“you’re not so worried about mold anymore, we think a better and cheaper way to gain peace of mind is to drop that coverage and simply take steps to prevent a mold problem from developing in the first place by taking the steps below.”
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/homeownersinsurance/avoid-a-mold-problem-with-bleach-not-insurance
Seems step #1 for consumers is to let your insurer off the hook for liability when you get sick from inhaling the mold spore and their toxins via their becoming airborne by use of bleach. CR’s advice to drop any mold coverage you may have on your policy, helps no one but your homeowner’s insurer.
The author of this article is a senior editor for Consumer Reports. He infers he has come over from the dark side of money and now advocates for consumers’ protection from “tricks”. According to his bio for this article:
“I learned how corporations operate as a reporter at Forbes, switched sides to Consumer Reports, and now use my business savvy to uncover the tricks and find better deals for you. My passion for investigative reporting about money won two National Magazine Awards and a Loeb Award. I love sharing wine with my wife and pitching batting practice to my MLB-focused son. Follow me on Twitter (@JeffBlyskal); assist my work at Tell-A-Reporter.com.”
Here’s what you need to understand:
Consumer Reports is a non-profit organization that has teamed up with non-profit medical associations of dubious reputation. They have a new campaign to control and “educate” U.S. physicians called “Choosing Wisely” of which, Consumer Reports dissiminates the info to the public.
Here is just one recent example of what Consumer Reports put out for the American College of Medical Toxicology with regard to teaching physicians not to diagnose environmental disabilities/acquired idiopathic environmental sensitivities:
“Don’t order tests to evaluate for or diagnose ‘idiopathic environmental intolerances,’ “electromagnet hypersensitivity’ or ‘mold toxicosis.’ These diagnoses reflect labels to indicate that patients have adverse non-allergic reactions to normal environmental stimuli. These diagnoses are made on the bases of self-reported symptoms or non-validated testing procedures. Although these conditions have been widely promoted, evidence-based assessments fail to support these diagnoses as disease entities. Labeling a patient with these diagnoses may adversely affect the patient’s lifestyle, obscure ascertainment of the etiology of their symptoms and promote unnecessary testing.”[1]
http://www.choosingwisely.org/clinician-lists/acmt-and-aact-tests-for-idiopathic-environmental-intolerances/
This begs the questions:
What motivates medical organizations whose members often serve as toxic tort expert defense witnesses, to teach physicians that environmental injuries should not be diagnosed as reactions to NOT-normal environmental stimuli?
Choosing Wisely for WHOM? The answer seems self-evident.
“How The List Was Created -The American College of Medical Toxicology’s (ACMT’s) Board of Directors established a Choosing Wisely® work group in 2013 to develop a list of items for the Choosing Wisely® campaign. Members of the work group were chosen to represent various practice settings within the field of medical toxicology, including ambulatory, acute and population-based practice. Work group members included the President of the College, the Chair of the Practice Committee, the Chair of the Positions and Guidelines committee and other academic leaders within the medical toxicology community. All work group members also represented the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology (AACT). The first list was released by the work group in 2013 and in 2014, the work group reconvened to develop a second list of items for the campaign. A second preliminary list was disseminated to all members of ACMT and AACT for review, commentary and potential additions. Additional feedback was solicited from leaders within the field of medical toxicology. The work group reviewed all responses, and narrowed the list to the final five items based on a review of scientific evidence, relevance to the specialty and greatest opportunity to improve care, reduce cost and reduce harm to patients. The final list was approved by the ACMT Board of Directors and the AACT Board of Trustees.”
It has been known for at least twenty years that some people acquire environmental intolerances and multiple chemical sensitivities after atypical environmental exposures. Just ask presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, about it. He spoke before Congress on the matter in 1998.
Those Old Tobacco scientists are Sneaky, Sneaky, Sneaky when it comes to using “non-profit” organizations to mass market “Garbage Science” and sell doubt of causation of environmental injuries in public policies, courts and health care!
Sharon Kramer
Advocate for Integrity in Health Marketing.
Katy's Exposure 
How do we hold these spinners responsible for spinning something that they know will get people sicker? I;m just baffled at the that fact, that facts like those in the tea party thugs facts, that they keep regurgitating and that there are those who keep on believing the never ending hooey.
Hi Stephanie. As is always true with this issue, there is no “one size fits all” answer. For example: you say you used bleach in the past to get rid of mold; and want to know what to use in the future. How much mold? Where is it? Why does it return? They answer to your questions could be as simple as spraying some vinegar in your shower to as complex as needing to hire a professional to stop a recurring mold problem and to rip out the damaged building materials.
there’s a lot here to read. I just want to get to the facts regarding what to use on mold in my home. previously we used bleach and would like to use what is better or best for this.
Yes I called Consumer Reports and let them know that this advice is harmful and if readers follow this advice their health may be severely compromised depending on the type of mold and the levels. We are not ripping down buildings for nothing. Remediation costs in the millions tell the story, bleach does not cost millions. If only it were so simple. Yes this is bias and not sound information, which is likely going to get them in trouble if followed by consumers, especially without warning of the dangers of toxic mold and those who are immune compromised.