Docs Talk | Blogs | David Suzuki Foundation

Connect with nature to reduce stress

2013-04-24T06:00:00Z

Melissa Lem is a Toronto family physician who works and hikes in rural and remote communities across Canada. She holds a faculty appointment with the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto, guest blogs for Evergreen and regularly appears as a medical expert on CBC television's lifestyle show Steven and Chris.

Doc's Talk: How stressed are most Canadians? How is their health affected?

Dr. Lem: A recent survey revealed that over 70 per cent of Canadian adults report excessive stress levels, with young adults bearing the brunt at 90 per cent. This translates into real impacts on the health care system and economy. In 2011, over $42 billion was spent on treatment and support services for mental health problems. Canadian employers lose an estimated $20 billion per year due to stress-related illnesses, which are the number one reason for sick leave.

Chronic distress releases a toxic brew of hormones and neurotransmitters into the body, keeping it in a state of high alert. Long-term exposure to cortisol, the primary stress hormone, can lead to impaired immune function, diabetes, heart disease, infertility and premature aging. Unmanaged stress makes your mind and body feel like they're running a marathon every day--without the health benefits.

Doc's Talk: What's the connection between stress and time in nature?

Dr. Lem: There are two popular explanations for how green time soothes a stressed brain. The first suggests that humans have a finite capacity for sustained concentration. Busy urban environments make focusing more difficult, causing fatigue and irritability. But nature lets the conscious brain rest, replenishing your powers of attention and lowering anxiety.

Another theory argues that affinity for nature was an evolutionary advantage. Landscapes with vegetation and water were ideal for finding food and avoiding predators, so their inhabitants survived longer and were less stressed. Although today's humans roam cityscapes with blinking stoplights and shiny glass towers, it's unlikely our brains have fully adapted to them.

Research indicates that spending time in nature supercharges the benefits of exercise, a proven stress reliever. I often recommend that my patients seek out green space to optimize their mental and physical wellness.

Doc's Talk: What are some interesting findings on the topic?

Dr. Lem: Some of the most compelling and biologically relevant evidence comes from Japan, where shinrin-yoku or "forest bathing" has long been recognized as an important part of a healthy lifestyle. A recent study showed that adults who spent three days in forests dramatically boosted their levels of cancer-fighting proteins and natural killer cells, reflecting lower stress. Another demonstrated that young men who spent just 15 minutes sitting in the woods instead of the city experienced significant drops in heart rate and salivary cortisol.

Within urban environments, office workers whose windows look out onto trees and flowers consistently report greater job satisfaction and personal welfare. Filling our cities with green space is a population-level intervention that makes all of us happier and healthier.

Doc's Talk: What can individuals and workplaces do?

Dr. Lem: A redesign of our mental and physical landscapes can make it much easier to connect to nature in the city.

Urban dwellers can mindfully search out micro-experiences in nature. Put away the smartphone and look for wildlife in city parks and gardens on your lunch hour. Bring nature home -- create a native ecosystem in your living space so you can enjoy more green time and less screen time.

Workplaces can incorporate natural elements inside and advocate for community greening projects outside. Employers should encourage green break times and reimburse workers for health-promoting costs like passes to provincial parks and ecological urban attractions--investments in both collective well-being and the bottom line.

Doc's Talk: Do you have any tips for those who find getting out in nature daunting?

Dr. Lem: ‪The key to success is making consistent and sustainable lifestyle changes. Start small, write down and be detailed about your goals. Schedule a weekend walk through a park with friends instead of sipping your lattes in a café, or plan 30 minutes in a neighbourhood garden on your way home from work. Better yet, join the David Suzuki Foundation's 30×30 Nature Challenge during May 2013 and get outside 30 minutes a day for 30 days. Volunteering for local urban greening organizations is a great way to immerse yourself in nature and give back at the same time.‬

Don't be afraid to engage the support of your family, friends and larger network and put peer pressure to use. Get your daily dose of green time and spread good health from your cerebral cortex to your community and beyond.

Reaction to air pollution linked to genetics

2012-12-04T12:00:00Z

(Credit: bichxa via Flickr)

Chris Carlsten, MD MPH is an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia, where he holds the endowed Chair in Occupational and Environmental Lung Disease. He is also the director of the Occupational Lung Disease Clinic at Vancouver General Hospital's Lung Centre. His latest findings on the effects of diesel exhaust and other pollution on asthma have the potential to influence public policies on pollution.

Docs Talk: Your lab has been studying the effects of air pollution on human lungs. Tell us a bit about what you've found so far.

Dr. Carlsten: We wanted to know why different people respond differently to air pollution, even within the same geographical area. Focused specifically on the lungs, we have followed a large group of people--both children and adults--and conducted observational and experimental studies to see how they react to air pollution, specifically diesel exhaust.

There are, in fact, several reasons behind the variation in response to air pollution, including human behavior (for example, whether a person exercises or not) and time spent in "microenvironments" where air pollution is much more concentrated. But the factor we're currently focused on is a person's genetic makeup. In short, certain people have gene variants that make them more likely to develop asthma when exposed to air pollution.

DT: How common are the gene variants that make us more susceptible to air pollution?

Dr. Carlsten: We studied over 5,000 children--a larger group than anyone has ever studied in this way--and found these gene variants in approximately 10 percent of children. The children with the gene variant had a 50 per cent increased risk of developing asthma. Children with both the gene variant and exposure to higher air pollution levels have an even higher risk of developing asthma.

DT: What are the implications of these findings?

Dr. Carlsten: Our research will add to a larger understanding of the effects of air pollution, which will ultimately contribute to public policy. These particular findings are very important because society, supported by government, has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable members from the effects of air pollution.

Historically, research has looked at populations on average rather than focusing on highly susceptible groups within those populations. Because these gene variants are relatively common, and because air pollution is nearly ubiquitious, our findings suggest that many thousands of children worldwide are at risk from this dangerous combination of gene variants and air pollution.

We believe that air pollution standards and related regulations should be made with some sensitivity towards those who are particularly affected by pollution, by no fault of their own.

A healthy environment should be a basic human right

2012-10-29T11:58:15Z

Dr. David R. Boyd is one of Canada's leading environmental lawyers. An adjunct professor in Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University and a recent Trudeau Scholar at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at UBC, he has advised many governments--from Canada to Sweden--on a range of environmental issues.

Boyd is currently advocating for amending the Canadian constitution to include the right to a healthy environment. His latest of six books, The Right to a Healthy Environment, revitalizing Canada's constitution, makes a strong and compelling case for it.

Docs Talk: What would a constitutional right to a healthy environment mean for Canadians? How could it change the way we live?

Dr. Boyd: A constitutional right to live in a healthy environment would have a transformative effect on Canada. Canadians would have a greater role in making decisions that affect the environment, our health and our communities. If governments and industries failed to respect our right to a healthy environment, we could hold them accountable. Over time, Canadians would breathe cleaner air, drink safer water, be exposed to fewer toxic chemicals, and enjoy healthier ecosystems.

If our constitution included the right to a healthy environment, there is no way our national rules would allow five times the level of sulphur dioxide in our air than is permitted under American rules. Canada would have to revisit the approval of hundreds of pesticides no longer used in Europe because of health and environmental concerns. And we'd have to make an urgent effort to deliver safe water to communities suffering under long-term boil water advisories.

DT: Ninety-five countries have already recognized this right. How are their citizens putting the right into action?

Dr. Boyd: The most extraordinary example comes from Argentina, where a public health worker named Beatriz Mendoza moved to a neighbourhood in Buenos Aires that the oil and gas industry had heavily polluted. When Mendoza's health began to suffer, she hired a lawyer and sued the federal, provincial and municipal governments as well as 44 companies for violating her constitutional right to a healthy environment.

The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which decided that Mendoza's right had been violated and required all levels of government to clean up the watershed, build infrastructure for drinking water and sewage treatment, implement environmental monitoring and address citizens' health problems. Since then, there has been remarkable progress in the area.

Another example: last year Chevron spilled oil off the coast of Brazil. They were immediately fined $28 million, roughly 10 times the total fines levied under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the 25 years since it was passed in 1988. Brazilian prosecutors are seeking billions of dollars in compensation for harm to the environment and jail sentences of up to 30 years for Chevron executives.

DT: Do countries with the right to a healthy environment actually have healthier environments and people?

Dr. Boyd: In general, these countries have smaller ecological footprints, rank higher on comparisons of environmental performance and have done a better job of addressing issues such as air pollution and climate change than countries like Canada whose constitutions lack this right. If you look at the environmental records of countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which includes most of the world's wealthy industrialized nations, you find 14 of the top 15 nations have constitutional provisions mandating environmental protection. Six of the seven countries with the worst environmental records lack constitutional protection for the environment.

DT: What is it going to take to convince our government to change the constitution?

Dr. Boyd: An amendment needs to gain the support of Parliament and seven out of 10 provinces in a three-year period. So while it will be a challenge to change the constitution, it's not impossible--especially since a recent poll found that nine out of 10 Canadians support protection of the right to a healthy environment.

It's also heartening to see how other countries have embraced such constitutional change. In France a few years ago, President Chirac demonstrated tremendous commitment in promoting a Charter for the Environment, and the people of France were overwhelmingly supportive. In Ecuador and Bolivia, Indigenous people played a key role in constitutional reforms that not only recognized the right to a healthy environment but also the rights of Nature.

DT: Can we also tackle environmental rights at provincial, territorial and municipal levels? How?

Dr. Boyd: Canadians should demand that their provincial, territorial and municipal governments enact environmental bills of rights or strengthen existing laws. Quebec is a leader in this regard, recognizing the right to a healthy environment in both its Environmental Quality Act and its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Ontario, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut also have laws recognizing this right, but these laws are weak and do not give citizens the tools needed to protect their rights. Montreal recently became the first Canadian city to recognize environmental rights and responsibilities.

The David Suzuki Foundation and Ecojustice Canada are working together to ensure every Canadian receives legal protection of their right to a healthy environment. Find out more.

Sharpen your memory with a simple walk in nature

2012-10-01T14:30:35Z

Currently a post-doctoral fellow at Baycrest's Rotman Research Institute in Toronto, Dr. Marc Berman is producing groundbreaking research on how spending time in nature affects the human brain. Here, he tells Docs Talk about his findings.

Docs Talk: You've been researching the effects of nature on memory and other cognitive skills, especially in people with major depression. What are some of your findings?

Dr. Berman: We found that a 50-minute walk in nature can improve memory and focus by about 20 per cent, while walking in a busy urban environment doesn't significantly improve memory. The effects were stronger in individuals diagnosed with major depression.

DT: Did you discover anything that particularly surprised you?  
Dr. Berman: One of the more surprising findings was that effects on memory were not driven by changes in mood. We had people walk at different times of the year; some walked in June when it was nice outside and others walked in January, when it was cold. The winter walkers didn't enjoy the walk as much as the summer walkers, but they still received the same memory benefits. So we may not even need to enjoy the walk to receive the benefits.

DT: What is it about the natural environment that has such profound effects on cognitive abilities like short-term memory? 
Dr. Berman: We believe that having "softly fascinating" stimulation to look at (such as trees, leaves and water), while not having to concentrate heavily allows a person to de-focus and self-reflect in a natural environment. Sitting in a dark room isn't restorative because it's boring, which is fatiguing even though it doesn't require heavy concentration. Watching television isn't restorative either, because the stimulation is harsh and requires concentration. Other environments, such as museums, could be restorative as well, but we find that the natural environment is one of the most effective at restoring cognitive abilities.

DT: What are the implications of your findings?
Dr. Berman: We have a long way to go, but there are a lot of potential implications. First, our results and those of other researchers suggest a mental/psychological benefit of interacting with nature, which is not typically discussed. Nature seems to have a three-pronged benefit: ecological, physical and psychological. Second, we and others have found that the benefits of nature extend to children with ADHD, older adults, people recovering from surgery and individuals diagnosed with breast cancer. This suggests that a single intervention can improve human health and wellbeing across the board. Our findings could impact how we design cities, schools, workplaces and hospitals, and how we treat many different kinds of illnesses.

DT: What's next for your research?
Dr. Berman:  First, we want to uncover the features of nature that lead to restorative experiences so we can design and retrofit existing parks and nature areas to optimize those experiences. Second, we want to use MRI technology to pinpoint the exact neural and physiological changes that accompany a restorative experience in nature.
And third, we'll examine how prolonged exposure to nature affects health and wellbeing at a population level, answering questions like, "do neighborhoods that have more tree canopy have healthier residents than neighborhoods that do not?" This will help us quantify the economic value of natural areas from a mental and physical health perspective, which we hope will lead to public policy and societal changes.

Healthy children need a healthy environment

2012-08-15T14:42:00Z

Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, is a clinician scientist at the Child & Family Research Institute, BC Children's Hospital and professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University. His primary research goal is to quantify and ultimately prevent disease and disability--like asthma, learning problems and ADHD--due to exposures to environmental contaminants such as lead, tobacco and pesticides. He is leading an effort to build an online Atlas of Environmental Health to enhance public understanding of how environmental influences impact human health.

Docs Talk: How can the environment affect children's health?

Dr. Lanphear: In myriad ways. If exposures to toxins occur at key developmental stages, they can result in spontaneous abortion, stunted growth, cancer, preterm birth, asthma or behavioural problems.

DT: How are impacts different for children than adults?

Dr. Lanphear: First, children's tissues are growing rapidly, and rapidly growing tissues are often more vulnerable to toxins. Second, children eat more food, drink more fluids and inhale more air than adults, pound for pound. Since our food, drinks and air are often contaminated, children get exposed to more toxins. Toddlers often put their hands and toys in their mouths, and as a result usually have higher concentrations of lead, cotinine (a breakdown product of nicotine) and pesticides in their blood and urine than non-smoking adults.

Young children also lack enzymes that help detoxify some chemicals. And they are more susceptible to diseases that take 20 to 30 years or more to develop simply because they will live longer than adults.

DT: Which environmental exposures concern you the most?

Dr. Lanphear: I don't like to pit one type of exposure against another, but toxins in consumer products are particularly worrisome because it's difficult to link exposures to diseases or disorders unless you conduct large and expensive studies.

It's also difficult to prove that an environmental contaminant is harmful because studies need to be replicated many times before government agencies deem them definitive. And while replicating a study is important, it delays our ability to protect children from environmental toxins by decades.

The real problem is that we have misplaced the burden of proof. Industry should be required to prove its products are safe before marketing them.

DT: Protecting children's health seems like a no-brainer. What are the barriers to reducing exposure to these contaminants?

Dr. Lanphear: We usually spend considerably more on medical services and research for adults. On the surface, this seems reasonable because death and disease are more prevalent among adults. But diseases usually have their roots in early childhood. Preventing them will involve long-term investments in reducing exposure to environmental hazards like unsafe consumer products, beginning in early childhood.

Some critics argue that investing in prevention isn't cost-effective. But the impact of environmental toxins on children's health--including learning problems, asthma, obesity and behavioural problems--costs about $50 billion annually in the U.S. alone. For every dollar we invest in protecting children from lead hazards, society would benefit by $17 to $220, a cost-benefit ratio that is better than vaccines for developing countries.

DT: Can you point to any success stories that show the results of promoting healthy environments for children?

Dr. Lanphear: There are several, and they all involved large-scale, population-wide interventions rather than lifestyle modifications. First, we've dramatically reduced instances of childhood lead poisoning over the past four decades. In the 1960s, hundreds of children died each year in large North American cities. In the past decade, only one child died. Blood lead levels in children have plummeted by more than 90 per cent.

Second, by banning smoking in public places, we've reduced rates of childhood asthma, low-birth-weight babies and preterm babies. These reductions were much greater than expected and show how small doses of toxins have substantial impacts on disease and disability.

And finally, the use of car seats, childproof medicine caps, fire alarms and other safety devices has dramatically reduced child deaths in the past three decades.

DT: What can parents and caregivers do to protect children from needless toxic exposures?

Dr. Lanphear: In the short term, families should try to eat fresh, unprocessed and organic foods. Parents shouldn't allow smoking in their households, and if they plan to renovate, they should make sure not to expose their children to lead, asbestos or other hazards. They should also avoid using fresheners, plastics and chemical cleaners in their homes.

The only real solution, however, is to change our regulatory framework and require industries to prove that their products aren't toxic.

Green pharmacies fill a prescription for planetary health

2012-07-11T13:30:42Z

(Credit: sean dreilinger via Flickr)

Marc-André Mailhot is a pharmacist in Montreal and the entrepreneur behind the company Maillon Vert. A passionate environmentalist, he has developed and is currently piloting a "green pharmacies" program. This initiative aims to help pharmacies reduce their environmental footprint, while taking care of their patients' health. Mr. Mailhot is also developing a "Guide for Sustainable Pharmacies" in partnership with SODER, a non-profit environmental organization in Montreal. Docs Talk asked him about these initiatives and for his point of view as a pharmacist on the connections between health and the environment.

Docs Talk: What is the connection between a pharmacist's work and the environment?

Mr. Mailhot: A pharmacist's mandate is public health. In fact, according to the Quebec code of pharmacist ethics, "The primary duty of pharmacists is to protect and promote the health and well-being of their patients." Now the World Health Organization indicates that, globally, about 25 per cent of the causes of death and disease are related to environmental factors. Pharmacies should be doing everything they can to protect the planet since, as we know, it is intimately related to health of the population. And I believe the best way for pharmacies to improve their impact is by integrating sustainability principles into their operations. Pharmacists have a collective responsibility to promote healthy management of their operations and services offered to the public through sustainable development. Pharmacists also have a role to play in raising patients' awareness of their own impact on the environment. Did you know that every year, Montreal alone dumps the equivalent of one tonne of antibiotics into the life-giving St. Lawrence River?

Docs Talk: What is a "green pharmacy"?

Mr. Mailhot: I use the term "green" because it's catchy, but the more appropriate term would be "sustainable". Sustainability appears complicated, but at the core, it is simple. It is a form of development that respects social, environmental and economic issues in order to satisfy the needs of current generations without interfering with those of future generations. We also keep in mind the three Ps: people, planet, profits. In the case of a pharmacy, we review its professional activities, community impact and environmental impact. We can then modify the services it offers, revise its use of supplies, energy, products sold, etc. However, we must also focus on social performance, the work conditions provided for employees, and community involvement. This may translate into simple actions such as installing bicycle racks or more complex ones such as committing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A more sustainable pharmacy is more effective for itself and for its patients.

Docs Talk: What motivated you to develop the "green pharmacies" program?

Mr. Mailhot: Since the beginning of my career, I have worked in over 150 pharmacies across Quebec. I realized that very few pharmacies demonstrate environmental leadership. The sustainability movement has never turned its cameras on neighbourhood pharmacies, which is fortunate, since the image projected would hardly be stellar. It's hard to claim that we are committed to public health when we don't recycle anything but our cardboard, we consistently give plastic bags to our clients, and we fail to demonstrate "green" leadership. And this is only the tip of the iceberg! In short, I find it disappointing that people who work in pharmacies are not more aware. Pharmacies have an excellent reputation and are trusted by the public, and they should demonstrate leading practices for sustainable development and become "model" businesses.

Docs Talk: How do you propose to help pharmacies improve their environmental performance?

Mr. Mailhot: A well-implemented sustainability program allows a business to increase its profitability while contributing to the well-being of the planet and its clientele. As in any sustainability program, we begin with a diagnostic of the pharmacy. Next, we can establish our objectives--where we want to go. The last step is to determine the "how"--and this is probably the step where pharmacies lack the most expertise. We go over ideas for sustainability initiatives and then we analyze feasibility, profitability and social and environmental impacts. Once we have this information, it becomes easy to prioritize and plan actions. Throughout the process, it's important to involve not only the owners but employees as well. This encourages them to take ownership of the project and feel motivated to take action when the time comes to implement the initiatives. I assist in all of these steps, with the help of my expertise, experience and network of partners. It is important to respect the pace set by the pharmacy--one step at a time, everything in its own time. In this way, I support the pharmacy from start to finish.

Docs Talk: What results do you hope to achieve?

Mr. Mailhot: Some pharmacies are already trendsetters in certain areas. I'm thinking, for example, of the Boivin, Bourget and Tremblay Pharmacy in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, which reported on its greenhouse gas emissions. But these are exceptions to the rule and we can go so much further--in all pharmacies! Ultimately, my objective is to ensure that all pharmacies fulfill their mandate by reducing their social and ecological footprint, while improving long-term profitability. I also hope to re-establish a more "professional and committed"--and less "mercantile"--image of pharmacies. A shift toward a more eco-responsible pharmacy can enhance the image of the pharmacy as well as mitigate the risk of the business fading away due to a lack of leadership. Professional and green, focused on the health of their patients and their planet, and beacons within their communities--this is how I envision the pharmacies of tomorrow.

Sinking your teeth into the topic of toxins

2012-06-26T13:00:42Z

(Credit: fMoya via Flickr)

Dan Kingsbury is a retired dentist in Roberts Creek, B.C., and a sustainable life and business coach. He is passionate about engaging youth in building healthy environments. He works with YesBC (Youth for Environmental Stewardship) and is the architect of the Jellyfish Project, a youth environmental stewardship initiative that offers sustainability learning resources for Grades 4 to 7, free high school sustainability shows with Mindil Beach Markets band, and "Urgency Concerts" to help non-profits fundraise. He also volunteers as a Suzuki Elder. Docs Talk asked Dr. Kingsbury to share a dentist's perspective on the problem of toxic chemicals in consumer products and how this relates to the larger sustainability challenge.

Docs Talk: What got you interested in the problem of toxic chemicals in consumer products?

Dr. Kingsbury: I have long been an advocate for the environment, but I had an aha moment while attending a dental conference seminar on toxicology. A speaker mentioned, in passing, that even Colgate toothpaste has toxic chemicals. That got my attention.

On reading the small print about Colgate's "advanced protection", I found, "12 hour Antibacterial Protection -- Triclosan 0.3%." I then looked up triclosan and found that it is a skin-permeable antibiotic, antifungal and antiviral that is suspected to interfere with hormone function (endocrine disruptor) and can irritate skin and eyes. Triclosan is also toxic to the aquatic environment where it remains for a long time, often forming chlorophenols, polychlorinated furans and dioxins that bioaccumulate and become both carcinogenic and toxic.

And it's not just in toothpaste. Triclosan is found in a wide range of home products, including garbage bags, toys and soothers, linens, mattresses, toilet fixtures, clothing, furniture fabric, paints, laundry detergents, mouthwashes, deodorant, facial tissues and cosmetics. The small amounts found in each product add up, particularly since the chemical doesn't degrade.

Docs Talk: Environment Canada has said that triclosan should be listed as a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but the government is not proposing any regulations to get it out of consumer products. What's your take on that?

Dr. Kingsbury: The Canadian Medical Association has called for a ban on antibacterial consumer products that may also contribute to antibiotic resistance, and the American Medical Association recommends avoiding triclosan entirely.

Triclosan is one of many toxic ingredients in the products we use on our bodies and in our homes. It turns out that there are 10,500 industrial chemicals used as cosmetic ingredients alone. Add to this information that women use an average of 12 and men an average of six personal-care products and you get an idea of how pervasive toxic chemicals are in our lives.

Docs Talk: What are your thoughts on how dentists can be part of the solution?

Dr. Kingsbury: As dental health practitioners we know the value of medical histories and the importance of understanding the overall health of our patients before focusing on the mouth. Every time we do a patient examination we are looking right past all those personal-care products that our patients are using, dozens of toxic chemicals. We look right past what they are wearing and eating. A recent study found more than 200 pollutants in the umbilical-cord blood of infants. Among them are pesticides, perfluorinated compounds, antibiotics and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We don't know much about the industrial ingredients that are being put into our bodies or how they accumulate to affect our overall health.

There is a need for deep transformation in our way of seeing, from how we assume we know health, from how we assume that our manufacturers would never do anything to harm our health, to how we are connected to the toxins in our environment. What is going on in our bodies is surely going on in our environment, and vice versa.

Docs Talk: What advice do you have for individual tooth-brushing Canadians?

Dr. Kingsbury: Brushing and flossing your teeth will keep them healthy. You should also be aware that manufacturers add ingredients to products like toothpaste that are unnecessary, toxic, carcinogenic and known to be environmentally damaging. Eighty per cent of the personal-care products considered in the David Suzuki Foundation's 2011 survey contained at least one ingredient in this category! It is critical that you read labels on toothpaste, deodorants, cosmetics and household cleansers carefully to see if they contain toxic and carcinogenic ingredients and those known to be persistent and detrimental to our environment. If you are brushing with toothpaste that contains toxins, imagine what that's doing to your body and imagine what it's doing to the environment when it goes down the drain.

It is up to you to take responsibility for what you ingest, the products you use on your body and the products you use in your household. You can send a message with your consumer choices that you prefer a healthier planet. After all, whether or not you brush regularly, you will never know overall good health while this planet is in peril. Dental health is important, but this is a priority for survival.