Monday, April 21, 2008

Cultural Vandalism: Cropwatch VS. IFRA

While I am not an all organics and naturals perfumer and don't believe the technology of modern perfumery is dangerous, I also don't believe it's right for the industry to sell the notion that chemicals are somehow safer for us than natural essences which have been used in perfumery for centuries. Just as modern medicine and pharmaceutical companies shouldn't try to eradicate and undermine the role of alternative and holistic medicine, we should respect natural aromas and the benefits of natural perfumery and aromatherapy and not try to eradicate them from sale and use by perfumers and consimers who can learn how to use them as responsibly as we would any other legal substance. It is imperative we the consumers are given the choices to decide what to buy, to put in and on our bodies without the industry at large dictating these choices for us. All I ask is that we be given the choice to illuminate ourselves with the truth on both sides of this controversial issue. Visit A Natural Perfumers Guild blog: "The Natural Perfumers Guild joins Cropwatch in condemning IFRA's "Cultural Vandalism" to follow links to read: Citrus Ingredients Turn Sour: IFRA Takes the Pith!, an opinion by Tony Burfield of Cropwatch. You can also visit Cropwatch by linking here.

Read more: Interest group contends IFRA position on citrus oils by Simon Pitman, 27-Mar-2008,

On the same site: Toxicity of essential oils questioned by Cropwatch by Katie Bird, 03-Aug-2007

Visit Basenotes to read Guest Columnist Tony Burfield: Perfumers and the 40th IFRA Amendment, 23 February 2007