The
twenty-first century has seen a massive increase in the power and
wealth of chemical companies, especially the big pharmaceutical
firms. The proportion of Americans who now dose themselves with
"medications" for "ailments" such as anxiety,
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and depression
doubled over the course of only a few years. Somewhat remarkably,
many parents are now medicating their children, though their brains
are obviously in the process of developing—or not.
This
will come as a surprise to many, but during the occupations of
Afghanistan and Iraq, about 20% of active-duty U.S. soldiers were prescribed (by military physicians) drugs such as Seroquel and many other
medications whose primary clinical application is to treat psychosis. Record
numbers and percentages of the veterans of the recent U.S. wars have
taken their own lives. Is there a connection? Do soldiers sometimes
awaken from their artificially induced state of apparent equanimity
to discover that they have committed unforgiveable acts? Or perhaps
they can no long bear the memories of what they have seen?
One
thing is clear: pharmaceuticals are being prescribed more and more in
lieu of "talk therapy," and conditions such as attention
deficit disorder (ADD) are being diagnosed much more frequently than
ever before. A skeptic might reasonably ask whether the advent of the
internet is not itself a primary cause of what may appear to be ADD
but in fact is a part of the structure of social life in the
twenty-first century.
Persons
plied with Prozac and the many other selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors (SSRIs) being pushed by their doctors (who often have
financial incentives from the pharma firms for doing so) may not care
that they are being drugged into conformity. Indeed, they will gladly
swallow another pill if any inchoate questions threaten to erupt in
their mind. But is this a form of happiness? Or is it just a
short-lived escape? Will these people one day awaken to discover that
in their quest to "Don't worry, be happy," they have
squandered their lives away?
I
believe that SSRI bliss is not genuine happiness, because it is not a
form of flourishing but an evasion of the human condition. Popping
pills induces a sort of stupor, serving the primary function of
squelching criticism of the source of discontent. It also suppresses
social criticism and artistic creativity. Why do anything, when you
can simply cop a buzz instead—and do so legally, with the blessing
of your physician?! The last time I had a physical examination, I was
given a questionnaire with a battery of queries about my state of
satisfaction with my life. I presume that had I expressed
dissatisfaction, I would have been offered a pharmaceutical
“solution” to my “psychological troubles”. Fortunately, I did
not mention to my doctor that I enjoy the works of Fyodor Dostoevsky.
This
will seem a stretch to some, but I honestly wonder whether an
analogous process might not also be underway in the realm of perfume.
We are told by the IFRA that a wide range of natural materials used
for thousands of years in the production of perfumes are suddenly
"dangerous". They cause varieties of dermatitis—above
all, skin contact allergies—and for this reason, the suddenly
“evil” substances are being purged from perfume. In their place,
"safe" aromachemicals are being used.
The
specious reasoning behind this entire pretext for what is
diaphanously a ploy to maximize the profit of the ever-expanding
multi-conglomerate corporations now controlling most of the formerly
independent design houses is so patently fallacious, that it is in
some ways difficult to believe that apparently intelligent spokespersons for the IFRA and the big houses can promulgate this
charade with a straight face.
If
Guerlain Mitsouko was mangled by the “need” to adhere to
the new IFRA restrictions, we can now rejoice, some say, that the
once-great perfume has been largely restored to its former glory through the ingenious use by Thierry Wasser of a "new molecule"
which mimics the precious properties of the original masterpiece
while avoiding all of the alleged dangers which led to
reformulation in the first place. Huh.
 |
| Pierre François-Pascal Guerlain |
I,
for one, don't buy it, and I know that others do not either. We ask,
first, whether these newfangled molecules are really just as good as
the natural stuff for which they are said (by their promoters) to
serve as surrogates. Single molecules are simple; natural substances
are complex and may comprise hundreds of molecules. Second, we ask
why in the world we should believe that these surrogates are safe for
us at all. New molecules are new. Yes, that's a tautology, but the
implications, as far as human health are concerned, are wide-ranging
and easy to deduce.
Anyone
who has lived long enough to see a couple cycles of the artificial
sweeteners—first there were Cyclamates, then Saccharin, then
Nutrasweet (aspartame), and now we have the repulsive (to me)
Sucralose—is well aware that at their inception the molecules are
invariably hailed as "the answer". Cyclamates were
demonstrated to be carcinogenic, so Saccharin was substituted in
place.
Then
Saccharin was found to be dangerous, but synthetic organic chemists
had another new "miracle molecule", aspartame, waiting in the wings to fill the void. (Dare I point out that official denunications of the "suddenly hazardous for your health" penultimate synthetic solution never seem to be articulated until a surrogate is ready to launch?) Sure, if you happened to be phenylketonuric, you'd die if you
consumed the stuff, but the chance of that happening could be
minimized through rigorous FDA-enforced labeling.
Only later, after
the market was awash in Nutrasweet did people start to question the
safety of a substance which can induce severe headaches—and much
worse in those who consume diet sodas in copious volumes. (One of the
breakdown products of this dipeptide is formaldehyde. That's right, as in: used to preserve organs in jars and to fix cadavers.)
No
matter: now that Nutrasweet has fallen out of favor we have
Sucralose! As sweet, it seems, as licorice root—only a lot less
expensive, because it's synthetic, and a lot more neutral, because
it's ... abstract! Sucralose is being overdosed in nearly
every product in which it appears, leading consumers to believe that
their drinks should really be considerably sweeter than ordinary sugar-sweetened drinks. Some who are turned off by the cloying quality have
turned to Stevia and other "natural" artificial
sweeteners—not a contradiction in terms! There have been critical
studies about testicles and Stevia, but, whatever: pass the Prozac
and Carpe Diem!
So
what's my point? Let's connect the dots. Artificial sweeteners have
always been used to replace sugar in products, but mostly drinks.
That's right: liquids which people imbibe. It's supposed to be a good
deal: one drinks “the same” Coca-Cola, but without cutting into
one's recommended daily allowance (RDA) of calories at all. Sure, some
people drink diet Coke as they eat candy bars, but that just means
that they get to eat more candy! It seems like a great deal, in the
short term. Will it be later on down the line?
I
believe that the same questions must be entertained by any rational
perfume user today. The more abstract perfume becomes, the less
confidence one should have in the claims being made by chemical
industry advocates—including the IFRA—that these newfangled
molecules are better than the real thing. Just as persons who attempt
after years to wean themselves off pharmaceutical crutches which they
never really needed in the first place may face even worse problems
engendered by their very addiction, we should expect that at some
point in the future, at least some of these "miracle molecules"
being used in perfumery to replace substances which were worn happily
and safely by countless people since time immemorial will prove to
have much worse effects on the human body than those which they were
ostensibly designed to circumvent.
Key
word: ostensibly. In truth, I believe, the health pretext is a
big fat lie. We live in a liberal society where people are allowed to
choose their poisons in nearly every other realm. Does it make any
sense, really, that patent paternalism should have infected perfumery
but without any federal regulation at all? We are told by the very
people attempting to fob off aromachemicals in place of natural
substances that the natural substances are dangerous, and the new
molecules are safe.
The
only reasonable response to such sophistry is for true perfumers to
revolt. Those consumers who have recognized the contours of this veil
of lies will unite in solidarity with you. We shall stand by your
side and continue to buy your wares.
