The Canary Report

Editor perpetuates myth about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Posted on Apr 06, 2009 by Susie Collins in Blog, MCS, Susie Collins

Says professional editor Jon Vara: “I believe that there’s a substantial body of evidence suggesting that multiple chemical sensitivity DOES exist but that it’s a psychosomatic problem, not a physiological one.”

Let’s get the facts straight right off the bat: There is NOT a substantial body of evidence suggesting Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is psychosomatic. In fact, quite the opposite is true: A substantial body of peer-reviewed studies show MCS is real and the result of toxic chemicals harming people physiologically and neurologically.

The discussion starts here:

The Green Builder reports on toxic and nontoxic houses.

There’s no reason to believe that homes built from conventional materials are “toxic homes.” Every American has every reason to expect that all of the building materials sold in a conventional lumberyard are non-toxic. If any builder has evidence that a specific building material is actually toxic, the solution is regulatory, not architectural. In other words, it’s time to write a letter to your representative, print up some leaflets, or lobby the government for tighter regulations.

It’s not the job of architects or builders to provide homeowners with advice on obscure chemicals that may or may not affect asthma sufferers, and builders shouldn’t be making health claims about their homes. A builder who repeats unscientific information picked up on the Internet ends up sounding like a snake-oil salesman — or like a weapons dealer who exaggerates the threat of terrorism in order to justify preparations for war.

To wax philosophical, there’s an additional problem with the “toxins, toxins, everywhere” mindset: it generates fear, and fear is corrosive to spiritual health.

But the first commenter to the article, professional writer and editor Jon Vara, says:

Excellent piece about toxics and one that will probably stir up a hornet’s nest for you. When I worked at a builder’s magazine, I regularly (and unsuccessfully) proposed that we do a story looking into the phenomenon of multiple chemical sensitivities, where people need to live in special houses with unpainted plaster walls, no carpeting, etc. I believe that there’s a substantial body of evidence suggesting that multiple chemical sensitivity DOES exist but that it’s a psychosomatic problem, not a physiological one.

As I understand it, the key distinction is that just because a problem is psychosomatic doesn’t mean it’s imaginary — maybe there’s no direct physical cause, but it can make you very sick. In other words, a person with MCS probably isn’t imagining their illness or making it up in the sense that a kid pretends to be sick to get out of going to school — the MCS sufferer may actually be running a fever, vomiting, etc. It’s just that it’s not directly caused by the outgassing from the plywood sheathing, but rather by the sufferer’s fear and concern about the outgassing from the plywood. You can probably even cure it by getting rid of the plywood, but it was never really the plywood’s fault.

That’s all loose talk on my part. But I think it would be useful and interesting to get the straight story from medical/public health experts. Surely there are some actual studies about this, as opposed to mushy anecdotal stuff?

And my response, which I also left as a comment to the article:

The toxicity of modern building materials is a health issue for everyone, not just people with Environmental Illness and/or Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). I agree that the regulation needs to be done at the point of origin of the products, and that the government should be overseeing the regulatory process.

To commenter Jon Vara: saying MCS is psychosomatic is 15-20 years behind the times. In fact, the DSM-IV, the manual of the psychiatric profession, does not recognize MCS as a psychological disorder. Good article here. Further, as a point of clarification, MCS is not an allergy either.

Also, as another point of clarification, “toxin” is a poison produced by a living organism. “Toxic” is poison by chemical means. People tend to mix up the terms. People with MCS have adverse reactions when exposed to certain toxic chemicals not necessarily toxins (an exception may be with something like toxic mold). If people with MCS have allergies to toxins or toxics, it is a separate health issue.

It may interest you to know that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is recognized as a disability by the Social Security Administration, HUD and the Americans with Disabilities Act, among others. For a list of published peer-reviewed articles documenting the “realness” of MCS, go to The Chemical Sensitivity Foundation and MCS America.  This chemical sensitivity condition is not rare and the numbers of people who have it are growing.

I agree that the ultimate responsibility lies with the government to regulate toxic chemicals in building materials at the point of origin. But changing the laws governing corporations is a slow process, even when in the best interest of public health. Changes to public health policy often start at the local level, as has been the case with smoking, and is often sparked by concerned mothers, the scientists who are doing the research, and those of us who are ill from the offending products. My hope is that green architects and builders will also do their homework and chose to use nontoxic materials. Unfortunately, among green building trends, which are most often linked to global warming issues, indoor air quality tends to be ignored.

Clean air is everybody’s business, and seeing this issue as a fundamental health issue is the only way we will ever get consensus on taking the necessary action to protect everyone.

Tags: Canary's Cry, Chemicals, Children's Health, Environment, Environmental Illness, Government Regulation, Home, Indoor Pollution, Law, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Policy