A new analysis of lead in lipstick conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reveals that the problem of lead in lipstick is worse and more widespread than previously reported. The new study found lead in 400 lipsticks tested by the agency, at widely varying levels of up to 7.19 parts per million (ppm) — more than twice the levels reported in a previous FDA study.

February 6th 2012, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics sent FDA a letter asking them to correct misleading statements on their website about the supposed safety of lead in lipstick. The agency has studied only the levels of lead in lipstick, and has conducted no health studies or safety assessments.

In January, an advisory committee to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a new report asserting that there is no safe level of lead for children, and stressing the importance of preventing lead exposure for children and pregnant women.

“Lead builds up in the body over time and lead-containing lipstick applied several times a day, every day, can add up to significant exposure levels,” said Mark Mitchell, M.D., MPH, policy advisor of the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice and co-chair of the Environmental Health Task Force for the National Medical Association.

“Lead is a proven neurotoxin that can cause learning, language and behavioral problems. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, because lead easily crosses the placenta and enters the fetal brain where it can interfere with normal development,” said Sean Palfrey, M.D., a professor of pediatrics and public health at Boston University and the medical director of Boston’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.

The FDA study of 400 lipsticks was quietly posted on the agency’s website in December. The most contaminated brand in the study, Maybelline Color Sensation by L’Oreal USA, contained more than 275 times the amount of lead found in the least contaminated, and least expensive, brand, Wet & Wild Mega Mixers Lip Balm — demonstrating that price is not an indicator of good manufacturing practices.

“How many millions of women have applied and reapplied lead-containing lipsticks since we first raised concerns about this problem five years ago? How many kids have played with their mom’s lipstick?” said Janet Nudelman, interim director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and policy director at the Breast Cancer Fund. “It’s time for L’Oreal to get the lead out of its products, and for FDA to set a safety standard for lead in lipstick.”

The FDA said it is currently evaluating whether to recommend an upper limit for lead in lipstick. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is urging FDA to set a maximum limit for lead in lipstick based on the lowest lead levels cosmetic manufacturers can feasibly achieve. U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and Dianne Feinstein have also urged FDA to take action to reduce lead in lipstick.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is also calling on L’Oreal to make a public commitment to reformulate its lipsticks to ensure the lowest possible levels of lead. L’Oreal makes five of the 10 most lead-contaminated brands in the FDA study.

Author:

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Hundreds of lipsticks contaminated with lead, reports new FDA study, February 7th, 2012

Related Articles:

• Toxic Beauty – What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You . . . In Fact, It Already Is
• Since when do Fish use Perfume?
• The Reckless Self-Interest of the Fragrance Industry
• Aromatherapy Can Produce Harmful Indoor Air Pollutants

Scent marketing alarms the trade supervision and labor unions

Businesses that use fragrances in order to encourage customers to linger and buy, are becoming increasingly common. The scent marketing industry promotes the retail branch strongly. The fragrances that one finds in the shops are mixtures of different natural essential oils or chemical compositions. Neither is harmless for employees or customers. In Denmark, the trade supervision and labor unions are keeping their eye on the American fashion chain, “Abercrombie & Fitch”. The fashion chain is known for using the fragrance Citronellol, an aromatic oil that is classified as questionable because it can be harmful to one’s health and it can trigger allergies. The Danish trade supervision is currently committed to putting an end to the scenting in order to protect the employees and customers of the fashion chain.

Authorities and labor unions are going up against scented store environments

In Denmark, labor unions are paying close attention to the authorities’ course of action against the American fashion company “Abercrombie & Fitch”. In their shops, it smells strongly of perfume. The significant fragrance is supposed to bind the customer to the brand and increase sales. The newspaper “Politiken DK” reports that so-called scent marketing has extremely increased in Denmark in the past three years. Anyone who visits certain stores frequently or is employed there, can develop allergies. It is an unnecessary burden on the employees, because many of the fragrances can cause allergic reactions – the newspaper quoted the head of the trade supervision.

Contamination of indoor air with chemicals and allergenic fragrance oils

The perfumes for a scented environment are often led directly into the store through the air conditioning and ventilation system. Smaller shops set up bottles with aromatic oils, containing wooden sticks which release the fragrance into the room. Both are questionable, not only for people who already suffer from perfume allergies, but also for asthmatics and chemically sensitive people (MCS). Even healthy people may sensitize over time and develop allergies.

The trade supervision wants to protect employees and customers

We are most likely dealing with allergens, which are injected into the stores, is what the head of the trade supervision told the newspaper “Politiken DK”. That’s why the authorities tried to contact “Abercrombie & Fitch” at the end of last year. The authorities tried to make it clear to them that they wanted to protect employees against the high concentration of perfume in the shops, because it is an unnecessary burden.

Labor unions are receiving more and more complaints

Danish labor unions report that they receive more and more complaints from union members about the scenting of their workplace. Therefore, the actions of the trade supervision in the case of “Abercrombie & Fitch” are being closely observed. It is a major health problem for the employees in those stores, but also for the customers, said a union spokesperson to “Politiken DK”. The customers, unlike the employees have the choice and can simply stay away from the scented store. The employee unfortunately does not have this choice, especially in times when everyone is happy to even have a job.

It remains to be seen how the American company will behave, what measures the Danish trade supervision will take, and how much pressure the Danish labor unions will make. If the Abercrombie & Fitch” management is smart, they will stop exposing their employees and customers to substances that can cause illness. Sick employees cost a company money, and when customers realize why they don’t feel well in a shop and stay away, they too, can cost the company a lot of money.

The German Federal Environmental Agency has been warning against the use of fragrances for this purpose for years – through several press releases and it’s own published background paper which writes about this issue, „Fragrances: When something pleasant becomes a burden.” (german) An increase of scented shops has also been reported in Germany. So far, there is no authority or union which is really trying to prevent it.

Autor: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 17. Januar 2012

Literatur:

Politiken.DK, Duftende butikker er farlige for ansattes og kunders helbred, 13. Januar 2012

Related Articles:

• Aromatherapy Can Produce Harmful Indoor Air Pollutants
• Scented laundry products emit hazardous chemicals through dryer vents
• Reckless Self-Interest Of The Fragrance Industry
• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Reflections by Dr. L. Christine Oliver and Alison Johnson

Dr. Oliver and Alison Johnson present an excellent overview of the multi-symptom disease known as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, or MCS. During Dr. Oliver’s twenty years of experience, she can attest to MCS being a physiological disease with clear visual manifestations, such as flushing of skin, increased heart rate, and blood pressure problems in patients exposed to chemicals.

As MCS is ever increasing, Dr. Oliver (Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Co-Director of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Massacsetts General Hospital) advocates for more research dollars dedicated to finding modalities to treat MCS. Medical students and physicians are still not trained about MCS even though it affects the respiratory, neurological, gastrointestinal systems, and even the skin. Pulmonologists, gastroenterologists, and allergists, just to name a few, are the physicians who must receive appropriate training.

Currently, most physicians cannot give a correct diagnosis which leaves patients feeling more isolated and thus many chemically injured seek alternative treatments, some which may do more harm than good. According to Dr. Oliver there are no miracle cures for MCS and currently the most reliable treatment is avoidance of exposures.

The disabling symptoms do much to interfere with a MCS person’s life. It interferes with using public transportation, living in multi-housing units, and gaining/keeping employment. Dr. Oliver advocates for every workplace to maintain perfume free environments. Public health policies are needed to accommodate people with MCS so they are not forced to turn to social security disability for a reduced income.

Housing is a big issue for the chemically injured. Multi-family housing is a problem due to the neighbors using scented chemical products. Many people with MCS can no longer work and thus don’t have the finances to rent or buy single family housing.

The lack of safe housing, lack of safe workplaces, and medical issues can be overwhelming for those with chemical injury. The despair associated with lack of the above, plus the disbelief that the illness is real, leads many to contemplate and actually commit suicide.

Alison Johnson has witnessed the real devastation of this disease which has destroyed far too many lives. So many MCS people have seen their former lives slip away. This is hardly a “rare” condition with an estimated seven million Americans suffering from MCS. More accurate educating of the public is needed.

The tobacco industry succeeded for years in their funding attempts to keep the public in the dark regarding the negative health risks of tobacco. The chemical industry is also doing a good job preventing the public from realizing the harm from the chemically laden products on the market. In the meantime people on every continent are suffering great devastation, isolation, and compromised lives due to the chemical injuries they have suffered and must endure.

Have a look at this excellent film overview…

For further information vistit: The Chemical Sensitivity Foundation

Related Articles:

• An Icon of Environmental Medicine visits Germany
• Environmental diseases are not unexplained mysteries
• Canada: Envirionmental Sensitivities in Quebec
• MCS – Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, a disease caused by toxic chemical exposure
• Martin Pall about genetic evidence and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Fragrant essential oils may release various VOCs into the air

Spas that offer massage therapy using fragrant essential oils, called aromatherapy, may have elevated levels of potentially harmful indoor air pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ultrafine particles, according to an article in Environmental Engineering Science, a peer-reviewed journal published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. . The article is available free online

Fragrant essential oils, derived from plants, may release various VOCs into the air. VOC degradation caused by the reaction of these compounds with ozone present in the air can produce small, ultrafine byproducts called secondary organic aerosols (SOAs), which may cause eye and airway irritation.

Taiwanese researchers Der-Jen Hsu (National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology), Hsiao-Lin Huang (Chia-Nan University of Pharmacy and Science, Tainan), and Shiann-Cherng Sheu (Chang-Jung Christian University, Tainan) tested both fragrant and Chinese herbal essential oils for SOA formation in a controlled-environment study chamber under different test conditions. They also performed air sampling and analysis in spa centers that offer massage therapy using essential oils.

The authors compared SOA levels associated for the various fragrant and herbal essential oils tested and present their results in the article, “Characteristics of Air Pollutants and Assessment of Potential Exposure in Spa Centers during Aromatherapy.” They conclude that the layout and ventilation within a particular spa may affect the level of indoor air pollutants produced during massage with aromatherapy.

“Dr. Der-Jen Hsu and his colleagues have done a very nice job in bringing attention to often overlooked health risks associated with luxuries intended to enhance our sense of well-being,” says Domenico Grasso, PhD Editor-in-Chief and Vice President for Research, Dean of the Graduate College, University of Vermont (Burlington).

Author:

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., Publishers, Can Aromatherapy Produce Harmful Indoor Air Pollutants?, 20. Oktober 2011

Related Articles:

• New discovery on the causes of contact allergy
• Scented laundry products emit hazardous chemicals through dryer vents
• Reckless Self-Interest Of The Fragrance Industry
• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals

Top-selling scented liquid laundry detergent and scented dryer sheet contains hazardous chemicals, including two that are classified as carcinogens

The same University of Washington researcher who used chemical sleuthing to deduce what’s in fragranced consumer products now has turned her attention to the scented air wafting from household laundry vents.

Findings, published online this week in the journal Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health, show that air vented from machines using the top-selling scented liquid laundry detergent and scented dryer sheet contains hazardous chemicals, including two that are classified as carcinogens.

“This is an interesting source of pollution because emissions from dryer vents are essentially unregulated and unmonitored,” said lead author Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. “If they’re coming out of a smokestack or tail pipe, they’re regulated, but if they’re coming out of a dryer vent, they’re not.”

The research builds on earlier work that looked at what chemicals are released by laundry products, air fresheners, cleaners, lotions and other fragranced consumer products. Manufacturers are not required to disclose the ingredients used in fragrances, or in laundry products.

For the new study, which focuses on chemicals emitted through laundry vents, researchers first purchased and pre-rinsed new, organic cotton towels. They asked two homeowners to volunteer their washers and dryers, cleaned the inside of the machines with vinegar, and ran full cycles using only water to eliminate as much residue as possible.

At the first home, they ran a regular laundry cycle and analyzed the vent fumes for three cases: once with no products, once with the leading brand of scented liquid laundry detergent, and finally with both the detergent and a leading brand of scented dryer sheets. A canister placed inside the dryer vent opening captured the exhaust 15 minutes into each drying cycle. Researchers then repeated the procedure with a different washer and dryer at a second home.

Analysis of the captured gases found more than 25 volatile organic compounds, including seven hazardous air pollutants, coming out of the vents. Of those, two chemicals – acetaldehyde and benzene – are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, for which the agency has established no safe exposure level.

“These products can affect not only personal health, but also public and environmental health. The chemicals can go into the air, down the drain and into water bodies,” Steinemann said.

The researchers estimate that in the Seattle area, where the study was conducted, acetaldehyde emissions from this brand of laundry detergent would be equivalent to 3 percent of the total acetaldehyde emissions coming from automobiles. Emissions from the top five brands, they estimate, would constitute about 6 percent of automobiles’ acetaldehyde emissions.

“We focus a lot of attention on how to reduce emissions of pollutants from automobiles,” Steinemann said. “And here’s one source of pollutants that could be reduced.”

The project’s website also includes letters from the public reporting health effects from scented consumer products. Steinemann says that people’s reports of adverse reactions to fragranced air coming from laundry vents motivated her to conduct this study.

Steinemann recommends using laundry products without any fragrance or scent.

Co-authors are Lisa Gallagher and Amy Davis at the UW, and Ian MacGregor at Battelle Memorial Institute.

Literature:

Ann Steinemann, Lisa Gallagher, Amy Davis, Ian MacGregor, University of Washington, Scented laundry products emit hazardous chemicals through dryer vents, Aug. 24, 2011

Professor Ann C. Steinemann: Reduce Exposures Resource Assessment

Related Environmental Medicine Matters Articles:

• Since when do fish use perfume?
• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• The Reckless Self-Interest of the Fragrance Industry
• Secret Chemicals Revaled in Celebrity Perfumes, Teen Body Sprays

Environmental contamination from the everyday habits of humans cause “perfumed” fish

We encounter fragrances in everyday situations. We have “our world” scented even if we prefer to live fragrance and chemical-free. These scents come to us via our daily hygiene, food, cleaning products, baby diapers, candles, hotel rooms, and even socks and subway tickets have fragrance added. Mixtures of chemicals usually make up the perfumed ingredients. They accumulate in our fatty tissue, breast milk, and in our environment. A governmental laboratory in Switzerland found fish in high alpine lakes with fragrance ingredients. How did they get there, at altitudes seldom reached by a hiker, in a region where nobody lives?

The dream of clean air and water

Take a look at a peaceful scene in nature… high mountains at two thousand meters, crystal clear air, breathtaking panoramic views with deep blue mountain lakes. This scenery gives one the opportunity to feel one with nature, but appearances can be deceiving. A Swiss government laboratory for analytical chemistry has found samples of fish from the lakes in high mountains and lowlands which contain persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and fragrance ingredients.

Fish repository for insecticides, flame retardants, and fragrances?

Fish were examined from alpine lakes in seven regions above 2062-2637 meters sea level. The scientists found concentrations of old insecticides, and long banned chemicals like DDT, DDE, dieldrin, HPEX, HCB, HCH, PCBs, PCDD / F and PBDE in the fatty tissue of the fish . In addition to these highly questionable chemicals were found seven different artificial musks and Musk xylenes. These chemicals are components in fragrance mixtures, which are found in nursing, cleaning, laundry products and perfume.

Precipitation transports chemicals to the lake fish

Concentrations of PCBs, PCDD / F and PBDE were found in fish from high mountain lakes as well as in the lowlands. Things were very different from the concentration of synthetic musk compounds. These substances which came out of detergents and cosmetics were found in higher quantities in fish of the lowlands than in fish in higher regions. The reason is that the lakes in lowland regions are much more contaminated because sewage treatment plants release water which is still contaminated with these substances. An effect which doesn’t exist in higher mountain regions.

Everyday scents have side effects

According to the Swiss scientists, there is only one explanation for the fragrance ingredients and persistent chemicals in fish found in the high mountains: they come directly from atmospheric precipitation and air pollution. Rain, snow, and fog from our atmosphere in these regions are the cause/source for the contamination of the fish with fragrance ingredients. The environmental contamination from the everyday habits of humans cause “perfumed” fish. This development should show everyone the importance of having a critical mind in a scented world.

This year, which is more recent that this 2007 research, there was also an article in Berner Oberland about the fish in Lake Thun not being good for eating due to the chemical contamination.

Author:

Silvia K. Müller, Seit wann benutzen Fische Parfüm, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network

Translation: Christi Howarth

Literature:

Schmid P, Kohler M, Gujer E, Zennegg M, Lanfranchi M. Empa, Persistent organic pollutants, brominated flame retardants and synthetic musks in fish from remote alpine lakes in Switzerland , Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research Laboratory for Analytical Chemistry Dubendorf, Switzerland. Chemosphere, January 2007

Related articles:

• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• Baby Bathwater contains Fragrance Allergens and Chemicals
• Household detergents, Shampoos may harmful substance in wastewater
• Toxic Beauty – What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You . . . In Fact, It Already Is

“Everything is running smoothly” (says a mother)

In June 2010 Tohwanga reported (german) on her successful attempt to integrate her sick son with MCS and CFS to attend the German elementary school. After almost a year, she reports that everything is going well. Tohwanga actually succeeded with her child’s integration, and would encourage other parents with chemically sensitive children to ask the school and parents of classmates for support in a successful school integration as well.

Integration of a student with MCS and CFS

Tohwanga reports:

In May 2010, I initiated a parents’ evening and at first I asked for a low-emission class. I got 100% support from the school and would like to express my thanks to the head of the school. Teachers, parents, classmates and even grandparents decided to help my child, and contributed actively to reducing class-pollution, by making the classroom fabric softener and perfume-free.

My son now attends the school since August 2010 with great success. He has found friends at school and can participate in the classroom. Of course, the new phase of life is often very tiring. Despite absences and lateness, and extreme tiredness, my son is a good student and learning is easy for him. Even though the daily routine can be difficult and very draining, the morning rising, despite aching limbs, despite nocturnal asthma and / or violent nose bleeds, my son still has motivation to do homework and to have a few social contacts in the afternoon. My little son has mastered this task quite well. I too, am very exhausted by my environmental disease, and often do not know where I will get more energy for the next school day. So we live from day to day, weekend to weekend, and holiday to holiday. In particular, we look forward to the summer holidays, because the short two week vacation is not enough to rest from the deep exhaustion.

It is actually a gift that parents and teachers are giving to our family by accommodating my son’s health condition. Our situation is now a rare one, but I am sure that other schools in the future will allow the integration of MCS-afflicted children. Low-emission schools are important for all children. This should not be a political topic to be ignored any longer.

At the general parents’ meeting during the school year in September 2010, I got a little speaking time to thank the parents and relatives for their attempts of integration and tolerance for my son’s health conditions. I also was curious regarding their experience, so I created a short questionnaire:

Dear Parents,

I would like to express my gratitude to you for allowing my child to experience inclusion and to have an opportunity to attend school without prejudice for his health conditions. I appreciate your understanding, your cooperation, and your discretion in dealing with the harmful fragrances. Thank you very much.

Two questions interest me. (I prepared a questionnaire which I was allowed to distribute. The response was positive and all of the 11 parents present agreed to complete the questions immediately. There are 14 children total in the class.)

How was it to switch to a fragrance-free school?

Difficult: 2

• We took “Dalli med” washing powder but my child was sensitive to one ingredient and had to take “White Giant” again)

No problem, we were already living fragrance-free: 8

• We have been living mainly fragrance free
• We already lived without using many scented products
• We had been living without fabric softener
• No problem
• We were already living with some fragrance-free items

We have always wanted and now had reason to: 1

We do not want to take part in the fragrance free class: 0

I was also interested if the families now can smell better after the participation in the fragrance free classroom because normally the ability to smell gets weaker after a while because the receptors get less sensitive due to dealing with scents. Perfumes especially can paralyze the areas in the brain which deal with scents.

Do you and your family find an increase in perceiving smells and perfumes again?

Yes: 2

No: 9

• I was already very sensitive
• I’ve always smelled well

Conversion to a fabric softener and perfume free school was no problem for the 99% of parents who took part to be scent free, and for 81% the change was no problem at all.

The desire and willingness to take environmentally friendly actions are there, but people just need to get the right tools in their hands to take action. The market for fragrance-free products exists and is increasing every day. The advertising for the fragrance-free market brings success.

My conclusion is that I can follow these wonderful acts by this German mother: “Everything is running smoothly”.

With education, we move forward – silence is counterproductive

The population is becoming increasingly aware of the health damage to chemical exposures, thanks to the many environmental disasters, food scares, vaccine damage, etc., and the terrible nuclear accident in Japan. The Enlightenment month of May is a very important tool for us to further educate others. May we all have the with power to enlighten others. The successes like this story are there.

Author: Tohwanga for CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, MCS Information Month in May 2011

Translation: Christi Howarth for CSN

Related Articles:

• Do students with chemical sensitivity have a chance in traditional schools?
• Drugstore Dilemma
• Scented Consumer Products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• A politically inconvenient Illness

A Real Santa Claus Does Not Wear Perfume

Santa has an ear for the needs of all children, including children with allergies, asthma and chemical sensitivity (MCS). Santas are always open to hear everything a child desires, meaning their secrets, worries and concerns. For many children this seasonal private talk with Santa is an important event when they can privately disclose what is really on their mind.

So this year we wish that all children, including those who suffer from allergies, asthma and chemical sensitivity (MCS), will have the opportunity to whisper something special into Santa’s ear. We have designed an action card for printing. (The best way to print the cards out is on more solid paper or light cardboard).

And because Santa Claus is known for really loving ALL children, with some help, we can make sure every Santa Claus may share the Christmas warmth with every child. Hand the Santa a Christmas card, asking them to give up after-shave, cologne, fabric softener, strong smelling deodorant, and other fragrances this season. Whisper in the ear of the Santa Claus when presentating the card, that this small favor of being fragrance free will make all children’s hearts and eyes glow with gratitude.

ACTION CARD >>>

The real Santa Claus does not wear perfume, because he loves all children. Even those with asthma, allergies, or chemical sensitivity.

-

Spanish Action Card >> El verdadero Papá Noel no usa Colonia

German Action Card >> Der echte Weihnachtsmann trägt kein Parfüm

Facts about Perfume, Scented Products:

• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• The Reckless Self-Interest of the Fragrance Industry
• Secret Chemicals Revaledin Celebrity Perfumes, Teen Body Sprays
• New Discovery on the Causes of Contact Allergy
• Toxic Beauty – What you don’t know Can Hurt you…In Fact, It Already does

In Denmark, as well as internationally, MCS sufferers are angry and indignant with the Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity, which was established in 2006 by the Danish Ministry of Environment. Its main aim was to conduct research into the connection between MCS and chemicals. There is a good reason for this indignation since it is evident that the Research Center’s aim is not to find any real knowledge about MCS, least of all a connection between exposures to chemical substances and MCS.

On the contrary, the Research Center’s aim is to produce counterfeit/fraudulent research on MCS.

The center is a political instrument designed by a three—stage rocket:

A. Acquit the environment, i.e. “prove” that MCS is not caused by exposures to chemical substances from the environment.

B. ’Prove’ that MCS is associated with psychological factors in order to obtain psychiatrisation of MCS.

C. Get MCS sufferers to fall within psychiatry (liaison psychiatry) so that psychiatry can develop treatments for MCS sufferers: “Mindfulness” i.e. cognitive psychotherapy, perhaps electroshock (ECT) in severe cases, and soon the pharmaceutical industry, which probably is sitting poised, to develop psychoactive drugs for MCS sufferers.

And how has the Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity done this?

Well, here we must understand that their study and publication: “Attention to Bodily Sensations and Symptom Perception in Individuals with Environmental Intolerance” by Sine Skovbjerg, Robert Zachariae, Alice Rasmussen, Jeanne Duus Johansen, and Jesper Elberling in Environ Health Prev Med, DOI 10.1007/s12199•009•0120-y, is the key to the fraud.

1. GETTING RID OF THE CHEMICALS

Part 1: “Let’s change the name”

To begin with, the Research Center agreed on using the label “IEI” instead of “MCS”. This was smart thinking. At the meeting with the board of MCS-Denmark on May 18th, 2010, the Research Center argued that they used this label because IEI is a broader term than MCS and that they would not have been able otherwise to get the article published in an international journal. This is bullshit of course. The real reason is to be found on page 2 of Sine Skovbjerg’s PhD Thesis: “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity – psychological factors, patient strategies and healthcare practices”: “The label ‘MCS’ has been criticized for implying unproven assumptions about causation, and instead the label ‘Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance’ IEI has been recommended to replace it.”

The Research Center obviously wanted to exclude the idea of a causal connection between MCS and exposures to chemical substances. To complete this intention, in the same article the researchers went so far as to yield the misinformation that their MCS subjects were diagnosed with IEI by a physician. That, of course, is a lie – all subjects had been diagnosed with MCS by a physician.

When the board of MCS-Denmark confronted them with questions about why they had written that the patients were physician diagnosed with IEI, when they all were diagnosed with MCS already, they replied by handing over an article: ”International Programme on Chemical Safety / World Health Organization (IPCS/WHO), Conclusions and Recommendations of a Workshop on Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)”, Geneva, Switzerland. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1996; 188-189. According to the Research Center, this article describes the reasons for using label ‘IEI’. Now, the Research Center also refers to the article on their website.

However, there was a snag in the article that the Research Center “forgot” to discuss on their website. MCS-Denmark discovered this article is not a WHO article at all, as it might seem at first glance. It is also not disclosed who criticized the MCS label and instead recommended IEI either. However, it all falls into place if one scrutinizes the IPCS/WHO article, as Ann McCambell has done. The truth behind this article is that “WHO” was one of the sponsors of the workshop: “lnternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS)” on MCS held in Germany in February 1996. This workshop was dominated by participants associated with the industry and had no representatives from environmental, labor, or consumer groups. Instead the non-governmental participants were individuals employed with BASF, Bayer, Monsanto, and Coca Cola.”Representation came from individuals from the chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry which often is the same thing. For example: “Monsanto, known for making Roundup and other herbicides, is a wholly owned subsidiary of a pharmaceutical company called Pharmacia. BASF makes pharmaceutical products and pesticides and Bayer, famous for making aspirin, manufactures the popular neurotoxic pyrethroid insecticide Tempo (active ingredient cyfluthrin).”

At this meeting the decision was made to try to change MCS into IEI.

”Besides getting the word ‘chemical’ out of the name, the workshop participants chose to add the term ‘idiopathic’, apparently because they thought it meant the illness was “all in people’s head” rather than of unknown etiology (cause). But lots of ‘real’ diseases are also considered ‘idiopathic’, such as idiopathic epilepsy (epilepsy not resulting from trauma, surgery, infection, or other obvious causes). Still, implying that MCS has no known cause helps the industry. They do not want to be held responsible for their products causing MCS, or for that matter triggering symptoms in people sensitized to them.”

However, what the Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity ‘just happened to forget’ to inform on their website and which MCS-Denmark discovered from the May 18th, 2010 meeting regarding the article not originating from WHO is quite the opposite. “The WHO issued a statement to the workshop participants after the meeting to try to put a stop to claims that WHO supported the name change from MCS to IEI. It stated, “A workshop report to WHO, with conclusions and recommendations, presents the opinions of the invited experts and does not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of WHO.” It goes on to say that: “With respect to ‘MCS,’ WHO has neither adopted nor endorsed a policy or a scientific opinion.” (World Health Organization. Note to invited participants in the MCS Workshop, February 21-23, 1996, Berlin, Germany 6/7/96.) ” “(1) (2) As Ann McCambell states: “Despite this explicit disclaimer, claims that the World Health Organization supports IEI continue to be made by MCS opponents”. (1)

It is thus evident that the Research Center’s justification for using the label ‘IEI’ for MCS does not stem from the WHO, but instead from the chemical industry. However, the Research Center ‘forgot’ to inform the public of WHO’s disclaimer both on their website and to MCS-Denmark. Consequently, the IEI label is the chemical industry’s manipulation trick — a lie label to hide the fact that MCS is induced by chemical substances. No serious MCS scientists use this fraudulent MCS label. The term ‘IEI’ is only used by scientists under the influence of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, some parts of psychiatry and the Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity because they want to “demonstrate” that MCS has nothing to do with chemicals and that psychological factors and individual brain malfunctioning are involved in MCS etiology.

2. GETTING RID OF THE CHEMICALS

Part 2: “We do not know what is poisoning”

Simultaneously with these hoaxes, the Research Center inserted onto their website their scientific preconceptions and epistemological grounds for their research on MCS. Here they describe that MCS cannot be a poisoning condition. This is the second track of the lie that MCS has nothing to do with chemicals.

They state: “Some fragrant and chemical sensitivity sufferers experience their condition as a form of poisoning. Fragrance and chemical sensitivity cannot be explained by a toxicological mechanism. A toxicological mechanism requires a so-called exposure response (i.e. increasing effect and risk with increasing exposure) but there is no evidence that fragrance and chemical sensitivity appears more frequent among persons subjected to high chemical exposure levels, e.g. in their jobs.” (mcsvidencenter.dk)

This fundamental scientific preconception and epistemological paragraph in the Research Center’s approach to MCS regarding their understanding of poisoning is wrong because it does not take into account that this definition of poisoning is only about acute poisoning.

As a result, the Research Center completely ignores the fact that in much new research – especially in terms of environmental diseases, i.e. medical conditions triggered by environmental factors – this definition of poisoning has been abandoned in favor of a new paradigm. In this new paradigm, poisoning is not necessarily dose respondent with increasing effect and risk with increasing exposure, but low doses at repeated exposures are equally toxic.

The latter approach is represented by the French recognized cancer scientist, Professor Belpomme, President of the renowned French cancer research institute ARTAC (Association pour la Recherche Thérapeutique Anti-Cancéreuse) in Paris, France. Besides researching into cancer, ARTAC now also research into Electro Hyper Sensitivity (EHS) from which many MCS patients also suffer and have in 2009 by means of brain scans documented that EHS sufferers have hypo perfusion (low blood flow) in the brain by exposures to electromagnetic fields / radiation (EMF/EMR).

In his book “Avant qu’il ne soit trop tard” (“Before it’s too late”) Belpomme explains that it has now been clearly demonstrated that small doses of toxic substances can induce chronic diseases. Therefore, he says, those physicians and scientists – for example those at the Research Center who assert that MCS sufferers get sick of small doses of chemical substances that are completely non-toxic – not only are wrong but make double faults. First, in making a scientific mistake, because today we know that small doses of physical / chemical (radiation / chemical ) pollution may induce chronic diseases (e.g. cancer) and secondly in making an epidemiological mistake with fatal consequences for public health. Because waiting for the evidence of a poison mechanism (e.g. concerning MCS and EHS) is the same as to prepare for something much worse than today, both in terms of human and economic consequences.

In this light the Research Center’s fumblings are no less than a scandal. On completely unqualified grounds, they believe they know that MCS is not related to poisoning. For instance, Jesper Elberling said to an MCS patient that her symptoms are due to the circumstance that “her brain sensor is broken so that she overreacts and believes the smells are toxic although they are not.”

But Elberling and Skovbjerg make fatal errors, as well as scientific errors, since the rule of dose-dependent exposures response only regards acute exposures but not chronic poisoning. Likewise, they neither query the nature of the chemical substances in question nor the repetition of exposures which according to MCS sufferers are so very characteristic of their illness (due to the small doses).

As is seen, Elberling and Skovbjerg are neither interested in the duration of exposures to chemical substances (the time factor) nor in the organism’s state (the chronicity).

Belpomme writes: “It is evident in terms of environmental pollution with chemical substances that the majority of diseases they induce are not caused by acute toxicity. In these cases it is not the dose that makes the poison but the repetition. This concept is relatively new and it is not only a matter of chemical substances but also of radiation. Our prescribed regulations (the dose-respondent rule) do indeed protect us from acute poisoning, but do not protect us against chronic diseases caused by prolonged exposures to low doses. In case of chronic exposures, one must therefore consider the factor: time much more than the actual dose. The longer the exposures last, the higher the probability of developing a chronic disease, especially cancer.” (p.73) (3)

Virtually all MCS sufferers clearly declare that their MCS is being exacerbated over time by repeated small exposures to a variety of chemical substances. Many researchers (e.g. Martin Pall) point out the fact that a range of these chemical substances are extremely neurotoxic (toxic to the nervous system) and a host of other chemical substances are known to cause other toxic effects in the organism. On these grounds it is incredibly unqualified and amateurish for the Research Center to assert as a starting point that MCS cannot be caused by a toxicological mechanism.

In these two ’wily’ ways, the Research Center, a priori, excluded the environmental factor – the chemical trail. But that obviously did not suffice. Now it had to be proved that there are psychological factors involved in MCS.

And how was that done?

3. GETTING RID OF THE CHEMICALS

Part 3:”Let’s falsely translate”

Well, as a starting point they manipulated the research and the questionnaire test of Eva Millqvist: “A Short Chemical Sensitivity Scale for Assessment of Airway Sensory Hyper Reactivity,” by Steven Nordin, Eva Millqvist, Olle Löwhagen, and Mats Bende in Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2004) 77: 249-254, DOI 10.1007/s00420-004-0504-7. This research contains a validated test to quantify SHR (Sensory Hyperreactivity, a subcondition of MCS). The SHR sufferers have symptoms primarily from the airways when exposed to chemical substances.

The Research Center chose this questionnaire, and sent it out to many MCS sufferers and non-MCS subjects. However, there was a snag in it because they deliberately translated seven out of eleven questions falsely into Danish. While the original questions of the validated CSS-SHR test, which together with the capsaicin test can diagnose SHR, ask about people’s behavioural and emotional reactions to exposures to chemical substances (”odeous / pungent substances”), the Research Center changed them in the Danish translation into questions on people’s behavioural and emotional responses to odors (“scents and chemical odors”). Clever.

Quite imperceptibly, the questions have been changed into people’s reactions to smells, but smells and chemicals are not synonymous concepts. And when people can only respond to the questions, the answers will of course respond to people’s responses to odors.

4. NEARLY IN THE BAG

MCS individualized and psychiatrized

Finally the way was paved to correlate these responses with a series of psychiatric tests and for a finding that MCS sufferers have idiosyncratic perceptions of smells and thus an increased unhealthy amount of attention to bodily symptoms, and they are also often sad. Hocus pocus, MCS has become individualized. It is the individual MCS sufferers that are said to have an increased unhealthy amount of attention (’enhanced internal information’) to non-toxic fragrances and with the correlation with psychiatric tests, the conclusion suggested that MCS sufferers’ symptomatology is psycho-pathological but that it is not known whether psychopathology and individual susceptibility to hypersensitivity reactions are part of the MCS etiology or merely amplifying factors. “It is likely that the etiology of IEI is multi- factorial, and as for somatoform disorders, it can be argued that the complexity of IEI is best studied from a bio-psycho-social perspective” (s.38).

It is hence concluded that MCS is a somatoform disorder and – hocus pocus – MCS is now psychiatrized.

Thus was the recipe for this indigestible dish in the cookbook:

“Lies and manipulation in preparation for dishonest and fake research”

The ingredients are:

• Faulty and outdated definition of poisoning
• New (old) chemical industry invented name (IEI)
• Forged medical diagnoses (IEI) (and toxicology and environmental medicine out of the picture)

To this must be added:

• Counterfeit questionnaires via mistranslation, thus turning chemical substances into scents and ’somatisation’, no, no: ’Bodily Distress Syndrome’ diagnosis.

Finally the dish is served: On the table is now a psychiatric disorder, i.e. a mixture of physical disorder (brain-related error: ’the brain sensor is broken’) and possibly genetics (individual susceptibility) and psychiatric illness (depression, anxiety).

And where does this big magic trick lead?

5. THE MAGIC COMPLETED

MCS falls within psychiatry and patients must be psychiatrically treated

Well, it leads to the powerful psychiatry movement which stands ready to receive patients – and especially money. MCS is now ’meaningfully’ called scent sensitivity in the special issue of the Danish Weekly Journal of Physicians (Ugeskrift for Læger no. 24, 14 June 2010) on functional disorders. Don’t miss that, and is now labeled as a functional disorder. The falsehood is complete, because that was what it was all about, wasn’t it?

Now, MCS patients do no longer pose a danger to society, the chemical industry and the insurance companies. But of course they need treatment that is self-evident, because we feel so sorry for them that some people think they malinger. So they obviously must have psychiatric treatment: cognitive psychotherapy and perhaps in severe cases electroshock. And just you wait, the next thing is of course, that the nice pharmaceutical industry is ready with some psychoactive drugs so that the poor MCS sufferers can have their “broken brain sensor” repaired and in addition their depression and anxiety.

The conclusion is therefore that the Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity is part of the powerful psychiatrisation campaign taking place worldwide at the moment.

In USA, a revision of the DSM diagnostic system has now for a long time been on its way. DSM is the counterpart to the international ICD-10. Here it has been understood that the patients who are ill from the ‘new’ conditions – Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Fibromyalgia (FMS) and now MCS (and soon EHS – they have just not discovered it yet) – do not accept that their diseases are classified as “somatoform disorders”, i.e. mental disorders. So what to do instead? Well naturally they invented new ‘dignified’ names such as “Bodily Distress Syndrome,” for psychiatrists love fancy names for which they don’t have a shred of evidence. It is pure magic of words. (4) How stupid do they think we are, because the essence is of course identical.

As Evelyn Pringle writes, it’s the same old story of psychiatry trying to extend its diagnostic labels and drug treatment to new target groups and she quotes Toxicology Expert Dr. Lawrence Plumlee, President of the Chemical Sensitivities Disorders Association and Editor of “The Environmental Physician of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine”:

“This is an effort by psychiatry to psychiatrize physical illnesses and to try to suppress the complaints of these patients by prescribing psychiatric drugs. But experience is showing that psychiatric procedures and drugs are making patients worse. Using psychiatric diagnoses and drugs on diseases of neurotoxicity helps the chemical companies in two ways. It fools some people into thinking that poisoned people are crazy, thus getting the poisoners (chemical companies) off the hook, and two, it sells more chemicals (psychiatric drugs) to treat those who really need detoxification, not more chemicals in their bodies.”(5)

Do bear in mind: This is what we are up against.

Author:

Eva Theilgaard Jacobsen, MSc in Psychology, Specialist in Psychotherapy, October 2010

References:

1. Ann McCambell: “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Under Siege” Chair Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Task Force of New Mexico
2. World Health Organization: “Note to invited participants in the MCS workshop “21-23 February 1996, Berlin, Germany 6/7/96.
3. Dominique Belpomme: “Avant qu’il ne soit trop tard”. Fayard 2007.
4. Kroenke, Sharpe, Sykes: “Revising the Classification of Somatoform Disorders: Key Questions and Preliminary Recommendations”, Psychosomatics 48:4, July-August 2007.
5. Evelyn Pringle: “Tracking the American Epidemic of Mental Illness“, June, 22, 2010

- -

* It is part of the Research Center’s policy and methods that their communications and information are ambiguous. After all, one of their most important staff members is a journalist. Internationally, the Research Center’s name is: “The Danish Research Center for Chemical Sensitivities,” but for the home audience the Center’s name is “The Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity.” There is a purpose for this. The key to the fraudulent article, “Attention to bodily sensations and symptom perception in individuals with IEI” has now been reported to the Danish Ministry of Research for fraudulent research by MCS sufferers, primarily because of their forging Eva Millqvist’s research, by deliberately wrongly translating “Odeous/pungent substances”, i.e. chemical substances, into Danish “fragrances and chemical odors” in their translation of her validated CSS-SHR test in a questionnaire forwarded to many people, including MCS sufferers. In doing so, they have fabricated fraudulent data so that people’s reactions to chemical substances have been turned into reactions to fragrances/scents. In this way, they tried to remove the causal connection between chemical substances from the environment and MCS. This paved the way to individualization and psychiatrisation of MCS so that Danish psychiatrists now can diagnose MCS as a “functional disease” (cause unknown), doctors can refer MCS-sufferers for psychiatric treatment and diagnosis, and MCS-sufferers will be denied public disability pension and compensation from insurance companies. However, internationally the Research Center tries to appear as serious MCS researchers. But just ask them about Martin Pall’s article in Ballantyne, Maars & Syvertsen’s “General and Applied Toxicology”, and you will get the answer that they think it is too difficult to understand. If it was not so tragic, it is quite amusing. They are a bunch of amateurs with a nurse as leader. This is what Denmark has become after 10 years with a right-wing government, (the Research Center was founded and is paid for by the government).

Series:  “The Danish MCS Research Centre in the International Field of Vision”

• Part I: MCS – Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Report from Denmark
• Part II: Changes of the international science of chemical sensitivity at the Danish Research Centre for Chemical Sensitivities?
• Part IV: Paradox – Danish MCS sufferers are denied help because of the lack of scientific documentation – which nobody wants to obtain!
• Part V: Gloss: Electroc Shock, the Treatment of Choice for MCS

University of Washington

For Immediate Release

Oct. 26, 2010

The sweet smell of fresh laundry may contain a sour note. Widely used fragranced products – including those that claim to be “green” – give off many chemicals that are not listed on the label, including some that are classified as toxic.

A study led by the University of Washington discovered that 25 commonly used scented products emit an average of 17 chemicals each. Of the 133 different chemicals detected, nearly a quarter are classified as toxic or hazardous under at least one federal law. Only one emitted compound was listed on a product label, and only two were publicly disclosed anywhere. The article is published online today in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review.

“We analyzed best-selling products, and about half of them made some claim about being green, organic, or natural,” said lead author Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. “Surprisingly, the green products’ emissions of hazardous chemicals were not significantly different from the other products.”

More than a third of the products emitted at least one chemical classified as a probable carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and for which the EPA sets no safe exposure level.

Manufacturers are not required to disclose any ingredients in cleaning supplies, air fresheners or laundry products, all of which are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Neither these nor personal care products, which are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, are required to list ingredients used in fragrances, even though a single “fragrance” in a product can be a mixture of up to several hundred ingredients, Steinemann said.

So Steinemann and colleagues have used chemical sleuthing to discover what is emitted by the scented products commonly used in homes, public spaces and workplaces. The study analyzed air fresheners including sprays, solids and oils; laundry products including detergents, fabric softeners and dryer sheets; personal care products such as soaps, hand sanitizers, lotions, deodorant and shampoos; and cleaning products including disinfectants, all-purpose sprays and dish detergent. All were widely used brands, with more than half being the top-selling product in its category.

Researchers placed a sample of each product in a closed glass container at room temperature and then analyzed the surrounding air for volatile organic compounds, small molecules that evaporate off a product’s surface. They detected chemical concentrations ranging from 100 micrograms per cubic meter (the minimum value reported) to more than 1.6 million micrograms per cubic meter.

The most common emissions included limonene, a compound with a citrus scent; alphapinene and beta-pinene, compounds with a pine scent; ethanol; and acetone, a solvent found in nail polish remover. All products emitted at least one chemical classified as toxic or hazardous.

Eleven products emitted at least one probable carcinogen according to the EPA. These included acetaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, formaldehyde and methylene chloride. The only chemical listed on any product label was ethanol, and the only additional substance listed on a chemical safety report, known as a material safety data sheet, was 2-butoxyethanol.

“The products emitted more than 420 chemicals, collectively, but virtually none of them were disclosed to consumers, anywhere,” Steinemann said. Because product formulations are confidential, it was not possible to determine whether a chemical came from the product base, the fragrance added to the product, or both.

Tables included with the article list all chemicals emitted by each product and the associated concentrations, although do not disclose the products’ brand names. “We don’t want to give people the impression that if we reported on product ‘A’ and they buy product ‘B,’ that they’re safe,” Steinemann said. “We found potentially hazardous chemicals in all of the fragranced products we tested.”

The study establishes the presence of various chemicals but makes no claims about the possible health effects. Two national surveys published by Steinemann and a colleague in 2009 found that about 20 percent of the population reported adverse health effects from air fresheners, and about 10 percent complained of adverse effects from laundry products vented to the outdoors. Among asthmatics, such complaints were roughly twice as common.

The Household Product Labeling Act, currently being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, would require manufacturers to list ingredients in air fresheners, soaps, laundry supplies and other consumer products. Steinemann says she is interested in fragrance mixtures, which are included in the proposed labeling act, because of the potential for unwanted exposure, or what she calls “secondhand scents.”

As for what consumers who want to avoid such chemicals should do in the meantime, Steinemann suggests using simpler options such as cleaning with vinegar and baking soda, opening windows for ventilation, and using products without any fragrance.

“In the past two years, I’ve received more than 1,000 e-mails, messages, and telephone calls from people saying: ‘Thank you for doing this research, these products are making me sick, and now I can start to understand why,’” Steinemann said.

-

Steinemann is currently a visiting professor in civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. Co-authors are Ian MacGregor and Sydney Gordon at Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio; Lisa Gallagher, Amy Davis and Daniel Ribeiro at the UW; and Lance Wallace, retired from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The research was partially funded by Seattle Public Utilities.

–

Reference:

University of Washington, Hannah Hickey, Release: Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals,Oct. 26, 2010

• More information on the project
• More information on volatile organic compounds is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Library of Medicine

Related Articles:

• The Reckless Self-Interest of the Fragrance Industry
• Secret Chemicals Revaledin Celebrity Perfumes, Teen Body Sprays
• Phthalate Concentrations and the use of Personal Care Products among Pregnant Women
• New Discovery on the Causes of Contact Allergy