Thursday, November 10, 2011

Real fur vs. Faux fur

Fur is one of the oldest forms of clothing. It is a garment that has been worn throughout our history – since prehistory times. The main question is, do we buy real fur or faux fur? This has been one of the biggest debates over the last few years and has stirred up a lot of controversy within the fashion industry. Both sides are completely different. It has become an issue of ethics on one side, and an environmental issue on the other. The purpose of this article is not to make you choose between one or the other. You may be a fur fanatic or faux fur fashionista. Both have their pros and cons, and this is to simply bring up the major issues and points in both, as I think that at one point or another, we may all have questioned ourselves for either ethical or environmental issues and asked which one we should wear.

While some high-end designers such as Michael Kors embrace real fur, other designer labels such as Ralph Lauren, Chanel, and Prada have shown faux fur in some of their recent collections. This has offered a guilt-free alternative for fashion-conscious individuals and has left real fur aficionados wondering if they should turn to faux-fur instead now that high-end designers are turning to faux-fur. This faux-fur trend has been increasing for the last few years. Prada’s Fall 2011 show included a mix of both real and faux fur. Chanel’s Fall 2010 show was also mainly based on faux fur. It was everywhere – coats, boots, dresses, shoes, etc. “Global warming is the issue of our times. Fashion has to address it,” said Lagerfeld to after the successful show as mentioned in Fashionologie ( According to an August 28th, 2011 article in the Los Angeles Times, the designer told The Telegraph that he went with faux fur for two reasons:

“first, Fendi does the best real furs and he doesn't want to compete, and second, technical advances are so perfect you can hardly tell fake fur from the real thing. Fake is not chic — we have got a new Chanel tweed to stop copies — but fake fur is.”

On the other side, PETA, which is one of the world’s largest animal rights organization claims, ‘Every time we buy or wear clothing without real fur, we reduce animal suffering in the world.’ We have seen many celebrities posing for PETA’s “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” campaign in which they appear nude to express their opposition of wearing fur. Some of these celebrities include Khloe Kardashian, Elisabetta Canalis, and so on. The list of PETA supporters is endless. With less celebrities wearing real fur as more high-end designers come out with faux-fur garments, and also with PETA’s different anti-fur campaigns, it appears to be that the faux fur trend is increasing and that the stigma that used to exist in fake fur is slowly decreasing.

So we see designers such as Karl Lagerfeld coming out with beautiful faux-fur garments and celebrities posing for PETA, however we may ask ourselves, is it really ethically better to buy faux-fur? Does this have any negative impact on the environment? It surprisingly does. Many synthetic furs are made from toxic petroleum chemical which damage and pollute the earth. This has been one of the biggest concerns that have been rising in the last few years. Also, these synthetics are not biodegradable or recyclable. I have heard countless people constantly say fur lasts a lifetime, faux-fur will only last you one season. In addition, some may say that faux-fur is not environmentally clean and that it does not have the same feel and look to it compared to real fur. However at the end of the day this will really depend on the how much you decide to spend on your faux-fur coat or vest.

The following are some reasons to buy real fur vs. faux fur.

Five reasons to buy real fur:

· At the end of the day, it is a better investment

· Real fur lasts a lifetime

· It is recyclable, repairable, and can also be turned into a new garment

· Fur is biodegradable and environmentally friendly

· It has a smooth and soft feel to it

Five reasons to buy faux-fur:

· Faux fur is more affordable

· Fashion designers are now turning to faux-fur

· It is an ethical alternative to real fur

· It is PETA-friendly

· Faux fur takes less energy to produce than real fur

So think again, is it more morally acceptable to wear real fur instead of buying a synthetic fur that may be damaging to the environment? Or is it more ethically acceptable to buy faux-fur over the real deal? Is faux fur really the answer to real fur and vice-versa? These are some questions to think about. It is highly evident that both real and faux furs have their pros and cons. You may ask yourself: which one is better? Which one do I buy? There is not right or wrong answer to this question. I believe it is a matter of personal liberty and choice.

I leave you with a quote by designer Dennis Basso, who works with real furs in his ready-to-wear line, but also has a faux-fur collection as well.

“It’s all about a fashion statement and creating a look, just like you would with any other fabric. You’re able to do some things with faux fur that you can’t do with real fur. Like, you would never make something in real leopard or cheetah. Women will buy something in faux not just for how realistic it seems but because of the look and design. It was originally made to imitate fur, but today it stands on its own”. – Dennis Basso (Los Angeles Times, August 29, 2011)

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Crimson Wars

Crimson Wars

Louboutin goes head to head to fight for the red!

The biggest debate in the high fashion industry that’s currently causing a buzz is whether or not a company has the right to trademark a colour, and whether or not this will lead to further lawsuits throughout the fashion industry. Christian Louboutin, whose luxury, red-soled shoes are worn by celebrities such as Victoria Beckham, Kate Moss and Sarah Jessica Parker, started legal proceedings against Yves Saint Lauren, back in April, alleging that the company was selling shoes with red soles that are identical to its own, and claiming that he was the first designer to develop the idea of having red soles on women's shoes. YSL struck back, stating that the red outsoles on shoes are a commonly used design element used by designers everywhere dating as far back as the 1600’s with shoes worn by King Louis XIV.

Unfortunately for Louboutin A Manhattan federal judge denied the shoemaker with the right to trademark the red sole. The French shoe-designer was suing over four particular shoes in the YSL 2011 collection: the Tribute, Tribtoo, Palais and Woodstock models. Which all sport bright-red outsoles.
According to the August 10th article found in The Hollywood Reporter; the judge stated, "Louboutin's claim raises the specter of fashion wars. If Louboutin owns Chinese Red for the outsole of high fashion women’s shoes, another designer can just as well stake out a claim for exclusive use of another shade of red, or indeed even Louboutin’s color, for the insole, while yet another could, like the world colonizers of eras past dividing conquered territories and markets, plant its flag on the entire heel for its Chinese Red."

Some can argue that if Louboutin gain rights to the red outsole that does that mean other designers can start to gain rights for a certain colour button? Or an inner jacket lining? Where does the line get drawn on what designers have the right to be trademarked? "Awarding one participant in the designer shoe market a monopoly on the color red would impermissibly hinder competition among other participants," the judge wrote. He said it would be as if Picasso had sued Monet, saying he painted his water lilies with a distinctive indigo that Picasso used on his images of water. The defense believed that Louboutin's ownership claim to a red sole would harm competition not only in high fashion shoes, but potentially in the markets for other fashion articles as well, putting designers of dresses, coats, bags, hats and gloves in fear of lawsuits.

Harley Irwin Lewin, a lawyer for Louboutin, said he was disappointed with the ruling and believes it was contrary to trademark law. As words found in the Augusts 11th article in The Huffington Post, "He has decided that in the fashion industry, people shouldn't own a trademark that consists of a single colour regardless of its use and regardless of the fact the trademark has achieved trademark status with the public," Lewin said. "We made a point of saying it isn't on an article of fashion. It's on the bottom of a shoe." Jyotin Hamid, a lawyer for Yves Saint Laurent, said the company was pleased with the ruling. "No designer should be able to monopolize a color in fashion," He said the company looks forward to continuing to manufacture red soled shoes, which it has been doing since the 1970s.

The judge said the trademark was unlikely to survive legal challenges because in the fashion industry colour serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to strong competition. However he did acknowledged the enormous success Louboutin has achieved since the designer began in 1992 to apply glossy red to the outsoles of his women's shoes, beginning with red nail polish he applied to the black soles of a pair of women's shoes. At prices up to $1,000 a pair, the shoes became a favorite of celebrities, causing the red outsole to become closely associated with the Louboutin name and leading even Yves Saint Laurent to acknowledge its success. Shoe designers that offer to a lower price range, know that customers want it to look like they are purchasing designer shoes without paying the large sum. By putting a red sole on a shoe, the woman can look and feel like she is wearing the exclusive Louboutin, but is that far to him that people are wearing knock offs and he’s not getting any of the profit?
However the case is still not closed, just recently Women's Wear Daily reports that jewellers, Tiffany & Co. have filed a brief supporting Louboutin's claim that a colour can, and should be trademarked. Tiffany filed a trademark to protect their signature blue packaging back in 1998 and fear that if the judge's decision from the Louboutin case is upheld, it will pave the way for their own trademark to be revoked. In an Octobers 27 issue in Market Week it states that Tania Clark who is a trade mark attorney at law firm Withers & Rogers, believes Tiffany will be hoping other designer brands lend their support because the initial ruling could leave them open to their design features being copied. She says “Tiffany clearly has a vested interest in the use of colour and views it as an important part of its own brand identity. The jeweler is obviously concerned that if Louboutin loses its legal battle with YSL, it would leave the way open for rivals to infringe its existing trade mark rights by copying its distinctive blue packaging design.”

So even though the jury is out stating the Red outsole cannot be trademarked, we clearly will not be seeing the end of it until there is a win. Now that Tiffany’s have spoken up will we be seeing other designers standup such as Luis Vuitton on its signature brown purses and luggage’s, or Channel for its classis black on white. Could this really be the start of trademark war among all designers?



The real truth about how fast fashion isn't taking over the fashion populous but its really the culture of a luxury brand that drives an avid fashionista.

As we all may or may not know, fast fashion is a term used by the fashion retailers to describe designs that have moved from runway to store in the fastest time in able to capitalize on current trends in the market. H&M, Topshop and most importantly, Zara, are the large retailers known especially for their prowess in manufacturing swiftly and cheaply all of the current fashion trends presented at the numerous fashion weeks showcased in spring and autumn of each year.

Do you think that the average consumer of fast fashion has a connection to the items purchased?

In recent times, there has been a heap of stories and press about how fast fashion is the world's biggest nightmare but that isn't why we are here today, our mission is to decipher the truth of value and the sense of a bigger connection to one's fashion items.

Take a look around your room, if you are anything like me you will have lots of items, varied price ranges and many different brands but the positioning of the said items is what is important. Is your favourite designer piece out in the open within arms or legs or foot crushing reach, I'd think not. Again, if you're anything like me, those pieces are placed about five to ten baby feet away from any impending danger, why you may ask? Its because of the connection factor.

Yes, connection factor and not price factor, although who are we kidding if we were to say price isn't important. The truth is our connection to the designer items are way deeper than price, it is the legacy behind the piece, the culture, the way one feels when they don that said piece that is the key to why we oh so dearly protect it with our lives.

Here's another question, when last have you socialized and had a conversation based on an H&M shirt? Well in a positive light at least! In total admittance, the only time that seems to happen is when someone says “oh, thats a cute shirt, I have it in about three colours and so does my friend.”, conversation is shortly ended. On the other hand, a shirt from Givenchy's past or current collection, which in the fashion world is seen as the “Rottweiler print” or the “Black Panther print” collections, could unite strangers into a conversation about their love for the designer, Riccardo Tisci, in fact, that example was purely contrived by experience. There is a sort of respect shown by each wearer who dons the piece and the sense of reward that without conversation you've already acknowledged that you have something in common. House parties are another example of the connection that designer products give to the fellow consumers, first thing noticed at the door are shoes, sometimes those noted shoes can lead you to your new bestfriend and tell you so much about a person without even seeing them but yet you know by the two pairs of “Jeffrey Campbell Litas” neatly tucked away from the other shoes, that the two girls in the corner are the ones you will be spending the rest of the night with.

In the realm of all things designer, brands are now positioning themselves as more of a lifestyle. No longer is an Alexander Wang, Rick Owens or a Rad Hourani item, just an item. Those brands in particular have a strong known following where you can tell a piece from afar and know the type of club the wearer may party at, the type of music they listen to, and even the type of place they are likely to hang at, it is sorta like a mini biography in a garment. Each designer is now known by a certain aesthetic and his followers are then known to be apart of his cult, not in the scary kool-aid drinking way but in a way that now a certain type of person is viewed in the clothing, a certain type of personality is expected and it leads to, that feeling of connection.

All in all, the industry has been struggling with the fact that fast fashion has caused many a strive throughout the world and the world of fashion, from things like knockoffs, sweatshop production to way too rapid movement of trends. Although in actuality, this has been counteracted with the determination of the industry's actual designer consumers, the ones who were always purchasing luxury items now purchase even more, since it continuously without a doubt sets them apart from the fast fashion lovers but also unites them with a family of like-minded individuals.

Faux Real

Faux Real?

With a wicked winter fast approaching, will real fur be keeping you cozy this season?

For decades, real fur has symbolized style and wealth among those who choose to don it. For others who are passionate about animal rights (think PETA), it symbolizes cruelty and thoughtless behaviours of those who wear it. Animal rights activists believe faux fur is a significant replacement to real fur and should be used for warm hats, gorgeous coats and intricate hood linings. As we prepare to bundle up for the frigid season ahead, which is the better choice, real fur or faux fur?

Real fur, commonly used for coats and trims, has a particularly soft hand and smooth texture. These trims are often made up of different lengths of fur that appear to be curly and thick towards the leather base. When real fur is placed over an open flame, it will singe and smell – similar to burning human hair. When creating a garment that includes fur, mink, coyote, seal, rabbit, ermine and select large cats are most desirable.

Real fur is often used to create several styles of fashion forward and expensive garments. In today’s industrialized fashion industry, real fur apparel is seen has a statuesque because of their uniqueness and steep price tag. The look and texture of real fur is lavish, but it has numerous benefits apart from these stylistic features. The most common advantage of fur coats is that they are able to provide substantial warmth – especially in our cold Canadian climate. Fur trims are often used around hoods of winter coats for similar reasons. Real fur is able to keep snow from melting and refreezing along the fibre lining the coat. This is exceptionally important in outdoor activities that are done in very cold-weather conditions such as skiing, hiking and mountain climbing. Contrary to popular belief, real fur does not need special care when being stored. Fur is moth resistant and therefore no particular storage is needed to prevent deterioration in the fibres.

Many of the controversial problems stirred up by animal rights activists are based off of the treatment of the animal. In many slaughterhouses around the globe, animals are raised only to be killed. However, it is common that numerous parts of the animal are used upon its death – not just one. Most likely, once an animal is slaughtered the meat, fur and often the bones will be used for food, clothing and bone char (used in some types of sugars). In situations like these, the animal is not going to waste – nevertheless there are still cruel situations where animals are being mistreated. For example, in the artic seals are often clubbed, skinned, and their bodies and meat are left to decompose because only the fur is desirable.

Faux fur has been coined as the “animal-friendly” alternative that many people choose to wear on their clothing. Faux fur involves using synthetic chemicals such as acrylic and polyester to make the fibres. Faux fur may be considered the animal-friendly substitute, however, it is not ideal for the environment. Unlike real fur, faux fur consists of several chemical blends that could take upwards of 1,000 years to break down.

The most obvious benefit of faux fur is that it reduces the number of animals that are inhumanly killed for their fur. Apart from the obvious, there are many esthetic features of faux fur as well. Faux fur is a fabric; therefore it is very easy to sew and comes in a wide assortment of colours, patterns and styles. As the fashionista looking to wear fur grows to a younger demographic, faux fur is ideal because of its low price tag and machine washable feature. It is also very fast-fashion – faux fur often comes in a wide collection of colours and trend-setting styles.

In the case of faux fur, many of the controversial problems are based on the environment. When acrylic and polyester are used to manufacture faux fur, it is at a cost to our health as humans. Acrylic can be deemed responsible for large-scale pollution of our air and waterways. On the other hand, polyester is made using oil based products. Oil, being a natural resource, should be used sparling as it is detrimental to our future. As for the workers who are producing these garments in the Far East, they work under harsh conditions where this hazardous mixture of pollutions is thought to cause cancer. Even after the faux fur garment has been made, and worn, it is still threatening to the environment. Faux fur can take years to degrade, causing the chemicals to seep into the ground, nearby fields and rivers once it has been discarded. This then continues to pose as a threat to humans and animals – both wild and domestic.

It is clear that there are both animal and environment downfalls to real and faux fur. However, whether it is fashion or function they both bring benefits to the wearer. As you hit the stores to purchase your new coat for the icy weather that awaits us, will real or faux fur be your choice?

The Pursuit of Loveliness

While shimmying and shaking your way into those three-sizes-too-small spanx, extracting the most minute hair follicles crawling back out of your otherwise perfectly shaped eyebrows, and realizing far too late that those extra 4 inches in your shoes are making it so that you may have to amputate your feet when you finally arrive home, do you ever wonder: what would it be like if all female “torture” devices were never invented?

Ever since the innovative Egyptians figured they could use materials from their surroundings to make paints and adorn their face, a vanity insanity has spread over the human race like wildfire. There is almost no place on earth where you can find a civilization which hasn’t adopted a way to decorate themselves, whether it be for religious, cultural or social reasons, it is a fact that connects us all: humans crave ways to alter their physical appearances.

Although it is a characteristic seen throughout our species, women have often been the most attracted to this sort of physical illusion, putting their self-image as well as their bodies through extraordinarily painful, harmful and even deadly methods of achieving the desired “ideal beauty” of the time. From seemingly harmless everyday products such as makeup, to mindboggling surgeries like rib removal, we count down the most bizarre, extreme, and just simply cruel beauty routines of the past and present. Reader discretion is advised.


• 4000 BC :
Used to signify status, shield eyes from sunrays and, ironically enough, protect against eye diseases, Egyptians used crushed Kohl mixed with water to achieve the “almond” shape black line across the eyelids that became signature of their look. Kohl, being a form of lead sulphide does not serve as a disinfectant, as it was the popular belief of the time, instead it causes lead poisoning which can lead to kidney problems, neurological damage, and even death.

• Today:
We’ve gotten quite a bit savvier when it comes to choosing minerals to decorate such delicate parts of our body, such as our eyes. Still, we find mascaras made from petroleum-based formulas, which can cause serious allergic reactions. Other foes include the bacteria that accumulate in mascara tubes from trapped air particles over time as well as the deterioration of sight from mascara flaking into the eye.


• 800 – 146 BC:
If plucking the odd hair from your carefully perfected eyebrows seems like punishment enough, imagine spending hours of your day dedicated to extracting every hair follicle within the first few inches of your hairline. For ancient Greece women, this was no illusion. Higher foreheads were very much en vogue during the reign of the Greeks, a tradition that went on until Renaissance years. The removal of hair did not stop there, the Greeks desired to preserve women’s youth and innocence by the removal of all body hair as well. This meant women would literally run to abolish these unwanted fibres as soon as they could feel them growing! Loss of skin elasticity causing wrinkles on the skin from excessive pulling of follicles, redness sometimes turning into rashes and even infected ingrown hairs were a small price to pay to conserve an image of youth.

The women of the 21st century are not so different from those 6 centuries past. The illusion of the ideal woman is still determined by ideals set in ancient times. Although thankfully not considered indecent or an actual sin to let nature’s stockings grow, exterminating the unruly hairs from foreheads, eyebrows, armpits, legs, genitals, upper lip and even forearms are trends that with time have become increasingly more popular. From plucking to shaving to waxing and lasers, the evolution of hair removal strides on for those who enjoy showing off a little silky smooth skin and be bikini body ready.


• 12th Century:
In the 1270’s it was the trendy who had small feet in China and strutted about with tiny delicately decorated shoes. Women who wished to marry into money bound tightly their three-inch “golden lotuses”. Foot binding was practiced in China to achieve the allure of a petite foot, forcing the bones in the feet to break and binding them tightly to the bottom of their feet until the toes reached the heel and would forever fit the dainty size three shoes of the era. This practice outlawed in 1912.

• Today:
The longer and slenderer the legs, the better! From Manolo to Louboutin, high heeled shoes are the ultimate symbol of femininity for the modern woman. These contraptions which lift the heel to unthinkable lengths, up to 7 inches from toe level, do not only give structure to the leg, toning it and giving it shape, women who do not stray from the clacker shoes are prone to experience inflamed nerves and ligaments, shortened Achilles tendon muscles, toe deformity, bunions, corns, ingrown toenails, and a posture worthy of Quasimodo since adjusting back, hips and shoulders is necessary to achieve balance in what feminists throughout the ages have come to know as mechanisms of incapacitation.

From the time humans discovered how to mutate their physical appearance; extreme practices have been born out of a desire to achieve the utopian beauty imagined at the time. Head binding, neck rings, lip disks, suffocating and organ damaging corsets, crazy crash diets, dangerous intake of sun rays, and an immense dose of plastic surgery are just a small representation of the dedication and pain people, especially women have endured in search of the ultimate ideal beauty standards we have set on ourselves through religious following of figures of power, media and social pressures to achieve the vogue of an era. Today’s woman is more diverse and rejects certain conformist ways of the past, yet we still subject ourselves to daily pain, even if “real beauty shouldn’t require so much effort and so much suffering”, as Dr. Hugo Schwyzer author of Healthy is the New Skinny states “[

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Are We Well Dressed Enough?

Are We Well Dressed Enough?

For many years there has been a world wide debate on mass production factories in developing economies such as China. Are we supporting them by helping their economy or are we taking advantage of the underpaid workers?

Have you ever wondered where your favourite shirt, blouse, pants, skirts, or even shoes were made from? And who stitched together your favourite little black dress that you usually wear out on a girls night? These are questions you usually don't think about when purchasing new clothes and accessories, but if you look on that little tag inside your garment chances are it was made from a developing country such as China, Thailand, India and many more. When you really look into 'who' is making what you wear every day you get to learn more about a global issue that has been a debate for many years. If we buy our clothes and accessories that are made in developing countries are we supporting these countries or taking advantage of the low cost of labour and production?

Producing these garments and other products in a developing economy is really different from a developed economy, this is because the cost of production and labour is lower. What I found in China was that people who had worked in these factories were getting paid less than one dollar an hour. Now imagine working full days and only making a maximum of eight dollars a day to help feed your entire family and pay for other necessities. After researching the environment one would be put in if they were to work for one of these factories, they would expect to work long hours, have low pay, and unsafe or unhealthy working conditions. Also the green house affect is starting to increase with the high demands for production and manufacture of clothing and footwear. This demands high use of water, energy, waste disposal and pollution. The New York Times found that, "Too much of the country's prosperity has been absorbed by companies' profits and too little has gone to workers." With all these concerns are we taking advantage of these underpaid workers?

Globally, the workforce in clothing and textiles production was around 26.5 million in 2000 and it continues to grow. China has the fastest growing internal market and the largest share of world trade. More than one quarter of the world's production of clothes and textiles is produced in China. On the other hand by creating jobs for the workers in China it could help economically stabilize their developing economy and in a small way help decrease poverty. When a company decides to produce their merchandise in China the sector offers an opportunity for development by creating many relatively low skilled jobs and a low wage. Without these factories many jobs would be lost leaving zero income to these families who need it the most which would start to increase the percent of poverty. So maybe by having these mass production factories in China, and having us the consumer buy these products will actually help this developing economy. I found an article on "The Everyday Economist" states that mass production factories such as the ones in China are actually one of the first positive signs of growth for those in developing countries. They are not morally wrong. A person needs to analyze the wage by the standards of a country. A low wage in America could be perceived different than in China. When the standards of living is so low the money can go a lot further. Another point to be aware of is if wages and conditions are so bad why would workers choose to work there? As more factories open up the more individuals can find work. This will then increase competition for labour which in the future will increase higher wages. If the employment rate goes up and wages go up then the developing country alone will increase in the standard of living.

Between the two debates there are many factors that you may need to consider when purchasing different clothes and accessories. Some may be against mass production factories and hard labour for little pay, but some may agree that this is not as bad as it is perceived and that in the end it is helping the developing economy in the country. And then there are the ones that don't care at all! If you are someone who does not support sweatshops or hard labour factories there are other alternatives. You can research and purchase garments that are made within Canada, or even search for those local designers to help support your city. If you are someone who believes that this is actually helping the developing country in increasing their standard of living then continue to support it by purchasing these garments because a small percent of that cost will be going to those who are in need of it. It is fascinating how so much information can be brought up to an individual's concern just by taking a look at the little tag inside your garments. By being aware and informed of how and who is making your favourite clothes and accessories can really help our society make better decisions in things that may seem so simple in life but could be a life changing ordeal in someone else's life in a different country.

Monday, November 07, 2011

Perfume in a Pill

Nowadays there seems to be a pill for everything from headaches to food supplements and soon there will even be a pill for...perfume? It is hard to believe, but Lucy McRae body architect is working on a magic pill that will release a scent as you sweat.

Combining the industries of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, fashion and technology Lucy McRae hopes to change the job of our skin, believing that the body is a base for technology. Lucy’s job as a body architect means she uses the human body as a platform on which to create art. She “builds structures on the skin that re-shape the human silhouette, suggesting a new breed; a future human archetype existing in an alternate world”. Her artwork is very bold and provocative. Her knowledge of the body and its shape comes from being classically trained as a ballerina. Lucy also works as an art director and innovation consultant. Lucy has now teamed up with synthetic biologist Sheref Mansy and together with a team they are working on “Swallowable Purfum”. It is still currently in the development stage, but when it comes out it is sure to make an impact on beauty and technology. "My main aim is to provoke and make people think in a completely different way about how make-up can be [used] in the future," said McRae.

Scientifically this is how this pill works, described from the Swallowable Parfum site. “Once absorbed, the capsule enables the skin to become a platform, an atomizer; a biologically enhanced second skin synthesized directly from the natural processes of the body. Fragrance molecules are excreted through the skins surface during perspiration, leaving tiny droplets on the skin that emanates a unique odour. The pill will consist of synthesized fragrant lipid molecules that mimic the structure of normal fat molecules naturally found in the body. The human body has enzymes that metabolise fat in a series of steps that free lipids and lipid-like molecules from their scaffolds. The Swallowable Parfum takes advantage of these natural enzymes found in our bodies to release fragrant molecules from larger structures. Subsequently, the liberated fragrant molecules are excreted through the skin’s surface during perspiration.”

Basically the concept of the pill is that once you take the pill, you skin will act as an atomizer (which means your skin will reduce your sweat/ fragrance to a fine spray). When you sweat, you will be sweating out the perfume and the chemical that gives off the scent will remain on your skin, but the sweat will evaporate off. So instead of spraying perfume on the outside of your body, you will swallow it the Swallowable Parfum pill and sweat it out; which will give the same affect of spraying it directly on your skin. The difference is that the pills will even the scent all over your body, where the bottle version sprays the perfume more localized.

Along with the announcement that a swallowable pill was being developed, there was an odd promotional video. The video is very much like a perfume advertisement with close up shots of the model and classical music playing, but mixed with science aspects. They combined shots of a model taking a pill and starting to sweat, with shots of blood droplets bubbling in water. The combination of the two was a little creepy, and doesn’t exactly create a need to use the product. The ad slogan that was said in the video was “Go beyond accessories, express uniqueness. Swallowable perfume; a new cycle of evolution.” That made the video more intriguing, expressing that this is the next best thing, which is made specifically for you, which made the video more appealing.

The press release of Swallowable Purfum begins with a provoking introduction “In a status-driven world where we are free to make our own choices, have access to infinite knowledge and information and where anything is seemingly possible, we constantly seek out new ways to communicate our uniqueness and express individuality.” For this new swallowable perfume, they are selling the idea about how this pill is unique and will be different for each person. This is because instead of creating a uniform scent, Lucy is imagines that each user's body odour would be built by the digestible perfume and create a "base note." Everyone has their own personal scent, so the pill will adapt to the individual. People are always striving to stand apart from one another and this pill is working with that thought and playing on those emotions.

Sure these perfume pills sound fascinating but who would try them and are they even safe? On ABC news scientist George Preti who specializes in taste and smell, said “ pills that claim to change body odour similar to Swallowable Parfum are often not effective due to the body's digestion process”. Unfortunately because the concept of the perfume pill is still in the development stage it is not yet known, if it actually works or even if it’s safe and George Preti’s statement doesn’t inspire confidence for the pill. If you think of what is used to make spray perfume, it makes you wonder how healthy it is to have other chemicals moving in and through your body.

As technology advances, it seems that our beauty routine will too. Society today is getting lazy with sprizting perfume, eating healthy, covering grays and applying moisturizer and SPF. Now in the making are pills to pop instead. Vitamins and food supplements have been around for a while now, but recently the release of other beauty pills has come out. L’Oreal just recently announced that they are developing a pill to prevent gray hair. Sure covering up gray hairs can be tedious, but is it taking a pill that much better?

Although taking a pill and having your own scent sounds cool, the act of sprizting on your perfume, before a night out with friends, a date or just a normal day is far more glamorous then choking down a pill. And how long will it be until pills are what we exist on?