Lautenberg's Legacy

There's been some recent movement on the effort to modernize and improve the woefully inadequate Toxic Substances Control Act that has been in effect for over 30 years. As I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, a bill was written (the Safe Chemicals Act) that would require manufacturers to prove products safe before they are allowed to be sold. That bill failed to garner bi-partisan support, but a compromise bill with an equal number of Democratic and Republican sponsors and co-sponsors has recently been introduced.

The new bill is known as the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. Key provisions include the following:

• New chemicals must be tested for safety before entering the marketplace. The responsibility for testing falls to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

• Chemicals already being sold must be evaluated for safety. Those designated as having a high probability of potential risk to human health and the environment must be evaluated further.

• The EPA is given expanded authority to act when chemicals are found to be unsafe, They may act in a number of ways, from requiring labeling to limiting use to completely banning a chemical from the marketplace.

• The EPA is given authority to secure health and safety information from chemical manufacturers.

• When evaluating risks, the EPA is required to consider vulnerable populations, like children and pregnant women.

Health and environmental advocates are still evaluating the bill. Some note that it is weaker than the Safe Chemicals Act in a number of ways, including having a weaker standard of safety, risk management requirements that are similar to what currently exists, no minimum requirements for information on new chemicals, no priority review given to the most troubling compounds, and no clear deadlines for the completion of safety reviews. There is also some concern that the federal bill may weaken state laws, which are in some cases more stringent than current federal regulations.

Despite these issues, support for the bill is growing. The New York Times calls it "the first credible effort in years to revamp the nation's outmoded chemical safety law." The Environmental Defense Fund calls it a hard-fought compromise and urges support for it. The author of an article entitled Safe Chemicals Act Now Has Bipartisan Support calls it ground-breaking and notes that "both sides are grumbling, which is a good sign that the legislation may have struck an appropriate balance which will lead to passage into law."

I had written most of this post when I saw the news that Senator Frank Lautenberg died this morning. Senator Lautenberg was the prime force behind the Safe Chemicals Act and a sponsor of the compromise bill. I admire his tenacity and drive and his willingness to work hard for something he believed in until he drew his final breath. He was 89 years old and his health had been failing for some time. I pray that his work on the chemical issue will not have been in vain and that all of us together will take up the cause.

Aerotoxic Syndrome

It's vacation season, which for some people means air travel. Hopping on a plane can certainly save travel time, but is not without its challenges. Some of the challenges (like weather delays and security-related issues) are well-known, but others, which are potentially much more problematic, are rarely discussed.

A potentially serious problem related to airplane travel is something unofficially called aerotoxic syndrome. Aerotoxic syndrome results when people experience negative health effects from breathing toxins that often circulate in commercial airline cabins. An article in Natural News explains that airplanes were originally supplied with mechanical compressors that produced breathable cabin air for passengers. Currently, however, most planes, for cost-cutting reasons, provide cabin air that has been drawn from from the engines. Unfortunately, this air, called "bleed air," is often contaminated with problematic compounds. These include chemicals from engine oil and particles of heavy metals such as nickel, beryllium and cadmium.

An article entitled Toxic Hazard Threatens Airline Passengers notes that one of the compounds often found in bleed air is an organophosphate known as tricresyl phosphate, or TCP. Organophosphates are nerve agents, often used in pesticides, which have been banned by many countries. The article notes that a group of journalists tested 31 commercial aircraft cabins and found TCP in 28 of them.

The air inside most airline cabins is noted to contain about 60 percent bleed air. Unfortunately for pilots, the air they breathe is generally 100% bleed air. Earlier this year, a British publication reported on the deaths of two British Airways pilots who died within a week of each other. Both believed they had been made ill by toxic airplane air. Lawyers quoted in the article note that aerotoxic syndrome may one day be seen as "the new asbestos."

Other than choosing not to fly, there are no easy answers for passengers who wish to protect themselves from toxins in airplane air. It's not as if opening a window is an option. There are, however, a few things that may be of help:

• Wear a mask. Masks have their problems (as noted in a previous post), but they can provide a degree of protection.

• Keep your total body load of chemicals as low as possible. If you use nontoxic personal care and cleaning products, you may be better able to handle the exposures you can't control.

• Consider taking protective supplements. Many people find that taking antioxidants like Vitamin C helps their body process toxins more efficiently.

• Consider flying with one of the airlines that are primary users of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which has been designed to avoid the problem of bleed air. Currently, the primary users of the plane are Nippon Airways, Japan Airlines, United Airlines, and Air India.

If you're headed out for vacation soon, I wish you an enjoyable trip and lots of clean, fresh air.

Chemicals and Conception

Celebrating Mother's Day yesterday reminded me again of what a blessing it is to be the mother of two amazing young men. As I ponder the gift of motherhood, I can't help but think of a number of people I know who would very much like to be parents, but have found that goal difficult to achieve. There are many possible reasons for infertility, but a factor that may be overlooked, and that can be controlled to an extent, is exposure to chemical toxins. (How did you know I was going to say that?)

Earlier this year, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives published a study that examined "persistent pollutants" and the time to pregnancy of couples wishing to conceive. The study and a report of it published in E Magazine noted the following:

• Couples exposed to toxins known as persistent organic pollutants took longer to become pregnant.

• Men’s chemical exposures were more important to the equation than their partners'.

• The concentration of chemicals found to delay conception was lower than the average found in the U.S. population.

An online article entitled "Toxins and Fertility" notes that only about 5 percent of the almost 80,000 chemicals used in the US today have been tested for their reproductive effects. Despite that, we do know that certain chemicals may cause problems for couples wishing to become parents. The article and a fact sheet produced by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families list the following chemicals that may affect reproduction:

• Phthalates, which are widely used and may be found in nail polish, shampoo, conditioner, lotion, antiperspirant, sunscreen, gum, candy, medications, and many other places

• Parabens, added to a wide range of household products, including bath products and cosmetics

• Bisphenol A (BPA), which can be found in polycarbonate plastic and some food and beverage can linings

• Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), commonly used in stain-proof and non-stick products

• Cadmium, a metal used in pigments, metal coatings, plastics, and batteries

• Fluoride, added to many municipal water supplies

• Common pesticides and fungicides, including Vinclozolinis, Kepone, DBCP, ethylene dibromide, and Methoxychlor (MCX)

• Triclosan (Microban),found in anti-bacterial soaps, dental products, cosmetics, deodorant, first aid products, kitchenware, appliances, toys, and more

The chemicals listed are linked to a wide range of other health effects as well. Avoiding them benefits us all.

Take a Stand, Part Two

Last week I wrote about the Safe Chemicals Act and a simple way for us all to take a stand for a healthier world. This week I have another effort to report. A coalition of groups is calling on major retailers to phase out use of more than 100 problematic chemicals, and they could use our help.

The effort is known as the Mind the Store campaign. In a USA Today article, an individual associated with the group Safer Chemicals: Healthy Families explains that since the federal government isn’t minding the store, the retailers need to act independently. He praises former, positive actions, but notes that the efforts have been inadequate because of the sheer magnitude of the chemical problem.

The Safer Chemicals: Healthy Families website explains that the coalition working on the effort joined forces because of a shared frustration with the government's failure to protect its citizens from the dangers of toxic chemicals. The site further notes that "most importantly we came together with a shared moral urgency to reduce the suffering caused by chronic diseases like cancer, disabilities and autism that are linked to chemical exposure. It is that moral urgency that drove the campaign's steering committee to launch Mind the Store."

Recently, I heard a speaker on a Christian radio program state that he didn't believe a certain environmental issue was a Christian or moral issue at all. I was frankly stunned by that statement. The environment, including the environment inside our homes and churches, directly affects the health of human beings, who are the crown of God's creation. If our lack of concern for the air we share (as well as for land, water, and food) hurts ourselves and others, how can that not be considered a moral issue? I strongly believe that Christians should not only be part of efforts to make the world a healthier place, but should lead the charge.

To learn more about the effort to influence retailers and the chemicals being targeted, visit the Mind the Store website. The site provides an easy way to join the cause and send a letter in support of the initiative. The issue matters, and when we make our voices heard, that can matter, too.

Take a Stand

I've written before (primarily in the posts entitled Who Regulates the Products We Use and Trying to Get a Product Off the Market) about the surprising lack of testing and regulation of the chemicals that fill our lives. A recent editorial in The New York Times, entitled A Toothless Law on Common Chemicals addresses the issue. The author makes the following points:

• The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act is supposed to ensure the safety of chemicals used in manufacturing and household products. The author notes that "it would be hard to design a law more stacked against the regulators."

• Manufacturers do not need to prove that their chemicals are safe before they are sold and used.

• The government must prove chemicals are unsafe before they can be removed from the market, but it is difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to get the information needed to conduct the required tests. The author notes that "the agency can only ask the company for data or require testing if it first proves there is a potential risk, which is hard to do without the company’s data."

• There are about 85,000 chemicals in use. Since 1976, the EPA has issued regulations to control five of them.

The good news is that there is potential for change. Recently, two senators introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2013. If enacted, it would require manufacturers to prove the safety of products before they are sold. More information on the bill can be found at the legislative update page of Safer Chemicals: Healthy Families.

You can make a difference in this important effort by contacting your senators. The Center for Environmental Health has provided an easy way to do so at their Urge Your Senator page. Contacting your senators through the site is quick and easy and can make a difference. Please take a moment to take a stand.

Fatal Fertilizer

The horrible tragedy in Texas last week has focused the nation's attention on some of the usually unrecognized problems associated with commercial fertilizers. There are good questions being asked about the wisdom of building houses, schools, and nursing homes near fertilizer companies. There are other important questions about commercial fertilizers that need to be asked, though, including the following.

Q: How are modern fertilizers made?

A: Most fertilizers are composed primarily of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. These can come from various sources, including toxic industrial waste.

Q: How common is the practice of using industrial waste in fertilizer?

A: The Washington Toxics Coalition reports that the practice is widespread. A report prepared by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) states that “more than six hundred companies from 44 states mix over 270 million pounds of hazardous waste with fertilizer as a cheap and unregulated means of disposal."

Q: What kinds of waste products are used?

A: An article first published in Catalyst magazine states that "industrial and mining wastes — including plutonium, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, PCBs and dioxin — are taken from tailings, sumps, holding ponds, furnaces, and even captured from pollution control devices, and legally sold to fertilizer companies or spread directly on farmland."

Q: Is the waste treated first to remove the toxins?

A: A report entitled "Waste Lands: The Threat of Toxic Fertilizer" says, "Unfortunately, the recycling of hazardous wastes into fertilizer products does not always include the process of treatment or cleaning of hazardous waste, but rather dilution of the waste. Dilution involves adding substances to a waste to reduce the concentration of toxic substances that are present in the waste. Dilution does not reduce the toxicity of the hazardous constituents."

Q: What are the laws about using toxic waste for fertilizer?

A: An international treaty known as the Basel Convention or the Basel Ban addresses "toxic colonialism." It prevents developed countries like the United States from calling hazardous waste "fertilizer" and exporting it to poorer countries. Industrial waste is allowed to be used in the United States because of loopholes in hazardous waste disposal regulations. An individual quoted in a Seattle Times article discusses the loopholes. Referring to a toxic by-product of steel making, he says, "When it goes into our silo, it's a hazardous waste. When it comes out of the silo, it's no longer regulated. The exact same material. Don't ask me why. That's the wisdom of the EPA."

Loopholes also allow products to be sold without full ingredient disclosure. Labeling laws only require the beneficial nutrients to be listed. Contaminants, which the CHEJ report calls 'toxic stowaways," are not legally required to be included on the label.

Q: What contaminants may be present?

A: The Waste Lands publication reported on a study that tested 29 fertilizers for 22 toxic metals. They found that 20 fertilizers exceeded levels of concern for nine toxic heavy metals. All 29 fertilizers contained some level of each of the metals evaluated. The report notes that the metals are associated with cancer, birth defects, and reproductive problems.

Q: What can people do to help combat the problem and reduce the health risks?

A: The obvious place to start is by choosing not to purchase and use chemical fertilizers on lawns and gardens. Those that advertise weed control as part of their benefit are especially important to avoid, because they generally contain pesticides. The website Eartheasy has a helpful page on natural lawn care, and natural and organic fertilizers can be bought many places, including Grow Organic. We can also influence the use of toxic fertilizers on commercial crops by voting with our wallets. When we buy organic produce, we send the message that the issue is important to us.

The explosion in Texas was sobering and heartbreaking, but if it causes us to examine our use of chemical fertilizers, maybe we can salvage a bit of good from the tragedy.

Nomadic Wanderings: MCS Housing Challenges

I've addressed the topic of housing for the chemically ill several times, and I'm sure I'll continue to return to the issue. People who are very reactive to chemicals and other toxins (including those produced by mold) generally find that acquiring and maintaining safe housing is one of their largest struggles and needs. This week, an online friend detailed her search for safe housing over the last few years. I've asked if I could share her story with you, because I think it illustrates the problem well. She writes:

April 2010: We left our moldy house.

June 2010: I was chased (by chemicals/toxins) out of our townhouse.

July 2010: We stayed near family while looking for a rental in a drier climate. I experienced a lot of pain there.

August 2010: We rented a wonderful home in a dry climate.

July 2011: A TERRIBLY wet spring/summer (like wetter than in 20 years) created enough outdoor mold in the woods and on the house's wooden decks (etc.) that I was having 24/7 trouble breathing, couldn't eat, etc. I camped for two weeks.

August 2011: We rented a home and I was chased out by new chemicals (plus I was feeling horrible anyway because the house was very "mediocre" and there was an airport nearby).

October 2011: We rented a home with a great outdoor environment, but indoors it harbored mold. Eventually, I couldn't breathe well or function there. I slept in the car two nights.

February 2012: We rented another place because I was desperate. (It doesn’t work well when it’s very cold, you have three kids, and you can’t breathe in your house.) I only lasted in the new place two weeks. I couldn't stop having dry heaves, plus I had other scary symptoms. I stayed in an expensive camping cabin in a nearby state park for a week or so. I had heat and a bed, but I wasn't allowed to cook in it. My husband had to drive 30 minutes to bring me food.

Friends and family helped provide an almost-all-aluminum camper for me to use. I
stayed in a campground by myself for six weeks. I had a tiny fridge and griddle and I came back to our rental home every few days for showers. I improved quite a bit during those six weeks. Then the campground owner stained all his picnic tables and sprayed his trees. But by then I could tolerate living at the rental again for another couple of weeks before it became impossible again. I bounced around to various places in my (wonderful) camper to survive April and May. I sweltered in the rental cabin a few times because opening the windows gave me asthma from wood burning and the air conditioner unit had mold.

June 2012: Someone GAVE us a Winnebago, so we camped in the Winnebago and my camper. We did three months of dry camping (yikes, difficult), then two months at campgrounds because there was a burn ban (which kept me safe from campfires) and tourist season was winding down (reducing propane exhaust, etc.) I got SIGNIFICANTLY better during this time. Not totally healed by any means, but way better.

October 2012: We began staying in this "decent" mobile home (with real wood walls, not formaldehyde-laden paneling), but with the second worst outdoor environment of our homes, which became worse over time.

January 2013: We became aware of an increasing mold problem here. It's not reasonable to ask the landlord to do anything about it (long story), especially because the outdoor environment here is so bad for me.

February 2013: I REALLY started to go downhill. The outside air here has made my camper unusable unless we move it. There's no safe place to move it that has electricity to keep it warm. We've been searching for rentals almost every day since January. We actually DID find that needle-in-a-haystack house (for sale, not rent) that would probably work amazingly well. It's half the price of what we estimated to build from scratch (not to mention no headache of building.) But, we don't have the money for contract for deed and absolutely can't get financing (so far, unless there's something we missed), even if our church raised a big down payment for us. We have also been turned down by over 20 major organizations for help, both religious and secular.

This is where the story currently stands. Will you pray for my friend? Will you pray for all of us struggling with health-related housing issues? I'm still trying to reclaim my own house, hoping to be able to sleep inside again at some point.

In addition to prayer, people who care about this issue can help in other ways, some of which I've previously mentioned.

1. Do your best not to contribute to outdoor air quality problems. Your choice of laundry products, for instance, affects your neighbors because the chemicals are pumped into the neighborhood air through your dryer vent. When you choose to use lawn chemicals or burn leaves, it doesn't only affect you and your family, but also those who live nearby.

2. Financial help is always appreciated. Chemical illness is an expensive condition to manage. In 2003, an article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives reported on a study that examined the efficacy of over a hundred treatments used by people with MCS. The study found that participants had spent more than a third of their annual income on health care costs and had spent an average of $57,000 in their attempts to create safe homes. My friend is still struggling with housing issues, but as you read, the help she received made a significant difference for her. I am also extremely grateful for help that I've received. A previous post mentions two non-profit organizations trying to raise funds to address the problem.

3. Consider participating in activities to raise awareness and help for the chemically ill. The Jennifer Parker Foundation is sponsoring a series of walkathons to be held on Sunday, May 5th. See their website for more information and to register.

Housing problems are daunting, but not insurmountable. Thank you for caring and helping.

Addicted to Perfume?

Can people literally be addicted to the personal care products they use? It's possible. Although research on huffing (the deliberate inhalation of chemicals) has lagged behind research into other types of drug abuse, recent studies are intriguing and may help us understand not only inhalant abuse, but how everyday chemical exposures may affect us.
It was once believed that inhalant addiction was more psychological than physical, but research is dispelling that notion. Findings include the following:

• A 2007 article in Neuropsychopharmacology reported on the way in which the solvent tolulene increases dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens (the brain's pleasure center). Dopamine is part of the body's reward system and is associated with the development of addiction.

A number of studies have shown that inhalant abusers experience withdrawal symptoms when they cease huffing.

• A 2007 study reported in Drug and Alcohol Dependence found that 11.1% of study participants (adolescent inhalant users) experienced inhalant withdrawal.
  

• A 2009 report in Medical Hypotheses states that “this article draws from multiple sources of data to suggest that withdrawal symptoms can be part of inhalant dependence and are clinically significant."

• A 2011 article in Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation found that almost half of people with inhalant dependence experienced three or more withdrawal symptoms. The authors note that “the percentage of persons with inhalant dependence reporting clinically significant inhalant withdrawal symptoms was almost equal to the percentage of persons with cocaine dependence reporting clinically significant cocaine withdrawal symptoms.”

What do these findings mean for the general population? They may mean that sometimes when people "really like" a perfume or "have to use" air freshener, there is a physical basis for the desire. It's unlikely that any withdrawal symptoms (such as craving a product) would be recognized for what they are. It may be similar to the way in which people who "really like" coffee may be unconsciously feeding a dependence on caffeine.

The addiction-like nature of certain chemical exposures can make it difficult for people to associate chemicals and symptoms. In the book Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes, authors Nicholas A. Ashford and Claudia Miller note that people may be simultaneously experiencing stimulatory symptoms from one chemical and withdrawal symptoms from another. The pattern makes it difficult to correlate cause and effect.

When people are addicted to a substance, they can manage to avoid withdrawal symptoms by making sure the substance stays in their body. This doesn't forestall toxicity effects, however. When people smoke cigarettes, for example (which also increase dopamine), they increase their risk for cancer, no matter what immediate smoking-related health symptoms they may or may not experience. Likewise, chemical exposures have serious long-term consequences, whether or not people initially find them pleasant.

Ashford and Miller note that "The difference between chemical exposures and cigarettes, alcohol, or caffeine is that in the former case addiction is an unwitting process. The individual may have no idea it is occurring." The answer is simple and one I repeat often. Avoid chemical exposures however and wherever possible, both for your own sake and the sake of those who share the air.

But I Don't Smell Anything

For a variety of reasons, people tend to associate toxic chemicals with "smells." Many chemicals do have strong, identifiable odors. The association is also made because when people begin to recognize that chemicals cause them problems, they often first notice symptoms caused by perfumes and other synthetic fragrances. Unfortunately, the flip side of this association is that people tend to believe that if they can't smell something, it isn't there or can't be problematic.

The truth is that many dangerous chemicals can be neither seen nor smelled. Carbon monoxide is a well-known example. As with carbon monoxide, people can be greatly affected by other toxins without being aware that they are being exposed to them.
Some chemicals do have a noticeable odor, but in any given situation the odor may not be detected. This is generally due to a phenomenon known as olfactory fatigue (also known as odor fatigue or olfactory adaptation). Olfactory fatigue occurs when prolonged exposure to a compound renders a person unable to smell it any longer.

When people stop smelling an odor, they naturally assume that the odor-causing chemicals have dissipated. This may or may not be true. In fact, in the case of olfactory fatigue, the inability to smell a compound is not due to the fact that there is less of it, but to the fact that there is more of it than the nose can process.

One online source explains the phenomenon this way:

"Have you ever noticed a particular scent upon entering a room, and then not noticed it ten minutes later? This is due to olfactory fatigue. The olfactory sense is unique because it relies on mass, not energy to trigger action potentials. Your ears do not "stop" hearing a sound after a certain period of time, nor do your eyes stop seeing something you may be staring at. This is because both the ears and the eyes rely on energy to trigger them, not mass. In the nose, once a molecule has triggered a response, it must be disposed of and this takes time. If a molecule comes along too quickly, there is no place for it on the olfactory hairs, so it cannot be perceived."

All of our senses, including our sense of smell, can be helpful in warning us of danger. Relying on our sense of smell too heavily, though, isn't wise. Our noses can help us, but the organ we most need to rely on is the brain.

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.

Particles of Impatience: Behavioral Effects of Pollution

It seems to me that as a culture we are slowly beginning to realize the connection between certain chemical exposures and associated health problems. Most people, for example, seem to have an understanding that chemicals may contribute to the development of cancer. What is not yet widely understood is the magnitude and scope of the chemical problem, including the wide variety of possible effects. This may be especially true for effects that might be considered emotional or behavioral rather than physical.

I ran across an interesting study recently linking fine particles found in automobile exhaust, among other sources, with impatience and unwillingness to delay gratification in laboratory animals. Researchers exposed baby mice to tiny particles collected from roadway air. When the mice grew up, they were 43% more likely to repeatedly and "feverishly" push a lever to receive a free reward instead of waiting for it to fall.

A report of the study published in Environmental Health News made the following points:

• The mice were exposed early in life, but the effects were not seen until they were grown.

• Similar traits in humans are related to cognitive and behavioral disorders, obesity, attention deficits, rule-breaking, and addiction.

• Tiny particles, such as those used in the study, may be released by cars, trucks, industry, incineration, wood fires, cooking, and certain office equipment.

• Ultrafine particles can lodge in the heart, brain, and other parts of the body and can carry other pollutants with them. Exposure can affect cardiovascular and respiratory health.

• Studies suggest that the behavioral effects may be due to the fact that the particles cause inflammation and oxidative damage to the brain.

It is difficult to completely avoid exposure to automobile exhaust, but there are ways to protect yourself to some degree. Parking a car in an attached garage allows exhaust fumes to enter the house, and isn’t a healthy practice. Parking elsewhere is the healthiest choice, but installing a high-capacity ventilation fan in the garage can help mitigate the problem somewhat, as can making sure the door between the garage and house seals well and stays shut at all times. Fine particulate exposure can also be decreased by using ventilation fans near stoves and office equipment and by choosing not to smoke, use combustion appliances, or burn yard waste.

I’ve often heard it said that when you’re feeling angry or impatient you should take a deep breath and count to ten. Maybe we should re-think that “take a deep breath” part.

Sticky Chemicals

Last month, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives reported on a study of common household chemicals called PFCs. The lead study author, quoted in a WebMD article, noted that the study found "a clear and strong association between exposure to [these] compounds and osteoarthritis, which is a very painful chronic disease.“ Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis and involves irreversible deterioration of joint cartilage.

PFCs are often used to make products slicker and more repellent. Some of the many places they may be found include:

• Nonstick cookware

• Grease-resistant food packaging, such as microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, and fast food sandwich wrappers

• Paper plates

• Carpeting

• Stain-resistant upholstered furniture

• Some clothing items, including those made of Gore-Tex and other fabrics treated for water or stain resistance

• Shoes

• Luggage

• Camping and sporting equipment

• Certain cosmetic and personal care products, including shampoo, dental floss, denture cleaners, nail polish, eye make-up, pressed powder, shaving cream, and lotion

PFCs have been previously linked to other negative health effects. These include higher levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol, skewed thyroid hormone levels, premature onset of menopause in women, liver inflammation, reduced vaccine effectiveness in children, smaller birth size of babies, and weakening of the immune system. They cause cancer in laboratory animals and are likely human carcinogens.

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. It takes a human body 4 years to expel half of a dose of one of the two most common PFCs and more than 8 years to process half a dose of the other. Some varieties of the chemicals have been removed from the market, but others have taken their place. The Environmental Working Group notes that "companies that manufacture PFCs have agreed to phase out one variety, called PFOA, by 2015. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence that the chemicals being used to replace it are any safer."

Tips for avoiding PFCs include the following:

• Avoid use of Teflon-type non-stick cookware. Safer alternatives are stainless steel, cast iron, ceramic, or enamel. Remember that it isn't just pans that may be coated with PFCs, but muffin tins, cookie sheets, and other bakeware.

• Decline optional stain-protection treatment when buying furniture. Some health experts recommend covering any treated furniture already owned with a heavy slipcover to impede migration of the chemicals from the furniture into your body.

• Carpeting should be avoided for many reasons. (See this previous post.) Adding treatment for stain resistance makes a bad product worse.

• Avoid clothing treated for water or stain repellency. In most situations, the benefits are not worth the risk. Tightly-woven non-treated fabrics are often an acceptable alternative.

• Minimize consumption of food packaged in PFC-coated containers. Pop popcorn on the stove, in an air-popper, or in a plain brown bag in the microwave. Use glass or ceramic for microwave cooking and for storing leftovers. Avoid paper plates.

• When buying cosmetics and personal care products, read the labels and look for PTFE and for ingredients that start with "fluoro" or "perfluoro." These are PFCs and should be avoided.

I know it’s discouraging to constantly read of the extent of the chemical problem and the ramifications of using the products that surround us. I find it discouraging, too. We simply must educate ourselves, though, and do what we can to protect ourselves and our fellow human beings. Seemingly small decisions can matter more than we imagine.

Lessons from Algernon: Chemicals and Cognition

I often find myself thinking about a book that I first read many years ago. Flowers for Algernon is the story of a mentally disabled man named Charlie who undergoes surgery to improve his IQ. Algernon is the laboratory mouse who served as the first experimental subject of the procedure. The story is written from Charlie's point of view, and the grammar, spelling, and word choices change as his intelligence does.

I think about the book frequently, because a lot of my communication with fellow toxic illness sufferers is done through e-mail, and the grammar, spelling, and word choices of my friends tells me a lot about how they are doing and whether they have recently had any significant chemical exposures. People who are normally articulate and even eloquent lose their ability to spell and form coherent sentences. I often find myself reading sections of written communication over and over, trying to glean their meaning. Undoubtedly, others have similar experiences with passages I write when my brain isn't at its best.

Chemicals can affect the brain in many ways. The National Institutes of Health states that encephalopathy is a term for brain disease or malfunction and that it may be caused by a number of things, including toxins like solvents, paints, drugs, radiation, industrial chemicals and certain metals. The list of possible symptoms includes progressive loss of memory, inability to concentrate, and decline in cognitive ability.

The cognitive effects of chemical exposures are very real. Even those of us who have been managing our illness for many years find that we forget to go through our "first-aid" routines after we have been exposed. People often talk about going into a store or other toxic environment and wandering about in a daze, forgetting why they are there and failing to realize that they should leave. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the same dynamic may be happening on a societal level. I'm afraid that we may get to a point where we are too far gone to realize the trouble that common chemicals are causing us and to make the effort to save ourselves.

Some legislators in Kansas are trying to save themselves, at least from one possible toxin. An article in the Huffington Post reports that the Kansas Republican Assembly would like city officials in Topeka to cease adding fluoride to the city's drinking water, at least during the legislative session, "to protect our legislators from potential loss of IQ.and other negative side effects of fluoride." Fluoride is only one of many chemicals linked to a lowering of IQ levels. Just within the past few weeks I've read articles linking lower IQ levels to lead, flame retardants, and chemicals related to natural gas production.

The fictional Charlie learned from the experience of Algernon that his cognitive abilities were likely to decline again after they had risen. Unfortunately, he was unable to find a way to prevent that from happening. We can prevent further cognitive decline from happening to us, though. Medicine Net states that early treatment of many types of encephalopathy can halt or reduce the symptoms and that "often, cases of encephalopathy can be prevented by avoiding the many primary causes." We can save ourselves, but if we are going to protect ourselves from the effects of environmental toxins, we need to do it before our collective cognitive functioning is so diminished that we fail to fully understand the problem. Let's save ourselves, friends. Seriously, let's save ourselves while we still can.

Surviving Winter

As I've written before, primarily in the post entitled A Challenge that Hits Home, safe housing is a huge problem for the chemically reactive. Almost every day I read about a fellow chemical illness sufferer who is looking for some sort of temporary or permanent shelter. The fact that the great majority of homes, hotels, and emergency shelters are inaccessible to those with MCS is a huge problem. It's a serious issue any time of year, but in the winter it becomes a true crisis.

My situation is certainly not as bad as the situations many of my fellow sufferers find themselves in. I have a warm house to stay in during the day, but it becomes a problem at night, when mold levels rise. Because of my extreme sensitivity to mold, I sleep in a campervan. It’s pretty cold out there this time of year, but I'm able to stretch out, and I have electricity, which enables me to use a small space heater. It could definitely be worse.

People with MCS may find themselves struggling to stay warm for a variety of reasons. Some stay in trailers, sheds, workshops or other non-conventional buildings that are not well-insulated or designed for cold-weather living. Some live in conventional homes, but can't tolerate the home's heat source.

My healthy readers may wonder why an uncomfortable cold night is preferable to an uncomfortable night of reactions to a toxic environment. The short answer is that the body doesn't need to detox "cold." If I spend a cold night in my campervan, I may be tired the next day, but I don't have other lingering effects. If I spend the night in my home, I have continuing pain and other symptoms that just continue to worsen as my body is unable to rid itself of the mold toxins. There comes a point at which the cold itself is dangerous, but when it isn't life-threatening or likely to lead to permanent injury, choosing cold over toxins is reasonable.

Because this topic comes up so often, I've decided to compile some tips on staying warm at night. Some are things I've learned from experience and some are things I've heard from others. I haven't tried them all and they aren't all applicable to every situation, due to personal sensitivities, tolerances, and needs. I’ve written these primarily for those with toxic illness, but my healthy readers might want to read through them, too. You never know when an ice storm is going to take out your power. Here are some suggestions:

• Prepare in advance -- It's wise to have multiple layers of safe-for-you warm bedding and clothing ready, even if you don't need them now. Because it can take months to offgas newly purchased products, waiting until the need arises to purchase goods can be problematic. Even if you have stable housing now and think homelessness or semi-homelessness will never happen to you, I advise you to be prepared. I thought that, too.

• Invest in good quality bedding -- I'm personally a big fan of wool, which keeps me much warmer than other fabrics. In the winter I use a wool blanket inside a zero-degree sleeping bag, covered with a wool comforter. After looking for a zero-degree sleeping bag made of natural fabrics and not finding one, I finally decided on a nylon version. Nylon is the least toxic of the plastic fabrics and I find it much more tolerable than polyester or acrylic. I did need to wash my new bag many times and let it offgas for months before I could tolerate it, though. A cheaper bedding option is a mylar emergency blanket. They're a little loud and "crinkly," but do a good job of keeping a person wrapped inside them warm, and most people with chemical sensitivities seem to handle them well.

• Surround yourself with warmth on all sides-- The more cocooned you can be inside your bedding, the warmer you will stay. Sometimes people who can't find a tolerable sleeping bag will make a bag of sorts out of blankets. One blanket can be folded in half lengthwise and secured with pins or clips. It can go inside another folded blanket which has the opening on the other side. The goal is to minimize air intrusion. Keeping a blanket or another source of warmth below you as well as above you can be very helpful.

• Layers are your friend -- It's helpful to have some warm clothes that are too big for you so that you can easily layer other clothes underneath them. On the coldest nights I wear six layers of clothing to bed. The outer layer is a wool sweater that originally belonged to my husband who is much bigger than I am. By the time I have my other layers on, it fits me just fine.

• Cover as much of your body as possible -- A helpful tip I picked up from a fellow toxic illness sufferer is to wear a hooded sweatshirt at night. I had been wearing a sweatshirt and a knit cap, but the cap often fell off. A hooded sweatshirt solves that problem and also covers my neck. Although I haven't tried it, I've thought that wearing a ski mask to bed would probably be helpful. Tucking pant legs into socks will keep your legs fully covered.

• Put something warm in bed with you -- Sometimes people use microwaveable cloth bags filled with rice, corn, or beans. Most people with toxic illness don't handle the rubber or vinyl of traditional hot water bottles, but the same results can be obtained from filling a metal water bottle or canteen. Be careful not to burn yourself, of course. I've become a fan of air-activated hand warmers ("HotHands" is one brand). They stay hot all night long and seem very non-toxic.

• Pre-warm your body -- Some people recommend exercising to warm up, but too much exercising close to bedtime can interfere with sleep. Others prefer to take a warm bath or eat a small amount of spicy or hot food.

• Pre-warm your clothing --I've heard of people warming bedtime clothing in a dryer before putting it on.

• Pre-warm the bed -- A bed can be pre-warmed with a hair dryer. People concerned about electromagnetic fields don't generally recommend sleeping with an electric blanket or mattress pad, but some people use them to warm the bed, then turn them off and unplug them before sleeping.

• Insulate and block drafts -- Rolled towels or blankets can keep air from entering underneath doors. Reflective insulation or bubble wrap can be used for windows.

I've learned that keeping myself warm is not the only overnight wintertime challenge. For safety reasons, it seems wise to keep a cellphone with me, but I've learned that the batteries stop working if my phone gets too cold. I now wrap my phone in a wool sock and make sure it stays warm enough to function.

Stay warm, friends. Spring is coming!

People, Pests, and Pesticides

In last week's post I talked about triclosan, which is added to many consumer products to combat germs. In researching the issue, I ran across a couple of interesting sentences. One article said that triclosan was originally developed as a pesticide. Another said that triclosan was added to certain pesticide products. These sentences seemed strange to me, because triclosan IS a pesticide. In the broadest sense of the term, a pesticide is a chemical designed to kill unwanted biological life. Dictionary.com defines a pesticide as "a chemical preparation for destroying plant, fungal, or animal pests." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that triclosan was first registered as a pesticide in 1969.

Because pesticides are specifically designed to kill (which is, of course, what the “cide” suffix means), they are potentially very dangerous. In fact, Zyklon B, the poison used to kill prisoners in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, was a pesticide. A 2009 article in Environmental Health News reported on a study finding that children who live in homes where pesticides are used are twice as likely to develop brain cancer.

Some pesticides are more dangerous than others, but it's important to recognize pesticides in all of their forms. Is a product designed to kill something? If so, it’s probably a pesticide. Pesticide products can target bugs (such as sprays, bug bombs, mothballs, flea collars and lice shampoo), weeds (such as weed killer and weed-control fertilizer products), or pathogens (such as antimicrobial soaps or treated clothing).

The list of diseases and symptoms related to pesticide exposure is long. The website Beyond Pesticides includes a Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database which provides information linking pesticides to Alzheimer's disease, asthma, birth defects, cancer, diabetes, endocrine disruption, learning and developmental disorders, Parkinson's disease, and reproductive issues, among others. The EPA notes the following health effects from some commonly used pesticides.

• 2, 4-D is found in over 1,500 pesticide products, is often used on residential lawns, and is frequently found in the dust of homes and other buildings. Studies link it to blood, liver, and kidney toxicity, coughing, a burning sensation in the lungs, loss of muscular coordination, nausea, vomiting, and dizziness.

• Atrazine is an herbicide often used on golf courses, roadway grasses, and residential lawns, and is frequently found in drinking water. It is an endocrine disruptor with effects on hormones, the central nervous system, and the immune system. Atrazine exposure increases the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and pre-term delivery and decreased birth weight of newborns.

• DDVP (Dichlorvos) can be found in flea collars, pest strips, pesticide sprays, and foggers. It affects the brain, plasma, and red blood cells and can cause nausea, anxiousness, restlessness, teary eyes, heavy sweating, and many cancers.

• Pyrethroids are generally used in lice shampoos, pet flea shampoos, household foggers, and municipal mosquito abatement products. Exposure can cause dizziness, twitching, nervous disorders, skin and respiratory irritation, and immunotoxic effects.

A quick Internet search or a trip to the library will often yield a natural solution to a pest problem that can be not only magnitudes safer and surprisingly effective, but cheaper as well. The websites Beyond Pesticides and The Best Control are good places to start. Pesticides of all sorts have ruined and even taken lives, and I urge people to take the issue very seriously. For your own sake and the sake of those around you, please stop and research alternatives before using any chemical designed to kill.

Killing Germs While Killing Ourselves

It's flu season, and there seems to be even more talk than usual about the need for disinfecting surfaces and killing germs. Our culture certainly takes the fight against germs seriously. We add anti-microbial chemicals to soaps, toothpaste, deodorant, dishwashing detergent, cosmetics, clothing, shoes, carpets, countertops, children toys and all sorts of other products. One of the chemicals that has been used most frequently for the purpose is triclosan.

Here are some of the things we know about triclosan:

• An analysis of 27 studies between 1980 and 2006 concluded that washing hands with an antibacterial soap is no more effective in preventing infectious illness than washing them with plain soap and water.

• A factsheet prepared by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that triclosan is found in the bodies of about 75 percent of us.

• A study reported in August of 2012 found that triclosan impairs muscle contractions, which can cause weakness and improper heart functioning. A Daily Tech article quotes a researcher who observes that "Although triclosan is not regulated as a drug, this compound acts like a potent cardiac depressant in our models."

• When triclosan in consumer products comes into contact with chlorine (such as in tap water), the chemicals can combine to produce chloroform, which has been linked to a number of negative health effects and may contribute to cancer development. Authors of a 2007 study on triclosan-containing antibacterial products conclude that "exposure to chloroform can be significant under some conditions."

• Overuse of triclosan and similar chemicals may contribute to the rise of antibiotic-resistant "superbugs." A 2006 article in the journal Microbial Drug Resistance states that "Since 2000, a number of studies have verified the occurrence of triclosan resistance amongst dermal, intestinal, and environmental microorganisms, including some of clinical relevance."

• Triclosan has been found to hinder an enzyme related to estrogen metabolism. A report of the study observes that this may have significant implications for pregnancy and fetal development.

• A higher level of triclosan in the bodies of children and teens under the age of 18 is associated with higher incidence of allergies. A Science Daily report notes that this supports the "hygiene hypothesis,” which postulates that living in a highly germ-free environment may impair the proper development of the immune system.

• A recent analysis of Minnesota lakes found increasing levels of triclosan and triclosan derivatives (chemicals which are formed when triclosan and chlorine mix during wastewater treatment). When these are exposed to sunlight, they form dioxins. The World Health Organization designates dioxins as "highly toxic" and among the "dirty dozen" chemicals that are especially dangerous and persistent in both the environment and human body.

To sum it up, manufacturers put a potentially dangerous chemical which doesn't appear to have much benefit into a huge array of consumer products. Good idea? I don't think so. Purchasing and using products containing triclosan? I don’t think that’s a good idea, either.

What Does Clean Mean?

A recent study determined that developing asthma was strongly associated with the workplace environment. The researchers associated 18 jobs with an increased risk of developing the condition. Four of these were cleaning jobs, and three more were noted to involve likely exposure to cleaning products.

This is far from the first study to correlate asthma and cleaning products. In 2006, a literature review determined that "accumulating, consistent evidence” linked asthma risk and cleaning work. In 2010, the same journal re-visited the issue. In an article entitled "Update on Asthma and Cleaners," the authors noted that further studies had verified and strengthened the link between jobs in the cleaning industry and evidence of asthma. They added that others who worked around and with cleaning products, such as homemakers and healthcare professionals, showed similar effects. Other articles and studies have also made that point. A study examining people who cleaned their own homes found that the use of cleaning sprays at least weekly was associated with asthma symptoms.

In a previous post I mentioned the need to think about what the word "fresh" really means. Similarly, I think it's wise to ponder the word "clean." Is coating a surface with chemicals that cause asthma and other health effects making it clean? I don't think so.

There are many non-toxic options for cleaning. The cheapest and most basic cleaning aid is water. It’s known as the universal solvent because of its ability to dissolve more materials than any other substance. The power of pure water can be enhanced with such things as heat (using a steam cleaner, for instance), pressure (using a pressure washer), time (soaking an item for a while), or special applicators, such as microfiber cloths. Water alone can’t clean everything, but it can clean more than we’re likely to give it credit for.

Sometimes the goal is simply to make a surface free of visible dirt. Other times the goal is to disinfect. Water can do that, too. The heat of a steam cleaner can kill germs, of course, but water doesn't have to be heated to perform that task. A test of various disinfectant products used to clean a computer keyboard found that “all disinfectants, as well as the sterile water control, were effective at removing or inactivating more than 95% of the test bacteria.” In other words, wiping for five seconds with clean water was as effective as wiping for five seconds with bleach, alcohol, or the other disinfectant wipes tested.

Another study of disinfectants also verified the power of water (salt water in this case) to disinfect. Researchers at the University of Alberta looked at whether a quick swipe with an antibacterial product was enough to disinfect a surface. They found that it was not, and that three passes was the optimal number. Interestingly, they also found that three wipes with a salt-water solution were equally effective. The authors note, “When the surface was swiped three or more times, the saline wipe appeared to be equally effective as disinfectant wipes.”

Let’s refuse to believe the marketing hype. Let’s protect our own health and the health of those around us by refusing to use products that are not only unnecessary, but harmful. Let’s think about what “clean” really means.

To Trash or Not to Trash

A friend recently asked me this question:

"What is the Christian response of someone who DOESN'T have MCS, is trying to live more chemically aware, and is blind-sided by a purchase? I bought a box of 40 kitchen trash bags, and didn't realize they were fragranced until my kid opened the box and used one in our kitchen trash can last night. Do I go ahead and "take the hit" so that others don't have to and use up the bags? Do I give them to the struggling young family across the street (explaining why I'm parting with them, of course, so they can decline them if they want) and then go buy unscented bags for myself? Do I send the remaining bags straight to the landfill? The bag manufacturer put a little logo on the package that I overlooked that says ‘With Odor Block.’ Had I seen it, I would have known that meant scented and not bought them, so I don't see blaming the manufacturer. I'll probably send an email to let them know I didn't mean to vote with my wallet for that product, just so they know. They're really strongly fragranced and I don't like them one bit, but I hate being wasteful and it seems abusive to give them to someone else."

What do you do with a toxic product that is somehow in your possession? It's a good question. As someone with chemical sensitivities, keeping fragranced or otherwise problematic products in my house isn't an option, but I've wondered about giving those sorts of items to others. One argument for doing so is the fact that most people use those products anyway, with or without my assistance. In the end, however, I've personally decided that I can't in good conscience give people things that I believe to be toxic, despite the fact that they choose to use the same or similar products themselves.

It wasn't easy at all for me to come to that conclusion. I hate waste, believe in generosity, and have always considered myself pretty good at re-using, recycling, and re-purposing things. To throw something away that someone else would find useful feels wrong on many levels. I've come to believe, though, that I need to be a steward of the knowledge I've acquired about chemical toxicity. Whether other people know, believe, or care that products harm them doesn't change the fact that I do.

This issue came up at Christmas. My college-aged son was home and opened a gift that was highly fragranced. It immediately went into the garage, to remove it from my airspace, and we began discussing its future fate. My son mentioned the possibility of giving it to someone else. I try not to give my young adult kids too much direct advice unless they ask for it, and I don't remember exactly what I said. I do remember, though, that at one point my son asked, "You want me to just throw it away, don't you?" Yep, I did. He threw it out, which I know wasn't easy for a poor, struggling college student watching every penny. I truly believe it was the right thing to do, though, and I really appreciated his willingness to do it.

The specific issue of trash bags has also come up in our family. My hubby unintentionally came home with some fragranced bags once. I decided that trash bags were sort of a special case. They were going to be thrown out anyway, so they might as well be filled with other trash before making their trip to the landfill. We kept them in the garage, filled them out there, and they never came inside the house.

Sometimes a problematic product will offgass over time and can be somewhat redeemed. The process of redeeming versus disposing of something is addressed in the Bible. In Leviticus 14:37–53, God gave the Israelites detailed instructions on how to proceed when they found mold in a house. The instructions included scraping walls and removing affected stones to try to remediate the problem. If the mold continued to spread, the house was to be torn down and taken outside of town for disposal. When throwing something away seems like poor stewardship of resources and somehow ungodly, I remember that passage. In God's hierarchy, people are above things, and when things threaten human health, sometimes they just need to go away.

People Say Ridiculous Things

Last week I wrote about the concerted effort by chemical manufacturers to discredit MCS as a physical condition and label it a psychological disorder. A recent article entitled Taking Refuge from Modernity; 21st Century Hermits illustrates the point.

The first clue that this is going to be an anti-MCS writing is that the condition is referred to as "idiopathic environmental intolerance." That's the designation the chemical lobby chooses to use. Idiopathic means "arising from an unknown cause" so by adding that term and removing the word "chemical" they can distance themselves from the condition. In other words, "We don't know why people get sick around the products we make, but it certainly has nothing to do with the toxic chemicals we put in them." The second line of the abstract states that

"A proportion of severely affected patients remove themselves from modern society, to live in isolation away from the purported causal agent of their ill health."

The significant words in this sentence are "purported causal agent." Purported means assumed or alleged and often carries the connotation of deceit. Google defines it as "appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely." The message is that "These people are confused or lying about what causes their distress." The abstract goes on:

"This is not a new phenomenon; reports of hermits extend back to the 3rd century AD. We conducted a literature review of case reports relating to ancient hermits and modern day reclusion resulting from idiopathic environmental intolerance, in order to explore whether there are similarities between these two groups and whether the symptoms of these 'illnesses of modernity' are simply a present-day way of reaching the end-point of reclusion.

The end-point of reclusion? What? The intended message is that "This is not a new illness. It's a psychological condition that has been around a long time. People who claim to have MCS are just hermits in disguise." The authors continue:

Whilst there were some differences between the cases, recurring themes in ancient and modern cases included: dissatisfaction with society, a compulsion to flee, reports of a constant struggle and a feeling of fighting against the establishment.

OK, let's clear this up. We're dissatisfied with society because we can't live in it without becoming very ill. We have a compulsion to flee because we desire to stay alive and live as symptom-free as possible. We report constant struggle because chemicals are everywhere. We feel like we're fighting the establishment because the establishment comes up with articles like this one. The abstract concludes this way:

The similarities which exist between the modern-day cases and the historical hermits may provide some insight into the extreme behaviours exhibited by this population. The desire to retreat from society in order to escape from harm has existed for many centuries, but in different guises.

In other words, "People with MCS exhibit extreme behavior, but they are motivated by whatever motivated 3rd century hermits. Whatever it is, it's not the chemicals. Nope, certainly not the chemicals."

In her book Casualties of Progress, Alison Johnson states that people with chemical sensitivities sometimes get diagnosed with agoraphobia, or having a fear of crowds or public places. Johnson notes that diagnosis is “tantamount to saying to a paraplegic in a wheelchair, ‘Too bad you don’t like to walk.” She notes that MCS sufferers are often accused of acting as they do for some sort of "secondary gain." Johnson states that “one does not have to read too many of the stories [of chemically sensitive people] before it is apparent that this suggestion is at best made in ignorance, and at worst represents an exceedingly cruel attitude toward people whose illness has in all too many cases cost them their job, their home, their friends, or their spouse.”

The "hermit" article is so ludicrous it almost makes me laugh. When I read it, I suddenly had a memory of tobacco executives testifying before congress that they didn't believe that cigarettes were addictive or contributed to cancer. Many Americans began to see in that moment that sometimes people in power will say ridiculous things in order to protect their financial interests.

A 2007 report in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention notes that tobacco companies knew of the evidence linking smoking to cancer as far back as the 1950s. The authors state:

"The documents also reveal that the tobacco companies helped manufacture the smoking controversy by funding scientific research that was intended to obfuscate and prolong the debate about smoking and health. Today, the tobacco companies acknowledge that smoking is a cause of disease, but they have not materially altered the way they do business. In our opinion, it is not sufficient for the tobacco industry to merely concede the obvious point that smoking is a cause of disease when it is evident that decades of misinformation has resulted in a public that is massively ignorant about [all of] the risks. Public education efforts are still needed to correct these misperceptions along with government oversight to ensure that the industry is not permitted to mislead the public further. If the past 50 years have taught us anything, it is that the tobacco industry cannot be trusted to put the public's interest above their profits no matter what they say."

Sound familiar? Substitute the word "chemical" for "tobacco" and "chemical exposure" for "smoking" and the paragraph almost works. What doesn't work is that chemical companies have not yet "concede[d] the obvious point" that their products cause MCS and other health problems. Nope, it's not the chemicals. We're just hermits seeking the end-point of reclusion.

More About the Fight

In a previous post that I've referenced several times, I reported on an article by Dr. Ann McCampbell entitled Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Under Siege.I spoke of non-profit organizations formed specifically for the purpose of combating awareness and acceptance of MCS and listed some of the activities of one of them. The efforts of the chemical industry to discredit MCS go far beyond that, however, and today I'm going to revisit the issue and share some of the other points the article made.

McCampbell notes that chemical manufacturers are behind a concerted campaign to cast doubt on the existence of MCS. She reports:

“To that end, they have launched a multipronged attack on MCS that consists of labeling sufferers as ‘neurotic’ and ‘lazy,’ doctors who help them as ‘quacks,’ scientific studies which support MCS as ‘flawed,’ calls for more research as ‘unnecessary,’ laboratory tests that document physiologic damage in people with MCS as ‘unreliable,’ government assistance programs helping those with MCS as ‘abused,’ and anyone sympathetic to people with MCS as ‘cruel’ for reinforcing patients’ ‘beliefs’ that they are sick.”

Taking a page from the playbook of the tobacco industry, chemical manufacturers often use non-profit front groups with neutral, pleasant sounding names, third party spokespeople and what is labeled “science-for-hire studies” to try to make the point that their products are safe and those who believe otherwise are deluded.

The article notes that “the industry has enlisted the aid of vocal anti-MCS physicians who promote the myths that people with MCS are ‘hypochondriacs,’ ‘hysterical,’ ‘neurotic,’ suffer from some other psychiatric disorder, belong to a ‘cult,’ or just complain too much.” These doctors work for the chemical industry as high-paid expert witnesses, but since they don’t usually disclose their financial ties in their writings or speaking engagements, people are generally unaware that the opinions are not unbiased, but reflect the chemical industry’s agenda.

Interestingly, as I mentioned previously, drug companies are also working to deny the existence of MCS. McCampbell explains this by pointing out that many companies that make medications also manufacture pesticides, which are widely implicated in causing and worsening chemical illness. The article names eight large and well-known companies that each have ties to both the pharmaceutical and pesticide industries.

Opposition from the pharmaceutical industry plays out in many ways. One is that researchers supportive of MCS find it difficult to get their studies published in the medical literature. Because medical journals rely on drug advertisements for funding, they are hesitant to publish pro-MCS articles for fear of alienating their advertisers.

This dynamic affects other avenues of information sharing as well. Funding for the American Medical Association relies in large part on the sales of drug advertisements in its journals, and drug companies are major donors to the American Academy of Family Physicians. Doctors find it difficult to receive accurate information about toxic illness and are unprepared to deal with patients suffering from the condition. As a result, according to McCampbell, “their responses to MCS patients have tended to range from dismissive to blatantly hostile.”

The pharmaceutical industry exerts its influence however it can. Despite being a major source of funding for medical research, they are not only failing to pursue research on chemical sensitivities, but attempting to block research by others. The article notes that industry lobbyists commonly call for more research on MCS while simultaneously attempting to suppress it. They state that you can’t prove it exists without more study, but that you can’t study it because it doesn’t exist.

The chemical industry is also very involved in suppressing the truth of environmental illness in the justice system, through such avenues as filing briefs, supplying “expert” witnesses and distributing anti-MCS literature to attorneys and witnesses. They’ve been influential in convincing many judges not to allow toxic illness testimony in court, despite the fact that there are over six hundred articles on MCS and related conditions in the published literature, which, despite the chemical industry’s efforts, support a physiological rather than a psychological basis for MCS in a ratio of two to one.

The attacks come from every angle. In the last decade, the chemical industry has attempted to remove “chemical” from the name MCS and designate it as “idiopathic environmental intolerance” (IEI) instead. There have also been escalating attempts to get medical licensing boards to revoke the licenses of physicians who diagnose and treat chemically sensitive patients.

This is a very real fight with very real consequences. Please pray for the brave physicians and researchers in the battle and for all who are affected by this conflict. And don't believe everything you read.