Living Well

How to Be a Ninja Label Reader

2010-05-08T00:37:45Z

Today, the average American comes into contact with over 120 chemicals every day through personal care products, cleaning products and the environment. Yet our government doesn’t require pre-market safety testing except for what the manufacturer provides. This information is often blatantly biased and has resulted in virtually no independent oversight.

Meanwhile, independent laboratories have disclosed serious health risks associated with many of the chemicals commonly used in the personal care industry. The debate is on in Congress as to how to address these concerns while still appeasing the powerful chemical lobby. Legislation is currently being proposed to address some aspects of this problem, but until we have strong regulation that requires pre-market testing to ensure safety of personal care products – one needs to be a Ninja label reader.

As a concerned parent or a health positive individual, you are likely already reading labels – but do you realize that terms like ‘natural, non-toxic, hypoallergenic, gentle or non-irritating’ are no guarantee of safety? Personal care products are allowed to label a product as ‘natural, non-toxic, gentle’ or even ‘organic’ while still containing carcinogenic agents, industrial detergents, hazardous dyes, artificial fragrances, petroleum derivatives and harmful preservatives.

In fact, many of the most dangerous chemicals will not even be listed among the ingredients. This is true when a chemical is used in processing, or if it results as a by-product of other chemical combinations in the product, or if it’s intrinsic to the packaging and ‘leaks’ into the product indirectly, like BPA. Some ingredients, like artificial fragrance, can contain over 600 chemicals, none of which are listed and many of which are known to be carcinogenic.

To sort through the forest of false advertising claims, I suggest avoiding the entire herd of mainstream, commercial brands. I have searched and searched and not found a single major commercial brand making product that I would consider safe. Once you’re in the ‘health food’ category of products, you can begin your practice of becoming a Ninja label reader.

While some advertising claims are based on facts, most are designed to reassure you and prevent you from reading the small print. In fact, many labels are so written that it is virtually impossible to read the small print and that is an automatic warning. A product that claims gentleness yet uses chemical solvents, is clearly going to be a pass. A product that claims to moisturize, yet uses a petroleum derivative, is not acceptable. Generally, you want to look for ingredients that you can easily recognize as being of natural origin. Then, if a product contains any of the following chemicals, it automatically gets put back on the shelf. To be a true Ninja shopper, the hard truth is that you must memorize this list. To be ultra safe, look for products that have certified organic ingredients. These products are likely to cost more, but you are assured that they are free of even traces of the petrochemicals used in most commercial agriculture. Every ounce of protection now will save a pound of problems later.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate & Sodium Laureth Sulfate

Most commonly used foaming ingredient in shampoos & toothpaste
Can cause damage to the immune system
Commonly contaminated with carcinogenic dioxane
Can cause permanent eye damage – without getting in eyes
Denatures skin oils – skin irritant with serious drying effect
Penetrates to systemic tissues such as heart, liver, brain

Methyl, Ethyl, Propyl or Butyl Paraben

Most widely used preservatives in Personal Care
Accumulates in the tissues of the body over time
Mimics the action of the female hormone estrogen
Detected in human breast tumors
May affect development of the male reproductive system

Imidazolidinyl Urea and Diazolidinyl Urea

The most commonly used preservatives after the parabens
Primary cause of contact dermatitis
Releases formaldehyde (see below)

Bisphenol (BPA)

Found in certain hard plastics and is released into any liquid that comes into contact with it.
An endocrine disruptor that mimics the body`s own hormones and can cause permanent reproductive harm.
Builds up in the body so that long term low dose exposure can induce chronic toxicity.

Nitrosamines

Used in synthetic rubber and are also released by certain preservatives used in cosmetics.
Has been linked to Alzheimer`s, Parkinson`s and Type 2 diabetes.
Is a known carcinogen, linked to bladder, brain and spinal cancers

2-bromo2 nitopropane 1,3 diol (also known as Bronopoll)

Preservative
Can break down into formaldehyde
Can form nitrosamines which are carcinogenic

Formaldehyde

Not listed on labels but released by the following preservatives:
2-bromo-2nitropropane-1,3-diol
Diazolidinyl urea
DMDM hydantoin
Imidazolidinyl urea
Quaternium 15.
Also found in:
Permanent press sheets
Mattress foams
Nail polish and hardener
Building materials
Known carcinogen and neurotoxic
Skin, eye and respiratory irritant
Can cause insomnia, coughing, headaches, skin rash, nose bleeds and nausea

Cocamide DEA Note that all of the following may contain DEA:

Cocamide MEA, DEA-Cetyl Phosphate, DEA Oleth-3 Phosphate, Lauramide DEA, Linoleamide MEA, Myristamide DEA, Oleamide DEA, Stearamide MEA, TEA-Lauryl Sulfate, Triethanolamine

Foaming agent
Clear evidence of carcinogenicity
Disrupts hormone balance
Causes yeast infections
Causes contact dermatitis and skin irritations – Dandruff
Produces cancer-causing nitrates and nitrosamines

Phthalates

Not listed on labels but present in many artificial colors and fragrances. Also present in PVC plastics – especially flexible pvc sometimes used in teething rings.
Known to be a hormone disrupter for both sexes
Associated with diminished fertility and genital birth defects
May have links to breast cancer

Petroleum Bi-products (Mineral Oil, Petrolatum)

Inexpensive oil substitute
Reduces the skin’s ability to eliminate toxins
Interferes with the body’s natural moisturizing system
Passes through liver & sequesters fat soluble vitamins
Known to be comedogenic – acne causing
Increases photosensitivity – promotes sun damage
Accelerates aging

Propylene and Ethylene & Polyethylene Glycol

Solvents, also a kind of alcohol
Many industrial uses including anti-freeze
Used in personal/baby care, hand sanitizers, toothpaste & cosmetics
Also used as a carrier for artificial fragrance
Can cause allergies, dermatitis, drying to skin
Reported to cause kidney and liver damage
Linked to throat & tongue cancer in mouthwash

PEG’s (Synthetic Polyethylene Glycol)

Powerful solvent – dissolves proteins
Accelerates aging
Potentially carcinogenic

Isopropyl, Ethyl, Cetyl or SD 40 Alcohols

Solvents
Severely drying to the skin
Changes Ph balance
Accelerates aging
Can cause headaches, flushing, dizziness, mental depression.

Artificial Colors – (FD&C Colors)

Made from coal tar and petroleum
Often contain impurities like lead acetate
Toxic to the nervous system.
Known allergens, irritants – some known carcinogens.

Artificial Fragrances

Made from coal tar and petroleum
Can involve as many as 600 separate chemicals, some of which are carcinogenic, such as methylene chloride
May contain or release formaldehyde
Can cause allergies, skin irritation, headaches and nausea
Musk fragrance, xylene, is hormone-disrupting
Can trigger asthma attacks

Triclosan

An antimicrobial agent used in many hand washes
Registered as a pesticide with EPA
Hormone disrupting agent
Produces chloroform when mixed with chlorinated water
Interferes with reproductive and sexual functions

Share or Bookmark this Article

Boomers Last Bounce

2010-04-29T22:26:19Z

There’s every indication that the 30 something generation will not have the opportunities, the prosperity, or the unstoppable confidence and optimism that the Boomers enjoyed. As they cross the threshold of 60, they may reluctantly downshift a notch, but they haven’t stopped their epic levels of consumption. It’s just shifted to consumption of health care, retirement homes and experiences that attempt to recapture their youth. Many are eagerly inventing third or fourth careers for their senior years as they bounce back from the setbacks of this recession. It’s hard to imagine a generation that pushed the envelope of change harder than the Boomers. They were the movers and shakers that changed the landscape of America – for better and for worse.

A few of the values that emerged with the Boomers were that:

Bigger is Better

We deserve……

Forever Young

These three ideas were entirely foreign to the World War 2 generation whose expectations were, by in large, modest and manageable. It’s as the Boomers began to exert their economic muscle that things started to radically change. ‘Bigger is Better’, was applied to homes, cars, food, entertainment, religion and pretty much everything. The average size of a home trebled, meals were super sized, waistlines doubled, huge vans and Hummers were required to stock our oversized homes from gigantic warehouses. What used to be known as greed and gluttony became “living the good life” and everyone wanted it.

This goes hand in hand with “We deserve…” The concept of entitlement grew up with the Boomers. Proud to be an American because we’re the best and we deserve the best. It sounds arrogant and it is, but I’ve heard it from both right wing and left wing, fundamentalists and atheists alike. To be American is to deserve what the rest of the world craves. For years now, Asian nations have served up cheap products to the American consumer while manufacturing jobs in this country were disappearing because they couldn’t compete. But, we demanded cheap goods and we got them – never counting the cost.

Americans also consume more energy and natural resources per capita than any other developed country in the world – by far. Salaries grew disproportionate to labor and we were happy to buy our dreams on credit. So different from the previous generation who were accustomed to hard work and saving. It was almost like the World War 2 era climbed the ladder and the Boomers got on the slide and slid onto easy street – never suspecting there was an end to the ride. But any serious review of the degradation of our planet’s resources and the dwindling supply of easy energy reveals that the next generation will have greatly reduce this mania of consumption.

Does this woman look 60?

‘Forever Young’ has become a mandate and an expectation among the Boomers. They propelled one fitness fad after another with a fierce determination not to be seen as ‘old’. Most women and a large percentage of men dye their hair, take supplements promising to preserve health, are obsessed with the best diet and exercise plan and head to the surgeon to correct unseemly droops or sags. Boomers dress younger than their parents and act younger than their parents, so it’s common to hear that 60 is the new 40 – and many Boomers are proving it. In the wake of this devastating recession, many boomers are choosing not to retire, but to merely regroup. But the longer the Boomers hog the stage, the harder it is for the next generation to get hold of the reins. If this economy is to recover, it will take some serious rethinking of the presumptions of the Boomers.

Bigger isn’t better and more families are being forced to down size radically to preserve what’s most important. We don’t deserve more than anyone else living on this planet by some cosmically ordained virtue. We are all God’s children and the privileges guaranteed by our constitution to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, are ones that all nations aspire towards. Forever young is simply delusional thinking and at some point, we all have to face the realities of aging and passing on our inheritance to our children. But what will that inheritance be? For many Boomers, wealth was acquired at any cost but, in the end, money can’t buy you love and one lesson from the 60’s that it pays to remember is that Love is all there is….

Share or Bookmark this Article

The Real Chemical Policy in America

2010-05-08T00:34:24Z

In 1976, the U.S. Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which granted our government the authority to evaluate and regulate industrial chemicals. Their stated mission was to limit the use of those chemicals proved to have a high hazard risk to human health or the environment. It was regarded as a great public health victory and the first such regulation of it’s kind.

But the TSCA came with an enormous loophole negotiated by the all-powerful chemical industry. Any chemical already on the market before 1979 was excluded from either screening or restriction. In effect, this clause ‘grandfathered in’ over 62,000 industrial chemicals, among which were thousands of highly toxic substances with evidence of being carcinogenic, neuro-toxic and unquestionably bad for the environment. Now, over thirty years later, 95 percent of all chemicals in circulation have never undergone any testing for toxicity or their impact on the environment.

It’s clear that the TSCA, has acted more to protect the profits of the chemical industry then the American public or the environment. Efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require testing of some 200 chemicals in response to public outcry, has only resulted in some slight degree of regulation on five chemicals.

Asbestos was determined to be a ‘known carcinogen’ by the EPA – Environmental Protection Agency, and they tried to severely restrict it’s use. But the chemical industry challenged the EPA’s ruling and a federal court supported their claim that asbestos didn’t meet the TSCA’s requirements. Those requirements included:

that the dangers of the chemical should exceed its perceived usefulness.
That the EPA heavily weigh the ‘costs to industry’ and any regulation should constitute the “least burdensome alternative” for eliminating the “unreasonable risk” of exposure.

With this wording in place, and the federal courts support of the TSCA contract, the EPA has been unable to ban a single chemical since that decision. A year later, asbestos was back in business.

Another little known slight of hand that the TSCA uses to get chemicals into production without testing, is the fact that exposure and toxicity testing is supposed to be done by the manufacturer themselves and delivered to the EPA for approval 90 days before it goes into the consumers hands. Theoretically, this data would enable the EPA to determine whether regulation is warranted before a chemical hits the market. But according to the EPA’s own figures, 85 percent of the data submitted contain no evaluation of public health impact whatsoever and toxicity reports are routinely inaccurate.

In fact, our real government policy regarding toxic industrial chemicals has been to support their promulgation and wide spread use without regard to their impact on human health or the environment. The inaction of both the TSCA and EPA have allowed a veritable epidemic of diseases and toxic pollution to explode in America. In recent years, scientific reviews independent of the chemical industry, show overwhelming data linking various chemicals to cancers, neurologic, reproductive, auto immune disease and developmental abnormalities.

It is time for a fundamental reform of these agencies.

However, overhaul is going to be hotly contested by the corporations linked to the chemical industry. They also have more leverage now then ever since the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can essentially contribute an unlimited amount to political campaigns to protect their ‘pro-business’ agenda.

Yet, there is a ray of hope in this battle. The European Union has been working on a new chemical regulation policy called REACH—Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals. REACH promises a radical change in how chemicals are evaluated, and how production decisions around the world will be made from now on.

Under REACH, all industrial chemicals will have to be registered, evaluated for toxicity and authorized before being permitted to remain in use. Toxins, which are known to cause cancer, alter genes and affect fertility, will be the first to be removed from the market unless producers are able to prove that they can be “adequately controlled.”

REACH also extends its influence to the consumer goods that utilize these chemicals; thus “downstream users,” from the building industry to cosmetics and car manufacturers, will be forced to find out and report what chemicals are in their products and what effects they have on human health and the environment. The plastics and petrochemical industry is likely to be very hard hit as many of their plastics have already been identified as toxic for both humans and the environment and their chemicals are in everything we use. If they want to continue to export their products into the E.U. market (which now exceeds the US market both in population and wealth) they will have to conform to a much higher standard.

Unfortunately, the flip side to the new regulations in Europe is that America will become the dumping ground for all the toxic products no longer allowed in the E.U. Like we exported our DDT to countries where it wasn’t regulated, our lax standards will make us the world’s premier market for toxic products.

The TSCA has successfully argued that the cost of finding alternatives to toxic chemicals is far too great a burden for their super rich industry to bear. However, the E.U. estimates that REACH would cost European chemical manufacturers a mere $4 billion over fourteen years, or less than 1% of their combined yearly revenue. The E.U. further calculated that these expenses would be repaid many times over by the resulting health benefits. According to E.U. estimates, compliance with REACH would prevent some 4,500 occupational cancers each year and reduce European health-care costs from ailments related to chemical exposure by $70 billion over the next thirty years.

Also, by giving consumers honest information about the health risks associated with various products, it has already begun to generate new research to produce safer chemicals. E.U. chemists have already come up with alternatives to some of the most toxic chemicals currently in use, and its environmental initiatives have spawned billions of dollars in green technology. Oh that Obama would live up to his promises and do likewise here and regenerate a vibrant and safe chemical industry with millions of new jobs that can grow into the next century. One can hope, and one can write to one’s Congressperson. It really is time for change.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Is Your Diet Destroying A Rainforest?

2010-04-07T17:30:35Z

Everything we do has an impact on our world and the progression of global warming. Some of it is quite direct, like whether we recycle, what kind of car we drive and whether we consume a diet that is plant based and locally grown or meat based and transported thousands of miles to reach us. But most of us have not yet started to think about whether our diet is encouraging rain forest destruction or are even fully aware why this is an important consideration.

For starters, the world’s rainforests function pretty much as the Earth’s lungs, only in reverse. They take in vast quantities of carbon dioxide (a poisonous gas largely responsible for global warming) and through photosynthesis, convert it into clean, breathable air. Scientists estimate that 10,000 years ago, the Earth was covered with 6 billion acres of tropical rainforests. By 1950, we had destroyed more than half of that birthright while human and mammal population and pollution exploded. In the 50’s, rainforest was being cleared at a rate of about 10 to 15 million acres per year.

Today we have less than 1.5 billion acres left, and the remaining rainforest is being destroyed at an estimated rate of 50 million acres per year. At the present rate of tropical deforestation, there will be no tropical rainforest left in just 30 years. However, since the rate of deforestation is actually increasing every year, that estimate may be frighteningly optimistic. In case you hadn’t considered it before, it’s pretty hard to survive on a planet without a breathable atmosphere. We are very near to causing our own extinction as we continue to be driven by motives of profit, greed and short sighted economic policy.

So, what can you do? Surprisingly, seven very common foods are a big part of the increased rate of destruction of this crucial resource. By boycotting these crops or products and demanding alternatives as a consumer, we can put some reins on the process of rainforest destruction. Products being grown or raised on clear cut rainforest include: beef, shrimp, rice, palm oil, soy, corn, and sugar cane. Rainforest is also being cleared for its timber, to exploit mineral resources and to make room for a rapidly expanding population, but the majority of the land is being used to produce these most lucrative products.

One of the biggest problems is that once cleared, the land is used to produce just one crop (mono culture) which depletes the soil of nutrients in just 1-3 years. Farmers are unable to afford expensive petroleum based fertilizers and are not educated to replenish their soil through compost and by planting diverse crops. It becomes cheaper for them to clear cut new land then to replenish the soil or plant other crops that aren’t as lucrative. This is a problem that could be easily solved by raising the cost of virgin rainforest or the governments helping to facilitate a transition to organic farming methods. Unfortunately, no one is interested – yet.

art by John Dyer

This strategy of using up resources and moving on is unfortunately the mentality that has brought us to the crisis we currently face. A few farmers have been using more intercropping and forest cover to grow shade-grown coffee, which helps to prevent deforestation and preserves biodiversity, but this strategy has not been adapted to these other crops. This change in coffee production occurred because activist campaigns in recent years were able to educate consumers who in turn, forced companies to produce more ‘sustainable’ products. We could do the same for these agricultural products by boycotting any coming from clear cut rainforest. Consider the following:

Beef

Beef is by far the largest contributor to deforestation, because forest is cleared for both the cattle and for their feed – soy and corn. In Brazil, the cattle industry has been growing at the rate of 3 million head per year since 1974. Much of the deforestation in the Amazon is being conducted illegally and despite efforts to contain it, the Amazon is actually losing forest cover faster than ever, largely due to the rising demand for beef.

Palm oil

Palm oil is one of the cheapest and therefore most ubiquitous oils used in everything from cake to bread to baby food and soap. It’s often only listed on labels as ‘vegetable oil’, so also avoid products that have that on their labels. Palm oil production is a major force in deforestation—destroying, old-growth trees which are crucial habitat for the endangered orangutan and Sumatran tiger. It is also one of the world’s largest sources of greenhouse gases. Palm oil plantations has made Indonesia the third-largest contributor to climate change.

Soy

Soy is used mainly as feed for chickens, cows, and pigs everywhere. Over 11 million hectares of South America have been deforested to produce that one crop to provide cattle feed to Europe and America. Much of this crop is genetically modified. By choosing organic soy products, you can be assured your soy is not rain forest produced.

Rice

When you think of Asia, you don’t think of forest, but of rice paddies, but most of those paddies were originally rain forest. Additionally, these fields are also the largest source of methane produced from human activity. Amazingly, rice fields emit between 50 and 100 million tons of methane per year, (think global warming) though that amount could be reduced with changes in farming methods. Buying CA grown organic rice, you can avoid rain forest destruction.

Shrimp

Commercial shrimp farms abound in coastal regions from southeast Asia to Africa, destroying an estimated 38 % of the world’s mangrove forests. These forests protect coastal regions from erosion and storm damage and serve as a natural space for spawning and hatching of various fish. Natural fish stocks are depleted in order to produce an inferior commercial product.

Corn

The U.S. subsidizes the ethanol industry which has driven the price of corn sky high. In the Amazon this financial incentive is driving deforestation at a fevered pace. The fact that any possible environmental benefit from using biofuel instead of fossil fuel is offset by the destruction of rainforest to produce it, doesn’t seem to be being considered in US policy.

Sugarcane

Like corn, sugarcane has expanded rapidly in the last few years to produce ethanol. Brazil has gained a reputation as the first sustainable biofuel economy yet the world’s largest rainforest is being systematically destroyed to produce it. The burning of the forests alone add more CO2 to the atmosphere than using ethanol is able to save. Another example of short sighted thinking.

It all comes down to the choices we make. We can make a difference and becoming aware of the impact of our choices is a first step. Pass this information on, and hopefully we’ll all breath a bit easier in the next 30 years.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Why Your Mother’s Skincare Won’t Work for You

2010-04-07T17:30:01Z

The short and simple answer to this question is that even a generation ago, women washed their faces with chemically harsh soaps and then slathered on a mineral oil based cream to moisturize. This combination of first stripping off all the natural oils of your skin and then replacing them with synthetic, petroleum based grease, is a guaranteed way to accelerate the aging of your skin.

When it comes to soaps, my mother used Ivory, which of all the mass produced commercial soaps has the least added chemicals, but it’s still very drying and caustic, especially when used on the face. A common ingredient in liquid soaps and shampoos is sodium lauryl or laureth sulfate. It comes in a multitude of forms, including sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate (used in Dove soap), but a sodium sulfate by any name is drying to skin, irritating to the eyes, potentially contaminated with cancer causing dioxane and carries the extraordinary ability to penetrate systemic tissues such as the heart, liver and brain. It is simply to be avoided at all costs.

Cocamidopropyl betaine is another sudsing agent used in some soaps advertised for their gentleness, but it has a 5 out of 10 rating for toxicity by Cosmetic Safety Database. It is a strong allergen with possible autoimmune toxicity and it can be contaminated with Nitrosamines which are known carcinogens. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to know if the product that I’m using to wash my face every day has been linked to causing cancer!

Moisturizing cleansing products like Pond’s Cold Cream were very popular for many years. Unfortunately, the first ingredient in Ponds is mineral oil, which coats the skin and makes it feel soft temporarily, but it’s long term effect is to dry and age your skin. Your mother may have washed her face with Noxema, or used it as a night time cream. Noxema isn’t petroleum based but it does contain propylene glycol and artificial fragrance. Propylene Glycol can cause skin irritation and sensitization in as low as a 2% concentration, while typical cosmetic products can have up to 50% concentration. According to the Cosmetic Safety Data base, propylene glycol is linked to throat & tongue cancer (from it’s concentration in mouthwash) is reported to cause kidney and liver damage, developmental/reproductive toxicity, allergies and immuno-toxicity. Just consider that this chemical is also used in the manufacture of paint and antifreeze and ask yourself if you still want to use it on your face.

Then, after you’ve cleansed your skin, you moisturize. Yet, the top commercial moisturizers, dating back to the 1950’s, are largely made from petroleum by products or mineral oil and parafin wax. This was a cost saving strategy for manufacturers because petroleum oil was cheap and vegetable oils much more expensive. But petroleum products are known to reduce the skin’s ability to eliminate toxins and so those toxins tend to build up and affect things like liver function. Those toxins also get trapped by the layer of impenetrable grease and can cause acne or skin irritation for some people.

Petroleum also interferes with the body’s natural moisturizer, sebum, in such a way that causes excessively dry skin. I find it curious that the very products sold to us to relieve dry skin, ensure that you will always need their product due to it’s long term drying effect. Petroleum or mineral oils also increases photosensitivity which increase sun damage. Petroleum based products pass through liver and sequester valuable fat soluble vitamins, such as A, D, E and K which are vital to our overall health and well being. And finally, petroleum based ingredients aren’t just in your mothers cold cream, they are in almost all cosmetics and even in many so called ‘moisturizing’ soaps. In fact, just read the labels of your favorite lotion, foundation, cleanser, lipstick or lip balm and see if you can identify the petroleum based ingredients.

Other ingredients used in most commercial skin care products are artificial fragrance and paraben preservatives. These two things alone should steer you away from most of your mother’s skin care products. Artificial fragrances are made from coal tar and petroleum and can contain as many as 600 separate chemicals, some of which are carcinogenic, such as methylene chloride – which you won’t see on the ingredient label. They may contain or release formaldehyde, a known carcinogen and neurotoxin, cause allergies, skin irritation, headaches and nausea. Musk fragrance, in particular, xylene, is hormone-disrupting and all artificial fragrances can trigger asthma attacks.

Parabens come in many forms including: Methyl, Ethyl, Propyl or Butyl Paraben. It’s the most widely used preservatives in personal care and it’s known to mimic the action of the female hormone estrogen. There’s evidence that it may affect development of the male reproductive system and it has been detected in breast cancer tumors. Like many of the toxic chemicals found in personal care products, it accumulates in the tissues of the body over time and it’s full impact on our health has not been adequately researched.

So, what to do? For starters, throw out all products with any of these ingredients. Do not give them to your worst enemy! Then, take a look at the Organic skin care offered by Fresh Organics. When you buy from Fresh Organics, you are assured that none of these toxic or even potentially toxic ingredients will be used. Plus, by choosing organic, you avoid the other hidden chemicals of pesticides, herbicides and petroleum fertilizers that remain in most vegetable based ingredients. Consider sharing some of this information with your mother – if she’s still using the products I’ve described.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution

2010-04-07T17:29:17Z

This new series is set in Huntington, West Virginia, where 50% of the population is obese and poor eating habits seem to be a badge of honor among it’s inhabitants. Jamie Oliver, well know British chef, attempts to get a local school to change their meal program to reflect a healthier standard. He is confronted with resistance, outright hatred, and overall, dismal results. The impishly charming Brit aims to shock and shock he does as we see children being served gooey, deep dish pizza for breakfast and sugar coated cereal topped with chocolate or strawberry flavored milk.

Their lunch menu is no better with items such as hamburgers, corn dogs, chicken nuggets and French fries as daily staples. In fact, meals are designed to be eaten with either hands or spoons and forks and knives aren’t even available for the children to use to cut and eat a meal of whole chicken, brown rice and vegetables that Jamie prepares for them.

The drama is captivating as tensions escalate between kitchen staff incensed that an outsider is usurping their authority and townspeople, most notably, a local radio personality, fuel the perception that this ‘foreigner’ is aiming to replace our way of life with a bunch of lettuce. What is astonishing to me is that the people portrayed seem to honestly believe that their diet is just fine and that the high rate of obesity and juvenile diabetes are entirely unrelated to their extraordinary caloric consumption

Jamie seems to fare no better in his attempts to get the kids on his side. The first graders seem unable to identify common vegetables such as potato, tomato, broccoli and eggplant in their unprocessed form. A graphic demonstration of how chicken nuggets are made using the most unsavory bits of the whole chicken and piles of unhealthy filler, fails utterly to dissuade the children from their favorite meal. And, in the end, is it really any surprise? If you’ve been given nothing but highly refined and processed food, saturated with fat, sugar, salt and artificial flavoring – brown rice is going to taste like, well, brown rice or slightly more palatable than small bits of cardboard.

Eating healthy is not something that can be mandated in a country where individual freedoms are cherished and staunchly defended. But the untold story is how we were first sold this diet by the corporations that profit obscenely from these processed and artificial meals. They know that a child is likely to continue to eat the foods he is raised on so getting schools to serve up their fare has been a brilliant tactic to create lifetime addicts to fast food. Americans didn’t eat this way 50 years ago and all the evidence abundantly shows we were healthier when we ate home cooked meals of whole foods.

The terms of the challenge Jamie Oliver is facing in this reality style documentary are similar to the challenges given characters in fairy tales to slay the fearsome dragon, rescue the princess and restore a missing treasure; only Jamie has to do it according to a 300 page manual of requirements, on a tight budget and in a couple of weeks. But if passion and belief in a cause can win in the end, one can only hope that this fairy tale will have a happy ending. America needs to listen to this wake up call before it is too late.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Safe Skincare for Babies

2010-03-28T21:49:33Z

Everyone knows that babies have the most deliciously soft, velveteen skin. But few people are aware of the structural and chemical reasons that make that same skin incredibly vulnerable. Like many organs of an infant, the skin is immature and fundamentally different from adult skin. Generally, it is much thinner (fewer layers of epithelial cells), pH unbalanced, less oily and has a much higher water content. Sweat glands are barely functioning and protection through sebum (naturally produced oils) is almost non-existent.

The vernix, or white waxy substance produced to protect the skin in utero should be left on and gently massaged in to provide some additional protection to environmental stresses. If a baby is post-mature, meaning, born after full term, the vernix may have already been absorbed. In this case, the skin may appear dry and patchy but it will actually shed off this patchiness within a few weeks and a more normal looking skin will appear beneath it.

All these factors translate into a very simple skincare regime for your newborn. Simply sponge bath with soft terrycloth and water – no soaps (except for the diaper area as needed), no lotions, no petroleum products, no baby powders. Keep them at a comfortable temperature, neither too hot or cool and avoid full immersion baths until after the umbilical cord stump has dried and fallen off.

I know how tempting it is to lavish all the products that have magically appeared in your life via baby showers and well meaning friends and relatives, but honestly, a newborn doesn’t need any of it. Once your baby is a couple months old, you can bath them with organic non-drying, non-chemical shampoo and wash such as Organic Baby Shampoo & Wash.

This is one case where it is critical to read labels because it is possible to have a baby wash labeled ‘all natural’ that contains harsh chemicals such as sodium lauryl or laureth sulfate. This chemical, so commonly used in personal care products, can cause damage to the immune system and is a skin irritant with serious drying effect. Most frighteningly, it penetrates to systemic tissues such as the heart, liver and brain and is commonly contaminated with dioxane, a dangerous carcinogen. It can also cause permanent eye damage – even without getting in the eyes. How this toxic chemical can be used as the primary cleaning agent in baby products that call themselves safe is a complete mystery to me. You would do well to throw away any products in your home that includes it or any of it’s chemical variants.

Another temptation to avoid is to lather your baby up with lotions and creams. Babies do not typically need lotions unless their skin is actually dry and then it should be applied modestly only to those areas. Whole body coverage with creams can block the skin’s function of exchanging gases and releasing other bodily wastes. Plus, most commercial baby lotions have petroleum in them which reduces the skin’s ability to eliminate toxins, interferes with the body’s natural moisturizing system, passes through liver & sequesters fat soluble vitamins and increases photosensitivity – promoting sun damage. Petroleum comes in many forms and any derivative of it is equally objectionable for baby’s skin.

If your baby’s skin does seems dry or chaffed, a small amount of an organic vegetable oil can be lightly massaged into that area. When your baby is a few months old, Organic Baby Lotion can be safely used after bathing. Organic is vitally important because of the pesticide and herbicide residue in any non-organic oils. Because a baby’s skin is so porous and thin, and their organs are not fully developed to process toxins, these pesticides are far more dangerous at this time and can have a major impact on their health. Commercial lotions or lotions simply labeled as ‘natural’ are likely to have chemicals in them that are toxic and should be avoided.

Talcum powders should never be used under any circumstances because talc is a known carcinogen. But corn starch based products (most certainly made with genetically modified corn) should also be avoided because the tiny particles of these powders can block baby’s airways and cause respiratory distress. Instead, try air bathing your baby to reduce the bacteria build up in the diaper area that can lead to diaper rash. But remember, baby’s have a hard time regulating their body temperature, so it’s important to monitor their temperature and minimize exposure to sudden temperature changes.

While your baby doesn’t need a lot of products for their first months, what they do need is lots of nurturing touch and massage. Massage and gentle stoking actually helps your baby’s nervous system and brain to develop. Sensory stimulation in the form of loving touch and your attention has been shown to have a significant effect in development of intelligence as well as immunity and overall well being. Babies that are touched and kept close to their parent’s body, develop much needed resistance to stress and seem to be happier and more well adjusted as adults.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Kids – Overfed but Undernourished

2010-03-18T18:15:29Z

Not all that long ago, few people were aware that there was any link between what we ate and our health. My family ate a pretty typical American diet which included meat, starches, over cooked or canned veggies and deserts. White bread and bologna sandwiches with processed cheese were typical lunch fare along with twinkies or chips and a candy bar. I drank soda and consumed endless sugary or fatty snacks. In fact, most of what we ate was highly processed, nutrient depleted and highly calorific. Both my parents became afflicted with obesity, diabetes and heart disease, yet their doctors never mentioned that there might be anything that they could do to control these conditions – particularly with diet.

Today, there is much more awareness about what a healthy diet should contain, but most American kids aren’t eating it. Obesity and diabetes have reached epidemic proportions and most alarmingly, these preventable conditions are affecting more and more children. According to a paper from the Journal of the American Medical Assn., dated Feb 18th of this year, the rate of chronic health conditions affecting children increased from 12.8% in 1994 to 26.6% in 2006. Latino and black youths and males were most affected largely due to poor diet and lack of access to health care. While some of this increase reflects behavioral and learning disorders, the rise in obesity was by far the most significant increase. So, why are our kids being over fed but undernourished?

This is a hard question to answer but I think it has to do with our increasingly fast passed lifestyle that is jammed with stimulus and demands. Lower and middle income families consume about 50% of their meals from fast food restaurants or eat prepackaged, highly processed, quick meals like hot dogs at the gas station or Chinese from the takeaway. This shift from eating whole foods prepared at home to highly processed fast food, eaten on the run, has had a huge impact on our health. Fast food factories have done a superb job of providing us with high energy, high taste, instant gratification and it’s no surprise that these kinds of foods quickly become addictive. In a society where we seem to be constantly rushing forward, food has been reduced to fuel and the quicker it can be consumed – the better.

The effect of this trend towards consuming more highly processed food is very dramatic in places like Japan and China where not long ago, most people ate a high fiber and vegetable rich diet. Now, along with affluence and I phones, obesity and chronic health disorders are proliferating, especially among the young. Portion sizes have also increased to such a degree that a single typical meal from a fast food restaurant provides more calories than our entire optimal daily allowance. While a cheeseburger, fries and extra large soda do provide proteins, fats and sugars, it’s not providing the range of nutrients that healthy brains and developing bodies need. Even a trip to the salad bar can be deceptive when you are adding high fat dressings on top of nutrient anemic iceberg lettuce.

Yesterday a mom told me that she tries to make healthy meals for her kids, but they absolutely refuse to eat them. I asked her what she did when they refused to eat their supper and she became uncomfortable. It turns out, she then allowed them to rummage the kitchen and eat a box of sugary cereal instead of the more balanced meal she’d prepared. Truth is, kids will always prefer sugary cereals if they’re available. The trick is to not stock your home with such food items in the first place. In various studies, it shows that babies do have an instinct to prefer whole and natural foods and given the choice, will eat a good variety of foods that provide our required nutrients. However, this instinct clearly can be lost after years of eating processed food.

But the good news is that childhood obesity and it’s related health problems are easily reversed when a parent takes charge and starts to provide both the food and the guidance that will help a child regain their health. But, it does mean taking control of your life, pulling on the reins against the mad rush forward to slow down. Eating healthy foods takes more time. More time to shop, more time to prepare, and hopefully more time to enjoy with your family along with conversation and emotional support. It’s not so hard when you realize that giving your child a foundation of health is one of the single most important things you can do for them. It’s all about our priorities.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Why Does Organic Cost More?

2010-03-17T22:08:25Z

By now most Americans have some appreciation that food grown organically is better for our health and better for our environment. But it’s often hard to measure quantifiably, how much more valuable it is when it comes to the cash register and a fixed budget for spending on food. I have often balked at prices that in some instances may be as much as 50% more than the same item commercially grown, but personal experience has convinced me that the chemical burden of non organic foods is a major factor affecting my families health and bad news for the long term viability of our planet.

Occasionally, I talk to someone who firmly believes that organic food is just another marketing scheme to get people to pay more for essentially the same things. These are mostly people who don’t consume organic food and probably never will. But there is enough research that shows that even a week of eating all organic foods drops the level of toxic pesticide residues in our blood stream radically. What all these foreign chemicals do to us is a subject that is still under study, but clearly, our bodies were not designed to consume these chemicals and we now know they have a profound effect, especially on babies and children. Organic production methods do cost more due to numerous factors, deciding whether it’s worth it to you and your family is a personal decision.

Reasons why organic costs more:

Organic farming is substantially more labor intensive. It relies on crop rotation, mixed planting, composting, biological pest control, and mechanical cultivation.
Organic farming is also more intelligence intensive. An organic farmer has to continually evaluate the needs of his soil and plants and cannot rely on simple, quick fix, chemical solutions.
Organic farming requires integrated land management which means that the same crops cannot be produced repeatedly on the same soil. Manure, essential for the production of adequate compost means that farmers must typically include livestock as an integrated part of their operation.
Organic farming is generally more suited to smaller scale operations with multiple and diverse crops and therefore cannot benefit from the economies available to large scale monoculture agribusiness or government subsidies.
Costs of Regulation. In 2002 the U.S. created the National Organic Program (NOP) It sets standards of practice and requirements which farmers have to meet in order to be approved as a USDA Organic Provider. It takes a minimum of 7 years of exclusively organic cultivation before a farmer can apply for certification and begin to recoup his higher costs. The application is complicated, expensive and requires an intimidating amount of record keeping. There is little funding available to help a small farmer make the transition to Organic cultivation.

Clearly there is a blatant disparity in the funding of “chemi-culture” versus organic agriculture. The majority of government farm subsidies originally developed to help small, depression era farmers survive, now go to large commercial farms, with average incomes in excess of $200,000 and a net worth of nearly $2 million. Approximately 90% of farm subsidies support production of only 5 crops (wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice) none of which are grown organically and most of which use genetically modified seed. These crops and their method of cultivation require larger amounts of water, an increasingly dear resource, and contaminate both land and ground water with nitrate runoff and toxic herbicides and pesticides. The cost to the environment is huge compared to the lower resource use of organic agriculture which remains virtually unsupported.

Additionally, these subsidies indirectly encourage poorer diets by reducing the real cost of corn syrup and cheap oils used in almost all highly processed foods. Making these relatively unhealthy foods so cheap leads to parents making choices that it’s cheaper to buy soda and processed snacks than the much healthier whole fruit or vegetables, which are not subsidized. Farm subsidies are a hotly contested issue with far reaching implications for our way of life and I don’t pretend to have any solutions, but it is a factor that definitely affects the cost of organic foods in America.

Originally designed to safeguard small farms, farm subsidies now promote over production of the most commercially advantageous crops. This overproduction brings down prices which are then balanced with expensive programs to restrict planting to bring prices back up to normal levels. This artificial deflation and inflation of prices comes with a heavy price for the American consumer who pays some $25 billion in taxes and another $12 billion in higher food prices annually for programs that distribute most of their benefits to an elite group of wealthy producers.

Because of the vast imbalance with subsidies given to large scale agribusiness only a tiny portion of available farm land is devoted to organic methods. According to Wikipedia, only 0.8 percent of total world farmland is under organic standards for cultivation. Surprisingly, much of that production is in China, the EU and Australia where organic farming is subsidized and the smallest percentage relative to arable land is in America. While this percentage has risen significantly in recent years, organic farmers are not a well represented lobby in Congress to further their interests. When you choose to buy organic products, you send a message to farmers and hopefully to our politicians, that this is something that consumers are willing to pay for and gradually, this should increase the number of American farmers willing to take the risk and make the investment to produce foods using recognized organic standards.

Share or Bookmark this Article

More Reasons To Choose Organic

2010-03-15T18:51:21Z

Most people believe that Organic foods are cleaner and perhaps better for us, but are they really worth the extra cost? In my previous article on Dangerous Fruits and Vegetables, I describe some of the health risks associated with pesticide exposure. Most of us don’t realize that foods today carry much higher levels of pesticide residue then ever before and that these toxic chemicals are in our air, our water and our bodies. They are stored in our fat cells and disrupt a variety of normal cellular functions. They can be passed from mother to fetus in utero and are even in mothers breast milk, unless she consumes an organic diet.

Too little research has been done on the cumulative effect of pesticide residue consumption and how these deadly chemicals may be linked to diseases such as cancer, diabetes and Parkinson’s. I’m especially concerned for our children, whose bodies are far more vulnerable to any kind of chemical contamination. Mothers exposed to pesticides while pregnant are more likely to suffer miscarriage. Birth deformities are more common in rural areas after intensive spraying. Still, it’s hard to appreciate the risk of maybe one day getting cancer when you are twenty years old and healthy, with buying apples that might be half the price of the organic ones.

I know that when money is tight, we all have to make compromises and yet, taking risks with our health is always a bad decision. Particularly, taking risks with the health of our children is a bad decision and that is why I believe it is so important to provide our babies with a diet that is as near to completely organic as we can get. If it were a choice of having a new bedroom set or fancy stroller for baby or eating organically throughout a pregnancy and for the first 3 years of that babies life – there’s no question which is the wiser investment.

If money were not a consideration, I would buy absolutely everything I consume or use in it’s most organic form. Not just because it’s a better choice for my health, but because it’s a better choice for the environment. Pesticides, herbicides and fungicides deplete soil and run off into our water supply and kill wildlife. When you choose organic products, you are supporting a small but growing movement away from petrochemical, industrial farming and back to a truly sustainable relationship with the earth. Organic farms are keeping alive varieties of plants that have been lost to the big business of monoculture. They may be the last barrier protecting us from a world of genetically modified, sterile and pesticide ready crops. But perhaps most importantly, organic farming is protecting our soil from erosion and rebuilding precious top soil upon which our lives all depend.

The following list is based on information and studies by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Consumer Reports, and the Environmental Working Group. These foods carry a high level of pesticide residue even after washing or peeling when that is possible. The good news is that choosing organic in just these foods can substantially reduce your families risk of pesticide related diseases.

* Beef, chicken and pork

* Dairy products: Milk, cheese and butter

* Strawberries, raspberries and cherries

* Apples and pears

* Tomatoes

* Spinach and salad greens

* Potatoes

* Stone fruits: Peaches, nectarines and apricots

* Grapes

* Celery

* Peppers (capsicums), green, yellow and red

* Coffee (also Fair Trade)

Here is a list of fruits and vegetables found to contain the least amount of pesticides. Notice that many of these have thick, inedible skins which protect the fruit.

* Asparagus

* Avocados

* Bananas

* Broccoli

* Cauliflower

* Corn (However, almost all corn is genetically modified)

* Kiwi

* Mangoes

* Onions

* Papaya

* Pineapples

* Sweet Peas

Other tips is to buy produce from your local farmers market. You may find farmers who are ‘almost’ organic but not yet certified and their prices may be better than you’d find elsewhere. Also, there are organic farmers who give very reasonable prices to customers who buy a box of whatever is ready to be harvested. This is an economical way to get your organic veggies and try foods that you may not be accustomed to.

Try to eat a wide variety of fruits and vegetables so you limit your exposure to chemicals associated with any one product. There are many stores that advertise now, bio-clean, or some label which indicates the food has been assessed to have a low pesticide residue – even though the food is not organic, it may be a better choice. Buy your organic choices in moderation and use them more sparingly to save money. And most importantly, plant your own organic vegetables. There are so many ways to have a patio garden of at least some salad vegetables that will feed your family well for a season. Whatever you can afford, consider it a down payment on your families health and well being when you choose organic.

Share or Bookmark this Article