- 0:
- 0:
- 0%Discount:
- £0.00 (GBP):
- £0.00(GBP):
- £0.00:
- £0.00(GBP):
ONEgroup News
Click on 'read article' to expand the news item and see its content.
You can also subscribe to this as an RSS Feed by using this url:- http://rss.onegrp.com/OGnotices.xml
Make Up Danger for Pregnant Women
Make Up Danger for Pregnant Women
Source: HealthyPages.co.uk
Date: 03 Dec 2008
Click here for full article
France is intending to label cosmetics according to their safety for pregnant women. The alarm was raised be Roselyne Bachelot, the French health minister, saying that health authorities in France want to label cosmetics as being fit or not for pregnant women.
This intention comes after a study was published by the Imperial College London, revealing that pregnant women who experienced higher than normal hairspray exposure had double the likelihood of giving birth to babies with hypospadias, which is a reproductive development condition. The report suggested that the affect was due to hormone disruption caused by chemicals in the hairspray.
The British government want the EU to address the issue in a complete fashion rather than as an isolated agenda, for which reason they want to see it added to the European Cosmetics Directive.
"BERR does not think this is something which is suitable for individual countries to take forward unilaterally and hope that the French raise this during the current negotiations on the revision of the cosmetics directive, where a discussion can take place among experts on cosmetic products," said the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform spokesman.
Leader of the study from the Imperial College study, Professor Paul Elliott, said "Labels enable people to make informed choices. In the vulnerable period of pregnancy, it makes sense for people to reduce their exposure to harmful chemicals," and that "It is part of a broader discussion about minimising chemical exposure in early pregnancy."
"Women who are planning to conceive or who are in the first three months of pregnancy should look at what they are using," said the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Professor Steve Field. He also added that "The cosmetics industry needs to look at this and clearly label their products. Anything like this raises concerns, but I don't think people should panic." Read ArticleFast food diet linked to Alzheimer’s
Fast food diet linked to Alzheimer’s
Source: Nutraingredients-usa.com
Aurtor: Sarah Hills
Date: 1 Dec 2008
Read Article
A diet rich in fat, sugar and cholesterol could lead to similar changes in substances in the brain which are also seen in the development of Alzheimer’s, according to a new study.
Mice that were fed for nine months on the diet, which represents the nutritional content of most fast food, developed abnormalities in the brain similar to those observed in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients, said the study published in a doctoral thesis from the Swedish medical university Karolinska Institutet (KI).
The research offers some indication of the role that diet could play in prevention of the disease which currently affects an estimated 5.2m Americans.
Researcher Susanne Akterin, a postgraduate at KI Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, told FoodNavigator-USA.com: “Several studies have been published during the last years linking diet with the development with Alzheimer's disease and dementia and especially too much cholesterol have been found to be particularly bad.
"This is probably because the brain is an organ that is especially rich in cholesterol and where cholesterol has many functions, and therefore is tightly regulated.
"When you eat too much cholesterol this regulation will be disturbed, leading to many negative effects.
"All kinds of food that contain a lot of fat, sugar and cholesterol is likely to have the same bad consequences.
"Considering the lack of effective medication for this dreadful disease, to prevent the disease from developing in the first place would be desirable."
Akterin said the most common risk factor in Alzheimer’s disease is a variant of a certain gene that governs the production of apolipoprotein E, which transport cholesterol. The gene variant is called apoE4 and is found in 15-20 percent of the population.
The research team studied mice that had been genetically modified to mimic the effects of apoE4 in humans for her doctoral thesis.
They noted an increase in phosphate groups attached to tau, a substance that forms the neurofibrillary tangles observed in Alzheimer’s patients, which prevent the cells from functioning normally and eventually leads to their death.
They also saw indications that cholesterol in food reduced levels of another brain substance, Arc, a protein involved in memory storage.
Akterin said: "We now suspect that a high intake of fat and cholesterol in combination with genetic factors, such as apoE4, can adversely affect several brain substances, which can be a contributory factor in the development of Alzheimer’s.
"All in all, the results give some indication of how Alzheimer’s can be prevented, but more research in this field needs to be done before proper advice can be passed on to the general public."
Previous research has shown that a phenomenon known as oxidative stress in the brain and a relatively low intake of dietary antioxidants can also increase the risk of Alzheimer’s.
Thesis: "From cholesterol to oxidative stress in Alzheimer’s disease: A wide perspective on a multifactorial disease"
Author: Susanne Akterin, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, KI Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Karolinska Institutet.
Click here to read more on Thesis
Read ArticleBlackcurrant compounds target Alzheimer’s progression & Blueberries may reduce Alzheimer risk
Blackcurrant compounds target Alzheimer’s progression
Source: Nutraingredients-usa.com
Author: Stephen Daniells
Date 17 Nov 2008
Read Article
Armed with a ₤60 million war chest from the Scottish government, researchers in Aberdeen are aiming to slow the progress of Alzheimer’ with bioactive compounds from blackcurrants.
The blackcurrant study, along with research into breads to help control diabetes and a tomato extract that may reduce heart disease, highlight how Scottish scientists are working to develop healthy food and drink choices to improve the Scots diet.
The research is being carried out by scientists from the University of Aberdeen's Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, Macaulay Institute, Moredun Research Institute, Scottish Agricultural College and the Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI).
The list of research topics include the best ways to manage weight, identifying bio-active compounds in blackcurrants that may slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease, reducing the risk of food-borne illnesses such a E. coli O157, and the improvement of Scottish soil to improve crop yields.
Richard Lochhead, cabinet secretary for rural affairs and the environment, said: "Scottish science is making a significant input to our developing national food and drink policy, which aims to boost the industry and support healthier and more environmentally sustainable choices.
"This high-calibre research is helping our primary producers to maintain and enhance the quality of our food and drink, whilst creating new opportunities for processors. This will help support our vital food and drink industry during this difficult time, to help achieve sustainable economic growth of the sector to reach £10 billion by 2017.
"Our cross-cutting food and drink policy aims to join up government working on every part of the food chain from farm gate to plate. The fascinating work outlined today highlights the valuable contribution made by our world-class scientific researchers."
Updating the policy makers
The research projects were disclosed during a recent special briefing for ministers of the Scottish parliament on some of the work being carried out at Scotland's environmental, agricultural and biological research institutes.
The Scottish Government is providing funding to the tune of approximately £60 million (€70.8 million) per year.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Blueberries may reduce Alzheimer risk
Source: Nutraingredients-usa.com
Author: Stephen Daniells
Date 27 June 2008
Read Article
Eating a diet rich in blueberries may reduce the severity of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's or cognitive disorders relating to ageing, if results from an animal study can be translated into humans.
"The current findings would suggest that a diet enriched in blueberry might attenuate degenerative processes due to oxidative or inflammatory stressors similar to the effectiveness of pharmacological strategies related to this hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease," wrote lead author Kara Duffy in the journal Neurobiology of Aging.
Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia and currently affects over 13 million people worldwide. The direct and indirect cost of Alzheimer care is over $100bn (€ 81bn) in the US alone. The direct cost of Alzheimer care in the UK was estimated at £15bn (€ 22bn).
This is not the first time that blueberries have been linked to protection from Alzheimer's, with sales of the fruit reported to be booming, going from £10.3m (€14.9m) in 2003 to almost £40m (€58m) in 2005, according to UK supplier BerryWorld.
The researchers, from the National Institute on Aging (National Institutes of Health), Tufts University, and Louisiana State University System, randomly assigned Young male Fischer-344 rats a diet containing blueberry extract (two per cent) or a control diet for at least eight weeks. After this the rats were then randomly assigned to receive either a phosphate buffered saline or kainic acid to replicate the neuronal loss experienced by people suffering a neurodegenerative disease.
Behavioural studies were then performed and brain functioning was studied to determine any differences in neuronal loss.
The researchers reported that the rats that were fed a blueberry supplemented diet had enhanced behavioural performance as measured using performance in a 14-unit T-maze. Duffy and co-workers also report that the blueberry-fed animals experienced significantly less brain cell loss, and had more viable brain cells following oxidative stress.
"The present findings indicate that rats exhibited impaired performance in maze learning following intra-hippocampal injection of kainic acid and that a blueberry enriched diet provided significant protection against these decrements in performance," wrote Duffy.
"Additionally… [we] documented clear evidence that the blueberry-enriched diet reduced neuronal loss resulting from the excitotoxic effects of kainic acid."
Although the mechanism of Alzheimers is not clear, more support is gathering for the build-up of plaque from beta-amyloid deposits. The deposits are associated with an increase in brain cell damage and death from oxidative stress.
Previous studies have suggested that it is against the oxidative stress that the polyphenols appear to offer protection, although Duffy and co-workers indicate that the benefits of the blueberry extracts may go beyond that of antioxidant.
"[Combining our findings] with additional research… suggests that at least part of the efficacy of the blueberry supplementation may be to enhance neuronal signaling in areas of the brain affected by kainic acid. This would allow more effective intra- and inter-area communication and ultimately facilitate both cognitive and motor function," wrote the authors.
While further research is required in the area, these results suggest that the wonder fruits rich in antioxidants, such as blueberries, could play a role in the prevention and possible treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders.
Source: Neurobiology of Aging (Elsevier)
Published on-line ahead of print, doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2007.04.002
"A blueberry-enriched diet provides cellular protection against oxidative stress and reduces a kainate-induced learning impairment in rats"
Authors: K.B. Duffy, E.L. Spangler, B.D. Devan, Z. Guo, J.L. Bowker, A.M. Janas, A. Hagepanos, R.K. Minor, R. DeCabo, P.R. Mouton, B. Shukitt-Hale, J.A. Joseph, D.K. Ingram
Remember Berry Radical contains 9 kilos of blueberries
Read ArticleObama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"
Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"
Author: Jeffrey Smith
Date; November 30th 2008
Source: The Huffington Post
View Articlie
Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations--where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.
Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:
"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"
When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."
By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.
* The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
* We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
* George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
* Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.
Food Safety Lies
Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.
Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Stephen Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.
"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."
Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs
Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.
At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.
Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.
Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.
Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk
Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.
As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.
But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.
Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.
Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.
Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"
For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."
One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.
Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.
Change, Truth, Hope
I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.
- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."
On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."
There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.
President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.
(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)
Please sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful. Read ArticlePesticides Studies
Study Links Pesticides to Brain Damage
A recent study in the Journal of Environmental Health concluded that many pesticides registered for use in the EU may damage the human brain, and urged the EU to tighten pesticide restrictions. "Because many [pesticides] are by design toxic to the brain of insects, it is very likely that they are also toxic to human brains," Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Southern Denmark told Reuters. Laboratory studies conducted by Grandjean suggest that pesticides commonly used in the EU can cause neuro-developmental toxicity and concluded that the developing brains of young children are far more at risk from chemical exposure. Organophosphates, carbamates, and pyrethroids were listed amongst the potentially damaging chemicals. More than 25 percent of fruits, vegetables and cereals contain detectable residues of at least two pesticides, and according to a recent PAN Europe study, nearly 5% of fruits, vegetables and cereals were found to contain dangerous levels of pesticides and more than 10% of the foods sampled contained four different pesticide residues. Source: PANUPS
Pesticides Contaminate EU Foods
"Almost half of fruits, vegetables and cereals are now contaminated with pesticides," according to PAN Europe. The shocking discovery is based on an official study that is set to be released in November. Five of the pesticides most commonly found in food are known to be "carcinogenic, mutagenic, or disruptive to the hormonal system." PAN Europe Coordinator Elliott Cannel notes "these are the worst pesticide results we've ever seen. A record proportion of fruits and vegetables are contaminated, while 23 pesticides were detected at levels high enough to present an acute risk to public health -- according to the EU's own risk calculations." This represents a 20% increase in pesticide contamination of EU foods over the past five years. Nearly 5% of fruits, vegetables and cereals were found to contain dangerous levels of pesticides and more than 10% of the foods sampled contained four different pesticide residues. The study found 354 pesticide residues including maneb, procymidone, iprodione, carbendazim, deltamethrin and imidacloprid, the pesticide implicated in the mass die-off of European bees. The findings come as the European Parliament is preparing to vote on new EU-wide restrictions on pesticide regulations. Source: PANUPS
OP Pesticides in Pregnant Women and Olive Oil
A National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences study has found "high levels of organophosphorous (OP) pesticides and some suspected endocrine disrupting compounds, including bisphenol A and phthalates, in pregnant women and their offspring" in the Netherlands. Researchers analyzed urine samples from 100 pregnant women and found "relatively high levels of OPs and some phthalates." Tests detected "a specific metabolite of the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos." Meanwhile, InformaWorld reports that a team of Greek researchers that examined 167 samples of Greek virgin olive oil found 30.5% contained "detectable residues… of organophosphorus pesticides" including dimethoate, fenthion, and fenthion sulfoxide. Although dimethoate residues were detected "above the maximum residue limit," the team's report, published in Food Additives & Contaminants, concludes, "there is neither acute nor chronic risk for the Greek population through olive oil consumption."
Source: PANUPS
Pesticides and Depression
A report in the September 9 edition of Environmental Health Perspectives provides evidence that "both acute high-intensity and cumulative pesticide exposure may contribute to depression in pesticide applicators." Researchers from the University of Iowa evaluated "diagnosed depression and pesticide exposure" among privately employed pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina between 1993 and 1997 The study included 17,051 pesticide applicators who reported no significant episodes of depression and another 534 pesticide applicators who self-reported a physician-diagnosed depression. Lifetime pesticide exposures were ranked as "low" (less than 226 days), "intermediate" (between 226-752 days) and "high" (more than 752 days) along with "high-pesticide exposure events" and actual "physician-diagnosed pesticide poisoning." After adjusting for "state, age, education, marital status, doctor visits, alcohol use, smoking, solvent exposure" and other factors, the researchers reported that "pesticide poisoning was more strongly associated with depression." The researchers concluded "both acute high-intensity and cumulative positive exposure may contribute to depression in pesticide applicators. Our study is unique in reporting that depression is also associated with chronic pesticide exposure in the absence of a physician-diagnosed poisoning."
Source: PANUPS
Source: Organic Federation of Australia - OFA Organic Update November 2008
Date: 28 November 2008 Read ArticleConsumers Buying Organic Products
61% of Consumers Buy Organic Products
A survey conducted by Newspoll has revealed that 61% Australian grocery buyers buy some organic products.
The Newspoll was commissioned by the Organic Federation of Australia and was conducted nationally among main grocery buyers.
A previous survey, conducted in 2003 by the University of Central Queensland, showed that 43% of consumers purchased organic products. This is a 50% increase in buyers in 5 years and confirms the other data that 'organic' is the fastest growing food category in the world.
The organic industry is emerging from a small niche to a significant part of the Australian food industry. A recent report showed that it is worth over $600 million. When we add flow on industries such as the compost industry that is worth over $400 million it is easy to see that the organic industry is worth over a billion dollars to the Australian economy.
72% of Consumers want one Organic Symbol
72% of organic food buyers say they would prefer to have one, new certification symbol used by all organisations, compared with only 14% who prefer to continue with different certification symbols.
The research conducted by Newspoll found that changing to one, new certification symbol is generally viewed as easier, clearer and less confusing. Having one symbol is also viewed as being easier to recognise and remember, and as having a clearer and stronger meaning. Some also saw it as providing confirmation of uniformity in certification procedures by certification organisations.
Regular organic food buyers were asked to rate the current system of having eight different certification symbols on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is 'very confusing and hard to identify organic foods' and 10 is 'very clear and simple to identify organic foods'.
Their average rating was only 3.1 out of 10, which shows that the current system is seen as confusing.
The research showed very poor awareness of most of the certification symbols and that the words "Certified Organic" were important in guiding consumer awareness about genuine organic products.
The experience from around the world shows that having one symbol to identify organic products generates a huge increase in sales.
Source: Organic Federation of Australia - OFA Organic Update November 2008
Date: 28 November 2008
Read ArticleBarack Obama 'encourages organic' as sustainable alternative
Barack Obama 'encourages organic' as sustainable alternative
Source: The Organic Advantage. ed110
Date: 13 November 2008
click here for full details
Recognising the benefits of an environmentally sustainable food production system, newly elected US leader Barack Obama has outlined the need to “encourage organic and sustainable agriculture” in his Rural Plan.
To support the continued growth of sustainable alternative agriculture, the plan included Barack Obama’s intention to increasing funding for the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -
“to help farmers afford the costs of compliance with national organic certification standards.”
The plan also stated Obama would aim to reform the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Risk Management Agency’s crop insurance rates so that they did not penalize organic farmers.
The Rural Plan also covered the market potential for organic.
‘Organic food is the fastest growing sector of the American food marketplace and demand for sustainable, locally grown, grass-finished and heritage foods is growing quickly,’ it stated, adding that the new President will also help farmers realise improving their bottom line is connected with increasing environmental benefits.
The Plan suggested looking at alternative inputs, all round.
“By using more wind and solar in power production systems and sharing energy with other users; by using new irrigation practices to conserve energy and water; by using no till and other agricultural practices that reduce energy input and keep the health of our soil sustainable.”
It reported Obama will also be likely to encourage the use of methane digesters that are being used to produce power from animal wastes, and has a strong interest in the next generation of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol (produced from a naturally occurring carbohydrate polymer commonly found in plant cell walls).
Cellulosic ethanol is chemically identical to ethanol from other sources like corn and sugar but is available in a great diversity of biomass including waste from urban, agriculture and forestry sources.
Currently, in Australia the potential of some similar ideas is being investigated.
A report by RIRDC looking at second generation lignocellulosics (including cellulosic ethanol) stated their development in Australia could be a potential solution the limited supply of ‘first generation’ biofuels, derived mostly from commodity crops.
“In a scenario where all the Australian domestic crops of sugar, molasses, wheat and coarse grains were converted into ethanol using first generation technologies, and all biodiesel inputs were used to make biodiesel, we would still not replace all of Australia’s transport fuel requirements (by a long margin for diesel),” it stated.
“However the development of second generation biofuels that utilise non-food plant materials, such as sugar cane bagasse, native grasses, native perennials, forestry waste, farm forestry, wheat straw, newsprint and cotton trash… could help reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, as well as providing unique opportunities for new agricultural industries.
Such industries may be aligned with sustainable production systems similar to organic in principle.
The report stated opportunities could occur “particularly in less productive agricultural lands where woody shrubs and perennial grasses can grow with few inputs."
It stated low-input high diversity mixtures of grassland perennials for production of biofuels could have many positives in comparison to corn or soybean, with mixed grasslands producing 238 % more bioenergy from cellulosics than mono-cultured crops like corn after ten years, with less inputs.
“These mixed grasslands can be grown productively on degraded lands and therefore would not
require further land clearing nor compete with viable farming land to make a substantial impact.”
How does Australia measure up?
The Australian Government is also on the same track as Obama’s, expressing specific support for organic in their 2007 national platform.
“Labour will support the ongoing development of organic farming and sustainable agricultural
practices,” it stated, as well as outlining their support for “the further development of the increasingly important role being played by farmers in the development and production of alternative fuels, including biofuels produced on farms” (visit http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/2007_national_platform.pdf) .
Dr. Andrew Monk, BFA Standards Chair, says while the Government’s sentiments toward organic were strongly applauded, action was now needed.
“While the recognition of the benefits of organic in the context of sustainable agriculture is welcome, the BFA now looks forward to this being meaningfully translated,” he says.
“Agricultural R&D and policy that actively supports the uptake of more biologically orientated and organic agriculture options is the next step.
He says these outcomes would do more for the Australian organic industry than subsidies for organic certification as outlined in Barack Obama’s plans.
“The Australian culture is not one of subsidising agriculture – the fundamentally important challenge for Australia is to see a transition from organic support to actions that will enable organic farmers to flourish.
“Currently there remains an agricultural environment still orientated towards non-biological approaches, and the first step is the beginning of a journey of culture change - that is unlikely to happen overnight.” Read ArticleSafety Fears Over Nanoparticles in Cosmetics
Safety Fears Over Nanoparticles in Cosmetics
Source: Organic Monitor - Natural Cosmetics Newsfeed Nov 08
Date: 8 November 2008
Cosmetics containing tiny "nano" particles are being used widely despite unresolved issues surrounding their safety, a consumer watchdog warns.
Many skin care products, including sunscreens and wrinkle creams, contain this technology to make them easier to apply and invisible on the skin. But experts are concerned about their possible long-term effects on the body, Which? reports.
Which? wants more safety checks and tighter regulation of their use. It says, at the moment, consumers cannot tell which products use nanomaterials as many fail to mention it.
Nanocosmetics
Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating atoms and molecules on the nanoscale - 80,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. The cosmetics industry is using it to create new materials with novel properties.
On the flip-side, that might mean unexpected risks. Which? wrote to 67 cosmetics companies, including all of the main brands as well as smaller ones, asking them about their use of nanotechnology, what benefits they thought it brought and how they ensured product safety.
Seventeen firms responded, and of these, eight were willing to provide information about how they used nanotechnology. Most of the eight, which included The Body Shop, Boots, Nivea, Avon, L'Oréal, Unilever, Korres and The Green People, used nanotechnology for the UV filters in their sunscreens.
Which? also found evidence of other cosmetics companies offering nanocosmetics online.
Skin penetration
These products included nano emulsions - preparations containing oil and water droplets reduced to nano size - used to preserve active ingredients, such as vitamins and anti-oxidants, and for their lightness and transparency. Another example was a type of nanomaterial called "fullerenes" used in anti-aging cream products.
Scientists have raised particular concerns about potential toxicity of fullerenes if they were able to penetrate the skin. There is also a concern that the nanomaterials in sunscreens might be able to breach sunburned skin.
The Which? report says all nanocosmetic products should have an independent safety assessment. The precautionary principle should be applied to products where there are potential risks but where it is not currently possible to assess their safety so that consumers are not put at risk, it says.
Sue Davies of Which? said: "We're not saying the use of nanotechnology in cosmetics is a bad thing, far from it. Many of its applications could lead to exciting and revolutionary developments in a wide range of products, but until all the necessary safety tests are carried out, the simple fact is we just don't know enough.
"The government must introduce a compulsory reporting scheme for manufactured nanomaterials so we are all aware - and only those that are independently assessed as safe should be allowed to be used in cosmetics."
Regulation
In September 2006, the government launched a voluntary reporting scheme for all engineered nanomaterials to find out what was, or could be, on the market, to guide the development of regulations. This has had a limited response - 12 responses in two years - and is now under review.
A spokeswoman for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association said: "The industry is working with government to provide more information on the safety of these products. The safety assessment of cosmetic products is a legal requirement and that assessment is robust and takes into consideration the particle size of ingredients."
Professor Dame Ann Dowling, chairman of the Royal Society working group on nanotechnologies, said: "The Royal Society has been calling, for the last four years, for companies to make public the safety testing methods they have been using on their nanoproducts. We are disappointed at continuing lack of transparency in this area.
"More research does need to be done on the effects of manufactured nanoparticles on human health and the environment. This is important so that regulation can be built on a proper understanding of any risks."
A European Commission spokeswoman said: "We are working towards improving our ability to assess the safety of all consumer products using nanomaterials including cosmetics.
"The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identifed Health Risks (SCENIHR) is currently preparing an update of its 2006 opinion on the risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. This update will be available in January 2009."
Boots said it did not consider its current use of materials was of concern to health. The Body Shop said its products helped to protect human skin.
Organic Monitor Comment
The lack of research on nanoparticles led Soil Association to prohibit nanoparticles in certified organic cosmetics earlier this year. Other certification agencies are following suit. However, the issue remains a contentious one, as demonstrated at the Natural Beauty Summit last month where Soil Association, Croda and FEBEA were involved in a debate on the role of nanoparticles in the cosmetics industry.
Source: BBC News Read ArticleBerries and Brightly Colored Fruits Top the Antioxidant Chart
Berries and Brightly Colored Fruits Top the Antioxidant Chart
Source: The Scoop - The Organic Centre Newsletter October 2008
A team of Cornell University scientists subjected 25 fruits to a series of tests of antioxidant content and cellular activity. Wild and domesticated blueberries, blackberries, cranberries, strawberries, and pomegranates topped the various lists in varying orders. All brightly colored fruits scored very well in all measures used in the study.
Across all fruits in the diet, apples were found to provide 33% of total phenolics, reflecting very high consumption and moderate phenolics content. Oranges provided 12%, grapes 12.8%, and strawberries, 9.8%.
In urging increased consumption of nutrient-dense, brightly colored fruits and vegetables, the team cited the latest report from the USDA's Economic Research Service on fruit and vegetable intakes. The ERS reports that Americans are still lagging in terms of fruit and vegetable intake. On average in 2005, we consumed 0.9 cups of fruit per day, instead of the 2.0 cups (four servings) recommending in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. And we consumed 1.7 cups of vegetables, instead of the recommended 2.5 cups (five servings), based on a 2,000 calorie diet.
The authors conclude (cautiously) that –
"Antioxidant activity provided by fruits may be important in the prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases."
Source: Kelly L. Wolfe et al., "Cellular Antioxidant Activity of Common Fruits," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol. 56, No. 18, pages 8419-8426.
Editor's Note: In the Center's second State of Science Review (SSR) on antioxidants, we analyzed differences in the antioxidant activity of organic and conventional foods, concluding that organic food contains, on average, 30% more antioxidants per gram or per serving.
The antioxidant SSR contains a Table 2 (see page 14-15) that ranks over 65 common foods by antioxidant activity per calorie consumed. In assessing the ability of a food to promote human health, the metric "total antioxidant activity per calorie consumed" is as close as one can come to the miles-per-gallon rating of car energy efficiency.
This widely used Table in our antioxidant SSR is especially valuable for people looking to increase antioxidant intake while consuming fewer calories. Read ArticleAdolescent exposures to cosmetic chemicals of concern
Adolescent exposures to cosmetic chemicals of concern
Author: Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D., Staff Scientist,
Date: September 2008
Source: Environmental Working Group - full article
The 20 teens we tested had an average of 13 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals in their bodies.
Laboratory tests reveal adolescent girls across America are contaminated with chemicals commonly used in cosmetics and body care products. Environmental Working Group (EWG) detected 16 chemicals from 4 chemical families - phthalates, triclosan, parabens, and musks - in blood and urine samples from 20 teen girls aged 14-19. Studies link these chemicals to potential health effects including cancer and hormone disruption. These tests feature first-ever exposure data for parabens in teens, and indicate that young women are widely exposed to this common class of cosmetic preservatives, with 2 parabens, methylparaben and propylparaben, detected in every single girl tested.
In Alex (Washington DC): 12 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals. "It's frightening to learn about the many different kinds of toxic chemicals that can be found in my body. At the same time I would much rather be knowledgeable about my body's chemical makeup than uninformed; in this case, ignorance is NOT bliss."
This work represents the first focused look at teen exposures to chemicals of concern in cosmetics, exposures that occur during a period of accelerated development. Adolescence encompasses maturation of the reproductive, immune, blood, and adrenal hormone systems, rapid bone growth associated with the adolescent "growth spurt," shifts in metabolism, and key changes to brain structure and function. Alterations in an array of sex hormones, present in the body at levels as low as one part per billion (ppb), or even one part per trillion (ppt), guide this transformation to adulthood. Emerging research suggests that teens may be particularly sensitive to exposures to trace levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals like the ones targeted in this study, given the cascade of closely interrelated hormonal signals orchestrating the transformation from childhood to adulthood.
Study teens use more personal care products daily than an average adult woman
Teens = 17 products
Adults = 12 products
Source: EWG product use surveys.
During this window of vulnerability to toxic assault, adolescent girls typically experiment with an increasing number and variety of body care products. Teen study participants used an average of nearly 17 personal care products each day, while the average adult woman uses just 12 products daily. Thus, teens may unknowingly expose themselves to higher levels of cosmetic ingredients linked to potential health effects at a time when their bodies are more susceptible to chemical damage.
Cosmetics and other personal care products are an alarming example of government and industry failures to protect public health. Federal health statutes do not require companies to test products or ingredients for safety before they are sold. As a result, nearly all personal care products contain ingredients that have not been assessed for safety by any accountable agency, and that are not required to meet standards of safety. To protect the health of teens and all Americans, we recommend action:
* The federal government must set comprehensive safety standards for cosmetics and other personal care products.
* Teens should make healthy choices for themselves by reducing the number of products they use, and by using our Shopper’s Guide to Safe Cosmetics to select safer products.
* Companies must reformulate products to protect consumers from exposure to potentially toxic chemicals, untested ingredients, and noxious impurities.
Read ArticleChemicals Endangering Our Kids
Chemicals endangering our kids
Friday 10th October 2008
A Current Affair - Channel 9
Click here to view the video aired on A Current Affair
We all fuss over the beauty of a new born baby’s delicate skin, but is it under siege from a barrage of chemical cocktail thanks to the everyday toiletries we use?
Public health researcher, Dr Sarah Lantz, says she has grave concerns about everyday chemicals we find on our supermarket shelves and how they could be affecting our children. So concerned in fact, she has just released a book on the topic: Chemical Free Kids - Raising Healthy Children in a Toxic World, which you can find at www.chemicalfreeparenting.com.
"We've got a world which is filled with chemicals and in lots of ways we're subjecting little bodies to a range of different toxins," Dr Lantz told ACA.
"There is more and more research showing a link between chemicals and behavioural problems. There is also a link to a range of diseases with the potentially cancerous materials that show up in different products."
According to Dr Lantz's research, our entire modern environment is toxic and we are all suffering the consequences with increasing numbers of children being diagnosed with asthma and behavioural problems including attention deficit disorder - even autism.
"There's a whole range of chronic problems the whole population is experiencing - and at a younger age these days,"she says.
Paediatric dermatologist, Dr. Gayle Fischer, at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney suggests parents keep products on children to a minimum.
"I would really just recommend a mild soap and water, if your child has normal skin. The main complaint in little children is often that they're a little dry, in which case, just select an unperfumed moisturiser that's greasy enough to make your child's skin feel normal," she says.
But Dr Fischer says we shouldn't be too concerned about the chemicals in our toiletries.
"Even though there are a lot of people worried about toxins and chemicals in the environment, the fact is that we are living to a ripe old age. And a lot of that has to do with modern hygiene and sanitation,"she says.
Not everyone is convinced.
Mother of three, Narelle Chenery, was very concerned about the chemicals in supposedly natural skin care products. So, she made her own totally natural products with Miessence Certified Organics - www.mionegroup.com
"These products are something I started in my kitchen ten years ago and now we're a multimillion dollar company selling certified organic products around the world, it's very exciting,"says Narelle.
Now her adult skin care range is sold in over 60 countries and she's just launched a baby range.
And this young mum from the Gold Coast has done something else quite remarkable. She has the first fully organically certified range of baby skin care products in the world.
"The ingredients that go into our products, being certified organic, are actually edible. You can eat them, so that's utmost proof of safety.’ she says.
Whilst Narelle's business has been fully certified as organic, there are many out there who promote their products as natural or organic, but consumers beware!
"In theory a skin product that's organic should be entirely plant derived, have no petroleum products and no preservatives," says Dr Lanz.
"But if you actually turn around the label, turn around the bottle and have a look at it - it contains a host of other really kind of toxic ingredients and a lot of chemicals."
So here are Dr Sarah Lantz's tips on how to help keep your kids, chemical free.
# BE A CONSCIOUS CONSUMER
Really get clear on what are good chemicals and what are bad chemicals. Beware of certain chemicals: Phthalates, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Cocomide DEA
# BE WARY OF CERTAIN CHEMICALS
Anything that's got a number next to it is something that we should be really critical of or looking at.
# BEWARE OF PRODUCTS THAT SAY THEY ARE NATURAL OR ORGANIC
Always look out of the certification logo.
# GO FRAGRANCE FREE
Babies just do not need fragrances or chemicals on their skins at all.
# REDUCE YOUR CHILD'S EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS
Reducing it means look at what they're playing with, what they're eating, what are you putting on their bodies.
# AND HAVE A BASIC CLEANING ROUTINE
I would say with kids keep it as simple as possible. For a lot of the time just use water. For a normal healthy child the message is, don't do anything special, keep it really simple and enjoy your time with your baby. Read ArticleFrench health agency promises to clean up baby cosmetics
French health agency promises to clean up baby cosmetics
Date: 8 October 2008
Source: Cosmetics Design.com
Full Article
The French health agency (AFSSAPS) has promised to tighten controls on baby cosmetics following a high profile campaign that labeled the products “toxic cocktails”.
To protect public health and restore confidence in baby cosmetics, the AFSSAPS will increase inspections and controls to ensure that the products on the market comply with existing regulations.
The health agency will also put the ingredients and products brought into question under the microscope to determine whether they pose risks to human health.
These measures were decided upon in reaction to the sustainable health charity raising the alarm over a number of chemicals in baby cosmetics including parabens, EDTA, BHA and bisphenol A.
Supporting the campaign, Professor Dominique Belpomme, who is president of the cancer research charity ARTAC, told the press that the accumulative cocktail effect of the baby products was unknown.
She said the current situation is absolutely unacceptable from the point of view of public health.
Put under particular scrutiny by the C2DS were the baby cosmetic products distributed in French maternity wards, the evaluation of which the AFSSAPS has now vowed to make a priority.
In addition to the other initiatives the AFSSAPS has put in place the organization announced the creation of a working group to evaluate the safety assessment methods used by manufacturers of baby cosmetics.
Meanwhile the Fédération des Entreprises de la Beauté (FEBEA) defended the industry and sought to reassure consumers that baby products are safe.
The French trade association said all cosmetics are thoroughly tested and that under the EU Cosmetics Directive products aimed at children under three must undergo a specific evaluation process.
Check out our Mother&Baby Range - products good enough to eat! Read ArticleChemicals Found in Cosmetics Linked to Future Infertility
Chemicals Found in Cosmetics Linked to Future Infertility
Date: 30 September 2008
Source: NaturalNews.com
Full Article
NaturalNews) The first three months of pregnancy have a significant impact on a baby boy's future fertility. Chemicals found in cosmetics could create infertility problems later in life. Researchers at Edinburgh University have shown that exposure to chemicals in the first 12 weeks in the womb can affect sperm production in manhood. Many of these products are routinely used by a majority of women.
Although the evidence is not conclusive, it is a step in the right direction to show women how vital it is to only use natural, healthy products. The skin is the largest organ in the body, and anything that is put on it gets absorbed and ends up in the blood stream, ultimately coming into contact with unborn babies.
Future Disease, Including Cancer
Some chemicals used in cosmetics can block hormones. In the study, male hormones in rats were blocked for a period of time when they were in the womb. These rats went on to suffer from infertility.
The scientists also concluded that these chemicals may also increase the risk of baby boys developing other reproductive conditions in later life, including testicular cancer. They urged women who were intending to become pregnant to avoid putting these harmful cosmetic products on their skin.
Prof. Sharpe, who led the study says, "There are lots of compounds in perfumes that we know in higher concentrations have the potential to have biological effects, so it is just being ultra safe to say that by avoiding using them your baby isn't at risk.
"If you are planning to become pregnant you should change your lifestyle. Those lifestyle things don't necessarily mean that you are going to cause terrible harm to your baby, but by avoiding them you are going to have a positive effect.
"We would recommend you avoid exposure to chemicals that are present in cosmetics, anything that you put on your body that might then get through your body into your developing baby.
"It is not because we have evidence that these chemicals categorically cause harm to babies, it is only based on experimental studies on animals that suggest it is a possibility."
Just Pregnant Women?
If these products disrupt the hormonal balance in baby boys, then doesn't it stand to reason that they could potentially have a harmful effect on all of us? Do you want to take the chance?
Most people who are into natural health have already concluded that natural, organic or wild products are best. Nature provides everything we need, and putting toxic chemicals on our skin is not going to ultimately make it softer, smoother or younger. These toxins must be processed in the liver, which is the organ that most influences our skin.
The best choice is for every person to choose natural cosmetic products, not just women who are becoming pregnant. It is such an easy way to become less toxic and improve wellbeing.
The problem is that the study also showed that chemicals in household fabrics and plastics can cause the same problem.
Check out our Mother&Baby range of products for an alternative to your current products - the choice is yours! Read ArticleBerries Provide a Cocktail of Cancer Preventing Compounds
Berries Provide a Cocktail of Cancer Preventing Compounds
Date: 30 September 2008
Source: NaturalNews.com
Full Article
(NaturalNews) Black raspberries provide a powerful mix of cancer-inhibiting compounds. New research at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center was conducted to test the effect of black raspberries on the genetic activity of rats provoked to develop cancer of the esophagus.
The researchers split the rats into two groups. One group was fed a normal diet while the other was fed a diet with 5 percent freeze-dried black raspberries. After two weeks, half of the rats in each group were injected with a chemical carcinogen that induces esophageal cancer.
After a week of carcinogen application, the rats' health was examined. Judging by appearance, the esophageal tissue of the rats that ate black raspberries was more normal and healthy compared to the other rats. In an earlier study, the berry-fed rats had a 60 percent reduction in tumors.
On the genetic level, the findings were astonishing. The researchers were able to measure the activity levels of the 41,000 genes in each of the rats. In the rats without the preventative benefits of the berries, the activity levels of 2,261 genes changed by at least 50 percent. Predictably, those genes are responsible for such things as cell proliferation, inflammation, and cell destruction: actions that are common during cancer development. Amazingly, one fifth (462) of those carcinogen-effected-genes were expressed at normal levels in the rats fed black raspberries.
Black raspberries, in addition to other berries, have multiple mechanisms of prevention. The result is a beneficial effect throughout an animal's genome due to the collection of vitamins, minerals, phytosterols and phenols in the berries.
"This suggests to us that a mixture of preventative agents, which berries provide, may more effectively prevent cancer than a single agent that targets only one or a few genes," said Gary D. Stoner, a professor of pathology, human nutrition and medicine at the University.
A similar companion study tested a single chemoprevention compound in the rats with the same ailment. Of the stated 462 genes, 53 were kept at normal activity levels by this agent alone.
Concerning this, Stoner said, "What's emerging from studies in cancer chemoprevention is that using single compounds alone is not enough." He went on to say that berries are not enough either: they only partially prevent tumors. He recommended finding other foods to combine with berries.
Other foods to consider are mushrooms, grapes, cruciferous vegetables, flax, and many more.
Check out our Berry Radical - with over 7,000 ORAC unit in just one serving!!! Read ArticleChoosing Products That Promote Beauty and Well Being
Choosing Products That Promote Beauty and Well Being
Dat:e 7 Cctober 2008
Source: Natural News.com
Full Article
(NaturalNews) Millions of Americans are adversely affected each year by a silent from of chemical warfare that's taking place every day within the comforts of our own homes. While we worry about the chemical weaponry of terrorists and lead-contaminated imported toys, we are literally poisoning our immune systems with thousands of toxic chemicals that are known carcinogens, hormone disrupters, and cancer-causing agents.
It starts with your morning routine. If you are a man, you will probably use shampoo, soap, toothpaste, mouthwash, deodorant, hair gel or styling products, shaving cream, and aftershave or cologne. A typical day for a woman starts much the same, with the added possibilities of shower gel, body and face cream, lotion, moisturizer, make-up, hair spray, perfume, and nail polish. By the time you have made it to the door, you have swallowed, inhaled and absorbed through your skin hundreds of toxic chemicals, some of which have been proven to be deadly to laboratory animals and many of which are known to be carcinogens.
If you are suffering from dry flaky skin, persistent skin irritations, rashes, sinus problems, allergies, asthma, respiratory ailments and other health problems that never seem to get cured, it may be time for you to examine the negative effects your personal care products are having on your health. It's great to exercise and watch what you eat, but you must also watch what you put on your body and even what you use to clean your house if you want to achieve optimal health.
Any substance you put on your skin, or inhale will enter your bloodstream just as surely as if you had swallowed it. Once these chemicals enter your bloodstream, they are perceived by your immune system as foreign and not recognizable, and they are perceived by your liver as toxins. When your immune system and liver are dealing with toxic chemical overload they aren't available to do the jobs they were intended to do. That's why people who insist on putting toxic chemicals into their bodies suffer from frequent bacterial and viral infections, other mysterious maladies, and even cancer.
Have you ever taken a close look at the ingredients in your personal care products? Whatever you are seeing probably includes water. Is there anything else on that label that you recognize as a naturally occurring substance you might actually want to put inside your body? If it doesn't occur in nature, it shouldn't be inside of you, because you are a natural being.
How does the label on your soap look like?
No matter what the advertisements try to make you think, fragrance does not come from flowers or anything else natural. More than 4,000 chemicals are used in fragrances, many of which are waste products from the petroleum industry. Several of them are known to cause cancer, birth defects, infertility, and brain and central nervous system damage including Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's.
Since so many products are now scented, the number of people who are made ill by fragrances is steadily increasing. Babies and children are especially vulnerable along with those recovering from illness or disease. Chemical fragrances are everywhere: laundry detergent, fabric softeners, dish washing liquids, suntan products, sunscreen, incense, lotions, moisturizers, lip balms, almost every personal care product, and more. It's even found in many products labeled as unscented because it is contained within a compound when that compound is added to the product.
Exposure to scented products can cause the persistent symptoms that mystify people, such as chronic aches and pains, headaches, allergies, swollen glands and lymph tenderness, heart palpitations, memory, fatigue, asthma, nausea, and neural-motor functioning including dizziness, and fainting. Exposure in children and even adults can cause learning and behavioral problems, attention deficit and hyperactivity in addition to any of the other symptoms. Continued exposure to chemical fragrances along with other toxic chemicals can cause development of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Disease. When you have this disease, the slightest whiff of a toxic chemical makes you so ill you cannot function. Your ability to interact with the rest of the world is seriously compromised.
It's tempting to say to your self that these products must be alright or the 'government' wouldn't let them be sold, but this isn't true. The personal care products industry is not supervised. The FDA does not require manufacturers to register their products or to file safety data on the ingredients they use in them. They are free to put in as many toxic chemicals as they want. The only thing that stops them is reaction from the public. A few years ago, magazines came with scented strips advertising the latest perfumes. So many people were sickened and complained that the strips were discontinued. If enough people refuse to buy toxic products, manufacturers would stop making them.
Products you use while taking a shower are particularly dangerous since you are using them at a time when your pores are opened by hot water, allowing quick and easy access to your bloodstream. A look at the ingredients in your shampoo may be shocking. There are more than 100 toxic chemicals traditionally used in shampoo, and most brands contain 20 to 30 of them in addition to chemical fragrance and dyes.
Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is a dominant ingredient in almost all shampoos. In addition to its toxic effects on your immune and detoxification systems, SLS has been shown to corrode the hair follicles and impede hair growth. It has been blamed for premature hair loss. The Material Safety Data Sheet provided by the U.S. government says exposure to SLS can lead to burning, coughing, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache, nausea and vomiting. The American College of Toxicology says that SLS stays in the body for up to five days and maintains residual levels in the heart, liver, lungs and brain.
While there are many natural alternative substances available that will clean and beautify you far better than these toxic concoctions, the large corporations that produce personal care products won't use them because it would cost too much money and interfere with their profits. They even try to disguise their cheap chemicals with tiny amounts of natural ingredients that are prominently featured on the front of the bottle. This is done to deceive you into buying what you think is an item that promotes health. But turn the bottle over and you will see a mind boggling list of toxic ingredients.
If you have decided that you don't want to pay your hard earned money to a corporation that strives to deceive you and tell you lies, you will find that discovering how to replace your toxic products with products that promote good health is a very difficult task. No matter what it says on the label, there are virtually No products in any of the discount stores, traditional supermarkets, or drugstores that are not filled with health compromising chemicals.
Some supermarkets featuring organic or health sections carry Burt's Bees products. These are certainly far preferable to those produced by the large corporations, but Burt's Bees has recently been bought out by Clorox Corporation, so its quality may soon be compromised. For now, some of Burt's Bees products are safe, and some contain toxic ingredients such as fragrance, endocrine system disrupting glucose oxidase, and borax (the active ingredient in most ant poisons).
You will have a better chance of finding products that promote health at a health food market. But even there, you can't just walk in and buy what appeals to you on sight. Many products marketed as 'natural' contain high levels of toxic ingredients. Whole Foods Market publishes a list of ingredients not allowed in the foods they sell, but many of these ingredients are contained in their personal care items. Apparently it is alright with them if the toxins enter you body through your skin instead of your mouth.
When you try to replace your personal care products with ones that promote health, you will find that almost every item you pick lists ingredients that sounds like chemicals. The only way to be sure of what you are buying is to research these ingredients. Here is a website where you can easily research many of these ingredients using their search box: (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/) Check out Miessence product ratings.
Kiss My Face makes that luscious olive oil soap without scent or in several scents created from chemicals. Many of their other products contain an array of toxic ingredients.
Jason's is good for toothpaste, making several flavors without fluoride or significant toxic chemicals. But again, much of their line contains objectionable ingredients.
Cosmetics made entirely from minerals are gaining in popularity as witnessed by the astounding growth in Bare Essential shops. Mineral cosmetics provide the affects of traditional cosmetics and don't contain toxic chemicals. There are several other companies that sell cosmetics made from minerals. Their products are available at health food stores and online.
It's not easy to make the change from disease promoting personal care products to those promoting health. It seems to require some trial and error, a lot of time to do research, patience, and a commitment to paying higher prices for the products you use. But once the change is made and these products become as familiar to you as the ones you used to buy, it will be easy from that point on. You will realize that you have made a significant investment in your future health and freedom from disease, and you will feel proud of yourself. You will know that it's all a matter of priorities.
After you have found products in every category that you really like and seen how good you feel using them, you probably won't even consider returning to the old brands. You will feel good about spending your money on products made by a company who knows its future rests in producing products that keep you healthy, rather that a corporation that sees you only as someone to be exploited. And you may realize that looking your best can be achieved only with the vibrant glow of good health shining from your insides out. Read ArticleCalifornia passes green chemistry legislation
California passes green chemistry legislation
Source: Cosmetics Design
Date: 1 October 2008
Full Article
Arnold Schwarzenegger has put his signature to green chemistry legislation in California that promises to remove politics from the evaluation of disputed chemicals.
State governor Schwarzenegger has signed two bills into law that aim to establish a science-based process for tackling potentially toxic chemicals and therefore prevent lobby groups and political interests from determining the content of consumer goods.
New system and powers
A.B. 1879 gives the California Department of Toxic Substances Control authority, for the first time, to regulate chemicals in consumer products.
Under the legislation, the department will have the authority to identify, evaluate and even ban potentially harmful chemicals.
To exercise these new powers in the best interests of consumers, state regulators will have to develop a science-based program to identify chemicals of concern, evaluate them and analyze alternatives.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control has until January 1, 2011 to put this process in place and it will also have to establish a Green Ribbon Science Panel for advisory purposes.
Online information resource
The other bill signed into law by Schwarzenegger was S.B. 509 which requires the establishment of an online Toxic Information Clearinghouse.
This will provide consumers and businesses with information about the toxicity and hazards of chemicals used in everyday life.
Signing the bills in Los Angeles this week Schwarzenegger said: “With these two bills, we will stop looking at toxics as an inevitable byproduct of industrial production.
“Instead they will be something that can be removed from every product in the design stage - protecting people's health and our environment.”
Criticism of the legislation
However the legislation is not without its critics. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) claims it is watered down and devoid of substance.
“We hope we're wrong,” said EWG president Richard Wiles. “But these bills do not establish a human health safety standard or public health goal for chemicals of concern or their prospective substitutes. In fact, they are completely devoid of any tangible commitment to protect the health of the people of California.
“They provide a statutory shield for chemical companies who want to delay health protections and preserve the status quo while bureaucrats ponder the problem.”
Read ArticlePollution can make you fat, study claims
Pollution can make you fat, study claims
Date: Sunday, 7 September 2008
Source: The Independent UK
Full Story
Children exposed to pesticide in womb twice as likely to be overweight, refuting idea of sole personal responsibility. Geoffrey Lean reports
Pollution can make children fat, startling new research shows. A groundbreaking Spanish study indicates that exposure to a range of common chemicals before birth sets up a baby to grow up stout, thus helping to drive the worldwide obesity epidemic.
The results of the study, just published – the first to link chemical contamination in the womb with one of the developing world's greatest and fastest-growing health crises – carry huge potential implications for public policy around the globe. They undermine recent strictures from the Conservative leader, David Cameron, that blame solely the obese for their own condition.
A quarter of all British adults and a fifth of children are obese – four times as many as 30 years ago. And so are at least 300 million people worldwide. The main explanation is that they are consuming more calories than they burn. But there is growing evidence that diet and lack of exercise, though critical, cannot alone explain the rapid growth of the epidemic.
It has long been known that genetics give people different metabolisms, making some gain weight more easily than others. But the new study by scientists at Barcelona's Municipal Institute of Medical Research suggests that pollution may similarly predispose people to get fat.
The research, published in the current issue of the journal Acta Paediatrica, measured levels of hexachlorobenzene (HCB), a pesticide, in the umbilical cords of 403 children born on the Spanish island of Menorca, from before birth. It found that those with the highest levels were twice as likely to be obese when they reached the age of six and a half.
HCB, which was mainly used to treat seeds, has been banned internationally since the children were born, but its persistence ensures that it remains in the environment and gets into food.
The importance of the study is not so much in identifying one chemical, as in showing what is likely to be happening as a result of contact with many of them. Its authors call for exposures to similar pesticides to be "minimised".
Experiments have shown that many chemicals fed to pregnant animals cause their offspring to grow up obese. These include organotins, long employed in antifouling paints on ships and now widely found in fish; bisphenol A (BPA), used in baby bottles and to line cans of food, among countless other applications; and phthalates, found in cosmetics, shampoos, plastics to wrap food, and in a host of other everyday products.
These pollutants – dubbed "obesogens" as a result of these findings – are so ubiquitous that almost everyone now has them in their bodies. Ninety-five per cent of Americans excrete BPA in their urine; 90 per cent of babies have been found to be exposed to phthalates in the womb; and every umbilical cord analysed in the new Spanish study was found to contain organchlorine pesticides such as HCB.
Two American studies have implicated phthalates in obesity in adult men, but the new research is much more conclusive, and is the first to show the effects of exposure in the womb, where humans are most vulnerable.
Dr Pete Myers, one of the world's leading experts on obesogens, told The Independent on Sunday last night: "This is very important. It is the first good study of the effects on the foetus. Its conclusions are not surprising, given what we know from the animal experiments, but it firmly links such chemicals to the biggest challenge facing public health today."
No one knows how HCB causes obesity. The Spanish scientists speculate that it may have made the mothers diabetic, which would increase the chances of their children becoming obese (see graphic, above).
Dr Myers, who is chief scientist at the US-based Environmental Health Sciences, which helps to increase public understanding of emerging scientific links, says this is "plausible", but adds that the animal experiments point elsewhere. These have shown that obesogens "switch genes on and off" in the womb, causing stem cells to be turned into fat cells. The children then grow up with a much greater disposition to store and accumulate fat.
Whatever the explanation, the research goes some way to undermining David Cameron's assertion in a speech this summer that obesity is purely a matter of "personal responsibility", a view echoed by his health spokesman, Andrew Lansley 10 days ago. The Tory leader said that the obese are "people who eat too much and take too little exercise".
Dr Myers calls that "wishful ideological thinking which does not accord with biological reality", adding: "We need to discover ways to reduce exposures to these chemicals so that changing diet and lifestyle has a chance to work."
Factors that may pile on the pounds
Why is the world getting so fat? Everyone agrees that people gain weight by taking in more calories in their food than they burn off through everyday activities and exercise. But many scientists are coming to believe that changes in diet and exercise do not sufficiently explain the rapid growth of the epidemic. As 'The Independent on Sunday' reported last week, there has been no reduction in physical activity in Britain since 1980, while obesity rates have quadrupled.
The genetic make-up of a population does not change rapidly enough to provide an explanation. So the hunt is on for other factors that might show why more people are gaining weight more easily.
Life before birth. Both overweight and underweight babies are more likely to grow up fat. So are those born to smokers. Evidence suggests pollution is also predisposing the unborn to obesity. The introduction and increase in the use of such chemicals coincides with the epidemic taking off.
Age of mothers. The chances of becoming obese increase with maternal age. And the average age of first giving birth has gone up by 2.6 years in Britain since 1970.
Less sleep. Both children and adults are more likely to get fat if they get too little sleep, partly because they become hungrier. Average daily sleep has fallen from nine to seven hours over recent decades.
Temperature. People burn up more calories when they are cold. Central heating has ensured that they spend most of their time in comfortable temperatures.
Prescription drugs. Some drugs – including anti-psychotics, antidepressants and treatments for diabetes – cause people to gain weight.
Stopping smoking. Though mothers who smoke may make their children fat, they – and all smokers – are themselves less likely to put on weight. As the habit has decreased, obesity has soared. Read ArticleResearch into wound healing provides animal testing alternatives
Research into wound healing provides animal testing alternatives
Source: Cosmetics Design Europe (full article)
Date: 25 Aug 2008
A human skin equivalent from researchers in Queensland may help the Australian cosmetics industry keep up with Europe’s imminent ban on animal testing.
Scientists from the University of Queensland’s Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI) are showcasing their alternative to animal testing at the ‘Show Some Skin’ event held today at the Institute.
Although developed as part of the IHBI’s work into wound healing, the model can also be used to test cosmetics and their ingredients replacing laboratory tests using rats or pigs, one of the Institute’s senior researchers Professor Zoe Upton explained.
"Most people would go to rats and mice for lab testing, but when it comes to testing new wound therapies, or products and cosmetics that go on human skin, pig skin is our closest alternative and is most often used.
"However, this is expensive, the test numbers are limited and of course there are ethical problems to consider, so using a human skin equivalent will reduce this use and possibly give more accurate results," she said.
Skin cells from surgery patients
IHBI’s human skin equivalent uses skin cells from human patients undergoing surgery.
The skin cells are then isolated and processed in the laboratory so that they begin to grow healthily again. Once this occurs they can be brought back together and a human skin equivalent can be reconstructed, explained Upton.
"We deconstruct the skin and its cells and then reconstruct them - we cannot use the skin cut-offs themselves, as they are dying and we need to get the cells back to a state where they are growing healthily again," she said.
The model, which was a finalist in this year’s Museum of Australia’s Eureka Prize for ‘Research that contributes to animal protection’, comes at a particularly important time for the cosmetics industry.
European ban on animal testing
European regulation that bans the testing of cosmetics ingredients on animals will come into force from 2009.
Companies who do not comply with this legislation will not be able to export their products into Europe - losing access to one of the industry’s most significant markets. Read ArticleWomen warned not to wear perfume during pregnancy
Women warned not to wear perfume during pregnancy
Date: 31 August 2008
Source: Scotland on Sunday (full article)
By Kate Foster
PREGNANT women have been advised to avoid using perfumes or scented body creams after research suggested the products can cause unborn boys to suffer infertility or cancer in later life.
Research on rats carried out by Professor Richard Sharpe has found that the reproductive system of male foetuses can be damaged as early as at eight weeks' gestation by chemicals including those found in many cosmetics.
The damage can result in in fertility or testicular cancer "both growing medical problems across the world" said Sharpe, principal investigator at the Medical Research Council's Human Sciences Unit.
Sharpe, who will unveil his findings at a major conference on fertility in Edinburgh this week, has discovered a "time window" at 8 to 12 weeks' gestation - before some women even know they are pregnant - during which certain hormones in the foetus are activated and the male reproductive system is established.
Sharpe has found that future problems with male fertility including undescended testicles, low sperm count and the risk of testicular cancer could be determined at this time if these hormones, such as testosterone, do not work properly.
Experiments on rats have confirmed that if the hormones are blocked the animals suffered fertility problems.
Sharpe told Scotland on Sunday: "We have found the male programming window, which occurs far earlier in foetal development than was previously thought, before the reproductive organs fully develop. This is when the androgens such as testosterone in the foetus are at their most active.
"If the male foetus does not receive enough androgens it may not realise its full reproductive potential, including the size of the penis and testes, undescended testes or the sperm count. The chances are, something will be wrong with the reproductive system. It may be one thing or several things.
"Women could stop using body creams and perfumes. Although we do not have conclusive evidence that they do harm, there are components about which there are question marks; for example it could be certain combinations of chemicals. If you are thinking about how a baby might be exposed, that's one way, and it's something positive you can do. It might have no consequence, but it's something positive women can do for their baby."
Sharpe will reveal his findings this week at the Simpson Symposium in Edinburgh, a gathering of fertility experts organised by Edinburgh University.
Up to 8% of boys are thought to be born with undescended testicles, which is the most common birth defect in boys and is linked to infertility. The condition is also a risk factor for developing testicular cancer later in life.
Sperm quality and number have declined in the last 30 years. About one in seven couples in the UK will have difficulty conceiving at some time. About one third of cases are due to problems in the man.
Testicular cancer is also increasing worldwide by between 1% and 6% a year. The annual number of new cases of testicular cancer in the UK grew from 850 in 1975 to 1,889 in 2004.
However, campaigners urged women not to panic over the suggestion until further studies are conducted.
Susan Seenan, spokeswoman for the charity Infertility Network UK, said: "A lot of women will not even know they are pregnant at this stage, or how far along they are. I would be very concerned about alarming women until these tests have been done on humans. We welcome any new research in infertility but we would like to see a lot more research in this area before the findings on animals can be said for humans."
REMEMBER: Miessence Products have no toxins, no synthetic chemicals and no parabens. Read ArticleAustralian Organic Industry Worth Around 600 Million Dollars
Australian Organic Industry Worth Around 600 Million Dollars
Source: OFA - Organic Federation of Australia - August 2008 Newsletter
Date: August 2008.
The Australian Organic Market Report 2008 shows that the industry is worth almost $600 million with around 30% growth per annum for some sectors since the OFA initiated report in 2004. 2007 farm gate values were estimated to be in excess of $231 m Australian dollars – an 80 % increase on 2004. Major retailers now carry in excess of 500 different organic lines in fresh and grocery categories.
OFA members