Are bpal blends all-natural?

[jmacgirl24]

I've tried lots of 'natural' perfumes that smelled good, but didn't last worth a diddly-squat on my skin.

 

And I've tried lots of synths that stuck to me like glue but smelled like a caustic vat of evil.

 

So whether a perfume is 100 percent this or that doesn't matter to me.

 

Seems to me that the key is the perfumer's skill with the ingredients. And I trust Beth totally on that score.

I don't wanna sound dumb but i just wanna make sure... You don't have to mix BPAL oils with a carrier oil, right?? I can just open my bottle and put some on can't i? Im only asking because i have never used any BPAL before but ordered some a few days ago. It sounds great. Anywho... If i do have to mix it with another oil where can i find it on this site???

[lookingglass]

I've tried lots of 'natural' perfumes that smelled good, but didn't last worth a diddly-squat on my skin.

 

And I've tried lots of synths that stuck to me like glue but smelled like a caustic vat of evil.

 

So whether a perfume is 100 percent this or that doesn't matter to me.

 

Seems to me that the key is the perfumer's skill with the ingredients. And I trust Beth totally on that score.

I don't wanna sound dumb but i just wanna make sure... You don't have to mix BPAL oils with a carrier oil, right?? I can just open my bottle and put some on can't i? Im only asking because i have never used any BPAL before but ordered some a few days ago. It sounds great. Anywho... If i do have to mix it with another oil where can i find it on this site???

You can wear BPAL straight up. Some people have sensitivites (like me and cinnimon...I can't put her on fresh out of the shower) but most have no probs. Only dilute if you want/need to!

[tarotgirl99]

I have an illustrative story here...The other day, I got my BPTP rose scents and tried one of them on my wrists (not quite a slather, but close) just before a friend of mine came over. When we got into her car, she started coughing and choking and she had to open her window. She said she had developed a sensitivity to scent recently and it was causing problems for her.

 

Naturally we thought it was the perfume, but I was kinda surprised because I know Beth uses non-synthetics. She kept saying she smelled it, but I had gloves on so I couldn't smell it and was just curious about the whole thing. Then I realized I had used a scented detangler on my hair hours before and that was what she was smelling.

 

It wasn't the BPAL.

[VelvetSky]

I've tried lots of 'natural' perfumes that smelled good, but didn't last worth a diddly-squat on my skin.

 

And I've tried lots of synths that stuck to me like glue but smelled like a caustic vat of evil.

 

So whether a perfume is 100 percent this or that doesn't matter to me.

 

Seems to me that the key is the perfumer's skill with the ingredients. And I trust Beth totally on that score.

I don't wanna sound dumb but i just wanna make sure... You don't have to mix BPAL oils with a carrier oil, right?? I can just open my bottle and put some on can't i? Im only asking because i have never used any BPAL before but ordered some a few days ago. It sounds great. Anywho... If i do have to mix it with another oil where can i find it on this site???

You can wear BPAL straight up. Some people have sensitivites (like me and cinnimon...I can't put her on fresh out of the shower) but most have no probs. Only dilute if you want/need to!

 

 

Right!

 

I would suggest that you test your BPAL oils very lightly somewhere, like the inside of your arm. Wait and see what happens and if you don't have a negative reaction, test again on a slightly larger skin area to be sure before you slather.

 

If you have a reaction, try diluting with scentless carrier oil and patch test again.

 

The only BPAL I've ever really had a skin reaction to was Rakshasa. I like that one, so I dilute it with sweet almond oil and it's fine.

 

Test!

 

 

 

[kmasden]

not to be weird, but i always have a hard time understanding why this question keeps coming up in a day when everything one touches from grocery bags to your coffee table is treated with chemicals..though i totally support lessoning exposure, it's so minute in perfume oil in comparison to the car you sit in, the desk you rest your arms on etc. I thought it had absolutely been disclosed a zillion times that yes, sometimes, based on demand for unnatural smells, etc...there are synthetics in bpal...my understanding is that you can't derive things like bonfire smoke, cotton candy, ambrosia, martinis, bone, skin, rotting linen, rusted metal, bubblegum, blood, crackling flames, smoldering ashes, etc. from plants and such. Now i could be wrong, but i'm just assuming that in those cases, yes, synthetics would of course be used when needed. Probably the best rule of thumb would be that if a note listed doesn't sound natural, it isn't. And if i'm wrong, someone please shoot me!

[Mrs.Black]

not to be weird, but i always have a hard time understanding why this question keeps coming up in a day when everything one touches from grocery bags to your coffee table is treated with chemicals..though i totally support lessoning exposure, it's so minute in perfume oil in comparison to the car you sit in, the desk you rest your arms on etc. I thought it had absolutely been disclosed a zillion times that yes, sometimes, based on demand for unnatural smells, etc...there are synthetics in bpal...my understanding is that you can't derive things like bonfire smoke, cotton candy, ambrosia, martinis, bone, skin, rotting linen, rusted metal, bubblegum, blood, crackling flames, smoldering ashes, etc. from plants and such. Now i could be wrong, but i'm just assuming that in those cases, yes, synthetics would of course be used when needed. Probably the best rule of thumb would be that if a note listed doesn't sound natural, it isn't. And if i'm wrong, someone please shoot me!

 

My understanding is that pretty much any smell can be replicated with mixtures or "bouquets" of natural oils. Also many naturally occurring scents, such as fruits, cannot be extracted for use in perfume notes, so they must also be created as "bouquets" from other scents. I wouldn't assume that every unusual note in BPAL perfumes comes from synthetic sources.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Mrs.Black

[odalisque]

Naturally we thought it was the perfume, but I was kinda surprised because I know Beth uses non-synthetics.

Just to point out, a scent can be entirely non-synthetic and still give someone reactions. Natural does not = innocuous.

 

I agree that the "is it REALLY NATURAL???" question is overly weighted, myself. Essential oils, C02, absolutes ... none of that stuff is "natural" in any meaningful sense, really. It's all hundreds or thousands of times more concentrated and isolated than anything we would ever encounter in "nature" and it's every bit as processed and artificial, IMO, as extracting the fossilized remains of animals and plants from millions of years ago, refining it, and using it to make synthetics that smell good.

 

Each plant-derived bouquet in your BPAL has a chemical-molecule name every bit as unpronounceable, daunting and chemical-sounding as any synthetic bouquet. Molecules are molecules, and they are all chemicals whether they come from a petrochemical lab or a steam distillation plant.

 

[Josh]

I'm pretty certain bpal uses synthetics, and for that I say GOOD. The all natural thing is just a flashy tag to impress those who don't really know how useless "all natural" really means in terms of perfumery. A perfumer who blocks out using any synthetics is basically denying themselves a vast library of scents and does nothing but shrink down the box in which they can be creative. Besides, you're far more likely to have a nasty/negative reaction to an all natural fragrance than one balanced with synthetics and aromachemicals.

 

I guess we live in an age of "going green" and "organic" where any and everything deemed as "all natural" is expected to be better. It doesn't work that way with scent.

[dzurlady]

Actually, and this has been discussed previously in this thread, the Lab doesn't use synthetics. The only BPAL around with synthetic components is a prototype that the Lab auctioned on ebay.

[Josh]

Where did Beth say this? Maybe there was a misunderstanding somewhere? I'd be stunned to read no bpal oils for sale contain any synthetics.

[dzurlady]

Here's some relevant posts from earlier in this thread (I edited them down slightly so that the parts that are relevant to synthetics in BPAL are easier to spot, but if you click on the arrow in the top of the post you can go and read the whole thing, if you want). (Also, I was wrong before - there are a couple of prototypes with synthetics around, some of which came from a forum raffle and some of which were iirc auctioned on ebay.)

 

I think it was removed when Beth started experimenting with aldehydes (the synth note in some unreleased blends like...Toxin, I believe?). Since those blends never made it to the catalogue, the response you got from CS makes sense. I seem to recall Beth saying something about the FAQ needing to be updated.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the full list of prototypes in circulation that may contain aldehydes are Toxin, Nihil, and Zero. They were involved in the forum fundraiser raffle last year. Nothing currently on offer from BPAL contains synthetics, or the Lab would be very clear about saying so.

 

 

Btw, I did email the lab, and here is the response:

 

Black Phoenix uses no synthetics, no fillers and no garbage. All of our scents are 100% naturally derived. With the exception of our honey products, BPAL perfumes are vegan. Our 'civet' and 'ambergris' are bouquets, and thus, are composite scents created from plant-derived perfume oils combined to best approximate the scent.[/b] Black Phoenix is entirely cruelty-free, as our four dogs, many fish, and resident lab cat will attest.

 

While we use no preservatives, our oil blends will last for over one year, if they are cared for correctly. Please keep all of our products in a cool, dark place to maximize their shelf life.

 

Unfortunately, we cannot further divulge our ingredients due to protecting our recipes from competitors.

 

The revision of the faq has been in the works for about a year. I've been insanely busy at work and in my personal life, so the revision ended up on the backburner. Kathy and Bill have a list about 60 pages long of things I should address there, and I'm still working on it. Honestly, it isn't going to get done any time soon. Sincerest apologies if that bothers people, but I just don't have any time at all right now.

 

After the sales of the Synthetic Line prototypes, I could no longer state that we have never sold anything that doesn't contain synthetics, so I pulled the statement completely lest there be a misunderstanding.

 

When I'm not bombed by a million BPAL and BPTP issues and the imminent birth of Junior, I'll get back to revising the faq. =)

 

 

[Josh]

Here's some relevant posts from earlier in this thread (I edited them down slightly so that the parts that are relevant to synthetics in BPAL are easier to spot, but if you click on the arrow in the top of the post you can go and read the whole thing, if you want). (Also, I was wrong before - there are a couple of prototypes with synthetics around, some of which came from a forum raffle and some of which were iirc auctioned on ebay.)

 

I think it was removed when Beth started experimenting with aldehydes (the synth note in some unreleased blends like...Toxin, I believe?). Since those blends never made it to the catalogue, the response you got from CS makes sense. I seem to recall Beth saying something about the FAQ needing to be updated.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the full list of prototypes in circulation that may contain aldehydes are Toxin, Nihil, and Zero. They were involved in the forum fundraiser raffle last year. Nothing currently on offer from BPAL contains synthetics, or the Lab would be very clear about saying so.

 

 

Btw, I did email the lab, and here is the response:

 

Black Phoenix uses no synthetics, no fillers and no garbage. All of our scents are 100% naturally derived. With the exception of our honey products, BPAL perfumes are vegan. Our 'civet' and 'ambergris' are bouquets, and thus, are composite scents created from plant-derived perfume oils combined to best approximate the scent.[/b] Black Phoenix is entirely cruelty-free, as our four dogs, many fish, and resident lab cat will attest.

 

While we use no preservatives, our oil blends will last for over one year, if they are cared for correctly. Please keep all of our products in a cool, dark place to maximize their shelf life.

 

Unfortunately, we cannot further divulge our ingredients due to protecting our recipes from competitors.

 

The revision of the faq has been in the works for about a year. I've been insanely busy at work and in my personal life, so the revision ended up on the backburner. Kathy and Bill have a list about 60 pages long of things I should address there, and I'm still working on it. Honestly, it isn't going to get done any time soon. Sincerest apologies if that bothers people, but I just don't have any time at all right now.

 

After the sales of the Synthetic Line prototypes, I could no longer state that we have never sold anything that doesn't contain synthetics, so I pulled the statement completely lest there be a misunderstanding.

 

When I'm not bombed by a million BPAL and BPTP issues and the imminent birth of Junior, I'll get back to revising the faq. =)

 

Yeah, I wasn't trying to be difficult about it or anything.. I wonder if the lab has used synthetics after sales of their synthetic line prototypes? Things like cotton candy, booze notes, fruits, butter, etc, etc... all of those would indicate to me some sort of synthetic or EO/synth/aromachemical blend. Granted, you might be able to sketch out a less than convincing replica of blueberry or green apple with pure EOs, but like the Bush's Baked Beans commercial goes.. only one person here knows the secret, and she's not saying a word I respect that.. and as I said earlier, I'm not bringing up synthetics as though they are a bad thing. I think synthetics are a very effective and powerful tool for a perfumer and will never understand those who frown on synthetics in perfumery. If the lab isn't using synthetics I can only hope that someday they will.

[emzebel]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to be difficult about it or anything.. I wonder if the lab has used synthetics after sales of their synthetic line prototypes? Things like cotton candy, booze notes, fruits, butter, etc, etc... all of those would indicate to me some sort of synthetic or EO/synth/aromachemical blend. Granted, you might be able to sketch out a less than convincing replica of blueberry or green apple with pure EOs, but like the Bush's Baked Beans commercial goes.. only one person here knows the secret, and she's not saying a word I respect that.. and as I said earlier, I'm not bringing up synthetics as though they are a bad thing. I think synthetics are a very effective and powerful tool for a perfumer and will never understand those who frown on synthetics in perfumery. If the lab isn't using synthetics I can only hope that someday they will.

 

Given that the synthetic line protos date from 2006 and Beth has - in the posts quoted above - repetedly stated as recently as August 2008 that those are the *only* blends that have ever included synthetics, I'm going to go with no as the answer to your question there. It is hardly a secret, given that Beth herself has weighed in on it fairly recently. The Lab uses naturally derived bouquets for those scents that are either animal derived (other than honey notes) or not otherwise naturally available.

 

Whether that is a good, bad or completely irrelevant fact is, of course, in the eye (or nose) of the beholder.

 

 

[Josh]

Well then, color me completely surprised.

 

I'll just assume then that it's official, 100% no synthetics. Thanks emzebel.

[eoifemacbeth]

Well then, color me completely surprised.

 

I'll just assume then that it's official, 100% no synthetics. Thanks emzebel.

 

Yeah, man, the stuff a good perfumer can do with a few drops of oil? Suddenly you'd swear the vial had Captain Morgan in it, or encapsulated sunshine, or Pacific saltwater. Bouquets seriously blow my mind. I will never understand how people come up with that kind of thing.

[cranberry]

I think it's important to keep in mind that aromachemicals and even Fragrance Oils are different from synthetics. An aromachemical or FO could be completely naturally derived or it could contain synthetic or petroleum derived ingredients.

 

So therefore as long its origins were natural of some sort, even aromachemicals or FO would therefore fit with the statements that have been made.

 

I love the magic that Beth does, don't get me wrong.

[carolsag]

I agree with Cranberry, because if Beth did not use some aroma chemicals and certain FO's, i would think the perfume oils would

cost around $45.00 - $90.00 a bottle, at least. Also i do not think there would be so many choices of oils. But whatever she uses, she is a master at making great smelling oils!

Edited March 12, 2009 by carolsag

[lishal]

I'm really amazed by what perfumers can do with bouquets too. They come up with really impressive and convincing scents. It's especially cool when a bouquet manages to replace an oil that's generally not suggested for use, so even though it's restricted, it can still be appreciated. Sassafras is one example, and it blows my mind just what might go into a bouquet to imitate that sort of scent. I know I could never do it and I appreciate the talent and time it takes.

[kmasden]

I think it's important to keep in mind that aromachemicals and even Fragrance Oils are different from synthetics. An aromachemical or FO could be completely naturally derived or it could contain synthetic or petroleum derived ingredients.

 

So therefore as long its origins were natural of some sort, even aromachemicals or FO would therefore fit with the statements that have been made.

 

I love the magic that Beth does, don't get me wrong.

 

Very good point!

 

 

 

[Obscura]

A couple of things I wanted to add to this already well discussed thread..

 

First, I don't know too much about chemistry; I am a C student in chemistry and especially don't know much about perfume making. The most I've done with that is mix a couple of EOs together in high school, before the wonderfulness of BPAL. I am a vegetarian and do not like to buy things that have been tested on animals, or use a lot of animal products (many perfumes do both). When I discovered BPAL, that was my very first concern. When I found out they use natural ingredients, I was thrilled. But you know what, if they do use syntetics I'm not 100% against that. One thing to be aware of, which someone said above, is that not all natural things are good for you, and not all synthetic things are bad. One of the major problems I have with synthetics, and other similar chemicals, is the potential danger they may have on the environment. When you wash yourself with soap, etc that stuff is going down the drain. Though we have a pretty good water filtration process here in the US, since a lot of companies won't give their entire "ingredient" list, not everything bad can be filtered out for lack of information. The point I'm trying to make is that, in regards to environmental concerns, if I wash a perfume off or decide to throw it away for whatever reason, I don't want it killing other creatures.

 

When it comes to perfume, anything you put on your skin is getting absorbed. On the chemical level, not everything will get absorbed at the same rate or consistancy. This is part of the reason I tout being safe with perfumes, lotions, etc. In my opinion, if synthetics are going to be used in the perfume industry, whether they are combined with natural derivitives or not, they should be tested in the lab AND on human beings until there is absolutely NO DOUBT whatsoever that they are safe to put on human skin. Not animal skin. We have different kinds of skin chemistry than animals, and what animals do you know that wear perfume?

 

Anyway, I'm not 100% against synthetics, and if BPAL decides one day to use them instead of natural bouquets, I would definitely try to make sure Beth has found out the details from the company she was using before I bought them. Also, I would like to think she'd mention it on the website.. which ones were 100% naturall derrived, and which were not.

[izile]

I have nothing *against* synthetic ingredients on a moral or ethical basis, but I have to admit, I do like the fact BPAL uses no synthetics and it's one reason they're the only perfume I've ever bought.

 

Before I discovered BPAL I was allergic to basically all perfume I'd ever been exposed to. Even if a perfume (like Philosophy's lines) didn't make me sneeze, I tended to break out in a rash.

 

Then again, I'm also one of those freaky individuals that has really bad reactions to synthetics that were specifically invented because a lot of people have bad reactions to the natural version. (I'm allergic to synthetic penicillin, but not real penicillin; I can eat all natural ice creams like Breyers, but if I get one of the kinds with the huge paragraph list of ingredients, I'm going to be in the bathroom *all night* in pain; I have a better chance of coping with rare chicken or pork than a properly prepared frozen dinner.)

 

So, whatever Beth does, I appreciate it! Because otherwise, I would still be living in a perfume-devoid world!

[eoifemacbeth]

Then again, I'm also one of those freaky individuals that has really bad reactions to synthetics that were specifically invented because a lot of people have bad reactions to the natural version. (I'm allergic to synthetic penicillin, but not real penicillin; I can eat all natural ice creams like Breyers, but if I get one of the kinds with the huge paragraph list of ingredients, I'm going to be in the bathroom *all night* in pain; I have a better chance of coping with rare chicken or pork than a properly prepared frozen dinner.)

 

Yes, this exactly! The less crap is in something, the better my body responds to it. (I've just found out I can't actually be on birth control due to the hormones not being naturally in my body---I have a really hard time introducing anything to it without it panicking, and the more natural the things I bring in are, the better I feel.) I hadn't been able to wear perfumes before BPAL, and I've found I can wear BPALs, Arcanas, and the occasional Posset with zero problems. That speaks to how natural they are more than any website statement, to me.

[olive]

Whether that is a good, bad or completely irrelevant fact is, of course, in the eye (or nose) of the beholder.

 

Personally I'm leaning more and more against naturals. They are very environmentally unfriendly, especially given the high volume of plant/leaf/tree/root needed to procure such tiny amounts of EO. Deforestation wasn't that big of a deal back in the glory days of modern perfumery, but really we as consumers should be mindful of our responsibility to the planet. For example, Rosewood Oil (Bois De Rose) comes from the rosewood tree, most of which is categorized in the global threat (endangered status) category. Linalool, a perfectly suitable and convincing synthetic, is my preference these days. I know this is a touchy subject, but I think the whole "natural is better" thing is a bit overdone. Technically, no perfume is natural.. even perfumes made from "all natural oils" produce a manmade scent that is not naturally found in our environment, thus making it a synthetic byproduct of natural ingredients.

 

Edit: for more info on the Rosewood fiasco: http://www.aromamedical.com/articles/rosewood.htm

Edited April 28, 2009 by olive

[Obscura]

Whether that is a good, bad or completely irrelevant fact is, of course, in the eye (or nose) of the beholder.

 

Personally I'm leaning more and more against naturals. They are very environmentally unfriendly, especially given the high volume of plant/leaf/tree/root needed to procure such tiny amounts of EO. Deforestation wasn't that big of a deal back in the glory days of modern perfumery, but really we as consumers should be mindful of our responsibility to the planet. For example, Rosewood Oil (Bois De Rose) comes from the rosewood tree, most of which is categorized in the global threat (endangered status) category. Linalool, a perfectly suitable and convincing synthetic, is my preference these days. I know this is a touchy subject, but I think the whole "natural is better" thing is a bit overdone. Technically, no perfume is natural.. even perfumes made from "all natural oils" produce a manmade scent that is not naturally found in our environment, thus making it a synthetic byproduct of natural ingredients.

 

Edit: for more info on the Rosewood fiasco: http://www.aromamedical.com/articles/rosewood.htm

 

That's a really good point, definitely something to consider when buying "all natural" things, perfume or not. One of the main problem I have with synthetics is that many of them are tested on animals before being sold to individual perfume makers and companies.

[yeahbutnobut]

I disagree with a few points mentioned...just as it's my opinion that labelling everything 'synthetic' or 'chemical' as 'bad' is not a good idea, doing the same thing with 'natural' products is a big overstatement. I don't think all production of essential oils is 'very unfriendly' to the environment. It's all about the way they are produced, grown etc. I see it as like agriculture for food etc, though one could argue that food is essential and cosmetics are a luxury, but that's another topic...but I think it's all about how sustainable the production of essential oils/natural products is. If plants for use in the cosmetics industry are grown sustainably (ie they do not endanger the plant species, or destroy ecosystems) and maybe are fair trade and are grown in a way that benefits the environment/communities, surely that's not a bad thing? Now with some other essential oils like sandalwood and rosewood-yes, they have been overharvested, sandalwood is becoming endangered. But I've heard that there are now sustainable rosewood oils, and there are sandalwoods from other sources than the endangered Indian variety, I think some of those may be more sustainable-or at least trying to be? But I'm sure that Beth's sources for oils are very ethical and not destructive to the environment, even for things like rosewood and sandalwood.

 

(I know this sounds really bad, but I don't like to get too deeply attached to all the ethics of cosmetics (though I have been trying to get stuff that isn't animal tested) mainly because it would make it difficult to shop for things, and there are so, so many complications and contradictions and I don't want to feel guilty about it all...plus I'm a student and in most cases all the really environmentally and ethically conscious products are too pricey for me!)

 

But an interesting point has been raised-where do you draw the line between what is 'natural' and 'synthetic'. Is a substance only truly synthetic if it is created from scratch in the lab? Is a fragrance chemical manufactured from coal tar compounds just as synthetic (remember that coal is natural too) as a fragrance chemical extracted by various complex extraction and distillation processes from the essential oil of a plant? Are essential oils/absolutes/scent chemicals really 'synthetics' because despite the plant containing and producing them, they can't be extracted by non-human-manufactured processes? Makes you think...