Chemicals, Fragrances, and Sensitivity
Posted October 10, 2007 in Health and the Environment
When we released our report on air fresheners a couple of weeks ago, I was focused mostly on two issues: (1) the worrisome fact that consumers have no right to information about what's in common household products and that these products aren't adequately tested for safety, and (2) the discovery that hormone-disrupting chemicals and potential reproductive toxicants such as phthalates may be in common household products.
Since the release of the report, I have gotten calls and emails from many people about the report. To them, the problem isn't the endocrine disruptors. It's the fragrances. For folks who think that the smell of "Summer Breeze" or "Forest Rain" is pleasant and unoffensive, it's a surprise to learn that many people find that these artificial fragrances make them sick. Literally.
Ever since I was a resident, training in the field of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in the mid-1990's, I've been puzzled by the syndrome that goes by various names, but is most frequently called "multiple chemical sensitivity" (MCS). People with this syndrome report a variety of nasty symptoms ranging from headaches and confusion, to respiratory symptoms, to gastrointestinal problems, when they are exposed to various common environmental chemicals. Triggers may include diesel exhaust, cigarette smoke, gasoline fumes, cleaning products, perfume, and...yes...air fresheners.
Most medical associations basically recognize the existence of this phenomenon, but differ as to whether it is a "real" disease. The result is that sufferers often bounce around between mainstream and alternative health practitioners looking for someone who will take them seriously. Sometimes the ones that take them seriously also take a lot of their money, and sometimes for some fairly dubious treatment approaches. These alternative treatments further contribute to skepticism from the mainstream medical community.
My approach to clinical medicine is fairly mainstream. Yet from my experience, I think that there really is something going on with many of these people. I believe that the fragrances and other chemicals are triggering some kind of adverse reaction, and I don't think that people with this condition are nuts. From there, my multiple internal personalities diverge:
--The scientist in me is frustrated because there is so little 'hard data' on this syndrome, and because the standard testing results on sufferers usually ends up looking fairly negative. I hate it when I can't explain what's going on with my patients.
--The health care provider in me is at once somewhat reassured because this syndrome is not fatal, and in my experience, many people gradually improve with time. But at the same time, I worry because sufferers lives are terribly disrupted, and there is little that I can offer to help alleviate their symptoms.
--The activist in me is appalled that we live in a world where it is virtually impossible to live one's life without being assaulted by blasts of diesel exhaust and second-hand smoke (which are dangerous by any measure), and where unnecessary artificial fragrances are ubiquitous in stores, hospitals, schools, and many other public spaces.
In my opinion, there's a lot we still need to learn about the effects of chemicals and fragrances on the human body. There's also a lot we still need to learn about individual susceptibility to environmental insults. Meanwhile, I try to be respectful of my fellow human beings. So I think twice before reaching for the perfume or the scented cleaners. For them it's a simple request: "Think before you stink"!
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
terri jackson — Oct 12 2007 11:24 AM
I have MCS and am having a hard time living with it because of all the new chemicals being added from clothing, bedding to food and electronic gadgets.
I wish I could tell you more about how difficult it is for me to live this way. I cannot even use a shampoo anymore because of the chemicals. Same brands that six months I could use. So you tell me, if they aren't adding chemicals! Of course they are and they know exactly what they're adding and WHY they're adding them.
Jacqueline Colson — Oct 12 2007 12:53 PM
Hello Gina,
Thank you for your consideration. Here is some additional information for your file. I'm not sure what you have looked at in regard to testing for MCS. You are correct that there is no one simple test yet, but there is documentation of damage, enough that someone should be taking notice.
What Ashford & Miller and other legitimate MCS researchers speculate is that MCS is a new disease paradigm, so going down the checklist of what is currently understood about disease will not work. It is not an allergy, although many MCS people do have allergies as well. It is not an infection, although many MCS people have opportunistic infections. And so on. Dr. Theron Randolph identified MCS in the 1950s--he is like the Rachel Carson for human impacts. He recognized the environmental damage to humans from the growth of industry and the explosion of chemicals introduced after WWII.
Dr. Gunnar Heuser has documented blood flow changes in the brain in response to low level chemical exposures. Anderson Labs has documented seizures and death in mice after exposures to air freshener (and also to carpet samples, dryer sheets and perfume). Dr. Richard Haley has documented brain damage in Gulf War veterans who complain of MCS, among other things. See also, research by Mohammed Abou-Donia on organophosphate pesticides, Dr. William Meggs on RADS, Dr. Alan Lieberman on RIDS.
Fragrances are mostly petroleum-derived and contain neurotoxins. Organophosphate pesticides are the same chemicals that were developed for chemical warfare, so it's not surprising that they are harmful. That's what they are meant to do, disrupt life processes. Many MCS people understand that their problems with fragrances and other chemicals began after pesticide exposure.
If anyone wanted to see a plausible theory why certain people are several orders of magnitude more sensitive to commonly used neurotoxins than the general population, Dr. Martin Pall has one. He has a new book too. If anyone would like an explanation why virtually nothing is being done about the problem, look at Ashford & Miller's book Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes as well as Dr. Ann McCampbell's 2001 article, "MCS Under Siege." Short answer: too expensive and damaging to the petroleum-fueled economy. The Chemical Injury Information Network is a good resource for those already injured.
I tried to post helpful links, but the formatting looked too long for the comment window. If you want to email me, I would be glad to send more information.
Thank you.
Jacqueline Colson — Oct 12 2007 12:59 PM
Sorry, Mohamed B. Abou-Donia, Ph.D., Professor, Pharmacology and Cancer Biology; Professor, Neurobiology; Duke University Medical Center.
Alan Levin — Oct 13 2007 02:21 PM
Having diagnosed and treated such people for over 40 years I can tell you that MCS/environmental illness etc. are virtually always prodromal symptoms of a malignancy or autoimmune disease. I have yet to see a patient who develops ovarian or pancreatic cancer who doesn't describe MCS symptoms for decades prior to their diagnosis. The same is true for lupus and thyroiditis. When evaluating an MCS patient, always do a CAT scan of the abdomen/pelvis, a P&A of the chest and autoimmune/tumor marker blood panel. You will always find some early systemic disease process.
Paul Chapman — Oct 13 2007 09:34 PM
I have been responsible for Physical Facilities for seven church buildings for over 14 years. I have tracked VOCs in cleaning chemicals and cosmetics as having the most impact on MCS, as aggravated by absorbtive wall and foor coverings, and restricted HVAC operating cycles.
I have also observed an increasing number of MCS individuals "suffering in silence" and leaving the Church because of their sensitivities. I have observed that these same individuals that become ill for two or 3 days after a mere 15 minute exposure in the Church, can spend limitless time in a Burger King - (no absorbtive wall or floor coverings or restricted HVAC operation) - without any problem at all.
I am seeking information that will identify: 1) the true percentage of the population that have these sensitivities, 2) symptoms that have been identified with specific VOCs, and 3) specific experiences with Sisal, Vinyl, and Nylon pile floor and wall coverings, and embalmed natural evergreen shrubs.
Thank you
Paul W. Chapman. P.E.
Jacqueline Colson — Oct 15 2007 04:44 PM
Paul--for prevalency information, you could check with Cynthia Wilson at CIIN. I know of a study in Georgia by Anne Steineman, one in California, by the health department I believe, and one in New Mexico also by the health department. I think there is one in North Carolina as well. The surveys have found up to 13-15% mildly affected and 1-3% having to make major life changes to avoid petrochemicals. Other industrialized countries have similar prevalence ratios.
As for going into Burger King, it might be all right for a sensitive person if no one is sitting nearby with fragrance on or with scents on their clothes from laundry products or if the cooks haven't burned something. It would also depend on whether any strong chemical cleaners are being used. I can't imagine spending "limitless time" in any public venue--too many opportunities for a bad exposure, but high ceilings, lower toxicity hard surfaces, and good ventilation certainly make it a little less risky.
There is a wide variation between sensitive people in terms of levels tolerated and reactions to specific substances. You are right that hard surfaces in general are far better than carpets, which trap dirt and dust mites, and also have chemical out gassing. Carpets frequently have toxic adhesives and pads as well.
Jacqueline Colson — Oct 15 2007 05:04 PM
I should say that my statement above is based on memory so I was being cautious in stating prevalence rates. You may find that instead of 1-3%, it is 3-5% who are more severely affected. Here are a few articles to get started.
These are references from the Ann McCambell article mentioned in my first post (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_2001_Jan/ai_70777247/print).
56. Kreutzer R, Neutra RR, Lashuay N, Prevalence of people reporting sensitivities to chemicals in a population-based survey. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150(1):1-12.
57. Voorhees R, Results of analyses of multiple chemical sensitivities questions, 1997 behavioral risk factor surveillance system, New Mexico Department of Health, February 8, 1999.
Here are some additional articles on prevalence:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_265-266/ai_n15795045
http://tinyurl.com/2d6h74
Search in this page for prevalence and you will find additional articles:
http://www.ciin.org/pages/05-news.html#pq_anchor
Margaret Anderson — Oct 17 2007 10:04 AM
I am in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, and have had problems for nearly 30 years I suppose with perfumes and artificial air fresheners. I've recently got rid of ovarian cysts, for the time being, by using herbal remedies to boost progesterone production in my body and also to boost adrenal function. I'm certain that a lot of my health problems over last 20 years have been caused by artificially produced chemical stink. More and more people are being diagnosed as asthmatic and allergic to things, so it must be about time that governments crack down on the producers of these things - or are the companies producing them too powerful? Yesterday we were in someone's house for 5 hours, in company of one woman and artificial air fresheners (I didn't know about them till about an hour after we got there). Took an antihistamine, but find they are not much defence against some of the symptoms I experience - stiffness, desperate urge to sleep, general lethargy and brain fog, AND constipation! Went to bed about 11pm, having taken laxative too, and woke this morning about 10.30 for first time. Am still very dopey today, and am decidedly constipated and lethargic, with very blurry eyesight today too. I can't honestly say that I'm feeling on top of the world!
Albert Robbins D.O., MSPH — Oct 20 2007 11:47 AM
The scientific community may be under significant pressure to minimize the recognition and impact of multiple chemical sensitivity disorders due to industry, economic and insurance considerations. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is currently considered junk science by the traditional medical community. Therefore, MCS is not even included in the differential diagnosis of most physicians medical evaluations. The "masked" environmentally ill patient usually presents with multiple symptoms involving multiple biological systems and doesn't know how to protect herself from disease progression.Many are referred for psychiatric care. The physician "doesn't know that he doesn't know" and the patient "isn't aware that he has a chemical foe" and is highly susceptible to further physical deterioration due to chemical exposure once chemically sensitized.This controversy places the Occupational/Environmental Physician and the suffering environmentally ill patient in quite a difficult position.
The scientific community has the ethical responsibility to inform physicians and the population about the threat of chemically induced illnesses. Based on over 30 years of having practiced Occupational and Environmental Medicine I can truthfully tell you that we are in the midst of a serious unrecognized silent epidemic of masked chemically induced illnesses. My prediction is that MCS will cause a paradigm shift in the way we view chronic illnesses.It will explode as the most common 21st century unrecognized illness affecting virtually everyone. Damge to the body's biological defense systems from toxic or allergenic chemical exposures can occur at the cellular level damaging cell receptor sites on cell membranes.Once the body's defense systems are damaged, minimal environmental exposures once previously tolerated may result in major symptoms.