Striving4Zen

No more tears, but something more harmful lurks inside?

That's what the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics would lead you to believe. The coalition of health, environmental, and consumer groups — armed with a letter signed by nearly 50 groups totaling some 1.7 million members — approached Johnson & Johnson to ask that the company reformulate its products to be free of chemicals suspected of causing cancer.

The substances in question are 1,4-dioxane (a byproduct of the manufacturing process) the preservative formaldehyde, which is slowly released by a chemical called Quaternium-15, both probable human carcinogens . . . and both found in the much-loved Johnson's Baby Shampoo, marketed as the "number-one choice of hospitals."

According to a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson:

The trace levels of certain compounds that were noted by the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics can result from processes that make our products gentle for babies and safe from bacteria growth. Many regulatory agencies around the world consider these trace levels safe.

The quantity in question in the baby shampoo is 210 parts per million of formaldehyde and a "low level" of 1,4-dioxane, amounts thought to be absorbed by the skin. But if the two chemicals were food additives, they'd have to be tested before being sold to prove they didn't contain dangerous chemicals . . . and these two would fail. Since the FDA is not involved in cosmetic product regulation, the point is (somewhat) lost but shocking nonetheless.

SOURCE

Labels: 1.4-dioxane, chemicals, FDA, formaldehyde, health and safety, Johnson's Baby Shampoo, personal care, toxic

The decision whether to add controversial chemical fluoride to water supplies will be made by health chiefs today. Southampton Primary Care Trust says it is the only way to reduce tooth decay in children across the city.

But campaigners fear fluoride has health risks. And they say adding it to tap water amounts to mass medication. And independent experts at York University have concluded there is only limited evidence that adding fluoride to water reduces decay.

And it warns any benefit comes at the cost of increasing the number of children developing mottled teeth from consuming too much fluoride.

The uncertain scientific evidence has led to an angry debate between those for and against fluoride.

"What is this toxin going to do in the body for the next 40 years? It's cumulative. It sits in the tissue and grows.

"Nobody knows what it can do. So I say err on the side of caution and don't put it in the water."

Full article...

Labels: chemicals, fluoride, health and safety, toxic, UK, water

I always like to recommend foods as close to their whole, natural forms as possible. Yet, in the case of tuna, it is difficult for me to stick with this principle 100% due to the types of fresh (and frozen) tuna most widely available in the marketplace and their relative risk of mercury toxicity.

Canned light tuna, ordinarily made from skipjack tuna, actually poses a substantially lower risk in terms of mercury exposure than fresh yellowfin or albacore tuna. So this type of tuna - canned light tuna - is the type that's best for you to buy if you want to eat tuna relatively often (for example, about one meal per week). If you are only interested in eating tuna about once per month, other options include yellowfin or albacore tuna (that is either fresh or frozen, troll or pole caught), which I would describe as having a medium mercury exposure risk. While from an ecological standpoint, I would rank these tuna as "best choices" most of us will probably want to consider the mercury and health risks right alongside of the ecological ones when deciding upon our food purchases.

While canned light tuna is my "best choice" recommendation when it comes to canned tuna, it's important to take a close look at the "canned light" label as skipjack, yellowfin, bluefin, and tongol can all be sold as "light" tuna. Skipjack is your best choice among these light tuna options for lowering your risk of mercury exposure.

I also recommend water-packed versus oil-packed tuna whenever you are buying canned tuna. In addition to questioning the quality of non-organic oils used in oil-packed tuna (and the unnecessary, lower-quality fat calories they provide), water-packed tuna, on average, contains a slightly higher omega-3 fat content than oil-packed tuna. However small it may be, it is yet another important benefit that it offers.

There are also more expensive, specialty brands of canned tuna available in the marketplace that may serve as a good option. Some of these specialty products give you better flavor and more omega-3 fatty acids due to higher-quality production methods.

They may also involve more sustainable fishing methods than many other forms of canned tuna.

Source

Labels: canned tuna, health and safety, healthy diet, mercury, Omega-3s, tuna, world's healthiest foods

Everyone from health experts to Rachael Ray has touted the benefits of olive oil. As demand for expensive, higher-quality olive oil has grown, however, so has the problem of fraud. Last year, Connecticut officials discovered that some of that state's olive oil was a little too slick. As a result, beginning next month, the state will be the first in the country to set quality standards for olive oil.

The state's new regulations prohibit additives and define virgin olive oil as "obtained from the fruit of the olive tree solely by mechanical or other physical means . . . which have not undergone any treatment other than washing, decanting, centrifuging and filtration." California and New York have expressed interest in enacting similar standards because counterfeit olive oil poses a potential health risk to consumers. Some people experience adverse reactions from unscrupulous olive oil, possibly as a result of food allergies to soybeans, tree nuts, and peanuts.

Thanks Yum!

Labels: counterfeit, health and safety, olive oil, virgin olive oil

France’s health minister is planning a checkup for cosmetics to assess the health risks they pose for children and pregnant women, and may introduce a logo for products that are considered toxic to reproduction.

Roselyne Bachelot said during a conference focusing on chemicals, reproduction and child development Tuesday that she’s instructing government agencies to research the toxicity of certain chemical substances, particularly with respect to reproductive issues. AFSSAPS, or the French Health Products Safety Agency, will be called upon to evaluate the risks posed by cosmetics during pregnancy and for children, for example.

“I’m thinking notably of cosmetics distributed in maternity wards,” said Bachelot, according to a copy of her speech posted on a government Web site. She added she aims to make information on the potential risks of using products containing certain chemicals available to pregnant women and women planning to have children.

“I would like to study, in partnership with industry [bodies], the possibility of putting a logo on products that are toxic to reproduction, indicating they are not recommended for pregnant women and for young children,” she said.

The Fédération des Entreprises de la Beauté, a French trade association that represents the 300 companies with 97 percent of the beauty sector’s turnover, said it is willing to work with health authorities on the issues raised.

Source

Labels: cosmetics, France, health and safety, toxic, toxins

America's latest drinking problem isn't about alcohol.

Concerned about the cost of bottled water -- and its environmental consequences -- many people are turning back to tap water to quench their thirst. But as evidence mounts of contaminants in public systems, unease about the water supply is growing.

Engineers say that U.S. water quality is among the world's best and is regulated by some of the most stringent standards. But as detection technology improves, utilities are finding more contaminants in water systems. Earlier this year, media reports of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in water across the country drew attention from U.S. senators and environmental groups, who are now pushing for regulation of these substances in water systems.

Of particular concern, experts say, are endocrine-disrupting compounds -- found in birth-control pills, mood-stabilizers and other drugs -- which are linked to birth defects in wildlife. Also alarming are antibiotics, which if present in water systems, even in small amounts, could contribute to the rise of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, or so-called super bugs.

The actual health effects of drugs in water systems are unclear. The levels that have been detected are relatively small compared with those of other regulated contaminants, such as mercury and benzene. A 2008 study funded by the Denver-based Awwa Research Foundation -- a nonprofit research group that was established by the American Water Works Association -- concluded that it is "highly unlikely" that pharmaceuticals will pose a threat to human health.

But many medical experts argue that more studies need to be done -- and note that the amount of drugs in the water matters less than who drinks it. Some drugs, even in small amounts, can be especially harmful to infants, pregnant women or those with chronic health conditions, for example.

Drugs are only one category of contaminants found in tap water. A 2005 study released by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, found that tap water in 42 states is contaminated with more than 140 unregulated chemicals, including MTBE, perchlorate and industrial solvents.

Protesting a Disinfectant

Even chemicals used to clean and disinfect drinking water are causing worry. Citizens' groups in states such as CA, NY and VT are protesting the increasing use of chloramine -- a combination of chlorine and ammonia -- to disinfect drinking water. Utilities are using chloramine because of Environmental Protection Agency limits on chlorine byproducts.

Citizens Concerned About Chloramine in San Francisco, says that hundreds of residents have had reactions, such as rashes and respiratory problems, to the disinfectant. Some byproducts of chloramine can be more toxic than chlorine byproducts, says Michael Plewa, a professor of genetics at the U of Illinois who has studied disinfection byproducts.

The EPA says chloramine is safe in drinking water and has been used for decades.

In the absence of federal regulation of certain chemicals in water systems, some states have stepped in. California, for one, has set standards for various compounds that are not regulated by the EPA, including perchlorate, an ingredient used in rocket fuel that was spilled into groundwater during the Cold War and has been found in many water systems. Massachusetts has set standards for perchlorate and requires that water utilities in the state test for MTBE, a gasoline additive.

Tap Versus Bottled

Health concerns extend to bottled water, says Sarah Janssen, a science fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group based in NY. "A lot of bottled water is actually tap water, so there is no assurance that what is coming from the bottle is any safer than what is coming from the tap," she says.

In fact, experts say tap water is held to more stringent standards by the EPA, and tested more often, than bottled water, which is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

Utilities are required by law to send annual reports to their customers detailing contaminants found in water systems and whether they exceed levels set by the EPA. They're not required to list unregulated contaminants in these reports.

Water that is tested by utilities is generally tested at the plant. It still has to travel through your pipes to get to your tap, so if you have pipes that are a couple of decades old, it may be a good idea to get the water from your tap tested in a lab -- especially if you are pregnant, nursing or have small children, says the NRDC's Dr. Janssen.

Water filters aren't foolproof. Those that are certified by NSF International -- a nonprofit group that tests food and water products -- can get rid of unwanted chemicals to EPA's standards, but consumers should be aware that trace amounts of chemicals may still be left in their water.

Carbon filters, which come in the form of a faucet mount or a pitcher, are the most commonly used and cost about $30, says Rick Andrew, operations manager of the drinking water treatment unit program at NSF. These can be fairly effective in removing many contaminants, but need to be replaced about every two months.

Other options -- such as reverse-osmosis systems, which use a semipermeable membrane to remove contaminants, or ultraviolet light treatment, which prevents micro-organisms from reproducing -- can be more effective, but they cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Some consumers have found the cost is worth it, especially if members of the family have certain health conditions.

Full article....

Labels: bottled water, drinking, EPA, filters, health and safety, reverse osmosis, tap water, toxic, toxins, water

Less than a dozen years after Dolly the sheep became the world's first cloned mammal, grocers and restaurateurs are digesting the fact that milk and meat from cloned animals could soon filter into their supply chains.

The government took major steps toward easing cloned livestock and their offspring into the food supply in mid-January, when the Food and Drug Administration concluded they're safe to eat.

The question is, will consumers swallow the new technology? And how will food businesses cope if their customers balk?

Read article...

Labels: cloning, food, health and safety