Scents have played an important social role for a very long time. People have delighted in the pleasant practice of perfuming themselves with fragrant blossom mixes for thousands of years. Before the 1900s perfumes were basic and uncomplicated, like rose and lavender water extracted from out of the garden. Science altered all that in the 20th century, submerging pure, unadulterated organic ingredients under an avalanche of chemical fakes.
The fragranceboom began when Jacques Guerlain created Shalimar in 1925, and Francois Coty released his fragrances, Grasse, Chypre de Coty, and La Rose Jacqueminot. Technological advances during WWII made possible the formation of even more elaborate chemical perfume classics like Opium, Chanel No. 5, and 4711. When Charles Revson designed Charlie for Revlon, women started purchasing fragrances for themselves. Cosmetic stores everywhere were inundated with a glut of man made perfumes produced by corporations and their imitators.
Since then the business has flourished. And in fact, in the weeks before Christmas this year, it will be expected that a bottle of Chanel No.5 perfume will be sold every half a minute around the world.
The excellent news is that consumers are growing more critical. And with escalating alarms about the impact of synthetic scents on the well-being of both individuals and the environment, there is now a switch in the direction of boutique or niche scents, perfume produced in modest amounts by traditionally skilled artisans, such as miessence. Sometimes billed as ‘natural’, many of these fragrances still contain possibly dangerous synthetic constituents, unlike organic fragrances
Banning synthetic scents from the work environment is turning out to be the social issue of the time. A growing number of people are suffering from multiple chemical sensitivities, (MCS Syndrome), with documented sensitive reactions such as headaches, dizziness, irritability, hypertension, and depression. Giving these people with a fragrance-free environment has become such a important issue that it won’t disappear. The issue has been taken up throughout the world and carries on to grow in strength.
Australian environmental specialist Dr. Mark Donohoe has been quoted as saying that he believes that the artificial perfume concern may possibly become even bigger than the anti-smoking campaigns of the past. Even now, anti-fragrance changes are taking effect in the most unlikely places. England’s Lady Mar is a well-known campaigner on chemical poisoning issues in the Uk. In 2004, she almost single-handedly prevailed in stopping the excessive use of synthetic colognes and perfumes in the resolutely traditional British House of Lords.
The European Committee has begun investigation to examine the applications of all chemicals on the European market. Germany already has legislation to fight synthetic fragrance issues. And in the US, workers are claiming protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although, for now, it would seem that control is more likely to be exerted by employers reacting to workers’ grievances. Penning in the Melbourne Age (2004), Elisabeth King said, ‘…after banning the wearing of freshly dry-cleaned clothes, perfumes, and over-fragranced cleaning products on a trial basis, they (employers) often discover that all of their employees, not just MCS sufferers, feel much better.’