Ugly Betty: Odor in the Court

An episode of the popular TV series Ugly Betty in which Betty sprays herself with perfume and then starts acting all drugged out and crazy. Seem familiar?

Here’s another clip of the episode that rings entirely too true for anyone with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

The episode ended with full disclosure of the contents of the perfume and it’s ill effects.

Ugly Betty rocks!

Thanks, Mokihana!

Canary’s Cry for Saturday, January 3

A patron at Sheraton’s Four Point hotel in San Francisco discovers a disturbing environmental hazard inside the building.

Who’s chirping about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?

Green Living has a article in the Winter 2008 issue called “Wake Up and Smell the Chemicals,” with a section on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. The link will take you to the online version of the issue, go to pages 46-47 for the story, it’s chock full of good information.

Articles like this validate claims made by those of us with MCS, who say chemicals found in many everyday personal care products are toxic not only to us but to everyone. Further, as the article explores, scientists are starting to understand the ways in which low levels of toxic chemicals, such as those found in perfumes and other fragrance, adversely affect the body. Take heart, Canaries, because eventually, science will catch up with us and our claims of exquisite sensitivity.

Glenda at Writing Life Stories tells a story about getting assaulted by fragrance from fellow patrons at a fast food restaurant. She writes:

As soon as I sat down, the smell hit me again. I looked up and saw the guy who had been standing in line near me. He had plopped down fifteen feet away from my table. The odor emanating from him smelled worse to me than a skunk’s spray, the chemicals in that fragrance he wore poisoned me. By the time I got out of there, hoarse and coughing, I gasped, sucked in the fresh outside air like it was my final breath.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. More and more of my friends are experiencing the same symptoms — spending tons of money on doctors who run tests and tell them they have asthma and to stay away from chemicals. Duh!! The asthma is caused by the chemicals we breathe every day, the chemicals all around us, the chemicals we can’t escape.

Thanks, Linda!

Who’s chirping about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?

Not to be outdone by Leslie at The Oko Box Blog and her post on The Crazy Sh!t We Gotta Do where she sealed off a door with foil to keep safe from her roomie’s fumes, Mokihana at Vardo for Two writes about her Denny Foil, golden folds of fabric, and The Kitchenette. “Leslie from The Oko Box Blog posted pictures and story of what it takes to live in ’safe’ fashion with stuff that ‘ordinaries’ or ‘civilians’ have/build with …Least I forget how MUCH WE HAVE living in The Kitchenette I felt compelled to make her our very special pin-up girl. With out her we would be dead meat!”

Keith at Digital Doorway writes about the exclusion of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in the recently released U.S. Census on Americans With Disabilities: 2005. In Keith’s post, “The Census and Americans with Disabilities,” he expresses his profound disappointment that illnesses such as MCS and Gulf War Syndrome are once again left out of the data.

While not addressing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity directly, Julie Mellum, president of Take Back the Air, writes at StarTribune.com about the absurdity of men using fragrances as a secret to business success. In her opinion piece, “Scents do not line the path to success,” she says:

…fragrances contain many of the same toxicants that are in tobacco smoke. These include formaldehyde, benzene, toluene and other hazardous volatile organic compounds that pollute the lungs and airspace of those around them.

Synthetic fragrances are about as romantic as a toxic-waste site, for many of their shared toxicants are on the EPA’s list of most hazardous wastes. They also contain highly addictive class A carcinogens. See www.takebacktheair.com for the facts.

Just as bottled deer musk masks the human scent as a hunting aid, so synthetic fragrances mask natural pheromones in people. Burger King has actually leapt into the fray with a new fragrance that smells like meat. That is downright comical, except for the fact that fragrance chemicals mimic estrogen with hormone-disrupting chemicals that are implicated in early puberty, reproductive birth defects and infertility.

Note: I neglected to add a link on Monday’s story to Leslie’s post on her door project. My apologies for the omission.

Thanks, Linda, for sending the second two stories my way! You find the best stuff on the Interwebs.

No 5 Chanel means no 5 Chanel

Cheryl at Leaves and Petals writes today about a recent experience with Chanel Number 5 perfume at a local department store. She’s a very good writer and in this post effectively explores the conflict of emotions evoked in her by a whiff of the fragrance she used to wear, contrasting the perfume’s meaning in her life before she developed chemical sensitivity and after. Those of us with chemical sensitivity have to give up so much, including what should be the most pleasant of daily rituals.

Here’s an excerpt of Cheryl’s perfume experience:

For the holidays, they had set up a huge display of Chanel No° 5; the scent filled the air. My first thought was to be angry (sometimes it feels like I can’t ever get away from other people’s perfume), but then my brain started doing flip-flops and memories came rushing back. Dancing to “Low Rider” in the basement of the Tasmanian Ballroom in that 50s black silk dress I had scooped from work; drinking Absolut before heading out to Komrads with my boys; a pair of huge hoop earring with iridescent marbles attached to them that I wore constantly; fries and sangria at the Bloor Street Diner.

I stood for a moment, looking up at the war memorial in the foyer that commemorates Simpsons employees in the first and second world wars, and just let the scent waft over me. I was tempted, ever so briefly, to ask the clerk for one of those scent strips they’re normally trying to jam in my face when I zip through the perfume department, but thought better of it. I was even tempted to buy some, I have no idea why, although I knew I could never actually use the stuff.

Link to Cheryl’s full post “Number 5″

Photo by Liutao

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in a hospital setting

Photo: Rodger Norris, who has multiple chemical sensitivity lives in a remote home in Timberon, New Mexico. The nearest neighbor lives about a mile away, and the nearest small town (where he lived for seven years until an increase in traffic caused his symptoms to worsen) is 35 miles over winding mountain roads. In the photo, Norris, 56, displays the sign he posts at the doors of his house and his driveway, describing his condition and warning away visitors who are smokers or who are wearing products that contain artificial fragrances. Courtesy of Rodger Norris.

A registered nurse, Carolyn Cooper, MPH, RN, wrote an article in 2007 about how to care for patients in hospital who have Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. (Roger Norris pictured above was a subject of Cooper’s report.)

Given that the article was written two years ago, it gives us some perspective about how far we’ve come with the current literature on toxic chemicals in our environment. You will see better what I mean if you read Cooper’s full article. For example, all the male reproductive studies have come out since this article was published, as have most of the BPA and melamine and FEMA formaldehyde reports - so the public and the medical profession knows a lot more now than it did then.

Here’s an excerpt:

Overview: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a condition in which people experience a broad array of symptoms in reaction to exposure to trace amounts of common chemicals. Symptoms are most often triggered by odors, typically affect many systems, and can range from a runny nose to difficulty breathing and heart palpitations. The cause of this condition is unclear and there is no universal consensus on how to diagnose or treat it. MCS afflicts millions of Americans, although its prevalence is difficult to establish reliably. Theories of causation include both the physical and the psychogenic. This article begins with a case study, describes the current research on MCS, and offers recommendations to guide nurses when treating these patients in the hospital.

[...]

The definition of MCS has also changed over time and may continue to evolve. Its essential feature remains, however, the patient’s assertion of a link between a variety of symptoms and low-level chemical exposures that act as triggers.

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recognize a diagnosis of MCS, it does acknowledge the existence of “chronic multisystem illnesses,” including chronic fatigue syndrome, the symptoms of which often resemble those of MCS.

A 1999 consensus statement published in the Archives of Environmental Health offered the following six criteria for a diagnosis of MCS:

* Very low levels of exposure to chemicals and other irritants, well below toxicity thresholds, produce symptoms.

* Symptoms are reproducible with repeated exposure to the chemical or irritant.

* The condition is chronic.

* Symptoms lessen or resolve when the chemical triggers are removed.

* Similar symptoms may be caused by several chemically unrelated substances.

* Symptoms occur in multiple organ systems.

But clinicians may find these open-ended criteria difficult to apply, especially without laboratory analysis and other physical findings to link specific exposures to specific symptoms.

There’s also no accepted definition of what constitutes a “mild” or “severe” case of MCS, nor is there a consensus on whether the condition is always caused by a precipitating environmental exposure (as may be the case for certain industrial workers or for those exposed during an accident to a single high dose of a toxic chemical). And while research is ongoing, diagnosis is further complicated by the fact that many of the most common symptoms, such as fatigue, heart palpitations, sweating, and difficulty concentrating, are the same as those necessary for the diagnosis of various psychosomatic and psychiatric disorders, including depression, somatoform disorders, panic disorder, and agoraphobia.

All staff members should at the very least take the following precautions when working with people who have MCS.

* Don’t use perfume, aftershave, or scented lotion.

* Keep free of the odor of cigarette smoke.

* Wear a long-sleeved cotton surgical gown (and cap if necessary) to mask odors if you know you smell of a potential irritant and no other caregiver is available.

* Knock first and wait to be admitted to the patient’s room.

Surgery. When a patient with MCS is scheduled for surgery, notify perioperative areas well in advance. It is particularly important that the anesthesiologist confer with the patient before a surgical procedure so that medication sensitivities can be considered. Perioperative clinicians must be prepared to carefully reassure patients that safety measures will be taken on their behalf. Other recommendations for surgery include the following:

* Schedule the procedure as the first case of the day to minimize exposure to environmental irritants that will be stirred up during the day.

* A ceramic or porcelain oxygen mask may be indicated to deliver anesthesia.

* Povidone iodine is generally a safe antiseptic solution, but isopropyl alcohol should be used sparingly.

* Use paper tape for surgical dressings (or assess the patient’s reactions to other adhesives 24 to 48 hours in advance by using patch tests).

* Use only latex-free gloves.

Link to full article

PDF of full article: mcs-in-a-clinical-setting

Carolyn Cooper’s blog

Thanks, Linda, for link and added insight!

Air freshener manufacturers disclose product ingredients

Manufacturers disclose a plethora of chemicals in air fresheners including formaldehyde, benzene compounds and naphthalene.

We knew that crap was poison, didn’t we?

From The Alliance for Healthy Homes:

Under pressure from a coalition of environment and health groups, the seven largest air freshener manufacturers have disclosed their products’ ingredients to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The coalition of groups dropped a legal case regarding the issue against the EPA on December 11 and now plan to pressure the agency to evaluate the safety of the ingredients individually and in combination with each other.

The Alliance for Healthy Homes, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned EPA in September 2007 to learn the risks of air fresheners and to require that manufacturers list ingredients on labels. In December 2007, EPA denied the petition but sent letters to the top seven air freshener manufacturers, asking them to voluntarily submit the ingredients in their products and the quantities used annually. The seven companies are Blythe, Dial, Lancaster Colony, Procter & Gamble, Redkitt Benckiser, S.C. Johnson and Shell. The petitioners sued EPA in April 2008 to help ensure that the companies actually provided ingredient information to EPA – which they did in two stages. In May, EPA received data about the non-fragrance ingredients and in October the agency obtained fragrance ingredient data.

EPA now has data for all ingredients present in 0.1% concentration or greater in air freshener products made by these seven companies. This is the first time that EPA has known the main chemical ingredients in a wide number of air fresheners, the function of each ingredient, and the aggregate amount of each chemical present in the products. The agency is now in a position to assess the risks posed by those chemicals and to take appropriate regulatory action. The organizations will continue to request that ingredients present below 0.1% concentration be disclosed to the agency, too.

While EPA received the complete list of ingredients, public versions contained many redactions under company confidential business information claims. Even with the redacted version of the data, however, several hazardous chemicals are listed as air freshener ingredients. These chemicals include formaldehyde (a carcinogen and irritant deliberately generated as preservative), benzene compounds (benzene is a genotoxic carcinogen), naphthalene (a carcinogen), and other chemicals whose safety is questionable.

Because of the redactions in the public data, only EPA and the companies presently know what amounts of these chemicals are used. The coalition of groups is now attempting to use the Freedom of Information Act to challenge the companies’ confidentiality claims and hope to make more ingredient information available publicly. Industry groups are also planning a new ingredient disclosure program for 2010, but say they will continue to keep many ingredients secret including those in their dyes, preservatives and fragrances.

The original petition, EPA’s response, as well as all other public submissions from the Air Freshener Manufacturers

The submission from the fragrance houses

Photo by Crazy Wanda

Thanks, Linda!

Dryer sheet alternatives

We discussed the issue of dryer sheets awhile back when Missy suggested dryer balls as an alternative to dryer sheets.

Here’s an advice column at The Olympian today that suggests using Static Eliminator sheets, something that also might work for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

Just thought I’d bring up this topic once in awhile because scented dryer sheets are THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD to peeps with MCS. Am I right?

EarthTalk question: Which is better for our environment: dryer sheets in the dryer or liquid fabric softener in the wash? It seems they both have properties that aren’t green.

Answer: If you’re concerned about health and safety, you might want to stay away from conventional dryer sheets and liquid fabric softeners. While it might be nice to have clothes that feel soft, smell fresh and are free of static cling, both items contain chemicals toxic to people after sustained exposure.

According to the health and wellness Web site Sixwise.com, some of the most harmful ingredients in dryer sheets and liquid fabric softener include benzyl acetate (linked to pancreatic cancer), benzyl alcohol (an upper respiratory tract irritant), ethanol (linked to central nervous system disorders), limonene (a known carcinogen) and chloroform (a neurotoxin and carcinogen).

Because fabric softeners are designed to stay in your clothes for extended periods of time, the chemicals can seep out gradually and be inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

Liquid fabric softeners are slightly preferable to dryer sheets. The chemicals in dryer sheets get released into the air when they are heated up in the dryer and can pose a respiratory health risk inside and outside of the home.

For those who don’t want to give up soft and static-free clothes, National Geographic’s Green Guide recommends adding either a quarter cup of baking soda or a quarter cup of white vinegar to the wash cycle. Either one will soften clothes; the latter also addresses static cling. (Don’t mix either with bleach because chemical reactions could cause noxious fumes.)

If eliminating static cling is your top priority, dry natural-fiber clothes separately from synthetic materials. The combination of cotton and polyester often is the culprit behind static cling.

A few companies have heeded the ever-increasing call for greener, safer ways to soften clothes and reduce static cling. Seventh Generation’s Natural Lavender Scent Fabric Softener and Ecover’s Natural Fabric Soft ener are good choices that rely on vegetable products and natural essential oils instead of harsh chemicals to get the job done.

Maddocks’ Static Eliminator is a nontoxic, hypoallergenic reusable dryer sheet made out of a pro prietary, chemical-free polynylon. The Canadian company originally developed the material to rid mechanical systems of explosion-i nducing static electricity, but soon realized it could benefit consumers as well. One sheet is good for about 500 wash loads.

Don’t want to use the dryer at all? Leslie at The Oko Box Blog made a cute DIY clothes dryer rack out of bamboo yesterday, check it out!

Photo by Queen Roly

More on Gulf War Illness

Boston.com has a story today on Gulf War Illness.

I think the findings of the study recently released showing exposure to pesticides and other toxic chemicals as the cause of Gulf War Illness are going to help our cause in having Multiple Chemical Sensitivity fully recognized by the government. Note that the Gulf War vet here in the excerpt says that the smell of perfume or a new car causes her serious physical distress. Yes, people with severe chemical injury can then develop adverse health problems from exposure to low level toxic chemicals like fragrance and off-gassing plastics. We know that, and vets with Gulf War Illness know that. The more studies that are done, the closer we are to having MCS fully recognized by government, which will affect policy in health care, housing, employment and other basic rights.

Now if they’d just start to connect the dots between the vets and the rest of us. I wish they’d hurry up for ALL of us. We’ve all waited long enough.

Tara Batista says she cannot ever recall her phone number. But she can remember clearly what she was like before she drove an ambulance through the deserts and combat zones of Saudi Arabia in the winter of 1991.

“I was 19; I was healthy,” she said in a recent phone interview. As a combat medic during the Gulf War, Batista, who now lives in Fitchburg, stood in clouds of pesticides and, under orders, took a little white pill twice a day as a precaution against a chemical attack.

Today, she says, the smell of perfume or a new car makes her lose the ability to speak, and triggers dry heaves, weakness, and pain that rises through her body like a shiver. She has recurring sinus infections and night sweats.

Last year, she contemplated killing herself.

[...]

The drug, pyridostigmine bromide, and certain pesticides used during the war to keep fleas and sand flies at bay affect the central nervous system, the report found, and are associated with memory and focus problems, persistent headaches, respiratory and digestion problems, and “widespread pain.” The report concludes that there are no effective treatments, and that the conditions of afflicted veterans have remained static or worsened in the nearly 18 years since the Gulf War ended.

“The physical symptoms are real and not in people’s heads,” said Roberta White, the scientific director for the committee, which began its evaluation of Gulf War research and programs in 2002.

Read the full story at Boston.com.

Read the full report on Gulf War Illness here.

Canary manners: Wedding invitations

Kerry from Lemon-Aide, who has Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and a host of other chronic health issues, wrote me and asked if The Canary Report flock has any ideas to help solve this problem:

My son’s getting married this summer and I’m starting to think about how we communicate via the invitations for guests to refrain from perfumes, clothes with dryer sheets etc. Would it be possible to put a question out there on your blog to get your MCS readers input?

Kerry is a wonderfully sweet woman with a blog to match. I know she wants to make this a very special day for her son and new daughter-in-law, but also wants to stay safe so she can enjoy the day, too. Any ideas for her?

Photo by Cherry

Dear President-Elect Obama: Health care is a right

Yesterday’s post on President-Elect Obama’s request for input on Health Care inspired many of you to write him about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Bravo! Like true canaries, you are out front sending your messages of warning and need.

I’d like to post the letters if you would like to share. If you’ve saved a copy, send to me via email to susie(at)thecanaryreport(dot)org.

Missy Gluckman (at left) wrote me this morning with a copy of her remarks. The Canary Report has been following Missy’s struggle with severe illness and MCS brought on by toxic mold exposure at her place of work. Here are Missy’s remarks to President-Elect Obama:

Dear President Elect Obama,

Thank you for asking for our input!

I would like to see ND (Natural Doctors - licensed by many states) included more regularly in health care plans. In addition, natural supplements that are prescribed by NDs are not covered by health insurance and I would like to see this change.

Why do I care about this? Well, let me clarify: I tried traditional medicine for 39 years of my 40 and switched recently to an ND after 3 years of treatment for a variety of illnesses caused by mold/toxic exposure that nearly killed me at 37.  My ND, thankfully, is covered by my insurance plan (Anthem - state of CT), but this is RARE. The ND has been the only person in 3 years who has given me ANY relief from toxic poisoning and the related illnesses (thyroid, liver and lung damage, multiple chemical sensitivity, etc). Without her unique approach to healing, I would likely be pushing for Full Disability which costs the govt a lot more than me being healthy and working (i’m categorized as Partially disabled by NY State worker’s compensation - but I choose to push through it and work bc I WANT to be productive and could not afford to live on $400 a week as granted by worker’s comp).

The natural approach would potentially improve the health and quality of life for thousands who suffer from toxic exposure, yet 99% of people will not go to this type of Dr bc of lack of insurance. An avg appt is $200 and supplements (which change each time I go  - can be as little as $12 or as much as $800).   The pharma companies are driving policy and are not always the best solution (in my case, the traditional pharma solutions resulted in a 30 pound weight gain which caused a whole new host of issues and simply did not work on any above stated conditions).

So, please help people who are suffering by giving them the option of licensed NDs and not allowing health insurance companies the right to deny a licensed dr into the network if they meet the criteria (i.e. licensed, etc - my ND was denied access into the Aetna network.)  Natural plant supplements have been used for CENTURIES in countries such as India, Brazil, etc with extremely positive effects - please fund the study and use of supplements so that they can be covered under insurance plans.

Secondly, I would like to ask for a law that requires manufacturers to state the contents of “fragrance” in their items sold (such as candles, lotions, Fabreze, etc). As a person who suffers from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), fragrances (which are toxic and some are carcinogens) are like kryptonite to me - within minutes I’m forced to go to bed due to the crippling ear pain, respiratory struggles, etc), all so someone can “smell nice”. If people and the govt understood what was actually in “Fragrance” as a category and how it can cause brain fog and behavioral issues in certain children, they would craft some meaningful laws to protect them and people like me who suffer MCS.

PREVENTION of illness is a big part of the need to restructure our health system. If daily toxins weren’t permitted - and certainly not encouraged - less people would suffer from illness and less children from asthma.

I got ill working at SUNY Rockland Cmty College - at a desk (I was a college administrator.) I was exposed to mold mycotoxins such as stachybotris and penicillium. These cause short term memory loss (brain damage) and hemorrhaging in babies. The school knew about the mold for at least a decade and did nothing to rectify it …WHY? Because our govt (unlike most industrialized countries in the world) has ZERO laws about mold.

Did you know that African American children in urban areas suffer from the HIGHEST rate of asthma in the country - why? Reports indicate that mold in public housing is one major factor - again, no one dictates that you must be permitted to live in a place that is safe from health issues.  Mold is a major cause of permanent illness which drains the economy and feed the pharma system.  This needs to change.

THANK YOU President Elect Obama for asking and for giving us a voice in our lives.  Without my health, I am nothing. Simple as that. Thankfully I am employed by the State of CT and have options - MOST DO NOT and as you said, health care is a RIGHT, not a luxury.

Good health to you all.

Judge says woman can sue over co-worker’s perfume

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Mike Adams at Natural News has an excellent critique of a recent court case where an employee is suing the City of Detroit over a perfume drenched co-worker whom the employee says caused her serious respiratory problems.

Adams has a theory that the chemicals in perfume do much more than damage lungs. He says synthetic perfume “literally affects brain function, causing the brain to recede from sensory reality by decoupling neurons, thus making those people cognitively impaired.” Sound familiar?

I’m not sure if I go along with his assertion that the “dumbest people” wear perfume; I guess you have to define your terms. But his feeling about “dumbed-down” consumers getting poisoned in their homes makes a lot of sense to me.

A Judge has ruled that a lawsuit over workplace perfume filed by a Detroit city planner can proceed. The lawsuit alleges that perfume from a co-worker made Susan McBride unable to properly breathe, creating a hazardous work environment and making it difficult for her to complete her work.

The city of Detroit sought to have the lawsuit dismissed in court, but the Judge agreed with McBride that her difficulty in breathing with the excessive perfume did, indeed, qualify for protection under federal laws that protect the disabled from workplace discrimination.

That may seem like an odd law to invoke in this case (is McBride really “disabled” due to her difficulty in breathing?) but at least it is recognizing the reality of perfume toxicity.

Let’s get straight to the real story here, folks: Perfume-wearing people are toxic to the world, and they create a toxic workplace filled with poisonous, cancer-promoting chemicals that cause healthy people to gasp for breath.

[...]

Synthetic perfume chemicals cause cancer

These people also remain oblivious to the fact that perfumes contain cancer-causing chemicals that are absorbed right through the skin. These chemicals enter the blood where they poison the liver and other organs, causing cancer and cellular toxicity throughout the body.

I also have a theory that this onslaught of chemicals literally affects brain function, causing the brain to recede from sensory reality by decoupling neurons, thus making those people cognitively impaired. You can observe this in the real world, too: Have you ever noticed it’s the dumbest people who wear the most perfume or cologne? I do not believe that is by chance: It could very well be a cause-effect relationship between perfume chemicals and brain function.

Keep in mind, too, that dumbed-down mainstream consumers use a lot of perfume-laced products throughout their homes: Laundry detergent, dryer sheets, air fresheners, carpet cleaners, shampoo, shower soap and other products laced with the same toxic fragrance chemicals found in perfumes. This creates a toxic environment in which cancer is accelerated and brain development is retarded.

NaturalNews supports a nationwide ban on perfumes in the workplace.

Link

Be a smart cosmetic shopper

Yesterday’s post in Enviroblog entitled “Tips from the make-up artist” makes a good point about the importance of paying attention to the ingredients in our personal care products. Those of us with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are probably more concientious than the average shopper, but I have to admit that up until very recently, I relied more on what my nose and body told me than what was on the label.

But now, I not only do the sniff test for all my cosmetics and personal care products, I also check labels and consult the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database, the bible of concientious shoppers. I do this because it’s not just the toxic chemicals that trigger MCS symptoms that I need to eliminate from my life, it’s all toxic chemicals and products.

Here are some practical shopping tips from Skin Deep, most of which I’m sure you are already following, but it never hurts to review, especially for those of you who do not have MCS but are interested in living a healthier lifestyle:

Use our What Not To Buy list to avoid especially problematic ingredients - like mercury, lead, and placenta - and the products that contain them.

Use fewer products. Is there something you can cut from your daily routine, or a product you can use less often? By cutting down on the number of chemicals contacting your skin every day, you will reduce any potential health risks associated with your products.

Use the “Advanced Search” feature of Skin Deep to find products that have fewer potential health issues. Choose a product category and exclude the hazardous ingredients - carcinogens and neurotoxins, for instance - and Skin Deep will generate a custom shopping list for you.

Read labels. Marketing claims on personal care products are not defined under the law, and can mean anything or nothing at all, including claims like organic, natural, hypoallergenic, animal cruelty free, and fragrance free. Read the ingredient label carefully to find evidence that the claims are true.

Use milder soaps. Soap removes dirt and grease from the surface of your skin, but also strips away your body’s own natural skin oils. Choosing a milder soap may reduce skin dryness and your need for moisturizers to replace oils your skin can provide naturally.

Minimize your use of dark hair dyes. Many contain coal tar ingredients that have been linked to cancer in some studies.

Cut down on your use of powders; avoid the use of baby powder on newborns and infants. A number of ingredients common in powder have been linked to cancer and other lung problems when they are inhaled. FDA warns that powders may cause lung damage if inhaled regularly.

Choose products that are “fragrance”-free. Fragrances can cause allergic reactions. Products that claim to be “fragrance free” on the packaging may not be. They could contain masking fragrances that give off a neutral odor. Read the ingredient label - in products truly free of fragrance, the word “fragrance” will not appear there. Find “fragrance”-free products with our advanced search.

Reduce your use of nail polish. It’s one of the few types of products that routinely contains ingredients linked to birth defects. Paint your toenails and skip the fingernails. Paint nails in a well-ventilated room, or outside, or avoid using nail polish altogether, particularly when you are pregnant. Browse our custom shopping guide for advice on nail polishes that contain fewer ingredients of concern.

Link

Photo by smcgee

Who’s chirping about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity today?

On the election front:

Lou Cheese, over at Living w/ Mulitple Chemical Sensitivity, braved the Cleveland air to document the Obama rally today. As his photo at left shows: “I packed my bag with extra batteries for the camera, two respirators, and a note from the doctor explaining the requirement for respirator use in public areas,” he says. “Just what every guy needs.” He posted three updates, at 11:00 a.m.,  3:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. I’ve really enjoyed his perspectives on the presidential race, including his fears of being arrested by the Secret Service at various rallies for being a terrorist because of wearing a respirator!

GreenMuze put together a simple guide to a green voting experience, what they call “Your Eco-Voting Etiquette Guide.” The guide talks about how it’s not enough to just be voting green, you should act like a greenie at the polling place, too. I was delighted to see they recommend a fragrance-free experience. Along with recommending carpooling, eco-friendly water containers, and organic cotton t-shirts, they also say this:

Go scent free.

For many people voting is a social occasion, you see your neighbours, chat with friends, and even perhaps flirt with someone new in the line-ups, but do everyone a favour and go scent free. Increasingly, people are having more chemical sensitivities to perfumes, hairsprays, scented creams and even strong smelling laundry detergents and fabric softeners can be a serious health trigger for many individuals.

The Body Burden reports that everyone alive today carries within her or his body at least 700 contaminants, most of which have not been well studied. Why add more? Going chemical free will reduce the planetary toxic load, is better for your health and much better for the health of those around you. It is time we consider chemical perfumes, hairsprays, shampoos, etc. as equally as noxious as cigarette smoke.

GreenMuze also says “Obama is certainly not the eco-saviour that Al Gore would have been, but he is much better than the McCain/Palin ticket and smart enough to stock his cabinet with good green people.” Exactly!

Experts say everyone is affected by chemical sensitivity

Some people are on the severe end, with their sensitivities so extreme that they can’t function in many public places where they can’t control their environment.

Cleveland Living and Lifestyles News has an interesting and well-written article about Environmental Illness and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity entitled “Environmental Illnesses are gaining attention, thanks to the green movement.” It’s one of the most balanced reports I’ve read in a mainstream paper about MCS and worth reading all the way through.

…environmental medicine is the study of how the reactions we have when we’re exposed to certain toxins affect our immune and neuroendocrine (nervous system and hormones) systems.

Still, the field is often misunderstood as “alternative” medicine. But with the growing popularity for “green” lifestyles and all things organic, and with illnesses that Louisiana residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina got after living in Federal Emergency Management Agency-provided trailers, environmental medicine is getting more attention.

“People just make such a quick judgment about those who are really, really sick,” said Dr. Lisa Lavine Nagy, who has been championing for heightened awareness since her own series of misdiagnoses several years ago for what turned out to be severe multiple chemical sensitivity.

Often, those quick judgments happen because the people more likely to report their chemical sensitivities are women over age 40, she said. Most “normal” women of that age have mild symptoms that are hard to explain, and thus easier to dismiss, she said.

Experts say that everyone is affected in some way by chemical sensitivity. No one quite knows why, but some think genetics may play a large role.

Some people are on the severe end, with their sensitivities so extreme that they can’t function in many public places where they can’t control their environment.

Others may have relatively mild symptoms — or none at all…. (Link to full story, go read it!)

[And some great tips in the side bar]

Possible signs of an environmental illness:

• Headaches while talking on your cell or cordless phone.

• Increased sense of smell, especially to items such as perfume, laundry detergents, cats, etc.

• Increased sensitivity to fluorescent light.

• A diagnosis of adrenal fatigue, or thyroid deficiency or overactivity.

Tips from Dr. Michael Roizen, Cleveland Clinic:

• One of the keys — especially here in Cleveland — is to air one’s house out. Over the course of a winter, the quality of inside air becomes worse than outside air, he said. It doesn’t hurt to open the windows periodically on good days during the winter.

• Avoid materials — household cleaners, rugs, air fresheners, even some furniture — that emit lots of volatile hydrocarbons. As Roizen put it, “You want to use cleaning fluids that are, in fact, safe enough to drink.”

Possible treatments to discuss with your doctor (from Dr. Lisa Nagy):

• Remove yourself from possible causes, i.e. a “sick” house or office. The culprit may be mold, or as unsuspecting as carpeting or fabric softener. A July study from the University of Washington revealed that six top-selling laundry products and air fresheners gave off toxic chemicals — none of which was listed on product labels.

• Decrease your total chemical load. Switch to organic food, filtered air and water.

• Detoxify with the help of intravenous and oral vitamins and supplements, under a doctor’s supervision.

• Investigate whether you have specific food or chemical allergies or hormone imbalances and/or insufficiencies.

• Consider treatment in a low-temperature (140 degrees) sauna, under a doctor’s supervision.

Link

Canary’s Cry for Sunday, Oct. 12

A new feature on The Canary Report: Recent news worthy of a Canary’s Cry.

Here’s the alarm call for Sunday, Oct 12:

The Standard Speaker reports on “A body at war,” the story of a veteran of Desert Storm and Desert Shield who now suffers from multiple sclerosis or MS. My heart breaks when I hear stories about chemically injured veterans.

Local10.com finds “Mold Forces Hundreds of Students Out of Dorms” at Florida Memorial University. Gross out warning.

RedOrbit says South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency reported on Thursday: “South Korea is the Largest User of Farm Chemicals Among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Members.”

AP reports that “Mexican marijuana cartels sully US forests, parks.” Seems herbicides and pesticides are being used to grow pot in National Forests, resulting in horrendous damage.

In other forest news, Eonline blares the headline “Britney Sees the Forest for the Perfume.” The pop star’s new perfume Hidden Fantasy has the tagline “What do you have to hide?” and is being marketed as a “seductive scent that is all about expressing the many mysterious sides of a woman.” I have no idea what this has to do with forests, although the promo photo has her looking like a tree hugger, literally.

FT.com, out of the UK, reports in “Making scents of the male market” that more than 40 new men’s scents are being launched in the US market alone this year. Oh goodie, I can hardly wait.

Link to photo by emingus

The sorrow of isolation

CatherineWO, at Breathez, posted about Sisterhood yesterday, lamenting the loss of getting together with other women as much as she’d like since developing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. While she’s found some comfort with online blogs, she makes a very valid point about the need for personal interaction.

She recently attended a jewelry party at her daughter-in-law’s. She writes about the gathering: “…even more important to me was the opportunity to just sit and talk with other women. It was a small group, but they all knew I would be there so had come fragrance free. It felt good just to relax and enjoy the company of others.”

But she has a much harder time being able to participate in her church activities. I wrote about CatherineWO’s successful activism at her church, where she lobbied church elders to make all church buildings fragrance free. But she still has some problems with more casual gatherings with women friends, which causes her deep sorrow.

We all suffer losses in our lives for which we must grieve and then move on, hopefully filling the gap with something else of value. But I am not sure how to fill this gap in my life. In moments of selfishness and self-pity, I rail at the women in my own local group who refuse to change their behavior so that I can participate. Yet, such wallowing is so unproductive. I can’t change the behavior of other women, and railing on them to myself only makes me more angry. And I don’t want to become just an angry old woman.

One place I still feel sisterhood is through online blogs. There are some wonderful LDS group blogs that reach out to women, such as www.feministmormonhousewives.org , http://segulah.org/blog and http://the-exponent.com (my favorite). Blogs cannot replace the intimacy we get associating in person with other women, but they do offer a free exchange of feelings and ideas that helps to fill the gap.

Perhaps my greatest resource for sisterhood is with my own daughters and daughter-in-law, four truly amazing women who reach out to me on an almost daily basis. I love them and really appreciate them, but it is unfair and unrealistic to expect them to fulfill the bulk of my social and emotional needs.

So I continue to seek new ways to conpensate for the loss of sisterhood I feel in the isolation of chemical sensitivity. Even introverts need a little socializing once in a while.

Link

How to handle the problem of a co-worker’s perfume

Attack the problem, not the person

Office etiquette experts Cheryl Stinski and Karen Dorn, in their column Alternative Resolutions found at postcrescent.com, offer some good advice on how to talk to a co-worker about his or her offensive fragrance.

I think the recommendations given are solid, but the last paragraph on further “options” is too vague to be helpful. I would say that if the co-worker does not respond to the kind and educational approach suggested here, that you go to your supervisor and on up the food chain until you get results–”results” meaning that either the person stops wearing the toxic fragrance, or you be given an alternative work space.

Know that the trend is toward no-scent policies in the workplace (also conventions, public meetings, etc) and your proactive participation in moving your management toward creating policy that supports a safer work environment for everyone will make you feel very good!

Here’s the advice:

Q: A new person recently started in my office. She’s a good addition to our team, with one huge exception - her strong perfume is making me and others sick. One of my co-workers already missed work because of allergy problems heightened by her perfume and

I’ve had to use my asthma medication much more frequently on workdays.

I told her that her perfume is too strong but she insists it isn’t a problem. My manager says that because the employee handbook doesn’t address perfume, there’s nothing he can do.

We’ve resorted to opening all the windows and doors to air the place out, but the weather will soon take away that option. She may have started wearing a little less of the stinky stuff but when we have to close the place up I’m afraid we’ll be right back at square one.

Do we all need to sign an anti-perfume petition or can something else be done?

A: There can be a fine line between an individual’s personal choices and what gets in the way of his/her co-worker’s ability to be productive employees. Most people really do want to be sensitive to the needs of their co-workers, but they also don’t like being told what to do.

Employee policies create guidelines but they can’t cover every circumstance. And, as you’ve discovered, perfumes and odors can raise all kinds of sensitivity issues, both in the health arena and in how the problem gets handled. Instead of further escalating the power struggle with a petition, let’s look at how to handle a sensitive problem with sensitivity.

Frame the problem accurately: The problem isn’t your co-worker’s perfume, it’s the health impact it’s having on some of her co-workers and the resulting loss of productivity; in another environment with other people, there may not be a problem at all.

Attack the problem, not person: Instead of pointing the finger with a You Message like “your perfume is too strong” try this: “I am concerned about the perfume you are wearing to work because several people are having health reactions.”

Be specific when stating the facts: Don’t just say “you’re perfume is making people sick.” Give as much information as you can without violating privacy rights of other employees - “one person has had to increase medication on workdays,” or “we have doctor verification that a medical condition is aggravated by prolonged contact with strong perfume.”

Be open to options: The obvious solution, which may seem like the easiest solution, may not necessarily be the best solution in the long run. Taking the time to listen to each other and explore options will ensure that all are involved in finding a solution that meets everyone’s needs to the best of your ability.

Cheryl Stinski or Karen Dorn 920-993-1490 with questions you’d like answered in this column and to learn how Alternative Resolutions Inc. can help with your workplace needs. Sign up at newsletter@alternativeresolutions.biz for a free subscription to their monthly e-newsletter, The Toolbox.

Link

Link to photo by lecanu mickael on flickr

Perfume is an air pollutant

Letter to the editor at Kingston This Week:

When it comes to perfume, please, a little goes a long way

We hear so much today about clean air and pollutants. Recently, we experienced what I consider something to be a definite air pollutant.

We were shopping at the Cataraqui Canadian Tire when a lady passed us wearing so much cologne or perfume it made me feel sick, but much more to the point, it made my husband almost pass out. He suffers from a disease known as COPD, where at times it’s very difficult, almost impossible to breathe.

This event really affected him and I thought he was going to pass out, as has previously happened. One kind lady offered to get him a chair. We quickly made our way outside to the fresh air and after a while he was all right.

This has happened several times before and we really appreciate the scent-free zones. (Now, if only everyone would abide by these requests, it would be a much more comfortable world for all of those having breathing problems).

When I was in KGH several months ago, a patient in my room had a visitor drenched in perfume. My roommate had to have oxygen administered and my husband had to leave the room. The fragrance lasted for quite a while.

Please be considerate of others when applying anything with fragrance. As in most things, a little goes a long way. It is certainly no fun watching anyone, especially someone you love, fighting for each and every breath.

Jacqueline Neilson

Kingston

Link

Link to photo credit at National Heart Lung and Blood Institute

Hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals found in teenage girls

Many chemicals detected linked to serious health problems

Here’s a new report from the Environmental Working Group about hormone-altering chemicals found in cosmetics and body care products. Isn’t it interesting that the products that trigger a bad reaction in people with Mulitple Chemical Sensitivity are proving out through scientific study to be toxic and damaging even at low levels?

OAKLAND, CA - Teenage girls across America are contaminated with hormone-altering chemicals found in cosmetics and body care products, confirms a new study released today by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

The first-of-its kind study found 16 toxic chemicals in blood and urine samples from 20 teenage girls from eight states and the District of Columbia, aged 14-19, including preservatives, fragrance and antimicrobial compounds. Many of these are linked to serious health risks in lab animals, even at low-dose levels.

“Hormone-altering chemicals shouldn’t be in cosmetics, especially in products used by millions of teenage girls,” said Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D, author of the report and Staff Scientist at EWG. “Their bodies are still developing and may be especially vulnerable to risks from these exposures,” added Sutton.

The young women participating in this study were recruited from locations across the U.S. and represent diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds.  They used an average of nearly 17 personal care products per day that contain a total of 174 unique cosmetic ingredients.

The study provides the first data available from teens on levels of synthetic chemical musks, common fragrance ingredients that accumulate in people and act like estrogen in the body, and preservatives called parabens that also mimic estrogen.

“The Teen Body Burden Study is proof that something needs to be done. My results serve as permanent motivation to fight the chemical battle and win,” said Jessica Assaf, one of the teens tested.

Federal health statutes do not require companies to test products or ingredients for safety before they are sold. As a result, nearly all body care products contain ingredients that have not been assessed for safety by any federal agency, and are not required to meet any uniform safety standards.

“Most parents don’t know that the eyeliner, lipstick or shampoo they allow their daughters to use probably contains at least one chemical linked to a number of serious health concerns,” said Sutton. “Teenage girls are at a particularly vulnerable age and these exposures could trigger a subtle sequence of damaging effects that leads to health problems later in life.”

Teenagers and their parents can consult EWG’s Skin Deep online database to help them make informed decisions about their products.

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.

Link to full EWG release

Link to full EWG Report: Teen Girls’ Body Burden of Hormone-Altering Cosmetics Chemicals

Link to Greenwire release

Next Page »