New Hampshire Bill Prohibits Use of Scented Cleaners in State Buildings

The bipartisan bill HB 1544, introduced in New Hampshire, prohibits the use of scented products in public areas of state buildings. The bill aims to create a fragrance-free environment in public areas of state buildings by addressing potential health risks associated with scented products. Recognizing that scented products can trigger medical conditions such as asthma or allergies and citing the American Medical Association’s recommendation for fragrance-free environments, the bill mandates specific requirements for state-owned or operated buildings open to the public.

Within one year of the bill’s effective date, state agencies must use only fragrance-free cleaning products, provide fragrance-free personal hygiene products in restrooms, and prohibit the use of fragrance dispensing devices such as plug-in air fresheners, wall-mounted dispensers, and aerosol sprays.

The bill defines “open to the public” as buildings or building areas with regular public visiting hours or routine public appointments, and “fragrance dispensing devices” as any mechanism that releases scent into the air. The legislation will take effect 60 days after its passage, reflecting a commitment to creating more inclusive and accessible public spaces for individuals with scent-related health sensitivities.

Industry organizations, including ISSA, the Association for Cleaning and Facility Solutions, expressed opposition to HB 1544. While the bill is framed as a response to concerns about indoor environments, it would impose a categorical restriction on fragranced products that is overly broad, poorly defined, and not an appropriate basis for public procurement or facility management policy. In addition, the bill raises significant concerns by effectively legislating procurement decisions based on a single attribute, rather than allowing for a balanced, risk-based evaluation that considers product performance, safety, cost, and operational needs.

The bill applies a sweeping prohibition across multiple product categories, including cleaning products, restroom products, and fragrance-dispensing devices, without distinguishing between product types, use conditions, or functional differences. This one-size-fits-all approach does not reflect how products are used or managed in real-world public facility settings.

In certain applications, fragrance or odor-masking components can contribute to product performance, user acceptance, and the maintenance of sanitary and usable public spaces. A categorical exclusion does not account for these practical considerations and may lead to unintended consequences in facility operations such as malodors.