One Million Perfumes

A Continued Examination of Osmo, AI, and the Future of Fragrance Ethics

After reading Arabelle Sicardi’s recent piece, How AI infiltrated perfume , published in The Verge, I felt compelled to revisit and expand on my earlier critique of Osmo. Sicardi offers a piercing examination of the ways artificial intelligence is reshaping perfumery—and not always for the better. Among the many issues she raises, one ambition stood out as especially emblematic of the broader pathology: Osmo wants to generate millions of perfumes a year. As founder Alex Wiltschko puts it, “There’ve only been about 100,000 fragrances ever made. I want there to be millions.” Not personalized, narratively rich, or culturally embedded scents…just millions. As if quantity were a virtue.

The audacity of that goal invites deeper scrutiny. We already live in an age of runaway overproduction, one where fashion brands churn out garments in the tens of millions annually, many of which are never sold, used, or even unpacked. The logistical and financial incentives often favor destruction over redistribution. Even so-called donations flood international markets at unsustainable rates; Ghana, for example, receives far more donated clothing than its population could ever need, resulting in textile waste that clogs beaches and ecosystems. Is perfumery, a historically intimate and expressive art, now to follow the same logic of disposability? Who, exactly, needs a million new scents?

Osmo's framing of this as progress signals a deeper ideological shift: from quality to quantity, intimacy to automation, and artistry to optimization. While Osmo touts transparency, claiming to be open about its use of artificial intelligence in fragrance development, (more than we can say for the fragrance giants like Givaudan, IFF, DSM-Firmenich, and Symrisee) its actual ethical stance gets really murky really fast as soon as you start scratching beyond the surface.

Consider the involvement of Christophe Laudamiel, Osmo’s master perfumer and the author of The Perfumery Code of Ethics. The Code outlines a set of principles regarding attribution, consent, and transparency. Laudamiel has long criticized the industry's culture of plagiarism and secrecy, calling for meaningful credit and protection for fragrance creators. According to the Code, formulas should not be copied or deconstructed without the original perfumer’s consent; creators should be named; and education should be rooted in transparency and respect.

And yet… there is a conspicuous gap between those ideals and Osmo’s operational reality. The company’s AI tools must, by necessity, be trained on hundreds, if not thousands, of existing fragrance formulas. Where did these formulas come from? Were the perfumers consulted? Did they consent to their work being mined for data? If yes, where is this stated? If not, how does this reconcile with the very Code of Ethics that Laudamiel insists should govern the industry?

One could generously assume that Osmo has secured the appropriate licensing agreements and data permissions, but in a field where transparency is already scarce, assumptions are dangerous. And when the author of a perfumery code of ethics is also the face of a company that refuses to disclose its training data, the contradiction is hard to ignore.

This isn’t just a theoretical concern. Perfumer Michael Nordstrand has made repeated requests to Osmo and to others working with AI in fragrance for clarity around the sources used to train their models. The responses he’s received, when any are offered, have been vague at best; no direct answers have been given.

This is not simply about hypocrisy; it is about power. Osmo has positioned itself as an ethical alternative in an industry defined by opacity, but it replicates many of the same structural problems it claims to disrupt. The consumer-facing rhetoric speaks of democratization and creativity; behind the scenes, it’s unclear who’s benefiting and who’s being extracted from.

Let’s take a closer look at the Perfumery Code of Ethics and the tensions it reveals:

Article 1: I Originality

“We pledge to create or promote original olfactory forms. Creations borrowed from existing olfactory forms must be acknowledged. Original creators and formula owners shall be named and rewarded. Plagiarism is not tolerated.”

Osmo has not disclosed whether its models were trained on proprietary formulas, nor whether any existing works were used, licensed or otherwise, in the development of its technology. If copyrighted or confidential formulas have been incorporated without credit or permission, this would be in direct violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of Article 1. At minimum, the lack of disclosure leaves the ethical standing of the system and its outputs deeply questionable.

Article 2: Art and Design

“We believe that olfactory forms are works of the mind and fragrances are pieces of art and design. Their composers are artists and designers.”

By leaning into scale and speed over authorship and intention, Osmo’s business model risks reducing perfumery to a computational commodity. The very notion of automating scent creation at industrial scale implicitly contradicts the vision of perfumers as artists, casting them instead as human bottlenecks to be bypassed. Even if unintentional, this approach signals a devaluation of creative labor.Article 6: Disclosure

“If we review a fragrance, active contribution or promotion from the fragrance composer or owner will be disclosed.”

The provenance of Osmo’s training data remains undisclosed. Without transparency into what materials were used and who created them, there is no way for those composers to even know their work may be implicated, much less be credited or compensated. While this article is written with reviews and criticism in mind, the principle of disclosure is central: if perfumers have contributed, even passively, to a new system built on their creative output, they have the right to know.

Article 7: Flagging

“If you see or smell something, you are welcome to bring it to our attention. We will be scrupulous about facts and oversights.”

Several perfumers have raised concerns about Osmo’s practices—publicly and privately. Requests for transparency, including direct inquiries about training data and licensing, have been met with vague or incomplete responses. The ethical framework promised by the Code is only meaningful if accountability is reciprocal. Silence, or selective engagement, undermines the intent of this article entirely.

Author’s Note: Quotes from the Perfumery Code of Ethics have been updated in this article to reflect the original language of the document as closely as possible. This revision was made to reduce creative interpretation and ensure an accurate representation of the Code’s stated principles.

If Osmo intends to be a leader in ethical AI perfumery, it must demonstrate the very transparency it claims to value. That includes disclosing its data sources, obtaining and publishing creator consent, and engaging with the creative community it draws from, especially those whose labor and artistry have historically gone unrecognized.

Until then, Osmo looks less like a disruptor and more like a tech-flavored version of the status quo, talking ethics while quietly feeding the same machines. The rhetoric of innovation shouldn’t be a smokescreen for the industrialization of artistry. And honestly, I have no desire to wade through a swamp of recycled, discarded scent.

---

Personal point of clarification: I realize that I might not have stated this explicitly, and I should. Yes, I use ChatGPT in my writing practice—for proofreading (spelling and grammar are not my strengths) and sometimes for compiling references or untangling dense phrasing. I believe it’s important to be honest about that.

Disclosing our tools strengthens creative integrity, not diminish it.

---

---

References

• Sicardi, Arabelle. “How AI Infiltrated Perfume: AI Is Rapidly Changing How Fragrance Is Created — and Who Gets Credit. Some Say It’s Innovation. Others Call It Erasure.” The Verge, June 2025. https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/691050/perfume-ai

• Nordstrand, Michael. Mythologist Studio. https://www.mythologiststudio.com

• Laudamiel, Christophe. The Perfumery Code of Ethics. Elsie & Tom, 2021. https://www.elsieandtom.co.uk/post/perfumery-code-of-ethics

• Bynes Magazine. "Christophe Laudamiel: 50% of perfumery is plagiarism or remixes. It's time to adopt a code of ethics." https://mag.bynez.com/en/reports/reinventing-perfumery-discourse/christophe-laudamiel-50-of-perfumery-is-plagiarism-or-remixes-its-time-to-adopt-a-code-of-ethics/

• Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy. Directed by Marta Breen. 2022. A documentary exploring the global implications of overproduction, consumerism, and environmental degradation in fashion and adjacent industries.