Environmental toxins are everywhere, and pregnant women and their
unborn child are especially vulnerable to their pernicious effects.
These chemicals do not only come from the environment, but may already
be inside your home, car, purse – or worse, on your dinner plate!
The reality is, there are about 75,000 distinct chemicals that are
produced here in America or imported from abroad. Many of these toxic
agents have not been regulated properly. At this very moment, you may
be holding in your hand a chemical cocktail, and your unborn child is
especially at risk because of his or her underdeveloped system.
Don't let the toxins damage your health or that of your baby or any
woman you know who's expecting. Check out this infographic, “Top Toxins to Avoid Especially if Pregnant,” to discover the most common toxins that you’re exposed to, as well as where they come from. Share and spread this important information to every parent you know!
When pregnant, you should take extra
care with the foods you eat and the chemicals you use in and outside of
your home. There are many sources of toxic exposure that may put you,
and your unborn baby, in harm's way. If you are expecting a child or
know someone who is, share this infographic on the most common environmental toxins that pregnant women should avoid.
Triclosan,
one of the most prevalent antibacterial compounds found in
products, is the focus of a campaign undertaken by a coalition of
health
and environmental groups led by Beyond Pesticides and Food &
Water
Watch, aimed at removing triclosan from the market. Over the last
few years, as a direct result of pressure from consumer
groups and the media regarding the need for triclosan in consumer
products and the mounting scientific evidence documenting adverse health
effects, including impacts to the thyroid hormone, major manufacturers
have quietly reformulated their products without triclosan.
Studies have increasingly
linked triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban), to a range of
adverse health and environmental effects from skin irritation, endocrine disruption, bacterial and compounded antibiotic
resistance, to the contamination of water and its negative impact on fragile
aquatic ecosystems.
When introduced to
the market in 1972, triclosan was confined to hospital and health care
settings. Since then triclosan exploded onto the market place in hundreds
of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes,
cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products.
Triclosan’s success on the consumer market has been aided by the
false public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect
and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria. However, an article
in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, entitled "Consumer
Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?" (2007),
concludes
that antibacterial soaps show no health benefits over plain
soaps. In 2010, FDA stated that, “Existing data raise valid concerns
about the [health]
effects of repetitive daily human exposure to [triclosan]” and announced
plans to address the use of triclosan in
cosmetics or other products.
Minnesota Bans Triclosan in Consumer Personal Care Cleaning Products
Triclosan has been banned from consumer personal care cleaning
products in the state of Minnesota by an act of the state legislature.
This public health measure, SF 2192,
states that “no person shall offer for retail sale in Minnesota any
cleaning product that that contains triclosan and is used by consumers
for sanitizing or hand and body cleansing.” The legislation takes effect
on January 1, 2017. One of the legislation’s lead sponsors, state
Senator John Marty, predicted that the odds are good that most
manufacturers will phase out triclosan by then as a result of this
effort and other marketplace pressure. For More information see Beyond Pesticides' press release.
FDA Will Require Manufacturers to Prove Safety and Efficacy of Antibacterial Products; Beyond Pesticdes' Press Release
December 2013 - A new rule proposed by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) will now require manufacturers of
antibacterial hand soaps, body washes, and other consumer goods to prove
that their products are both safe for long-term use and more effective
than regular bar soap in order to remain on the market. This
announcement, though long delayed, represents a positive step towards
reining in the unnecessary use of antibacterial chemicals.FDA’s new
rule, announced Monday, will be open for public comment for 180 days and
manufacturers will have one year to submit new data on their products.
FDA hopes to finalize its rule and determine whether antibacterial
products can be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by September 2016.
Read FDA's Consumer Update.
Let Yor voice be heard on these new proposed rules! The agency is accepting public comments until June 16, 2014. Submit your comment here.
Proctor & Gamble To Eliminate Triclosan From its Products by 2014
September 2013- Multinational manufacturer Procter and Gamble
(P&G) announced that it will eliminate the harmful antibacterial
chemical triclosan from its products by 2014. P&G’s notice is the
latest in a growing trend across the county, as both governments and
private companies continue to move away from the use this dangerous and
unnecessary substance. While P&G does not name the specific products
from which it will be removing triclosan, it notes that the only
remaining uses of triclosan are in the company’s antibacterial dish
soap, professional hand soap, and some other personal care products
(brands like Dawn and Safeguard Antibacterial Soaps).
Minnesota State Agencies to Stop Procurement of Triclosan
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency announced on March 3,
2013 that state agencies have been ordered by Governor Mark Dayton to
stop buying products that contain triclosan, a synthetic, broad-spectrum
antimicrobial agent that has become ubiquitous in consumer products
ranging from face-washes to fabrics. This ban, which will go into effect
in June, comes as the debate over the efficacy and necessity of
triclosan intensifies in the Minnesota State legislature. A bill banning
triclosan’s use outside of medical settings is expected to be
introduced, and the legislature conducted a hearing Tuesday on the
possible human health and environmental consequences of the chemical.
It is time once again to tell EPA to remove this dangerous chemical from the market. In March 2013, EPA opened the federal docket for triclosan, offically beginning the registration review of triclosan. Under
pressure after its 2008 review, EPA announced that it would again review
triclosan in 2013, five years earlier than scheduled. Over the last few
years, as a direct result of pressure from consumer groups and the
media regarding the need for triclosan in consumer products and the
mounting scientific evidence documenting adverse health effects,
including impacts to the thyroid hormone, major manufacturers have begun
to quietly reformulate their products without triclosan.
Johnson & Johnson to Phase Out Triclosan.
Health care and cosmetics giant Johnson and Johnson has announced that
it will soon begin phasing out a number of potentially dangerous
chemicals from its personal care brands, including triclosan. The
company cites consumer concern over the safety of triclosan as among its
reasons for the alteration in its products, hinting that it was
uncomfortable with growing body of science linking triclosan to a number
of health concerns. The phase out is scheduled to be complete by the
end of 2015.
Canada Declares Triclsoan Toxic to the Environment.
The Canadian government declared triclosan toxic to the environment, a
move which would see the use of the chemical curtailed sharply in
Canada. The draft risk assessment found triclosan to be toxic to the
environment but did not find enough evidence to say it is hazardous to
human health. A toxic designation under the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act triggers a process to find ways to curtail a chemical’s
use, including a possible ban in a range of personal-care products.
Video: Triclosan 101. Allison Aiello, PhD discusses the antibacterial ingredient triclosan,
its efficacy, and potential health impacts as part of the Pesticides and
Health Panel at "Healthy Communities: Green solutions for safe
environments," Beyond Pesticides' 30th National Pesticide Forum, March
30-31, 2012, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Issac Pessah at Beyond Pesticides 31st National Pesticide Forum. In 2012, researchers from the University of California at Davis (UC
Davis) and the University of Colorado found that triclosan impairs
muscle function in fish and mice and stated that the results they found show “strong evidence that triclosan could have effects on animal and human health at current levels of exposure.” Issac Pessah, Ph.D., co-author of the muscle function study and chair of the Department of Molecular Biosciences at UC Davis spoke at Beyond Pesticides 31st National Pesticide Forum. His talk in its entirety can be viewed here.
From PRI: Triclosan Safety Questioned. Public Radio International's Living on Earth (download
the show) recently interviewed Beyond Pesticides about the toxic
antibacterial agent triclosan, which is found in many consumer products
like toothpaste, countertops and children’s toys. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) was also interviewed.
Resources
Sign
the Pledge. Join the campaign to end the consumer use of
triclosan.
Triclosan
Model Resolution. Get your municipality, institution or company
to adopt this resolution to not buy products with triclosan and supporting
broader elimination of non-medical uses.
Regulatory
and Policy. The latest information and history on legal procedures
to ban consumer uses of triclosan.
Find triclosan-free
products from a list of
companies who have already signed the pledge to be triclosan-free.
What's
the Right Answer to the Germ Question? As children go back to
school, protect them from germs without using hazardous chemicals
in lunch bags,soaps and sanitizers. (August 2009)
Beyond
Pesticides, Center for Environmental Health and Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics urges Bath and Body Works to stop selling Triclosan products.
With flavors like “tangelo orange twist,” and “sugar lemon fizz,”
popular body care chain, Bath and Body Works, has marketed an entire
line of antibacterial body care products to teens and young adults.
Unfortunately, these products contain the toxic hormone disruptor and
water contaminant, triclosan, which could be hazardous to teenagers
whose bodies are still developing. Join us in asking Bath and Body Works to stop selling triclosan products that claim to “Spread Love, Not Germs.”
Overwhelming support for the petition to ban Triclosan.
Over 10,000 individuals told EPA, via email and docketed comments, to
ban the dangerous antibacterial triclosan. Additionally, scores of public
health and advocacy groups, local state departments of health and the
environment, as well as municipal and national wastewater treatment
agencies submitted comments requesting an end to triclosan in consumer
products. EPA published the petition for public comment in December
2010 and closed the comment period on April 8, 2011. Beyond Pesticides
once again urged the agency to ban the uses of triclosan in consumer
products citing risks to human and environmental health.
Act by April 8, 2011. Let EPA know that it's time to ban triclosan.
EPA has extended the comment period for another 60 days to April 8,
2011.Your voice is critical in generating public comments on a petition,
published in the Federal Register, to ban the antibacterial chemical
triclosan. As you may know, this chemial, now found in the bodies of
75% of the US population, is linked to endocrine disruption, bacterial
and antibiotic resistance, dioxin contamination, and contaminated fish
and biosolids.
EPA announced a 60-day public comment period for the petition
filed by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch to ban the controversial
antimicrobial pesticide triclosan for non-medical use. The petition,
filed on January 14, 2010, identifies pervasive and widespread use of
triclosan and the agency's failure to address triclosan's impacts on
human and environmental health, conduct assessments for residues in
drinking water and food and concerns related to antibacterial resistance
and endocrine disruption. The petition cites various violations of numerous
environmental statues including the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking
Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Comments are accepted until April 8, 2011 at www.regulations.gov.
Direct comments to docket number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0548.
When commenting, please specify the statute to which your comments refer
(FIFRA, FFDCA, SDWA, CWA, or ESA) and the specific issue(s) raised in
the petition regarding that statute on which you are commenting. (December,
2010)
Congresswoman
Urges FDA to Ban Triclosan. House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise
M. Slaughter and two colleagues asked
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban triclosan due to
the hazards that this chemical poses, including antibiotic resistance
and potentially leading to higher health care costs, citing both Beyond
Pesticides and Food and Water Watch's petition currently pending before
the agency (November 2010).
Newly
released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) finds that levels of triclosan in humans have increased by 50%
since 2004 (August 2010).
Beyond
Pesticides tells FDA that Triclosan is too hazardous to the aquatic
environment. In response to the agency's request for environmental
data regarding tricosan's use in certain over the counter products,
Beyond Pesticides and others reminded the agency that it must recognize
that significant adverse environmental impacts will occur with continued
triclosan use (May 2010).
FDA says, "existing
data raise valid concerns" regarding exposure to triclosan. FDA
is considering action in light of a petition
submitted by Beyond Pesticides, and others, and in response to a letter
from Rep. Markey (April 2010).
Beyond Pesticides,
Food & Water Watch and more than 80 organizations petitioned
EPA to ban triclosan for non-medical applications on the basis that
uses violate federal laws regulating pesticides, clean and safe drinking
water, and endangered species (January 2010).
Looking for a product
free of triclosan? Find one from a
list of companies that have signed the pledge to be triclosan-free.
Take Action! Learn how you can help end the unnecessary use of this
toxic antibacterial chemical. Stay in the loop on triclosan and
other issues by joining us on Facebook.
Since cancer seems to be an ever-present enemy, we greet
the appearance of its lethal emissaries in prosaic objects with a morbid
lack of surprise: carcinogens lurk in coffee, hamburgers, rugs,
dry-cleaned clothes, even peanut butter. And it may apparently reside in
one of the most popular toothpastes on the market, a toothpaste you’ve
probably thrown into your own shopping cart with nary a second thought.
The
possible culprit is the germicide triclosan, found in Colgate Total,
the widely-used brand manufactured by Colgate-Palmolive. Introduced in
1997, the manufacturer claims that it is the “only toothpaste approved
by the FDA to help fight plaque and gingivitis” by blasting the teeth
and gums with triclosan.
The claim is at least partly
true: no other toothpaste in the United States contains triclosan,
though plenty of antibacterial soaps and cosmetics count it as an
ingredient. It is that bacteria-fighting capability that has recently
raised questions about Colgate Total’s safety, as well as about whether
the Food and Drug Administration knuckled under and did not heed
warnings about the compound.
Triclosan is a chlorinated aromatic compound:
very basically, two benzene rings (a sturdy hydrocarbon, with six atoms
of carbon and hydrogen each) linked by an oxygen atom, with three
chlorine atoms protruding like spokes, as well as a lone hydroxyl group
(oxygen + hydrogen). First used in the 1970s in hospitals, it has since
become a widespread antimicrobial agent. Not only is triclosan present
in Colgate Total and many household soaps, but it can also be found in
coolers, odor-protected shoes and makeup, according to Mae Wu, a lawyer
with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She says that triclosan is
“all over the place,” even if, as she notes, we had “been doing fine
without it” for several centuries of human-microbial cohabitation of the
planet.
“Triclosan is 110 percent marketing,” says
Michael Osterholm, who heads the Center for Infectious Disease Research
and Policy at the University of Minnesota. Osterholm, who helped
Minnesota become the first state to ban most uses of triclosan. He told
me the compound has been superseded by superior, safer antimicrobial
agents, and Procter and Gamble has begun advertising its Crest
toothpaste as being “100% triclosan free.” That may also be a triumph of
marketing, but one that could lead more people to question the presence
of triclosan in household items, thereby forcing Colgate’s hand.
“They understand that the public is getting this,” Osterholm says of the Crest claim.
“Triclosan isn't an essential ingredient in many products,” writes Dr. James M. Steckelberg of the Mayo Clinic.
“While triclosan added to toothpaste has been shown to help prevent
gingivitis, there's no evidence that antibacterial soaps and body washes
containing triclosan provide any extra benefits, according to the Food
and Drug Administration.” On its website,
the FDA says that soaps that contain antibacterial compounds like
triclosan have not been shown to be “any more effective at preventing
illness than washing with plain soap and water.” The FDA stops well
short, however, of calling triclosan a danger, merely suggesting that
consumers think twice about buying products that contain it.
Earlier
this summer, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology in America, whose
mission is to prevent hospital infections, made a blunt recommendation
to doctors in its guidelines for hospital hygiene:
“Do not use triclosan-containing soaps.” Those guidelines also cite
“concerns about the potential human and environmental impacts of this
chemical” and suggest, instead, the use of alcohol-based hand rubs.
The
FDA first promised to look at triclosan in handsoap in 1974. Four
decades later, that study remains incomplete, though it will reportedly
be released in 2016.
Meanwhile, most people are
absorbing triclosan whether they know it or not. Triclosan is nearly
ubiquitous, easily entering the body by ingestion or through the skin.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested 2,517 people in
2003 and found that almost three-fourths had triclosan in their urine.
Toothpaste is an especially potent triclosan-delivery vehicle. “People
who brushed their teeth with Colgate Total had more than five times as
much triclosan in their urine as people who didn’t use it,” Wu wrote in an NRDC blog post.
Far less clear is what triclosan does (or doesn’t do) to the human organism. For example, a review by scientists at the University of California at Davis
concluded that when it comes to triclosan and triclocarban, a
chemically related antibacterial agent, “the benefits may not be worth
the risks.” The researchers wrote that triclosan and triclocarban could
cause neural and cardiac ailments, though they also conceded that “the
research is in its early stages."
Other recent research suggests that triclosan could cause breast cancer,
though the results were gleaned from exposure in mice. Triclosan’s
effects on the endocrine system, which delivers hormones throughout the
body, are also increasingly thought to be harmful; a 2006 study of bullfrogs and tadpoles exposed to triclosan in aquatic environments
found that “exposure to low levels of triclosan disrupts thyroid
hormone-associated gene expression and can alter the rate of thyroid
hormone-mediated postembryonic...development.” If triclosan does turn
out to be an endocrine disruptor, that would make young children,
infants and pregnant women especially vulnerable. (There are also
concerns about the accumulation of triclosan in waterways, where its
build-up could “disrupt aquatic life by changing native bacterial
communities,” according to aquatic ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall.)
And
though the FDA is now urging Americans to think about their triclosan
consumption, the agency didn’t seem nearly as concerned with the issue
17 years ago, when it declared Colgate Total ready for supermarket
shelves. In 2010, the Natural Resources Defense Council sued the FDA for
access to documentation regarding Colgate Total’s approval; the
documents, totalling 35 pages, had never been seen by the public before.
Bloomberg News had three scientists examine the FDA’s approval of Colgate Total.
“The recently released pages, taken alongside new research on
triclosan, raise questions about whether the agency did appropriate due
diligence in approving Total 17 years ago, and whether its approval
should stand in light of new research,” Bloomberg concluded in its
extensive investigation.
“The literature is all over
the place,” admits Rear Admiral Sandra L. Kweder, who is the deputy
director of the FDA’s office of new drugs. She says that the burden is
on soap manufacturers to show that their product is safe and efficient.
Industry
lobbyists do have complexity on their side: given the number of
chemicals to which the average person is exposed, and the genetic
disposition some people have to cancer, it is exceedingly difficult to
make a direct epidemiological correlation between household products and
incidences of cancer. Even with well-known villains like bisphenol-A
(BPA) and phthalates, the science remains in dispute.
Some
aren’t waiting for a resolution that could come in the distant future.
Earlier this year, Minnesota became the first state to prohibit usage of
triclosan, though FDA-approved products like Colgate Total are outside
the purview of the ban, which doesn’t take effect until 2017.
Colgate-Palmolive
says its product is safe. Patricia Verduin, Colgate-Palmolive’s head of
research and development, sent me an extensive rebuttal of several
studies that seem to show triclosan’s potential dangers. She noted that
90 studies, involving a total of 20,000 people, have made Colgate Total
“the most extensively tested and reviewed toothpaste in the world.” She
added that studies linking the compound to cancer and thyroid problems
“use excessively high levels of triclosan — in some instances, thousands
of times greater than the level of exposure from use of consumer
products.” Verduin also pointed out that “regulatory authorities around
the world… affirm that triclosan as used in consumer products is not a
human carcinogen or endocrine disruptor.”
And in an op-ed she wrote for Fox News,
Verduin maintains that “[r]ecent claims that triclosan in Colgate Total
can lead to cancer are absolutely untrue.” She discounts findings about
triclosan’s potential endocrine disruption as “rumors.”
Yet if the battle over BPA (which also has its defenders)
is any indication, triclosan will probably meet with a rising tide of
public suspicion, and more and more products will appear with green
stickers proclaiming themselves triclosan-free, as Crest already does.
Many major corporations have removed triclosan from soaps and cosmetics.
Others will likely follow, if for no other reason than for an image of
healthful living.
Triclosan may be falling out of favor,
but, for some, the underlying concern is that of federal regulators too
easily convinced by science done not in the public interest, but for
the sake of corporate gains. Writing last year in a New York Times op-ed,
investigative reporter Ian Urbina noted that federal regulators
effectively allow industry to police itself, so that few of the 85,000
industrial chemicals in use today — including the ones on your bathrooms
shelves — have passed unbiased governmental inspection. “Unlike
pharmaceuticals or pesticides,” Urbina writes, “industrial chemicals do
not have to be tested before they are put on the market. Under the law
regulating chemicals, producers are only rarely required to provide the
federal government with the information necessary to assess safety.”
But
for others, the chemicals aren’t dangerous if used with moderation. Dr.
Bruce D. Hammock, for example, runs the Laboratory of Pesticide and
Biotechnology at UC Davis and was one of the investigators involved in
the study on triclosan and triclocarban. “There are real risks to
triclosan,” Hammock says. “And there are real benefits.” He welcomes
more research into its effects on the human body.
Hammock
calls triclosan “quite a good antimicrobial” that belongs in the
hospital, not on the kitchen counter. “There’s no reason for it to be
there,” he says of its inclusion in hand and dish soaps.
Toothpaste
is another matter, and Hammock points out that the concentration of
triclosan is low in Colgate Total, while, at the same time, the
incidence of gingivitis is high enough to warrant the compound’s
inclusion. Hammock adds that he is happy with his toothpaste of choice:
Colgate Total.
Regulators share his confidence. Jeff
Ventura, a press officer for the FDA, sent me a statement asserting that
“based on the scientific evidence, in this case, the balance of benefit
and risk has been shown to be favorable for [Colgate Total].” The
statement does also say, however, that “use of an ingredient may be
acceptable for one product but not for another,” thus perhaps opening
the way for a ban of triclosan in soaps. After all, federal regulators
can’t ignore growing concerns buttressed by mounting evidence.
Asked if the FDA would revisit its approval of Colgate Total, Dr. Kweder hesitates.
As artificial and engineered ingredients have replaced the natural ones
our grandmothers used to cook with, we’re increasingly finding ourselves
exposed to potentially harmful chemicals. The problem is many of these
chemicals aren’t listed on food packaging either because they’re part of
the packaging or because they’re involved in the manufacturing process.
Learn more about some of the harmful chemicals you might be consuming.
Phthalates
This derivative of plastic is found in a wide variety of foods, but especially dairy products.
While the reason is unclear, it’s thought the plastic tubing used to
milk cows contains the chemical that then ends up in the dairy.
Phthalates are related to BPA and masquerade as estrogen in your body,
leading to hormonal disruption and a host of other effects.
BPA
BPA
was very publicly removed from plastic bottles, but is still widely
present in the environment and in certain foods. Cans are often lined
with BPA, which can then contaminate the food inside. Microwaving
plastic food containers can also cause BPA to leech into the foods inside.
Like phthalates, this chemical is similar enough to estrogen to act
like a hormone in the body, which can disrupt normal hormonal action.
Brominated Vegetable Oil
This chemical is commonly used in drinks
and helps keep ingredients from separating on shelves. The problem is
it’s been banned as a food additive in several countries and has been
linked to neurologic symptoms like headaches, fatigue and a loss of
muscle coordination and memory.
Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA)
While the FDA has deemed this chemical to be
safe for human consumption, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has
said it’s reasonably likely to be a carcinogen. The chemical is a
preservative used in a wide variety of fast foods to prevent oils and
butters from going rancid. In animal studies, the additive has been
found to cause cancer in high doses and its effects on humans at lower
doses are unclear.
Food Colorings
Look on the side of any soft drink or candy bag
and you’re likely to see a colorant. Blue 2 (brain tumors), Green 3
(bladder and testicular cancer), Red 3 (thyroid cancer), Red 40 (immune
system tumors), Yellow 6 (adrenal tumors and allergic reaction) have all
been linked to a variety of cancers in animal studies. While companies
claim that low doses of these colorants are harmless, the chemicals are
often put in food without significant, long-term testing in humans.
3-MCPD
This chemical is used in the manufacture of tea
bags and sausage casings and is part of the factory process of breaking
down proteins often seen as “hydrolyzed soy protein.”
It’s also been found in oyster sauce, hoisin sauce and soy sauce. The
chemical is a known carcinogen and may disrupt fertility in males. It’s
rarely if ever listed as an ingredient.
by Permaculture88 Over the last decade, as genetically modified, or GMO, foods have
increasingly taken over our food supply, we've been learning more about
their dangers to our health.
Now, one courageous doctor is pointing to mounting evidence that leaves no doubt — GMO foods are even worse than we were told.
As
this respected doctor points out in a riveting new presentation, no
long-term human studies have ever supported GMO safety. Shockingly, the
World Health Organization only requires a mere 90 days of testing to
claim that GMOs are safe. Well, no one dies from smoking cigarettes
within 90 days of starting to smoke, either!
Yet while lifetime
studies still have not been done on humans, scientists have done these
studies on animals — and what they found is stunning. Lab mice fed just a
33 percent GMO diet begin developing aggressive cancers (particularly
breast cancer), liver failure, and kidney failure.
Shockingly, 50
percent of the males and 70 percent of the female animals on the GMO
diet succumbed to early death at an age equivalent to 40 to 50 human
years.
While more people have begun to fight back against GMOs,
the big GMO companies spend millions of dollars to defeat laws that
would require GMO labeling. Quite simply, these big companies know that
GMO crops are cheaper to grow, and therefore more profitable.
In
the meantime, many health experts now warn us to take the only positive
action available to protect our health — avoiding GMOs as much as
humanly possible. But considering the fact that GMOs are hidden in over
30,000 food products, that is not an easy task.
Fortunately, one
courageous doctor has stepped up to the plate. Dr. Russell Blaylock, one
of America's leading medical researchers and nutritionists, has created
a special free video presentation that explains the hidden health
hazards of GMOs. Dr. Blaylock will show you how to protect your family
from GMOs and their dangers — aisle by aisle at the grocery store.
Dr.
Blaylock's new video presentation exposes how GMO ingredients and other
harmful additives are hidden on labels under safe-sounding names. In
fact, you'll see some of the actual labels and find out what to watch
for.
And those stickers pasted onto fruits and vegetables? Using
real examples, you'll learn a simple way to tell the difference between
GMO produce that may also be packed with harmful pesticides and
herbicides, and produce that is safe and natural.
Cracking the GMO Code
Travis
Davis, health publisher at Newsmax, previewed Dr. Blaylock's
presentation for our readers and reports: "GMOs enter your body through
thousands of packaged and canned food products, through fresh produce,
and through the meat, chicken, and fish you eat. The expert help Dr.
Blaylock offers in this video reveals everything you need to know to
avoid GMOs at the grocery store as well as restaurants."
Since
the introduction of GMO foods, many cancers and other diseases have
skyrocketed in humans. Can this really be a coincidence? Please use the
information available in this online educational presentation, Cracking
the GMO Code to help protect your own health — and the health of your
family.
Renowned former neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., left
conventional medicine after decades of practice to concentrate on
nutrition and disease prevention. He is the author of several health
books and medical editor of The Blaylock Wellness Report.
Editor's
Note: This video blows the lid off the GMO controversy and exposes
little-known dangers. Plus, you'll see exactly how to avoid GMOs in
their many hidden forms, in grocery stores and in restaurants.
Scientists from EWG and Duke University just released a groundbreaking study that found a biomarker of the cancer-causing fire retardant TDCIPP in the bodies of all 22 mothers and 26 children tested.
Compared to their mothers, the children exhibited on average nearly five times the level of this biomarker. In the most extreme case, a child had 23 times the level measured in the mother.
The frightening reality is that many of us
are unknowingly exposing ourselves and our families to toxic chemicals
in everyday home goods. TDCIPP and/or other hazardous fire
retardants are commonly found in furniture, nap mats, changing table
pads, nursing pillows and other consumer products. While we are starting
to see a shift in the market because of state-level regulations, that
progress would be halted if poorly designed new national standards were
announced. We need to tell the Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect our health and our families’ health right now.
In the EWG-Duke study, biomarkers of three
chemical components of a fire retardant mixture called Firemaster® 550
were detected in the urine of most children tested. The long-term
effects on human exposure to this mixture are unknown, but animal
testing has shown it can disrupt hormones and systems critical to growth, metabolism and sexual development.
Because of flawed state and federal
regulations that have allowed toxic chemicals to enter the market and
our homes, fire retardants are nearly impossible to avoid completely.
That’s why EWG is working hard to create a future in which American
families are not exposed daily to these potentially harmful chemicals.
But we need you to stand up for your health and your family’s health by signing our petition right now.
by Michael Greger M.D. There are currently thousands of additives in our food supply. Some are good—like supplementing foods with vitamin B12, for example (See Vitamin B12 Necessary for Arterial Health).
Other additives involve weighing the risks and benefits. Take nitrites
in processed meats. Yes, they may increase our risk of cancer but, as
preservatives, they decrease our risk of dying from botulism (See When Nitrates Go Bad and Bacon and Botulism).
Then there are additives used for purely cosmetic purposes, like food
dyes, used to provide color to colorless and “fun” foods. According to
the FDA, “Without color additives, colas wouldn’t be brown, margarine
wouldn’t be yellow and mint ice cream wouldn’t be green.” Heavens
forbid! Color additives are now recognized as an important part of practically all processed foods we eat.
Because we’re eating a lot more processed foods, we’re now getting
five times more food dyes in our daily diet than we were 50 years ago.
Fifteen million pounds of food dyes are used every year in foods, drugs,
and cosmetics in the United States.
I always wondered why they called them, for example, Blue #1 instead
of their actual chemical name in the list of ingredients. Then, after
reading this report
from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, I realized why.
Picture a box of Kraft mac and cheese. It has Yellow #5. Would people be
as likely to buy this product if instead of Yellow #5 it listed
Trisodium
1-(4-sulfonatophenyl)-4-(4-sulfonatophenylazo)-5-(pyrazolone-3-carboxylate)
on the label?
The list of food dyes used to be longer (See Artificial Food Colors and ADHD),
but different dyes kept getting banned—including Violet #1, which,
ironically, was the color used in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
meat inspection stamp, so they may have been actually further cancer-ing
up the meat. Years ago I featured a landmark study in my video Are Artificial Colors Bad for You?,
a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge in
perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world. It showed
that artificial colors increased “inattentiveness, impulsivity, and
hyperactivity among young children.” So what happened? Well, the British
government said, OK, there’re no health benefits to these dyes, only
health risks, so it’s a no-brainer. They mandated that food
manufacturers remove most of the artificial food colors from products.
In fact, the whole European Union said that if manufacturers want to
keep using the dyes, then they have to put a warning label stating: “may
have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Many
international food companies have taken them out of their products in
Europe, but continue to use them in the same products here in the U.S.
where similar regulations are not currently in place. Why did the U.S.
government take steps to get rid of them as well?
The FDA put together a committee that looked
at the landmark study and conceded that the food additives may have
resulted in changes in behavior, but the “type of treatment effects
reported in the study, even though the investigators referred to
increases in levels of ‘hyperactivity,’ were not the disruptive
excessive hyperactivity behaviors of ADHD but more likely the type of
over-activity exhibited occasionally by the general population of
preschool and school age children.” A distinguished toxicologist
basically responded,
“look, low level lead exposure may only shave off a few IQ points off
of kids, but just because they’d still fall within a normal range,
doesn’t mean it’s OK to expose it to our kids.” And looking back now,
the lead in leaded gas may have been causing brain cancer and possibly
even urban violence—the aggravated assault rate in cities around the
U.S. seemed to closely follow the lead levels in the air.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest continues to call on
the FDA to ban food dyes and for food companies to voluntarily stop
using them. Good luck with that. In the meantime, some researchers
recently suggested a way to see which food colors may be damaging our
child’s brain, advising
parents to test artificial colors by purchasing little bottles of food
dyes at the grocery store. Then have their kid do some homework or
something and then have them chug down an artificial color and see if it
affects their handwriting/reading/math at 30 minutes, at 90 minutes,
and 3 hours. They also see if they get irritable later, have problems
sleeping, and so on. If that’s OK, they say you should try even more to
see if more will mess with their mind. If I may offer an alternate
suggestion, maybe we shouldn’t buy our kids processed junk in the first
place.
There is a campaign to get Kraft to remove yellow #5 from their mac
& cheese, but even if the stuff didn’t glow in the dark it’s still
just a blob of sodium (750 mg), saturated fat (4.5 g), and trans fat
(2.8 g). The food movement might better spend its time encouraging
healthier fare altogether. How can we get our kids to eat less processed junk? I review some practical tips in my videos Tricks to Get Kids to Eat Healthier at School and Tricks to Get Kids to Eat Healthier at Home. -Michael Greger, M.D.
Dr. Mark Hyman gives six reasons you should avoid milk and explains why it may be at the very root of your health problems.
By Dr. Amy Myers All those “Got Milk?” ads from the last decade or so would have us
believe that dairy is a cornerstone of a healthy diet, providing
essential nutrients, fortifying our bones, and knocking out osteoporosis
left and right. But... is this true? Is consuming dairy necessary or
even healthy for most people? The truth is, dairy can lead to countless health issues and, for many, can cause more harm than good, here’s why.
It’s highly inflammatory. Dairy is one of the most inflammatory foods in our modern diet, second only to gluten. It
causes inflammation in a large percentage of the population, resulting
in digestive issues such as bloating, gas, constipation, and diarrhea,
as well as other symptoms including acne, and a stronger presentation of autistic behaviors.
What
is it about dairy that causes an inflammatory response? Is everyone
with a dairy sensitivity lactose intolerant? There are two components of
dairy that tend to cause issues for people: (1) the sugar and (2) the
proteins. People who are lactose intolerant don’t produce the
lactase enzyme, which is required to break down lactose, a sugar found
in milk, causing digestive issues whenever they consume dairy products.
People who do produce the lactase enzyme but still react poorly to milk
are responding to the two proteins found in milk, casein and whey.
Casein is a protein with a very similar molecular structure to gluten
and 50% of people who are gluten intolerant are casein intolerant as
well. It’s acid-forming. Our bodies like to maintain a neutral pH balance:
not too much acidity, not too much alkalinity. Milk, like most animal
products, is an acid forming food, meaning whenever you consume dairy,
your body must compensate for the increased acidity in order to restore a
neutral pH balance.
It does this by pulling from the alkaline
“reserves” it keeps on hand in the form of calcium, magnesium, and
potassium, that are stored in your bones. Pulling from these reserves
weakens your bones, leaving them more susceptible to fractures and
breaks, meaning milk might not be such a great preventative tool against
osteoporosis as we’re told. In fact, research has shown that countries
with the highest rate of dairy consumption also have the highest rate of
osteoporosis.
It’s often full of hormones and antibiotics Many
times when people drink milk they’re consuming far more than just milk.
American dairy farmers have long been injecting cows with a genetically
engineered bovine growth hormone called rBGH to increase milk
production. This forced increase in milk production often leads to an
udder infection in cows called mastitis, which is then treated with
courses of antibiotics, which can make their way into your dairy
products.
All of these concerns about the health benefits and
safety of dairy can lead to even more questions. Is all dairy bad, are
alternative sources of dairy any better? Where will I get my calcium if
not from dairy? Let’s take a look at these:
What about goat’s milk and sheep’s milk? Some
people who choose to eliminate cow’s milk from their diet still enjoy
goat's or sheep's milk, as they find it much easier to tolerate.
Although these have a similar lactose content to cow’s milk (meaning if
you are lactose intolerant, they will not be any easier to digest) they
do have a different type of casein protein, which makes them easier for
casein-sensitive people to handle. Casein exists in two variants,
A1 beta-casein and A2 beta-casein, which are differentiated only by a
single amino acid in their protein chains. A2 is considered the original
beta-casein because A1 only appeared a few thousand years ago after a
mutation occurred in European cow herds,
and people react poorly to the A1 beta-casein. Goat’s milk and sheep’s
milk lack the A1 beta-casein, which is what makes them more tolerable,
but because the A1 and A2 proteins are so similar, these milks can still
cause problems for some.
What about organic or raw milk? If
you aren’t casein sensitive, and still want to consume cow’s milk, a
healthier and less-chemical laden route to go can be organic or raw
milk. These kinds of milk typically come from cows that have not been
injected with rGBH and have not been treated with antibiotics, which
eliminates the concern that these chemicals will find their way into
your milk.
Raw milk, although contentiously debated, does have many health benefits that
pasteurized milk lacks. The pasteurizing process, which is intended to
kill harmful bacteria, kills many of the helpful enzymes that occur
naturally in milk as well. In fact, one of the enzymes present in raw
milk that is missing in pasteurized milk is the lactase enzyme, meaning
people who are lactose intolerant are actually able to drink raw milk
because it contains the enzyme needed to break down lactose their body
is unable to produce.
What should you do if you think you're sensitive to dairy? Ultimately
the decision of whether or not to consume dairy rests with you. Try
eliminating 100% of dairy from your diet for 30 days and pay attention
to how your body reacts. Then try reintroducing dairy in its different forms and sources and notice how you respond. If
you do decide to eliminate dairy, fear not, there are plenty of other
natural sources of calcium you can incorporate into your diet! 9 Non-Dairy Sources of Calcium
Jackson Katz, Phd, is an anti-sexist activist and expert on violence, media and masculinities. An author, filmmaker, educator and social theorist, Katz has worked in gender violence prevention work with diverse groups of men and boys in sports culture and the military, and has pioneered work in critical media literacy.Katz is the creator and co-founder of the Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) program, which advocates the 'bystander approach' to sexual and domestic violence prevention. You've also seen him in the award winning documentary "MissRepresentation."
To learn more about TEDxFiDiWomen, whether to attend, volunteer, speak or sponsor, please click on the following link!http://tedxfidiwomen.herokuapp.com/
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
Most people see them as a guarantee of safety against harmful pathogens,
but the antibacterial chemicals commonly added to soaps, toothpastes
and various other personal care products could be making you sick. A new
study out of South Korea has found that the popular antibacterial
additive, triclosan, exhibits cancer-promoting effects both in vitro and in vivo, a finding that could have significant implications for humans.
For their research, Kyung-Chul Choi and colleagues from Chungbuk National University and the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology
looked at triclosan in the context of how it affects the hormonal
system. A known hormone-disruptor, triclosan has been shown in previous
research to mimic the feminizing hormone estrogen, which in turn alters
the normal production and expression of other hormones like
testosterone.
As a result, triclosan appears to throw the
endocrine system out of balance, leading to abnormal cellular growths.
Particularly in women, triclosan appears to trigger the growth of breast
cancer cells, leading to the formation of malignant tumors. This was
demonstrated both in cell samples and in live mice, as breast cancer
cells were shown to thrive in the presence of triclosan.
After
comparing the frequency and progression patterns of breast cancer growth
in both the cell samples and the mice, some of which were exposed to
triclosan and some of which were not, it became clear that the chemical
spurs abnormal cell proliferation. And the fact that triclosan bioaccumulates in the body over time makes the threat of it even more pronounced.
"Although
the doses of EDCs were somewhat high, we did this to simulate the
effects of daily exposure, as well as body accumulation due to long-term
exposure, simultaneously in animal experiments," stated Choi. "Thus,
exposure to EDCs may significantly increase the risk of breast cancer development and adversely affect human health," wrote he and the others in their paper.
Octylphenol amplifies cancer-causing effects of triclosan The team also identified another antibacterial chemical, octylphenol,
which exhibits similar cancer-promoting effects. Though lesser known
than triclosan, octylphenol was shown to work in conjunction with
triclosan to amplify the growth and spread of cancer cells, illustrating the immense dangers associated with these ubiquitous chemicals. "Research
has found that two EDCs -- triclosan, an antimicrobial ingredient in
many products, including soaps, cosmetics and cutting boards; and
octylphenol, which is in some paints, pesticides and plastics -- have
accumulated in the environment," explains ScienceDaily.com. "Additionally, triclosan is reportedly in the urine of an estimated 75 percent of Americans."
Consumer groups like Beyond Pesticides and the Environmental Working Group
(EWG) have been raising awareness about the dangers of triclosan for
years, highlighting its status as a known endocrine-disrupting chemical
(EDC) and pushing for its removal from personal care products. But many
commercial products still contain it, which is why consumers need to
beware.
"Studies have increasingly linked triclosan and its
chemical cousin triclocarban, to a range of adverse health and
environmental effects, from skin irritation, endocrine disruption,
bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistance, to the contamination of
water and its negative impact on fragile aquatic ecosystems," explains Beyond Pesticides.
Fifteen million pounds of food dyes are sold every year in the U.S.
Why? Foods are artificially colored to make unattractive mixtures of
basic ingredients and food additives acceptable to consumers. See, food
colorings are added to countless processed food products to conceal the
absence of fruits, vegetables, or other ingredients and make the food
‘‘appear better or of greater value than it is.’’ Otherwise cherry
popsicles might actually look as if they have no cherries in them!
I've talked about the role of food dyes in causing ADHD symptoms in kids, but what about their role in cancer?
Due to cancer concerns Red dye #1 was banned in 1961. Red #2 was
banned in 1976, and then Red #4 was banned. But what about Red #3, used
today in everything from sausage to maraschino cherries? It was recently
found to cause DNA damage in human liver cells in vitro, comparable to the damage caused by a chemotherapy drug whose whole purpose is to break down DNA.
But red #3 was found to influence children's behavior more than 30
years ago and interfere with thyroid function over 40 years ago. Why is
it still legal? This is an article in the New York Times about Red #3 published way
back in 1985. Already by then, the FDA had postponed action on banning
the dye 26 times, even with the Acting Commissioner of the FDA saying
Red #3 was of greatest public health concern, imploring his agency to
not knowingly allow continued exposure (at high levels in the case of
Red #3) of the public to a provisionally listed color additive that has
clearly been shown to induce cancer while questions of mechanism are
explored.’’ The credibility of the Department of Health and Human
Services would suffer if decisions are not made soon on each of these
color additives. That was written 30 years ago.
At the end of the day, industry pressure won out. FDA scientists and
FDA commissioners have recommended that the additive be banned, but
there has been tremendous pressure to delay the recommendations from
being implemented.
In 1990, concerned about cancer risk, the FDA banned the use of Red
#3 in anything going on our skin, but it remained legal to continue to
put it in anything going in our mouths. Now the FDA said at the time
that they planned on stopping that too and ending all remaining uses of
Red #3, lamenting that the cherries in 21st-century fruit cocktail could well be light brown.
But over 20 years later it's still in our food supply. After all, the
agency estimated that the lifetime risk of thyroid tumors in humans
from Red #3 in food was at most 1 in a hundred thousand. Based on
today’s population, that would indicate that Red #3 is causing cancer in
about 3000 people.
by Michael Greger, M.D. DESCRIPTION: Getting bitewing or full mouth (panoramic) X-rays at the
dentist may be associated with an increased risk of meningioma, the most
common type of brain tumor.
I was just actually at the dentist
for my check-up and was again offered a set of full mouth X-rays
(because I was "due"). Normally when I refuse routine dental X-rays I've
just explained that I try to minimize my radiation exposure, but this
time I was able to refuse "as per the official recommendation of the
American Dental Association"! I just got a blank stare. More on avoiding brain tumors in:
This
is the third in a five part series on preventing and mediating the
adverse effects of radiation exposure. The first, Fukushima and
Radioactivity in Seafood (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/fukus...),
described the natural and artificial sources of radioactive isotopes in
our diet. The last video, Cancer Risk from CT Scan Radiation (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cance...),
detailed the estimated 29,000 cancers that doctors cause with CAT scans
every year. In my next video, Mediating Radiation Exposure from Air
Travel (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/media...),
I talk about those full-body scanners in airports and I'll close out
with ways to mediate all these risks with Reducing Radiation Damage With
Ginger And Lemon Balm (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/reduc...).
Triclosan,
one of the most prevalent antibacterial compounds found in
products, is the focus of a campaign undertaken by a coalition of
health
and environmental groups led by Beyond Pesticides and Food &
Water
Watch, aimed at removing triclosan from the market. Over the last
few years, as a direct result of pressure from consumer
groups and the media regarding the need for triclosan in consumer
products and the mounting scientific evidence documenting adverse health
effects, including impacts to the thyroid hormone, major manufacturers
have quietly reformulated their products without triclosan.
