N. Raghuraman's column: Debate on 'secondhand smoke' is emerging from train coaches to hotel lobbies

If you take a deep breath after cleaning the compartment of the housekeeping staff during the train journey, you may not get fragrances like sandalwood, leather, fennel, cardamom, violet or cider like high-end hotels. Instead, there may be a mild fragrance like floral, citrus or fresh aqua. Many of us must have experienced this. The Indian Railways' on-board housekeeping service (OBHS) policy guidelines mandate a cleaning process for AC coaches and executive class. It has a strict sequence for passenger comfort. This cleaning routine includes garbage cleaning, dry and wet wipes and deep-cleaning of toilets. When the physical cleaning is complete, the housekeeping staff has to spray air fresheners in AC coaches. This manual process is done sequentially, although Automated Fragrance Dispensers (AFDs) are now being installed in some modern coaches. This is called the Odor Control Protocol. Its guidelines recommend first spraying mosquito repellent or sanitizing in the vestibule and toilet parts and then spraying pleasant room deodorant on the passenger seat or berth parts, so that the air quality remains better. For many years, the Railways has considered fragrance as an important part of the passenger experience. Cleanliness means not only what the passengers see, but also what they smell. As soon as the passenger boards the train, the light, fresh floral or aquatic aroma gives a sensory impression of high-hygiene and clinical care. But what if these fragrances start making some people sick? Would such people be considered victims of discrimination? A California-based firm says this and has filed several lawsuits against high-end hotels that have done so this year. This controversy highlights the emerging debate about synthetic scents. Many people are now calling this aroma 'secondhand smoke'! Juliana RV Tkach, an assistant professor at the William F. Harrah College of Hospitality in Las Vegas, says that 'smells may be good or bad, but they can trigger a lot of things.' Tkach specializes in experience design, events and theme parks. She says that using scents as a marketing tool is not new. But the difference now is that with the help of advanced technology, synthetic fragrances are being spread on a large scale in a way that is clever and sustainable. Recall the AfD mentioned above. This is where the controversy started in May this year, when the US law firm 'Cole & Van Note' filed several class-action lawsuits on behalf of hotel customers with fragrance sensitivity. In these cases, it has been claimed that the hotels are violating the 'Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)'. In court documents, the firm has said that 26.8% of adults suffer from problems like asthma and 27.5% suffer from chemical sensitivity. When a service provider spreads synthetic fragrances through scent dispensing machines or AFDs, it is probably spreading toxic chemicals. This can lead to shortness of breath, headaches, skin irritations, and even gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive problems in sensitive guests or passengers. The firm's campaign has gone ahead and some of the previously dropped cases are being re-filed in the California state courts. On the other hand, the hotel association's website says that "tricky lawyers have used the ADA as a weapon. They first allege blatant violation of the law and then want to extort money in the name of easy settlement." The growing global confrontation over ambient scenting raises a debate that true hospitality cannot be based on such shared sensory discomfort. The definition of cleanliness in shared public infrastructure should be to authentically remove dirt and odours through deep sanitization and mechanical ventilation, not to force synthetic perfumes. The real progress is in designing a shared environment in which everyone can breathe easily and ensuring that the air we share is safe, inclusive and accessible to all.