Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

A study to be published in the February 2008 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives finds that children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet. The study is entitled “Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children” (Chensheng Lu, Dana B. Barr, Melanie A. Pearson, and Lance A. Waller) and includes authors from Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, and the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.According to the authors, “The objective of this article is to present the data of assessing young urban/suburban children’s longitudinal exposure to OP [organophosphate] pesticides in a group [of] young children participating in the Children Pesticide Exposure Study (CPES). The results from this study identify not only the predominant source of OP pesticide exposure but also the profile of exposures in children that are vital in formulating the strategies, both from the regulatory policy and personal behavior change perspectives, in reducing children’s exposures to OP pesticides.”

The study design included 23 children, male and female, from the Seattle area, ages 3-11 years who only consumed conventional diets and were recruited for a one-year study conducted in 2003-2004. Of the 23, 19 completed the study. Children switched to organic diets for five consecutive days in the summer and fall sampling seasons. The authors measured specific urinary metabolites for malathion, chlorpyrifos and other OP pesticides in urine samples collected twice daily for a period of 7, 12, or 15 consecutive days during each of the four seasons. According to the authors, “By substituting organic fresh fruits and vegetables for corresponding conventional food items, the median urinary metabolite concentrations were reduced to non-detected or close to non-detected levels for malathion and chlorpyrifos at the end of 5-day organic diet intervention period in both summer and fall seasons. We also observed a seasonal effect on the OP urinary metabolite concentrations, and this seasonality is correspondent to the consumption of fresh produce throughout the year.” And, “Considering the lack of residential use of OP pesticides among the families of CPES-WA children, consumption of conventional diets is likely to be the sole contributing factor to the seasonality effect of pesticide exposures.”

The authors point out that few studies evaluate the longitudinal exposure to pesticides that all children experience. According to the authors, “Most of the studies published in the literature have either targeted children living in agricultural environments or have used a cross-sectional design with spot sample collection.”

The authors raise concerns about inadequate attention being given by regulators to chronic low-level exposures to pesticides, such as those found in their study. They point out that, “Using spot biomarkers [one-time measurement of urinary metabolites] of OP pesticide exposure to examine the link between adverse health outcomes and cumulative OP pesticide exposure is obviously an inadequate approach.”

Corresponding author: Chensheng Lu, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30322, (404)727-2131, (404)727-8744 (fax), clu2@sph.emory.edu.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=275

The Commonwealth Fund, a non-profit foundation that funds research related to improving the U.S. healthcare system, recently reported that 75,000 to 101,000 deaths could have been prevented in the U.S. in 2002. The conclusion is based on the study Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The U.S. currently ranks at the bottom of 19 industrialized countries based on data measured between 2002-2003. According to study data, France ranked first in preventable deaths followed by Japan and Australia.

The Commonwealth Fund reports that “Even the more conservative estimate of 75,000 (preventable) deaths is almost twice the Institute of Medicine’s (lower) estimate of the number of deaths attributable to medical errors in the U.S. each year”.

The abysmal ranking of the U.S. points to “weaknesses in the nation’s health system that requires attention”. In reality, the number of preventable deaths in the U.S. each year is many times more than those reported by this study.

In his book Malignant Medicine, Joel M Kauffman, PhD (Organic Chemistry from MIT) writes that in 2000 the U.S. Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences issued a report authored by Barbara Stanfield, MD, MPH that found “over-medicalization from excessive testing and treatment, not medical error to blame” for poor international rankings and increasingly poor health of Americans.

According to Dr. Kauffman, the report listed the following statistics for annual preventable deaths:

* 7,000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals

* 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery

* 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals

* 80,000 deaths/year from infections contracted in hospitals

* 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of drugs

That totals 225,000 “premature deaths per year in the U.S.A. from medical care”. These figures are from data analyzed almost 8 years ago.

Since this data was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, pharmaceutical sales have significantly escalated. Pharmacy Times reports that between 2005 and 2006 “total drug sales increased by 8.3% from 2005, to $274.9 billion and prescriptions dispensed grew to 3.7 billion, an increase of 4.6%”.

These numbers are a stark illustration that the potential for “over-medication” is on the rise in the US. And that if this trend continues unchecked, the US rankings for preventable deaths compared to other industrialized nations will inexcusably remain in last place.

Worst of all, these preventable deaths are the deaths of loved ones and our own.

Sources:

About the Commonwealth Fund:
(http://www.commonwealthfund.org/aboutus/)

E.Nolte and C.M.McKee, Measuring the Health of nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis, Health Affairs, Jan/Feb 2008, 27(1):58-71

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Malignant Medicine, p. 278

Stanfield, B., (2000) Is US Health Really the Best in the World? Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(4):483-485

(http://www.pharmacytimes.com/issues/articles/2007-05_4629.asp)

About the author
Teri Lee Gruss, MS Human Nutrition

Kraft Foods Inc. uses a cream cheese byproduct to help power a New York plant. Sara Lee Corp. plans to run a New Mexico bakery using solar energy.

Al Gore’s campaign against global warming is turning up the heat on the food industry. After years of taking on the oil and coal companies, environmental organizations are scrutinizing the makers of Oreos and Jimmy Dean sausages, and that’s attracting the attention of consumers and investors.

Fearing retribution from environmentalists that could taint their brands, Kraft and Sara Lee are among companies responding by reducing the amount of energy and water they use.

“CEOs ignore this environmental movement at their own peril,” said Steve Hellem, executive director of the Global Environmental Management Initiative, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization whose members include Kraft and other large corporations.

“If a company is identified as environmentally irresponsible, it will hurt their reputation and brands. The food companies know they need to focus on this, but they are still trying to figure out what to do,” he said.

Sara Lee got the message after bombing in a recent ranking: New Hampshire-based advocacy group Climate Counts gave the Downers Grove foodmaker 2 out of 100 points for its reporting of green policies and efforts to reduce its impact on the environment.

Audra Karalius, Sara Lee’s vice-president in charge of environmental issues, said the score was the result of not providing information to the group. The company is working to improve its rating, she said.

“The food industry has never been under siege before about environmental issues,” she said. “But that is changing, and we have learned that if we don’t talk about it, people assume you aren’t doing it.”

Two weeks ago, Sara Lee added a section to its Web site detailing its commitment to environmentally friendly practices. In the next six months, Karalius said, the company plans to provide more specific information about water and energy usage.

She said Sara Lee is reconfiguring its distribution centers so it can shorten its truck routes and save more than 240,000 gallons of fuel in the coming year. The company also is looking at alternative energy: After studying windmills to power its New Mexico bakery, Sara Lee opted for solar panels.

Kraft reports on its Web site that it has decreased energy usage by 14 percent in the last five years. The Northfield company is powering about a third of a New York plant with methane gas created by adding bacteria to whey, a byproduct of cream cheese production.

It also has repackaged its Miracle Whip in plastic containers instead of glass, reducing the number of trucks needed for distribution, a spokeswoman said.

“There is definitely increased awareness around global warming with Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize,” she said. “Consumer awareness is definitely higher than it has ever been.”

At least 30 percent of shoppers look for environmentally friendly products and packages when selecting brands, according to a study released this month by Chicago-based market researcher Information Resources Inc.

Investors are taking notice, too. Some Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., have begun to review companies’ environmental policies as part of their investment research reports.

Boston-based consultant Ceres Inc. runs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a group of more than 60 institutional investors who manage a total of $4 trillion in assets. The network looks at how companies set environmental policies and deal with climate change.

Institutional investors “want to know how companies are positioning themselves around this risk,” said Andrea Moffat, a Ceres director.

These changes can be costly for food companies that have thin profit margins. Kraft and Sara Lee decline to comment on the cost of their green initiatives.

Publicly reporting energy and water use will become increasingly important for the companies as they compete for the environmentally conscious consumer, said Paul Dickinson, CEO of the Carbon Disclosure Project, a London-based non-profit whose Web site tracks corporate greenhouse gas emissions data.

“If you are part of the solution, you will make a lot of money,” he said. “And if you are part of the problem, you will go bust.”

©2008 by Crain Communications Inc.

Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9959.cfm

Nearly one out of ten of 200 beverage samples analyzed in a recent study by the EPA and FDA still had benzene levels above the U.S. EPA drinking water limit of 5 parts per billion (ppb).

Many manufacturers have reformulated their products to minimize or eliminate benzene. In these reformulated products, benzene levels were 1.1 ppb or less. About 71 percent of beverage samples contained less than 1 ppb.

Benzene can form in beverages that contain the preservative benzoate salt and ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Beverages were reformulated in the early 1990’s to avoid benzene formation, but it has recurred in recent years because new manufacturers were unaware of the problem and added vitamin C to drinks.
Sources:

• Science Daily January 7, 2008
• J Agric Food Chem December 12, 2007; 56 (2): 571–576

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Benzene is not something you want to be consuming as it has been linked to leukemia and other problems. It is usually found in pollutants such as car exhaust fumes. Ironically, the main reason it’s in soft drinks these days is because some manufacturers have added vitamin C to their beverages in an effort to make them seem more healthy.

Why are they still allowed to do this? Because about 15 years ago, when the problem first surfaced, the FDA decided to leave it up to the soft drink industry to determine the best way to lower benzene levels in soft drinks. So there are no regulations telling soda manufacturers not to add vitamin C to drinks with benzoate preservatives, and after a few years had passed and the problem was off the headlines for a while, vitamin C went right back in. So much for the government watchdogs who are supposed to be guarding our health from just this kind of problem.

Of course, the entire idea of adding vitamin C to a soft drink to make it “healthier” is ludicrous in the first place, even if doing so didn’t result in a cancer-causing toxic brew. It’s sort of like slapping a happy-face sticker on a toxic waste dump. Soft drinks, the leading source for calories in America, are loaded with high fructose corn syrup, and they increase your obesity risks by 60 percent. A bit of vitamin C is not going to fix that.

And diet soft drinks, despite what you may think, are no better for your weight, and usually contain health-harming artificial sweeteners as well. Without question, as bad as regular sugar-laden sodas are, they are far superior to the artificial sweeteners used in diet sodas.

Of course, asking whether diet or regular soft drinks are better is like asking whether you prefer getting hit in the head with a sledge hammer, a baseball bat or a golf club. None of the choices are good; it is all a matter of the lesser of two health evils.

One of the easiest things you can do to optimize your health is to replace soft and sugary sweet fruit drinks with clean fresh water. There just is simply NO excuse to be drinking soda, none, absolutely none.

www.mercola.com

Natural foods retailer Whole Foods has announced it will stop giving out plastic grocery bags by Earth Day due to the bags’ ubiquity and associated environmental problems. The company is opting instead for bagging customers’ groceries in 100 percent recycled paper bags and/or encouraging customers to bring their own reusable sacks. “More and more cities and countries are beginning to place serious restrictions on single-use plastic shopping bags since they don’t break down in our landfills, can harm nature by clogging waterways and endangering wildlife, and litter our roadsides,” said Whole Foods’ A.C. Gallo. The grocery chain estimates that the plastic-bag ban at all its 270 stores in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. will eliminate the use of about 100 million plastic sacks between Earth Day and the end of 2008. All together, Americans throw away about 100 billion plastic bags each year.

Source: www.grist.org

By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
Advanced Nutritional Concepts, LLC
www.russellblaylockmd.com

After 30 years of intensive research, much has been learned about how brain cells work and what goes wrong when disease arises. One of the great enigmas has been the connection between vaccinations and certain brain disorders such as:

• Autism
• ADD
• ADHD
• Gulf War Syndrome

More common neurodegenerative diseases (Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s dementia and ALS)

As we learned more and more about how brain cells should work, we discovered that often normal processes, such as metabolism, could result in the accumulation of powerful chemical byproducts, called free radicals, that have the capacity to destroy these cells.

Free radicals, basically, are very reactive particles that bounce all around the cell damaging everything they touch. Most originate during the process of metabolism but can also arise from toxin exposure, irradiation and toxic metals. Because they are so destructive, cells have a network of defenses designed to neutralize them. This antioxidant network is composed of numerous components that include vitamins, minerals and special chemicals called thiols (glutathione and alpha-lipoic acid).

What Causes the Free Radicals

The idea that free radicals play a major role in all of the conditions listed above is now proven–the big question is why are so many free radicals being generated? In the case of autism, ADD and ADHD many came to support the idea that mercury derived from vaccines was the source of the radicals. And it was known that mercury could cause free radicals to be generated in large numbers within the brain. Evidence connecting mercury to the autism spectrum disorders, neurodegeneration and the Gulf War Syndrome is strong, but not exclusive.

Interestingly, all of these diseases also share another common event–over activation of a portion of the immune system.

It is important to appreciate that only a certain part of the immune system is overactive, because other parts, such as cellular immunity, are actually diminished. In some instances, as with the childhood disorders, the problem is congenital and in others it develops as a result of many factors such as aging, toxin exposure, poor nutrition and excessive vaccination itself. Mercury can impair immune function as well.

How Vaccines are Made

Basically, vaccines contain either killed viruses or bacteria, germ components, toxic extracts or live organisms that have been made less virulent–a process called attenuation. To stimulate an enhanced immune reaction against these organisms, manufacturers added powerful immune-stimulating substances such as squalene, aluminum, lipopolysacchride, etc. These are called immune adjuvants.

The process of vaccination usually required repeated injections of the vaccine over a set period of time. The combination of adjuvants plus the intended organism triggers an immune response by the body, similar to that occurring with natural infections, except for one major difference. Almost none of these diseases enter the body by injection. Most enter by way of the mucous membranes of the nose, mouth, pulmonary passages or GI tract. For example, polio is known to enter via the GI tract. The membranes lining these passages contain a different immune system than activated by direct injection. This system is called the IgA immune system.

It is the first line of defense and helps reduce the need for intense activation of the body’s immune system. Often, the IgA system can completely head off an attack. The point being that injecting organisms to induce immunity is abnormal.

Because more and more reports are appearing citing vaccine failure, their manufacturers’ answer is to make the vaccines more potent. They do this by making the immune adjuvants more powerful or adding more of them. The problem with this approach is that in the very young, the nutritionally deficient and the aged, over-stimulating the immune system can have an opposite effect–it can paralyze the immune system.

This is especially prevalent with nutritional deficiency.

An early attempt to vaccinate Africans met with disaster when it was discovered that many were dying following vaccination. The problem was traced to widespread vitamin A deficiency among the tribes. Once the malnutrition was corrected, death rates fell precipitously.

Another problem we see with modern vaccines is that the immune stimulation continues over a prolonged period of time.

This is because of the immune adjuvants. They remain in the tissues, constantly stimulating immune-activating cells. With most natural infections the immune activation occurs rapidly, and once the infection is under control, it drops precipitously. This, as we shall see, is to prevent excessive damage to normal cells in the body.

What Happens to the Brain With Vaccination?

It seems the brain is always neglected when pharmacologists consider side effects of various drugs. The same is true for vaccinations. For a long time no one considered the effect of repeated vaccinations on the brain.

This was based on a mistaken conclusion that the brain was protected from immune activation by its special protective gateway called the blood-brain barrier. More recent studies have shown that immune cells can enter the brain directly, and more importantly, the brain’s own special immune system can be activated by vaccination.

You see, the brain has a special immune system that operates through a unique type of cell called a microglia.

These tiny cells are scattered throughout the brain, lying dormant waiting to be activated. In fact, they are activated by many stimuli and are quite easy to activate. For our discussion, activation of the body’s immune system by vaccination is a most important stimuli for activation of brain microglia.

Numerous studies have shown that when the body’s immune system is activated, the brain’s immune cells are likewise activated. This occurs by several pathways, not important to this discussion. The more powerfully the body’s immune system is stimulated the more intense is the brain’s reaction. Prolonged activation of the body’s immune system likewise produces prolonged activation of the brain’s immune system.

Therein lies the danger of our present vaccine policy.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice have both endorsed a growing list of vaccines for children, even newborns, as well as yearly flu shots for both children and adults. Children are receiving as many as 22 inoculations before attending school.

What Happens When the Brain’s Immune System is Activated?

The brain’s immune system cells, once activated, begin to move about the nervous system, secreting numerous immune chemicals (called cytokines and chemokines) and pouring out an enormous amount of free radicals in an effort to kill invading organisms. The problem is–there are no invading organisms. It has been tricked by the vaccine into believing there are.

Unlike the body’s immune system, the microglia also secrete two other chemicals that are very destructive of brain cells and their connecting processes. These chemicals, glutamate and quinolinic acid, are called excitotoxins. They also dramatically increase free radical generation in the brain. Studies of patients have shown that levels of these two excitotoxins can rise to very dangerous levels in the brain following viral and bacterial infections of the brain. High quinolinic acid levels in the brain are thought to be the cause of the dementia seen with HIV infection.

The problem with our present vaccine policy is that so many vaccines are being given so close together and over such a long period that the brain’s immune system is constantly activated. This has been shown experimentally in numerous studies. This means that the brain will be exposed to large amounts of the excitotoxins as well as the immune cytokines over the same period.

Studies on all of these disorders, even in autism, have shown high levels of immune cytokines and excitotoxins in the nervous system. These destructive chemicals, as well as the free radicals they generate, are diffused throughout the nervous system doing damage, a process called bystander injury. It’s sort of like throwing a bomb in a crowd.

Not only will some be killed directly by the blast but those far out into the radius of the explosion will be killed by shrapnel.

Normally, the brain’s immune system, like the body’s, activates quickly and then promptly shuts off to minimize the bystander damage. Vaccination won’t let the microglia shut down. In the developing brain, this can lead to language problems, behavioral dysfunction and even dementia.

In the adult, it can lead to the Gulf War Syndrome or one of the more common neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s dementia or Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS).

A recent study by the world-renowned immunologist Dr. H. Hugh Fudenberg found that adults vaccinated yearly for five years in a row with the flu vaccine had a 10-fold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. He attributes this to the mercury and aluminum in the vaccine. Interestingly, both of these metals have been shown to activate microglia and increase excitotoxicity in the brain.

Direct Effect of the Cytokines

Various cytokines have been used to treat cancer patients as well as other common diseases.

Studies of the effects of these cytokines on brain function reveal some very close parallels to the diseases we have been discussing. For a more in-depth study of these effects I suggest you read my article appearing in the Journal of the American Nutriceutical Association (volume 6 [fall], Number 4, 2003, pp 21-35) and in the summer issue 2004 of the Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.

One can see:

• Confusion
• Language difficulties
• Disorientation
• Seizures
• Memory problems
• Somnolence
• Low-grade fevers
• Irritability
• Mood alterations
• Combativeness
• Difficulty concentrating
• A host of other behavioral problems

In the child, brain immune over-activation has been shown to be particularly damaging to the amygdala and other limbic structures of the brain. This can lead to unusual syndromes such as the loss of “theory of mind” and ” Alice in Wonderland syndrome.” It has also been shown to damage the executive functions of the frontal lobes.

In essence, what is lost is that which makes us social human beings, able to function in a complex world of ideas and interactions.

Several studies have indeed shown elevated levels of cytokines in autistic children. It is also interesting to note that these cytokines, especially interleukin-1ß and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) dramatically increase the damage produced by excitotoxins. So, what we see is a viscous cycle of immune activation, excitotoxin and cytokine excretion, and free radical production. The latter starts the cycle all over again.

The Role of Autoimmunity and Viral Persistence

Studies in autistic children have shown that a state of immune attack on the brain is occurring. Similar findings are seen with neurodegenerative diseases and the Gulf War Syndrome. It must be appreciated that this autoimmunity was triggered by the vaccinations and by organisms contaminating the vaccinations. Once started, the immune reaction cannot stop, thus triggering all the destructive reactions I have discussed.

Dr. Garth Nicolson has shown a direct connection between mycoplasma contamination of vaccines and the 200 percent increased incidence of ALS in Gulf War veterans. The disorder is produced by the same mechanism described above.

Another, even more common, problem is the use of live viruses in vaccines. The reason live viruses can be used is that they are weakened by passing them through a series of cultures–a process called attenuation. These attenuated, non-disease-causing viruses are then injected in hopes of stimulating the body to produce an immune attack.

The problem with this idea is two-fold.

First, we now know that in far too many cases these viruses escape the immune system and take up residence in the body–for a lifetime. A recent autopsy study of elderly individuals found that 20 percent of the brains contained live measles viruses and 45 percent of the other organs contained live measles viruses. Similar findings have been described in autistic children and the measles virus is identical genetically to the one used in the vaccine.

The second problem is that most of these viruses were found to be highly mutated. In fact, different mutations were found among viruses in various organs in the same individual.

This has been a secret kept from the public.

These attenuated viruses undergo mutation brought on by the presence of free radicals in the tissues and organs and they can mutate into virulent, disease-causing organisms. Recent studies have confirmed this frightening finding. In fact, a large percentage of Alzheimer’s disease patients have live viruses in their brain as compared to normal individuals.

Once these live viruses are injected, they cannot be removed. Because the viruses stay in the body, they will be under constant free radical exposure, which can increase during times of stress, illness, exercise and with aging. It is the free radicals that cause the virus to mutate.

In essence, the viruses can exist in the brain, or any organ, either silently and slowly producing destruction of the brain or spinal cord or producing sudden disease once the virus mutates to a highly lethal form.

Conclusions

We have seen that the policy of giving numerous vaccinations to individuals, especially infants and small children, is shear idiocy.

A considerable number of studies have shown conclusively that such a practice can lead to severe injury to the brain by numerous mechanisms. Because the child’s brain is undergoing a period of rapid growth from the third trimester of pregnancy until age 2 years, his or her brain is at considerable risk from this insane policy.

We have also seen that live-virus vaccines and contaminated vaccines hold a special risk in that the viruses tend to persist in a substantial number of individuals and that free radicals can cause the latent viruses to transform by genetic mutation into disease-causing organisms later in life.

It is vital that anyone scheduled for vaccination follow a schedule that allows no more than one vaccine every six months, allowing the immune system time to recover.

Live-virus vaccines should be avoided.

This was recently illustrated by the switch from the live polio vaccine to the killed virus. All cases of polio after the introduction of the vaccine, in the developed world, came from the vaccine itself. This was known from the beginning.

Finally, it is vital that anyone undergoing vaccination should start nutritional supplementation and adhere to a healthy diet before vaccination occurs. Vaccine complications are far fewer in individuals with good nutrition.

By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
Advanced Nutritional Concepts, LLC
www.russellblaylockmd.com

Source: www.mercola.com

Increasing numbers of women and men are trashing their conventional, chemical-laden cosmetics and personal care products in favor of more natural, organic varieties.

Sales of organic personal care items reached $350 million in 2007, increasing 24 percent from 2005. Sales among the top three natural personal care brands — Burt’s Bees, Jason Natural Cosmetics and Tom’s of Maine — brought in $155 million alone.

But are organic and natural cosmetics any better than the others? Maybe, and maybe not.

Cosmetics and their ingredients do not have to undergo any type of government approval before hitting store shelves, and the terms “natural” and “organic” have no definitions. In other words, when it comes to cosmetics labeling, it’s a free for all.

Some products may include a few organic ingredients, for instance, along with several chemical ones — and still claim to be natural or organic on the label.

Reading labels carefully can be an effective way to sort out which products are truly natural. Researchers recommend watching out for, and avoiding, at least the following three ingredients in your cosmetics:

• Parabens, preservatives that have been linked to cancer
• Phthalates, chemicals used in fragrances that are harmful to your reproductive system
• Talc, which has been linked to ovarian cancer

Sources: Florida Today January 3, 2008

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Many of you reading this probably realized long ago that the majority of personal care products sold in the United States are actually chemical cocktails that have no business being on your skin, hair or nails.

What you may not know is that some products that claim to be “organic” or “natural” may not be any better. I find this disturbing, don’t you?

Take a look under your bathroom sink or wherever you keep your toiletries. Now think about this: none of those products had to undergo any type of testing before they reached you. The companies that make the products are pretty much left to police themselves, and the end results are products that use the cheapest materials possible, at any cost to your health. Do you trust the marketing claims of these “natural” products?

For instance, Alba Body Lotion, a “natural” body product, contains ingredients such as octyl methoxycinnamate, benzophenone-3, and methyl/propylparaben. The EPA has linked methyl parabens to metabolic, developmental, hormonal, and neurological disorders, as well as various cancers.

Here is a list of chemicals that are common in personal care products from shampoo and lotions to mascara and perfumes:

• Paraben, a chemical found in underarm deodorants and other cosmetics that has been shown to mimic the action of the female hormone estrogen, which can drive the growth of human breast tumors.

• Phthalates, plasticizing ingredients (present in nearly three-quarters of 72 products tested by the Environmental Working Group), which have been linked to birth defects in the reproductive system of boys and lower sperm-motility in adult men, among other problems.

• Musks, used as fragrances, can accumulate in your body, and have been linked to skin irritation, hormone disruption, and cancer in laboratory studies.

• Artificial fragrances, which are among the top five known allergens, and can cause asthma and trigger asthma attacks.

• Methylisothiazolinone (MIT), a chemical used in shampoo to prevent bacteria from developing, which may have detrimental effects on your nervous system.

• Lead, a known toxin, was found in more than half (61 percent) of 33 name-brand lipsticks tested in September 2007.

So when you slather on lotion, apply lipstick or lather up your hair with shampoo, what do you think happens to the chemicals in the products? They get absorbed directly into your body. It is well-proven that when you apply these chemicals to your skin, they enter your bloodstream and become integrated into your body tissues, In fact, it is probably safer to eat these ingredients than to rub them on your skin (although I strongly recommend you don’t do either!).

If You Wouldn’t Eat it, Don’t Put it on Your Body

Would you take a taste of your mascara or shaving cream? Probably not. However, if you do happen to eat these chemicals, your digestive system can produce specific enzymes to break down these toxins and excrete them … something that doesn’t readily occur when you absorb them through your skin.

In general, you need to seek out personal care products that are so pure you could actually eat them. Coconut oil is a great example here, as it makes a great moisturizer that you can also eat. Olive oil is another one that you can use to deep condition your hair.

Additionally, I am proud to report that my team has been researching this topic extensively and we are getting very close to launching one of the best, most pure skin care product lines out there. It is truly effective, has absolutely no synthetic ingredients, and is packaged in brown glass bottles.

Until then, I suggest you scrutinize the labels on your personal care products and cosmetics just as closely as you do your food. If you’re not sure what an ingredient is, type it into the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database, and you’ll get all the information you need about whether or not it’s safe.

And remember, if you wouldn’t eat it, don’t use it.

source: www.mercola.com

The second circuit federal appellate court on Thursday will hear a challenge to an EPA rule that allows people to be used as guinea pigs in tests of toxic pesticides. The lawsuit, NRDC V. EPA, was brought before the court by a coalition of environmental, farmworker and health groups in 2006. The groups contend that the agency’s human testing rule violates a law passed by Congress in 2005 mandating strict ethical and scientific protections for pesticide testing on humans. At the time, the House Committee on Government Reform found “the actual experiments being considered by EPA are deeply flawed and rife with ethical violations.”

“Testing poisons on people is unethical and against the law,” said Shelley Davis, Beyond Pesticides board member and deputy director of Farmworker Justice, a national advocacy and education center for migrant and seasonal farmworkers, based in Washington, D.C. “The EPA should stop accepting these industry funded tests.”

Previous human testing by industry produced serious ethical and scientific problems including one instance in which a company told participants they were eating vitamins, not toxic pesticides. In other instances citied in the lawsuit, researchers ignored the adverse health effects reported by the participants.

“The only people who get what they want out of these immoral tests are the chemical companies,” said Aaron Colangelo, a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior attorney representing the petitioners. “Their testing methods are questionable at best, the only purpose they serve is to weaken pesticide safety standards, and ultimately the people who grow and harvest our food suffer the consequences. This practice must end.”

In 2005, Congress passed a law strictly forbidding the use of pregnant women and minors in pesticide tests. A loophole in the new EPA rule will allow testing of pregnant women, infants and children. Low-income people and students are the most likely to participate in these dangerous experiments, for which they usually receive a few hundred dollars. However, participants injured in the studies are not guaranteed medical care outside of the testing period.

The groups contend the EPA rule violates international ethical standards enumerated in the 1947 Nuremburg Code by permitting the EPA to set safety standards based on tests conducted with only a handful of healthy people. In most tests, participants are not representative of the U.S. population, the test period is scientifically problematic, and group size is not large enough to detect potential harmful health effects.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of NRDC, Pesticide Action Network North America, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, Pineros y Campesinos del Noreste, and Migrant Clinicians Network. Attorneys for the petitioners are NRDC, Farmworker Justice and Earthjustice.

Human testing, which was stopped by a moratorium in 1998, was reintroduced in 2003 by a court ruling on a pesticide industry suit. Following the reintroduction of human studies, EPA began to develop a rule for such testing. This came despite flaws found in such studies, and took into account industry pressure to approve testing in children, among other allowances.EPA released its final rule in 2006, despite the Congressional report decrying human testing in 2005. At the time, committee member Rep. Henry Waxman stated, “What we’ve found is that the human pesticide experiments that the Bush Administration intends to use to set federal pesticide policies are rife with ethical and scientific defects.”Beyond Pesticides rejects human testing as unethical and dangerous to both test participants and agricultural workers exposed to toxic, approved pesticides. For more information on the timeline of human testing regulation, click here. For more information on the lawsuit, view the Petitioners’ brief and Reply brief.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=267

Although the biotech industry and our indentured corporate mass media would have us believe that recent scientific advances in food and farming are derived from genetic engineering and chemicals, according to UK-based GM Watch, the real breakthroughs in farming in 2007 came from organic and sustainable agriculture:

1) In 2007 a deluge of new scientific studies from a wide variety of institutions indicate that in comparison to genetically modified (GM) crops, organic agriculture can better feed the world, reduce global warming, provide greater nutrition, and boost the economy. Digesting new research on the topic, the United Nations announced that organic agriculture is the best way to feed the world and help stabilize the climate.

2) A wide range of new, non-GM crops over the last year are bringing hope to farmers around the world. Some of these include:
- A wheat variety that can withstand high salinity in soil, thereby opening up vast tracks of land previously considered “dead”.
- Non-GM corn and rice varieties that can tolerate droughts.
- Indian farmers find traditional cotton varieties to be much more stress-resistant than GM cotton.
- Iron fortified non-GMO maize strain reduces anemia rates in children.
-Discovery of non-GM variety of allergen-free peanut.

Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9572.cfm

Being happy is really a choice we make. The secret of Happiness is simple, very simple - what is it?

You decide if you want to be happy!

We all strive for happiness in life. Like many, you probably think achievements such as education, marriage, family and social/financial status make you happy.

However, studies of happiness in several countries have found that these achievements have little to do with your happiness. For millions of people, happiness has remained a rather elusive goal. They’ve tried to buy happiness.

They’ve sought it through materialistic and pleasurable activities such as buying a new SUV or going on vacation. But nothing has seemed to work. For most people these changes, new possessions or temporary pleasures, might work for a while but will eventually become part of your status quo, and their power to deliver happiness will fade.

Researchers now strongly believe that your brains is hard-wired in ways that, at least to some degree, determine just how happy you’re going to be. Some psychologists believe happiness is genetic. Other scientists say they may have located an important area of the brain where happiness is generated. As powerful as these genetic predispositions may be, happiness is still partly within your control, says David Myers, PhD, the John Dirk Werkman Professor of Psychology at Hope College in Holland, Mich. “It’s rather like our cholesterol level — genetically influenced, yet also influenced by our habits and attitudes.”

While these ideas are debated, you don’t have to wait to begin discovering happiness within yourself. You see happiness comes from your social relationships, enjoyable work, fulfillment, high self-esteem, a sense that your life has meaning, and joining civic and other groups.

Your life is sprinkled with ample opportunities for discovering happiness. Search for the small things that give you a little laugh or a smile. Take time to be with your family and friends. In the long run, these are the treasures that will enhance your happiness, not some grand achievements that only give you a lift for a short while.

One way to steer your life toward happiness is simply to count your blessings. Happy people know that they don’t get to be happy all the time. They can appreciate brief moments, little victories, small miracles, and the personal interactions that bring real happiness.

Research has proven that happy people live longer, are healthier, are more successful, enjoy more fulfilling relationships, earn more money, and are liked and respected more.

What is Happiness and How Do You Achieve It?

Happiness seems to be a selfish goal. Happiness doesn’t depend upon who you are or what you have; it depends solely upon what you think. So start each day by thinking of all the things you have to be thankful for. Your future depends very largely on the thoughts you think today. So think positive thoughts of hope, confidence, love and success. You can be happy if you are a productive and useful member of society, share with others and help unselfishly.

Most experts agree that there are no shortcuts to happiness. Even the happy people do not experience joy twenty-four hours a day. A happy person can have a bad day but still experience pleasure in the small things in life. If you’re not feeling happy today, fake it. In experiments, people who were manipulated to smile actually felt happier.

Don’t postpone happiness until you reach a certain goal, like getting a promotion or pay raise to go on vacation. Studies show that these effects are short-lived. Don’t focus on negative thoughts; balance that by consciously spending a few minutes every day thinking about the good things in your life. Like eating a balanced meal or getting enough rest, practice this everyday and, each day, try to extend the time you spend on positive thoughts.

Everybody has their own characteristics that lead them in different directions towards happiness. Perhaps, at best, these discussions are useful to provoke thoughts and reactions, which might help you to focus on what can be done to make your own life consistently happy.

Again, there is no rule or special formula that can make a person constantly happy. Instead, happiness comes from developing positive social relationships, enjoyable work, fulfillment, a sense that life has meaning, and joining civic and other social groups.

Take time to meditate, or say a prayer, thanking almighty God for all you have. A spiritual dimension is an essential component of happiness.

Can Money Buy You Happiness?

A lot of people share a fairly common misconception. They believe that having lots of money can make you happy. Some even say that the more money you have, the happier you can be. Others believe that having money is not spiritually or socially acceptable, and that money is the root cause of all evil.

Are any of these beliefs really true? To answer this question, begin by asking yourself what money means to you, and how do you treat it when you have it?

Depending on how it is used, money can create powerful, positive changes in the world. Having money allows us to function more easily in the world, it buys food, clothes, provides comfort in our lives and in the lives of others. However, because attachment to money is based on fear, it always creates insecurity.

The desire to have more money, and thereby feel more secure, never ends. Security can never come from money alone. Some of the people who have the most money are also the most insecure. Does this mean you must give up the desire to attain wealth?

Not necessarily.

In and of itself money is neither good nor bad. It is what we choose to do with money that determines if it will have a positive effect on others, society, the world, and ourselves.

So, it cannot be said that money is essential for happiness. But, most people recognize that money is important in the 21st Century because it can give people comfort and freedoms. But, does raising a nation’s income, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), raise the population’s overall level of happiness?

Intuitively, you’d think the answer is a definite yes.

However, a survey conducted by The Wall Street Journal found otherwise. Other studies also show that, in many countries, “although economic output has risen steeply over the past decades, there has been no rise in life satisfaction and there has been a substantial increase in depression and distrust.”

For example, since World War II, GDP per capita in the U.S. has tripled, but life satisfaction (measured by surveys that ask something like, “overall, how satisfied are you with your life?”) has barely changed.

Also Japan and Western Europe had a tremendous rise in GDP per capita since 1958, yet measures of national happiness have been flat. One reason may be that a rising economy produces rising aspirations. There are many villages in the world where people do not own shoes but the people are extremely happy and friendly.

How to Bring Happiness in Your Life

“Don’t worry, be happy.” This sounds like such a simplistic phrase, but there is great power and wisdom in it. This tells us to focus on what we want rather than what we don’t want. When we focus on what we want, our actions take us nearer to our goals in life.

One way to guide your life toward happiness is simply to count your blessings. Dr. Myers points to research showing that people who pause each day to reflect on the positive aspects of their lives (for example, their health, friends, family, education, freedom) are more likely to experience positive feelings and happiness.

These are the principles I use to be happy. They work for me, and I hope they work for you:

1) Improve your relationships with friends and family – Happiness starts at home. Start by improving your relationship with your parents, brothers, sisters, and children. Smile when you greet them, do things for them, don’t allow them to get angry with you. Maintaining healthy loving relationships and friendships can promote happiness. Remember that love makes you beautiful.

2) Be an optimist - Optimism generates good feelings.

3) Develop a genuine smile and laugh a lot - Act happy - It works. Smile into the mirror for a half hour without stopping. Smiling makes you happy and the more you smile the more happy you become. We all like people who smile. It also makes us more attractive.

4) Pray - Become religious or spiritual - This only works if you believe in God. If you want to be happy then ask God to make you happy. Prayer helps you accomplish things.

5) Be generous and share with others - Give more than you receive because being generous will make you happy.

6) Treat time as a friend - Don’t watch the clock.

7) Exercise your mind - Keep yourself busy with some new project or ideas.

8) Work your body - Exercise regularly. Studies show that aerobic exercise is an antidote for mild depression and anxiety. “Happy minds reside in sound bodies,” says Dr. Myers.

9) Have fun in life - Keep cool under pressure.

10) Pursue achievable goals.

11) Have high confidence in yourself.

12) Respect the disadvantaged.

13) Age gracefully.

14) Give compliments - Take every opportunity to be complimentary. Want to make someone like you? Every time you meet a person smile and give them a compliment.

15) Be honest - With honesty comes openness. People respect honest and open minded people.

16) Keep an open mind - Most people seem to think that they know everything that they need to know. There’s plenty of wisdom to go around.

17) Treat difficulties as challenges –Life’s an adventure and every obstacle in life is one of its challenges. Treat life as a game. What fun would a game be if you could never lose?

Conclusion

Being happy is really a choice we make. The secret of Happiness is simple, very simple - what is it? You decide if you want to be happy! Happiness is free. You can feel happiness, this very minute, if you so choose.

If you continue to focus all your energy and attention on what you want, you’ll soon find yourself happy. Realize now that true happiness results from sharing generously of yourself, your mind, emotion and spirit, with all those who come in contact with you.

Be an optimist.

Do kind deeds for others unselfishly. Explore the deeper resources within you by praying to God from your heart. Through sincere prayer and mindful meditation you will attain the highest achievement in life - the discovery of your eternal happiness with God.

We need to set our goals wisely and to develop happy-thought strategies and to surround ourselves with encouraging and positive people.

Pursuing truth, wisdom and a virtuous life - or just getting on with the duties and chores of daily life at work and home, often brings happiness as a by-product. My ultimate goal is to bring happiness to all my friends, family and all souls that come in contact with me. How can I possibly accomplish this?

Simple…I sincerely hope that after reading this message you will SMILE for me.

That will make both you and me happy!

By Darshan Goswami, M.S., PE

www.mercola.com