Camille Labchuk

Today I finally left beautiful California and arrived in Calgary, to visit family and friends before returning home to Toronto to start law school. While confined on the airplane, I was was forced to inhale the nasty scent of a fellow passenger’s perfume. This occasion reminded me of the banner ads appearing on some of my favourite websites, promoting the Lung Association’s campaign for pet-free cabins on airplanes. Air Canada and WestJet both currently allow companion animals to travel in cabins, but the Lung Association argues that passengers and crew with asthma or other respiratory issues are put at risk by pet allergens, which may trigger reactions.

Pets on planes is a topic I’ve only ever considered peripherally, and most often while sitting at airports and watching cats and dogs cooped up in tiny cages. I sympathize with those who have allergies and other respiratory problems, but I’m frustrated that the Lung Association is ignoring the larger issue of fragrance-drenched passengers, and what their toxic perfumes mean for the wellness of chemically-sensitive travelers. As someone who feels ill each time I get a whiff of perfume, cologne or other scented products, I think focusing only on pets ignores the broader issue. Personally, I’ve never been on a flight where a pet is present, but pretty much every time I board a plane, I have the misfortune of being seated next to someone wearing scented products. I think scented product use is a bigger issue and I bet the millions of chemically-sensitive people out there would agree. (These fragrances are highly toxic and also contribute to our chemical body burden, but there’s a whole other can of worms.)

At any rate, that’s my rant for the day. The worst part is that it turns out the scented offender on my flight today was a flight attendants. Is it too much to expect that corporations demand employees who deal with the public refrain from dousing themselves in allergy-inducing scented products? The Lung Association should tackle this issue.