Recipient

S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

First report 18 Sep 2017•Latest report 18 Sep 2017

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 3
Stated actions: 6

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found

6stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

18 Sep2017
Cumbria
Concerns raised3
1. Failure of naked-flame danger warnings to be sufficiently large and prominent
2. Lack of manufacturer awareness and understanding of the extent of naked-flame risks
3. Absence of naked-flame danger warnings on the body of the automatic air freshener
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Assess the product labelling against applicable regulatory requirements, guidelines and industry standards.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Test the refill canister for flammability, rupture, corrosion, weight loss, gasket swelling and other mechanical-safety hazards.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Test and use a metered valve that limits each refill actuation to 90 microlitres to reduce inadvertent leakage and flame extent.
  Stated completed
1. Action
  Apply high-contrast safety warnings, hazard pictograms and labelling to the refill canister and product packaging.
  Stated completed
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Existing packaging and refill labelling is considered sufficient; labelling the dispenser is not required and could mislead consumers.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
1. Position
  Existing testing, regulatory compliance and safe-use history are considered sufficient to address risks from the air freshener near naked flames.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Kathleen Erica Holme · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Kathleen Erica Holme died after a fire at her home in the early hours of 26 March 2017, having been rescued from the property. The fire involved candles and a Glade automatic air freshener, and she died from burns and smoke inhalation. Concerns were raised about the extent and prominence of warnings about using the air freshener near naked flames, including the lack of warnings on the device itself.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of naked-flame danger warnings to be sufficiently large and prominent
Wider context from the report
“(2) Whilst there are both warning signs and wording on the box containing a new spray and on the aerosol to be fitted to it, I am concerned that the words warning of the dangers of use near a naked flame is not sufficiently large and prominent to draw the dangers to a users attention. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of manufacturer awareness and understanding of the extent of naked-flame risks
Wider context from the report
“(1) Whether the manufacturer is aware and understands the extent of the risks of the use of a Glade Automatic Air Freshener Spray near to naked flames, and specifically the distance which the flame can extend. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Absence of naked-flame danger warnings on the body of the automatic air freshener
Wider context from the report
“(3) There were no warning signs on the body of the automatic air freshener. Once the box containing the new air freshener was discarded a user would have only the information printed on the aerosol as a warning. ”
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Assess the product labelling against applicable regulatory requirements, guidelines and industry standards.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The labelling on the Glade® Automatic Air Freshener has been assessed against the regulatory requirements and guidelines and industry standards to address Concerns 2 and 3 in the Report:”

Source location
2017-0212-Response-by-SC-Johnson
Page 5 · response
Published 25 September 2017
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Test the refill canister for flammability, rupture, corrosion, weight loss, gasket swelling and other mechanical-safety hazards.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Similarly, the air freshener refill canister has been thoroughly tested to a comprehensive test plan that includes tests for flammability (ASTM D 3065⁶ - Flame Projection and Closed Drum tests, UN 31.4 & 31.5⁷ - Ignition Distance & Enclosed Space Ignition tests, and ASTM D93-08⁸ – Flash Point Measurement), canister rupture (FEA 621 E⁹ – can pressure test), general product safety (ASTM F963 – consumer safety¹⁰), as well as corrosion and weight loss (ASTM G1 and G46)¹¹, and gasket swell (ISO 500-011 – solvent immersion)¹² testing. The tests evaluate the air freshener refill canister for the risk of fire, canister rupture, and mechanical hazards such as laceration.”

Source location
2017-0212-Response-by-SC-Johnson
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2017
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Test and use a metered valve that limits each refill actuation to 90 microlitres to reduce inadvertent leakage and flame extent.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The air freshener refill canister has a metered-valve that was tested for flame projection (ASTM D 3065¹⁴ - Flame Projection) to minimize the risk to consumers of inadvertent leakage of the canister contents. The metered-valve design dispenses just 90μl (equivalent to less than 2 drops) of the refill contents every 9, 18 or 36 minutes.”

Source location
2017-0212-Response-by-SC-Johnson
Page 3 · response
Published 25 September 2017
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Apply high-contrast safety warnings, hazard pictograms and labelling to the refill canister and product packaging.

Verbatim wording from the response
“To educate and warn consumers about the dangers of using the air freshener refill canister near to naked flames, we mark the refill with safety warnings and labelling.”

Source location
2017-0212-Response-by-SC-Johnson
Page 3 · response
Published 25 September 2017
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Existing packaging and refill labelling is considered sufficient; labelling the dispenser is not required and could mislead consumers.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The labelling on the Glade® Automatic Air Freshener has been assessed against the regulatory requirements and guidelines and industry standards to address Concerns 2 and 3 in the Report:”

Source location
2017-0212-Response-by-SC-Johnson
Page 5 · response
Published 25 September 2017
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Existing testing, regulatory compliance and safe-use history are considered sufficient to address risks from the air freshener near naked flames.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The air freshener device has been thoroughly tested to a comprehensive test plan, based on tests taken from standards UL 283², IEC 60335-1³ and IEC 60335-2-10¹⁴ that included tests for drop, over-temperature conditions, motor locked rotor, and electromagnetic compatibility & radio-frequency emission testing (EN 55014-1 and EN 55014-2)⁵, chemical compatibility, and other tests to verify that the device meets all of the electrical device physical safety requirements. All the tests performed on the device had acceptable results. The purpose of the test plan was to minimize the fire, thermal burn, and mechanical hazards (such as laceration) of the newly developed Glade® air freshener device.”

Source location
2017-0212-Response-by-SC-Johnson
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2017
Open published response

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised3

Failure of naked-flame danger warnings to be sufficiently large and prominent

Lack of manufacturer awareness and understanding of the extent of naked-flame risks

Absence of naked-flame danger warnings on the body of the automatic air freshener

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

Actions described in response 4

Respondent positions 2