I presented April 18 at the National Academy of Sciences Workshop “Biological Factors that Underlie Individual Susceptibility to Environmental Stressors and Their Implications for Decision-Making.”

The proceedings are available by recorded webcast so you can view and listen to the speakers. View the webcast at:

http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/nrc/120418/
(Supply your email adress to log in.)

The title of my presentation was “Human Variability in Chemical Susceptibility (Intolerance/Sensitivity): Research Findings to Date and Their Implications for Future Study Design.” I’ve posted my presentation for your review.

I was asked to describe our findings from the QEESI, the Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory, and to discuss the use of EMUs, environmentally-controlled medical units, for research. Here is a synopsis:

“The QEESI is a validated research tool widely used to identify and characterize chemically intolerant individuals and groups. Results from these studies provide evidence for broad endogenous variability in susceptibility and point to the complex nature of susceptibility in humans, with susceptible persons generally reporting adverse responses to chemically diverse substances, including foods and drugs. Future investigations to assess human variability that is ‘endogenous or biological’ will benefit from the use of EMUs. Such studies will enable us to correlate symptoms and clinical measures (such as pulmonary function and EEG measures) with changes in the ‘-omics’ in real time at key points, i.e., when subjects enter the EMU, once they have achieved a clean baseline, and pre- and post- low level challenges.”

The QEESI is available free for download.

Details about the workshop are at:
http://nas-sites.org/emergingscience/workshops/individual-variability/

Is there a way to make “green” buildings as friendly to people as they are to the environment?

I had the opportunity to discuss indoor air quality and chemical susceptibility with some of the nation’s leading architects and building technologists at a recent conference about building standards. I was one of 13 guest speakers at the conference hosted by the School of Architecture at the University of Texas in Austin.

Indoor air has a profound effect on people’s health, and my goal was to persuade the group that poor quality air makes some people sick. My message was simple: If you protect the most vulnerable people, you will protect everyone.

I suggested adding a new level to the coveted LEED building certification. The new certification level would recognize buildings that assure excellent indoor air quality.

Certification under LEED, short for “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,” reflects a rating system for the design, construction and operation of green buildings. Developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, it is intended to provide building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions. Buildings receive LEED certification based on five categories of construction quality. I proposed a sixth: indoor air quality. A building can be LEED certified and yet have indoor air exposures that pose major health problems for a building’s most susceptible occupants, such as the chemically intolerant, those with asthma, pregnant women, etc.

Americans spend 90 percent of their day indoors so architects and builders bear a major responsibility for the quality of indoor air.

Who is most vulnerable? Children, pregnant women, and more susceptible adults (people with asthma, allergies, or chemical intolerance). At any given time, of 100 people, 3 are pregnant or will become pregnant within a year, 7 are children under the age of 5 (another 17 are still under the age of 18 and the brain continues to develop into the early 20s!), 7 have asthma, 20 have
allergies, and 15 are chemically intolerant.

LEED certification does not protect the most vulnerable building occupants from indoor air contaminants such as chemicals, particles, allergens, and microbes. Although indoor environmental quality requirements are part of LEED certification and builders and owners can earn points by taking additional measures that can improve indoor air quality, the levels of certification such as “silver,”"gold,” or “platinum” are insufficient to protect the most vulnerable building occupants. A new designation, perhaps “LEED Diamond,” should be introduced with mandatory criteria to ensure excellent indoor air and protect all building occupants.

My presentation is available in .pdf and PowerPoint.

Scientists, healthcare professionals and especially people with chemical intolerance have achieved a victory that took years to win. In a nutshell: High-level U.S. policymakers now say chemical intolerance needs serious investigation.

The recently concluded “National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures,” sponsored by several government agencies, issued a detailed statement in October 2011 that summed up two years of deliberation among hundreds of experts. The statement, in brief, calls for intensified work to understand chemicals and their health effects.

I think the statement will influence health policy and promote new research and clinical inquiry. Progress in the science, diagnosis and treatment of chemically-induced illness has been painfully slow. I’m excited to see this new development.

The National Conversation, in its final statement, urged intensified study of:

• Health effects of chemicals, including low-dose, multiple and cumulative exposures
• Individual susceptibility, including the interplay between genes and environment
• Community vulnerability and disproportionate effects from past exposures
• Effectiveness of interventions to protect public health

To me, one of the most important recommendations called for human studies using environmentally controlled research units. It said: “Studies of variation in susceptibility as manifested by chemical sensitivity/intolerance, including clinical studies conducted in facilities adequate for this purpose, are needed.”

This recommendation for research facilities first appeared in a report commissioned by the State of New Jersey that I co-authored in 1989 with Nicholas A. Ashford, Ph.D., J.D., professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as in subsequent editions of our book Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes.

Here is an excerpt from recommendations in the National Conversation’s report “Chapter 3: Achieve a More Complete Scientific Understanding of Chemicals and Their Health Effects”:

“Recommendation 3.5: Improve understanding of individual susceptibility to chemical exposures.”

“Those seeking to protect the public from the adverse effects of chemical exposures need a better understanding of variations in individual susceptibility to help prioritize prevention and treatment efforts. Some individuals in certain groups (e.g., developing fetuses, children, pregnant women, the elderly, disabled persons, persons with chronic diseases, persons with previous heightened sensitivity to chemical exposures) exhibit unique susceptibility to chemical exposures. Some of this variability in susceptibility may be related to genetic variation, acquired epigenetic changes, health effects from previous exposures, or nonchemical stressors. To improve the understanding of these variations, funding agencies should continue to support research into mechanisms of variation in individual susceptibility and the role of such variations in the observed burden of environmentally related disease. Studies of variation in susceptibility as manifested by chemical sensitivity/intolerance, including clinical studies conducted in facilities adequate for this purpose, are needed. Population-based studies of exposed groups may yield additional insights.”

“Further, the federal government should support an existing working group or convene an interdisciplinary group of scientists and clinicians from federal agencies, NGOs/public interest groups, industry, academic institutions, and representatives of affected patient communities to develop a research agenda on chemical sensitivity/intolerance.”

The National Conversation was a two-year collaborative process that produced an action agenda in June 2011 on new ways to protect the public from harmful chemical exposures. In October 2011, the leadership issued its final recommendations at an implementation strategy session in Washington, D.C., hosted by the American Public Health Association (APHA).

I chaired the National Conversation’s subgroup on Individual Susceptibility, and served as a member of the larger Scientific Understanding Work Group, one of six working groups assigned to various aspects of chemical exposure. The work group issued a full-text action agenda.

As part of their mission to advance the public’s health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry supported the National Conversation. Dozens of government agency, nonprofit and industry experts and thousands of members of the public were involved in developing the recommendations.