Perfume News: 2013, the EU, Reformulations & Perfume Makers’ Secrets

We all know the horrors resulting from the existing IFRA regulations and how they have gutted some of the most famous perfumes in history. And most of you know that the EU is now trying to completely ban some of those legends, like Chanel No. 5, Miss Dior and a few others. But a Reuters article I recently read pointed out just how extensive the impact of some of the proposed changes would be, if they are passed — changes that could cripple the $25 billion a year global perfume industry.

As many of you know, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), an advisory body for the European Commission, is proposing a total ban on oakmoss and tree moss in all perfumes. These changes are different from prior restrictions on perfume ingredients because they’re coming from an agency outside the perfume industry. Before, “changes to perfume formulas [came] as a result of increasingly severe restrictions imposed by the industry’s self-regulatory body, the International Fragrance Association (IFRA),” though ingredient shortages or cost-cutting … also played a part.” Now, however, the proposals would come from an outside body — the EU — and would be part of a European law that would impact perfumes world-wide through even more severe restrictions. In addition, the SCCS wants 12 substances used in hundreds of perfumes on the market today to “be limited to 0.01 percent of the finished product, a level perfume makers say is unworkable.”

What I didn’t realise is the extent of the damage that would result if those proposals are passed. IFRA estimates that over 9,000 (!!!) perfume formulations would have to be changed. 9,000!

The SCCS also wants extensive perfume labeling which is fine, but I think it would definitely add to perfume costs. “Consumer groups were behind an amendment to an EU law in 2005 forcing perfume brands to label any of 26 potentially allergenic ingredients. The brands now list those ingredients – in Latin. Now the SCCS is proposing to extend that list to more than 100 potential allergens.” (Emphasis added.)

While I was extremely amused by that Latin bit, the thing that I found most surprising and interesting in that article was the apparent rift within the perfume industry on how to respond to the proposed EU changes.

INDUSTRY SPLIT

The proposals have also revealed schisms in the perfume industry – a lack of unity that makes it harder to lobby with one voice.

Brand owners such as Chanel and LVMH and scent-makers such as Coty, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, Givaudan and Symrise all have different goals.

LVMH, which owns Dior and Guerlain, and Chanel are lobbying Brussels to protect their perfumes, many of which were created decades ago.

“It is essential to preserve Europe’s olfactory cultural heritage,” LVMH told Reuters in an emailed statement.

L’Oreal, however, already uses many synthetic ingredients in its perfumes and is thus keeping a low profile on the issue, industry representatives said.

Other companies making perfumes on an industrial scale for luxury brands, such as IFF, Givaudan and Firmenich, are less concerned about the SCCS proposal because they can rely on synthetic materials and make new perfumes using them but the restrictions, if enforced, would force them to reformulate many of their scents on a scale never seen before.

Givaudan and L’Oreal declined to comment for this report.

(Emphasis added.)

The sharply differing reactions was fascinating to me. I must admit, my favorite part though was the bit about L’Oreal. It is a company which I blame in large part for their destruction of my beloved Opium, along with much of the YSL perfume brand, so I rather enjoyed Reuters giving them a sharp dig and emphasizing the synthetic nature of their fragrances nowadays. I bet they’re keeping mum over all these changes! Of course they are; what do they care about natural ingredients or the use of oakmoss? I mean, have you smelled what they’ve done to Opium?! Have you read people’s reactions to reformulated Kouros? I could go on, but this is not the place for my pet peeve about the end of Opium or YSL’s glory days.

Still, the article’s discussion of Chanel and LVMH’s lobbying efforts made wonder why those companies shouldn’t have their perfumes be designated as the olfactory equivalent of a historic landmark? Such protected status has been accorded to the Taj Mahal and for the Great Wall of China — why not for Chanel No. 5 or Shalimar? Is being a nanny state for the 1% (or even 3%) of EU citizens worth destroying an olfactory part of Europe’s heritage as well as a world treasure? Isn’t French perfume as much a part of France’s culture, heritage and identity as the Eiffel Tower or Versailles? I certainly would argue that French perfumes have given the world more concrete, daily, extended benefit or joy than the Eiffel Tower ever did. You don’t see anyone trying to cordon off the Eiffel Tower due to 2% to 5% of the world’s population suffering from vertigo, do you? I wish LVMH much luck and think their argument is an utterly brilliant one. Bravo to whichever lawyer thought it up.

Another interesting part of the article to me was the deep sadness of many actual perfumers at the changes that old, beloved classics have gone through, changes that far preceded the 2008/2010 IFRA rules but which perfume companies have snuck in quietly over time. Some changes go as far back as decades ago!

‘Most perfumes which are 20 years old or more will have already been reformulated several times because science has evolved and we want to ensure the safety of consumers,’ said IFRA president Pierre Sivac.

Many traditional essences that perfume creators consider core to their craft have been blacklisted in recent decades. Birch tar oil was removed from Guerlain’s Shalimar several decades ago because it was thought to be a cancer risk. Clove oil and rose oil, which contain a component called eugenol, and lavender, which contains linalool, may only be used in limited quantities in case of allergies.

And oakmoss, one of the most commonly used raw materials because of its rich, earthy aroma and ability to ‘fix’ a perfume to make it last longer, has been increasingly restricted because of worries about skin sensitivity.

That means perfumes like Shalimar, Chanel’s No. 5, Dior’s Eau Sauvage and Poison, Yves Saint Laurent’s Opium and Cacharel’s Anais Anais are only a shadow of their original, olfactory selves, according to industry experts.

“Eau Sauvage was a real chef d’oeuvre in its original form,” retired perfume-maker Pierre Bourdon, who created Dior’s Dolce Vita and Yves Saint Laurent’s Kouros, said of the 1966 scent. “It used to be very green and fresh. Today, it has been replaced by something softer and duller.”

He contends the scent has been stripped of furocoumarins, a class of organic chemical compounds produced by plants like bergamot that can cause dark spots on the skin when exposed to the sun.

Bourdon said he still wore Eau Sauvage because it reminded him of his father, Rene, who as deputy head of Dior perfumes in the 1960s and 1970s supervised the creation of the perfume.

Raymond Chaillan, who collaborated on the creation of both Anais Anais and Opium, believes both have changed. When it was launched in 1977, the original Opium was full of eugenol and also contained linalool, and limonene found in citruses. In large doses, Eugenol can cause liver damage, while oxidized linalool can cause exzema and prolonged exposure to pure limonene can irritate the skin.

Edouard Flechier, who created Dior’s Poison in 1985, says that fragrance has changed since its inception.

“I know the original formula by heart and I imagine they (Dior) had to change progressively because of new IFRA regulation.”

Natural ingredients are more supple than synthetic ingredients and give more depth to a perfume as well as a subtle play on various notes, says [Frederic] Malle, adding that IFRA restrictions have cost him “hundreds of hours” and “endless tests.”

If the industry largely got away with quietly tweaking its fragrances up till now, however, experts say that will be impossible if Europe backs the proposals aimed at wiping allergenic substances from the perfume-makers’ palettes altogether.

You can read the full article here, but I am interested in your reactions to some of the points it raised. Did you find the schism within the perfume industry to be as surprising as I did? Did you know of some of the ingredients removed from scents like Shalimar (the birch tar oil), Opium or Eau Sauvage? What about the point raised by Patrick Saint-Yves, president of the French Society of Perfume Creators (SFP), regarding the contradiction in encouraging the use of fragrance oils in aromatherapy massages (and hence, in use on the skin) but, yet, targeting them when used in perfumery? Do you think niche perfumers like Frederic Malle and Serge Lutens — both of whom have recently stated flat out that they may no longer be able to continue in this business — will be able to manage even half as successfully as they have now if their existing and future fragrances are essentially restricted?

I’d love to hear any and all thoughts you may have on this subject.

 

30 thoughts on “Perfume News: 2013, the EU, Reformulations & Perfume Makers’ Secrets

  1. Don’t get me wrong, I do think these regulations are annoying and may ruin a great deal of current formulations. But with that said, you touched on the point that a lot of houses have been reformulating their stuff for a long time, far in advance of any regulations. And based on what I’ve read, they’ve often lied to their consumers insisting the formula hasn’t changed a bit and that the fragrance is the same as it always is. I’m certain manufacturers have been compromising their original ingredients for the sake of higher profits (I mean, what other reason would they really have to change a well-liked scent with great sales).

    These new regulations, while shameful, are “good” for the industry at large in the sense that it gives them a scapegoat and the ability to point fingers when there’s a strong likelihood they’d be changing their formulas anyhow. I do think niche scent creators probably stand to lose more because they seem (and this may be a little naive of me to think) more driven by having the highest quality rather than skimping on ingredients and demanding the same high prices. But the major, well-known, name-brand houses? They’ve been doing this for a long time, it seems, and now they can blame someone else when people complain they’ve ruined their favorite scent. I’m probably just being overly cynical because I’m cranky and it’s a workday. LOL. I could be totally wrong, and I hope I am.

    I’ll be interested in seeing what, if anything, comes of deeming some of the classic stuff items of cultural significance. I can see them buying that argument, particularly for the French, for whom I agree that parfumerie is very integral to their culture and their heritage.

    • No, you raise an excellent point about scapegoats for an industry that doesn’t exactly have clean hands on its own. But I think there is a difference between minor tinkering and what happened as a result of the IFRA rules in 2010. That was on a whole new level of extremeness, particularly with regard to oakmoss. There would be little incentive for perfume makers to destroy the character of their most profitable and legendary perfumes to that degree. Well, with the exception of L’Oreal which…. *grrrrr* Still, whatever the prior tweaks, it’s more of a wholesale destruction now, esp. if the EU requires levels for some key things to be at 0.1% and almost no oakmoss at ALL!

  2. It doesn’t surprise me that the big commercial company like l’Oreal is keeping mum on the subject. Cheaper production with a higher profit margin? Of course that’s what they aim for. Informing consumers about their practices could harm those highly profitable perfumes, so let’s pretend nothing too serious is going on.
    And most fashion houses rely on the branding side of things, not their clothes, but the various perfumes and other accessories they put on the market. Though I doubt this will have a great impact on their plans, since these are mass marketed and not for a niche target group of perfume aficionados. Let’s face it, most wouldn’t know or notice the difference.

    It is quite paradoxical with the trend gearing towards honest and all-natural ingredients, whether it be in food or beauty industry, and yet should be banned in perfumes. Though I too had to laugh at the “Listed all ingredients – in Latin.”

  3. Oh, I am upset learning that Opium, my once all-time favorite perfume has been destroyed. How can anyone even consider changes to my now favorite, Chanel #5? Ingredients on bottles? Oh, no, no, no. Luxury does not have listed ingredients! I am so proud that I campaigned against Britain entering the EEC way back when; too bad we lost that vote!

    • Believe me, Anne, you don’t want to smell Opium now. It will make you weep.

      And they’re not considering mere changes to Chanel No. 5. It’s far worse. They’re considering a flat-out, total BAN!!

      • omg! that sounds horrid! ban Chanel no 5???!!
        I stocked up on it to last me for, maybe 4 or 5 years (got two bottles of 100 ml each) from a Greek perfumer. And I can smell the difference between the super expensive bottles on the store shelves and the bottles I got (which are concentrated and have no ingredients label). What am I going to do when the nice old man dies and if Chanel no 5 gets banned? :-((

        As far as Opium goes, thank you for shedding some light. The new formulation gave me a headache. I thought that that is how it should smell. 😦
        Lucky for me, I found a vintage bottle and jumped right on time. The difference is huuuuuuge!

        • Awwww, new Opium is terrible. It’s not just you, so I’m happy you got a vintage bottle. 🙂 As for Chanel No. 5, I’m hoping the banning talk is just that — talk. I think there would be a HUGE fuss if they actually tried to make it reality. Yet, the very fact that it’s been suggested or proposed shows just how insane and ridiculous this thing has become. It’s a very different perfume world now than it was even 7 years ago, never mind 20. 😦

  4. What I find interesting is how divided the industry is on the issue. They all have different interests but it seems like the big companies are even scared to comment on it. In a way it reminds me of a mafia movie scene – someone has done a killing but no family dares to comment because all of their hands are dirty.

    Solving their problems is so easy – just come clean with the consumers and start lobbying like any normal industry.

    • “someone has done a killing but no family dares to comment because all of their hands are dirty” …. Hahahaha. So well put and so damn true! Like you, the divisions within the industry was one of the most interesting parts of that article to me. But common blood or not, I think some have much more blood on their hands than others! L’Oreal, I’m looking straight at you here. And, honestly, even if they make more more using cheaper synthetic substitutes, how can it really benefit them way down the road to be so hampered or to have the threat of an outside body interfering so drastically in their business, esp. if that agency thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to totally BAN some perfumes entirely?! I agree with you, they should come clean and start lobbying in order to regain some measure of equality or control in this situation.

  5. Pingback: Sneak Peek – Chanel’s 1932 Collection: Fine Jewels & The 1932 Perfume | Kafkaesque

  6. I know for a fact that fragrances have been reformulated without the public knowing. Quite often I will revisit some of my past favorites by sampling in a store only to be disappointed as they do not smell as I once remembered.

  7. Pingback: Perfume Review: Vintage Opium by YSL: A Tribute | Kafkaesque

  8. Hello, do you have any recent updates on the situation? I mean has these horrible changes already been adopted and thus has the new drastic reformulation process already begun? Thank you. Is it “safe” to buy fragrances manufactured in 2013?

    • Hi there, Jenny. The reformulation process goes in stages. There were proposals which were already issued in 2008 and 2010 that perfumers have already complied with. The 2013 question is about new proposed regulations, but no action seems to have been taken as of yet. I believe further regulatory proposals are to be submitted to the EU’s Safety Commission starting in January 2014. What action may ensue after that, nobody knows. There is a lot of talk thus far — like the stuff on Chanel No. 5 — but nothing had been done yet in terms of passing legislation on those proposal. Does that make sense? The EU moves slowly in some ways, so who knows when they will finally act. The problem is in terms of what they WANT to do and are considering.

      As for buying perfumes manufactured in 2013, I’m not sure what you mean by “safe.” I assume you mean that “2013” perfumes have not yet been *further* reformulated, and if that’s your question, then no, they haven’t been. All the reformulations have already occurred so that perfumes made in 2013 are already compliant with the 2008/2010 regulations. In other words, what’s on the store shelves now is already reformulated and not the same as what it used to be in, say, 2002 or 2004.

      I hope that helps a little but if you have more questions, don’t hesitate to ask. 🙂

  9. Hello, THANK YOU so much for a quick reply despite my rather confusing questions 🙂 You are right, by “safe” I meant that no recent reformulation relating to the 2013 proposed regulations have been made. I am also aware of 2010 reformulations. I have heard a lot of people complaining that e.g. Chanels were hit really hard. That is why I was anxious to get a pre-2011 bottle of Chanel No. 5 (and I did :)) Anyway, it looks that there is still some time to make supply of Shalimar, No. 5, and Coco and few other.

  10. I am a perfume buff and have been for decades. I have worn many of the popular fragrances both expensive and inexpensive.

    They have ALL been reformulated from time to time and I got tired of store personnel lying to my face when I went to try some. “Oh your body chemistry must have changed.” No, it didn’t. I can understand replacing an ingredient if it doesn’t change the character of the perfume. But, unfortunately, it has and there are fragrances I will never wear again.

    I have two criteria for buying a perfume: It must smell much the way I remember it and it must last the way I remember it lasting. I recently returned a bottle of L’Air du Temps because the fragrance faded within an hour. I might have been sold an old bottle but I’ll be damned if I was going to pay $60 bucks for a bottle of water. Sorry, it isn’t happening.

    Reading this article about how they have removed or banned certain ingredients for various reasons explains why my nose has been telling me for years the perfumes have changed, for the worse. Some of them are downright hideous. Never mind the recession keeping people away from buying expensive perfumes! Bottom line, when the character of a perfume is ruined, you have lost customers.

    • Welcome to the blog, JG. Thank you for stopping by to share your experiences. No, you’re most definitely not imagining things, and the sales assistants are lying if they claim certain classics have never changed. It’s certainly NOT your skin chemistry that’s at fault! The issue of reformulation is one reason why I’ve started going into niche perfumery more, instead of the famous oldies. If you want perfume to be the way it was, I’m afraid you’re going to have to go to eBay to look for vintage versions. It’s complicated, it involves a lot of research about bottles and packaging, but it’s the only way to get your favorite scent as you remember it.

      The reformulations have occurred on the sly over the decades, but, since 2008 in particular, perfumery has been changed forever. It is no longer the perfume houses making the independent voluntary choice of some tweaking. Now, there are EU/IFRA prohibitions that they have to abide by, whether they want to or not. For example, the old classics often were from the chypre family and, by definition, based on oakmoss. Nowadays, chypres are basically an endangered species. You either have to go to eBay for vintage perfume, or you have to give up completely and start exploring niche perfumery which tries to replicate the scent of some classics with new ingredients and more expensive alternatives. They’re rarely successful (because who can really replicate the magic of banned things like oakmoss), but sometimes they manage. At the very least, niche perfumes don’t always smell like the synthetic, chemical stuff being sold as mainstream perfumery today and they have more range than the current fad of fruity-florals or girly dessert fragrances. I hope you find a few, new, modern classics to fall in love with, because, unfortunately, your heart is going to break if you hold firm to your memories of how certain fragrances used to be.

  11. Kafkaesque:

    Thanks for your reply. Like you, I cannot stand those fruity florals or dessert fragrances.

    I’m not too crazy about the idea of sending away for vintage anything. I suppose that’s okay if somebody wants to sniff the bottle or just spritz a little on their wrists once in a while to bring back memories. But, they couldn’t lavish it on like the old days when it was plentiful and easily obtained. Not only that, when the vintage stuff is all gone, the fragrance won’t exist anywhere. I have saved certain old bottles for sentimental reasons.

    Every once in a while a boutique here and there might have some cute fragrance but the problem is that it is fly-by-night and you can’t necessarily get it again.

    Let’s not get on the topic of men’s fragrance. It isn’t the nice fragrances of men’s cologne of years ago where you wanted to be near the man wearing it. Some of that stuff is so awful you can smell it a block away.

    I do believe the great days of perfume are over. That is a sad loss to both men and women!

      • It’s a shame. Before these tyrannical laws, was secretly reformulations to lower such a fragrance Chanel has not suffered mutations not always in view of cheaper components.
        These industry monopolies, many mentioned brands but they are still appendices four at most four oligopolies. For all the gains continue, people buy advertising and content of the bottle was always cheap, advertising and distribution both. Chanel will continue to sell for his fame, although their products are anything, do not measure well the impact of the dream world that surrounds to good and bad perfume. Clearly losers are the small entrepreneurs who were making its way into perfumistica industry, the niche those lost. If selling and good quality materials and are now the same as those produced in bulk, how will you compete? Lowering? Ingredients and amounts? would be rendered meaningless.
        My opinion is that the lobbies of perfume brands felt robbed niche market and asked again to politicians a law to remove them from their path.

        • Alicia, it’s lovely to see you here! Thank you for popping in and sharing your thoughts. I definitely agree that small entrepreneurs lose — and lose badly — under the new restrictions. They simply have less means to compete as compared to the great houses with all their wealth and backing. But I also think the big houses lose too, when something like a Chanel No. 5 is threatened with a permanent ban. But you’re right in that the big houses reformulated perfumes even before these laws were passed. Ultimately, the biggest loser is the consumer, people like you and I, who no longer have the choice of wearing fragrances like chypres or the future option of certain perfumes which will never be made because of restricted ingredients. The golden century of perfumery has ended. 😦 Anyway, thank you so much for stopping by. I think you’ve made some excellent points about the small, independent or artisan perfumer and how badly they’ve been hit by all this. They’re not a group that a lot of people think about, so I’m glad you raised that point. 🙂

          • Thank you very much to all of you .
            Chanel really has tried for decades very bad to your customers that they were buying a luxury product , very expensive , slimming and lowering ingredients , do not know to tell Chanel 5 because they never used it , but I loved Chanel 19 was pure green olive color and leather, left an oily sheen on the skin so sexy , delicious . And my mother I were watching that perfume increasingly homeopathic wanted but with an exorbitant price , we stopped using it. They have tried very bad customer with Hermes and Chanel are houses leeway own , until the happy reformulation , then there are two new versions ? one of Chanel 5 and over 19 atalcada this more so than the thinner 19 reminded me of Prada Infusion Iris .
            But coldly thinking what is niche? really looking closely we see that there are four major multinationals who are behind these niche , maybe the odd going on their own but are scarce, it’s a shame really.
            Greetings from Spain

          • Hi Alicia, welcome to the blog. I think you raise a very good point about “niche” because, in reality, there is really: “niche,” quasi-niche, actual niche, then indie/artisanal niche. The multi-national companies can’t really be true niche because of their money and the wide availability of their products. They are also more likely to use ingredients that are more afforable (ie, often very synthetic), in order to increase their profit margins.

            That said, the unfortunate truth is that even niche perfumes get reformulated. There is a wide range of reasons why, but it makes it tricky for perfume lovers when they love something and suddenly smell something very different than what they’re used to. Your experience with Chanel No. 19 must have broken your heart a little. I know how it feels, as the new, current Opium is….. *sigh* 😦

  12. Great article! Which I stumbled on while trying to find some specific evidence to support a dispute I’m having over a £74 bottle of perfume I’ve just bought. Smells totally inferior to earlier purchases of the same perfume. I contacted the manufacturer in France and they say it is the same perfume but admit to making small changes for “allergens legislation” but insist smell is the same ( it wasn’t!). The notes are yellow tangerine, ginger, immortal flower, Moroccan Neroli, Grasse rose, vetiver, heliotrope and musks – any idea what has changed? The orange smell was quite strong, now it is weak, not really getting ginger either and the perfume has no staying power now? I was hoping to find a simple list to the new restrictions if you or anyone else could help me out or has any other ideas?

    • I fear the manufacturer won’t budge beyond their minor, grudging admission thus far. They clearly have an interesting definition of “small” changes, given what you’re describing and the notes in question. I suspect all the citric notes have been weakened as I believe various essential oils have had their permissable percentage/concentration levels reduced. Neroli would definitely be one big one. Depending on the type of musk, that may be another, leading to a scent with less longevity on your skin.

      I assume you’ve googled for IFRA’s appendix on concentration levels for essential oils. I once came across a simple-ish list of what the percentages would be for various oils (I specifically remember orange ones, and orange blossom, along with lavender and a few others), but I can’t find it now. The following list includes the notes which are restricted in terms of quantity, but doesn’t provide any indication of what the permitted concentration is: http://www.essentialoils.co.za/banned-oils.htm

      A fully exhaustive, detailed list (ie, not a really simple one) that includes prohibitive items as well as reduced ones, with percentages for both, is available here: http://pellwall-perfumes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/ifra-standards-international-fragrance.html#more This is the most comprehensive, thorough assessment I’ve seen in one place (outside of IFRA). I hope that helps. 🙂 Good luck with your perfume!

  13. Pingback: Viktoria Minya & The World of A “Nose” | Kafkaesque

  14. Hello Kafkaesque

    I just stumbled upon your very interesting article. I am wondering if you can answer a few questions I have about being misled into thinking that the perfume I am buying is still what I believed it to be. I wore Amazing Grace for the past seven years. While it isn’t in the same class of perfume as a Dior or Creed, it is still a lovely fragrance and I never wore it when I didn’t receive a compliment. It suited me perfectly, and I loved it. However, I noticed over the past year that it wasn’t the same. It didn’t last. I used to spray it on, and a week later my sweater that I had worn would still have my scent on it. I was going through more and more bottles of it, thinking I was losing my mind. And something smelled “off” about it; it didn’t smell the same. I did some research and I found out that Coty, while presenting Amazing Grace in the same bottle and packaging, had changed the formula. And it was awful. My question is, is this deception (and I do feel deceived, I’m very angry, very upset) something that could be considered for a Class Action lawsuit? Because never did I see anything in the literature about or on the Coty website that informed me of any changes to my perfume. I would be very interested to know if this would be eligible for a CA lawsuit, and/or if you know of any such lawsuits from changes in perfume formulas. Thanks!

    Janis

    • Hi Janis. It’s an interesting question. I don’t know of any lawsuits pertaining to the changes in perfume formula. I also don’t think a class action lawsuit would be successful. The company could easily present a sort of Public Safety defense for why they changed their formulas. They would point to IFRA and to the EU in specific, arguing that the EU laws regarding perfume ingredients have been passed to protect the public, so that they (the company) are merely complying with the law for consumer protection reasons. Coty is a multi-national company, so they *have* to abide by IFRA regulations, even if those aren’t the law. The simple reason is that the EU *has* made many of those into actual law. Coty sells in EU countries. They have to abide by the limitations on ingredients, even if their products are also sold in California or outside EU territory. Even without the EU issue, companies could easily defend against such lawsuits on the basis of general FDA and consumer allergy concerns. In short, your lawsuit would probably be thrown out upon summary judgment, and far before a trial.

      I understand how angry you are and why you would feel deceived. I really do. Unfortunately, there isn’t much that we as perfume lovers can do about the industry changes. I’m very sorry.

  15. Maybe not simple, but profitable. Some of the “old dogs” that know the old formulas cold, could make or have made in a Non-EU country, the old scent’s w/ the original ingredients or
    as near as possible. I do believe that w/ the internet the marketing would be no problem.
    As far as the laws…. well that did not stop the Banks, now did it?

  16. Pingback: The EU Proposes to Act on Perfume | Kafkaesque

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s