In the opening article for the latest installment of
Perfumes- The Guide, Tania Sanchez says: "This year a number of traditional perfumery materials must be removed from or reduced in all formulas, new and old. Goodbye hydroxycitronellal means goodbye
Diorissimo as you knew it". But this is not the only piece of bad news. The update brings a new review for Annick Goutal's classic,
Eau d’Hadrien. It was originally reviewed by Sanchez for the book (and received 3 stars), but the new restriction on the use of citrus oils (the same material you get all over your hands in much larger concentration when peeling an orange or zesting a lemon) have forced Goutal to reformulate (dropping one of their biggest sellers of all times was probably not an option) and the result, apparently, is a hand washing liquid (two stars, meaning: Not Recommended).
In another review, Turin mentions new restrictions on heliotropin. That one hurts deeply, because it affects everything from Guerlain
L'Heure Bleue to
Luctor et Emergo by POTL. A similar remark was made about the rose derivatives damascones (think Guerlain
Nahema and YSL
Paris).
Turin also speculates that the recent reformulation of
Féminité du Bois was done because of new European regulation, though he doesn't specify. There was a rumor not too long ago that the next molecule on the chopping block is Iso Super E. Féminité du Bois has quite a bit of it, and if that's the case, the entire
CdG Incense series as well as
Terre d' Hermes are goners. But since I can't find any proof of this, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
The restrictions Turin and Sanchez confirm are enough to raise some very serious questions about the future of perfumery. Both naturals and synthetics are being categorically axed, and the result makes my perfume cabinet into a museum of lost fragrances. In this reality, even the MacGyver of scent, Jean-Claude Ellena will have a smaller arsenal of molecules to put together and create something new. Other perfumers, whose approach is far less minimalist are likely to find themselves with their hands tied more than ever.
Out of all the topics raised by Luca Turin and Tania Sanchez in their book, Perfumes- The Guide and its online sequels, most people have chose to gloss over their constant warnings about the industry's surrendering to draconian restrictions over the use of more and more raw materials. It's easier to take offense because the authors trashed your favorite classic instead of asking the question: why doesn't said classic smell as good as it used to?
For those new to the issue, here's a quick recap: Modern perfumes are a combination of both natural and synthetic molecules in varying proportions and concentrations. Just as is the case for raw materials one can find in the air or in food, some people have allergic reactions to them. The cosmetics industry (and food manufacturers) must list the ingredients on the packaging. This way, those of us who are allergic to strawberries, peanuts, MSG or balsam peru would know to avoid them. We've all seen the warning "if a rash appears- discontinue use" on various face creams and hair products. It makes sense.
For a reason as mysterious as the universe itself, the organizations in charge of regulating the perfume industry have no faith in the consumers reading comprehension skills. They do not think that a warning label such as "contains oakmoss" is enough. They have required by law to drastically reduce the amount of oakmoss in fragrance. This meant that many classic perfumes had to be adjusted accordingly. Unfortunately, none of the reformulations smells as good as the original, and some scents were completely discontinued.
Now, think about candy bars that contain peanuts. A severe peanut allergy can kill you if you're not rushed to the hospital on time. Yet, Sneakers bars are not restricted in any way.
But this is very old news. And the perfume industry's quick and easy surrender to this blow is a well-known fact.
According to Turin, nothing but a serious fight-back from the industry could change this, but they are not likely to do a thing if the consumers are silent. Why are we silent? Why do we keep buying bottles of reformulated juice? Why aren't we sending them back to LVMH accompanied by a nastigram?
Of course, there are other important questions: Who benefits from this? Why the fight against perfume, of all things? What is behind the industry's silence? But we, as consumers, can only change our own behavior, which is why I'm wondering why the discussion about the Guide doesn't include any alarm regarding the news mentioned above.
Some follow-up
here.
Image: Animal Makers 
