CEO of scent company responds to The Canary Report

Posted on Feb 05, 2009 by Susie Collins in Blog, Products, Susie Collins

CEO says new “dry” technology makes scent delivery system safe to use in public spaces. The Canary Report says fragrance products must be proven safe through peer-reviewed study before being put on the market.

Remember the post on The Canary Report on January 17 about the scent dispenser at retail outlets that releases fragrance according to the gender of the potential customer? Well, I heard from the CEO of the company marketing the product, Clément Jeanjean, and have permission to post his response below.

While I welcome Mr. Jeanjean’s defense of his product, my position on this and all scent marketing products is that until the product — including the manufacturing process, the dispensing devices, all ingredients, and the usage itself — are fully tested with peer-reviewed studies proving the product is safe, the products do not belong on the market. Because many people suffer adverse reactions to fragrance and perfume, all chemicals and ingredients used in fragrances, especially the interaction of those chemicals when put together, must be tested for safety before exposing the public.

The claim that a product is “natural” — what Mr. Jeanjean says is “the natural evaporation of scent from a neutral support” — is meaningless because there is no international definition of “natural” for scented products that has been fully reviewed through peer-reviewed health studies and made into regulated guidelines. For example, starting with a pure “organic” plant oil and then using toxic chemicals in the manufacturing process is troubling, and in fact, a manufacturer can do just that and still label the product “natural” or “organic.”

This is first and foremost a health issue. Mr. Jeanjean is in the business of scent marketing and may not understand Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (which is not an allergy) nor allergies in general. In his response, he says, “one of the aims of the solutions we develop at Presensia is to limit the quantity of chemical dispersed in the atmosphere when a perfume is needed.” But people who are sensitive or allergic can react to very low levels, sometimes just a few molecules, of a trigger.

In addition, this is a disability access issue. It’s not just those of us with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity who are concerned about the ubiquitous presence of fragrance and scent marketing in retail outlets, hotels, airports, stadiums, movie theaters, and embedded in consumer goods, it’s also people with a wide range of allergies and sensitivities to both manmade chemicals and “natural” oils. These reactions can include asthma, anaphylactic shock, respiratory problems, and problems with brain function and the Central Nervous System.

While I commend Mr. Jeanjean for striving to produce a product free of petro-chemical solvents, his claim that his product is safe to use in a retail environment simply because it’s “dry” and just the “oil” must be backed up by peer-reviewed research, along with full disclosure of all ingredients and manufacturing processes, or else it is merely a marketing talking point.

Here is Mr. Jeanjean’s response to The Canary Report post:

Dear Susie,

I’m the CEO of Presensia, a French company that you quote in one of your posts (“Scent released at unsuspecting customers based on gender,” January 17, 2009) on your blog.

I understand your concern about a device that would spray perfume on people without their consent. However, reading your post I thought it deserved some more details about the purpose and feature of TargetScent, which is not what you describe.

TargetScent’s aim is not to spray perfumes at people passing by, we envision it as a new way of testing fragrances through a scented video display. The Scentys4 technology doesn’t spray liquid perfume on the customers : it relies on a dry scent process that does prevent direct contact between the fragrance and the clients’ skin/clothes/eyes : the fragrance can be smelled by the customer but the person is not perfumed, as what Scentys4 releases is just scented air. The “contact with the skin” is the same as when you smell food at home while baking cookies, or when you smell trees in the forest at the beginning of Spring, not more than that.

Lastly, TargetScent identifies the gender of the people who stand in front of the display for at least 5 seconds and thus are willing to experience it, not on every person passing around. So the assumption according to which it releases the scent without consent is not correct.

I hope this helps you understand the purpose of this new device and how it works. I’ll be happy to give you more information if you need.

On a more general basis, one of the aims of the solutions we develop at Presensia is to limit the quantity of chemical dispersed in the atmosphere when a perfume is needed (and in some cases, people do want to smell a perfume!). What we call ‘dry technology’ relies on the natural evaporation of scent from a neutral support. Therefore, there is no liquid particle released in the air, though there are some molecules obviously, otherwise you wouldn’t smell.

The studies we lead with an independent lab show that, with this technique, for the same intensity perceived by an average nose, we’re releasing 1,000 to 10,000 times less molecules in the air than with a common spray.

Moreover, our scent release technology does not use any alcohol or solvent, that you find in every fragrance sprayed. Therefore the molecules we’re releasing are just the oil of the fragrance, without any added chemical.

Once again I hope this helps you understand better the products we design and the way they work. We consider health hazard is a key issue in our business and, again, we humbly think that our products have the ability to limit the risks of existing solutions and old practices in some environments. That’s why I’d be very interested in exchanging with you on these issues. If you can share some information, I’ll be happy to read it. If you wish us to send you some material, I’ll be glad to. And if we can improve our products based on a collaboration with you, be sure we will consider it as a great opportunity for our company.

Best regard,

Clément JEANJEAN

www.presensia.com / www.scentys.com

Mr. Jeanjean requested that his email not be disclosed. You may leave your comments in the comment section of this post and he will be happy to respond.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: Air, Asthma, Chemicals, Children's Health, Environment, Fragrance, Health, Indoor Pollution, Law, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Perfume, Personal Care, Research, Work

15 Responses to “CEO of scent company responds to The Canary Report”

Leslie

05. Feb, 2009

I know for people with MCS any kind of scent going untested sucks- but it made me think of those gross perfume sections in the mall and how everyone would have to spray tons of liquid perfumes and the air was so thick with fragrance I would want to wretch! Until goverments step in and start really taking a look at the chems being put in products, I wonder if inventing some “dry” release machines that puts out less liquid and less amounts of fragrance into the air when being checked out by those who like scents, that possibly this could reduce the amount being put into the air?
My question is where would they be? In perfume sections of the store, or randomly placed in groceries…..in walmart!?!!? It makes a huge difference where they are placed , as to whether they over step the already grossly over stepped boundries. For instance, if they are on the perfume aisle of walmart, then it could improve the stink… but if they added where fragrances were not already there then it adds to the problem.
Also, I was not totally clear but did you have to press a button to smell it, or is it constantly releasing? A continous release would definitely become polluting and gross.

Reply to this comment
CatherineWO

05. Feb, 2009

I am impressed that this CEO gave you such a detailed response. It is encouraging to know that a person has to actually stand in front of the dispenser for it to activate, so there is a measure of consumer consent here. This is certainly better than walking into a store and being assaulted by a person with a bottle of perfume (which has happened to me).
I agree with Leslie that the location of these dispensers is key. If they are tucked away within a perfume or personal care department, they don’t have the potential to cause as much trouble as they would if they were at the end of a main aisle or at the entry to a store.
Of course, I personally would love to see perfumes of all kinds eliminated entirely from the planet, but since that isn’t going to happen, maybe this is a lesser of many evils. But much depends on the retailer.

Reply to this comment
Ruth

05. Feb, 2009

I’m sorry, but my thought is that by promoting ANY type of fragrance use in public places, it just furthers the impression in the public mind that fragrance is a useful, necessary, good thing….and we all know that that is false! I believe it is just another avenue for “them” to make money!

Reply to this comment
Meg

05. Feb, 2009

I think one important thing to mention is that it may still be “perfuming” people. He states that the person will not be scented, only the air, but I find that hard to believe. I can not be around people who have been around someone wearing perfume or scented laundry detergent. You do not have to touch them or their clothes, only stand near them for a bit, and it sticks, unbelievably, I know. I know I have a very sensitive nose! but any of my friends and family that have been without scents for a while can also testify to being “scented without consent”, though they cannot smell it at as low levels as I can, and of course don’t go into anaphylactic shock!

Reply to this comment
Bobby

05. Feb, 2009

To quote many people trying to stop smoking in public places: It’s like saying half of the pool is the NO PEEING Section! Yeah, like we don’t have to breathe the same air! CHEMICAL TRESPASS!

Reply to this comment
Susie Collins

05. Feb, 2009

Wow, great discussion on pros and cons, and no peeing sections.

I wonder where Mr. Jeanjean is. I emailed him when I wrote the post, letting him know it was up.

Reply to this comment
Clément Jeanjean

11. Feb, 2009

Dear Susie,

Here I am. Thank you for opening the dialogue with your readers on this issue.
Let me first answer shortly the questions raised here above:
- yes, as I tried to explain in my message, Targetscent was conceived for the fine fragrances business. it aims at offering a new way to test the fragrances in the fine fragrance retail environment.
- it’s the first time I hear about someone who has such a sensitive nose that you can smell people who have just been around (and not in physical contact with) people who have been perfuming themselves. It’d be interested to know what level of fragrance in ppm you are able to detect and run a test to know what someone who has been using Targetscent emits, in ppm also.
- I’m not sure I understand the comparison with the no peeing section of the pool.

To get back to your comments, Susie:
- We do not market the product, we conceive and produce the Scentys solutions. We are an engineering company, not a marketing agency.
- When I say the process is “natural”, I mean it just uses the natural evaporation of the oil, while heating or spraying (which are the other two means to have a scent diffused) transform the oil or need additional solvents.
- again, we do not add any solvent to the oils.

Indeed, I tried to find more information on MCS but only found very general data. Thus I’ll welcome a definition and medical data from you. This way, I hope we can keep exchanging on this issue, and Presensia can keep improving its products and processes.

Thank you

Reply to this comment
Susie Collins

13. Feb, 2009

Mr. Jeanjean, Thank you for your response.

The purpose of this blog is not to provide businesses with info so they can improve their products. The purpose of this website is to offer support and camaraderie to people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and to present information to help people with MCS improve their situation and keep safe from chemical exposure.

It’s interesting that you claim that you are not a marketing agency– but you are certainly trying to sell something. And your associate is now spamming me with emails about your new products and services.

My position is that any product meant to be dispensed into the air needs to be fully evaluated for safety by third party studies before it’s put on the market or used in public spaces.

The “dry” scent may in fact be less harmful than wet perfumes made with petro-chemical solvents, but no one knows that until the product is fully and properly tested for safety.

In addition, one of your products’ main purposes is to help perfumers sell their products. So you are supporting an unregulated industry that is selling known harmful chemicals to an unsuspecting public. I could not support either industry until regulations and testing procedures are in place proving safety before use.

Reply to this comment
Harald H. Vogt

15. Feb, 2009

Hi Susie,
too bad that all you have to offer to Monsieur Jeanjean is the proverbial cold shoulder. I am surprised and taken aback of your position “not to provide businesses with info…”. Could it be more convenient and attractive to your audience to bash these businesses — or do you simply not know any better? Your statement that your support is unilateral (for your own constituents only) you clearly indicate that you are not interested in an exchange with industries such as our’s. Starting out with “everybody that sells something is suspicious” is naive and unfair.
That said, let me ask you: Who do you consider the ultimate authority and/or third party that we should subject our activities and products to? And don’t tell me again “You know who those are”, because I don’t and I don’t have a problem admitting it, either.
I hope this simple question does not fall in the “support” category and I am looking forward to your response.
Harald

Reply to this comment
linda

15. Feb, 2009

Harald,

You come down on Susie as being unfair when you never bothered to answer the last questions that were asked of you!

What is that all about?

You can’t go around accusing people of being unfair when you haven’t kept up your end of things here. You want dialogue, then dialogue, instead of pointing fingers and passing the buck.

Are you willing to share all the ingredients in the products you sell? Publically or to an independent research lab?

Or even the number of ingredients used to make up each scent and the parent source of those ingredients, to the public?

Can you guarantee that each and every ingredient used has no harmful health effects?

Do you even know what kind of testing has been done on each and every ingredient? ie… Has there been only dermatological testing, or has there been testing for neurological and carcinogenic effects. What about endocrine disruption? Respiratory or CNS?

The trade secret story doesn’t wash, because there’s no way of knowing the proportions, and any change in those will completely alter the final product.

If you say “oil” like Jeanjean did, well, there’s a lot of oil on this planet. Some is fossil fuel based, some are from plants or animals. Even the natural source based ones can be quite harmful or unhealthy, if they are solvent extracted.

So until you are ready to talk turkey and seriously deal with the sometimes severely disabling symptoms people have as a result of being exposed to your products and others from the fragrance industry, it might be better to take that attitude and go find some fresh uncontaminated air to inhale while you think about what you hope to achieve by any dialogue with people you may be harming.

Reply to this comment
Harald H. Vogt

15. Feb, 2009

Linda,
First, you have not done your homework. Otherwise you would know that we do not “sell” anything. We provide information and education on the subject of scent marketing.
Second, I am looking hard but I can not find the question I have been asked and not answered.
Third, your concerns with our industry (which are new since previously it was the beauty industry that got its share of blame) historically are very hard to pin down — there’s just too many of them as you say in your last statement. If it’s not the one then it’s the other and if its not that then its the change in proportion and we start from the beginning. It’s very easy to generalize.
What it comes down to is that this is a free country where you can go (and stay away from) where/who and whatever you wish and/or what’s troublesome to you. The “public place” story doesn’t wash, there aren’t any. That’s a question to this blog, by the way, that remains unanswered.
Nobody forces you to inhale a fragrance or to apply a substance to your skin. It’s just that some people like it and others don’t, that some people enjoy it and others suffer from it.
You will not believe me but I remain compassionate about your fellow women and men – as does our industry. And as such I believe it is indeed better to take a walk in fresh air and leave you to a point of view I can not share.
I don’t know if you spoke for Susie, if not I’d like to hear from her.
Harald

Reply to this comment
Meg

15. Feb, 2009

Well, I can’t say I can add a lot to this discussion at this point! I will say that I have no way of knowing how much perfume I can smell in ppm, and even if I were able to tell that, every exposure is (not trying to be dramatic here) risking my life, so I wouldn’t be willing to test it. I still find it hard to believe I can react so violently to such small levels of these things. And to add to that, what I forgot to say before, my point is simply an interesting fact on how”sticky” these chem scents are (the smell of baking cookies does not stick nearly so well!) Obviously, I can not go anywhere, anyway, so my rights are not being affected by scents in public or private places.

Reply to this comment
linda

15. Feb, 2009

Sell, market, promote, sorry Harald, I mixed them up.

Ok, if I have this right, the scent marketing industry that you provide information and education about, in an effort to promote, is an industry that dispenses scent chemicals into environments people pass through for varying amounts of time, is that right?

And because you think my concerns with your industry are hard to pin down, because there are so many of them, do you think they should be ignored and that you should proceed with your marketing efforts full steam ahead despite the concerns?

Even the owners of private space have a responsibility to the public. There are now laws prohibiting smoking in all manner of buildings, retail environments, offices, etc. because 2nd hand smoke is harmful to human health.

Fragrances that have been independently analyzed have KNOWN TO BE harmful chemicals in them like tobacco smoke does! Whether they are in cosmetics, laundry products, candles, or dispensed for marketing or other purposes, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that they are causing a significant amount of people a great deal of harm.

A problem with those scent chemicals, is that they also do not respect air-space boundaries, just like smoke, so unless I barricade myself at home in an air-tight house, I AM forced to breathe in those molecules, despite how harmful they are to my health.

Fragrance chemicals also adhere to those who come into proximity with them, directly and indirectly, so 3rd hand fragrance chemicals are also a problem. Just like someone who has been in a smoky room will reek, so will someone who has been in a fragranced room.

Going outside for a walk can be life threatening, because someone else who has come into enough contact with those molecules, shares them in the air that blows my way.

If I am to invite someone into my home who has passed through one of those private places where scent marketing (or “air-fresheners”) were used, I could be made ill or disabled for days, so I cannot invite anyone in who has been shopping in an environment where fragrance chemicals are sold or used.

If I send someone to an electronics store that uses scent-marketing, the molecules have adhered to the wiring and insides of the appliance or whatever product I wanted, and are impossible to remove, even if the thing could be taken apart and washed, because plastic is mostly absorbent and the fragrances have been designed to stick. Cardboard and plastic wrappings offer no protection, so I do without a new tv and computer, etc etc, because the fragrance chemicals have penetrated the products and they do make me sick.

So your points that I can do what I want and still avoid breathing in fragrance petro-chemical polluted air are frankly bogus, because they cannot be avoided anymore.

If you are sincere about having any compassion, then you will stop promoting something that can cause serious health problems, and will instead use your skills to find something safe to promote.

Reply to this comment
Susie Collins

18. Feb, 2009

Harald, this is a health issue that affects everyone and a disability rights issue that affects people with respiratory illness including people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Clean air is everybody’s business, and seeing this issue as a fundamental health issue is the only way we will ever get consensus on taking the necessary action to protect everyone.

As to your question about who I consider the ultimate authority– I believe it is government’s role to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public, especially in the marektplace. This post may help clarify my position on regulatory reform of consumer goods containing or manufactured with chemicals: http://www.thecanaryreport.org/2008/12/10/president-elect-obama-reform-chemical-policy/ , and here is The Precautionary Principle: http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htm .

Reply to this comment
jo

19. Nov, 2009

What Clément Jeanjean isn’t understanding is that IF we SMELL IT = = IT HAS already entered our body nasal passages rehydrating the chemical concoction they put together to make the fragrance that we smell that trigers the toxic chemical melt down that cripples us. If it can be smelled the damage is DONE

Reply to this comment