When Rosalind Anderson’s “experiments” caused a media frenzy that sent millions of consumers running to pull up their carpeting in the early 1990s, the industry, armed with mounds of third-party, bonifide scientific evidence disputing her claims, went on a massive attack to squash the flames.

While the industry did an outstanding job to squelch the fire, it never went in to make sure every ember was dowsed. Because of this carpet mills and the Carpet & Rug Institute (CRI) have spent the past two decades racing around the country trying to put out the campfires before the forest started to burn again.

Unfortunately, as illustrated on pages 34 and 35, this reactionary strategy may not have been the best move as it allowed the issue to morph into new areas with the same backlash affect.

The problem started out with dying mice from the off-gassing of super-heated carpet in confined chambers and has turned into carpet is unhealthy for people with allergies and/or asthma and other upper respiratory disorders.

This despite the fact there is an abundance of evidence from respectable sources that state carpet is not a detriment to indoor air quality or, for that matter, harmful in any way. In fact, many point out carpet can actually aid in keeping the air clean.

For the record, I happen to have both allergies and asthma. I say all this so it is known I am not being a shill for the industry. Also, my house happens to have a nice mix of carpeting and hard surfaces.

Why has this issue mutated to such a degree and why does carpet keep getting picked on? There are a number of theories and empirical evidence, including sources telling me of a few people occupying certain positions of influence who, for one reason or another, have a vendetta against carpet. They say these people have made up their minds when it comes to carpeting and are driving the negative agendas or getting in the ears of various organizations and agencies.

No matter the reason, the fact is, public perception of carpet has not really changed since the days of Rosalind Anderson—it’s only shifted to a different area, despite the absence of evidence.

I fully understand the need to promote style and design, but given what is happening—and it’s not going to lessen as the environmental current strengthens—it’s time the mills band together on a major marketing initiative—aimed directly at consumers—including advertisements on national network and cable shows, print ads in any and every magazine read by Mr. and Mrs. Consumer, as well as the Internet.

Personal interests must be put aside as to who benefits per dollar spent. Just look at the chemicals and plastics industries—there must be a reason they have been advertising so heavily recently. The same needs to be done in carpet.

If not done in the very near future, more LEED for Homes debacles will happen, perception will worsen and carpet’s market share will shrink to zero.