Aaron Goodman: [00:00:00] Welcome to The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast. I’m Aaron Goodman. When researchers study Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, or MCS, mainly through a psychological lens, what happens when that approach influences how doctors receive people with the condition?

My guest is concerned that this approach to MCS research in France could influence the care people receive while reinforcing the stigma and isolation they already face. Christine Malfait-Regnier is an ophthalmologist in Perpignan, in southern France. She has personal experience of MCS, [00:01:00] belongs to SOS MCS, an association that supports people with the condition, and has long been active in environmental organizations.

Christine Malfait-Regnier: We are ill, we are not recognized as ill, and on top of that, well, it’s all in our heads.

Aaron Goodman: This conversation is part of a series of interviews with people from different European countries: clinicians who work with people with MCS, researchers, lawyers, advocates, and people living with the condition. By bringing together their perspectives, I hope to help build connections across borders.

Christine and I discuss her concerns about the psychologization of MCS in research, its possible influence on care, [00:02:00] and how a failure to listen can deepen stigma and isolation. We also discuss the importance of listening to patients and involving them in research.

I invite you to visit and share the podcast website: listen.chemicalsensitivitypodcast.org. It’s an easy way to introduce conversations about MCS to your loved ones, healthcare professionals, researchers, and others. Please subscribe to the podcast on your usual listening platform. You can also find The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast on YouTube, Facebook, X, Instagram, Bluesky, and TikTok.

You can write to me at [00:03:00] aaron@chemicalsensitivitypodcast.org. Here is my conversation with Christine Malfait-Regnier. Thank you for listening.

Could you tell me about your work as a doctor, your own experience of MCS, and what led you to become an advocate?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: My experience of the condition is entirely personal, not professional, because I’m an ophthalmologist.

My personal experience began seventeen years ago, very suddenly. I didn’t immediately know what it was. It took me two years to find out exactly what was happening, and after those two years I found SOS MCS. Why did I want to become an advocate? I was already an activist. I had been involved in [00:04:00] environmental organizations before I became ill. It seemed obvious to me that I should try to help other people living with the same condition as me, multiple chemical sensitivity.

It’s very difficult to advocate when you have this condition, because we have few opportunities or means to make ourselves heard.

Aaron Goodman: What are the main challenges facing people with MCS in France today?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: There are countless challenges. Finding work, or continuing to work. Getting around. Really, it affects every part of life. Finding suitable housing is difficult. Shopping for groceries is very difficult, and so is buying all sorts of other things. Everything is difficult, [00:05:00] in absolutely every area of life. Even going on vacation or enjoying leisure activities.

Aaron Goodman: Christine, how has it affected your career as a doctor?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: I’ve been very fortunate because I’ve been able to put quite a few accommodations in place. With my secretary’s help, I was able, to some extent, to ask patients to come without anything scented on them. That was only possible to a degree, and things have changed enormously in seventeen years. Back then, there were relatively few ophthalmologists and long waits for appointments, so I had some ability to ask that of patients.

That’s no longer the case. Also, people use so many scented products [00:06:00] without realizing it that asking them to come entirely fragrance-free is practically impossible. I’ve been able to keep working thanks to several accommodations. I have continuous ventilation in my office, air purifiers, a secretary, and the ability to open things up for airflow. I’ve made a range of adjustments. I can also take medication when I’m unwell. Today, for example, other people’s fragrances affected me quite badly. I can take medication, which many people with chemical sensitivity cannot do.

Aaron Goodman: Could you explain that a little? Why are you able to take those medications?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: They’re medications I already knew because I had allergies and migraines. I took one for allergies and another for migraines, and I noticed they improved the situation. [00:07:00] That’s all. They help, but only to a point.

Aaron Goodman: As a doctor, I imagine you have a particular perspective and knowledge of the body and physiology. Could you briefly explain how you understand MCS?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Actually, no. I’m an ophthalmologist, so my general knowledge in this area is fairly limited. But one theory is that certain receptors in the brain are malfunctioning. Why? We don’t know. They may be malfunctioning somewhat as they do in people with migraines. The TRPA1 and TRPV1 receptors go on alert as if there were a constant emergency. That sets off a whole cascade of chemical reactions, initially because of this receptor dysfunction.

[00:08:00] This comes from research I’ve done on my own, outside my specialty, of course. It appears that this could be one of the many forms of migraine disease. A great many people with chemical sensitivity also have migraines. When I read the many articles on chemical sensitivity, I see descriptions of countless forms. More and more forms are being described, and chemical sensitivity and electromagnetic sensitivity seem to be related.

Aaron Goodman: I’ve noticed research on this subject from Japan.

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Yes, from Japan and Canada, among other places.

Aaron Goodman: Yes, that’s fascinating.

Christine Malfait-Regnier: But not from France. Are there researchers in France taking an interest in this condition and pursuing it? Not at present. I do know neurologists who published on the subject more than ten years ago, because neurology is involved. They’re convinced it’s a neurological problem, but they’re nearing the end of their careers and can’t carry out research now. They’re part of an environmental neurology group. I know a few of them, but there isn’t much they can do at this stage. I have articles they published around 2015.

Aaron Goodman: I’ve noticed online and in communications from organizations in France [00:10:00] that some researchers focus on the psychological aspect, or even describe MCS as a psychological condition. Could you speak to that?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Of course. It’s outrageous. First of all, we’re invisible. We have no way to make ourselves heard. We can’t organize demonstrations; we can hardly do anything. Most people are extremely ill and, unlike me, cannot remain active.

It’s easy to leave them invisible and push them further down. It’s a real scandal. I now call it a triple burden: we are ill, we are not recognized as ill, and on top of that, we’re told it’s all in our heads. The suggestion is that a little cognitive behavioural therapy will make everything fine. [00:11:00] Perhaps someone could have said that five years ago, but given what we now know about environmental pollution affecting the whole population, continuing to say it is completely out of touch.

I don’t understand how people can say it. It’s as though those promoting and conducting these studies don’t live in the real world. What makes us ill also makes many other people ill, but in different, slower, or more delayed ways. That’s the only difference.

Aaron Goodman: Why do you think MCS has so often been presented as a psychological disorder in France?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Because it’s easier. Questioning the ability of large companies to put products on the market that may be unhealthy or even harmful would have a significant commercial impact. It’s easier to silence us, or simply not give us a voice. Psychiatrizing a condition is the easiest thing to do when you don’t know what it is. People with migraines were treated as psychiatric patients for centuries before migraine was recognized. Its recognition is relatively recent.

Years ago, I completed a qualification in neuro-ophthalmology, and I was surprised to learn how recent the official classification of headaches was. I couldn’t tell you the exact date, but it’s roughly as old as my son. Before that, the classifications were all over the place.

Aaron Goodman: Other conditions have gone through something similar, haven’t they? Multiple sclerosis, Lyme disease, [00:13:00] and fibromyalgia have also been stigmatized or psychologized. Could you speak about that?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Yes. Chronic fatigue syndrome has recently gained recognition. But it doesn’t raise the same commercial issue. People with it cannot generally point to a particular product or company and say, “That caused it.” We’re beginning to have ideas about causes, but there isn’t one specific product or company to hold responsible. In our case, we can identify things.

For example, I’m especially sensitive to phthalates. They’re present in all sorts of products. I can recognize them, and we know they can be harmful to everyone. People with chronic fatigue syndrome [00:14:00] don’t react to specific products in the same way. Nor do they make the same claims as people with electromagnetic sensitivity, who say that increasing numbers of cell towers, Wi-Fi, and other sources are making them progressively sicker. That also raises commercial issues because they oppose the spread of these technologies into every part of life. So, as with chemicals in our case, there is a commercial dimension that chronic fatigue syndrome does not have in the same way.

Aaron Goodman: Could you explain that a little more? Are researchers in France influenced by commercial interests?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: We don’t know. We’re looking into possible connections and conflicts of interest. I won’t go into that now because we’re still following a lead. But one might wonder whether there could eventually be direct or indirect conflicts of interest—for instance, laboratories offering psychological treatments and making money that way. We don’t know whether that is where things are heading.

Aaron Goodman: Are there researchers in France studying our condition without even involving us?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Yes. The studies focus on patients who say their symptoms are attributable to environmental factors—people with chemical or electromagnetic sensitivity.

Aaron Goodman: So the studies really are focused on us. Is there any effort to understand whether this might be something other than a psychological condition?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: No. People who had consultations before being included in these studies showed us the reports from those appointments. The approach was immediately psychological or psychiatric. One person had lost their job and lacked decent housing. They were in an awful situation and felt depressed, [00:16:00] but that wasn’t understood in the context of their circumstances. They were simply described as depressed, and everything else seemed unimportant. I saw two such reports. We were shocked that a psychiatric diagnosis appeared to be made right away, without trying to understand more.

For example, someone might be described as anhedonic. Yes, they may indeed be anhedonic, but given what they’re living through, it makes sense that they don’t feel well. It’s a consequence, not necessarily the primary cause. That possibility isn’t considered in the French studies I’m talking about.

Aaron Goodman: Could the researchers’ training and specialization limit their ability to see other possibilities?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: We don’t know; we haven’t been able to find out. I haven’t met them. I tried to contact one of the doctors, but he didn’t reply, although doctors often do respond to me. What’s paradoxical is that many members of our association have seen psychiatrists, either on their own initiative or on referral from their family doctors. They’ve told us that most of those psychiatrists said, in effect, “Your condition isn’t psychiatric, so there’s little we can do about the condition itself. We can help when you’re feeling very depressed.” I haven’t personally collected those consultation reports, but several members have relayed that experience to us.

Aaron Goodman: Have organizations in France, including SOS MCS, challenged these theories?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Very few people have the capacity to do much. I wanted our members to write to local psychiatrists and ask for their views, but we couldn’t organize it. There are many things we haven’t been able to do because we lack people and resources.

Aaron Goodman: What effect has this approach had on people with MCS and their access to care?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: It’s catastrophic. Access to care has always been very difficult, so I can’t say this made it more difficult. But it certainly affects people’s morale. Right now, a young woman who has diabetes is having serious problems because it was assumed that she had a psychiatric condition—anorexia. That was not the case, but she was given that label. She’s angry and determined, and she’s fighting it. That’s how far it can go: a psychiatric diagnosis she disputes. [00:19:00] She has never had anorexia, she says, and she is happy in her relationship. To me, the situation makes no sense.

Aaron Goodman: Does she have MCS?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Yes, she has had it since she was young. In some ways, she’s doing better in her life than she ever has. She has reconnected with her family, and she has a very attentive partner who is also fighting to help her. She was very depressed in the past, but now she’s determined. After a cold, she had difficulty eating. That led to a decision to place her in a group for people with anorexia, which I think is an absolute scandal in her case. Fortunately, she can stand up for herself, but not everyone can.

Aaron Goodman: If a doctor prescribes psychiatric medication to someone who doesn’t need it, could that also have negative effects?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Of course it could. I don’t know psychiatric medications particularly well, but they could potentially mask symptoms. They wouldn’t change the person’s environment—for example, if someone lives in a highly polluted place and cannot open the windows to ventilate it. They might simply feel more sedated.

Aaron Goodman: Does this contribute to the isolation of people with MCS?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Of course. Isolation is one of the worst things. Even though I have a job, can attend meetings, and can do many things, I’m much more isolated than I used to be. My life before was entirely different. That’s one reason I’ve become more involved in organizations: I no longer host large gatherings as I once did. We become extremely isolated. People don’t always understand, even those close to us. Sometimes they’ll use a shampoo I cannot tolerate. It complicates every part of daily life, and increasing isolation inevitably follows.

Aaron Goodman: Does the growing tendency to psychologize MCS increase that isolation?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Once you’ve declined a few invitations, people stop inviting you. That deepens the isolation, and from what I’ve observed, it seems to worsen the impact of chemical sensitivity. It can worsen other difficulties too. [00:22:00] Someone who is isolated might stop cooking as they normally would, restrict what they eat, and see their general health decline. I’ve observed a worrying pattern of deterioration in some people. I’ve known people for fifteen years who are getting progressively worse, even though they’ve done everything within their power to improve their health and are very careful.

Aaron Goodman: Do you attribute that to psychologization?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: It certainly doesn’t help. Both isolation and psychologization matter, but isolation matters enormously. Email and phone calls are helpful, yet they aren’t enough.

Aaron Goodman: Does psychologization also contribute to stigma against people with MCS?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Imagine a doctor searching online and finding studies that describe us as people who attribute our symptoms to environmental factors. That framing can shape how they see us. We’ve noticed that more hospital centres are aware of these studies.

Aaron Goodman: You’re saying that when someone sees a doctor, the doctor may have read reports presenting MCS as psychological. Does that affect the care the person receives?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Yes. I can’t say what individual doctors have read, but hospital centres and occupational disease centres have read them. That influences diagnosis, care, and prescribed treatment. I don’t know about general practitioners. Fortunately, some do listen to their patients. Even when they don’t know what the condition is, they listen, and that’s encouraging.

Aaron Goodman: We hope researchers will also listen to us and speak with us, but often they don’t. Have you seen that too?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Certainly. Research in France is complicated because researchers need funding. They can’t simply study whatever they wish; they must first secure funding. Organizations such as the Fondation pour la recherche médicale and ANSES fund the psychiatric studies we’ve been discussing. I’m trying to connect with participatory research laboratories and am pursuing several possibilities. But getting involved in a substantive study of our condition is very difficult. Researchers in France have little room to manoeuvre.

Aaron Goodman: A person can experience anxiety without that meaning their illness is psychological, can’t they?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Of course. There are several aspects to this. Those receptors I mentioned are alert receptors. An animal smells something and knows it should flee. There is an alert response in us too. In the past, I might smell gas and think, “The smell of gas is very strong.” That worried me, although in reality there was only a little gas and I had detected it very readily. We pick up warning signals, but we detect them too intensely, for too long, and too often.

During that period of heightened sensitivity, being on constant alert is exhausting. It feels as though you’re under assault all day. When that period ends—though apparently it doesn’t end for everyone—it becomes less frightening. Even so, we have a chronic condition with no treatment. It’s normal to worry, feel anxious, or become depressed about that. Think of someone who has just learned they have diabetes and will need insulin for life. Anxiety and depression can be secondary responses, as they can be with any serious illness, especially one without a treatment or recognition. There are plenty of reasons to feel unwell.

Aaron Goodman: How do doctors, people with MCS, and groups such as SOS MCS push back against this psychologization?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: We have very few means to do so. Some people in the association are able to explain their experiences clearly to their doctors and have been believed. But, like any population, members of our association may also have psychological difficulties, childhood trauma, unusual beliefs, eating problems, or psychiatric conditions. We’re as varied as the general population.

I mention eating problems because I’ve noticed severe difficulties with food among some people whose health has deteriorated substantially. Might some of those difficulties have existed, perhaps to a lesser degree, even if they hadn’t developed chemical sensitivity? Perhaps. People with MCS are not a homogeneous group. It bothers me when someone says, “People with chemical sensitivity don’t like this,” or “They can’t tolerate that,” as though we were all alike. We have different exposomes and different temperaments. Naturally, we don’t all react in the same way to everything.

Aaron Goodman: If someone told you MCS was the result of childhood trauma, what would you say?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: I would say that’s a very foolish conclusion. Childhood trauma is common in France; it doesn’t explain our condition by itself. I work a great deal with environmental organizations such as Générations Futures, which campaigns on pesticides. There are so many pollution problems that I don’t see why we would be the one group unaffected by them.

We’re seeing more diabetes, cancer, chronic illnesses, inflammatory bowel disease, and inflammatory rheumatic conditions, sometimes arising at young ages—even rheumatoid arthritis in people in their twenties. Why would we alone be spared the effects of pollution? The suggestion seems ridiculous to me.

Aaron Goodman: What needs to change in healthcare and medical education?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Training in environmental health began in France in late 2025—less than a year ago. Can you imagine? Doctors generally know much less about pollutants than we do. It’s a scandal. Doctors should listen to patients before making a diagnosis, and they should receive training in environmental health. Until now, that training has been extremely limited. I don’t know what the situation is in other countries, but many patients here know far more about environmental health issues.

Aaron Goodman: What role should people with MCS have in research and public policy?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: They should be partners in research and help educate healthcare professionals. We have a great deal to explain. We could participate in doctors’ training and in research, provided the research wasn’t overly directed toward a predetermined conclusion, as I believe it currently is.

We could also help improve care for people who are hospitalized. I try to participate, though always from a distance. Several times, I’ve written to psychiatric departments about people hospitalized involuntarily when, in my view, their difficulties stemmed from chemical sensitivity. I contacted their doctors to try to help them be discharged. Those conversations have often gone reasonably well, but responding case by case is not enough.

Aaron Goodman: It’s tragic when that happens. Does it happen often? Might it be connected to the increasing psychologization of MCS?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Perhaps. We don’t always know what has happened to people. One member we hadn’t heard from for more than six months recently contacted the association again. She had been hospitalized in a psychiatric unit and is now doing much worse in every respect. She has both electromagnetic and chemical sensitivity. She accepted the hospitalization when it was offered, although several of us advised against it. She’s now very unwell. It may indeed reflect the same approach as those psychiatric studies, but I can’t say for certain.

Aaron Goodman: Can hospitalization happen without the consent of the person with MCS?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Yes. It has happened several times. [00:32:00] I’ve intervened more than once to help people who were hospitalized involuntarily in psychiatric units be discharged. That’s one reason I’m still working, although I’m getting older. Being a doctor—even an ophthalmologist—allows me to contact other doctors. They don’t always respond to us as it is; without that professional connection, they might not respond at all.

Aaron Goodman: Do they listen to you when you intervene?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: A little.

Aaron Goodman: Is this happening more often than before?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: The problem is that some people disappear from our view. We stop hearing from them for a while. With that member, I naively assumed that no news meant she was doing better. In fact, she was doing worse. So we can’t know how often it happens. We have no count in France.

Aaron Goodman: Are there developments elsewhere that give you hope?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: What we see in Canada gives me some hope: a team that can conduct studies, take action, coordinate efforts, and have some influence. In France, we have very little power or practical reach.

Aaron Goodman: Are you referring to the Environmental Health Association of Québec?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Yes. It can act at several levels: offering advice and support, starting initiatives, and sharing ideas with organizations internationally. We don’t have an equivalent in France. Perhaps Spain has a somewhat stronger association, but I don’t know the situation there well enough to say. In France, a few lawyers work on environmental health. They’ve had somewhat more success for people with electromagnetic sensitivity than for those with chemical sensitivity. We haven’t found a law firm willing to take on our cause. We tried in 2020, but it was during COVID, a very difficult time, and it didn’t work out.

Aaron Goodman: I’ve been fortunate enough to visit France. It’s clearly a beautiful country. Do you think people outside France may have an inaccurate impression that it’s free of pollution—that everything is beautiful and organic? What might other countries learn from France’s experience?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: France’s record in this area is quite poor. I don’t know whether everyone has that impression of the country, but I was surprised when friends told me, about a year ago, “There’s no problem with drinking-water sources in France.” We now know of widespread closures of water collection sites because of pollution. Yet those friends told me, “Everything’s fine. You’re worrying for nothing.” I’ve known about pollution problems for a long time through the environmental organizations I’ve worked with.

Aaron Goodman: Could you briefly identify the main sources of pollution you see as relevant to this condition? Pesticides? Air pollution? Fragranced products or cleaning products?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: Products from the chemical industry in general. So many nonessential everyday products have filled our homes, and many are highly polluting. I speak to my patients about shampoo, conditioner, hairspray, and the many other products they use.

There are also pesticides and insufficient protection. Quite a few people are exposed at work because workers in some industries don’t always have adequate protection—in construction, steel production, extraction, and similar fields. When I speak with patients, though, I focus mainly on exposures they can reduce in their own homes. That’s more manageable. There are now apps that let people check products before buying them. I only started using one recently, and I use it a lot. I share it with my patients so they can make informed choices for themselves and their children.

Aaron Goodman: One last question. My impression is that chemical regulations are stricter in Europe than in North America. In your view, are they strict enough?

Christine Malfait-Regnier: No, not at all. In my view, a great many products should be prohibited. Another organization, Réseau Environnement Santé, works on this issue. When one substance is banned, manufacturers may replace it with a closely related one from the same family. It can take ten years for that replacement to be banned, and then the cycle begins again. The risk remains.

I don’t know enough about North America to compare, but I think the situation in Europe is disastrous. REACH was supposed to improve matters, yet at the current pace, it would take an extraordinarily long time to review all the substances in use or proposed for use. I tell my patients to reduce the number of products they use. That is one step they can take themselves.

Aaron Goodman: You’ve been listening to The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast. I’m Aaron Goodman, the podcast’s creator and host. The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast is made by and for the multiple chemical sensitivity community.

The podcast is supported by the Marilyn Brachman Hoffman Foundation and listeners like you. If you’d like to support it, visit listen.chemicalsensitivitypodcast.org. Your support helps us keep producing the podcast and raising awareness of MCS.

You can share the website with anyone who wants to learn more about MCS: your doctor, employer, family, or friends. Follow The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Bluesky, and TikTok. You can also write to me at aaron@chemicalsensitivitypodcast.org.

Thank you for listening. The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast and its website are the work of Aaron Goodman and are made possible by funding from the Marilyn Brachman Hoffman Foundation, which supports efforts to inform doctors, scientists, and the public about multiple chemical sensitivity.

The content, opinions, conclusions, statements, and recommendations presented on the podcast and website do not necessarily reflect the views of these supporting organizations.