Talk:Febreze

Deleted the following
",Dale, and Andrew Dean other than dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits and rodents"

Why dale and andrew dean are considered two people that fabrese is potentially deadly around, we will never know, but i doubt they are truly appreciative of having their one weakness shown to the world. Also, the rest is just redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsburden (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a clear, useful article
This sounds contrived... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.81.211 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For the last two days my house has smelled like burnt popcorn. I'd heard mentions of Febreze, but I wasn't sure what it was or how it worked. The entry here has just given me all the basic information I need, in good order, and has sorted out the less reliable information so that I both know what it is, and know that it's accounted for.

The entry's prose is utilitarian, but it hasn't impeded meaning. It certainly doesn't sound like ad copy.

Therefore: if I qualify as a test case, this article is fine as it stands. I can't see any need to solicit further major rewrites of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.217.252 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

particles
febreeze may be a great product. i plan on using some, but before buying any i thought i would do some reading on wikipedia.

the passage "When sprayed upon various fabrics, the liquid targets foul-smelling particles in the fabric and eliminates them leaving the fabric smelling fresh and clean" seems strange for an encyclopedia. how does an (unconscious, inanimate) liquid "target" foul-smelling particles? doesn't it "target" either everything or nothing?

how does it "eliminate" them? by rendering them into some new substance by way of chemical reaction? or, is febreeze more like a disinfectant that kills odor-causing microbes?

i, for one, am not quite sure.

Chemical action
I'd like to hear a more scientific explanation of how Febreeze works. --Navstar 00:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement
Dtaviation 22:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto that
I would like to know how it works too!

This seems obviously posted by Proctor and Gamble
This copy is direct from their product line's labeling and advertisements. It needs to go!

I have now edited the entry. I included some scientific info and removed the glorifying language. Who thought this wouldn't be noticed :) Drewson99 05:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Could still use some work
For instance, "While Febreze and other products based on cyclodextrin mask odors successfully, they are not replacements for actual cleaning or fresh air." sounds a little too NPOV. Also, Febreze is becoming more of a brand name than a product. There are now 4 products bearing the Febreze branding: Febreze Fabric Refresher, Febreze Air Effects, Febreze NOTICEables, and Febreze Scentstories. Overall, this article needs to be refocused to the Febreze brand instead of the fabric refresher and brought up to standards. 209.0.48.138 10:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Source for scientific information...
There is a P&G website dedicated to explaining in a scientific way how their products work: http://www.scienceinthebox.com

For cyclodextrine, the active ingredient in Febreze, check http://www.scienceinthebox.com/en_UK/glossary/cyclodextrin_en.html

--Malbi 09:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nerdy gibberish

 * In the column 'Twinkin' out with red mage' of 8-bit theater, one of the jokes is that febreze can solve any problem. Some examples of this include: Spraying Febreze into your enemy’s eyes to escape; Using Febreze as a make-shift 'Flame thrower'; Using Febreze to mask your scent, so as to hide from someone following you. The list of potential usefulness goes on.

I removed this nonsense, which has no relation to the product or any interest to an encyclopaedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brideshead (talk • contribs)
 * Well, I agree and disagree. I think calling it nerdish gibberish is a bit harsh; a trivia/pop culture section would be a nice touch to this article. I think one entry isn't enough to justify that section, but if it could be expanded on, it might be worthwhile. On an unrelated note, please sign your entries with ~ next time. Thanks, -HumanZoom 04:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Still reads like an advertisement
The language reads somewhat 'pro-febreze' and what are those slogans doing there?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.85.237.204 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree
Slogans have been removed. No other similar product (soaps, detergents, etc.) has a "Slogans" section on Wikipedia. This was left over from the early days of the article which were laughably POV (likely posted by the manufacturer) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewson99 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Opening paragraph is US-centric
"the product has been sold in the United States since June 1998" I don't really care about that, not living in the United States. Needs some dates for other parts of the world, or some explanation as to why the United States is singled out - was this the first market in which the product was released? If so, it should say so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.155.138.250 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

How it Works?
Is it true it works by stopping the nose from smelling? Could someone invesytigate this further. Also NO SLOGANS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Citizenthom (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Avian toxicity ?
While it may be safe for cats and dogs, I was told by my local wildlife rehabilitator that it is highly toxic to birds, and should not be used in households with pet birds. Is this true? If this can be confirmed it should be added to Page. Ferd Blivid 19:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Ferdblivid

Citations and corrections
First of all, cyclodextrins are a completely natural compound produced by various cyclomaltodextrin glucanotransferases found commonly in bacteria. Saying that they are "man-made" can be misleading. Also, citations should be present indicating where one can find how cyclodextrins (which are used for a wide variety of uses including as a food additvive) are harmful to non-human animals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iggy8700 (talk • contribs).

Not sure what "completely natural compound" is intended to convey. Cyanide, petroleum, many poisons, uranium, etc., are all "completely natural compounds" - using this phrase can also be misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.141.137 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Food additive restrictions (IE one addative might be considered harmful/cancerous/etc and banned in one country and allowed in another. If we were to go by the Congo's legislation regarding additives you probably could add cyanide and asbest to most food legally. I'm just trying to point out that additive legislation varies VIDELY betwen countries and things are not necerssarily harmless just because some countries may ALLOW them in food. In fact there is stuff that is even known to be harmful allowed in food. Usually it's just things like dizzyness etc though.

So yeah I agree. I'd love some info about animals regarding this.

^^

Health Effects
Most persons with Multiple chemical sensitivity experience immediate serious distress and long-lasting adverse health effects when exposed to even small amounts of Febreze.

?Cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.15.34 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruling on pet safety
I searched for info on its safety, and found this response on ASPCA's website: Monday, September 11, 2006

Ask the APCC: The Scoop on Febreze, Please

A vet once warned me that Febreze is not safe to use in the home if you have pets. However, I know many people who do use it. What is the answer to this controversy? I have a 9-year-old cat and do not use Febreze. —Taylor B.

Good question, Taylor. Contrary to rumors circulating on the Internet alleging that Febreze causes serious illness or death in pets, our veterinary toxicology experts at the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center regard Febreze fabric freshener products to be safe for use in households with pets.

As with any product, it is important that you always follow label instructions for use. However, should your cat accidentally come into contact with Febreze when it is still wet, we would not anticipate problems beyond mild skin irritation (which can occur with any product in animals with sensitive skin) or minor stomach upset, if it is ingested. They also have this bulletin release on their site, but it is not easy to find: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(New York) January 11, 2002 -- Febreze has recently been granted the ASPCA Seal of Approval as a pet-related product that meets The Society's standards of quality, general safety and usefulness. Based on a thorough review by veterinary toxicologists at the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center, together with other outside experts, the ASPCA considers FebrezeTM safe in households with dogs and cats when used as directed. Contrary to rumors being spread over the Internet, The ASPCA knows of no substantiated evidence that the use of Febreze has caused the death of any dogs or cats.

Febreze earned the ASPCA Seal of Approval after a review in which ASPCA staff evaluated data on the product and its ingredients and determined it was safe to use as directed in households with dogs and cats. The data reviewed also suggest that Febreze is safe to use as directed in households with ferrets, rabbits and rodents. Because of their unique respiratory physiology, the ASPCA recommends that birds be removed from rooms when spraying any household cleaning product until the area is fully ventilated. Due to a lack of data about Febreze's interaction with pets other than dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits and rodents, those other animals should be removed from the room when the product is being used. The link to the above press release is --William Moates 11:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling?
Can anyone remember if Febreze used to be called Fabreze in the UK when it was first launched?? Maybe I imagined it, but the Fabreze spelling makes more sense and companies do like to change the spelling of products for no good reason (Jif anyone?), but I'm not sure if I imagined it. Trying to google any info proves impossible. Yaguchi (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's FebreZe. ...

It was originally Fabreze in Canada, because they marketed it for use on fabrics. I don't know why they changed it.

76.64.78.159 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I remember it was originally marketed in the UK as Fabreeze. I was quite annoyed when the name changed as Febreze as it made no sense. To prove that this is not a symptom of a Mandela Effect, I found a case taken from Intellectual Property Law Notes, Where the product is referred to as Fabreeze in the dispute over bottle design.

FACTS OF THE CASE: Fabreeze and Air wick bottle designs - P&G said that RB copied their bottle design (RCD) for Air Wick product Level of generality was important - all bottles with a spray must have some general features in common. Leeraven172 (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol
To me, it seems that listing the fact that alcohol is the second ingredient in the risks section is kind of trivial, un-important, and not notable. Alcohol is in a lot of things, and I don't understand its relation to Febreze's risks. Do most of you agree that it should be removed? And if it's there for a reason, the reason needs to be elaborated on and made clear. 63.3.9.1 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How do toxic scents qualify as "pleasant smells" or any kind of "cleaning habits"?
It causes headaches, dizziness, asthma attacks, etc. 64.118.110.171 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Procter & Gamble's initial marketing campaign, and changes made after lackluster sales, is discussed in detail in the reference. If you can find a site for medical reactions, feel free to include it, but it's not relevant in the marketing section. Blackguard  00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

They don't and Febreze doesn't work anyway. There are better products on the market.Longinus876 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ten years from now they'll tell you what kind of cancer it causes.207.237.89.36 (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Disappointed with the spraying function if the cans
I purchase a minimum of 8 cans of Febreeze per week. However as of lately I am very disappointed with the spraying function of your products cans. When they are approximately 3/4 empty I have to shake the can very hard to get the remainder of the product to spray out of the can. This product is too expensive to be wasting a 1/4 can 8 times a week. I don’t want to look at Lysol in place of Febreeze but I am very unhappy. 2600:387:C:6B19:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As the top of the page says, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Febreze article. We are not associated with Febreze or directly in contact with them. Your complaint might be better heard at https://www.febreze.com/en-us/contact-us, which is an official Febreze page. casualdejekyll  23:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)