The dangers of aroma technology
Posted on Jan 11, 2009 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Products, Susie Collins
Scent marketers contaminate the air we breathe with toxic chemicals without our consent.
Russell Brumfield, at left, is the author of Whiff! The Revolution in Scent Communication in Technology, a book marketed to the business world about how to manipulate consumers with scent. Brumfield, whose background is in staging corporate events for Fortune 500 companies, is a self-proclaimed, self-promoting “scent marketing expert,” urging companies to scent everything from air conditioning systems to packaging materials.
People with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and others concerned about the ubiquitous presence of toxic chemicals in every day life are alarmed at this trend in consumer manipulation, and here’s why:
Fragrance manufacturers are not required to prove what is in their products. They are not required to prove or disclose that the product contains or doesn’t contain “natural oils,” petrochemicals or solvents. Further, there is no regulation on what the word “natural” means. The substances they use are completely unregulated and the vast majority have not been tested for health and safety.
Several of the chemicals used in fragrance products have been proven to be highly toxic such as phthalates, the chemicals used to make fragrance last a long time. In fact, male reproductive development is acutely sensitive to some phthalates, which have produced dramatic changes in male sexual characteristics when exposure took place at levels far beneath those of previous toxicological concern. Further, sensitive people can have allergic and other adverse health effects from terpene, linalool and limonene regardless of the source.
Scent marketing, especially at the scale proposed by Brumfield, clearly intrudes into basic human rights issues. Scent marketers are deliberately designing and releasing substances into the air that target and affect our brains, without our express permission, without a medical license, and without proving the safety of the products with independent testing and government regulation. How is this different from someone slipping drugs into drinks without permission?
The St. Petersburg Times interviewed Brumfield last week, here’s an excerpt:
Scents are being deployed through smaller and smaller media in stores. How does it work?
Little scent machines are deployed in remote spaces or connected to the air conditioning in virtually every hotel lobby and most stores in the mall, chains like Macy’s, Hollister and Abercrombie and Fitch.
Studies show that the right scent can get shoppers to linger up to 40 percent longer. Every 1 percent increase in customer dwell time adds $1 in sales per square foot. We can do a mall store for $100 to $200 a month.
Just about every package these days is strategically scented. Samsung and Sony both have signature scents now. They even pumped orange citrus scent into Tropicana Field for the World Series, although I cannot understand if they were trying to brand the place as a ballpark or an air freshener.
What’s next for hotels?
Candles once were about light, but the sales growth of scented candles shows people now want to manage smells to manage emotions in their homes and environment. We can do that with little machines, instead of the fire hazard of candles. We are talking with hotel chains about offering in each room a choice of six to eight scents that can be piped in through the air conditioning along with custom lighting and music. It only costs the hotel about 30 cents a day per room.
Photo by Jim Damaske
Link to full interview at The St. Petersburg Times
Thanks, Linda, for your contribution to this post!
30 Responses to “The dangers of aroma technology”
Leave a Reply
Welcome to The Canary Report!
The Canary Report is a blog and social network about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
We compassionately bring you unfiltered and uncensored news and information you can trust directly from the source: people who have MCS. Dedicated to sharing, supporting, and inspiring with the Aloha Spirit, The Canary Report gives all canaries a voice. Come join us!
Aloha,
Susie Collins
Founder and Contributing Editor
Hilo, Hawaii
Let’s Connect on the Social Web
-
Why I boycott Breast Cancer Awareness Month
-
The Canary Report releases its 2010 wall calendar
-
The false promise of miracle cures for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
-
Warning: Avoid ozone generating air machines
-
The dangers of aroma technology
-
A statement from Lourdes Salvador about recent ad hominem attacks on Facebook
-
DIY: Skip the chemicals, get a buzz
-
The naked truth about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
-
Perfume blogger dismisses concerns from a member of our community
-
International Multiple Chemical Sensitivity awareness project is launched
-
Natasha Hodgson: Lovely work amy ,I love raku.I too am a clay sculp...
-
Susan E.: You're writing about logic proofs again, Susie. I ...
-
Airy: Gosh, what a wonderful story. It's tough to give u...
-
lois morris: Thanks David,I'm recommending your site to a few o...
-
Susie Collins: IH Man, I'll ignore the mean-spirited intentio...
-
-
-
Lisa: Such great news! Thank you for posting this. Ano...
-
IH man: The reason that women are more often labeled as ha...
-
Jeanne: Susie, This is such good news!! Coming off...
Meg
11. Jan, 2009
That is…… oh, can’t even think what to say. Really sad.
Ruth
11. Jan, 2009
As a person with MCS, I immediately thought of the violation of my rights to clean
air and the damage these little machines can do to my lungs, CNS, etc. but then I also thought of the huge potential for this type of technology to be used against a whole nation of unsuspecting people by terrorists who have already proven to us that they can use our own materials (ie: airplanes) against us! Think about it.
A sick America is just what they want, especially given our horrible health care
situation! It gives me a big fat nightmare!!!
linda
11. Jan, 2009
Is that cigarette smoke coming out of his mouth and beside his head?
Leslie
11. Jan, 2009
oh yeah, you best believe that is smoke all around him – and this is just as F-ed up as it can get! It is totally a violation of our rights to force people to smell things that alter their moods and can effect their health because theyse scent technologies have not been regulated by the government, or any health board. This is just really gross, desperate last ditch attempts by chem industries to come up with some “innovative” new way to use smells… and it’s completely stupid. To me, is signifies the last rung on the ladder before collapse…when you can’t get any stupider, you just can only go down from there!
Susie Collins
11. Jan, 2009
Meg, I am so with you on not being able to find the words! I almost put this story under the No Comment category, but I had to set it up with an intro. Still, I’m speechless on a personal commentary about it– it’s simply unbelievable.
Ruth, I do really believe that this marketing ploy is a violation of the basic right to clean air. In the full interview, Brumfield makes the argument that scents are everywhere and a natural part of life. Well, he might have a point if he means all the toxic fragrances and perfumes we are already forced to breathe! And also in the interview, he tries to distance himself from the perfume industry, saying that’s where all the criticism is directed, not at his proposal to pump synthetic chems through air systems in public places. Oh really?
Linda and Leslie, hey, you guys have canary eyes as well as canary lungs!
Clare
11. Jan, 2009
Did you mean to spell “Techonology” wrong in the title?
Susie Collins
11. Jan, 2009
LOL. Thanks! As my mother would say, that’s how I keep my amateur standing.
linda
11. Jan, 2009
Techo”NO”logy was right!
I think we MCSers make a few freudian slips sometimes and come up with even better words…
Susie Collins
11. Jan, 2009
Creative writing, I has it.
Irene
12. Jan, 2009
Hello Susie and gang, have been out of commission but completed much for our cause , have met with all area hospitals, Hospitals are to meet with me soon re;protocol for MCS and a talk at local universitaires booked so hoping my super over active immune system will not do me in once more ,my heart writes cheques my body can not cash ,ha Susie as you must know the busy are the doers!
Labs and other medical centers ,all labs now are sent free and most all now latex free, finally it took me 4 yrs to complete this struggle . Meeting with local ambulance and MLA ,soon re , construction of new housing for MCS in April. God willing ..tons of mail from friends from Mexico to Japan and Spain most all I knew have left BC, . they try to make changes but too soon give up diving thruogh hoops in a mine field , BC .
I can not will not give up till I drop,I just have melt down when land lords are not keeping heat on ,if I am warm I can do all things. All this work is free so it too drains my liminted budget as I charge for none of these services .I am invited to open a MCS center in my area but oh so difficult to get any one to volenteer and have the integerty I demand for the cause .must go now taking a young lady shopping and to sauna which she is now just learning about.
Have gotten some new contacts to proper medical spelishes and on the right tract . to natural paths and to proper dentists. Land lord had tree fall and distroyed his fence ah oh poor fella…, and grague .could it be because of his lack of carring to remove snow refuse to clear up garbage and mail access and driveway, so I can continue to live and to compleat my mission before my TABLE IS READY!….. mother nature took care of him too ! some new age call it karma really our wonderful mother Nature is no women to mess with! Like true Canaries!! Irene BC Canada …Love to all the doers out ther in Canary land.xo
Christiane Tourtet B.A.
12. Jan, 2009
These scents machines are everywhere! No escape from them!
Retail stores, fast food restaurants, hotels, malls, banks, offices, you name it!
Shopping bags are scented, I have written complaints, many times just about
everywhere I could! Still no changes! Now , they are using dangerous biocides
more and more just about everywhere, in public places!I t is unbearable!
This is really a violation of our rights, to be subjected without our consent to
these toxic chemicals! It makes access virtually impossible for persons
with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS)! Now, in the US , we have the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the US -Access Board (Federal Agency)
for persons disabled by MCS.The US-Access – Board has on line an extensive
guideline of Accommodations .But it is sitll so hard, to have these
recommendations from the Access-Board followed anywhere, since they are just
guidelines, not laws! It does help, though, sometimes, as I was able to
have a Bank remove permanently their plug-in! Anyway the war continues against
these scented/ and nonscented toxic chemicals!
Please visit our award-winning site, MCS HOMEPAGE at:
http://www.nettally.com/prusty/mcs.htm
Thanks!
Christiane
Harald H. Vogt
14. Jan, 2009
With all due respect and compassion for the contributors: This discussion contains is heavy on the statements and light on substantiation. Simply because those statements are made over and over again (in a belligerent way) they do not become truth.
Who says these fragrances (that you prefer to call chemicals) are toxic? Do you have proof that they are — other than that MCS sufferers react to them? And I assume they would react to any scent in any environment.
Have you ever heard of RIFM or IFRA that regulate the very same fragrances you are talking about?
Nobody considers “pumping chemicals into public spaces”. I agree with you that we all have a right to clean air (how different groups specify “clean” is difficult enough) in public spaces and that we have to have a choice if we want to enter a scented environment or not. Nobody is “forcing” anything on anybody.
Anybody is free to choose the bank, casino, retailer etc he wants to bring his/her business to. If scent in these places makes it impossible for you to do so then you are free to bring your business somewhere else. As harsh as it sounds this is a better solution than regurgitating unsubstantiated statements and causing panic, talking about “dangerous biocides in public spaces”. I challenge you, Christiane to come up with one single example that would justify such fearmongering.
Susie Collins
14. Jan, 2009
Irene and Christiane, thank you for your points about the ubiquitous presence of toxic chemicals in our lives. I’m so impressed, Christiane, that you successfully lobbied a bank to remove their plugin! Ruth has been battling with her landlord about removing the plugins in the communal hallways of her apartment bldg. Those things are full of toxic chems!
linda
14. Jan, 2009
hey Harald – welcome to the mines!
Things we’ve learned down here when sensing harmful chemicals in everyday products and materials:
Self regulated industries always care more about protecting their own interests ($) as opposed to caring about public health.
There is plenty of proof out there that fragrances are composed of chemicals these days, many of which are quite harmful,and rarely contain any natural ingredients.
If the scent marketing and fragrance industries are so sure of the safety of their products, why are the ingredients trade secrets?
The food industry is able to label their products and stay competitive. What does the fragrance industry have to hide?
Clean air is air without pollutants that harm our health.
B.O. and the odour of garbage, while unpleasant, don’t disable us for hours or weeks and can be cleaned up without the use of toxic chemicals or being covered up with the use of synthetic petrochemical fragrances and solvents.
Some of the retailers using scent-marketing are doing so to cover up other harmful VOC’s being released from their products. Adding more pollutants to the air doesn’t make it better. And the reason people may linger and shop longer is because their neuro-transmitters are failing to function as designed and they are impaired and cognitively challenged as a result of all the chemicals in the air.
Studies have shown that people’s work performance suffers in environments with fragrance chemicals. When productivity suffers because of cognitive impairments, migraine headaches, respiratory difficulties (all known adverse effects from fragrances and scents) it costs employers more money to run their businesses.
When we inhale products containing neuro-toxic chemicals, carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and respiratory irritants, our long term health tends to suffer too.
You say we are free to choose where to go – well, why don’t businesses have signs on their doors that they are using scent-marketing, or “air-fresheners”, with a list disclosing each and every ingredient in those products and materials, so that everyone actually could make an informed decision?
So many people are suffering from fragrance overload and allergic rhinitis from all the pollutants, that many have no idea they are being bombarded with yet more things that add to their malaise and misery.
To allow people to decide if it is safe to expose our bodies and breathe into our brains whatever it is you are selling – prove that your products are safe by disclosing the ingredients!
Susie Collins
14. Jan, 2009
Harald, you are founder of the Scent Marketing Institute and your comment was caught and held today by the spam filter, I’ll let my readers connect any dots there.
I know you know the answers to all the questions you posed, so basically you are behaving like a troll, which is very bad etiquette in the blogosphere. I mean, Harald, defend your industry, but don’t ask baiting questions, the answers of which you are fully aware. But for the sake of other people who are genuinely concerned about the level of toxic chems in the environment, including those now added by the scent marketing industry, I’ll give some info here.
Here’s info on the toxic chemicals in fragrances from the National Institutes of Health: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1998/106-12/focus-abs.html . The NIH challenges your assertion that the fragrance industry is properly regulated. The NIH bases their assertions on solid evidence and peer reviewed study, so my readers can decide whether or not that info is credible vs info from someone trying to sell scent marketing.
The NIH says this about chemical sensitivity:
“Several studies indicate that 15-30% of the general population report some sensitivity to chemicals, including fragrances, and 4-6% report that chemical intolerance has a major impact on quality of life. Still, a study published in the March-April 1998 issue of Archives of Environmental Health found that certain fragrance fumes produced various combinations of sensory irritation, pulmonary irritation, decreases in expiratory airflow velocity, and possible neurotoxic effects.”
No, Harald, people with multiple chemical sensitivity do not react to “any scent in any environment.” People with MCS have adverse reactions to low levels of certain toxic chemicals (and gross levels of certain toxic chems) whether or not there is an odor. Most of us have had a chemical injury of some sort, whether a one-time event (as with people at Ground Zero in NYC) or a long-term exposure, often from pesticides (as with Gulf War Veterans), that then triggers MCS. Chemically sensitive people are having adverse reactions to synthetic fragrance because the products are made with toxic chemicals, not because they have an odor per se.
I don’t know why you are saying that no one is considering pumping chemicals into public spaces when that is exactly what is happening with scent marketing. I guess you are saying that we don’t have to go anywhere that’s been “fragranced,” but then that limits our right to access to those places, doesn’t it? This is most disturbing in the case of hospitals and travel.
Any product that is being pumped into the air for the public to breathe must have all ingredients fully disclosed and fully tested for human safety first. In that regard, the fragrance industry is a dismal failure (and the government is a dismal failure also for allowing these products on the market without proper study, regulation and oversight), resulting in a lot of suffering of people with chemical sensitivity– and that includes people who can have asthma attacks triggered by synthetic fragrance, migraines, seizures, anaphylactic shock and worse. And that’s not even addressing the hidden dangers such as the reproductive harm from phthalates, the chemical that makes synthetic fragrance last a long time.
Harald H. Vogt
15. Jan, 2009
Dear Christine,
your statement on self regulated industries and the interests that you suggest I can not comment on because I know as little about it as you may do. It would be just assumptions. Not everybody means harm to others.
Fragrances have been “chemicals” (as you call them, we call them synthetics) since Chanel No 5 in the 1920’s. It is proven that – and you would not want to hear this – these synthetics are easier to control and modify (to prevent allergies, for example) than naturals. Nature is the most toxic place on earth.
Fragrance ingredients are (as you call them) “trade secrets” because by law they can not be trademarked or patented in the way you can trademark a brand, a logotype or a jingle. Anybody investing in the creative process of making a fragrance would open the door wide to copycats and plagiarism. As any of the business people in your group how they would like that.
The discussion we are having here is obviously one that somebody from outside your group can not win. However, the facts are the facts. And again, I am asking you for the sake of your audience to name “Some of the retailers using scent-marketing are doing so to cover up other harmful VOC’s being released from their products.”
The signs on the door will be coming, and we welcome them. They will protect you from harm and the retailers from unjustified accusations.
Now Susie,
I am aware that my comment were “hung up” in your editorial process – you actually posted one of your own before you decided to release mine. How’s that for “very bad etiquette in the blogosphere”. But I am glad I made you do your homework. If you looked at our web site carefully then you may have noticed that we do not advocate scent marketing “no matter what”. Also, your readers should know that we do not have a product to sell. And no, I don’t have the answers to questions I had asked either. Haven’t been called “a troll” in all of my life.
And yet, you are doing it again. “I don’t know why you are saying that no one is considering pumping chemicals into public spaces when that is exactly what is happening with scent marketing.” Name one public space in which this is happening. And by the way, a department store is not a “public space”. Same as you can decide not to enter, the owners can throw you out for no reason. That’s a privilege of ownership, like it or not.
For further reference please note that C. Russell Brumfield posted his reply to your statements on his own blog http://askthewhiffguys.com/fragrants-raves/stewardship-and-social-responsibility/. To save you more homework: He is on the Scent Marketing Institute’s Advisory Board.
Those in your group interested in a constructive dialogue that can both generate results which may protect you from harm and take the aggressive tone out of the subject I invite to contact us at info@scentmarketing.org.
Ruth
15. Jan, 2009
I went to Mr. Brumfield’s blog and what I read there about the advantages of a tiny bit of fragrance used to allure and make a point, etc., etc., etc., confirmed to me that he is just trying to defend an industry that is detrimental to human health….ah, but it makes a ton of money!….and to this person (me) with MCS, it is just so much garbage rhetoric! People like him will never understand how sick people can get from the ubiquitous chemicals they promote until they, or someone they love, develops multiple chemical sensitivity….until then, it’s all about the money, honey! Just my opinion.
Bort
15. Jan, 2009
hey harald you said ‘Nature is the most toxic place on earth’ what do you mean by that?
Irene
15. Jan, 2009
Bang or Ruth way to go dear, we need all voices loud and quiet ones, I was once one of the quiet ones but fighting for my very life as a result of chemicals every where I go inc. ambulances and hospitals inc. the OR, yes my voice is raised! and it will get louder as I suffer more with big industry greed.
All I can say is god bless the little children who will one day live inside and never feel,smell touch, the nature we have collectively destroyed. Nature is the most toxic? wow you finally got it !,Who caused this did nature turn on it’s self,NO!! greed did. listen when I grew up in woods all round me a saw mill in my back yard gardens trees and animals I never once saw what I am now as many others are forced to wear, masks, just in a hospital, protection from what nature ,mother nature was nor is it my enemy, chemicals get that life time achievement award!! don;t get me started. Irene BC Canada Susie you go girl we all need your voice.LOL to all.
Leslie
16. Jan, 2009
I am pretty disturbed by the debate going on here.
1. People being concerned about their health and discussing it is not “fear mongering”, it’s a basic right to question products that we are going to be breathing. Whether the space is legally public or private.
2. “Nature is the most toxic place on earth” is a really interesting statement. There are levels of safe and not safe things natrually ocurring in our environment but when the ecosystem is in balance and not disurbed by a shit ton of man made junk- as long as we dont eat poisonous plants or live on top a volcano smoking then things are generally in balance and healthy. If you are refering to pollen allergies or some such crap – then go back to the orginal question of WHY are people getting sick from the pollen so much now – could it possibly have anything to do with the air pollution aggrivating the balance of nature and people’s abilities to filter through their sinuses, since they have compromised immune systems?
3. I can understand that name calling is not going to help us and Harold may feel like the odd man out for arguing his point – but he really is educating us by giving his perspective. There is no better way to get into the mind and inner workings of the industry other then to hear what they actually say. I find his arguments intriguing, especailly about how it is more difficult to monitor natural substances then synthetics…
possibly this is because there has never been enough history or research of sythetic/chemical fragrances, combined with little regulation there isnt much to actually monitor. Yes they have used them since the 1920’s but that does not comfort anyone knowing that the government has never really stepped in and took a look at what these sythetics may do to human health over a long period of time. It is a known fact that many main ingredients in fragrances cause specific nuerolocial and phycial reactions… which is exaclty why there is “scent marketing” and scent technology in the first place. You wouldnt use it if you didnt think it was doing something. To me alot of this arguement sounds like marketing fluff and also the voice of a man who really in convinced what he is doing is justified.
I understand – you want money. We all want money. In fact I want lots of money to pay for my chemical injuries that has caused me a life of illness and suffering. I am pretty sure that it takes a rough experience for most humans to actually “get it” and understand what it going on. I am sorry that harold here, and all the people in this industry have chosen to remain stubborn and clueless to the real health concerns of people all over the world.
Susie Collins
17. Jan, 2009
Aloha Dear Readers, I’ve had to hold and delete a few recent comments left on the blog, so here’s a reminder about comment etiquette:
No spam.
Stay on topic, add to the discussion, and keep your comment to a reasonable length.
Watch your grammar and spelling so your comment is easy to understand.
Follow up on your comment so you can respond to comments or questions directed to you.
Give us links to your sources, but no more than one or two per comment.
Do not be a troll and do not feed the trolls. (Trolls are people who troll the blogosphere in order to snag certain topics– or to just plain make trouble– and then leave disingenuous comments.)
Do not hide your identity, especially if you are from an industry about which this blog and its readers are critical. Post your website url with your full name when you register so we know where your loyalties lie. Do not leave links to your website or your email address in the body of your comment because your comment then becomes spam (return to first point).
Mahalo.
Irene
17. Jan, 2009
Hey Leslie your aseum girl, you sure have a feisty articulate way with driving home our message ,just reading through ,if I were to read yours first I would write less you say it all loud and clear ,thanks keep it a comm-in I am exhausted and now I stopped feeling as if I were the entire army awe……… Night all! Irene.
Susie Collins
17. Jan, 2009
Goodnight, Irene.
Harald H. Vogt
27. Jan, 2009
Some recommended reading that might help better understand each other
http://www.scentmarketing.org/doc/safetyregulation.pdf
Harald
linda
27. Jan, 2009
Hi Harald,
The problem with IFRA is that they are concerned only with banned substances.
We all know that hardly anything harmful gets banned – cigarettes are still sold at every corner store in the country, even the Globe and Mail had a weekend article that was buried : “Ottawa suggests adding chemical to toxic list” where “a former chemical warfare agent … is … used to make fabric softeners … pharmaceuticals, fragrances and dyes…” !!!
So, when there is secrecy as to the ingredients, lack of adequate, independent safety testing or regulation on those ingredients and combinations of ingredients, when independent testing DOES reveal seriously harmful chemicals in fragranced products, and when we suffer serious CNS and neurological symptoms from exposure to those products, an industry generated article telling us we have nothing to worry about , so “trust us” only serves to discredit the industry even more.
If so many people weren’t keeling over from fragranced products, we and all kinds of non-profit public health organizations wouldn’t be complaining about them or advising others to stay away from them.
If you want us to take you seriously, you have to stop hiding behind marketing imagery and get serious about not using harmful ingredients.
Susie Collins
28. Jan, 2009
Harald, I believe I can speak for all chemically sensitive people when I say that we believe there should be full disclosure to the public of all ingredients in consumer goods, and further, that all ingredients, especially man made chemicals, in consumer goods be fully tested for safety BEFORE being put on the market. You may wish to review the Precautionary Principle http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htm , the Letter of Principles for Toxic Chemical Regulatory Reform http://www.thecanaryreport.org/2008/12/10/president-elect-obama-reform-chemical-policy/ , and the proposed Kid-Safe Chemical Act http://www.ewg.org/kidsafe to give you a better idea of our position.
Carolyn W. Clark
15. May, 2009
I recently went to an event in a fairly open space, and noticed a few ladies with tons of perfume on. I stood a few feet way from one person very drenched in fragrance to hear what she had to say and soon left the event. When I got home I smelled perfume on my clothes and skin and thought how could that be – I know I did not hug anyone. Then I remembered about an article I read about these little releasing chemical that the fragrance companies have started to put into perfumes and yuck fabric softener. They are sticky time released substances that cause the scent to be a cloud around the wearer and it seems cling to anyone who gets to close. This really is going to far. Sorry I do not have a link to a article on this, next time.
Susie thanks for your great work
Susie Collins
15. May, 2009
You’re welcome, Carolyn, thanks for visiting and sharing your thoughts! Be well.
some dude
16. May, 2009
If these scents are being made and used to manipulate a person’s mood, shopping habits, etc… then they should be regulated as a drug.
Susie Collins
16. May, 2009
I agree, Dude! Scent marketing is being used in Las Vegas casinos to manipulate people to stay longer at the tables and slot machines. Scent marketing is being used at malls and theaters to manipulate people to linger and or spend more money. It’s being used in hospitals to “calm” people. It’s being used in airports to mask toxic chemicals and encourage sales at kiosks and to make people more “comfortable.” All without permission and for the most part without awareness on the public’s part to the fact that they are breathing something designed to manipulate their mood and consumer habits. Yes, scent marketing should be REGULATED.