Monday, April 4, 2011

New York Health Nannies Launch a Stealth War on Perfume


New York City Health Nanny Thomas Farley, MD, MPH

We’ve pointed on many occasions to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ever-increasing intrusions on personal liberty: from banning trans fats in restaurants to banning outdoor smoking in parks and on beaches. We believe a nanny coalition of greens and progressives that meddles with your fried food and grabs the cigarette from your hand will have little compunction in taking away your right to wear perfume.This strikes some of our readers as needlessly alarmist: after all, trans fats and smoking are “unhealthy” while perfume is merely an aesthetic pleasure.

Well, less than two months before the fragrance industry’s 2011 FiFi Awards at Lincoln Center, the New York City Health Department has launched its first salvo against perfume use.

MANHATTAN -- Health Department officials are practicing what they preach with a new set of strict workplace rules. The rules, called “Life in the Cubicle Village,” prevent employees from using strong fragrances, bringing smelly food back to the office and posting office decorations that might be offensive to other colleagues, the New York Daily News reported.
This stealthy move by New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Farley is an unambiguous first step toward a city-wide workplace fragrance ban.

New York is arguably the world’s capital for scented commerce. All the major fragrance houses and many of the best known perfume brands have offices in the city. It is also home to the industry’s biggest trade association, The Fragrance Foundation.

Will they stand up to the nannies and defend our right to create and wear perfume?

Rochelle Bloom, this is your moment.

15 comments:

Carrie Meredith said...

This is rather disturbing to me. I'll admit that I'm a smoker, but have never minded smoking laws. I won't smoke anywhere near other people or animals, I just don't think it's polite. I am also a migraine sufferer, and know full well that certain strong scents can trigger one, and when I have explained that to others, everyone has always been very understanding. I guess my point is, do there really NEED to be laws for this? I mean, isn't it all just common sense? Can't we communicate with one another without being litigious? It's a matter of being considerate towards others. As far as the workplace is concerned, very few perfume lovers will go hogwild while spritzing on perfume before they run out the door in the morning.

Olfacta said...

Apparently, common sense has gone the way of civility.

Avery Gilbert said...

Carrie Meredith:

You sound like a reasonable person. The problem is that the people building the Nanny State are not. They are all about exerting control. And they are convinced of the righteousness of their views from A through Z. That's what makes this NYC Health Dept. rules memo so revealing: it isn't a narrow policy finding backed up with evidence--it is an omnibus statement of the Nanny Creed, a naked assertion of what they consider acceptable, dictated in this case to their employees by fiat not by persuasion. It's a foretaste of what they will serve up to the general public if unchecked.

I'm glad you find it disturbing. So do I.

Avery Gilbert said...

Olfacta:

Americans are famous for their common sense and civility. An unaccountable bureaucracy like the NY Dept Health cares for neither. Dr. Farley knows better than you have you ought to behave.

Guerilla Perfumer said...

I actually think these overbearing (counter US constitution/bill of rights?) nannyisim laws albeit misguided, make some sense, mainly ‘you people are too stupid to look after your selves so we need to do it for you’. If the rank and file continue to mindlessly snarf sulfurous processed grease bags at their desk, force (through cheery veneered peer pressure) diabetes inducing sodas onto workmates or coat themselves in a veil of eye watering high impact low cost aroma molecules then they shouldn’t be complaining if someone wants to do something about it. Bombastic fueled ignorance of others taste, health or wellbeing is not a case to defend. I contest that oversized perfumes are aesthetic pleasure over health concerns, doesn’t a full frontal assault of Celine Dion’s ‘Belong’ make you nauseous? Modern labor laws and the prevailing American attitude of interpersonal ‘niceness’ prohibit all but the reckless and egregious telling their cube neighbor to ‘stop stinking up my life, you make me sick’ and encourage the fickle to whine to their bosses. The reality is there are great lessons to learn here, the mainstream fragrance industry needs to wake up and smell the gratuitous imitation roses. Selling copious quantities of shoddy EDPs and encouraging consumers to drip in it (been to perfume counter at a shopping mall lately?) as mark of opulence and fashion cred is ultimately crippling themselves. No we don’t need super nerds telling us to stop wearing fragrance (cant they use their energies in tackling big tobacco or big oil?) but we do need to learn a measure of constraint.

EdC said...

Please note that these are rules for a particular set of Health Department workers who will be working in a particular location. These are not laws restricting other New Yorkers, or even New Yorkers visiting this cubicle farm, or even the farm workers when they're not at work.

I might complain if my boss instituted such rules in the cube farm where I till the digital soil. But but Libertarian and Conservative among us would both defend a private company's right to define their work environment. Perhaps a government office should not have the same rights as a private company. But if not, what are the differences?

Avery Gilbert said...

Guerilla Perfumer:

Are you saying that Big Perfume brought this on itself? I don't buy that.

I also don't believe that any amount of pleading "Why can't we all just get along?" on our part will help matters. The regulators, environmental zealots and Nannys aren't interested in getting along. They are interested in making you behave the way they think you should behave.

As if to underscore the point, a New York City Councilman today proposed a ban on McDonald's Happy Meals. The guy himself is obese. He's knows what good for you and your kids, even if he is unable or unwilling to behave that way himself.

Perfect.

Carrie Meredith said...

I'll be following this issue from now on. Thank you for posting about this, Avery. I'd heard about the Happy Meal ban, it makes just as much sense as a perfume ban. Which is, clearly, none.

Avery Gilbert said...

EdC:

We don't need to appeal to political philosophy. We need to treat these ridiculous infringments on our liberty with all the loud mockery they deserve. The NYC Health Commissioner should be asked at his next press conference whether his ban on smelly lunch covers goat cheese and Gorgonzola, and what about the curry that the Indian guy in IT is always heating in the office microwave? Watch Dr. Farley squirm as he attempts to navigate between PC multiculturalism and PC anti-fragrance nannyism.

Avery Gilbert said...

Carrie Meredith:

"I'll be following this issue from now on."

That's all I ask. Fragrance fans, natural perfumers, aromatherapists, all need to watch the politics closely and think about who their friends really are.

EdC said...

Avery,

My point is that this is not an infringement on OUR liberties, unless one of us works for the NYC Health Department in that location. And it wouldn't be an infringement on my liberties if my boss told me I couldn't wear cologne in my cubicle or in our conference rooms. So, it's not obvious that this is even an infringement on the liberties of these NYC Health Department workers. Unless you have a novel appeal to poltical philosophy, it's incorrect to call this an infringement on anyone's liberties.

Guerilla Perfumer said...

the frag industry did not bring this on themselves but not paying attention to societal drivers will/is hurting us. we should be actively encouraging ways to gather support from the wider population for the high level of self regulation it does. This will counter the grand standers who are pretending they are looking after the populace. Just like the EU cosmetic directive 7th amendment on fragrance allergens was created by people who wanted to get their name indelibly inked in EU law the NY nanny's are trying to bolster their reputation as health protectors, and pandering is the best way to do that. You are right we should tell the regulators to 'get lost' (sorry for the lame idiom but this is a family website) by handling the situations ourselves. Just as people have 'intervened' with the guy who has bad body odor we should be able to tell someone that their perfume is over applied or their salt fish and durian fruit vindaloo should be eaten elsewhere.

Avery Gilbert said...

EdC:

I'll leave the technicalities of workplace rights infringment to employment law specialists. But I don't need an attorney or philosopher to tell me when the boss is behaving like a Nanny.

Whatever happened to "Question Authority"?

Avery Gilbert said...

Guerilla Perfumer:

In a non-Nanny state, adults would be left to sort these things out buy themselves.

The Nannys believe that complex societies only work by having order imposed from top down by technocrats like themselves. Some political philosophers (HEY, EdC!) think this is false--that "spontaneous order" arises when all us regular folks figure out the best way to go. Here's a thought provoking video that talks about it.

ajlounyinjurylaw said...

How bored can this guy be to pick on such a frivolous item. I think it's should be at the discretion of the company you work for. I agree, maybe health care workers should not be extremely fragrant.