A Hairy Problem

‘Tis the season for ads that tell us all the ways we don’t measure up and promise to fix it for us. Among all the “keep up with the Joneses” commercials are a good number of “you don’t look good enough for holiday gatherings” offerings. You must whiten your teeth! You must get rid of your wrinkles! You simply must do something about your hair!

I’ve been thinking about hair in particular ever since I watched the CMA awards this year and saw Mickey Guyton’s show-stopping performance of “Love my Hair.” Guyton, who’s black, wrote the song in response to an incident in which a young black girl was sent home from school because her hair didn’t meet the school’s dress code requirements.

Most of us haven’t faced anything quite that in-your-face when it comes to not meeting appearance standards, but it doesn’t mean we don’t get the message. Every culture has a standard of beauty, and the farther we think we are from it, the more time, energy, and money we’re likely to spend on trying to hit the mark. Unfortunately, that’s not all it can cost us. Beauty products are mostly unregulated and untested and can also cost us our health.

Sickening Beauty

We don’t know all we need to know about the health effects of commonly used products. We don’t even know everything that’s in them. As a Guardian article notes, the single word “fragrance” can mean a combination of 50 to 300 different chemicals. The same article also quotes an expert who says, “No state, federal or global authority is regulating the safety of fragrance chemicals. No state, federal or global authority even knows which fragrance chemicals appear in which products.”

What we do know about personal care products is alarming. The documentary Toxic Beauty (which is well worth watching) notes that many products we use every day contain chemicals which are endocrine disrupters, meaning they mess with our hormones. We have over 50, including insulin, serotonin, melatonin, cortisol, thyroid, and reproductive hormones, and disrupting them can have wide-ranging effects. The film reports surprising product ingredients, such as coal tar in soaps, creams, and lipstick; arsenic in toothpaste; mercury in skin lighteners; and formaldehyde in deodorant and shampoo. The long list of potential health effects of the nine products they list includes cancer, heart disease, infertility, miscarriage, tremors, cognitive dysfunction, lung disorders, kidney damage, insomnia, and depression.

The Gender and Color Gap

There are products almost all of us use (soap, shampoo, deodorant, and toothpaste), products more women use (makeup and nail products), and products used more by women of color (skin lighteners and hair straighteners). A Popular Science article reports that the average white woman in America is exposed to 168 personal care chemicals every day and that for women of color, the number is even higher. Not surprisingly, women, and black women in particular, have a higher body burden of the chemicals generally found in cosmetics.

Most of us aren’t going to give up soap and shampoo, but we could give up other products if we decided not to try to conform to arbitrary standards. It’s a great goal, but there are reasons we don’t. There’s plenty of research showing that physical appearance affects career success and all sorts of other things. Personally, I wear less makeup and use far fewer products than I once did, but I do still make a bit of an effort to look culturally acceptable. I feel the pressure as an aging white woman. I can only imagine the pressure for women of color.

Actually, I don’t have to just imagine. I certainly have no idea what it’s like to be black or brown in the USA with all the history and cultural baggage that entails, but I did live in Central and South America for a decade, so I know what it’s like to have skin and hair that don’t fit. I know what it’s like to be told by my friends about places I shouldn’t go because the color of my skin made it too dangerous. I know what it’s like to be pulled over while driving because of how I look.

On one hard-to-explain occasion I realized how much I had internalized the message that a normal skin tone was one that was different than mine. I drove past a brown skinned woman holding a white skinned baby and thought “That baby looks odd. He’s so white.”  It took a few beats for me to remember that I was pregnant and that my own baby was going to look like that. It took a few more beats to recall that I myself had that same strange skin.

And then there’s hair. There’s only so much we can do to change the color of our skin, but there’s a lot we can do to our hair. When I was younger and sillier, the combination of not loving my hair and not focusing on chemical dangers prompted me to get a perm. Because I lived in a country where my hair was different from the norm and the hairdresser was unfamiliar with hair like mine, the results were fairly disastrous. It led to the following conversation with my 3-year-old son.

Son: Why did you get your hair big?

Me: I thought it would be pretty. Do you think it’s pretty?

Son: No.

My point is simply this: As much as I believe the goal (for all of us, white, black, and brown) should be to get to a point where we celebrate ourselves and each other for the uniquenesses of our individual bodies, I know there are also valid reasons we try to fit in. I also understand the added pressure of being farther from the norm. So if we aren’t going to give up all the things we think will improve our appearance, we need to make sure that what we’re using isn’t going to make us sick.

Choosing Healthier Products

Fortunately, not all personal care products are created equal. The Skin Deep database is a good place to look for information on healthier options. Unfortunately, there’s disparity in product offerings as well. In 2016 the Environmental Working Group evaluated more than a thousand products marketed to black women and concluded that there were fewer healthier choices in that category.

The good news is that often we can achieve our goals without having to purchase manufactured products at all. Simple, natural ingredients can work surprisingly well in many instances. It does take time and experimentation, though, to find what works best for you. As people around me may have noticed, my experimentation with DIY mascara isn’t going particularly well (but I haven’t given up!) At least I haven’t had the experience one chemically sensitive woman shared. She used something a bit sticky on her eyelashes, then went to church and shut her eyes to pray. When she tried to open them again, she found they were stuck together.

Whatever the current state of your eyelashes, I hope you feel beautiful today (or handsome, for the guys reading this). I hope you never have to choose between trying to meet beauty standards and your health, but if you do, I hope you choose to protect your health. I hope you’ll remember that you’re made in God’s image and are his absolute masterpiece. I also truly hope you love your hair.

Chemicals and COVID-19, Part Two

A few months ago I wrote a post summarizing some of what was then known about the chemical connection to COVID-19. I talked about the link between the disease (cases, hospitalizations, and deaths) and fine particulate matter in the air. I also mentioned chemical connections to some of the risk factors like asthma and heart disease. Some new, potentially important information has come to light since then, so it’s time for an update.

Forever Chemicals

The most significant new information concerns compounds that have come to be known as “forever chemicals” because they’re so persistent. These chemicals are in a class once known as PFCs (perfluorinated chemicals) and now generally called PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). PFAS are currently in the spotlight, due at least in part, I believe, to the excellent movie Dark Waters, which brought them into the public consciousness. 

PFAS have already been linked to a wide range of negative health effects, but it appears we can add something new to the list. They may make COVID-19 worse.  A very recent study, still undergoing peer review, found that people infected with coronavirus who had elevated levels of one particular PFAS chemical had more than twice the risk of experiencing severe illness. What’s especially disturbing is that the particular substance, PFBA (aren’t these acronyms fun?), has been promoted as being safer than others in the class because it leaves the bloodstream more rapidly. Unfortunately, it accumulates in the lungs, which may explain the finding.

The Harvard researcher who found the connection also worries about something else. Previous research has found that people exposed to PFAS had reduced antibody concentrations after receiving tetanus and diphtheria vaccinations. In other words, the chemicals apparently reduced vaccine effectiveness. Will the chemicals also interfere with a COVID vaccine? As he notes, “At this stage we don’t know if it will impact a corona vaccination, but it’s a risk. We would have to cross our fingers and hope for the best.”

Unfortunately, PFAS are even harder to avoid than we previously thought. They’re handy for making things non-stick and waterproof, so an obvious place to start lowering your load is by avoiding products with those sorts of coatings. Seven years ago, when they were still called PFCs, I wrote a post noting that “it seems ironic that PFCs are generally used for their anti-stick properties given the fact that they’re very ‘sticky’ and persistent in the environment and in our bodies.”

Avoiding obviously non-stick products isn’t enough, though. A group of researchers recently attempted to determine just how widespread the use of PFAS has become, and said this: “What we found is deeply disturbing. PFAS are used in almost all industry branches and in a much wider range of consumer products than we expected. Altogether, we found PFAS in more than 200 use categories.” They note that some uses were already known, such as in fast-food containers, carpets, waterproof fabrics, ski waxes, batteries, muffin tins, popcorn bags, dental floss, and fire-fighting foams, but that many weren’t. They found the chemicals in hand sanitizers, mobile phones, a wide variety of cosmetic products, artificial turf, guitar strings, piano keys, pesticides, printer ink, and many more surprising places. PFAS frequently show up in the water supply, and have also been found in food as diverse as meat, leafy greens, and chocolate cake with icing.

Gas Appliances

As I noted in my previous post, the state of the air we breathe (particularly the amount of particulate matter in it) has been linked to the number and severity of COVID cases. Now it appears that long-term exposure to high NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide) is more dangerous than exposure to particulate matter or ozone and correlates with a higher risk of death from the disease. An article reporting on the finding notes that NO2 is a primary pollutant produced by natural gas-burning stoves and furnaces.

Cleaners and Disinfectants

Last month I wrote an entire post on disinfectants, so I won’t repeat it all here, but I’ll point out that we now know much more clearly than we did at the beginning of the pandemic how the virus spreads, and that knowledge changes the risk/benefit equation of using disinfectant chemicals.  A New York Times article published after I wrote my post was aptly headlined:  “The Coronavirus Is Airborne Indoors. Why Are We Still Scrubbing Surfaces?” It points out that “disinfecting sprays are often made from toxic chemicals that can significantly affect indoor air quality and human health.”

A recent piece in the Washington Post makes the same point and notes that there’s not a single documented case of COVID-19 being transmitted through a contaminated surface. The authors (three professors) give the analogy of cleaning countertops and doorknobs to try to protect yourself from the effects of cigarette smoke in the air. They add that “the use of all of these extra cleaning products releases chemicals into the air that can be harmful to our health.”

Long-haulers

A growing number of “long-haulers” who have persistent symptoms after being infected with the virus are reporting increased sensitivity to everyday chemicals. Many of us with MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) find familiarity in the story.  All people alive carry a load of manmade and biological toxins inside, and when the load gets too high, sometimes the body turns on a warning system to keep us from being injured further. 

An article headlined “Why Are COVID-19 Long-Haulers Developing Fragrance Allergies?” points out that the main way to cope is to avoid triggers, but acknowledges that it’s difficult to do. Indeed it is. Let’s help ourselves and each other by being very intentional about the products we buy and use.

 

 

14 Essential Things to Know About Disinfectants

It’s safe to say that none of us wants to have a serious battle with COVID-19, and to avoid it, we’re reaching for disinfectants in unprecedented amounts. If we’re not careful, though, we can cause ourselves and others health problems that are as potentially problematic as what we’re trying to avoid. Here are some things to know about disinfectants.

1.  Cleaning and disinfecting work in different ways. Cleaning removes germs by washing them down the drain. Disinfecting kills them.

2.  A sanitizer is similar to a disinfectant. The terms “sanitizing” and “sanitizer” are defined differently depending on who’s doing the defining. Sometimes sanitizing is used to mean the process of lowering the number of germs by either cleaning or disinfecting. Others use the term “sanitizer” to mean a disinfecting product designed for use on a person rather than a hard surface, and some say that sanitizers are for bacteria, while disinfectants also target viruses. Yet another definition is that sanitizers kill organisms, but that disinfectants kill both organisms and their spores.

spray-24302_1280.png

3.  Disinfectants are pesticides. A pesticide is a product designed to kill a living organism. A Texas A&M publication notes, “Pesticides that fight microbes are generally called antimicrobials. . . . About 275 active ingredients are found in antimicrobials, most of which are pesticides and must have an EPA-approved label.”

4.  An EPA registration means the product should kill what it says it will. It doesn’t mean it’s been proven safe. This is from a publication entitled Green Cleaning, Sanitizing, and Disinfecting found on the EPA’s own website: “Many people mistakenly think that if a cleaning, sanitizing, or disinfecting product is sold to the public it has been reviewed and proven safe by government agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that products labeled as sanitizers or disinfectants do kill the germs that the product claims to kill, but the registration review does not evaluate all possible health risks for users of the products. Cleaning products are also not routinely reviewed by the government to identify health risks to the user. Some manufacturers choose to have the EPA evaluate their cleaning products for human health and environmental safety through the Design for the Environment (DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program, but this is voluntary and most products are not reviewed.”

5.  Despite the fact that they aren’t rigorously tested, health effects associated with common disinfectants are becoming more widely known. Chemical and Engineering News published an article entitled “Do We Know Enough About the Safety of Quat Disinfectants?” Quats (quaternary ammonium compounds) are widely used in disinfectant products, but they’ve been linked to a number of potentially significant health issues which have been discovered “independently and also by chance.” These include the possibility of birth defects, fertility issues, and disruption of cellular processes.  

Other disinfectant chemicals have their own problems. A publication entitled Safer Products and Practices for Disinfecting and Sanitizing Surfaces says this: “Although all of these ‘antimicrobial’ products have risks, there are a few types that pose greater, long-term risks to custodial workers and building occupants because they contain active ingredients that have been found to cause asthma (e.g., chlorine bleach/sodium hypochlorite, peroxyacetic acid, and quaternary ammonium compounds), cancer (e.g., ortho-phenylphenol), skin sensitization (e.g., chlorine bleach, pine oil, and thymol) or other health hazards. Several also pose environmental risks as well, such as silver and quaternary ammonium chloride compounds.”

6.  It’s not just the people who use them who are affected. The Green Cleaning publication speaks to the issue of workplace asthma tied to cleaning and disinfecting products. The authors note that 80% of those affected were bystanders who weren’t working directly with the chemicals, but were simply near enough to be exposed to them.

7.  Disinfectants can cause health problems both through inhalation and skin exposure. Disinfectant chemicals, especially quats, tend to accumulate on surfaces. They can then be absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream. In an article on chemical exposures in the workplace, the CDC notes that absorption of chemicals through the skin may be the most significant route of exposure in some cases, and that cleaners are among the workers at risk.

For children in particular, the route may be more direct because chemicals end up on hands, and hands end up in mouths. In an “Ask the Professor” column, the authors state that this can lead to intake that’s more than 2,000 times higher than normal. For some disinfectant chemicals, a 3-year-old takes in 55 times more than an adult does.

8.  Disinfectants can’t get to germs on a surface to kill them unless the surface has been cleaned. This has been described as trying to vacuum the floor without picking up the toys and clothes there first.

cleaning-service-3924238_1920.jpg

9.  If a surface has been well cleaned, it may not need to be disinfected. An environmental expert noted that more than 90% of microorganisms on a surface can be removed with soap, water, and a microfiber cloth, which is potentially more effective than using disinfectants on a surface that hasn’t been cleaned. He said, "You always want to be balancing risks and benefits, and you want to be using the safest products possible in the safest way possible. You could use a grenade to kill a fly, but a fly swatter will work just as well and cause far less damage." A guide to safer disinfectants notes that the FDA banned 19 antimicrobial ingredients from soap in 2016, because plain soap and water without the disinfectant chemicals were found to be just as effective.

10.  Disinfectants may not be as important in the fight against sickness as we seem to think they are. A publication on talking to your child’s school about using safer products mentions a study which measured bacteria on children’s hands and on classroom surfaces. The researchers found that the amount of bacteria on hands was associated with how often kids got sick with colds or flu, but that the amount of bacteria on surfaces wasn’t a factor. The same publication notes, “There is no evidence that shows using disinfecting wipes, sprays, or antibacterial soaps are any more effective at preventing illness in the classroom than washing with regular soap and water.” Regarding COVID-19 in particular, the Centers for Disease Control says that “it may be possible” to be infected through touching a surface, but that it isn’t thought to be a primary route of transmission. 

11.  The focus on surface disinfection may distract us from what actually works. An article in The Atlantic calls the widespread use of disinfectants “hygiene theater” and provides this observation: “Establishments are boasting about their cleaning practices while inviting strangers into unventilated indoor spaces to share one another’s microbial exhalations. This logic is warped. It completely misrepresents the nature of an airborne threat. It’s as if an oceanside town stalked by a frenzy of ravenous sharks urged people to return to the beach by saying, We care about your health and safety, so we’ve reinforced the boardwalk with concrete. Lovely. Now people can sturdily walk into the ocean and be separated from their limbs.” 

12.  Disinfectants are often used improperly. Like other pesticides, there are safety laws that govern how they’re used. The Texas A & M article points out that instructions on disinfectant labels aren’t just suggestions. They say, “Using even a little more disinfectant than the label allows in a cleaning solution, or failing to wear the proper safety gear specified on the label, to give two examples, is a violation of state and federal pesticide laws.”

Many establishments are using sprayers, misters, or foggers to apply disinfectant products, which often doesn’t meet label requirements. The World Health Organization warns that spraying or fogging disinfectants “will not be effective and may pose harm to individuals.”

boy-5693669_1920.jpg

Many people are especially concerned that students in school settings are being given disinfectant wipes for cleaning their own desks. The EPA warns against this, pointing out that labels on disinfectants all say “Keep Out of Reach of Children.”

13.  Their use can lead to stronger, medication-resistant germs.

Benzalkonium chloride (BAC) is one of the most common active ingredients found in disinfectant products, including wipes and antibacterial soaps. Researchers have found that when bacteria is exposed to low levels of BAC, its tolerance can increase up to 500-fold. Microbial resistance is especially likely to develop when disinfectants are used improperly, such as on a surface that hasn’t been cleaned first.

14.  All disinfectants are not created equal. Some ingredients are much more problematic than others. A quick way to gauge the relative toxicity of a commercial disinfecting product is to look at the “signal word” on the label. It will say either “Danger,” “Warning,” or “Caution.”  The products with a “Danger” label are thought to be the most toxic, and those that say “Caution,” the safest. Within each category, there are products with varying degrees of safety. 

Commercial disinfectants are generally mixtures of many different compounds, so even if the first ingredient listed is considered safe, the product as a whole may not be. Fragrances are commonly added to disinfectant products, and they add many chemical hazards without increasing effectiveness in any way.

Remember that you may not need a disinfectant at all if you clean surfaces well (especially with a microfiber cloth), and if you do decide you need one, there are time-tested options. As one expert in environmental chemicals notes, “Hydrogen peroxide, citric acid, or octanoic acid are safe and effective,” and they’re all listed by the EPA as effective against the virus that causes COVID-19. In fact, research finds hydrogen peroxide-based disinfectants to be more effective than quat-based products.

Microbes can certainly cause problems, and so can antimicrobials. I pray you’ll stay safe from both.

 

Chemicals and COVID -19

A recent study determined that there are more than 350,000 chemicals and chemical mixtures registered for production and use, a number three times as high as previously estimated. Up to 70,000 of these chemicals are described ambiguously and more than 50,000 are classified as “confidential,” leading to an enormous gap in knowledge. Given the woeful lack of data and study, it isn’t possible to fully understand how chemicals in the environment may be making us more susceptible to COVID-19. We do know enough, though, to take some prudent steps.  Here’s some of what’s known at this point:

1. The numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are all linked to levels of fine particulate matter in the air.

Particulate matter is an airborne mixture of solid and liquid particles. The smaller or finer the particles, the more problematic they are for human health, because they can more easily evade defenses. Several recent studies examined the relationship of particulate air pollution to COVID-19. A study by the World Bank Group found that the level of fine particulate matter was a highly significant predictor of how many confirmed cases and hospital admissions there would be in a geographical area. They report that a pollution increase of 20 percent may increase COVID-19 cases by nearly 100 percent. The researchers controlled for health-related preconditions and demographic factors and note that patterns suggest the number of cases is not simply related to population density.

Particulate pollution is also associated with COVID-19 morbidity. The Guardian reports on a US study finding that “even a tiny, single-unit increase in particle pollution levels in the years before the pandemic is associated with a 15% increase in the death rate.”  It further notes that long-term exposure to particle pollution was already known to increase the risk of death from all causes, but that in the case of COVID-19 deaths, the increase was 20 times higher. The correlation held when poverty levels, smoking, obesity, and availability of COVID-19 tests and hospital beds were factored in. It also held when New York City (with many cases) and counties with few cases were removed from the data pool.

2. Indoor air is generally more polluted than outdoor air.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that the air inside homes and other buildings tends to be more polluted than outdoor air even in the most populated and industrialized cities. It’s easy to feel helpless about our exposure to outdoor air pollution, but to a large degree, we can control our indoor environments.

Particulate pollution inside a home or other building can come in many forms. Combustion (burning candles or incense, using a fireplace, etc.) is a significant contributor. Household dust is also a source, and can lodge in carpets, sofas, chairs, curtains, and bedding and easily become airborne when, for example, carpets are walked on or people sit on sofas or chairs. For multiple reasons (some of which I’ll discuss later), it’s wise to address as many sources of toxicity inside a building as possible. Different types of contamination interact. As one website explains, “Particles in air are either directly emitted, for instance when fuel is burnt and when dust is carried by wind, or indirectly formed, when gaseous pollutants previously emitted to air turn into particulate matter.”

3. There are known risk factors for COVID-19 complications, and known chemical connections to them.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that people at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19 include those with lung disease or asthma, obesity, diabetes, kidney or liver disease, and heart conditions. The list of chemicals that can contribute to these conditions is long.

dryer sheets.jpg

Researchers tested 50 types of consumer products for 66 chemicals related to asthma or hormone disruption (associated with diabetes and obesity) and found 55 of them. Implicated chemicals include those found in fragrances, cleaners, cosmetics, plastic, hair care products, detergents, and more. Some of the highest concentrations of problematic chemicals were found in fragranced products, such as dryer sheets, air fresheners and perfumes. Vinyl was also a significant source of exposure.

Because the kidney and liver are involved in detoxifying chemicals, all exposures can stress and affect them. The National Kidney Foundation notes that kidney disease may be associated with herbicides, pesticides, air pollution, and heavy metal exposure. There are at least 123 chemicals associated with fatty liver, according to a study in Toxicologic Pathology. A significant number are found in pesticides (including herbicides and fungicides). Solvents, plasticizers, fragrances, paints, polishes, and dyes are also sources. Heart disease is likewise associated with a long list of chemical exposures, including (according to an article in Interdisciplinary Toxicology) those found in pesticides, cleaning products, plastic, adhesives, paints, and many other products.

4.  It’s wise to choose disinfectants carefully.

In a warning posted soon before COVID-19 became big news, Consumer Reports noted that many people may not know that products labeled “disinfecting” contain EPA-registered pesticides. The report notes that people who use disinfectants and cleaners regularly in their work (janitors and healthcare workers, for example) have higher rates of asthma. According to Newsweek, nurses who cleaned surfaces with disinfectants at least once a week had a 24 to 32 percent higher risk of developing COPD than nurses who used the products less often.

An article entitled Safer Disinfecting at Home in the Times of Coronavirus states that quats (quaternary ammonium chlorides, commonly found in disinfectants) are associated with a list of problems, including breathing difficulty, skin irritation, reproductive harm (including possible fertility and birth defect issues) and antimicrobial resistance. Chlorine bleach can also be problematic. The author recommends using disinfectants containing hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, lactic acid, citric acid, or thymol.

5. Ventilation is our friend.

Information from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicates that fresh air and sunlight seem to have prevented deaths among those infected. An article on the subject reports that “in the 1960s, Ministry of Defence scientists proved that fresh air is a natural disinfectant. Something in it, which they called the Open Air Factor, is far more harmful to airborne bacteria — and the influenza virus — than indoor air. . . . Their research also revealed that the Open Air Factor’s disinfecting powers can be preserved in enclosures — if ventilation rates are kept high enough.”

Adequate ventilation is known to limit the spread of airborne pathogens in healthcare environments. The author of an article entitled Could the Indoor Air Quality of Our Buildings Become Part of the COVID-19 Playbook? asks whether addressing ventilation in other buildings might likewise be part of an anti-viral strategy (which also includes reducing indoor contaminants). The article notes that in their publication Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the CDC recommends increasing ventilation rates and the percentage of outdoor air.

6. Every exposure matters

There’s been a lot of talk lately about “viral load.” The viral load, however, is only a small part of a person’s overall toxic load, or toxic body burden. There are natural and man-made toxins inside every human being (even newborns). Some chemicals are metabolized relatively quickly and others stick around for decades or even a lifetime. Some chemicals have been shown to directly affect the immune system, but every substance added to the body requires resources to manage and takes a person one step closer to the tipping point at which staying healthy is no longer possible.

It can be helpful to know what chemicals are likely to cause what symptoms or diseases, or to know whether you have a genetic weakness that might make you more susceptible to the effects of a certain class of compounds. It isn’t necessary to know that, though, in order to begin to protect yourself.

A guide to addressing indoor air pollution during lockdown and beyond suggests the following:

  • Minimize use of air fresheners, pesticides, harsh cleaning products, aerosol sprays, and adhesives.

  • Reduce indoor burning.

  • Use an exhaust fan or open windows or doors.

To those, I would add the following suggestions:

  • Keep things clean (using simple, non-toxic products) and reduce the number of surfaces that hold dust. It’s not a quick, easy fix, but removing carpet can make a big difference.

  • Go fragrance free. A single fragrance can contain several hundred chemicals. (Also, fragrances in the products you use affect others around you as well.)

  • Determine how toxic your personal care products are and make changes if necessary. The Skin Deep database is a good source of information.

  • Reduce plastic use, especially in the kitchen.

  • Eat organic food.

Much needs to be done on a societal level to help us stay healthy, but there’s also much that each of us can do personally. Now is a good time to do it.

A Game of "What If"

I’ve been writing this post in my head, wondering when the best time would be to share it. When will everyone staying home because of COVID-19 find the novelty wearing off?  When will most people really start to feel the challenge of seeing the same walls day after day, of feeling isolated and alone, of realizing the world is full of airborne threats to be dodged and managed?

This could be an important opportunity for the chemically ill community – maybe the closest we’ll ever get to being understood by the healthy population. It seems like a good time to play a game of “What If.” Here goes.

  • What if you had to stay home to avoid the virus, not only for weeks or months, but for years, even decades, on end?

  • What if people who were immune to the virus (or thought they were) put it in the air intentionally? What if they rubbed it on their bodies and infused their clothes with it and sprayed it in public buildings and in their homes and yards?

  • What if people constantly told you or implied that you were exaggerating the problems the virus could cause or that your beliefs about it were a sign of mental illness? What if they told you over and over again that it wouldn’t affect you if you didn’t believe it would?  What if there was a powerful, well-funded virus lobby that worked hard to shape the opinions of medical professionals, employers, and the general public?

  • What if the “We’re all in this together” mantra wasn’t true?  What if you were one of a minority of people who had to stay home? What if most people were out living their lives and were too busy to find ways to include you?

  • What if you had been staying home alone for years, asking businesses, medical facilities, schools, churches and other organizations if they could either provide a virus-free space or online connection options, but they ignored you?  What if many people were suddenly forced to stay home for a while, and online opportunities instantly appeared? 

How would you feel? What would you hope others would do in the future? Replace the word “virus” with “chemicals” and you have the reality that those of us with chemical illness face. We try to find or create safe spaces and we shelter in them, working hard to keep them untainted as toxins are introduced from the actions and choices of others. When we leave our homes, we protect ourselves as best we can, but instead of being worried about potential future problems, we often experience symptoms, sometimes excruciating and life-threatening ones, immediately on being exposed. As with virus prevention, we’ve learned that the easy solutions (masks and air filters) aren’t enough and that we can only stay well if others take the problem seriously, too.

I want your life to improve, but I also want you to remember how you feel now. Human nature being what it is, though, I’m afraid you won’t. Recently I’ve been learning about the hot-cold empathy gap. The term describes the fact that when we’re in a “hot” state (being driven by visceral forces like anger, hunger, sexual desire, etc.) we have trouble remembering what it’s like not to be in that state and vice versa. It leads to a lack of empathy both for ourselves and for others. Right now you have a taste of the frustration, anxiety, and loneliness we experience, but once things calm down, the memories and empathy will fade.

Because of that, I’d like to ask you to act now to make some changes. There are two avenues of change needed. We need more safe spaces we can enter in person, and we need more online connection options.

What can you do now to make your home and other spaces more healthy and accessible?  Can you remove fragranced products? Can you switch to safer cleaners? Can you change the way you deal with bugs and weeds?

How can you increase online connection options?  Workplaces, schools, and churches have all discovered that the technology isn’t hard to master. You’ve proven you can do it. The trick is that what works when everyone is logging into a meeting from their own computer doesn’t work as well when most people are in one room and there are one or two trying to access the meeting from elsewhere. Sometimes only the person leading the meeting can be seen and heard by the online participants, which makes group discussion problematic. I would tell you what the best options are for combating the issue if I knew. I believe a multi-directional microphone is part of the answer. If someone with experience in what works would provide the information in the comments section, I would very much appreciate it. (If you comment on the blog itself rather than on Facebook or Twitter, more people will be able to see it.)

The book of Genesis tells us about Joseph, whose life fell apart to the point that he ended up in prison, through no fault of his own. Pharaoh’s cupbearer ended up there, too, and Joseph interpreted a dream for him and predicted that he would soon be released and back in Pharaoh’s good favor. Joseph had a request for his fellow inmate: “When all goes well with you, remember me and show me kindness; mention me to Pharaoh and get me out of this prison” (Genesis 40:14). Verse 23 tells us what happened when the cupbearer was released: “[He], however, did not remember Joseph; he forgot him.”

We in the chemical illness community are like Joseph. Suddenly the cells are full of people who will soon be released. We’re asking, pleading, begging, “Please, remember us when you’re free again and show us kindness. Help us get out of our prison.”

What if you acted now to make changes?  What if you didn’t forget us when your life opened up again?  What if?

 

Chemical Sensitivity Isn't Rare

In my last post, I talked about the long process of writing and publishing my book, and said I could see the finish line, and thought I’d be able to crawl across it soon.  I still see it, but the crawling continues to be slow. 

The process has been so slow, in fact, that at some level I’m surprised that the need for the book still exists.  When I started writing, I would have assumed that by the end of 2019, we’d be more widely aware that the vast majority of chemicals in everyday products aren’t regulated or tested for safety and that we’re all being affected.  I would have predicted a broader understanding that a growing number of us have bodies that react strongly and obviously to chemical exposures, and that we can be the warning sign for people whose bodies react more slowly or in less conspicuous ways.  I would have presumed that people in power would have taken more steps to protect us.

Unfortunately, I don’t see the progress I would have expected.  In fact, in many ways, the toxicity issue appears to be getting worse.  The number of people whose bodies have become so overwhelmed that they developed Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is proof of that.

A number of studies over the years have looked at the prevalence of MCS.  The last one, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 2018 , found that over a quarter of the U.S. population (25.9%) reported being chemically sensitive, and 12.8% had been medically diagnosed with MCS. The author, Dr. Anne Steinemann, noted that “prevalence of diagnosed MCS has increased over 300%, and self-reported chemical sensitivity over 200%, in the past decade.”

Here are more quotes from the study:

·        Multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) is a medical condition characterized by adverse health effects from exposure to common chemicals and pollutants, from products such as pesticides, new carpet and paint, renovation materials, diesel exhaust, cleaning supplies, perfume, scented laundry products, and air fresheners.

·        MCS can cause a range of acute, chronic, multiorgan, and disabling health effects, such as headaches, dizziness, cognitive impairment, breathing difficulties, heart palpitations, nausea, mucous membrane irritation, and asthma attacks.

·        When exposed to fragranced consumer products, 86.2% of those with MCS experience one or more types of health problems, including respiratory difficulties (50.3%), migraine headaches (46.9%), mucosal symptoms (46.9%), skin problems (37.9%), and asthma attcks (31.7%).

·        Specific exposures triggering health problems include air fresheners and deodorizers (67.6%), scented laundry products coming from a dryer vent (57.9%), being in a room recently cleaned with scented products (67.6%), being near someone wearing a fragranced product (65.5%), and in general fragranced consumer products (73.1%).

·        For 76.0% of people with MCS, the severity of these health problems was potentially disabling according to the criterion of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), asked by the question: “Do any of these health problems substantially limit one or more major life activities, such as seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, or working, for you personally?”

·        58.6% of individuals with MCS are unable to use public restrooms that have an air freshener, deodorizer, or scented product; 55.2% are unable to wash their hands in a public place if the soap is fragranced; 63.4% enter a business but then want to leave as quickly as possible due to a fragranced product; and 70.3% have been prevented from going someplace because of the presence of a fragranced product that would make them sick.

·        While researchers continue to investigate which chemicals or mixtures of chemicals in fragranced consumer products could be associated with adverse effects, a practical step in the meantime would be to reduce exposure to the products.

Yep.  Seems like common sense, doesn’t it?  Synthetic fragrances and other everyday chemicals can make healthy people sick and sick people sicker.  They’re a completely unnecessary barrier that keeps an ever-increasing number of people from accessing basic services and attending church and other public gatherings. Things aren’t going to improve unless we decide to improve them. Let’s turn this around.

 

 

Millennials, Chemicals, and Church Attendance

I’m not a millennial and I don’t play one on TV. (The fact that I used that reference and actually remember where it came from is proof, if you needed any.) I often read articles about millennials, though, partly just out of general curiosity and partly because I have a couple of sons in that age group. Lately there seem to be a lot of articles about things millennials aren’t buying or using. If you type “millennials don’t use” into the Google search bar, suggested endings to the sentence include “doorbells,” “credit cards,” “napkins,” “email” and “fabric softener.”

In part I read what I can about millennials because I’ve been trying to figure out whether our society is making progress in understanding the enormous problem of toxins in common products. Is the younger generation more aware of the issue and more likely to make changes? Sometimes I think so and sometimes I don’t. The decline in the use of fabric softeners, for instance, has been seen by some as a sign that millennials prefer to use fewer chemicals. Others say it’s simply related to economics and lifestyle. There are confusing trends. While fabric softener use is declining, the use of “scent beads” in the laundry is increasing, which is certainly unfortunate.

One widely publicized fact about millennials is that they’re much less likely than previous generations to attend church. There are certainly plenty of theories about why that is. I tend to pay most attention to the articles written by millennials themselves, and one in particular got my attention.

It’s titled "12 Reasons Millennials Are Over Church” and what made me sit up and take notice is reason number nine. The author writes, "We want you to talk to us about controversial issues (because no one is). People in their 20’s and 30’s are making the biggest decisions of their entire lives: career, education, relationships, marriage, sex, finances, children, purpose, chemicals, body image. We need someone consistently speaking truth into every single one of those areas.” Did you catch that? “Chemicals” was on the list. The author says, in essence, that one of the reasons people from his generation are leaving the church is because no one is speaking truth to them about chemicals. Wow.

There's a truth about chemicals that needs to be spoken. The truth is that there aren’t sufficient regulations in the United States to keep unsafe products off the market or to remove those already being sold, and the implications for human health are staggering. Health advocates continue to wage a David and Goliath battle against well-funded industry interests in an attempt to introduce meaningful legislative change, but as it now stands, we must each take responsibility for educating ourselves and acting on what we learn. I believe with all my heart that the people of God have a responsibility to confront this issue and to be the ones who demonstrate that we value human beings enough to be counter-cultural in the products we buy and use.

How about it, friends? Can we open our eyes to the importance of this? Can our churches start with easy steps like removing synthetically scented air fresheners, switching to fragrance-free soaps, and using less toxic cleaning products? Can we get to the point where we think about toxicity when we build or renovate? This is an issue of health — not just the physical health of humans made in the image of God, but the spiritual health of a generation that is watching us for signs of leadership and courage. We can do it. Let’s start now.

I’m Not “Allergic to Smells”

I’ve written before about the fact that people tend to associate toxicity with the presence of a discernible odor. I’m revisiting the issue because I continue to hear chemical illness described as being “allergic to smells.” I understand why people make that assumption, but the description isn’t fully accurate. One part of the inaccuracy is that although allergies can accompany it, chemical illness doesn't usually involve the specific immune reactions seen in traditional allergies. Instead, it’s generally a problem of the body’s detoxification system being overwhelmed or malfunctioning. The second inaccuracy is that not everything with a discernible odor is problematic and many odorless things are.

I’m also revisiting this issue because two recent sad stories drive home the point that toxic fumes don’t always come with an olfactory warning. A few weeks ago the story hit the news of a family of four on a trip to the U.S. Virgin Islands. The family was staying in a villa and the unit underneath the one they were renting was sprayed with the pesticide methyl bromide. At the time the story was reported, two weeks after the exposure, the two children were both in a coma and their father was unable to move or talk. The next day I read the account of a father and seven children who died from carbon monoxide poisoning after running a generator inside their home. Like methyl bromide, carbon monoxide is both odorless and potentially lethal.

The fact that our noses can’t always warn us of chemical dangers and that exposure symptoms are not always immediate makes it hard for people with toxic illness to know when an environment is potentially problematic. Online friend and fellow blogger Deb (visit her blog at www.greenleafindrought.blogspot.com) experienced that issue this week.

Deb moved to a new state about a year ago and has been very blessed to find a church that removed air fresheners and changed their cleaning products so that she could attend. She’s even been able to attend a care group, in the home of a family who lives a generally toxin-free life.

The family has a teenage son, and this past week, the son and a friend were getting ready for prom. The friend used cologne in a powder room near the area where the care group normally meets. The homeowner noticed the odor in the room two hours before the group was to meet and took action, wiping down all surfaces with vinegar, turning on exhaust fans, and opening windows. To be extra safe, the group decided to meet in a room farther from the location where the cologne was used, and Deb was seated between the open back door and an open window.

Deb reports that she didn’t smell anything during her time in the home. However, she states, “Less than half hour after getting home every bone and muscle and fiber in my body hurt . . . . I also had dizziness, migraine and loud ringing ears. The pain was excruciating all night.” She adds, “Obviously the chemical poison was there even if I could not smell it.”

I’m sure every toxic illness sufferer has a similar story. How do we avoid such situations? We need your help, and helping us helps everyone. My vote is for stronger regulations about what can be sold and greater discernment on the part of consumers about what we buy and use. Let’s try that.

Receiving Sight

Recently, the church where my late husband served as worship minister held a blood drive in his memory. It was appropriate, because Dan frequently organized blood drives and was a blood and plasma donor as often as he was allowed. (Sometimes he wasn’t allowed to give because of places he had recently traveled.) Dan was also a tissue donor. After his death, skin, bone and other tissues were shared with those who needed them. I was told that two people were likely to receive sight because of corneas they would receive from my always-giving husband.

I’ve been thinking about sight lately. Dan gave physical sight, but I’m also feebly trying, through this blog, to facilitate sight, or at least insight, myself. I want us all to see and understand the connection between products we use and the health symptoms we and others face. I want to help bring attention to the deception and obfuscation that prevent us from even easily knowing what we’re buying and using.

Last month, USA Today reported on a Consumer Reports survey finding that 66% of consumers wrongly believe the word “natural” on a food label means something. Consumers believe it may mean that a food contains no artificial ingredients or that no pesticides were used. Others connect the label to a lack of genetically engineered organisms, growth hormones or antibiotics. As the article states, however, “The problem is, consumers are wrong. Under federal labeling rules, the word natural means absolutely nothing.”

The situation is no better for personal care products. An Organic Consumers Association report noted that a survey found consumers to be "widely confused" by personal care product labeling. The report notes that almost half of survey respondents believe that a personal care product labeled “Made with organic ingredients" is composed of "all" or "nearly all" organic ingredients, but that there are no federal regulations that require that.

Of course, the labeling problem goes far beyond the use of terms like “natural” and “organic.” Problems include the fact that many ingredients don’t have to be listed at all, and that single innocuous-sounding terms can hide multitudes of potentially-dangerous chemicals. The Environmental Working Group reports that tests of fragrance products found an average of 14 chemicals per product that were not listed on the label.

Perhaps the most dangerous misperception regarding chemicals is that personal care, cleaning, and other common products are tested for safety before being marketed. A brief internet search didn’t quickly yield statistics, but I did find a report from the University of Massachusetts that addresses the issue. The publication, entitled “Presumption of Safety: Limits of Federal Policies on Toxic Substances in Consumer Products states, “Despite the fact that most consumers believe that everyday products are thoroughly tested for dangerous chemicals and determined to be safe by government authorities, the reality is that existing regulatory systems leave significant gaps in their capacity to adequately protect consumers from chemical hazards in these products.”

It would be nice if products were proven safe before being sold, but they aren’t. It would be nice if we could count on labeling laws to help us be informed consumers, but we can’t. Addressing problems begins with seeing problems. Lord, please give us sight.

The Problem with Pink

It’s October, and that means a lot of things will be colored pink this month in support of breast cancer prevention and treatment. Breast cancer is a personal issue for my family. I lost my mother to the disease when I was a young teen and as I write this, my sister is fighting it. I grew up cancer's shadow, and I obviously support awareness and research. I get quite frustrated and angry at some aspects of the “turn everything pink” movement, though, especially the ridiculous practice of slapping a pink label on a product that contains ingredients actually known to cause cancer. This has come to be known as “pinkwashing.”

Pinkwashing is an extremely common practice. The writer of the Mommy Greenest website notes that the problem seems to be getting larger with every passing year. Some of the myriad of examples include the following:

  • Perfumes, which contain hormone disruptors and other possible carcinogens (In 2011, the Susan G. Komen Foundation commissioned a perfume which contained toluene, which is banned by the International Fragrance Association)

  • Bottled water and canned soup, both of which can leach BPA

  • Nail polish, which contains numerous known carcinogens, including formaldehyde and pthalates

  • Lipstick containing hormone disruptors and lead

It’s hard to justify selling a product with known carcinogens in the name of breast cancer prevention or treatment. It makes even less sense when you realize what a small amount of the purchase price often goes to the cause. (In some cases the amount is zero.) The Think Before You Pink campaign advises asking yourself some questions before buying a pink-labeled product. These include whether any money from the purchase goes to breast cancer programs, who will receive the donation and what will be done with it, whether or not a company caps the amount they donate, and whether the product itself raises the cancer risk.

We're surrounded by products that are known to contribute to cancer in general and breast cancer in particular. The Mommy Greenest article advises avoiding perfumes and other products with synthetic fragrances, canned foods, vinyl, many plastics, and personal care products which contain common preservatives known as parabens. An article in The Independent reported on a study finding that the products linked most strongly to breast cancer were air fresheners and mold and mildew removers. Association was also found with insect repellants.

For more information on environmental contributors to breast cancer, see the Breast Cancer Fund website. It isn’t wrong to continue to support research into treatment, but why not also act on what we already know? Knowledge isn't helpful unless we use it.

Fragrance in the Workplace

I recently stumbled across an article entitled "Fragrance in the Workplace: What Managers Need to Know" which was published in the Journal of Management and Marketing Research. It isn't a perfect article. The author inadvertently reinforced one of her own points (that chemical companies fight the growing trend of fragrance-free policies) by mentioning the Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute (ESRI). ESRI is a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing industry-funded group. For more about the group and its activities, see the article Multiple Chemical Sensitivities under Siege. Other than that understandable but unfortunate mention, however, I find the article to be very encouraging. It makes the following points:

  • The topic of fragrance exposure hasn't received the attention it deserves in the management field.

  • Fragrance exposure in the workplace is following the same trajectory as smoking exposure once did: It took decades to acknowledge the dangers of cigarette smoke and then a few more years before the workplace became free of it. In 1965, 42% of Americans smoked and people who complained about second-hand smoke and its health effects were considered part of a fringe movement. The tide turned, however, and by 2007, at least 30 states had passed comprehensive smoke-free laws.

  • Today, the average consumer is as unaware of the dangers of chemicals used in synthetic fragrances as people once were of the harms caused by cigarette smoke. The author notes that "when ignorance is replaced with knowledge, a large segment of the population will respond with a demand for clean and safe air in the workplace.”

  • A rising number of public places have declared their institutions to be fragrance free and it appears that a paradigm shift is beginning.

  • Unlike cigarette smoke, synthetic fragrance is not visible and is almost unlimited in where it is found. The author notes that "because of these differences, businesses may underestimate the potential likelihood of a fragrance free movement reaching the same level of public awareness as passive smoke and having as far reaching and broad results as the nonsmoking movement." She notes that this attitude may prove costly.

  • Tobacco companies fought the anti-smoking movement and fragrance companies are fighting efforts to make workplaces and public spaces fragrance free.

  • There are reasons to believe that the fragrance-free movement will make quicker progress than the anti-smoking movement did. Hundreds of studies are being conducted and reported annually and the issue is being addressed by governmental agencies, public and private health care organizations, consumer advocates, insurers, lawyers, economists, and risk analysts.

  • One in five people in the U.S. experience recognized adverse effects from fragrance exposure. These may involve the skin, eyes, respiratory or neurological systems.

  • The great majority (80-90%) of fragrances are synthesized from petroleum and include chemicals like acetone, phenol, and toluene. Fragrance companies use over 4000 chemicals and hundreds can be used in any given product. Over 80% of the chemicals have never been tested for their toxicity. Despite this, almost one-third of the chemical additives used are known toxins.

  • Adverse fragrance-related health effects cost employers billions of dollars annually.

  • Fragrance-related workplace complaints are rising. There are a variety of applicable laws that may require employers to change the work environment. The author notes that "the general duty clause of the Occupations Health and Safety Act requires employers to 'take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the worker.' Enough research demonstrates negative effects of synthetic fragrance, that employers can no longer deny knowledge of what constitutes basic precautions."

  • Developing an effective fragrance-free policy involves the following steps:

1. Conduct a needs assessment identifying sources of exposure and who may be affected by them. This includes not only employees, but members of the public and others who share the environment.

2. Perform an organizational chemical assessment which reviews all chemical products used in the business and those used by employees.

3. Conduct a literature and legal search. Managers need an awareness of the health effects of synthetic fragrances and familiarity with applicable legislation.

4. Develop and implement a fragrance-free policy. Include employee representation in all phases of policy development, implementation, and evaluation.

5. Ensure support from top executives and occupational health and safety committee members. Make sure all departments understand their role in the policy's success.

6. Develop a discipline and enforcement process. Put clear guidelines in place for confronting violations and resolving problems. A shared enforcement approach is preferable to a "watchdog" system.

7. Develop strategies for communicating the policy to non-employees who share the environment.

8. Evaluate the policy for effectiveness and make changes as needed. Let employees know of the success of policy implementation on health and productivity.

I agree that people will someday look on our culture’s widespread use of synthetic fragrances in much the same way that we now view the prevalence of cigarette smoke in previous decades. From a business and legal standpoint, it is wise for businesses, schools, churches, and other organizations to address the issue now. It is also simply the right thing to do in order to protect human health. Not everyone reading this will have the authority to change an organization’s fragrance policy, but every one of us can choose not to personally purchase and use synthetically-fragranced products. It’s a start.

Gift Giving

I've been asked for a post on my favorite fragrance-free products to give as Christmas gifts. There are so many variables (recipient age, gender, preferences and state of health, for example) that I'm not sure where to begin. I don't think I'll list specific products, but I'll say a few things about gift-giving in general and provide some links to online stores with generally safer offerings.

Here are some of my random thoughts:

  • Giving safer products as gifts is a great goal that serves multiple purposes. When we keep toxins in mind as we buy for others we not only protect their health, but we support the merchants and manufacturers taking the issue seriously. Every purchase we make is a statement about the kind of products we wish to see in the stores. Giving people safer gifts is also a good way to introduce them to items and issues they might be unaware of otherwise.

  • There are safer alternatives to for almost every traditional toxic product. A quick internet search will generally yield many results. Often, products marketed as being less toxic are more expensive than their traditional counterparts. In theory, I support paying more for healthier choices, but in practice I realize that budgetary restrictions are very real. When considering healthy options for personal use (not necessarily for gifting), there are many ways to spend less. Homemade cleaners (often based on vinegar or baking soda) are very cheap. Personal care products can be often be bought in bulk from suppliers who market to those who make their own formulations. I buy fragrance-free shampoo, conditioner and castile soap by the gallon. An internet search for "shampoo base" or similar terms will provide a variety of purchasing choices. Saving money in one part of the budget frees it up to spend in another category.

  • Because of lax labeling laws (see this previous post), it is challenging to know how healthy a product actually is. In general, a health food store or online retailer targeting health-conscious customers will have more products that are truly safe. Even those stores, however, may carry products made with synthetic fragrances or other problematic ingredients. Although there may be other reasons to avoid them, it is easier than it used to be to find healthier products at traditional stores. Many of the "big box" retailers now carry some fragrance-free personal care products and organic clothing and bedding.

  • There are personal differences, but many people with chemical sensitivities or other chronic health conditions appreciate gifts that are health-related. One Christmas when I was asked by extended family members for gift ideas, I responded with a list of vitamins and supplements in various price ranges. I don't remember what gifts I received that year, but I'm sure they were lovely and generous. I do remember that I didn't receive any of the supplements on my list. Maybe the idea just seemed too weird. Be aware that people with chemical sensitivities often have food allergies and sensitivities as well, so food gifts aren't always the best choice.

  • Many alternative products are fragranced with essential oils. This is a tricky issue to navigate. Although people can certainly be allergic to natural oils, they don't carry the same toxicities that synthetic fragrances do. Many people with chemical sensitivities tolerate them well, but others find they cause great problems. In some cases this is another labeling issue, since natural oils are sometimes actually mixed with synthetic fragrances. Some brands are also extracted with chemicals instead of being steam distilled.


There are many, many online retailers offering safer goods. Some are specialty stores selling one type of product (such as beeswax candles or non-toxic toys) and others have more extensive offerings. Here are a handful of retailers that offer a variety of generally safer products:

NEEDS (Nutritonal Ecological Environmental Delivery System)
The name is a little strange, but this company has been around a long time and generally offers products that are very safe.

Vitacost
Although they sell a variety of safer products, they also sell items with added synthetic fragrances, so check ingredients carefully.

Healthy Home

Janice's
Maggie's Organics
Refreshingly Free

I'm grateful for those of you wishing to buy healthier Christmas gifts this year. Every purchase matters. What we celebrate at Christmas is the birth of our savior, and when we care for ourselves and others by making safer product choices, I think he is pleased.

A “Fresh” Blog Post

I've been thinking about the word "fresh" recently. Although there are alternative meanings, the general definition of the word is "new." Often something fresh replaces something old, stale, or worn-out. We put on fresh socks or ask a friend to help us think of some fresh ideas for a project.

The air inside a building gets contaminated by the products used within it. In addition, humans inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, so when people are in a building, the air gets progressively less healthy from the simple act of breathing. We replace old, stale air with new, fresh air by opening windows or using ventilation systems. In no way whatsoever do we improve air quality by using those ridiculously named products known as “air fresheners."

Here are a handful of "air freshener" facts:

  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that most air fresheners contain formaldehyde and petrochemicals. They also contain a chemical known as 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (1,4,-DCB) which is an EPA-registered pesticide. It can cause cancer and lung damage and increases asthma rates. The chemical "freshens" the air by damaging nasal receptors. It does not remove odors, but removes people's ability to smell them.

  • A study comparing homes in which air fresheners were used every day with those in which they were used once a week or less found that babies in the daily-use homes had significantly more earaches and diarrhea, and their mothers suffered nearly 10% more headaches and had a 26% increase in depression.

  • Many air fresheners contain acetone and propane. They are toxic to the heart, blood, respiratory system, skin, gastrointestinal system, kidney, nervous system and liver.

  • Exposure to air freshener chemicals as little as once a week can increase your risk of developing asthma symptoms by up to 71%.

  • Most air fresheners contain phthalates, which are hormone-disrupting chemicals that can cause birth defects and infertility. These chemicals are even found in air fresheners designated as "unscented" or "all natural".

  • The human body stores chemicals like those found in air fresheners in fatty tissue. The body may hold onto fat as a way to protect itself from the release of the toxins.

  • Air freshener chemicals, including camphor, phenol, ethanol, formaldehyde, and artificial fragrances can cause a wide variety of health symptoms, including dizziness, coughing, rashes, mental confusion, and headaches, including migraines.

  • One study found that women with the highest usage of household chemicals, including air fresheners, had twice the risk of breast cancer of those with the lowest chemical usage rates.

Although air fresheners abuse and misuse the word "fresh," they aren't the only product to do so. I recently saw an advertisement for a laundry detergent that claimed it now had a higher percentage of "freshness." Really? I imagine what the marketers mean is that more fragrance chemicals have been added to the already potent and toxic mix. It's easy to get duped by marketing ploys, but we don't have to buy into the crazy-ness. We can break away from the crowd. We can have a fresh perspective. We can make a fresh start.

Sources: Are Air Fresheners Bad for Your Health?
Silent Menace
Air Fresheners: Easy Greening
How Air Fresheners Are Killing You
Air Fresheners' Real Impact on Indoor Air Quality

How to Know if a Product is Safe

People often ask me about the safety or toxicity of various products. Sometimes I know the answer and sometimes I don't. It isn't easy to keep up with the barrage of new offerings continually entering the marketplace, and since formulations change constantly, even a product that was safe one week may not be so the next.

It's important for consumers to be aware of the chemical safety of the products they use, but manufacturers certainly don't make that task easy. There are large loopholes in labeling laws, and a great deal of marketing hype that is often difficult to decipher. Manufacturers have responded to the rising demand for safer products in varying ways. Some have introduced less toxic products into their consumer lines (while generally continuing to sell their toxic standard-bearers) and others have simply re-branded products as "all-natural," "non-toxic," or "green." These terms are used indiscriminately and have very little meaning. Consumer Reports' Greener Choices website has a helpful label search function which notes, for example, that the "non-toxic" label is not meaningful, verified, consistent, or free from conflict of interest.

The term "green" is especially problematic. A green product is purported to be better for the environment than standard fare, but better for the environment does not necessarily mean better for human health. Recycling a toxic product, for example, does not make it less toxic. People who are chemically sensitive often call themselves "canaries" after the birds that miners once took with them to warn of harmful gases. Perhaps we should adopt the color of the canary as a new standard and look for products that are not just green, but also yellow, or safe for human use.

Although it is difficult to get all the information needed to make truly informed product choices, there are some general rules of thumb. Products purchased at health food stores or from companies that cater to the health-conscious are generally safer than products purchased at major retail outlets, although there may be exceptions. There are also websites that help provide information and there are clues to toxicity even on imperfect labels. Reading labels is important and it is wise to note the following warnings or listed ingredients:

  • Fragrance - Products do not have to have any odor at all to be toxic (carbon monoxide, for example, is both odorless and deadly), but synthetic fragrances are almost always problematic. (For more information, see the previous post entitled Fragrance Facts.) Heavy fragrances are often added to a product to cover the odor of other objectionable chemicals. I've recently begun seeing the word "aroma" in ingredient lists and assume it is simply another term for synthetic fragrance. If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know.

  • Keep out of reach of children - A product containing this warning is obviously hazardous to some degree, and is likely to be harmful for adults as well.

  • Use in a well ventilated area - Abundant ventilation is always a good idea, but seeing the advice on a product label may indicate that another product is a safer choice.

  • Wash hands well after using - Obviously, washing hands frequently is a good idea for many reasons, but seeing the advice on a product label may mean that the product contains toxic chemicals likely to be absorbed through the skin.

The following websites are helpful (though sometimes hard to navigate) resources for evaluating aspects of safety for certain products:

  • HealthyStuff.org evaluates the safety of products in many categories, including children’s goods, pets, cars, and apparel.

  • The Household Products Database is offered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and provides health and safety information on household products of many kinds, including yard, home maintenance, auto, home office, and arts and crafts.

  • Skin Deep is a searchable safety guide to cosmetics and personal care products.

Making informed product choices is more challenging that it needs to be, but it isn't impossible. Sometimes a quick internet search using the product name and the word "toxic" is all that is needed to obtain good information. A search for "non-toxic alternatives to . . ." can also yield helpful results at times. No matter the inconvenience, educating ourselves about product toxicity and making safer choices is worth the effort. The seemingly small choices we make in the products we use can have profound and life-altering consequences, not only for ourselves, but also for those around us. Let's value our health and the health of those who share the air enough to take this issue seriously.