Are bpal blends all-natural?

[fragrantgrasse]

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...

 

 

I respectfully disagree with Martin Watt's opinion on many issues related to essential oil usage. I will also suggest that there are sites that contain updated information about the fact that there are, indeed, sources of rosewood (also known as Aniba rosaeodora or bois de rose) that are now ethically harvested from sustainable sources.

 

I also think it's probably an oversimplification (and possibly incorrect) to state that 'naturals' (aromatic molecules) are environmentally unfriendly. It is also not accurate to infer that it takes a high volume of plant/leaf/roots needed to procure tiny amounts of EOs! It is certainly true of the more precious fragrance materials such as jasmine, rose or osmanthus for instance, but others such as the citrus oils (expressed or distilled), leaf (such as patchouli) or needles oils are readily available.

BTW, linalool occurs naturally (rosewood is rich in it) and while, yes, a synthetic linalool may be a "perfectly suitable and convincing synthetic", you may not want to apply it to you body. A synthetic linalool is also dihydro linalool, not the same molecule at all.

 

 

 

[olive]

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...

 

 

I respectfully disagree with Martin Watt's opinion on many issues related to essential oil usage. I will also suggest that there are sites that contain updated information about the fact that there are, indeed, sources of rosewood (also known as Aniba rosaeodora or bois de rose) that are now ethically harvested from sustainable sources.

 

I also think it's probably an oversimplification (and possibly incorrect) to state that 'naturals' (aromatic molecules) are environmentally unfriendly. It is also not accurate to infer that it takes a high volume of plant/leaf/roots needed to procure tiny amounts of EOs! It is certainly true of the more precious fragrance materials such as jasmine, rose or osmanthus for instance, but others such as the citrus oils (expressed or distilled), leaf (such as patchouli) or needles oils are readily available.

BTW, linalool occurs naturally (rosewood is rich in it) and while, yes, a synthetic linalool may be a "perfectly suitable and convincing synthetic", you may not want to apply it to you body. A synthetic linalool is also dihydro linalool, not the same molecule at all.

 

I've applied several perfumes with linalool and had no problems whatsoever. It's quite a common ingredient in many modern perfumes so I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to apply it?

 

While it's true not all naturals are environmentally harsh, it seems somewhat arrogant to adamantly insist on soley using EOs based on principle alone. Luckily, with exception of some Chinese perfumers, people have become wise to the ways of authentic deer musk. Hopefully, eventually, people will also become wise to the ways of other life forms which, while not having a heartbeat, are still crucial and important aspects to the ecology of our planet.

 

Also, I'm going to respectfully disagree with your opinion that rosewood oil is now ethically harvested from sustainable sources. Granted, many who harvest and trade the oil will say such a thing, but evidence shows to the contrary. This link (http://www.mongabay.com/external/pau_rosa.html) has some good information on the dominance of illegal rosewood suppliers, their product trickles through the hands of countless EO dealers until they end up in the hands of most mom & pop EO suppliers on the internet who have been told the product was ethically harvested and, thus, advertise it as so. Very few EO suppliers/perfumers can trace their ingredients all the way back to the Brazilian harvesters themselves, so these people have to rely on what the seller tells them, and the seller is going to tell them what they want to hear. When the Brazilian EPA put the Rosewood on its endangered species list which didn't help, it just sent the rosewood trade underground.

 

Granted, there are true sustainable harvesters in Brazil but the quantity of their oil production in comparison with what the estimated illegal Rosewood trade produces each year is so off balance that one can clearly infer that every website out there claiming they're selling truly sustainable Rosewood oil results in numbers that don't add up. Maybe that's why Ananda Apothecary removed the "sustainable source" mention from their rosewood oil page. I wish others would as well.

 

All I'm saying is, insisting on using natural -everything- just to say you're using all natural seems irresponsible. Not every EO is harmful to the environment, but few perfumes can be made with all natural ingredients without several (if not many) of the EO's being derived by means of environmentally unfriendly methods.

[fragrantgrasse]

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...

 

 

I respectfully disagree with Martin Watt's opinion on many issues related to essential oil usage. I will also suggest that there are sites that contain updated information about the fact that there are, indeed, sources of rosewood (also known as Aniba rosaeodora or bois de rose) that are now ethically harvested from sustainable sources.

 

I also think it's probably an oversimplification (and possibly incorrect) to state that 'naturals' (aromatic molecules) are environmentally unfriendly. It is also not accurate to infer that it takes a high volume of plant/leaf/roots needed to procure tiny amounts of EOs! It is certainly true of the more precious fragrance materials such as jasmine, rose or osmanthus for instance, but others such as the citrus oils (expressed or distilled), leaf (such as patchouli) or needles oils are readily available.

BTW, linalool occurs naturally (rosewood is rich in it) and while, yes, a synthetic linalool may be a "perfectly suitable and convincing synthetic", you may not want to apply it to you body. A synthetic linalool is also dihydro linalool, not the same molecule at all.

 

I've applied several perfumes with linalool and had no problems whatsoever. It's quite a common ingredient in many modern perfumes so I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to apply it?

 

While it's true not all naturals are environmentally harsh, it seems somewhat arrogant to adamantly insist on soley using EOs based on principle alone. Luckily, with exception of some Chinese perfumers, people have become wise to the ways of authentic deer musk. Hopefully, eventually, people will also become wise to the ways of other life forms which, while not having a heartbeat, are still crucial and important aspects to the ecology of our planet.

 

Also, I'm going to respectfully disagree with your opinion that rosewood oil is now ethically harvested from sustainable sources. Granted, many who harvest and trade the oil will say such a thing, but evidence shows to the contrary. This link (http://www.mongabay.com/external/pau_rosa.html) has some good information on the dominance of illegal rosewood suppliers, their product trickles through the hands of countless EO dealers until they end up in the hands of most mom & pop EO suppliers on the internet who have been told the product was ethically harvested and, thus, advertise it as so. Very few EO suppliers/perfumers can trace their ingredients all the way back to the Brazilian harvesters themselves, so these people have to rely on what the seller tells them, and the seller is going to tell them what they want to hear. When the Brazilian EPA put the Rosewood on its endangered species list which didn't help, it just sent the rosewood trade underground.

 

Granted, there are true sustainable harvesters in Brazil but the quantity of their oil production in comparison with what the estimated illegal Rosewood trade produces each year is so off balance that one can clearly infer that every website out there claiming they're selling truly sustainable Rosewood oil results in numbers that don't add up. Maybe that's why Ananda Apothecary removed the "sustainable source" mention from their rosewood oil page. I wish others would as well.

 

All I'm saying is, insisting on using natural -everything- just to say you're using all natural seems irresponsible. Not every EO is harmful to the environment, but few perfumes can be made with all natural ingredients without several (if not many) of the EO's being derived by means of environmentally unfriendly methods.

 

edited because it's wiser to keep my 2 cents to myself!

Edited April 29, 2009 by fragrantgrasse

[kakiphony]

Deleted because, on second thought, I was just being a nosy nelly and a jerk where my jerkiness was unnecessary.

 

Carry on.

Edited April 29, 2009 by kakiphony

[dzurlady]

I don't really feel informed enough to comment one way or the other, but you did remind me of something I read the other day. Australian farmers were starting to plant sandalwood as an investment plant, which also helped with the water table and salinity and the soil generally because it meant there were more trees around. I don't know how widely spread it is yet, but I thought it was pretty cool. The article made the point that the sandalwood would therefore be sustainable, and what a good thing that was.

[olive]

I don't really feel informed enough to comment one way or the other, but you did remind me of something I read the other day. Australian farmers were starting to plant sandalwood as an investment plant, which also helped with the water table and salinity and the soil generally because it meant there were more trees around. I don't know how widely spread it is yet, but I thought it was pretty cool. The article made the point that the sandalwood would therefore be sustainable, and what a good thing that was.

 

Agreed.. anything that progresses sustainable oil production is a great thing in my book. I equate sustainable oil production to electric/hybrid cars.. the technology is there, but the cheaper price of the standard makes paying a premium for an environmentally safer alternative a difficult decision, especially in this economic climate. Though, with oils, you basically have to take the vendors word that the oil came from a sustainable source.

[izile]

Re: the environmental issue.

 

I'm not knowledgable about this enough to know 100% for sure on this particular subject, but I know that in other cases, people often champion synthetics in the name of the environment, saying it's better than the natural because of mismanagement of the natural resource needed to produce the "natural product." However, they often overlook any environmental damage caused by the production of the synthetic substitute.

 

I know this is the case with fabrics, where people will be against cotton, wools, silk, leathers, for various reasons; meanwhile acrylics, poly-fabrics and some other synthetics are developed from crude oil. Not only a non-renewable resource, but very environmentally unfriendly from the harvesting to the processing of the crude oil into these synthetics. Worst of all, these synthetic fabrics do not biodegrade and there are no recycling programs for them in the US. This is something that lots of people never consider or even hear about.

 

Personally, I did a lot of personal research on that, and I avoid buying clothing items made with any petro-chemical synthetic fabrics, unless I find them in the thrift store. Last year, I almost managed to completely change my sweater selection over to Cashmere, Merino Wool, Silk and Cotton blends only.

 

So, I know that's way OT here, but it's something I'd want to know about regarding certain synthetic alteratives. What are they made from? What is their chemical base? How do we get that chemical base?

[izile]

confused, seeking clarification of above:

 

"and the Lab's scents start at 15% perfume oil and go up to 80% perfume oil. "

 

I thought BPAL was 100% essential oils and natural accords? No dilution, no thinning, no synthetic fragrance oils." ??

 

 

[cinderfallen]

A lot of essential oils are not skin-safe, so they must diluted in a carrier oil before they can be applied as perfume. Some are also highly concentrated and pungent and just wouldn't smell very nice unless it's at a proper dilution. No responsible perfumer would offer 100% undiluted essential oil perfumes.

Edited November 28, 2009 by cinderfallen

[meaganola]

A lot of essential oils are not skin-safe, so they must diluted in a carrier oil before they can be applied as perfume. Some are also highly concentrated and pungent and just wouldn't smell very nice unless it's at a proper dilution. No responsible perfumer would offer 100% undiluted essential oil perfumes.

 

Yup. In case anyone was wondering, I got those Lab-specific numbers from the Lab's own FAQ:

 

What is the difference between a perfume and a perfume oil?

The following is a rough guide to the differences between the strength categories of scents --

Eau fraiche: 3% or less perfume oil.

Eau de cologne: 2 - 5% perfume oil.

Eau de toilette: 4 - 10% perfume oil.

Eau de parfum: 8 - 15% perfume oil.

Perfume: 15 - 25% perfume oil.

Perfume oil: 15 - 80% perfume oil.

[izile]

crap, what I get for reading the forum FAQ instead of the website FAQ (forum FAQ has the same list of percentages, but at the bottom had added that BPAL was 85-100%, but that was 2004. . . http://www.bpal.org/index.php?s=&showt...ost&p=50554 )

 

of course, now I'm going to wonder if the forum FAQ was always inaccurate or if there was a change in the past 5 years to weaken the formulas.

 

 

[cinderfallen]

I think the forum FAQ was copied from the website, and then the website FAQ was revised to reflect accuracy. Nothing has been changed to the formulas.

Edited November 28, 2009 by cinderfallen

[Aldercy]

Yeah, they're not diluted with alcohol or synthetics, but another kind of "neutral" natural oil is used to fill out the essential oil (and keep us all from burning in agony with 100% cinnamon or ginger or whatever), yes? Does anybody know exactly what it is? Or does the Lab even use the same kind for every blend?

[Klepz]

Yeah, they're not diluted with alcohol or synthetics, but another kind of "neutral" natural oil is used to fill out the essential oil (and keep us all from burning in agony with 100% cinnamon or ginger or whatever), yes? Does anybody know exactly what it is? Or does the Lab even use the same kind for every blend?

 

I always figured that if there was, say, a drop of cinnamon in a bottle, the cinnamon was "diluted" by the other oils, so a carrier wasn't a necessity. But I'd love to know what the lab uses, just out of pure curiosity. All I know is that when I was little, my aunt tried to cure a stomach ache I had by rubbing pure cinnamon oil on my stomach. She had been learning about oils, but apparently hadn't gotten to the chapter about diluting

 

She loves lavender and I'm hoping to enable her when she visits from France. So I hope that experience doesn't end up in this thread

 

 

[Malista]

confused, seeking clarification of above:

 

"and the Lab's scents start at 15% perfume oil and go up to 80% perfume oil. "

 

I thought BPAL was 100% essential oils and natural accords? No dilution, no thinning, no synthetic fragrance oils." ??

 

 

There's an entire topic on this in, I believe, the FAQ section here. As I recall, the site no longer claims 100% natural because there are prototypes out there from when Beth was experimenting with aldehydes. None of those have been released, but they exist, so it's safer just to leave off the 100% natural claim.

 

Ihave no failed enabling stories. I will now report my own post so the Mods can move this digression to the proper place.

[cinderfallen]

Can you not report it, and can the mods NOT move it, actually. It was a natural digression and it makes more sense to spread information instead of locking away and merging conversations into a specific place that's hard to find. It makes conversation way too stilted and is bad for the forum.

 

Back on topic: Reynardine--that sucks about your brother and his wife. =/ I'd say just buy your in-law a department store perfume and "impress" them with your "good taste" in a way that fits their worldview. THEN you can start the enabling in earnest. =)

 

[MamaMoth]

Back on topic: Reynardine--that sucks about your brother and his wife. =/ I'd say just buy your in-law a department store perfume and "impress" them with your "good taste" in a way that fits their worldview. THEN you can start the enabling in earnest. =)

Or you could procure an empty bottle of something snazzy-looking she hasn't smelled, and fill it with a BPAL/alcohol dilution. When she raves about how wonderful it smells, THEN you can spring it on her! bwaha!

 

[jayne]

So, some background: I started getting into perfumes about a year and a half ago. Some of my favorite frags are Chanel's Sycomore, Histoires des Parfum's 1826, Ormonde Jayne's Ormonde Woman, and Frederic Malle's Musc Ravageur. I enjoy oils too and have bought samples/bottles from CB I Hate Perfume, Kiehl's, Memoire Liquide, Kai, and Amouge.

 

Recently friend told me about BPAL, I looked around a bit, thought it looked fun, and ordered 6 samples of popular oils.

 

After my order, I remembered to go to the archives of a blog by perfume expert and critic Luca Turin. I just did a quick search for BPAL and came up with a really interesting conversation. Luca had never heard of the company, but his wife and colleague Tania Sanchez had. She wrote:

 

You know, if you love BPALs and not Guerlains, that's a matter of taste, and no argument will sway you. I mean, if you loved a grilled cheese sandwich with Velveeta and Wonder bread, and then Daniel Boulud came to you and said, "That is crap!" would you stop loving it? No, you would not! What kind of a spineless cheese-sandwich lover would? What matters is that you use what moves you to understand yourself and your loves and hatreds, and then as you delve further in, you identify what it is about the thing you love that you love the most, and you seek it out in other things, inbever better iterations as what's good about it becomes clear to you, and maybe eventually your tastes develop and change, but we all start somewhere.

 

But personally: the BPALs. I didn't like them one bit. A very sweet woman sent mea load of samples once, and I didn't have the heart to tell her then. I sort of hope she isn't reading now. They're like the miasma that extrudes out of a Yankee Candle shop. And they are most certainly not "natural", although I don't think they ever made the claim.

 

Yikes. I thought the wonderbread grilled cheese and Yankee Candle comparisons were brutal... until I came across a thread in this forum happily comparing BPAL oils to Yankee Candle.

 

 

Also in Luca's blog many commenters (many of whom are perfumers themselves) said things like:

 

"Black Phoenix Alchemy Labs" is in the business of blending not lovely molecules or essential oils but already produced fragrance oils into well...blends. For example a Halloween blend consisting of: damp woods, fir needle, and black patchouli with the gentlest touches of warm pumpkin, clove, nutmeg, allspice, sweet red apple and mullein. All distinct fragrance oils. Sweet red apple and warm pumpkin are a hard give that this is frag oil territory. From the look and from the price list (all 200 priced the same?) it's clear that's going on. Synthetic perfumery accords vary wildly in price (look up the lists at The GoodScents Company)...as do essential oils. There is a reason beyond hype for at least some of the priciness of haute perfumerie." -jae

 

"they're an etailer - they blend existing fragrance oils made by companies for use in lotions etc. and use those as perfume blends. it's not bad stuff by any means, and they have quite a dedicated following,but they're not using the types of products that you make to create their perfumes, nor are they using all naturals." -risa

 

 

I came to the board to look for answers and I found the thread that talks about whether or not the oils are natural. The reticence from the Lab on the subject told me that they most likely weren't.

 

So... Can anyone tell me more about the general source of the oils? I'm sure a lot of people are going to say things like "that's ridiculous! they don't know what they are talking about! they don't know bpal at all!" but do you have hard proof they are wrong?

[mistiwebster]

Wait...I'm not sure what your question is. You post all these incredibly disparaging reviews of BPAL and then you close by asking how 'natural' the oil is?

 

So is your point to bash BPAL or to find out how 'natural' the oils are? Because if it's the latter, there was a much more polite and less-offensive way to do it.

[ephemera]

I would have to ask if you have hard proof that Guerlain uses natural oils? How much alcohol does Guerlain put into their perfume? How does it react to your skin?

 

I personally vastly prefer BPAL over commercial perfumes, like Guerlain, Chanel, etc. for a variety of reasons. One is that the alcohol that most of the large perfume houses uses in their oils to spread the perfume further means the smell is offensive to my nose. I smell the chemicals and the alcohol more than I smell the perfume, and it bothers me. I also don't want to pay a ridiculous sum of money for a name brand that everyone else out there wears. BPAL oils are many and varied, and some of them smell awful to me as well, but some of them smell very lovely to me. That's enough for me to prefer their oils over a commercial house.

 

It's a matter of taste. It sounds to me like you've already made up your mind about BPAL. If that's the case, then luckily you've only ordered Imp's Ears of the scents, are not out a lot of money, and you can return to your preferred brand of 'haute' perfume.

Edited January 26, 2010 by ephemera

[starfish327]

the cynic in me would want to know if you, or they, have any documented proof that they're right.

 

the first quote is a critical statement- not all critical statements on anything are going to be positive, and the quote itself states that she's not all that familiar with the company. okay, some people may put weight behind that, but i treat those types of reviews the same way as i do yarn reviews of a similar nature. you're reviewing a product line with that many items in it and you're just going to bash the entire thing? sorry, but i'm going to take it with a grain of salt- the reviewer may be well known but she's admitting to not having a strong familiarity with what she's reviewing, and to each his own. however, i do find reviews of anything suggesting that what i like is lowbrow to be frankly insulting.

 

i also wouldn't put too much weight into what commenters are saying- so they're claiming that they're perfurmers. there's no proof. they're just stating opinions at this point. maybe i just spent way too much time on snark boards but if anything someone stating that they're x or y is enough to make me stop reading unless it's a respected source. e-comments like that are not respected sources in my mind.

 

beyond that, i'm confused with your general statement. are you interested in the source of oils? because if you are, i have to agree- based on the quotes that you posted from the critic that you appear to think highly of, you already have your answer.

[Cheri]

Jayne, I think its all about taste, and where else can you find so many different scents that are affordable enough for anyone to try? I don't think it matters if BPAL makes the oils they use. I paint and certainly don't make my own paints. I could, but why would anyone want to waste the time when they could focus on mixing what's already there?

 

And I happen to like Velveeta. I use it in some pretty good recipes, and after you've tried some BPAL you'll most likely find some that are perfect for you along with some that don't work at all.

[jayne]

Sorry, that was unclear... I want to know if BPAL blends commercial fragrance oils to make their products. Are they essential oils that Beth makes herself? Are they essential oils that she buys? Are they synthetic oils made by BPAL in chemistry labs?

[greenranger]

6 imps?

 

That isn't much of an investment to worry over. You will either like them or not.

 

For the rest, here is the quote from the lab and the link that matters to me:

 

"We believe in compassionate consumerism, and in giving as much back to the community as we can through charitable contributions, volunteer work, and by supporting fair trade and self-sustaining growers whenever possible. We participate in the Green Power for a Green LA program at work and in our homes, and have participated in fundraisers for many fine organizations, including the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, the Orangutan Foundation UK, AIDS Project Los Angeles, Covenant House, the Red Cross, and the Humane Society.

 

With the exception of our honey-based products, everything that comes from BPAL is vegan, and we abhor animal testing. All products are tested on staff, family, and friends. "

 

Aaaaand, the quotes you dug up are likely to attract some attention.

[hkhm]

if you are interested in the source of the oils, i would recommend that you contact the lab directly.

 

further, why don't you wait to actually receive your order before allowing these reviews to make you nervous?