US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues indoor air quality policy for all CDC offices nationwide

Posted on Apr 07, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, MCS, Policy, Susie Collins, Worker's Rights

This is arguably the strongest and most important toxic chemical-free and fragrance-free policy in existence for the workplace.

CDC′s Roybal campus in Atlanta, GA.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services, recently issued a policy on indoor air quality that will affect all CDC offices (owned, leased and rented) and more than 15,000 employees nationwide. Among a host of indoor air quality standards, the policy includes specific guidelines restricting the use of fragrance in cleaning and personal care products.

Housekeeping Guidelines

CDC will ensure that products used in the workplace, such as soaps, cleaning products, paints, etc. are safe and odor-free or emit low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the fullest extent feasible. Only green cleaning products shall be specified and used within CDC facilities and leased spaces unless otherwise approved by the Office of Health and Safety. [...]

Non-Permissible Products

Scented or fragranced products are prohibited at all times in all interior space owned, rented, or leased by CDC. This includes the use of:
• Incense, candles, or reed diffusers
• Fragrance-emitting devices of any kind
• Wall-mounted devices, similar to fragrance-emitting devices, that operate automatically or by pushing a button to dispense deodorizers or disinfectants
• Potpourri
• Plug-in or spray air fresheners
• Urinal or toilet blocks
• Other fragranced deodorizer/re-odorizer products

Personal care products (e.g. colognes, perfumes, essential oils, scented skin and hair products) should not be applied at or near actual workstations, restrooms, or anywhere in CDC owned or leased buildings.

In addition, CDC encourages employees to be as fragrance-free as possible when they arrive in the workplace. Fragrance is not appropriate for a professional work environment, and the use of some products with fragrance may be detrimental to the health of workers with chemical sensitivities, allergies, asthma, and chronic headaches/migraines.

Employees should avoid using scented detergents and fabric softeners on clothes worn to the office. Many fragrance-free personal care and laundry products are easily available and provide safer alternatives.

Further, the policy extends to enforcement. Within the document itself is clearly stated the process by which an employee may file a report about air quality problems through a questionnaire, and further still, who is responsible for overseeing the investigation:

Building occupants who experience irritation or symptoms that may be related to the quality of indoor air should notify their supervisors, and the OHS or local Safety Officer to initiate a complaint. BFO must also be contacted upon initiation of a complaint, to identify and/or review any potential structural, maintenance, or heating, ventilating or air conditioning (HVAC) issues. Building occupants must also complete the Indoor Air Quality Questionnaire (see Attachment B) in order to properly document the complaint. Each IEQ complaint poses a unique set of circumstances that will determine the investigative procedures used to resolve each IEQ concerns.

Office of Health and Safety/Designated Safety Officer Administers the Indoor Environmental Quality Program and serves as the primary coordinator and investigator for reported incidents involving IEQ hazards or conditions; educates CDC supervisors and workers; develops report findings and recommendations for corrective action; and reviews and updates to meet future needs and regulatory changes.

You’ll also be happy to see that there is a section on pest control. Although it’s not perfect, it’s far safer than the hazards many workers endure with ubiquitous application of hazardous pesticides, usually performed without notice: “Pest management, for both buildings and lawn care, will emphasize non-chemical management strategies whenever practical, and the least-toxic chemical controls when pesticides are needed. Integrated Pest Management practices must be utilized.”

Coming from the CDC, this is arguably the most important toxic chemical- and fragrance-free policy in existence for the workplace. In the words of former CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding, the agency is charged with confronting “the challenges of 21st-century health threats.” It looks like the current CDC director, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, believes this responsibility covers not only the general public, but CDC’s own employees and workplaces as well.

Creating nontoxic work environments is not just good for employees’ health, it’s good for the bottom line, too. Workers who are not being slowly poisoned by toxic chemicals on the job can think clearer, work more efficiently and be more productive. Employees who suffer toxic chemical sensitivity, asthma and other respiratory ailments will take less sick days. People who are prone to developing health problems triggered by toxic chemicals will be safer; in fact, everyone who works in CDC buildings will now be safer.

For those of you with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity who are currently battling it out with your employer over hazardous chemicals in your work environment, in addition to discussing your rights to safer accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you might want to print out this new CDC policy and give copies to your boss, your CEO, and your human resources director. Explain to them that the experts at CDC understand that indoor air quality is greatly compromised by a host of toxic chemicals, including those from cleaning products used by maintenance personnel and personal care products used by employees. Tell them that this recent CDC policy is indicative of the way trends are going, and any company getting on board now will be spared future costs caused by condoning an unsafe environment for employees.

This policy is incredibly good news– use the clout and expertise of this CDC policy to strengthen your arguments for a toxic chemical- and fragrance-free work environment.

Here’s the pdf of the policy.

Here’s the pdf of the questionnaire to be used when CDC employees file a complaint about air quality.

Thanks to Harry Clark for obtaining these documents from CDC and for sharing them so freely!

If you enjoyed this post, please read these related stories:

Poster for fragrance-free hospital care This poster was designed as a public service project for patients requiring in-hospital care at...
Change is coming on U.S. toxic chemical policy A great report today from Huffington Post on the work currently being done in Washington...
$100K awarded to woman with chemical sensitivity denied proper accommodations at work Woman with chemical sensitivity awarded $100K for being denied proper accommodations at work; her coworker's...
Perfume blogger dismisses concerns from a member of our community I love it when people who have absolutely no medical expertise make flippant comments about...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: Air, Asthma, Chemicals, Environmental Health, Fragrance, Indoor Pollution, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Perfume, Personal Care, Policy, Pollution, Products, Sick Building, Toxic, Work

30 Responses to “US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues indoor air quality policy for all CDC offices nationwide”

Harry

07. Apr, 2010

thanks for the acknowledgement Susie:-).
Great looking article!

I totally agree with you when you say “This is arguably the strongest and most important chemical-free and fragrance-free policy in existence for the workplace.”

This is of enormous world wide significance.

Reply to this comment
Lourdes

07. Apr, 2010

Thanks Susie! This alone is a strong statement from the CDC that chemical sensitivity is a real issue which requires workplace fragrance free policies.

Reply to this comment
Dianne Steinbach

07. Apr, 2010

WOW I am so impressed with this article and so happy that the CDC has seen the light! Finally! I thought of all the people who see who see this as a nonissue. I hope that this tide keeps turning! Thanks for posting–Susie and Harry. I agree this is the strongest chemical-free policy in existance. Lets hand the article out in May. Dianne

Reply to this comment
Susie Collins

07. Apr, 2010

In addition to officials at your workplace, this policy is a great document to use as a model when discussing these indoor air quality issues with schools and hospital admin, your doctor in regards to his or her office, your own family, etc. It gives some heft to our pleas for clean indoor air. I just LOVE that they include people with chemical sensitivities– and use that term– when discussing detrimental health effects of toxic chemicals in fragrance.

Reply to this comment
steve monroe

07. Apr, 2010

Yes when I 1st saw this .PDF direct mailed to me my mouth fell open cuz this is a big deal and the CDC IS using the terms chemical sensitivities and chemically sensitive persons is it must really exist after all. It’s a big deal cuz the CDC is the primary health protection agency is the US and sets many national health policies. I agree with Susie this can be used as a powerful model in educational matters with the public—friends or family, co-workers, other agencies. Heck you might even educate your own doctor cuz they follow CDC guildlines generally.

Reply to this comment
Sue Brinchman

07. Apr, 2010

I am very, very pleased to see this policy. I hope that this becomes the norm in America for all public buildings and workplaces, ultimately, along with complete zero tolerance for dampness and mold. Fresh air, no chemicals, dry and sanitary buildings is what we need to survive! Bravo, Dr. Thomas Frieden, new CDC Director. For those of you wondering what Obama is doing, he has appointed a very good advocate for prevention of disease, who is environmentally aware, in this most important position.

Reply to this comment
Keith Carlson

07. Apr, 2010

Wow, now this is news! This gives all of us reason to celebrate. The wall of fragrance and ignorance is slowly being broken down!

Reply to this comment
jacki

08. Apr, 2010

this makes me so very happy…FINALLY some one is “seeing” the truth… I sure wish my hospital would have followed this policy…I’d still have a job…

I sent this to my lawyer, to show him we could have FOUGHT the civil suit harder…

thanks for the great article and education paper..I will share this with everyone I know..

jj

Reply to this comment
Mokihana

08. Apr, 2010

This is a major good news step and timed for excellent support of MCS May coming right up. It fuels me to continue making contact with our local health care providers and nursing school here in the Mill Town.

Thanks Harry and Susie for delivering such timely GOOD news.

Reply to this comment
WoundedCanary

10. Apr, 2010

Yes indeed, this is HUGE! My concern is that it does not go far enough. If you read the policy it says “apply” but it does not say wear or bathe. It kind of defeats the purpose because if people are going to bath in say Irish Spring or some other scented petro-chem soap, it’s still going to be toxic and offensive, same goes for shampoos and conditioners as well as most personal care products. Then again if they mandate that they can’t bathe in those producs and most westerners use fragance to mask odors, will this become a bio hygiene issue rather quickly and the CDC can’t’ afford that either. Either they reword the policy to include “bathe or wear” or it’s just a matter of time before an employee sues over the wording. The question is if they do mandate what employees can wear on their person, will that be seen as a violation of their constitutional rights? Then again what about the right for MCS employees to breathe clean non-toxic air! This is truly a touchy issue and will most likely be getting a lot of press in the future!

Reply to this comment
- Susie Collins
  
  12. Apr, 2010
  
  Wounded Canary,
  
  I totally agree with you on this. It’s the same problem with smoking. Studies have shown that “third-hand smoke”– the residue of cigarette smoke that clings to skin, fabrics and more– it also highly toxic and is linked to illness. But extending no-smoking policy to control people’s behavior outside of the zone covered by the policy is extremely difficult. I’ll be interested to see what happens when the first CDC employee pushes for the co-worker to stop wearing a toxic perfume or fragranced product.
  
  This problem of course would be a non-issue if the toxic ingredients were removed from the marketplace altogether. I’m not holding my breath for that– no pun intended! After all, EVERYONE knows the dangers of cigarette smoke, but tobacco use is still legal– even the stuff pumped full of chemicals to enhance addiction.
  
  Reply to this comment
Marlene Macfarlane

11. Apr, 2010

Where does alcohol hand sanitizer come into the picture? It’s not always with perfume but nonetheless extremely toxic. How do we get rid of it? Please! It’s everywhere I go!!

Reply to this comment
- WoundedCanary
  
  12. Apr, 2010
  
  That stuff is sold so cheap, just walk into any $ store, it’s disgusting how this petrol based product is marketed under the guise of fear of H1N1 what about the ingredients that will give you cancer? No one seems to care about that! That reminds me about how everywhere you go including new cars you rent, stink of Petroleum laden plastic that’s made in China, it’s truly a mad mad mad world!
  
  Reply to this comment
Susie Collins

12. Apr, 2010

Marlene and Wounded Canary, That’s a really good point about the hand sanitizers. The recent craze of hand sanitizers was sparked by the H1N1 scare as you’ve noted, WC. Most places that are paying attention have stopped the ubiquitous use of hand sanitizers since it’s been shown that they do not do much of anything in stopping the spread of H1N1 or other flus (which is an air borne contagion for the most part). The best thing is to just wash your hands frequently in a nontoxic soap.

Reply to this comment
Vickie

12. Apr, 2010

Recently, on the news, there was a story about a company (sorry I can’t remember the name) that mandated that employees must be non smokers. They were outraged. They thought their constitutional rights were being violated.

Wouldn’t it be nice if chemically based products were viewed the same?

A friend who works @ a dental office told a patient she could not come in with perfume on because people are sensitive to it.

R & R – recognition and relief! That’s what we need!

Reply to this comment
Jackie

14. Apr, 2010

Is there a direct link to the policy on the CDC website? I can’t find it there–sorry to seem cynical, but really this seems too good to be true. I hope it is true–it would be an amazing development.

Reply to this comment
Jeanne

14. Apr, 2010

Susie and Harry,

Thank you for sharing this wonderful, wonderful news! This is fantastic! Wow!!

Jeanne

Reply to this comment
ButILookGood

14. Apr, 2010

Thanks for this information Susie and Harry!! The PDF has a link to the policy, but the URL doesn’t work. Is this policy found online? Or was the document scanned?

Reply to this comment
Kerry

14. Apr, 2010

Like Jackie said, this feels too good to be true! Thank you for making my day, week, month, year…and sharing this. It feels like seeing a light at the end of a tunnel, that someday, not too long from now, those of us with MCS can walk out our doors (and live in our homes) and be able to take a deep fearless breath…

Reply to this comment
Susie Collins

14. Apr, 2010

Jackie and ButILookGood, The story came to our attention from an article on page 5 of the Spring 2010 issue of The Human Ecologist, entitled “CDC goes fragrance free.” None of us were able to find a copy of the policy online. A member of The Canary Report community, Harry Clark, who lives in Australia, wrote the CDC directly and was sent a copy — Harry then sent a copy to me (which is attached to this post above). We can guarantee you that this policy came directly from the CDC.

Reply to this comment
Dorothy Valone

15. Apr, 2010

This is good news. A bit late for me, but progress is progress.

Reply to this comment
- Susie Collins
  
  15. Apr, 2010
  
  Dorothy, isn’t that the truth? So much of the progress that is being made is coming too late for many of us. It’s bittersweet.
  
  Reply to this comment
Jackie

15. Apr, 2010

Great news Susie, thanks!!

Reply to this comment
- Susie Collins
  
  15. Apr, 2010
  
  Reply to this comment
ButILookgood

16. Apr, 2010

You are awesome Susie and Harry! Do you know if the article from The Human Ecologist can be found online? THANK YOU for all the amazing work you do!!

Reply to this comment
- Susie Collins
  
  16. Apr, 2010
  
  You’re welcome! The Human Ecologist article is available only to subscribers.
  
  Reply to this comment
Danika Carter

14. May, 2010

Awesome!

I’m including this information in a presentation I’m preparing to give to the local birth network about areas that pregnant women need to be careful of. Also hoping to give the same presentation to the local hospitals.

The portion of this report on pest control should also be given to all Home Owner’s Associations and Neighborhood associations.

Write letters to the editor, too.

Reply to this comment
- Susie Collins
  
  15. May, 2010
  
  Great Danika! I think this CDC policy will really help people make the case for nontoxic buildings and public areas. Thanks for all the work you do.
  
  Reply to this comment
Betsy

06. Jun, 2010

I see some comments about the Constitutional rights of people to wear consumer chemicals like fragrances on their bodies, smoke, and basically expose others to hazards in the workplace – I don’t see this as a Constitutional right. As an employee, I have worked with policies where I was told that I could not wear dungarees or denim to work Monday – Thursday, told not to wear shorts to work, could not wear sandals, etc.. Why would this fragrance/soap situation be different? People sometimes have to go out and purchase “country club casual” clothes when they accept a job to meet the employee policy of “appropriate dress.” There are other rules in employee handbooks dictating the expected behaviors of employees, and the proposed rules about scents is no different. “Fragrances” are a chemical that hit the membranes in my nose and mouth, and can cause irritation locally. From there, some of the chemical usually passes through the membrane, into the bloodstream, entering my body. If I am exposed to a chemical at work, my employer, by law, has to provide me an MSDS for the particular chemical. MSDS’s always have to be available to an employee, even in a business like a hair salon.
This law is not being enforced by virtue of the fact that individuals are now bringing in chemicals that are not identified. I am exposed to them, and my employer does not provide me the Material Safety Data Sheet for the particular ones. That in and of itself, is grounds for a lawsuit against the employer. This would be a great case to pursue.
I am guessing that rules about no fragrance (in anything you bring or wear to work) would be easily defendable in court.

Reply to this comment

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Riverdance Ruined? — ChronicHealing.com - May. 05, 2010
[...] for employees BEFORE the CDC ruling you’ll see listed below. So, awareness IS increasing! US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues indoor air quality policy for all CDC offices …. This post talks of a huge victory! The Centers for Disease Control issued a policy making their [...]