We are often more concerned about breathing in the smoke coming out of exhaust pipes than that emerging from a scented candle at home. However, the doctor Pilar Muñoz-Caleroone of the main references in environmental medicine in Spain, warns that indoor air can be between five and ten times more toxic than outdoors due to chemicals present in everyday objects such as pans, perfumes or textiles present on our sofas.
Main promoter of the International Congress of Environmental Medicine, which has been held in Madrid since 2007, tells us how this daily exhibition is behind an increase in diseases such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) which, on too many occasions, are misdiagnosed by health professionals as psychiatric disorders.
But far from encouraging panic, his message is a guide to begin a gradual process of decontamination, reminding us that, although legislation is lax in the face of economic interests from polluting industries, every small change in our home counts to protect life.
What topics did they address?
Environmental medicine treats pathologies related to the pollution of our environment. In this congress, we want to publicize a contamination that is very unknown but dangerous: that inside our homes. Studies indicate that the air inside our homes can be between five and ten times more polluted than that outside. We are talking about substances present in lead paints, varnishes, solvents and volatile organic compounds. Even the textiles of our sofas, curtains and carpets contain flame retardants, fire-retardant compounds loaded with toxicity. All these chemicals affect our health. A central theme of our Congress almost every year is how all of this leads to pathologies such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), which is increasingly prevalent and which is just “the tip of the iceberg” of a growing public health problem that already affects between 6% and 10% of the population in some countries.
He says that human beings have been naive to think that this pollution would not affect them. What elements of an average home should we be most concerned about?
That naivety costs us dearly. One of the most frequent contaminants are fragrances, present in air fresheners, fabric softeners or scented candles. When used in closed spaces, often with heating, inhalation is more dangerous because the emission of chemical substances increases. Another critical example are those flame retardants, which are brominated substances. Bromine competes with iodine in our body because they are in the same column of the periodic table. If the T3 hormone binds to the bromine that we inhale at home instead of iodine, the active thyroid hormone is not formed correctly, causing thyroid problems (hypothyroidism) in many cases, whose origin is, literally, in the air we breathe in our living room.
Regarding Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, many patients report the ordeal that comes with reaching the diagnosis. What is the biggest obstacle patients face today?
Medical ignorance. Many patients come to consultation after being wrongly diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, which adds unnecessary suffering. Due to medical ignorance, symptoms such as irritability, extreme fatigue, memory loss or depression are erroneously attributed to psychological causes, when the basis is a biochemical disorder caused by chemicals. It’s a frustrating situation. Environmental medicine seeks precisely that differential diagnosis that conventional medicine often ignores due to lack of training.
Is there a lack of recognition for MCS?
Although countries such as Spain, Austria or Japan already recognize MCS in their national classifications, the World Health Organization (WHO) has not yet included it in its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). History repeats itself: multiple sclerosis took 14 years to be recognized; Previously, it was diagnosed as “peripheral catatonia” and patients were sent to a psychiatrist. In Spain, we are putting pressure on the Ministry of Health to update the 2011 consensus document and recognize the growing prevalence and burden of disabilities generated by this pathology.
Is there clear evidence linking these toxins with serious diseases such as cancer?
Absolutely. 90% of cancer cases are of environmental origin* and two out of three could be avoided. Conventional oncology focuses a lot on genetics, but cases of purely genetic origin are minimal compared to epigenetic ones, related to what we breathe and eat. Formaldehyde, present in almost every home through “wrinkle-free” textiles, is a recognized carcinogen. There is very clear evidence linking environmental endocrine disruptors with prostate and breast cancer.
There is growing concern about the so-called “cocktail party effect.” Why doesn’t current legislation seem to be enough to protect us?
The current legislation is very lax and is based on the misleading premise that “the legal limit is safe.” The problem is that the regulations measure substances individually, without taking into account the “cocktail effect.” They tell you that 0.05 micrograms of mercury is a safe dose, but they don’t take into account that that dose adds to cadmium, phthalates, formaldehyde and PFAS, known as “forever chemicals.” The latter enter the body and it is very difficult for them to leave, producing a biological accumulation. Furthermore, today we know that even at minimal doses, in parts per billion, certain toxins can cause serious harm. Unfortunately, the economic interests of big pressure groups often trump the duty to protect public health in the European Commission.
Speaking of pressure groups, have you felt that resistance from the industry when disclosing these risks?
Completely. There is a tremendous force behind economic interests that try to prevent more restrictive legislation from being legislated. When reports are published about the toxins released by plastics, manufacturers’ associations usually react immediately by denying the evidence. It is a constant fight between health and money, and sometimes the latter tends to rule more.
Given this scenario, what practical advice would you give to a consumer who feels overwhelmed?
The most important thing is not to fall into inaction due to overwhelm. It must be understood as a gradual process. For example, this month you can decide to change your chemical pans for stainless steel or iron ones. The following month, you can replace toxic cleaning products with baking soda, which is a powerful antiseptic. If you set small goals, in six months you can achieve a significantly cleaner and safer home environment for your health.
Finally, doctor, what message would you give to future medical professionals who are being trained today?
I would tell you to open your eyes to this reality. Spanish public health is not yet prepared to adequately assess a patient’s toxic burden, but the change is beginning. There are already Primary Care doctors who, although they do not have all the tools, at least begin to suspect environmental causes and refer patients to experts. But it is essential that medical training evolve so that they stop sending people to psychologists who what they really need is a toxic-free environment.
*Dr. Christopher P. Wild, former director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), along with other health organizations, has pointed out that the vast majority of cancers – figures that are usually between 80% and 90% – are related to environmental and lifestyle factors.