upset to say the least!
5. Is it true that the IFRA includes members from not only mega firms but also medium-size and small-size firms as well? I remember reading the IFRA application rules a few weeks ago so I want to confirm.
AlbertCAN
octavian, do you know if Arpege is also concerned?
I think there is also jasmin absolute in it...
I did not mention Arpège because its formula is already very different. But if the original extrait would be take into account, then indeed, it's also a lost perfume.
Post a Comment