may have caused objective evidence of health effects; (2) the symptoms are referable to multiple organ systems and vary predictably in response to environmental stimuli; (3) the symptoms occur in relation to measurable levels of chemicals, but the levels are below those known to harm health; and (4) no objective evidence of organ damage can be found. Controversy Randolph's theories about chemical effects have been criticized by toxicologists. His broader interpretation of "allergies" beyond that of IgE antibodies in true allergy conflicted with traditional allergists of his time. Of course, Randolph did not claim that environmental sensitivities were "true allergies" mediated by IgE, claiming this fine point was irrelevant to people suffering from non-allergic sensitivities. The turf war waged by allergists and defense expert witnesses during those years also has less relevance today than it once did. Several National Academy of Sciences workshops and Research Councils into Gulf War syndrome have validated the idiosyncratic effect low chemical exposure on sensitized individuals. Clinical ecology is not a recognized medical specialty. Practitioners have been criticized for tricking mentally ill and suggestible patients into thinking that they were chemically sensitive. Twentieth century critics of clinical ecology charged that multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) had never been clearly defined, no scientifically plausible mechanism has been proposed for it, no diagnostic tests have been substantiated, and not a single case has been scientifically proven. Well-conducted studies establishing the theories and practices of clinical ecology were not found in reviews of evidence supporting its practices by the American Medical Association in 1992, the American College of Physicians in 1989, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology in 1993, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, and more recently by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 1999. The development of GMO food and the increased use of herbicides on food crops has resulted in an increased interest in the area of environmental sensitivities. A polarized debate has grown between supporters of the new agri-technology who characterize themselves as rational scientists and opponents as ignorant alarmists. On the other hand, the opponents characterize the supporters as dogmatic industry shills and themselves as critical thinkers and environmentalists. Both groups claim to be the majority opinion, although the only consensus that has weight is within the government organizations that rule on safety. At issue is the non-industry science that characterizes herbicides and