Contaminated Without Consent Movie

Contaminated Without Consent Website

Not All Supplements Are Created Equal

Recently in California it was discovered that many common brands of fish oil contain up to 70 times the permissible "safe" levels of lead and PCBs. There were 74 manufacturers that were named in a suit on behalf of proposition 65 in California that requires companies to disclose that their product had been tested to have unsafe levels of lead. Proposition 65 is the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 requiring manufacturers to notify potential consumers of possible lead exposure.

Funny thing about this is that lead was high in these fish oils. Lead is not normally a concern in fish oil manufacturing but mercury is because of the fish source. Since lead is the object of prop 65 and mercury is not, I think it is still reasonable to be concerned about accumulating mercury levels from these fish oils. One patient I treated for very high levels of lead and mercury in the blood (recent exposure) could only isolate his lead and mercury exposure to a fish oil purchased at a common Warehouse coop and one dinner with swordfish in the past 2 months. After stopping the fish oil, and starting a clean one I recommended, his blood lead and mercury levels went back to normal after a few months. PCBs are also a huge concern in fish oils and farmed salmon.

There was also one reported incident of Selenium toxicity in a patient taking a multiple vitamin/mineral supplement that contained 200 TIMES the stated level of Selenium on the label. This post is to warn all of you out there to be careful that your supplement products are manufacturer using GMP practices (Good Manufacturing Practices) certification. The scary thing is that a few of these companies cited in California for excessive Lead and PCBs had GMP certification. Below is the list of companies named in the suit in California.

We will soon be opening an online store so that our readers can get safe, consistent supplements with reliable testing. So many people waste their money on supplements that are either not sufficient or unregulated and in more and more cases, toxic.

DEFENDANTS NAMED IN THE LAWSUIT in California

21st Century Healthcare, Inc.

Apex Fitness Group, A division of 24 Hour Fitness USA

Biosan Laboratories

Bluebonnet Nutrition Corporation

Bronson Nutritionals

Buried Treasure, a division of Life Line Food Inc.

Clinician's Choice

D&E Pharmaceuticals

Davinci Laboratories of Vermont

Delaware Natrol

Designs For Health

Douglas Laboratories

Dynamic Health Laboratories

Enzymatic Therapy

Esteem Products

Fairhaven Health

Foodscience Corporation

Foodscience of Vermont

Futurebiotics

Genspec Labs

Health Authority Dba Doctor's Trust Vitamins

Hxn Corporation

Dba Health Xpress

Integrative Therapeutics

Irwin Naturals

J.R. Carlson Laboratories

Kirkman

Kordial Nutrients

Maximum International

Metabolic Maintenance Products

Metagenics

Mountain Naturals of Vermont

Natural Organics

Nature's Secret

Nature's Way Products

Nbty

New Chapter

Nexgen Pharma

Nf Formulas

Now Foods

Nutribiotic

Nutritional Specialties

Nutri-west

Olympian Labs

Only Natural

Optimal Nutrients, USA, a division of Pegasus Plus

Pioneer Nutritional Formulas

Pure Essence Laboratories

Rainbow Light Nutritional Systems

Solgar

Spring Valley Herbs & Natural Foods

Supernutrition Life-extension Research

The Daily Wellness Company

The Vitamin Shoppe Industries

Threshold Enterprises, the Parent Company Of Source Naturals

True Fit Vitamins

Universal Nutrition

Wyeth Laboratories

From http://www.greenhealthspot.com/


We purchase ours from Costco..Kirkland brand but don't know if it's from another brand...been meaning to move over to Krill oil ... a good time to start looking but I guess there's no real guarantee that what we buy is safe unless you take it to a lab and have it tested... just seems like you can't trust anything anymore...sigh... ~nancy

Concerned about BPA: Check your receipts

Concerned about BPA: Check your receipts
By Janet Raloff
Web edition : Wednesday, October 7th, 2009
font_down font_up Text Size
access
Enlargemagnify
What's the charge?Some — but not all — cash-register and credit-card receipts can be rich sources of exposure to BPA, a hormone-mimicking pollutant.Christopher Baker

While working at Polaroid Corp. for more than a decade, John C. Warner learned about the chemistry behind some carbonless copy papers (now used for most credit card receipts) and the thermal imaging papers that are spit out by most modern cash registers. Both relied on bisphenol-A.

Manufacturers would coat a powdery layer of this BPA onto one side of a piece of paper together with an invisible ink, he says. “Later, when you applied pressure or heat, they would merge together and you’d get color.”

At the time, back in the ‘90s, he thought little about the technology other than it was clever. But when BPA exploded into the news, about a decade ago, Warner began to develop some doubts.

Research was demonstrating that this estrogen-mimicking chemical was leaching out of polycarbonate plastics, out of the resins used to line most food cans and out of dental sealants. In the womb, this chemical could disrupt the normal development of a rodent’s gonads — or evoke changes that predisposed animals to later develop cancer.

Warner recalls that these reports piqued his curiosity about whether the color-changing papers that were increasingly proliferating throughout urban commerce still used BPA.

By this time, the organic chemist was teaching green chemistry at the University of Massachusetts. “So I'd send my students out to local stores to get their cash register receipts.” Back in the lab, they’d dissolve the paper, run it through a mass spectrometer and look for a telltale spike in the readout that signaled the presence of BPA.

And they’d find it, Warner says. Not in every receipt. But in plenty. And the paper used in the receipts that contained BPA looked no different than papers that didn’t.

But that was then, before he co-founded the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, an organization that works with industry to develop safer products and production processes. So earlier this week I asked Warner whether he had evidence BPA might still be present in those papers. Yep. He turned up BPA-based receipts in use the last time he looked. Which was last month.

And the amount receipts carry isn’t trivial.

“When people talk about polycarbonate bottles, they talk about nanogram quantities of BPA [leaching out],” Warner observes. “The average cash register receipt that's out there and uses the BPA technology will have 60 to 100 milligrams of free BPA.” By free, he explains, it’s not bound into a polymer, like the BPA in polycarbonates. It’s just the individual molecules loose and ready for uptake.

As such, he argues, when it comes to BPA in the urban environment, “the biggest exposures, in my opinion, will be these cash register receipts.” Once on the fingers, BPA can be transferred to foods. And keep in mind, he adds, some hormones — like estrogen in certain birth-control formulations — are delivered through the skin by controlled-release patches. So, he argues, estrogen mimics like BPA might similarly enter the skin.

Maybe, maybe not. BPA and real estrogen don’t have the same structure, so their permeability might vary. Moreover, there are all kinds of materials in the skin that might selectively degrade or alter this hormone imposter as it passes through.

More importantly, I asked: Have you published your data? “No,” Warner says, “that’s not my goal.” His research organization “is dedicated to not preaching about the bad but about diligently trying to invent the good,” he says. Moreover, he says he lacks the resources to do a thorough job of quantifying the prevalence of BPA-laced receipts.

Perhaps. But for his research to have an impact, it must pass peer review and appear in journals that can be cited. His analytical techniques need to be articulated so that others can try to replicate his findings or shoot them down. And somebody has to go the distance and investigate how much BPA can rub off onto fingers from receipt papers, does it get through the skin — and if it does, how much gets into the circulation, where it can reach organs throughout the body?

Warner, a patent-toting inventor, has set his sights on developing some new analog to the old litmus test. He envisions something that could be rubbed across a receipt, or perhaps the fingers; when it sensed the presence of BPA it would change color.

Of course, a simpler caveat-emptor approach would be to just mandate labeling of any and all products that contain BPA at their point of sale — or in the case of receipts, at the cash register. At least pregnant women would know to wash their hands after picking up a BPA-laced receipt. And we’d all know to keep such paper out of hands of kids. We might also want to store those receipts in some zip-it-closed plastic baggie, not our wallets.

from: Science News

LAST BLOG: BPA in the womb shows link to kids’ behavior
----------------------

Until you know which kind of receipt you are being handed.. Wash your hands after every purchase. I doubt using the gel hand sanitizer will do it. Maybe gloves would be a better bet? I know it's crazy what we need to think about on a moment to moment basis.
~nancy

The Story of Stuff Project Movie... Mom's you gotta watch this one!

The Story of Stuff Project

I love how simple Annie Leonard puts this very complicated process of our consumption.

I was a shopaholic not to long ago so I know exactly what it feels like to wake up and have the list of things to go buy to feel like I got something done or got accomplished for the day.

Recently we have had to give a lot of our "stuff" to Good Will and Salvation Army. Our house even though it has tripled in size just did not fit all the crap we have.

I don't shop nearly as much as I used to. Mostly because we are trying to get out of debt. (Thanks to Dave Ramsey!)

This project is eye opening. Everything we consume has it's own life cycle. We have to be aware of what our impact is on this earth. We have to realize that cheaper does not = better!

http://www.storyofstuff.org/index.php

http://storyofstuff.org/blog/

http://www.youtube.com/storyofstuffproject#p/a/u/2/9GorqroigqM

On BPA: How Risky? How Much Concern? When to Act?

On BPA: How Risky? How Much Concern? When to Act?

By Lisa Frack

January 26, 2010

Special to Enviroblog by Elizabeth Grossman, who writes about environmental and science issues from Portland, Oregon and is author, most recently of Chasing Molecules.

On January 22, in a substantial shift in policy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it has "some concern" about the health effects of bishphenol A (BPA), particularly on infants and children. While not currently advocating regulation, the FDA is proposing steps that could lead to restrictions.

"We need to know more," said FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg during a press conference. But "as a precaution," the FDA has issued recommendations for reducing exposure.

This contrasts markedly with the FDA's 2008 assessment that declared of BPA use safe in consumer products, including for infants and children. It also aligns FDA's views with those of the National Toxicology Program and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Bisphenol A is the chemical building block of polycarbonate plastics. In use since the 1950s, polycarbonates go into countless consumer products, including baby bottles, sippy cups, food containers, dishware, appliances, electronics, shatterproof lenses, and sports gear. BPA also makes the epoxy resins that line most food and beverage cans, and jar lids. BPA has numerous additional applications, including dental sealants. It is used so widely that scientists consider exposure ubiquitous and continuous.

"We know that trace amounts of BPA can be found in these [food] containers," said William Corr, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services. "Recent reports of subtle effects of low doses of BPA on lab animals has raised concerns," said Corr, "that we need to take a closer look at."

It's well documented that as these plastics age, are heated, or are used with acidic or alkali liquids - from certain vegetables, fruits or detergents, for example - BPA can leach out of finished products. Biomonitoring studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control has found BPA in over 90% of Americans tested. Studies published in 2009 found BPA in newborns' umbilical cord blood and in 75% of the infants being cared for in a hospital's neonatal unit.

Concern arises because BPA is known to be an endocrine disrupting chemical. In numerous animal studies BPA has been shown to interfere with hormones that regulate reproduction, development, metabolism, and behavior.

"There are critical periods of development when exposure to BPA may lead to certain health effects, including behavioral effects, diabetes, reproductive disorders, development of certain kinds of cancers, asthma, cardiovascular disease, and effects that can go from one generation to the next," explained Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Although hundreds of published studies now document such effects, they remain controversial from a regulatory perspective in part because low-dose effects challenge traditional dose-equals-poison tenets of toxicology. Birnbaum and Corr cited the need for more research to determine the human health effects of BPA. To this end the NIEHS recently announced $30 million to fund new BPA studies.

In the FDA's announcement, Deputy Commissioner Josh Sharfstein said the agency would like to move BPA into a new regulatory framework that would allow the agency to respond quickly if it feels more research or regulation is required. "We would like to have a more robust framework for regulating BPA if and when necessary," said FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

In response, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the trade association representing bisphenol A manufacturers, noted the lack of definitive proof of BPA's harm to human health. "While ACC recognizes that HHS and FDA are attempting to address public confusion about BPA we are disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well-founded," said the ACC.

THE FDA announcement came on a busy week for BPA news. A new study released on January 13th confirmed findings of a previous Journal of the American Medical Association paper showing an association between bisphenol A exposure and cardiovascular disease. Analyzing data from the CDC's biomonitoring studies, researchers in the U.K. found that individuals with the highest BPA exposure had a 40 to 50% higher reported incidence of heart disease.

While this study does not prove BPA can cause heart disease, explains co-author Tamara Galloway, professor of ecotoxicology at of the University of Exeter, it shows that coincidence of exposure and cardiovascular disease is not "a statistical blip." Galloway and other researchers point out that the study only examines a "snapshot" and more information is needed to produce a comprehensive picture. But, says Galloway, "It adds a lot of realism" to earlier findings and underscores the need for further research.

Despite its limitations this study does begin to suggest that BPA may be a "systemic toxicant" - one that can adversely affect a broad range of vital body systems, says Bruce Lanphear professor of children's health at Simon Fraser University.

When a pattern of toxicity begins to emerge, says Lanphear, "We have two options as a society. We can wait until we're swamped by the evidence to decide if we should allow continued use or we can act without waiting for crises."

Such decisions are now before state legislators in Washington and Oregon considering bills that would restrict the use of BPA in children's products. Connecticut, Maine, Chicago and Suffolk County, New York have adopted such legislation. Many other states have introduced comparable bills, and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced federal legislation that would restrict BPA in all food containers.

In hearings held in Olympia and Salem on January 11 and 13th, ACC representative Steve Hentges, told legislators that BPA "is not a risk to human health, including infants and children" and questioned the need for legislative action "given intense ongoing federal regulatory agency review."

At the Oregon hearing, North American Metal Packaging Alliance representative William Hoyle, described BPA epoxy resins as vital to food safety, stressing that viable, reliable alternatives are unavailable. Some alternatives do exist, however, and are being used by U.S. and Japanese manufacturers.

On Friday the FDA announced it would actively support research and development of BPA alternatives. "We will facilitate the development of alternatives, particularly for infant formula and food can liners," said Commissioner Hamburg.

Meanwhile, manufacturers are not waiting for regulation. The six baby bottle manufacturers, representing most of the U.S. market are already phasing out their BPA-based products. Meanwhile, major retailers, including Wal-Mart and Target, are offering increasing numbers of alternatives.

For now, it's largely up to consumers to decide whether or not they feel comfortable using BPA products. The FDA does not recommend families change what or how they feed their babies, but it does recommend reducing BPA exposure by using alternative baby bottles.

The FDA's January 15 BPA recommendations are open to public comment for 60 days. Timing was not specified but the FDA does plan to update its formal 2008 assessment. A "chemical action plan" on BPA is also expected from the EPA.

8 Ways to Reduce Your Exposure

I've been bugging about cell phones for a while now...well here it is.... please ready!!

1. USE A HEADSET OR SPEAKER
   

   Headsets emit much less radiation than phones. Experts are split on whether wired or wireless headsets are safer. (Check out the EWG website for a guide to headsets). Some wireless headsets emit continuous low-level radiation, so take yours off when you're not on a call. Using your phone in speaker mode also reduces radiation to the head.

2. LISTEN
   
   Your phone emits the most radiation when you talk or text but much less when you're receiving messages. Listening more and talking less reduces your exposures.
3. TEXT
   
   Phones use less power (which means less radiation) to send text instead of voice. Also, texting keeps the phone -- the radiation source -- away from your head.
4. PHONE AT ARM'S LENGTH
   
   Hold the phone away from your torso when you're talking with headset or speaker, not against your ear, in a pocket, or on your belt, where soft body tissues absorb radiation.
5. BUY A LOW-RADIATION PHONE
   
   Not all phones are created equal: Look up your phone on EWG's buyer's guide. (Your phone's model number may be printed under your battery.) If you're in the market for a new phone, find one that emits the lowest radiation possible and still meets your needs.
6. WEAK SIGNAL? STAY OFF THE PHONE
   
   Fewer signal bars mean the phone has to step up its emissions to contact the tower. Call when your phone has a strong signal.
7. SKIP "RADIATION SHIELDS"
   
   Radiation shields such as antenna caps or keypad covers reduce the connection quality and force the phone to transmit at a higher power with higher radiation.
8. LIMIT CHILDREN'S PHONE USE
   
   Young children's brains absorb twice as much cell phone radiation as those of adults. EWG joins health agencies in at least 6 countries in recommending limiting children's phone use, such as for emergencies only.

Article by Amy Rosenthal
read further and check out how much radiation your cell phone emits!

http://www.enviroblog.org/2009/10/cell-phone-radiation-series-2-8-ways-to-reduce-your-exposure-to-cell-p.html

Bagged salad: How clean?

“You might think that "pre­washed" and "triple-washed" salad greens sold in plastic clamshells or bags are squeaky clean. But our recent tests found room for improvement.”

What you can do

• Buy packages as far from their use-by date as you can find.
• Even if the bag says "prewashed" or "triple-washed," wash the greens yourself. Rinsing won't remove all bacteria but may remove residual soil.
• Prevent cross contamination by keeping greens away from raw meat. For more information, go to www.ConsumersUnion.org/safefood.

This article appeared in March 2010 Consumer Reports Magazine.

All the small short cuts that we find just don’t seem to be short cuts. We always buy bagged lettuce for convenience for the boys. There is just no short cuts when it comes to food!

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/march/recalls-and-safety-alerts/bagged-salad/index.htm

Dangerous Beauty: Petroleum base Lip Gloss

On Dr. Oz today…

Plastic surgeon and beauty product expert quote “In women who have had breast cancer there are twice the levels of these substances in the breast tissue than in women who don’t have breast cancer…”

What to look for in a lip gloss:
- With zinc oxide in it
- Made from Natural Beeswax
- Sunscreen under lip gloss

for more info on this show "The Price of Beauty"
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/price-beauty