A Bit of Good News

There's some good news on the toxins-in-common-products front this week. The Johnson and Johnson company has announced plans to remove a number of problematic chemicals from its products by 2015. The company had previously begun moving in a safer direction by setting a goal of 2013 for reformulating its baby product line.

The move comes after several years of pressure from health and environmental groups. Chemicals to be removed include formaldehyde, which is released from common preservatives, and triclosan, a widely-used antibacterial ingredient. Phthalates, certain fragrance ingredients, and some parabens will also be eliminated.

I have to admit to a bit of cynicism. History shows that sometimes toxic ingredients are removed from products only to be replaced with something that later proves to be equally problematic. I also doubt that enough health-impacting ingredients will be removed to make most of the products safe for those of us with serious chemical sensitivities.

Still, there is reason to be pleased with the news. In a New York Times article on the announcement,  a Johnson and Johnson official is quoted as saying that “there’s a very lively public discussion going on about the safety of ingredients in personal care products.”  The fact that manufacturers are beginning to hear and respond to the discussion is certainly positive.

Activists hope that other manufacturers will follow Johnson and Johnson's lead. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics plans to continue to put pressure on other companies to do so. There are more than 175 nonprofit groups represented in the coalition.

The work of advocates and activists is important and welcomed, but none of us need to rely on them or wait for manufacturers to make changes. We can value our health and the health of those around us enough to make safer product choices now. Every purchase we make not only impacts us in the present, but is a vote telling manufacturers what we want to see on the shelves in the future. No one can force us to buy toxic products. We get to choose what we buy and what we use. Every day we get to make that choice and every day it has consequences. Let's choose wisely.

The Purpose of the Building

This summer has been filled with more travel and family visiting than usual. I just returned from a camping trip with most of my husband's extended family. It's difficult to express how grateful I am for their willingness to sacrifice their own comfort to enable me to gather with them. I'm truly thankful for their Christlike hearts and valiant efforts to include me.

The trip was full of good family visiting times, but wasn't without its challenges. I had a significant chemical exposure (mosquito fogging) that introduced a new symptom to my list. Other challenges included an air conditioner that gave out during a traffic jam, a mix-up regarding a campsite reservation, a sick family member, and fearless skunks.

One challenge was quite unexpected and involved the use of a campground pavilion. We were a large group and had planned to gather under the shelter during our last day (a rainy one) to play games and visit. The campground office said it was fine as long as there was no other planned activity there.

Unfortunately, the campground office isn't the only entity involved with the pavilion. As we eventually learned, a group of volunteers (I believe they're called "Friends of the Shelter") built the facility. As we also learned, they are quite protective of it. We were confronted twice, at two different times during the day, with volunteers who were evidently very unhappy that we were using their building. I'm not sure I'll ever forget the sight of the second volunteer. He stood watching us, with a red face and semi-balled fists, looking like he would really like to hit someone. To be fair, he did eventually decide to be friendly and at the end of the conversation said, "I'm not trying to run you out," which at the beginning he seemed clearly to want to do.

It's hard to say exactly when the conversation took a turn and became more positive. Perhaps it was the moment when my husband asked simply, "So is this shelter just supposed to be for the volunteers?"  Maybe that's the point where the gentleman remembered why the pavilion was built. Isn't a shelter in a campground supposed to shelter campers?  Isn't being "friends of the shelter" a goal that's underneath the greater one of being friends of the humans?

The encounters seemed ludicrous at the time and still seem so as I write about them. I can't help but think, however, how similar they are to the way many people with MCS experience the church. Chemically sensitive people want to find shelter from life's storms and wonder why they aren't welcome in churches that were theoretically built for that purpose. They wonder how so many church members become "Friends of the Church Building" (who focus on making it more beautiful than healthy) rather than friends of people created in God's image who just want to enter the building without getting sick.

I correspond with many fellow MCS sufferers. One recently told me a familiar story of trying to communicate with her pastor about creating a church environment that's safe for her and other chemically sensitive members. She isn't making much progress. At one point she wrote, "We are being made to feel like a bother for wanting to come to church."  

I think she summed it up well. Is that the message the church really wants to send?  It's bad enough to send that message to chemically sensitive church members, but truly heartbreaking to send it to seekers. When people develop MCS or any chronic illness, they tend to become more open to spiritual realities and more hungry for spiritual truth. God is surely not pleased if people hungry to know Him can't enter a Christian church building because of the product choices others make.

Mark 11:15-17 tells this story:

When they arrived back in Jerusalem, Jesus entered the Temple and began to drive out the people buying and selling animals for sacrifices. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves, and he stopped everyone from using the Temple as a marketplace. He said to them, “The Scriptures declare, ‘My Temple will be called a house of prayer for all nations,’ but you have turned it into a den of thieves.”

Why was Jesus angry?  I imagine there were a number of reasons. Surely he was angry that commerce seemed to be taking precedence over spiritual pursuits. He was undoubtedly also angry, however, that the activities going on inside the building kept people who wanted to worship from being able to do so. The temple was designed with a series of courtyards and some people were allowed to go deeper into the complex than others were. Those who could simply walk by the marketplace activity to enter another court weren't impeded by the chaos. For those who could go no farther than the courtyard where the buying, selling, and money changing was going on, however, worship was a significant challenge. I imagine Jesus was angry that those who had no limitations on their ability to worship put barriers in the way of those who did.

I understand and appreciate the need to be stewards of and care for buildings, whether they’re campground pavilions or churches. I pray, however, that we never forget why they were built. They're for people.

The Limitations of Learning from Experience

I'm currently in the middle of a rather frustrating experience with my bank related to a fraudulent purchase made on my debit card. Unfortunately, the charge was to a virus software company, which has led bank employees I've spoken with to insist that the charge is a renewal fee. I've been told that the company charges renewal fees that people forget they've authorized "all the time."

I'm sure it's true that many people do forget they've authorized renewals and get surprised when charges appear on their bank statements. I'm brainfogged often enough that I can also imagine finding myself in a similar situation at some point. However, that pattern doesn't fit this circumstance. I didn't place the order (which was not for virus protection renewal), but someone else using my card number did. Fortunately, the software company agrees with me, even if the bank is still unconvinced. Because bank employees have learned a likely scenario from previous experiences, they've evidently concluded that no other option is possible. Sometimes learning from experience is not an entirely positive thing.

It occurs to me that the same dynamic often plays out in the world of chemical sensitivities. It's often difficult for those of us with MCS to convince others that our reactions are real because our experiences differ so greatly from their own. People who've never had conscious negative reactions to dryer sheets, for example, may easily conclude that "Dryer sheets can't hurt people" rather than, "Fortunately, my detoxification system is currently strong enough to keep me from having immediate symptoms from this." 

It's certainly natural to learn from personal experience and to be vaguely suspicious of accounts of experiences that don't match our own history and reality. Even those of us with MCS can fall into that mindset at times. Let's say, for example, that I'm seriously reactive to Substance A, but can handle, to a certain extent, Substance B. If I hear fellow MCS sufferers express big problems with Substance B, I sometimes find myself thinking thoughts like "Maybe they could handle it if they would _________ ." (Fill in the blank with whatever applies: use more ventilation, wear a mask, try a different brand, etc.)  Fortunately, I generally catch these thoughts early and discard them. The fact that I have them at all, however, helps me understand why healthy people so often negate the reality of chemical sensitivity and make some of the dismissive remarks they do.

The truth is that people can experience the same sensory environment in entirely different ways. A tall adult will view a parade differently than the small child standing behind him. A blind person at the same parade will experience it differently than someone who is deaf.

The Biblical book of 2 Kings shares a story of two people who had differing experiences of the same situation. One morning the prophet Elisha and his servant awakened to find their city surrounded by hostile forces. The servant saw only the enemy, but Elisha saw the forces God had sent to fight for them. Elisha prayed that his servant's eyes would be opened and that they would both see the same reality.

Those of us with chemical sensitivities often pray a similar prayer. We beg for eyes to be opened and for the MCS world to be seen and understood. We know our condition seems strange and that our physical reactions to chemicals are hard to believe. We know our account of how we experience the world around us seems foreign and bizarre.

None of that, however, changes the fact that our experiences and reactions are very real. Please believe us. We have no reason to lie and it hurts when we're told that we're deluded, exaggerating, excessively fearful or just lack faith. Trust us, listen to us, and let us serve as a warning about the toxic nature of products that are used every day. Please don't just learn from your own experiences. Learn from ours, too.

Do It for the Grandkids

There are many reasons that the issue of chemical toxicity tends not to be taken very seriously by most people. Perhaps the most natural and common reason is that the issue doesn't feel personal. People don't associate their health symptoms with chemical exposures and generally assume they're handling everyday toxins just fine.

Yes, there are certainly biological differences in the way people's bodies process chemicals, and some people do have stronger detoxification systems than others. I truly believe, however, that everyone alive today is being affected by chemicals in the everyday environment to one degree or another. We're also evidently affecting the next couple of generations as well.

Chemicals can impact the human body in a number of different ways. They can directly affect organs and systems, they can mutate genes, or they can change the way genes express themselves. The latter are known as epigenetic changes and, like mutations, can be passed on to future generations.

 A recent article entitled How Your Great Grandmother’s Chemical Exposures May Affect You discussed a study in which exposure to common chemicals was associated with ovarian diseases that lasted for three generations. We've long known that when a pregnant mother is exposed to certain chemicals that her child may be affected. It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that an exposure may not only affect her child, but her future grandchildren, and even their children as well. (There is also a growing awareness that a father's exposure to chemicals before a child is conceived can have significant implications. A World Health Organization publication, for instance, notes that "exposure of either father or mother to pesticides before conception . . . has been associated with an increased risk of fetal death, spontaneous abortion and early childhood cancer.")

An article entitled Epigenetics:Chemicals Turn Genes On and Off at the Wrong Times notes that epigenetic changes have been linked to a wide range of diseases and conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, obesity, breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, learning disabilities and asthma. This is serious business. It's easy for those of us past childbearing age to think the issue isn't relevant for us, but the truth is that our product choices affect others.. The personal care products we choose and the cleaning supplies, bug sprays and other products we use in our homes and churches may cause significant harm to the people around us and to individuals yet unborn. We are interconnected. Our product choices matter.

Deciphering the News

There has been a bit of media coverage this week of a recent study noting that 20 percent of low-income patients screened by two Texas family medicine practices were found to have "chemical intolerance" or Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). A number of news outlets, including CNBC, Fox News, and the Chicago Tribune reprinted a Reuters article  on the study. As usual when MCS-related news is reported, there are aspects of the coverage to both applaud and bemoan.

Here's my take on the study and the coverage:

• The essential bit of news is that a significant percentage of patients recruited from the waiting rooms of two family medicine clinics were given a screening survey and found to meet the diagnostic criteria for MCS. I'm glad that the prevalence of the disorder is being reported, because MCS is far more common than most people imagine, and an awareness of the size of the issue may spur action.

• The study found a prevalence rate of 20% among the patients examined. This is, as the report suggests, "sizeable,” but it isn't a total surprise or completely out of line with previous findings. Previous studies of the general population have found MCS prevalence rates between 11 and 33%. Studies of specific populations have found much higher rates. A  study of Gulf War veteran outpatients, for example, found a rate of 86%.

• The report noted that the patients in the study were low-income and stated that previous studies focused on "higher-income, white people." If that's true of previous studies, I'm unaware of it.   In fact, this report of a prevalence study noted that "both allergy and chemical sensitivity were distributed widely across age, income, race, and educational groups" and one published in the American Journal of Epidemiology  stated that "marital status, employment, education, geographic location, and income were not predictive of reported chemical sensitivities ."  Studying sub-groups for rates of chemical sensitivity has merit, but I hope all people will take the issues seriously and realize that no one is immune.

• The author of the Reuters report states that an MCS diagnosis is "controversial."  I suppose that's true, in the strictest sense of the word, but only because of the special interests with deep pockets that work hard to make it so. See the previous post titled “The Misinformation Campaign” for more information.

• The author notes that there is no agreement on the cause of MCS. That is also technically true, I suppose, because companies that manufacture chemicals don't "agree" (at least publicly) that their products have anything to do with the symptoms MCS patients experience. It's very reminiscent of previous denials by tobacco companies that their product had any association with lung cancer.

• The study found that the patients with chemical sensitivity had higher rates of depression and anxiety than others. This is a touchy subject among many with MCS, because those who attempt to disprove the validity of the condition generally try to paint it as a mental disorder. Fortunately, the report quoted lead researcher Dr. David A Katerndahl who noted that "some people might become depressed or anxious because of their chemical intolerance symptoms."  Of course we do. I imagine that people with cancer or those injured in automobile accidents also have higher rates of depression and anxiety. A study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives notes that only 1.4% of patients with chemical sensitivities had a prior history of emotional problems, but 37.7% developed emotional problems after the physical symptoms emerged. See this previous post for an overview of research pointing to physical, rather than psychological causation.

• Only one-fourth of the patients found to have MCS had been previously diagnosed. This is an important point. If people don't associate their symptoms with exposures, they don't know to avoid (or at least attempt to avoid) substances that cause their distress. Katerndahl also pointed out that chemically sensitive patients are often intolerant of many medications, which is important for their physicians to understand. 

• I found a bit of good news in Katerndahl's statement that among primary care doctors there is a growing acceptance of the validity of MCS. I pray that acceptance turns into action and that doctors will work to make their offices and clinics less toxic and more chemically safe for all of their patients.

• The suggestion for those with MCS is that they get a referral to go see an allergist. This is, unfortunately, not likely to be of much help to most who suffer from chemical sensitivities. Although people can have both allergies and MCS, true allergies involve an immune response that differs from the detoxification abnormalities common in MCS. Appropriate and helpful medical care for those with chemical sensitivities is extremely hard to find. An interesting study of treatment efficacy found that survey participants with MCS had consulted an average of 12 healthcare providers each and found 3 to be helpful. They had spent over one-third of their annual income on health care costs. The survey rated the perceived efficacy of 101 treatments and found the three most highly rated interventions to be creating a chemical-free living space, chemical avoidance, and prayer.

Knowing how many people suffer from MCS is important. The real question, though, is how many is too many?  How many must suffer before we make changes in our product choices?  How many people is it OK to shut out of our churches? These are questions that deserve serious consideration.

How to Know if a Product is Safe

People often ask me about the safety or toxicity of various products. Sometimes I know the answer and sometimes I don't. It isn't easy to keep up with the barrage of new offerings continually entering the marketplace, and since formulations change constantly, even a product that was safe one week may not be so the next.

It's important for consumers to be aware of the chemical safety of the products they use, but manufacturers certainly don't make that task easy. There are large loopholes in labeling laws, and a great deal of marketing hype that is often difficult to decipher. Manufacturers have responded to the rising demand for safer products in varying ways. Some have introduced less toxic products into their consumer lines (while generally continuing to sell their toxic standard-bearers) and others have simply re-branded products as "all-natural," "non-toxic," or "green." These terms are used indiscriminately and have very little meaning. Consumer Reports' Greener Choices website has a helpful label search function which notes, for example, that the "non-toxic" label is not meaningful, verified, consistent, or free from conflict of interest.

The term "green" is especially problematic. A green product is purported to be better for the environment than standard fare, but better for the environment does not necessarily mean better for human health. Recycling a toxic product, for example, does not make it less toxic. People who are chemically sensitive often call themselves "canaries" after the birds that miners once took with them to warn of harmful gases. Perhaps we should adopt the color of the canary as a new standard and look for products that are not just green, but also yellow, or safe for human use.

Although it is difficult to get all the information needed to make truly informed product choices, there are some general rules of thumb. Products purchased at health food stores or from companies that cater to the health-conscious are generally safer than products purchased at major retail outlets, although there may be exceptions. There are also websites that help provide information and there are clues to toxicity even on imperfect labels. Reading labels is important and it is wise to note the following warnings or listed ingredients:

• Fragrance - Products do not have to have any odor at all to be toxic (carbon monoxide, for example, is both odorless and deadly), but synthetic fragrances are almost always problematic. (For more information, see the previous post entitled Fragrance Facts.) Heavy fragrances are often added to a product to cover the odor of other objectionable chemicals. I've recently begun seeing the word "aroma" in ingredient lists and assume it is simply another term for synthetic fragrance. If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know.

• Keep out of reach of children - A product containing this warning is obviously hazardous to some degree, and is likely to be harmful for adults as well.

• Use in a well ventilated area  - Abundant ventilation is always a good idea, but seeing the advice on a product label may indicate that another product is a safer choice.

• Wash hands well after using - Obviously, washing hands frequently is a good idea for many reasons, but seeing the advice on a product label may mean that the product contains toxic chemicals likely to be absorbed through the skin.

The following websites are helpful (though sometimes hard to navigate) resources for evaluating aspects of safety for certain products:

• HealthyStuff.org evaluates the safety of products in many categories, including children’s goods, pets, cars, and apparel.

• The Household Products Database is offered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and  provides health and safety information on household products of many kinds, including yard, home maintenance, auto, home office, and arts and crafts.

• Skin Deep is a searchable safety guide to cosmetics and personal care products.

Making informed product choices is more challenging that it needs to be, but it isn't impossible. Sometimes a quick internet search using the product name and the word "toxic" is all that is needed to obtain good information. A search for "non-toxic alternatives to . . ." can also yield helpful results at times. No matter the inconvenience, educating ourselves about product toxicity and making safer choices is worth the effort. The seemingly small choices we make in the products we use can have profound and life-altering consequences, not only for ourselves, but also for those around us. Let's value our health and the health of those who share the air enough to take this issue seriously.

How Beautiful

I've just returned from a vacation trip to Yellowstone National Park. It's very difficult for me to stay in motels or in other people's homes, so my husband and I travel in a 29-year-old campervan. The campervan makes travel possible, but not completely easy. Taking a trip always involves unavoidable chemical exposures, but most of the time the benefits of getting away make it worth the physical cost.

I've been to Yellowstone before, and my soul was as fed by the vast unspoiled beauty this time as it was on my previous visit. This trip had an added bonus, though. This time I was able to attend an outdoor worship service. Actually, I got to attend two: one Sunday morning and another one later that evening. The evening service was a bit problematic because of bug repellant, which many people applied at the same time and in close proximity to me. I moved away from the group, but was able to stay for the service, and was grateful for that.

 Fortunately, the chemical exposures were very low for the morning worship gathering. There was a lot going on in my head and heart during that service and I found myself getting very emotional. Primarily I felt gratitude and joy for the opportunity to worship with others, since it's a very rare privilege for me these days.

As I sat in the midst of strangers from all over the country who had come together because of a common love for Jesus, I kept thinking of a line from an old Twila Paris song: "How beautiful is the body of Christ."  Yellowstone is full of natural beauty, but I had to agree, looking around at the other worship participants representing parts of Christ's body on this earth, that they were beautiful, too.

There were also a lot of memories coming to the surface that morning. The summer after my freshman year in college I served as a summer missionary in a tourist area, and one of the things I did was to lead worship services in a number of campgrounds. The morning service at Yellowstone was led by a college girl, and when I looked at her I saw a younger me.

I began to wonder what I would tell the younger me, if I could. I wasn't naïve or untouched by life's challenges at that age. My mother died when I was 13, so I already knew that life could be hard. I never imagined MCS, though. I never imagined being shut out of church.

I think what I would tell my younger self is that corporate worship is a valuable treasure that shouldn't be taken for granted. I would say that providing worship services in unconventional settings is an important ministry and well worth the effort. I would thank the younger me for being part of providing worship opportunities for all sorts of people, some of whom might, like the current me, have no other options.

Would the younger me listen to the current me if I told her to value and store up in her heart every element of every worship service she was able to attend?  Probably not. At the time, the ability to freely worship with others seemed to be a "given" rather than the privilege it really is. Now I understand. Now, when I'm able to worship with others I soak up all the moments of corporate grace and I treasure them. I truly treasure them.