January 25, 2012
By Mike Adams
Ever wonder what’s really found in Chicken McNuggets? Some of the ingredients, it turns out, seem to belong more to an industrial factory of some kind, not a food retailer. According to the McDonald’s Corporation, its famous Chicken McNuggets are made with ingredients including autolyzed yeast extract (which contain free glutamate, similar to MSG), sodium phosphates and sodium aluminum phosphate. But that’s not the freaky part. According to McDonald’s own website, Chicken McNuggets are also made with “hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness” and “Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent.”
At least two of these ingredients are artificially synthesized industrial chemicals. TBHQ, a petroleum derivative, is used as a stabilizer in perfumes, resins, varnishes and oil field chemicals. Laboratory studies have linked it to stomach tumors. “At higher doses, it has some negative health effects on lab animals, such as producing precursors to stomach tumors and damage to DNA. A number of studies have shown that prolonged exposure to high doses of TBHQ may be carcinogenic, especially for stomach tumors.”
Dimethylpolysiloxane, a type of silicone, is used in caulks and sealants, as a filler for breast implants, and as key ingredient in Silly Putty. Says Wikipedia:
“PDMS is also used as a component in silicone grease and other silicone based lubricants, as well as in defoaming agents, mold release agents, damping fluids, heat transfer fluids, polishes, cosmetics, hair conditioners and other applications. PDMS has also been used as a filler fluid in breast implants, although this practice has decreased somewhat, due to safety concerns. PDMS is used variously in the cosmetic and consumer product industry as well. For example, PDMS can be used in the treatment of head lice…”
November 9, 2011
By S. D. Wells
“Try not to use your microwave for a week. It’s easy. Microwaving food seems like a time saver, but in reality, it’s a life taker.”
Microwaving food inside containers made of plastic, cellophane, cardboard and styrofoam may leach toxins into the food and increases the levels of carcinogens being consumed. Since most containers do not visibly melt or get hot, consumers have the false notion that the synthetic boxes and wrappers are not releasing toxins, but new research shows they are, and at levels that are alarming.
Consumers are guaranteeing a triple dose of poison when they buy processed food (which contains synthetic ingredients), “nuke” them in a microwave, and then consume the radiated chemicals and vapors from the packaging.
The FDA claims that if it’s labeled microwave safe, then it’s fine, but there are several major gray areas being exploited. The FDA also says that microwave-safe plastic wrap should never directly touch the food. The labels on many plastic wraps recommend a one inch space between the plastic and the food, but it’s all locked in the oven with your food anyway.
For starters, chemical migration from packaging material to a food does not require direct contact. Excessive heat applied to the container drives off the chemical gases from the container. It is now proven that chemicals like BPA, Bisphenol-A, seep out of the container and affect humans, causing hormonal imbalances, lowered sperm count, and various other forms of cancer.
Watch out for rubber lids and their containers. Also put on the caution list freezer bags which can emit phthalates and BPA. The amount of toxins released from the synthetic depends on how long you freeze or cook them for, and also the strength of each particular microwave oven.
Meat trays, foam containers, coated cardboard, and most soup and noodle cups top the danger list. It is very common to cover a plate of food with Saran wrap. These “methods” are not safe at all.
October 24, 2011
By S. D. Wells
The increasing popularity of coffee and tobacco products has lead to a teeth whitening craze, which includes regular use of whitening trays, toothpastes, mouth rinses, and strips applied to the teeth for extended periods of time. The use of teeth whitening products, including over the counter kits and dentist applied ones, has tripled since the year 2000, and oral cancer statistics have increased at an alarming rate for young people, including those who do not use tobacco products.
Many patients who sit in a dentist’s chair for 3 to 4 hours soaking their teeth and gums in tooth whiteners end up ingesting a boatload of toxins. Coal tars, fluorides, aspartame, aluminum and benzene top the list of popular toxins that are being ingested by consumers using teeth whitening products.
Teeth whitening product warnings are nearly impossible to heed. Some read, “This product may irritate your gums,” and “risk increases if the bleaching agent is incorrectly applied, as it should not come into contact with the gums.” Many of the toxic chemicals leak from the trays containing the whitening gel onto surrounding areas inside the mouth. Some products and dentists often warn that bleaching may “heighten sensitivity to hot and cold foods and beverages,” but what they’re really saying is that bleaching agents affect the nerves within the teeth.
Some dentists even offer to repair pulp damaged teeth because when pulp is dead or injured, the tooth will darken. To correct this problem, after a root canal is completed, the dentist actually fills the pulp chamber with bleach solution and covers it with a temporary filling. The costs of sealing carcinogens inside your teeth can vary, and most dentists charge between $300 and $400 per tooth.
Many of the trays and mouth pieces that soak the teeth for hours on end are now in question, especially the trays kept in the mouth over night. How can any human being reasonably avoid swallowing these teeth whitening chemicals while sleeping?
Currently, there is no research on the long-term effects of tooth whiteners, and since they are considered “cosmetic” products, tooth whiteners don’t fall under FDA regulation. What is also not being considered is the amount of bleach being ingested from so many other popular products. White bread, white pasta, white rice, white sugar, and white coffee filters all contribute to the cumulative effect of consuming carcinogens. Plus, consider into the toxic equation how often you drink fluoridated water and swim in chlorinated pools.
Also, although hydrogen peroxide is rapidly broken down in the mouth by saliva, studies show that in regards to teeth whitening procedures, at least 25 percent is swallowed, releasing free radicals into the body and stimulating the growth of cancer cells.
However, there are many safe uses for hydrogen peroxide. There are theories that hydrogen peroxide, when used properly, can kill cancer cells because they do not have the mechanism to break down the hydrogen peroxide inside of healthy cells. Do your own research and make informed decisions. Baking soda is all natural and does a great job for whitening teeth.
August 12th, 2011
By: Shona Botes
These days it seems to be the norm for people to be odour-free and perspiration-free and to boast flawless skin and looks. This is often made possible with the use of a host of so-called personal `care` products. Chemical ingredients found in most of these products have been associated with cancer as well as a host of other illnesses and medical conditions including blindness and even death.
Many people are under the impression that because they are `using it on the outside,` they won’t be absorbing any of the chemicals into their bodies. Unfortunately whatever is applied to our hair or skin will be absorbed into the body and organs.
Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS) or Sodium Laureth Sulphate is used as a cheap foaming agent in shampoos and many other personal care products. This harsh chemical has been known to affect the protein structure in children’s eyes, leading to incomplete eye development. It is a proven skin irritant and is linked to the formation of cataracts. Because it is absorbed through the skin into the body, it is able to penetrate internal organs such as the brain, liver and heart. The nitrates and nitrites found in SLS are also known carcinogens (cancer-causers). SLS impedes hair growth because of the fact that it damages hair follicles. This can in turn lead to hair loss. It has also been linked to damage of the immune system and may also be responsible for altering genetic information in cells.
Phthalates are another highly toxic chemical found in at least 75% of personal care products. This chemical, also found in plastic products, is able to mimic the role of oestrogen, causing the body to develop symptoms such as PMS, fibroids and fibrocystic breast disease. It has also been known to lower sperm count in men and to damage the adrenal glands, kidneys and liver. Musk products also need to be avoided, as they have been linked to female infertility and disruption of the hormonal system.
Triclosan is another ingredient which needs to be avoided. This so-called antibacterial ingredient not only destroys germs and bad bacteria, but it also kills off the good bacteria needed to keep our immune system healthy. The inclusion of this ingredient in many hand wash products and dish detergents has actually led to the formation of highly resistant strains of bacteria, also known as superbugs.
When used externally, Triclosan can lead to skin irritations. Its use has also been reported to temporarily deactivate sensory nerve endings in the body. If taken internally (no matter how small the amount), it can cause convulsions, collapse of the circulatory system, coma, cold sweats and even death. Long-term use of products containing this chemical (which is actually classified as a pesticide product) can lead to liver and kidney damage, hormonal disruption, suppression of the immune system, heart and lung damage, sterility, brain haemorrhaging and even paralysis.
Once absorbed, these hazardous chemical products are extremely difficult to eliminate from the body, so care should be taken to ensure that you do not use any product containing these chemical ingredients.
July 14th, 2011
By: Ethan A. Huff
A new report issued by the consumer protection organization Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals that many popular sunscreens contain ingredients known to spur the growth and spread of skin cancer cells, which defeats their stated purpose of preventing skin cancer.
Data indicates that the sun’s rays combine with certain sunscreen ingredients in the skin and damage skin cells, which can lead to lesions and tumors — and worst of all, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has allegedly been aware of this critical information for the past ten years, but has done absolutely nothing to warn people about it.
According to a report by AOL News, about half of the sunscreens tested contained vitamin A ingredients and derivatives like retinol and retinyl palmitate, which FDA’s own studies have shown are photocarcinogenic, meaning they become toxic when exposed to sunlight. In fact, an older FDA report explains that sunscreens containing vitamin A ingredients cause tumors and lesions to develop and spread 21 percent faster than sunscreens that do not contain vitamin A ingredients.
Not to be confused with the vitamin A found in food and supplements that is absolutely essential for good health, vitamin A additives in sunscreen are different — their interactions with ultraviolet sun rays actually produce carcinogens in the skin.
And yet the FDA continues to remain silent about the dangers of vitamin A in sunscreen, including in its recent updated sunscreen guidelines that make no mention of them.
“There was enough evidence ten years ago for FDA to caution consumers against the use of vitamin A in sunscreens,” said Jane Houlihan, EWG’s senior vice president for research, to AOL News. “FDA launched this one-year study, completed their research and now ten years later, they say nothing about it, just silence.”
When questioned by AOL News about the matter, an FDA spokeswoman responded by claiming the agency “thoroughly checked” its records and could not find any evidence of such a study. Apparently the agency did not look hard enough, though, because a report issued in 2000 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) cites the same FDA research which found that vitamin A derivatives are both phototoxic and photocarcinogenic.
Vitamin A derivatives, of course, are not the only toxic ingredients in sunscreens either. According to the EWG report, hormone-disrupting chemicals like oxybenzone are prominent in many popular sunscreen brands. These same sunscreens also contain a slew of other mystery chemicals, many of which have never been proven safe or effective for use, and are likely carcinogenic as well.
In total, a mere 7.8 percent of the sunscreens tested by EWG as part of its annual analysis turned out to be “safe and effective” according to the group’s safety standards. The other 92.2 percent, which represent hundreds of sunscreens on the market today, contain one or more ingredients known to be harmful to health, a shocking figure when considering their widespread use.
As far as safe sunscreens go, EWG also recently released its fifth annual “Sunscreen Guide,” a database of more than 1,700 sun products from 292 brands that the group recognizes as having safe, non-toxic ingredients. You can access that database here: http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2011sunscreen/
For ideal health, however, regular exposure to sunlight without the use of sunscreen is vital for obtaining and maintaining healthy levels of vitamin D. Most sunscreens block the ultraviolet B (UVB) sun rays responsible for producing the vitamin D hormone in the skin — and without unfettered exposure to these beneficial rays, it is virtually impossible to maintain optimal vitamin D levels apart from supplementation.
By gradually exposing your skin to the sun on a regular, limited basis, you will eventually develop tolerance to it, even if you are prone to burning. And by supplementing with the antioxidant astaxanthin, which functions as a type of natural “sunscreen” that protects your skin from the oxidative damage caused by too much sun exposure, you will increase your sun tolerance even further, to the point that you may even stop burning under moderate exposure conditions.
The Vitamin D Council, a non-profit group dedicated to raising awareness about the importance of vitamin D for health, recommends that all individuals use the sun as their primary source of gaining vitamin D. Depending on your skin type, you will need anywhere from 15 minutes to over an hour of daily sunlight exposure in order to achieve and maintain optimal levels.
If natural sunlight exposure is not feasible on a daily basis, which is common for most people during the wintertime when the sun’s decreased angle prevents an adequate amount of UVB rays from reaching the skin, daily supplementation with vitamin D3 is the next best option. The Council suggests taking anywhere between 1,000 and 6,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D3 a day, depending on your age.
To learn more about vitamin D, including which other vitamins and nutrients are its necessary cofactors, and which diseases and conditions can be treated and prevented simply by maintaining optimal levels, visit: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org
February 15th, 2011
By: Fiona MacRae
A simple blood test to spot cancer up to six years before a tumour forms could be available in Britain next year.
The brainchild of a Nottingham University cancer specialist, it could provide vital early warning of lung and breast cancers – diseases that between them claim almost 50,000 lives annually.
Picking up the cancer at the earliest stages when it is easiest to treat could save thousands of lives and spare many others the pain and distress of prolonged illness.
Despite advances in drugs and technology, cancer still affects almost 300,000 Britons each year – and kills more than half.
The UK’s record in treating cancer is particularly poor, with female patients more likely to die than in most western European countries.
In many cases, the sufferers is symptom-free until relatively late on in the course of the cancer, meaning the disease is not detected until it is too late.
Diagnostic techniques such as scans and biopsies focus on tumours that have already formed but the new test can detect that something is wrong well before the cancer does any damage.
The Oncimmume test picks up telltale signs of a germinating cancer in the blood. The signals – generated by the immune system – can be detected up to five years before a cancer is spotted, from just two teaspoons of blood.
Professor John Robertson, the breast cancer specialist who spent 15 years developing the test, said: ‘We are starting to understand carcinogenesis in a way that we have never seen before – seeing which proteins are going wrong and how your immune system responds.
‘It’s as if your body is shouting “I’ve got cancer” way before a tumour can be detected.
Presentations on the technology are due to be made at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual conference in Chicago next week.
The kit is twice as good at detecting lung cancer as CT scans and is as accurate at picking up breast cancer in younger women as mammograms.
The lung cancer test is already in use in the US. It is due to go on sale in Britain in the first half of 2011 and will be targeted at long-term smokers and others thought to be at high risk of the disease.
Those who get a positive result, suggesting a cancer is germinating in their chest, will be closely monitored by their doctors, allowing them to be treated as soon as a tumour starts to appear.
The breast cancer version is due to follow later in the year.
The kits, which will cost around £300 each, will initially only be available privately, with use on the NHS being dependent on it being judged cost-effective.
Oncimmune have had talks with Professor Sir Mike Richards, the Government’s cancer tsar, who described the test as a ‘very exciting concept’.
But he cautioned that large-scale trials would be needed to prove its worth before it could be used by the health service.
He told the Times: ‘Now that the test has shortly to become available [privately] we have to think about doing a wider programme to show that it can save lives, as we hope it might.’
Nell Barrie, science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: ‘Diagnosing cancer earlier will save lives, so research into ways to detect the disease is vital.
‘This approach could be helpful, but we need to see the results of larger trials before we know for sure how effective these tests are at detecting cancers in the general population.’
A Department of Health spokesman said: :We are always interested to know about new and innovative treatments that will not only provide benefits for the patients but for the NHS as well.
‘We will follow developments of Oncimmune with interest.’
November 18th, 2010
By: Ethan A. Huff
What you eat plays a critical role in determining whether or not you develop cancer, indicates a new report published in the journal Nature. Pancreatic cancer takes nearly 20 years to develop in the body, but its onset, growth, and spread is largely determined by the types of food a person eats, and whether or not those foods feed or starve the cancer cells.
According to an analysis by Christine Iacobuzio-Donahue, MD, PhD, associate professor of pathology and oncology at Hopkins’ Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, and her colleagues, it takes nearly 12 years for the first cancer cells to develop in the pancreas. It then takes another nearly seven years for them to grow, followed by at least another year for them to spread. It is only in the last two-to-three years that the disease actually starts to kill a person.
Conventional detection methods are typically unable to detect pancreatic cancer early enough to do much about it, and prevention methods are rarely spoken about by conventional medical experts. However, there are numerous studies that point to ways people can help prevent the disease from taking hold. After all, there is at least a 20-year window to start making the proper dietary changes now before it is too late.
A 2009 study published in Cancer Causes and Control suggests that eating meat, at least conventionally-raised meat, increases pancreatic cancer risk. Table sugar and potatoes are also implicated, each associated with roughly a 100 percent increased risk of developing the disease.
Highly cooked potatoes are known to contain cancer-causing carcinogens as well, and processed sugars produce insulin-like growth hormone, which studies have shown encourages the growth of cancer cells.
On the other hand, fruits and vegetables have been shown to reduce cancer risk, as have vitamin E, vitamin C, and potassium. There are many other foods, supplements, and herbs that help to prevent cancer as well.
October 19th, 2010
By: David Liu
In the Pink Month- the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we publish a report below to share with readers a study that suggests eating too much chips and fries, which are high in acrylamide, may increase risk of breast cancer.
It should be noted that not all studies are consistent and this study is observational, meaning the results do not prove that eating acrylamide rich foods will definitely raise the cancer risk even though the possiblity may not be excluded either.
High dietary intake of acrylamide may increase risk of certain types of breast cancer, a study published in the July 2010 issue of Breast Cancer Research and Treatment suggests.
Acrylamide, found in certain starchy foods particularly like thermally processed asparagine-rich potatoes like chips and fries, is a potential human carcinogen, which has been proved in animals to cause cancer while studies on the effect of this chemical on human carcinogenesis are few.
For the study, Pedersen G.S. and colleagues from Maastricht University in The Netherlands followed 62,573 women aged 55 to 69 who enrolled in the Netherlands Cohort Study on diet and cancer intiated in 1986 for incidence of breast cancer and dietary intake of acrylamide in the subjects.
During the 13-year follow-up, 2225 incident breast cancer cases were identified with hormone receptor status information for 43 percent of the cases.
Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that when the highest quintile of dietary acrylamide intake was compared to the lowest quintile of intake, no correlation was found for overall brast cancer or receptor negative breast cancer risk, rehardless of smoking status.
However, a statistically nonsignficantly elevated risk of ER positive, PR positive and joint rectpor-positive breast cancer was observed among never-smoking women.
Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that those with highest intake of acrylamide were 31 percent more likely to develop ER+ breast cancer, 47 percent more likely to develop PR+ breast cancer, 43 perent more likely to acquire ER+PR+ breast cancer compared to those who had lowest intake of acrylamide.
Early laboratory studies revealed that acrylamide can interact with DNA in human breast tissue to form adducts which may potentially increase risk of breast cancer.
Acrylamide is widely present in many types of heat-treated foods. The toxic chemical is formed when an amino acid called asparagine reacts with reducing sugar like glucose.
The researchers of the current study concluded their study showed “some indications of a positive association between dietary acrylamide intake and receptor-positive breast cancer risk in postmenopausal never-smoking women.”
They acknowledged “Further studies are needed to confirm or refute our observations.”
Breast cancer is more commonly found in Western countries where potatoe chips and fries are more commonly consumed. An estimated 175,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 50,000 will die from the disease in 2010.
More reports will be published here in the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to help readers better understand breast cancer and how to prevent the disease.
August 30, 2010
by Jill Richardson
Over the past several months, your bathroom has become the site of a major controversy. In fact, the controversy has been heating up for a while (Environmental Working Group’s Cosmetic Safety Database dates back to 2004), but recently, stories of dangerous ingredients in common personal care products like soap, toothpaste and lipstick have become even more common in the media. They’re even the subject of a bill in Congress, The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. The inadequate regulation and dubious safety of cosmetics spurred Annie Leonard, famous for making The Story of Stuff, to come out with a new video last month, The Story of Cosmetics.
Numerous chemicals that are legally used in personal care products are untested, inadequately tested, or even proven harmful, but few are as widely used and as unnecessary as the endocrine disrupting chemicals triclosan (an ingredient in 75 percent of liquid hand soaps) and triclocarban (most commonly found in deodorant bar soaps). Scientists have recently found a number of new reasons why these chemicals should not be used in consumer products. In late July, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) brought a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), calling on the FDA to ban triclosan and triclocarban from soaps and body washes.
Together, triclosan and triclocarban are widely used in antibacterial soaps, body washes, deodorants, lip glosses, dog shampoos, shave gels, and even toothpastes. They are found in brands as familiar as Colgate, Dial, Lever 2000, and Vaseline. Although they have been used for several decades for their antibacterial and antifungal properties, studies and even the FDA recognize that they are no more effective at preventing disease than regular soap and water. In other words, they serve two real purposes: allowing companies to market personal care products as “antibacterial,” and contaminating the waste stream (and, ultimately, the environment).
In 2009, the EPA tested 84 sewage sludge samples from around the U.S. and found triclocarban in every sample and triclosan in 79 samples. Research published in 2007 also showed that triclocarban appears more frequently and in higher concentrations downstream of wastewater treatment plants, compared to upstream. That implies that these chemicals are not just entering wastewater treatment plants — they are also exiting the plants in sewage sludge and effluent. Triclocarban is rather persistent and does not break down for over a decade. Triclosan, on the other hand, does break down — into dioxins. And, alarmingly, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published data in July showing that the level of triclosan in Americans increased, on average, by more than 40 percent in a two-year period (from 2003-’04 to 2005-’06).
So what are the effects of these chemicals we are putting into our environment and even into our own bodies? Setting aside the dioxins — a class of chemicals that are well-documented carcinogens — both triclosan and triclocarban appear to be endocrine disruptors. Scientists say that triclocarban appears unique in that it doesn’t show endocrine activity by itself and instead enhances the expression of other hormones, such as androgens (male hormones like testosterone), estrogens and cortisol. In animal studies, triclosan also affects male and female sex hormones. Additionally, it interferes with thyroid hormone.
Obviously, a major route of exposure to triclosan and triclocarban are through personal care products. Their use in soaps can result in absorption through the skin into the bloodstream, and those who use toothpastes with triclosan are putting the chemical directly into their mouths, where it can remain present in saliva for hours. Additionally, a study published last month found that soybean plants in soil contaminated with triclosan and triclocarban uptake both chemicals into their roots, leaves and beans. This implies that crops fertilized with sewage sludge or irrigated with effluent from wastewater treatment plants, both of which are often contaminated with these chemicals, would result in food contaminated with triclosan and triclocarban. (It should also be noted that, since sewage sludge is sold in composts and fertilizer for home gardeners, proof that plants uptake a harmful chemical should not be the standard used to determine that chemical’s safety in sewage sludge. Home gardeners and their children would be exposed to any chemical in sludge sold commercially as they garden or play in the soil.)
NRDC cites both the recent news from the CDC about the increase in triclosan found in the bodies of Americans (or, more specifically, in their urine) and the study finding that soybeans uptake triclosan and triclocarban into the edible portions of the plant in its press release announcing its lawsuit. NRDC’s senior scientist Dr. Sarah Janssen said, “With no proven benefit and many red flags raised for harmful health impacts, the use of these so-called anti-microbials is an unnecessary and stupid use of toxic chemicals.”
On its Web site, the FDA says that triclosan “is not currently known to be hazardous to humans,” also providing the caveat that “several scientific studies have come out since the last time FDA reviewed this ingredient that merit further review.” Of course, that is not the same as saying that triclosan is definitely safe. The FDA continues by raising the question of whether triclosan “contributes to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics” and concluding that, while triclosan may provide some benefit in toothpaste by preventing gingivitis, there is no other evidence that it provides any other benefits to health. The FDA has no similar page on triclocarban.
Currently, both the FDA and the EPA are taking a fresh look at triclosan, at the urging of Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. In April, Markey told the Washington Post, “The proliferation of triclosan in everyday consumer products is so enormous, it is literally in almost every type of product — most soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, clothes and toys. It’s in our drinking water, it’s in our rivers and as a result, it’s in our bodies … I don’t think a lot of additional data has to be collected in order to make the simple decisions about children’s toys and soaps that people use. It clearly is something that creates a danger.”
Markey was also one of three members of Congress to introduce the Safe Cosmetics Act, along with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, and Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc. The bill aims to phase out ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects and developmental harm that are currently used in cosmetics, improve labeling requirements for cosmetics, and to establish a list of cosmetic ingredients that are known to be safe. This would be an improvement to cosmetic safety in so many ways, since it’s currently voluntary for a manufacturer to ensure the products it sells don’t contain known carcinogens, neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors, and other harmful chemicals.
In fact, many chemicals used in cosmetics just aren’t tested for safety in the first place. The FDA leaves safety to the industry, which in turn sets voluntary standards for cosmetics companies and tests less than 20 percent of ingredients used in cosmetics for safety. Since 1938, the U.S. has banned only eight ingredients out of the 12,000 used in personal care products. In contrast, the E.U. bans over 1,300. That not only reinforces the fact that Americans are unnecessarily and legally exposed to harmful ingredients in their soaps, shampoos and lotions; it also shows that any company selling products in both the U.S. and Europe already knows how to produce its products free of the over 1,300 ingredients banned in the E.U. Surely it wouldn’t be unreasonable to ask them to uphold the same safety standard for their U.S. market.
Would adopting Europe’s standards or passing the Safe Cosmetics Act remove triclosan and triclocarban from our household products? Perhaps not. The list of chemicals banned in Europe includes heavy metals, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and even pharmaceuticals. Some of these chemicals aren’t used in U.S. personal care products anyway. But some are. Take, for example, dibutyl phthalate. You can find that one in any number of Sally Hansen or Cover Girl nail polishes. However, the list of chemicals banned in Europe does not include triclosan or triclocarban. (Nor does it include other chemicals commonly used in personal care products that are potentially harmful, like sodium lauryl sulfate or parabens.) And recall that the FDA, pending its review of triclosan’s safety, continues to allow its use and warn of no human safety hazards (even as it recognizes that “animal studies have shown that triclosan alters hormone regulation.”
In other words, it seems that, while the passage of the Safe Cosmetics Act would improve the safety of personal care products in the U.S., it wouldn’t be a silver bullet. Consumer advocates would need to remain vigilant as the FDA formulates its lists of chemicals banned, restricted, and permitted in cosmetics. And, even if NRDC is successful in its lawsuit to ban triclosan and triclocarban, Americans will still be exposed to triclocarban, triclosan and their breakdown products (including dioxins) for years to come.
As the July 4th weekend is just days away, most of us will be surrounded with great weather, fireworks, and a feast of delicious foods. With that said, here are some foods that we all need to watch out for…
Resin linings of the tin cans contain BPA, which is a synthetic estrogen. It’s been linked to reproductive problems, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, obesity, depression and mental disorders. The acidity in the tomatoes, particularly, cause the BPA’s to leach into the tomatoes. Studies show that BPA in most people’s bodies already exceed the amount that suppresses sperm production and causes chromosome damage to the eggs in women. Americans sare the most infertile people on the planet and it’s caused by things such as these BPA’s. The solution is to choose tomatoes in glass bottles.
Corn Fed Beef
The problem here is that cattle evolved to eat grass, not grain-like corn. But cattle ranchers today feed cows corn and soy beans. Most importantly, these rangers feed the cows genetically modified corn and genetically modified soy beans specifically designed to increase the fat in the animal artificially. The ranchers also feed the cows ground up diseased and dead cows, pigs, horses, chickens and goats. Now, why do they do this? Because it makes them more money. However, that means that the cows are less nutritious and are loaded with toxins and poisons and disease. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that when you compare corn fed beef with grass fed beef the difference is dramatic. The grass fed beef is higher in beta-carotene. It has all types of nutrients, including vitamin E, very healthy omega 3s, and much higher levels of CLA, which is good for your heart, your health, your brain function, your mood and burns fat. Grass fed beef also is much higher in calcium, magnesium and potassium. Grass fed beef also has lower amounts of omega 6s which cause inflammation, like gout. Grass fed beef is also lower in saturated fats and doesn’t have pesticides or antibiotics in them. The solution is real simple, always buy grass fed beef from GrassLandBeef.com. The quality, the taste is absolutely mind blowing and is so much healthier for you.
Chemicals in the lining of the bag of the microwavable popcorn are part of a class of compounds that are linked to infertility in humans. That was a study conducted at UCLA. The chemicals in the microwave popcorn also caused liver, pancreatic cancer and testicular cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize and migrate into the popcorn. They stay in your body for years and accumulate there over time. What’s the solution? Old fashioned natural non-genetically modified popcorn kernels and pop it the old fashioned way. I’ll give you my little technique. First, I have my grass fed raw butter and my sea salt. Then I get my non-genetically modified, all organic popcorn kernels. I get a stainless steel mixing bowl, I grab some tongs and add a little bit of olive oil or peanut oil to the bottom. I then add my kernels and put some tin foil across the top. I take a fork and pump a couple of holes in it for a little bit of steam because I don’t want the popcorn to steam. And then I put it over the heat and I shake until they stop popping. Then I take my butter, which I’ve melted and I pour it over and throw some salt on there and it is delicious and nutritious.
The problem is that the root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides and fungicides that wind up in the soil. In the case of potatoes, the nations most popular vegetable, they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the vines before harvesting. After they dig up the potatoes, they are treated again to prevent sprouting. Try this experiment. Buy a conventional potato in the store and try to get it to sprout. It won’t. Never eat non-organic potatoes. Always eat 100% organic potatoes. They are slightly more expensive, but they taste better, they’re denser, they’re more nutritious and you’ll eat less.
David Carpenter, medical doctor and director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany, New York, published a major study in the journal Science on Contamination in Fish. Here’s what the problem is folks, nature didn’t intend salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter and hydrolyzed chicken feathers, which is what farm raised salmon get fed. These cesspools that the farm raised fish are in, are also loaded with other toxic chemicals and growing agents, as well as, drugs. The results mean farm raised fish have low levels of Vitamin D and are incredibly high in major poison containments, including carcinogens, which are agents that cause cancer. This particular doctor says that you could eat one farm raised fish dinner every five months and still increase your risk of cancer.! So, what’s the solution? When you go to a restaurant, any fish on the menu, ask them if the fish is farm raised. If it’s farm raised, do not eat it. If the package says ‘ Fresh Atlantic.’ It’s still farmed. They lie. There are no commercial fisheries left for Wild Atlantic Salmon. It has to be Alaskan, Norwegian or Tasmanian salmon.
Milk Produced With Artificial Hormones The problem is that milk producers treat the dairy cattle with bovine growth hormone, which is BGH and sometimes called BST. It’s designed to boost milk production so they can make more money. It increases, unfortunately, udder infections and even puts puss into the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin like growth factor in the milk. Basically, high levels of this growth factor can contribute to breast, prostate and colon cancers in human beings. This is a big problem here. The solution is to always check for BGH or BST-free, produced without artificial hormones, or organic milk.
Apples, pears, peaches are loaded with artificial hormones. Like I always say… ONLY BUY ORGANIC!
Folks, have a very safe and happy 4th of July weekend!
Yours in Health,