Dr. Stephanie Seneff, an MIT research scientist, is calling for a ban on Monsanto’s Roundup. During a recent presentation she stated, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.”

She made this statement while presenting her findings of the correlation between the increasing use of Monsanto’s Roundup and the rising rates of autism. While she is unable to prove causation, the correlation on a graph is quite remarkable and does call for further investigation. The number of children with autism has risen from 1 in 5,000 in 1990 to 1 in 68 today.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, builds up in our environment and in our bodies over time. Monsanto claims it is harmless. Senoff says glyphosate kills beneficial bacteria in the gut, which results in shortages of critical neurotransmitters, minerals, and folate. And we know, nine out of ten autistic children suffer from gastrointestinal problems.

In her PowerPoint she wrote, “Adjuvants in pesticides are generally declared as inerts, and for this reason they are not tested in long-term regulatory experiments. It is thus very surprising that they amplify up to 1000 times the toxicity of their APs [Active Principles] in 100% of the cases where they are indicated to be present by the manufacturer.”

Some Of the Markers For Autism and Glyphosate Match

She lists the following markers—the same markers for both autism and glyphosate poisoning:

• Disrupt gut bacteria; inflammatory bowel
• Low serum sulfate
• Methionine deficiency
• Serotonin and melatonin deficiency
• Defective aromatase
• Zinc and iron deficiency
• Urinary p-cresol
• Mitochondrial disorder
• Seizures; Glutamate toxicity in the brain

In addition to autism, she revealed correlations to Alzheimer’s, celiac disease and other intestinal disorders as well as kidney failure of agricultural workers.

Other Correlations To Autism

There is no single cause for autism. It is becoming more and more clear that autism is caused by toxicity, whether than be an accumulation or a single event.

Vaccines can provide that single event. Many parents report that their normal child disappeared right before their eyes after a vaccine, often the MMR. The current vaccine schedule also provides the opportunity for an accumulative reaction.

Our Increasingly Toxic World

The dirt in which we grow our food, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, our homes, vaccines and other medications, all combine to create a toxic world.

If we want to protect our children, we must limit toxicity as much as possible in utero, after birth, and as they grow.

Roundup has been banned in other countries.

Recommended Supplements:

• Shillington’s Total Nutrition Formula
• Formula SF722 • 250c – Thorne Research
• FloraMend Prime Probiotic • 30c – Thorne Research

Further Reading:

•  The Reasons Gluten Intolerance and Celiac Disease Are On the Rise
• How Gluten can Affect Your Brain, Gut, and Skin
• 5 Things You Didn’t Know About Gluten

Sources:

• MIT Researcher’s New Warning: At Today’s Rate, Half Of All U.S. Children Will Be Autistic By 2025 – The Mind Unleashed
• Autism and the ‘pesticide factory’ inside our guts – The Health Moderator
• Is Roundup the Toxic Chemical That’s Making Us All Sick? – Stephanie Seneff

If you’d like to do something for the environment, but don’t really know where to start, don’t worry – you don’t have to change your entire lifestyle to make a change. It’s often the little things that add up and can make a real difference. If you’re scared of committing to a lifetime of organic and sustainable living, then why not start small and see what happens? We’ve compiled a few easy tips for beginners who want to work towards a more sustainable future and a healthier and happier lifestyle.

Eat Green(er)

You don’t have to become a vegan or vegetarian overnight, but why not skip meat once in a while and try and cut down on your chicken and beef intake? If you cut down on meat, you will also save quite a bit of money, which means that you could go to the butcher or farmers market more often to treat yourself to some grass-fed organic beef. After all, it’s quality over quantity. Plenty of people around the UK are doing meatless Mondays – and there’s no reason why you couldn’t be one of them. So look for some vegetarian recipes online and get cooking.

Choose Sustainable Cleaners

It’s easy to buy strong, harsh household cleaners from the supermarket, but did you know that you could simply use basic household items instead of harsh chemical cleaners and get the same effect? A mixture of vinegar and baking soda, with some lemon juice added in, makes for a great cleaner for household cleaning emergencies in the kitchen and bathroom. Cleaning has never been so simple and cheap – and sustainable.

Turn Off the Lights

We all know we shouldn’t waste energy, but how often do you actually find yourself leaving on the lights, simply because it’s easier? Try to make it a habit to turn off any lights and lamps that you don’t need, even if you’re just popping to the shop across the road. And remember to swap your light bulbs for energy-efficient ones to save energy and money. You won’t have to feel so bad if you do end up forgetting the lights once in a while.

Avoid Plastic

It’s generally a good rule of thumb to avoid plastic whenever possible. Take your own bag for shopping instead of getting a new plastic bag every time you buy something. Not only are tote bags sturdier than plastic, they will last you a long time, while being a lot better for the environment.  What’s not to love? Try and avoid bottled water, too, as plastic generates massive amounts of container waste. Get yourself a reusable water bottle that you can refill, and save some money while you’re at it too.

Sources and Further Reading:

• Maybe We Shouldn’t Ever Buy Grocery Store Chicken – Green Lifestyle Market
• Greening Yourself – Green Lifestyle Market
• DIY and Green Cleaning Tips – Cleanipedia

Of all the rooms in a house, it’s probably bathrooms that need the most attention – and a regular, ideally weekly, scrub in order to get rid of any dirt and prevent mould and unpleasant smells. But while you want to get rid of all the germs and soap scum, luckily, there’s no need to turn to harsh chemicals and toxic bleaches to keep your bathroom clean. Natural cleaning products are better for your skin, lungs, and the environment – and surprisingly, there’s nothing in the bathroom that you can’t clean the green way. Take a look at these simple tips for how to get your bathroom sparkling using only sustainable and organic cleaners.

Green Clean Your Toilet

To get rid of nasty stains, calcium residue, and germs, mix together half a cup of vinegar and a spoon of baking soda, and let the mixture sit in the toilet bowl for an hour before you start scrubbing the toilet with a brush or sponge. If you do this regularly, you won’t need abrasive chemicals to keep your toilet spotless.

Using Homemade Cleaners in The Shower

No-one likes a shower full of soap scum – and all you need to get rid of soapy residue is some baking soda and biological dish soap. Mix those two together, apply to a sponge, and you’ve got yourself a powerful cleaner for shower doors and ceramic surfaces. If the stains are slightly more stubborn, use an old toothbrush for extra powerful scrubbing. For your shower curtain, mix some vinegar and water, spray the mixture onto the curtain, and clean it with warm water. If you’ve got mould on the curtain, apply some baking soda mixed with water and rub the stain. Did you know that you can also wash most shower curtains in the washing machine? Use an organic detergent to get rid of stubborn dirt and give your curtain an overhaul.

Unclogging Drains the Natural Way

Clogged drains in the bathroom can be a nightmare, but there’s no need to pour toxic chemicals down your drain – think of the environment, and opt for a natural de-clogger instead. Simply mix baking soda with vinegar and let the mixture sit for a while – it will break down any gunky residue and allow the water to flow again after. But keep in mind that this is no substitute for a plumber – sometimes, you just have to make that call.

Use Natural Scents

You don’t need to buy air freshener to have a constant lovely scent lingering in your bathroom – use lavender oil or peppermint oil to keep it fresh, or place dried herbs and flowers in small bowls around your bathroom. You can also add some lemon and cinnamon to a small few spoons of baking soda for a nice and cosy winter smell.

 Sources and Further Reading:

• Natural Cleaning Ingredients
• DIY Cleaning Tips – Cleanipedia

We’ve known the horrific conditions animals endure when raised in factory farms. One could only hope we have all seen some footage that shows chickens, cows, or pigs crammed into tiny spaces so filled that the animals cannot turn around or lay down. One thing we haven’t seen until now are the cesspools created by factory farming.

Mark Devries, director of the documentary Speciesism, the Movie, explores the cultural belief that “our species is more important than the rest.” His exposure of factory farming as “one of the greatest evils in our history” should give us pause. After all, animal cruelty laws are widely upheld when it comes to the treatment of cats, dogs, and horses. For some reason they don’t apply to factory raised animals.

Factory farms are tucked away and hidden from prying eyes. In his film, Mark crawls through bushes, flies over factory farms, and even uses a drone to videotape the landscape. In a clip (see video below) his drone reveals a cesspool the size of three football fields. The cesspool is simply a giant trench filled to the brim with pig feces and urine. The metal buildings beside the cesspool hold pigs crammed nose to tail. Waste is flushed under each building to the cesspools and then sprayed into the air.

Now here’s the interesting part. The animal waste is not pumped into a treatment facility. It is not pumped into a septic tank. It is not treated in any way. It is sprayed into the air.

From there, where does it go? While giant factory farms make an effort to hide away in rural settings, they still have neighbors. Their practice of spraying waste into the air causes it to drift onto their neighbors’ property. The odor alone is unimaginable. At times, it rain animal feces onto the neighbors’ yards and houses. Asthma rates, especially for children, are high. Runoff from factory farms contaminates waterways and groundwater.

Animals raised under these conditions are highly susceptible to disease. Initial reports regarding the Swine flu epidemic identified patient zero as a child who lived near a factory farm, but these reports were quickly squashed.

Short Clip of the Drone Footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayGJ1YSfDXs

Check out Mark Devries film, Speciesism, the Movie

(Cornucopia – Ensia – by Elizabeth Grossman) It’s almost impossible to imagine life without flexible, transparent and water-resistant food packaging, without plastic sandwich bags, cling film or shelves filled with plastic jars, tubs and tubes, and durable bags and boxes.

While storing food in containers dates back thousands of years, and food has been sold in bottles since the 1700s and cans since the 1800s, what might be considered the modern age of food packaging began in the 1890s when crackers were first sold in sealed waxed paper bags inside a paperboard box. Plastics and other synthetics began to appear in the 1920s and ’30s, shortly after chemical companies started experimenting with petroleum-based compounds and pioneering new materials that could be used for household as well as industrial applications.

Fast forward to 2014: Upwards of 6,000 different manufactured substances are now listed by various government agencies as approved for use in food contact materials in the U.S. and Europe — materials that can legally go into consumer food packaging, household and commercial food containers, food processing equipment, and other products.

Recent analyses have revealed substantial gaps in what is known about the health and environmental effects of many of these materials and raised questions about the safety of others. A study published this past July found that 175 chemicals used in food contact materials are also recognized by scientists and government agencies as chemicals of concern — chemicals known to have adverse health effects. Another published in December 2013 found that more than 50 percent of food contact materials in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration database of such substances lacked accompanying toxicology information filed with the FDA about the amount people can safely eat. This database is publicly available and searchable, but the database itself doesn’t include toxicology information about these substances or any details of the products in which the listed chemicals are used.

Presumably, the primary goal of food packaging is to keep food safe to eat. But what do we actually know about the stuff that surrounds our food? What do we know about how these materials may interact with the food they touch, or their potential effects on human health and the environment?

Plastics, Coatings, Colors, Glues

In the U.S., the FDA regulates food contact materials, classifying them as “indirect food additives.” These materials, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, include not only the polymers that make up plastics but also resins and coatings used in can linings and jar lids, pigments, adhesives, biocides and what the FDA charmingly calls “slimicides.” The FDA distinguishes these substances from those added to food itself by explaining that food contact materials are “not intended to have a technical effect in such food,” meaning that these substances are not supposed to change the food they touch.

This categorization makes such substances exempt from food ingredient labeling requirements, explains Dennis Keefe, director of the FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety. In other words, food packaging need not carry any information about what it’s made of. Any such information is voluntary, often geared toward facilitating recycling and sometimes part of marketing campaigns declaring a product “free of” a substance of concern.

“Food packaging chemicals are not disclosed, and in many cases we don’t have toxicology or exposure data,” explains Maricel Maffini, an independent scientist and consultant who specializes in food additives research. Yet a core component of the FDA’s regulation of food contact materials is based on the assumption that these substances may migrate into and be present in food.

In fact the FDA’s system for approving food contact materials — which it does on an individual basis, with approval granted to a specific company for a particular intended use — depends on how much of a substance is expected to migrate into food. This is assessed based on information a company submits to the FDA; the FDA may come back to a company with questions and do its own literature search, but it doesn’t send the substances to a lab for testing as part of the approval process. The higher the level of migration, the more extensive toxicological testing the FDA requires.

“We’re talking parts per billion,” explains George Misko, partner at Keller & Heckman, a Washington, D.C.–based law firm that specializes in regulation. But that’s a level at which some chemicals used in food packaging have been found to be biologically active.

Beyond the Container

But there’s “more than the threshold of migration” that needs to be considered when assessing food contact material safety, says Jane Muncke, managing director and chief scientific officer of the Zurich-based nonprofit Food Packaging Forum. In addition to the materials themselves, Muncke explains, these substances’ chemical breakdown and by-products need to be considered. This means that there are lots more individual chemicals that may be touching food — and therefore be detectable in food — than those present in the packaging as formulated. For polymers — the large molecules that typically make up plastics — these breakdown and by-products “can be significant,” says Muncke.

These additional breakdown and by-product chemicals also contribute to issues of chemical safety assessment, explains Maffini. Chemical regulations typically consider chemicals one at a time, when in reality we’re exposed to multiple chemicals concurrently, including those present in food. So the individual chemical assessments that determine food contact material approvals may not capture all the ways in which a single substance may interact with food, human bodies or the environment. The list of chemicals measured by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination survey offers a snapshot of this issue. It includes in its biomonitoring (testing for chemicals in the human body) not only whole chemicals to which people may be exposed, but also numerous compounds that occur only after these chemicals enter and are metabolized by the human body.

As Muncke and other scientists have pointed out, while food contact materials are not intended to alter food, they are not necessarily inert or biologically inactive. This is where the parts-per-billion levels that trigger the FDA’s testing levels for food contact materials quickly gets complicated.

Back in the 1950s when the U.S. government laid the groundwork for current food additive regulations, the scientific assumption was that the higher the level of exposure, the greater a chemical’s biological effect. The focus of concern then was acute effects: birth defects, genetic mutations and cancers. Since the mid-1980s, however, and especially in the last 10 to 15 years, scientific evidence indicating that low levels of exposure — particularly to chemicals that can affect hormone function — can have significant biological effects has been accumulating rapidly. So has evidence that such exposures can lead to chronic effects on metabolic, reproductive, neurological, cardiovascular and other body systems and can set the stage for health disorders that may take years to become apparent. Yet from an FDA regulatory perspective, such low dose effects are very much still under review as they are, for example, for bisphenol A, a building block of polycarbonate plastic that is used widely in food contact products and — as an endocrine disrupter — has become a focal point in the public debate over safety of food contact materials.

Chemicals of Concern

“The last 20 years has seen more innovation in packaging than almost anything else,” says Misko. So where are the scientists who scrutinize food packaging and contact materials looking to better understand potential exposure effects, given the large universe of these materials?

They are looking both at materials used widely in consumer packaging and at materials used commercially to store and process food. While extensive research into health effects of BPA continues, phthalates, another long-used category of chemicals that has also been identified as having hormonal effects, is receiving additional research attention. One use of phthalates — of which there are many different types — is as plasticizers, often with polyvinyl chloride. Numerous studies, including those conducted by scientists at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Environmental Protection Agency, to name but a very few of those published, have now linked various phthalates to adverse male reproductive hormone effects and have found associations between phthalate exposure and childhood asthma. While the American Chemistry Council says that “phthalates do not easily migrate,” the final report of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Phthalates released in July (the panel was convened under the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that also restricted use of certain phthalates in children’s products but doesn’t affect food packaging), found food to be a significant source of phthalate exposure. Recent studies, including those by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, New York University, University of Texas, University of Washington and U.S. EPA, have also found food to be a consistent source of phthalates.

“Food packaging is a big issue,” says Robin Whyatt, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health’s Center for Children’s Environmental Health. Whyatt’s most recent research looks at the potential association between prenatal phthalate exposure and childhood asthma. The positive links found in her first-of-a-kind human epidemiological study will have to be replicated to be confirmed, but when considered in conjunction with other research, particularly that points to food as an ongoing source of phthalate exposure, Whyatt says this indicates a “need for FDA to conduct a total dietary study” for at least one phthalate. Muncke notes that phthalates are often part of plastics used in food processing and other commercial or industrial rather than household applications.

Tip of the Iceberg

Yet BPA and phthalates — chemicals that have found their way into public consciousness — are just the tip of the iceberg. Other materials coming under scrutiny, says Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney Tom Neltner, include greaseproof papers that use what are called perfluorinated compounds, chemicals known to be environmentally persistent and associated in both animal and human studies with various adverse health effects. While some of these compounds have been phased out of use in the U.S. and EU, Neltner says they appear to be in ongoing — even increasing — use in Asia.

Among the substances the Food Packaging Forum is looking at are printing inks that can become mixed into recycled papers used in food packaging. “This is a big issue in Europe,” says Muncke, pointing out that thousands of different chemicals can be used in these inks. Other substances that are in FDA-listed food contact materials as part of chemical formulations — or that can be released from those materials — include formaldehyde and a category of chemicals known as organotins that have been found in studies to have adverse hormonal effects. Again, because FDA grants approval for food contact materials on a use-by-use basis, the database of these substances doesn’t indicate for which products the FDA has okayed their use.

Environmental impacts

Some forms of packaging pose environmental hazards as well. Plastic bags (or parts thereof) can clog drains, become entangled with aquatic organisms or disrupt the digestive tracts of birds and other animals. Polystyrene — often used for take-out food and beverage containers — can similarly pose physical hazards for marine and aquatic life if it ends up in rivers or ocean environments. Such materials are slow to degrade and so can persist in the environment, including in landfills. Both plastic bags and polystyrene can be recycled for reuse but convenient recycling options are often not widely available.

Virtually any plastic packaging, whether a plastic water bottle or “clamshell” container will persist in the environment to some degree if not put into recycling. Large quantities of this long-lasting debris ends up being washed out to sea where its impacts are now well documented as creating physical and potential chemical hazards in the world’s oceans.

Meanwhile, PVC plastics can release dioxins and furans — both persistent carcinogens — if subjected to incomplete combustion as can happen in environmentally substandard landfills, particularly in places where garbage dumps are routinely burned to reduce volume as they often are in cities in Africa and Asia, for example. Other additives used in plastics — such as plasticizers, stabilizers and flame retardants — can also be released to the environment during disposal as has been documented innumerous studies conducted worldwide. Many of these chemicals, among them phthalates, halogenated flame retardants and organotins, have adverse effects.

The Knottiest Issue

Given the vast number of chemicals that may be used in food contact materials, what’s a consumer to do, particularly since so little information is readily available about these substances? “We don’t want to scare consumers,” says Muncke. At the same time, she says, consumers who want to play it safe can follow some basic practices. Don’t microwave plastic. Minimize purchase of processed food. In general, reduce home contact of food and beverages — including water — with plastic.

Meanwhile, at least one company is working to commercialize food packaging that is safe enough to eat. WikiPearl, an invention of Cambridge, Mass.–based WikiFoods and Harvard University bioengineering professor David Edwards, makes it possible to package ice cream, yogurt and cheese in edible shells durable enough to protect the food from contaminants and moisture loss. Inspired by fruit skins, the packaging is designed in part to reduce plastic packaging, says WikiFoods senior vice president for marketing and sales Eric Freedman. But exactly what the edible shell is made of is proprietary information.

Which points to perhaps the knottiest issue of all: How to provide the information transparency needed to fully inform the public about the health and environmental impacts of the materials they’re exposed to, while providing companies with information protection they need to succeed in a competitive market.

In its 2013 assessment of food additive chemicals — including those used in food packaging — the Pew Charitable Trusts found that the FDA’s method of assessing the safety of these materials is “fraught with systemic problems,” largely because it lacks adequate information. In the absence of labeling requirements and accessible health, safety and life cycle information, what consumers need to know about food contact materials will likely continue to be anything but transparent.

Reprinted with permission from Experience Life Magazine.

(DrFrankLipman – Jessie Sholl) We assume they are safe. But in fact, many popular household cleaners are dangerously toxic. Learn about the eight scariest substances hiding under your kitchen sink, and how to replace them with safer, more natural options that really work.

When a pain in Beth Greer’s shoulder led her to a chiropractor nine years ago, she wasn’t that worried. After all, she led a healthy lifestyle: She watched her weight, meditated regularly, and ate mostly organic food. Greer’s chiropractor wasn’t worried either; he diagnosed her with a herniated disk. But after three sessions, not only was she not better, the pain was beginning to radiate down her arm and into her fingers.

An MRI revealed the true cause of Greer’s pain: a tennis-ball-size tumor in her chest. The good news was the mass was benign. Still, each of the three thoracic surgeons Greer saw strongly recommended she have it removed. One wanted to get at it by going in under her collarbone, one wanted to reach the mass through her armpit, and the third wanted to remove a rib to get the tumor from the back.

They all agreed on just one thing: The surgery was risky. Because the tumor was in such a nerve-packed place, there was a real possibility that removing it could cause Greer to lose feeling in her hand.

Greer opted out of the surgery, and instead focused on doing everything she could to support her body’s healing capacity. Curious by nature (she and her husband, Steven Seligman, owned the Learning Annex, a group of schools offering short-term classes on everything from relationships to real-estate), Greer decided to learn everything she could about her condition and discovered that tumors typically grow in response to irritation and inflammation. Eliminating environmental toxins that might be contributing to her tumor’s growth seemed like a practical first step.

First, she turned her attention to the conventional household cleaning products tucked away in her cabinets. “I’d look at a label and it would say ‘hazardous to humans and domestic animals,’” says Greer. “So why would anyone want to use that?”

She ultimately tossed her entire collection of toxic cleaning products and began making her own with ingredients like vinegar, baking soda and essential oil. She also swapped her commercial body-care products and makeup for nontoxic ones, and she cleaned up her already healthy diet by eating only whole, unprocessed foods — without any labels.

Nine months later, her tumor was gone. Completely. Although she can’t pin her results on any one environmental change, Greer’s confident that cutting down her exposure to toxins played a critical role — so much so that she’s made sharing that information with others a central part of her life.

Today, Greer consults professionally with others who want to detoxify their homes and offices. In 2002 she and Seligman sold the Learning Annex and she began writing about toxin-free living. The result is her book, Super Natural Home (Rodale Books, 2009).

During her research for the book, Greer was shocked to learn that there’s no federal regulation of chemicals in household products. Rebecca Sutton, PhD, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), explains, “In terms of household cleaners, neither ingredients nor products must meet any sort of safety standard, nor is any testing data or notification required before bringing a product to market.”

The average household contains about 62 toxic chemicals, say environmental experts. We’re exposed to them routinely — from the phthalates in synthetic fragrances to the noxious fumes in oven cleaners. Ingredients in common household products have been linked to asthma, cancer, reproductive disorders, hormone disruption and neurotoxicity.

Manufacturers argue that in small amounts these toxic ingredients aren’t likely to be a problem, but when we’re exposed to them routinely, and in combinations that haven’t been studied, it’s impossible to accurately gauge the risks. While a few products cause immediate reactions from acute exposure (headaches from fumes, skin burns from accidental contact), different problems arise with repeated contact. Chronic exposure adds to the body’s “toxic burden” — the number of chemicals stored in its tissues at a given time.

This toxic body burden is EWG’s chief concern about household chemicals. Sutton explains: “Our concern is daily, weekly, chronic exposure over a lifetime. Maybe if you’re exposed to a chemical a handful of times it wouldn’t cause harm, but some chemicals build up enough or cause enough harm in your body over time that it triggers some kind of disease outcome. The concept [of body burden] is that pollution is not just in our air and in our water — it’s also in us.”

No one can avoid exposure to toxic chemicals altogether, but it is possible to reduce it significantly. In the following pages, Greer, Sutton and other experts weigh in on the worst toxic offenders commonly found in household cleaning products, and offer ways to swap them for healthier, safer options.

1. Phthalates

Found in: Many fragranced household products, such as air fresheners, dish soap, even toilet paper. Because of proprietary laws, companies don’t have to disclose what’s in their scents, so you won’t find phthalates on a label. If you see the word “fragrance” on a label, there’s a good chance phthalates are present.

Health Risks: Phthalates are known endocrine disruptors. Men with higher phthalate compounds in their blood had correspondingly reduced sperm counts, according to a 2003 study conducted by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Harvard School of Public Health. Although exposure to phthalates mainly occurs through inhalation, it can also happen through skin contact with scented soaps, which is a significant problem, warns Alicia Stanton, MD, coauthor of Hormone Harmony(Healthy Life Library, 2009). Unlike the digestive system, the skin has no safeguards against toxins. Absorbed chemicals go straight to organs.

Healthier Choice: When possible choose fragrance-free or all-natural organic products. Greer recommends bypassing aerosol or plug-in air fresheners and instead using essential oils or simply opening windows to freshen the air. Besides causing more serious effects like endocrine disruption, “Aerosol sprays and air fresheners can be migraine and asthma triggers,” she says. Also consider adding more plants to your home: They’re natural air detoxifiers.

2. Perchloroethylene or “PERC”

Found in: Dry-cleaning solutions, spot removers, and carpet and upholstery cleaners.

Health Risks: Perc is a neurotoxin, according to the chief scientist of environmental protection for the New York Attorney General’s office. And the EPA classifies perc as a “possible carcinogen” as well. People who live in residential buildings where dry cleaners are located have reported dizziness, loss of coordination and other symptoms. While the EPA has ordered a phase-out of perc machines in residential buildings by 2020, California is going even further and plans to eliminate all use of perc by 2023 because of its suspected health risks. The route of exposure is most often inhalation: that telltale smell on clothes when they return from the dry cleaner, or the fumes that linger after cleaning carpets.

Healthier Choice: Curtains, drapes and clothes that are labeled “dry clean only” can be taken instead to a “wet cleaner,” which uses water-based technology rather than chemical solvents. The EPA recently recognized liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) as an environmentally preferable alternative to more toxic dry-cleaning solvents. Ask your dry cleaner which method they use. For a safer spot remover, look for a nontoxic brand like Ecover at a natural market, or rub undiluted castile soap directly on stains before washing.

3. Triclosan

Found in: Most liquid dishwashing detergents and hand soaps labeled “antibacterial.”

Health Risks: Triclosan is an aggressive antibacterial agent that can promote the growth of drug-resistant bacteria. Explains Sutton: “The American Medical Association has found no evidence that these antimicrobials make us healthier or safer, and they’re particularly concerned because they don’t want us overusing antibacterial chemicals — that’s how microbes develop resistance, and not just to these [household antibacterials], but also to real antibiotics that we need.” Other studies have now found dangerous concentrations of triclosan in rivers and streams, where it is toxic to algae. The EPA is currently investigating whether triclosan may also disrupt endocrine (hormonal) function. It is a probable carcinogen. At press time, the agency was reviewing the safety of triclosan in consumer products.

Healthier Choice: Use simple detergents and soaps with short ingredient lists, and avoid antibacterial products with triclosan for home use. If you’re hooked on hand sanitizer, choose one that is alcohol-based and without triclosan.

4. Quarternary Ammonium Compounds, or “QUATS”

Found in: Fabric softener liquids and sheets, most household cleaners labeled “antibacterial.”

Health Risks: Quats are another type of antimicrobial, and thus pose the same problem as triclosan by helping breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria. They’re also a skin irritant; one 10-year study of contact dermatitis found quats to be one of the leading causes. According to Sutton, they’re also suspected as a culprit for respiratory disorders: “There’s evidence that even healthy people who are [exposed to quats] on a regular basis develop asthma as a result.”

Healthier Choice: You don’t really need fabric softener or dryer sheets to soften clothes or get rid of static: Simple vinegar works just as well. “Vinegar is the natural fabric softener of choice for many reasons,” explains Karyn Siegel-Maier in her book The Naturally Clean Home (Storey Publishing, 2008). “Not only is it nontoxic, it also removes soap residue in the rinse cycle and helps to prevent static cling in the dryer.” White vinegar is your best choice for general cleaning; other types can stain.

Alternatives to chemical disinfectants abound, including antibacterial, antifungal tea-tree oil. Mix a few drops of tea-tree oil and a tablespoon of vinegar with water in a spray bottle for a safe, germ killing, all-purpose cleaner. Add a couple of drops of lavender essential oil for scent.

5. 2-Butoxyethanol

Found in: Window, kitchen and multipurpose cleaners.

Health Risks: 2-butoxyethanol is the key ingredient in many window cleaners and gives them their characteristic sweet smell. It belongs in the category of “glycol ethers,” a set of powerful solvents that don’t mess around. Law does not require 2-butoxyethanol to be listed on a product’s label. According to the EPA’s Web site, in addition to causing sore throats when inhaled, at high levels glycol ethers can also contribute to narcosis, pulmonary edema, and severe liver and kidney damage. Although the EPA sets a standard on 2-butoxyethanol for workplace safety, Sutton warns, “If you’re cleaning at home in a confined area, like an unventilated bathroom, you can actually end up getting 2-butoxyethanol in the air at levels that are higher than workplace safety standards.”

Healthier Choice: Clean mirrors and windows with newspaper and diluted vinegar. For other kitchen tasks, stick to simple cleaning compounds like Bon Ami powder; it’s made from natural ingredients like ground feldspar and baking soda without the added bleach or fragrances found in most commercial cleansers. You can also make your own formulas with baking soda, vinegar and essential oils. See the “DIY Cleaners” sidebar for a list of clean concoctions.

6. Ammonia

Found in: Polishing agents for bathroom fixtures, sinks and jewelry; also in glass cleaner.

Health Risks: Because ammonia evaporates and doesn’t leave streaks, it’s another common ingredient in commercial window cleaners. That sparkle has a price. “Ammonia is a powerful irritant,” says Donna Kasuska, chemical engineer and president of ChemConscious, Inc., a risk-management consulting company. “It’s going to affect you right away. The people who will be really affected are those who have asthma, and elderly people with lung issues and breathing problems. It’s almost always inhaled. People who get a lot of ammonia exposure, like housekeepers, will often develop chronic bronchitis and asthma.” Ammonia can also create a poisonous gas if it’s mixed with bleach.

Healthier Choice: Vodka. “It will produce a reflective shine on any metal or mirrored surface,” explains Lori Dennis, author of Green Interior Design (Allsworth Press, 2010). And toothpaste makes an outstanding silver polish.

7. Chlorine

Found in: Scouring powders, toilet bowl cleaners, mildew removers, laundry whiteners, household tap water.

Health Risks: “With chlorine we have so many avenues of exposure,” says Kasuska. “You’re getting exposed through fumes and possibly through skin when you clean with it, but because it’s also in city water to get rid of bacteria, you’re also getting exposed when you take a shower or bath. The health risks from chlorine can be acute, and they can be chronic; it’s a respiratory irritant at an acute level. But the chronic effects are what people don’t realize: It may be a serious thyroid disrupter.”

Healthier Choice: For scrubbing, stick to Bon Ami or baking soda. Toilet bowls can be cleaned with vinegar, and vinegar or borax powder both work well for whitening clothes. So does the chlorine-free oxygen bleach powder made by Biokleen. To reduce your exposure to chlorine through tap water, install filters on your kitchen sink and in the shower.

8. Sodium Hydroxide

Found in: Oven cleaners and drain openers.

Health Risks: Otherwise known as lye, sodium hydroxide is extremely corrosive: If it touches your skin or gets in your eyes, it can cause severe burns. Routes of exposure are skin contact and inhalation. Inhaling sodium hydroxide can cause a sore throat that lasts for days.

Healthier Choice: You can clean the grimiest oven with baking-soda paste — it just takes a little more time and elbow grease (see recipes in “DIY Cleaners” sidebar). Unclog drains with a mechanical “snake” tool, or try this approach from the Green Living Ideas Web site: Pour a cup of baking soda and a cup of vinegar down the drain and plug it for 30 minutes. After the bubbles die down, run hot water down the drain to clear the debris.

Jessie Sholl has written about health for a variety of publications. She is also the author of Dirty Secret: A Daughter Comes Clean About Her Mother’s Compulsive Hoarding (Simon and Schuster/Gallery Books, 2010).

SIDEBAR

Beware of Greenwashing

If a cleaning product at your supermarket proclaims itself “green,” “natural” or “biodegradable,” that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s nontoxic. In 2010 the environmental consulting firm TerraChoice Group produced a report called “The Sins of Greenwashing.” In it the group found more than 95 percent of so-called green consumer products had committed at least one “greenwashing sin,” like making an environmental claim that may be truthful but unimportant. “CFC-free,” for example, is a common one, since CFCs are banned by law. Donna Kasuska of ChemConscious offers this advice: “When gauging ecological claims, look for specifics. ‘Biodegradable in three to five days’ holds more meaning than ‘biodegradable,’ as most substances will eventually break down with enough time.”

SIDEBAR

DIY Cleaners

Clean your home safely — and cheaply — with the following recipes:

• Basic sink cleanser — Combine ½ cup baking soda with six drops essential oil (such as lavender, rosemary, lemon, lime or orange). Rinse sink well with hot water. Sprinkle combination into sink and pour ¼ cup vinegar over top. After the fizz settles, scrub with a damp sponge or cloth. Rinse again with hot water. (From The Naturally Clean Home, by Karyn Siegel-Maier.)

• Oven cleanser — Put a heatproof dish filled with water in the oven. Turn on the heat to let the steam soften any baked-on grease. Once the oven is cool, apply a paste of equal parts salt, baking soda, and vinegar, and scrub. (From Super Natural Home, by Beth Greer.)

• Bathroom mildew remover — Good ventilation helps prevent mildew and mold. When they do occur, make a spray with 2 cups of water and 1/4 teaspoon each of tea-tree and lavender oil. Shake first and spray on trouble spots. The oils break down the mildew so there’s no need to wipe it down. (From Green Interior Design, by Lori Dennis.)

• Carpet shampoo — Mix 3 cups water, ¾ cup vegetable-based liquid soap, and 10 drops peppermint essential oil. Rub the foam into soiled areas with a damp sponge. Let dry thoroughly and then vacuum. (FromThe Naturally Clean Home.)

• Laundry soap — Try “soap nuts” made from the dried fruit of the Chinese soapberry tree. Available in natural groceries and online, the reusable soap nuts come in a cotton sack that goes into the washing machine with clothes.

• Dusting — Skip the furniture polishes. Instead, use a microfiber cloth. Made from synthetic fibers that are then split into hundreds of smaller microfibers, they capture dust more efficiently than regular rags. If necessary, a little olive oil makes a fine polishing agent.

Reprinted with permission from Experience Life Magazine.

(DrFrankLipman – Frank Lipman) These days, just about everything is mass-produced, including our food, with large, factory-style farms churning out a seemingly endless supply of meat, chickens, eggs and dairy products. All that mass production equals abundance and lower prices, but if those factory-farmed products are eroding your health, is the savings really worth it? Not in my book. Here’s what’s really going on with mass-produced meats and why you should steer clear:

1. Factory-farmed animals eat crap. Literally.

To keep production costs low, animals raised in factory farms are fed the cheapest possible grains and feeds containing among other things, “by-product feedstuff, ” which begs the question, what’s feedstuff? It’s a nausea-inducing assortment of disturbing ingredients, including municipal garbage, stale cookies, poultry manure, chicken feathers, bubble gum and even restaurant waste. So, when you eat factory-farmed animals, you’re also getting an unintentional serving of “feedstuff.” In short, their bad diet becomes your bad diet – which is counter-productive to your health.

2. Bad diets make for sick animals – and people too.

Cud-chewing critters such as cattle, dairy cows, goats, bison and sheep were designed to eat fibrous grasses, plants, and shrubs—not starchy, low-fiber grains and feedstuffs. When these animals are switched from pasture greenery to grains, many wind up suffering from a number of disorders and painful conditions. The sickened animals are then given chemical additives, plus constant, low-level doses of antibiotics. Their drugs in turn enter your system when you eat antibiotic-treated animals, setting the stage for drug-resistance in your body, particularly if you’re a heavy-duty carnivore.

3. Lousy ingredients won’t create a nutritious product.

It should come as no surprise that animals fed a crappy diet will make for a less nutritious meal. Compared to grass-fed, factory-farmed, grain-fed meats have less vitamin E, beta-carotene, and little of the two health-promoting fats called omega-3 fatty acids and “conjugated linoleic acid,” or CLA. So what’s the end-result of the feed-’em-fast-and-cheap factory farmed method? Inferior food with negligible nutrients and more of the unhealthy fats. Small wonder the stuff is so much cheaper than grass-fed.

4. Stress hurts everyone.

If your goal is to sustain wellness, factory-farmed products just don’t deliver the nutritional goods. In factory farms, chickens, turkeys, and pigs are typically raised in inhumane conditions, tightly packed into cages and pens, unable to practice normal behaviors, such as rooting, grazing, and roosting. In these conditions, the animals get stressed and wind up producing products that are lower in a number of key vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids – talk about empty calories!

5. Factory farming pollutes the earth.

In a conventional feedlot operation, for example, confined cattle deposit large amounts of manure in a small amount of space. The manure must be collected and removed. As it costs money to haul it away, the manure is often dumped nearby, close to the feedlot. As a result, the surrounding soil gets over-saturated with the stuff, resulting in ground and water pollution. But when animals are raised on pasture, their manure is a welcome source of organic fertilizer, not a “waste management problem.” Bottom line: raising animals on pasture is kinder to the environment.

In short, though factory farming enables us to have plenty of cheap and convenient food, it’s food with little nutritional benefit, that can increase your resistance to antibiotics as it pollutes your air, land and water. With so little going for it, doesn’t it seem slightly crazy to eat factory-farmed meats? It does certainly does to me – which is why I strongly suggest that if you’re going to eat meat, buy the good stuff, even if it means having to pay a bit more or buy less of it. Choose grass-fed beef, lamb, bison and poultry, to insure that you’re eating nutritious and healthy meats, as nature intended.

To learn more about what to look for when buying meat, check out my post on meat labeling and for some additional inspiration, check out this animation movie about the meat you eat at themeatrix.com.