Olfactory Appreciation/Interpretation/Expectation ** Was: Ylang Ylang Iss

[Guest guest]

Hey Butch, Anya,

 

I think we should be moderate and not panic . . . But not wait until it is

too late. Indian Sandalwood (Santalum album)is on the Red List as VU -

 

VULNERABLE (VU) - A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered

or Endangered but is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the

medium-term future.

 

Some of us who have suspended Indian sandalwood sales for a time (not saying

any of us will remain suspended upon future examination) have done so

because of the sandalwood pirates in India who were actually murdering

people in order to steal their sandalwood. Verapeen was one of those, now

dead because he obviously p____ people off to a grim finality. My sources

in India now tell me that the problems are diminishing, but not completely

over with; there are still a handful of pirates, but the Indian govt. is

aware and supposedly taking action.

 

Additionally, the reports from the Red List aren't real positive for future

sustainability . . .

http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=31852

Remember that we are sometimes several years behind in these databases, so

things could be better . . . Or they could be worse. I don't want to see it

'too late', therefore I'm more on the side of the " green " folks that Butch

may grumble about. :-)

 

Be well,

Marcia Elston, Samara Botane, http://www.wingedseed.com

" First of all, cultivate a contented spirit; a garden is a good place to

begin. "

[Guest guest]

Hey Anya,

 

>>For those who might be getting their knickers in a knot about me

>>selling Mysore Sandalwood .. lemme say that Martin and other ultra

>>idealistic Greens are showing you but a small part of the Big

>>Picture .. same goes for Rosewood. Any who think they can/should

>>believe all they read or> are looking for purpose in their lives will

>>disregard any information> contrary to the positions shown by those

>>who have dedicated themselves> to so-called worthy conservation issues.

>

> Hi Butch...

>

> A few comments ;-)

>

> That's a pretty generalized, sweeping statement, Butch. I can get

> shocked by the thought that a multi-national corporation is going to

> make another frivolous body care item to fatten its bottom line, while

> at the same time taxing a resource that has been reported by many to

> be endangered.

 

I didn't mention Colgate or Palmolive or whatever for a couple of

reasons .. one .. this is not the first time folks have tired to make it

look like anyone who sells Mysore or Rosewood should be embargoed in

total .. and secondly .. I don't believe they will use REAL Mysore or

Rosewood in their products .. odds are 99.9% it'll be synthetic.

 

> Sometimes I'm more upset that yet another product is adding to the

> body burden and ecological burden soup. Businesses need to make money,

> yes, but they're going hogwild with all these products, and do we

> really need them? Don't answer, lol.

 

Hell no .. we don't need'em. But I betcha they use nature identical ..

made by their chemists in a lab .. otherwise it will be too difficult to

maintain any kind of consistency.

 

> At the same time, I have never challenged any supplier, including you,

> for selling sandalwood or rosewood. I try to keep a balanced view, and

> not infringe on the personal rights, and business practices of small

> suppliers. It's all in the intent and numbers, at least to me, and

> many radical types attack me for the moderate stance. You just can't

> win with some people.

 

Right .. and my good buddy Martin .. as much as I love him .. I want to

shoot him sometimes cause he does do that. ;-)

 

> There are more radical types, i will give you that, and they go after

> the little guy, saying they're contributing to the ecological damage.

> I'd rather stop huge corporations from gobbling up the resources than

> stop Susie in WI from enjoying some sandalwood from you, and using it

> to create something nice for her family or friends, or customers. I

> guess I harken back to when small businesses were king.

 

Yep .. but I agree .. and I think after all is said and done we will

learn that Colgate or whatever other commercial outfit gets on the

bandwagon will use synthetics made with similar chemical components.

 

>>Folks who are looking for a cause need to look around .. there are many

>>out and about that are worthwhile .. and not so controversial.

>

> I think many on this list are involved in other causes, but since

> they're not relevant to this list's subject matter, they don't write

> about them. Me, for one. I do a lot of volunteer work locally, but it

> isn't relevant here, so I don't speak about it here. Nor do I talk

> about sandalwood or endangered plants when helping with wildlife

> rescue efforts here, or the homeless, or water quality, etc., etc.

> Right place, right time, is my motto.

 

Generally agree .. but .. there is a matter of balance .. and I do get

sorta tired of hearing the Greens trying to show their superiority.

 

>>Folks like me risk the wrath of those compassionate liberal folks.

>

> Well, if they're compassionate, I'm sure they won't attack you, that's

> contradictory ;-)

 

Hawhawhaw .. I didn't know there was such a thing as a real, live

Compassionate Liberal. ;-)

 

>>Back to Olfactory appreciation. If we all appreciated the same odors or

>>appearances, etc., then there would be a shortage of some oils ..

>

> And some think sandalwood smells like the person is " unwashed " --

> that'll cut down on the demand in some sectors of the population, lol.

 

Yep .. but that's how I perceive Patchouli. Smelly Hippies. ;-)

 

>>>Any ideas?

>>

>>Yep .. don't buy Ylang Ylang again. ;-)

>

> See, I disagree, Butch -- *if* Josh wants to use it in perfumery, not

> AT, he should try playing with it, diluted. If he wants to just use it

> for AT, yeah, ditch it, he'll never get beyond his prejudice. If he

> wants to use tiny, tiny amounts in perfumery, he will be rewarded.

 

Agree .. I was being ornery .. its July .. time for us Cancers to be

crabby. ;-)

 

>>Who .. like I said, is feeling a bit ornery today .. so if I can

>>find the time I will take on my buddy, Martin, over the Sandalwood

>>and Rosewood issues .. and perhaps a few other issues too. ;-)

>

> Hey, why leave Tony out of the upcoming donnybrook, lol?

 

Two reasons:

 

1. Burfield is not on this list .. and I don't take on folks behind

their backs.

 

2. I can't talk with Burfield .. I've tried it in the past and failed.

He blows his cool .. he has not learned how to be civil when talking

with me. He has a strong dislike for me (which is mutual) and it

affects his judgment (which is not mutual) .. and I tire of making him

look silly when he allows his emotions to overrule his intellect. He's

pretty cool when not dealing with me .. but when his ears start smoking

he loses it.

 

> Everybody's passionate, in their own way, and differing sides, like the

> Dems and the 'publicans, all tend to get upset at the other side's information

> and stance. I'll admit I'm trying to sort it all out now, there is so

> much conflicting information, and I'm not expert. Therefore, the only

> stance I take is to discourage large corporations from using

> endangered species, and, in the bigger picture, stop bombarding us,

> our waterways and watertables with all the wash-off from these

> fragranced products. Enough is enough. Here's a great article that

> gives a perspective that we fragrance users hardly ever think of, and

> it really highlights the big corporation fragrance issues I'm addressing:

 

Agree on the large corporations .. but again, I think it will not be.

 

> Green in Perfume

> How to build a better rose

> by Chandler Burr

> (posted with Plenty permission)

>

> When you next pick up a bottle of fragrance, give a second's thought

> to the environmental impact of the Gucci, Thierry Mugler, or Dior

> you're buying. Perfumes are believed to imitate nature—so what are the

> effects of perfume manufacturing on our natural world?

 

Depends on whether they are natural .. or nature identical .. or

totally synthetic using commercial chemicals of the same profile.

 

> Perfumes are made of scent molecules—single molecules or collections

> of molecules, synthesized by chemists in labs or synthesized by nature

> in trees, grasses, and flowers. The lovely natural rose and orange

> blossom essences in your bottle of Jo Malone are collections of

> hundreds of molecules, only some of which actually come from the

> flowers. Like virtually all perfumes on the market, Jo also contains

> cis-3-hexanol, galaxolide, and dihydromyrcenol—molecules made in

> perfume labs.

 

Right .. and I think the Sandalwood & Rosewood used will be made in a

lab too.

 

> Synthetic molecules are by no means bad; they are the heart of modern

> perfumery. The key to Chanel No. 5, for example, is a molecule called

> aldehyde, first synthesized in the 1880s. Shalimar, created in 1925,

> is powered by the synthetic 3-methoxy-4-hydroxy-benzaldehyde.

>

> Of course perfumes, like any other chemicals (think water, vitamin C,

> aspirin), have an ecological impact, and the fragrance industry must

> spend millions each year minimizing it. Synthetic or natural, it

> doesn't matter—rose essence ends up in the air, water, and soil, just

> like methyl dihydrojasmonate. When JLo sells eight million bottles of

> Glo a year, she needs to worry about what they do to the environment

> because, besides perhaps feeling a moral obligation to the planet, she

> also has to comply with government standards. Likewise, Dior needs to

> ensure every molecule in Eau Sauvage is eco-compatible.

 

OK.

 

> One of the most popular perfume ingredients ever, found in some 90

> percent of all fragrances, is linalool. It's a molecule found in

> nature, so whenever you have lavender, bergamot, or coriander in How

> to build a better rose your perfume, you've got linalool. It can also

> be created by chemical synthesis as pure linalool (the first synthetic

> linalool was created in the 1920s). This is called a " nature

> identical " since molecularly, synthetic and natural linalool

> are—surprise—absolutely the same.

>

> Timbuktu, one of an exquisite collection of scents from the French

> house L'Artisan Parfumeur, uses linalool. This is a mesmerizing

> perfume; wearing Timbuktu is like waking late at night from a dream in

> a dark, ancient desert hotel made of wood that has been blackened with

> the smoke of incense and the smell of robed visitors, coming and going

> over the centuries. It is the smell of a character from Kipling.

> There's linalool in Carolina Herrera's new 212 Sexy, which evokes silk

> and the promising, powdery smell that hits you when you open new,

> expensive cosmetics.

>

> And like every other ingredient, linalool's eco-effects were

> stringently evaluated. How? There are four steps.

>

> STEP ONE:

> The majority of perfume ingredients are made by the perfume chemists

> at the Big Eight—eight international conglomerates: IFF (the United

> States), Quest (United Kingdom) Firmenich and Givaudan (both

> Switzerland), Symrise (Germany), Takasago (Japan),

> Mane and Robertet (both France). They make everything from aubepine, a

> raw material used in perfume, priced at about $1.75 per pound, to

> Basil Absolute, priced at more than $460 per pound. And a few

> fancypants boutiques, such as the French houses LMR (Laboratoire

> Monique Rémy) and Biolandes, make fabulous products like Iris

> Naturelle, priced at nearly $4300 per pound. But these outfits do much

> more than make raw materials and scent molecules. The carefully hidden

> secret of the perfume world is that Yves Saint Laurent, Estée Lauder,

> and Versace don't make their perfumes. The Big Eight's perfumers do.

> An army of chemists create the ingredients, and a separate army of

> perfumers employed by these same companies make the perfumes.

>

> Say Miuccia Prada decides she wants a perfume. She never actually lays

> a finger on a geranium extract. She (or more likely her marketing

> department) writes up a " perfume brief, " a concept of the fragrance

> she has in mind. The brief usually goes something like, " I want

> the smell of bitter apples frozen in a Chinese snow " or " I want the

> scent of a young girl swimming in a dark Mediterranean sea—and it

> should sell a million bottles the first year. " Prada's marketing team

> takes the brief to Symrise and asks the company's legendary perfumer

> Maurice Roucel to create the perfume. Roucel puts the molecules that

> the Symrise chemists have made or gotten from other suppliers into the

> perfume he crafts for Prada, and the Prada house then names and

> markets the finished product. That's how the business works.

>

> Where does the environment come in? Let's say Symrise, the company

> doing some of the most interesting work with fragrances these days,

> wants to produce and sell linalool as a perfume ingredient. A certain

> amount of this linalool is going to get washed from the bodies of the

> lovely young women who mist themselves with Gucci every morning,

> making its way down the drains of Manhattan's showers and into the

> Hudson River. So Symrise needs to conduct tests to determine how much

> linalool is going to build up in the environment. First, the Symrise

> chemists look at U.S., European, and Japanese government regulations

> on required safety data. In the United States, you have to supply

> certain information according to what are called " thresholds of

> production, " which simply means that the more you make of the stuff

> (are you making one ton a year or 1,000 tons?) the stricter the

> regulations get. Symrise also has to test what the linalool is going

> to do to the ecology of the Hudson. The calculation is hazard +

> exposure = risk. The hazard is the toxicity to plants and animals; the

> exposure is calculated based on the amount of chemical you put into the

> next Chanel product. Symrise, like most manufacturers, tests its chosen

> chemical on fish, shrimp, or algae; tracks the levels of linalool in

> sediment; and measures its biodegradation. If linalool passes these

> tests, it can proceed to step two.

>

> STEP TWO:

> When Symrise produces linalool and puts it on the market, the Research

> Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM) evaluates it. RIFM is the

> industry's international safety and ecology arm, responsible for

> looking at the 2,600 materials currently on the market. The RIFM is

> financially supported by its members—basically everyone in the

> supplier- and-user chain, from Estée Lauder to Procter & Gamble (in

> its detergents, soaps, and shampoos, Procter & Gamble uses many times

> more fragrance than even JLo could hope to sell).

>

> This is where linalool gets much tougher testing, since the RIFM goes

> well beyond Symrise in both rigor and breadth. RIFM's more extensive

> environmental testing results are submitted to independent experts for

> review. For example, RIFM does environmental studies, or

> what's called a Ready (the technical term for " fast " ) Bio-Degradation

> Test. Studies have found that linalool biodegrades pretty quickly; it

> doesn't hang around in the environment for too long before breaking

> down into something less harmful.

>

> Copies of the evaluations are then given to all members and published

> in peer-reviewed journals, and here a limitation could be imposed on

> linalool's use. " Based on this material's potential to cause skin

> sensitization, " its expert panel might say, " it should be limited to

> 0.1 percent of the final product. " Then this recommendation is

> codified as an industry standard by the International Fragrance

> Association (IFRA). Toxicity standards for the target species of

> interest— Homo sapiensin this case—usually cap out before

> environmental standards do. Toxicity testing is the stricter of the

> two and is generally the first to signal problems with a substance.

>

> STEP THREE:

> If Parfums Thierry Mugler wants a new fragrance, it goes to Symrise

> and describes the scent it wants. A Symrise perfumer uses linalool,

> combined with other ingredients to create a scent, it is called a

> compound. The compound goes through yet another evaluation, this time

> with all the ingredients together, since they may react with one

> another in unforseen ways. (Top, middle, and bottom notes come from

> different ingredients with different molecular weights. Benzyl

> salicylates are molecularly heavier; linalool is lighter; and

> limonene, from citrus oil, is superlight and so evaporates quickly,

> jumping beautifully off the skin.) Symrise cross-checks the materials

> with the restrictions of the IFRA and others worldwide for compliance,

> then sells the compound to Mugler with the safety package completed.

>

> STEP FOUR:

> Mugler, or more precisely its parent company, Clarins, has the legal

> responsibility to do a final evaluation, either in its own lab or by

> sending the perfume to someone else's. Clarins takes the fragrance

> compound it has purchased from Symrise and makes products from it. It

> adds to the compound an alcohol (to make it liquid), a lubricant (to

> make it flow), a wax (to add stability), polyethylene glycol, a UV

> stabilizer, etc. From these, Clarins creates perfumes, sunscreens,

> body lotions, shower gels, shampoos, and deodorants, all with the

> signature Thierry Mugler scent.

>

> Ultimately, Thierry Mugler's brilliant new masculine B-Men arrives at

> the perfume counter in Saks Fifth Avenue. Created by the perfumer

> Jacques Huclier, B-Men smells like a field of spices in a forest of

> saplings growing under a fresh, clean, blue Indian sky—and thankfully,

> it won't spoil any of them.

> -----------------------------

> Hope everybody's still smiling and their eyeballs aren't strained

> after this long post.

>

> Whew.

>

> Anya

> http://naturalperfumery.com

> The premier site on the Web to discover the beauty of Natural Perfume

> " The Age of the Foodie is passé. It is now the Age of the Scentie. "

 

I left it intact .. its a good one .. and should be kept in the archive

as such .. along with our comments.

 

Y'all keep smiling. :-) Butch http://www.AV-AT.com