The Good News of 2025

Let’s end 2025 by celebrating a couple of pieces of good news in the education and advocacy department.

The first event I want to highlight took place in June, when, at its annual meeting, the American Medical Association (AMA) formally addressed the issue of fragrance sensitivity. The resolution they passed (H-135.902) did the following:

1.      Recognized that for individuals with fragrance sensitivity and related disorders, environmental exposures have the potential to substantially limit major life activities

2.      Promoted the wide adoption of fragrance-free policies, by healthcare facilities, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations

3.     Encouraged research on fragrance sensitivity, in order to determine the impact of fragrances on health, improve diagnostic tools, and evaluate the impact of fragrance-free interventions

4.     Supported better labeling and disclosure of fragrance ingredients in personal care products, cosmetics, and drugs

It remains to be seen how much impact this resolution will have, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. If nothing else, individuals with chemical intolerances may be able to use it in their attempts to advocate for safe healthcare access in their own contexts and environments. It seems to me that theoretically, it could be used to advocate for safer churches, as well, since the resolution mentions nonprofit organizations.

The second piece of good news took effect on October 1. At that time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) gave Gulf War Illness (GWI) an official medical diagnosis code. This is obviously good news for veterans with Gulf War Illness, but it may also be a step toward the validation of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). Here’s why:

Dr. Beatrice Golomb led the effort to get GWI recognized. For many years, her research has concluded that both GWI and MCS are caused by chemical exposures which cause oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction. She also believes that some people are genetically more susceptible to adverse effects from chemical exposures.

In an article published in Scientific Reports in July of this year, Golomb reported that variations in the SOD2 gene significantly predicted chemical sensitivity. She states clearly that “this supports chemical sensitivity as a physiological, not a psychogenic condition.” Because of Golomb’s work with both GWI and MCS, and her focus on their similiarities, I can’t help but see the acknowledgement of GWI as an official, biological illness as a positive sign for both communities.

I’m very grateful to Dr. Golomb for her work, and to all who were involved in the process that led to the AMA passing its resolution. Change is slow, but we can go into 2026 with the knowledge that it’s possible.

Harmful Healthcare

I didn't see it myself, but I understand that chemical sensitivities were mentioned in a non-disparaging way on a television drama recently. Evidently, a character reasoned that a woman wearing a lab coat wasn't a doctor because she wore perfume. The thought was that a doctor wouldn't wear fragrance because she knew it would harm people with asthma or chemical sensitivities.

Hurray for the writers of the program for their awareness of the issue, but I'm not sure I could come to the same conclusion the character did. Unfortunately, more medical professionals use fragranced products than don't, in my experience. Those that don't actually apply perfume or cologne are still likely to use fragranced lotions, shampoos or other personal care products or to wear clothes coated in fragrances from detergents or dryer sheets. I've had conversations with two medical professionals about the issue. Both told me the importance of being fragrance-free was mentioned in their training but they had never personally worked in an environment where the goal was mentioned or enforced.

Fragranced doctors and nurses aren't the only barrier to medical treatment for those with chemical sensitivities. Hospitals and doctor's offices are just as likely (maybe more likely) to be cleaned with toxic products than other buildings are. They are also just as likely to use "air fresheners" (see this previous post for more information on their harm) as any other public space or to use dangerous pest control methods. Most people with serious chemical sensitivities eventually give up trying to access medical care.

Fortunately, there are a few organizations taking the toxicity issue seriously. Health Care Without Harm is a global coalition working to reduce pollution in the health care sector. Their website contains information and fact sheets on cleaning products, pest control and fragrances, among other topics.

The Massachusetts Nurses Organization is another group ahead of the curve. An article in their newsletter and on their website discusses fragrance chemicals and their health effects, provides a model and sample of a fragrance-free policy, and includes a section on how to advocate for a fragrance-free policy in a healthcare environment.

One hospital that aims to be fragrance-free is Women’s College Hospital in Toronto. Their website states that they displayed posters near every elevator and in many clinics “promoting some of the things mostimportant to our patients and their families—equity, privacy, patient affairs and the WCH fragrance-free policy.” They developed a clever poster displaying various perfumes and personal care products labeled with names like “nausea,” “headache” and “wheezing,” which informed that “fragrances don’t smell beautiful to everyone” and asking people to respect the hospital’s fragrance-free guidelines.

Policies and guidelines that attempt to reduce the toxicity of healthcare environments are wonderful, and I pray the movement will spread. In the meantime, however, individual actions can make a difference. If you work in the healthcare field, your personal decision to use synthetically fragranced products or to be fragrance-free will impact every patient you encounter. If you don't work in the healthcare field, but occasionally visit a doctor's office, your product choices will also impact other people who share the air. If you're feeling brave, you might even want to mention to the office staff that their use of air fresheners and fragranced cleaning products isn't a good idea. Maybe you can make enough of a difference that some of us with chemical sensitivities will be able to access the medical care we desperately need.

MCS Prevalence: Dissecting the News

There has been a bit of media coverage this week of a recent study noting that 20 percent of low-income patients screened by two Texas family medicine practices were found to have "chemical intolerance" or Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). A number of news outlets, including CNBC, Fox News, and the Chicago Tribune reprinted a Reuters article on the study. As usual when MCS-related news is reported, there are aspects of the coverage to both applaud and bemoan.

Here's my take on the study and the coverage:

• The essential bit of news is that a significant percentage of patients recruited from the waiting rooms of two family medicine clinics were given a screening survey and found to meet the diagnostic criteria for MCS. I'm glad that the prevalence of the disorder is being reported, because MCS is far more common than most people imagine, and an awareness of the size of the issue may spur action.

• The study found a prevalence rate of 20% among the patients examined. This is, as the report suggests, "sizeable,” but it isn't a total surprise or completely out of line with previous findings. Previous studies of the general population have found MCS prevalence rates between 11 and 33%. Studies of specific populations have found much higher rates. A study of Gulf War veteran outpatients, for example, found a rate of 86%.

• The report noted that the patients in the study were low-income and stated that previous studies focused on "higher-income, white people." If that's true of previous studies, I'm unaware of it. In fact, this report of a prevalence study noted that "both allergy and chemical sensitivity were distributed widely across age, income, race, and educational groups" and one published in the American Journal of Epidemiology stated that "marital status, employment, education, geographic location, and income were not predictive of reported chemical sensitivities ." Studying sub-groups for rates of chemical sensitivity has merit, but I hope all people will take the issues seriously and realize that no one is immune.

• The author of the Reuters report states that an MCS diagnosis is "controversial." I suppose that's true, in the strictest sense of the word, but only because of the special interests with deep pockets that work hard to make it so. See the previous post titled “The Misinformation Campaign” for more information.

• The author notes that there is no agreement on the cause of MCS. That is also technically true, I suppose, because companies that manufacture chemicals don't "agree" (at least publicly) that their products have anything to do with the symptoms MCS patients experience. It's very reminiscent of previous denials by tobacco companies that their product had any association with lung cancer.

• The study found that the patients with chemical sensitivity had higher rates of depression and anxiety than others. This is a touchy subject among many with MCS, because those who attempt to disprove the validity of the condition generally try to paint it as a mental disorder. Fortunately, the report quoted lead researcher Dr. David A Katerndahl who noted that "some people might become depressed or anxious because of their chemical intolerance symptoms." Of course we do. I imagine that people with cancer or those injured in automobile accidents also have higher rates of depression and anxiety. A study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives notes that only 1.4% of patients with chemical sensitivities had a prior history of emotional problems, but 37.7% developed emotional problems after the physical symptoms emerged. See this previous post for an overview of research pointing to physical, rather than psychological causation.

• Only one-fourth of the patients found to have MCS had been previously diagnosed. This is an important point. If people don't associate their symptoms with exposures, they don't know to avoid (or at least attempt to avoid) substances that cause their distress. Katerndahl also pointed out that chemically sensitive patients are often intolerant of many medications, which is important for their physicians to understand.

• I found a bit of good news in Katerndahl's statement that among primary care doctors there is a growing acceptance of the validity of MCS. I pray that acceptance turns into action and that doctors will work to make their offices and clinics less toxic and more chemically safe for all of their patients.

• The suggestion for those with MCS is that they get a referral to go see an allergist. This is, unfortunately, not likely to be of much help to most who suffer from chemical sensitivities. Although people can have both allergies and MCS, true allergies involve an immune response that differs from the detoxification abnormalities common in MCS. Appropriate and helpful medical care for those with chemical sensitivities is extremely hard to find. An interesting study of treatment efficacy found that survey participants with MCS had consulted an average of 12 healthcare providers each and found 3 to be helpful. They had spent over one-third of their annual income on health care costs. The survey rated the perceived efficacy of 101 treatments and found the three most highly rated interventions to be creating a chemical-free living space, chemical avoidance, and prayer.

Knowing how many people suffer from MCS is important. The real question, though, is how many is too many? How many must suffer before we make changes in our product choices? How many people is it OK to shut out of our churches? These are questions that deserve serious consideration.