These three medical journal articles are helpful in communicating with people who have never heard of multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS); who have heard of it but think it is not a real thing because that is not the way they experience the world; or who think it is a psychological problem. In addition to architects and contractors those people might include doctors, landlords, employers, coworkers, family members and friends.
(1) Hileman, Bette. (July 22, 1991) “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.” Chemical & Engineering News. https://pubs.acs.org/toc/cenear/69/29 (Scroll down to “Special Report.”)
This article summarizes the recognition of multiple chemical sensitivity through 1991. It makes the point that the courts acknowledged MCS as a disability long before doctors did so. In 1979 the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii ruled that MCS was an acceptable basis for payment of Social Security Disability benefits. In 1988 the Social Security Administration added a section on MCS to its operations manual for disability determinations. In 1990 the Department of Housing and Urban Development recognized MCS as a disability that requires accommodation. MCS has also been recognized as the basis for worker’s compensation claims and employment discrimination claims.
(2) Zucco, Gesualdo M. and Richard L. Doty. (December 29, 2021). “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.” Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12010046
This is a more recent survey, and it includes a discussion of different medical models that may explain MCS. The authors discuss both psychological and biological theories, making the point that it is debatable whether MCS is a manifestation of psychological symptoms or whether MCS causes symptoms that often occur with psychological problems. I reject the idea that MCS is a psychological problem. I was not suffering from clinical anxiety or depression before I became chemically sensitive, but I can understand why I might look unhinged to someone witnessing my extreme reaction to a trigger they cannot detect. And, dealing repeatedly with medical professionals and co-workers who treat you like a crazy person is itself crazy-making.
(3) Molot, John, Margaret Sears and Hymie Anisman (August 2023). “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: It’s time to catch up to the science.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763423001963
This is an even more recent survey that points out the flaws in studies that conclude MCS is a psychological problem. The authors cite evidence that MCS is a biomedical condition, triggered by environmental pollution. They conclude that it can no longer be considered controversial to assert that MCS is legitimate and significant medical condition. They call for better training of medical personnel, among other things.
And here are three links I use when explaining fragrance sensitivity to doctors, store managers, event planners, and others. My most frequent accessibility challenge is fragrance.
This is the American Medical Association’s Fragrance Regulation H-135.902, enacted in October 2025. It recommends that healthcare facilities, government offices, and nonprofit agencies be fragrance-free. I think that stores, social events, and community spaces should be fragrance-free as well, but this is a helpful first step in the right direction.
(2) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132319302148?via=ihub
This is Dr. Anne Steinemann’s article explaining why fragrance-free policies are important, giving examples of well crafted policies. Dr. Steinemann’s website has links to her other relevant articles as well.
(3) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-L41-PURL-gpo9380/pdf/GOVPUB-L41-PURL-gpo9380.pdf
This is a link to the federal government’s Job Accommodation Network website. It acknowledges that fragrance sensitivity can be a disabling condition entitled to accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it provides information for employers about how to handle a request for an ADA disability accommodation based upon fragrance sensitivity. I think it would be a helpful response to a contractor who says they have no authority to require their employees to be fragrance-free.