American Medical Association, 1992: “No evidence based on well-controlled clinical trials is available that supports a cause-and-effect relationship between exposure to very low levels of substances and the myriad symptoms reported by clinical ecologists to result from such exposure . . . . Until such accurate, reproducible, and well-controlled studies are available, the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs believes that multiple chemical sensitivity should not be considered a recognized clinical syndrome.”3

American College of Physicians, 1989: “Review of the clinical ecology literature provides inadequate support for the beliefs and practices of clinical ecology. The existence of an environmental illness as presented in clinical ecology theory must be questioned because of the lack of a clinical definition. Diagnoses and treatments involve procedures of no proven efficacy.”4

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 1993: “The science is indeterminate about MCS as a specific entity and the cause and effect relationships have not been clearly established.”5

American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, 1986: “An objective evaluation of the diagnostic and therapeutic principles used to support the concept of clinical ecology indicates that it is an unproven and experimental methodology.”6

American Lung Association, Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission and American Medical Association, 1994: “The diagnostic label of multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS)—also referred to as ‘chemical hypersensitivity’ or ‘environmental illness’—is being applied increasingly, although definition of the phenomenon is elusive and its pathogenesis as a distinct entity is not confirmed.”7

Environmental Protection Agency, 1996: “There is at present no medical consensus concerning the definition or nature of this disorder.”8