In Canada There Is More Autism Where Vaccine Coverage Is Highest
Rates of autism continue to increase worldwide. An estimated 1 in 66 children are in the spectrum (0.0151515152%). Canada reported in March of this year that autism as of 2015 affect 1.52% of youth, putting Canada among the “top ten” for autism among developed nations.
The World Mercury Project reports that there is more autism in regions where vaccine coverage is most prevalent.
What might explain the variation in ASD prevalence within Canada’s borders? … autism prevalence is highest in the Canadian provinces that also have the highest vaccination coverage.”
ASD prevalence by province and territory
NASS gathers data from the health, education, and social services sectors for youth aged 5-17 years who have a confirmed autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis. Six provinces (British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec) and one territory (Yukon) provided the data for 2015. ASD prevalence in 2015 was highest in Newfoundland and Labrador (1 in 57), Prince Edward Island (1 in 59) and Quebec (1 in 65). Prevalence was lower in the Yukon territory (1 in 125). See chart:
Autism prevalence is highest in the Canadian provinces that have the highest vaccination coverage. A 2013 survey, also done by the Public Health Agency of Canada, examined vaccine coverage by province/territory and type of vaccine. Newfoundland/Labrador and Quebec had five to fifteen percent higher vaccination rates than in Yukon.
Hawaii Approves Bill Banning Sunscreen That Harm Coral Reefs
Hawaii just became the first state to pass a bill banning the sale of sunscreen containing the chemicals oxybenzone and octinoxate, which scientists say harm coral reefs. The Hawaiian Coral Reef stretches for more than 2000 kilometers in the Central Pacific and is a major part of Hawaii’s tourism economy. It also accounts for nearly 85 percent of all coral reefs in the United States. Scientists have found that sunscreens with these chemicals cause coral bleaching when washed off in the ocean, and make the reefs more susceptible to viral infections. The chemicals are not biodegradable, so they remain in the water long after the coral has died.
The Hawaii sunscreen bill now awaits the signature of the governor. If signed, the new rules should go into effect Jan. 1, 2021.
Amazingly, this is a first-in-the-world law. So, Hawaii is definitely on the cutting edge by banning these dangerous chemicals in sunscreens.” – State Sen. Mike Gabbard, who introduced the bill
Craig Downs is a scientist who wrote a 2015 peer-examined study which concluded that oxybenzone threatened coral reefs. He estimated that 14,000 tons of sunscreen is rinsed off into the in oceans every year, with the greatest damage found in reef areas in Hawaii and the Caribbean islands. Downs stated,
We have lost at least 80 percent of the coral reefs in the Caribbean. Any small effort to reduce oxybenzone pollution could mean that a coral reef survives a long, hot summer, or that a degraded area recovers. Everyone wants to build coral nurseries for reef restoration, but this will achieve little if the factors that originally killed off the reef remain or intensify in the environment.”
Downs also said,
Hawaii’s reefs have been slowly dying over the past 20 years, and that death spiral has been accelerating with the impact of an El Niño-induced mass bleaching events and increased local pollution impacts from both tourism and development. Everyone has come together to support this legislation, from local nurses and doctors, to resorts and airlines, as well as the entrepreneurial spirit of new sunscreen companies to supply reef-safer products.”
Sunscreen manufacturers already sell “reef-friendly” sunscreen, and companies have plenty if time to sell products that contain the two chemicals since the ban will not take effect until January 2021.
Of course, many sunscreen manufacturers, including Bayer, the maker of Coppertone, and the state’s major doctors group, feel the ban goes too far. Many are calling for more studies to be done. The American Chemistry Council also opposed the bill. Sharon Har was one of four Hawaiian lawmakers who voted against the bill. She stated,
It’s a feel good measure. Yes, we must protect the environment — it is our number one resource — but at the end of the day, studies have pointed to global warming, human contact, coastal development” as other significant threats to coral.
She’s right about other factors being an issue. Sunscreen isn’t the only enemy of coral reefs. Other pollutants known to be causing harm to the reefs include agricultural runoff and sewage dumping. Global warming is also causing reef degradation. But we feel, and many environmentalist groups agree, this is at least a step in the right direction.
Reef-safe sunscreen alternatives like TropicSport and Raw Elements use zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. These ingredients are “non-nano” in size, and many are believed to be healthier for the environment and for us humans as well. If they are below nano-particles, smaller than 100 nanometers, the creams can are ingested by the corals.
People Who Eat Out Likely Have Higher Levels of Hormone-Disrupting Phthalates, Says Study
Eating out makes significant contributions to the obesity epidemic worldwide, and a new study has found eating restaurant meals also leaves you more open to phthalate exposure. What are phthalates and why does this matter?
Phthalates are a chemical added to plastics to make them flexible. They are commonly found in shower curtains, moisturizer, perfumes, hard packaging, and various plastic containers, but testing has also found them in milk and spices. They’ve been linked to cancer, obesity, type 2 diabetes and endocrine disruption. They’ve been banned in children’s products in the U.S., and the Centers for Disease Control has issued recommendations for further study of the chemicals. This new study found that people who regularly ate at restaurants, fast food places, and cafeterias had levels of phthalates 35 percent higher than those who only consumed food at home. Senior author Ami Zota, an assistant professor of environmental and occupational health at Milken Institute School of Public Health (Milken Institute SPH) at the George Washington University says,
This study suggests food prepared at home is less likely to contain high levels of phthalates, chemicals linked to fertility problems, pregnancy complications and other health issues…Our findings suggest that dining out may be an important and previously under-recognized source of exposure to phthalates for the U.S. population.”
Researchers from George Washington University and the University of California Berkeley and San Francisco examined data collected from 10, 253 people during 2005 to 2014 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. While findings indicated there was an increase in phthalate levels overall in those who routinely ate out, the study identified teenagers as particularly vulnerable. Adolescents who consumed most of their food outside of the house experienced phthalate levels 55 percent higher than peers who ate at home. That dramatic increase may have long-reaching effects, as adolescents are one of a few populations particularly susceptible to hormone disruptors, as lead author of the study Dr. Julia Varshavsky, of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health notes.
Pregnant women, children, and teens are more vulnerable to the toxic effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals, so it’s important to find ways to limit their exposures…”
Phthalates do not bond to the plastics they make flexible, so they are especially problematic when paired with hot food, as heat is one way to remove them from the plastics. Some phthalates are also fat-soluble, leaving milk and other lipid-rich foods a likely source of them.
Phthalates have been banned for specific uses, and government reports, like the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (Chap) on Phthalates have actually made it clear that they are harmful to human health. Yet they are still in a large variety of products, especially those that are absorbed into the body through digestion or the skin. There are other alternatives available, like natural polymers or bio-plasticizers based on vegetable oils, though these other options are expensive. It’s unlikely that dining establishments, especially those focused more on profit margins, will be willing to make the switch without significant pressure.
Co-Sleeping is Not the Reason for High Infant Mortality Rates in the U.S.
It is not news that the United States has worse infant outcomes than other developed and affluent nations, but a new study has found that to be true even for babies born full term. Recent reports on the state of women’s health care in the U.S. have confirmed again and again that the standard model of care for pregnant women in this country is lacking. Neha Bairoliya of the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, one of the co-authors of the recent study, identified two factors in the higher infant mortality rates in the U.S., “…congenital malformations, which patients cannot really do much about other than ensuring adequate screening during pregnancy, and high risk of sudden unexpected deaths in infancy, which should largely be preventable through appropriate sleeping arrangements…We also found a shockingly large number of babies dying from suffocation, which suggests that parents either use covers that are not safe, or let children sleep in their own beds.”
These observations highlight what is a big misconception in conventional healthcare in the U.S. – issues from co-sleeping are a symptom, not the problem.
The most prevalent cause of infant death identified in the study was SUID (Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy), a categorization of infant deaths where the cause can be Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, accidental deaths like suffocation or strangulation, homicides, and sudden natural deaths. Several studies over the past 5 years have linked cosleeping to SIDS. So why are rates of SIDS and infant mortality so much lower in places notorious for cosleeping?
Cosleeping is widespread in Japan. Often, parents are still sleeping in the same bed with school-age children. Yet, infant mortality rates in the country do not reflect the conventional U.S. wisdom. In Japan, less than 3 infants per 1000 live births die, compared with around 7 for the United States. Why?
We don’t know for sure. We do know that the Japanese sleep on a harder mattress that’s on the floor, two of the cosleeping best practices. They are also less overweight or obese than Americans, leaving a baby less likely to be suffocated by a parent rolling over in the middle of the night. Maternal smoking is drastically less in Japan, and more than 90% of women initiate breastfeeding. All of these are factors in reducing infant mortality rates.
The conventional American lifestyle is very much at odds with the safest cosleeping practices. Roughly one-third of adults in the United States are obese, a risk when it comes to cosleeping. Cosleeping literature also cautions against using alcohol and drugs while sleeping with baby, and that warning doesn’t even address the complications that pharmaceuticals could pose. Seven of every ten Americans are on a prescription medication, which disrupts the connection between mom and baby. That connection is a crucial part of successful cosleeping.
The Trade-off
When done safely, cosleeping is hugely beneficial to both parents and baby. Both parties get more sleep, mothers are more likely to breastfeed, and research indicates that children who cosleep are more independent later in life. Touch and closeness are integral to the human experience, especially for babies.
It’s infuriating that this study chose to concentrate on cosleeping as a key reason why the U.S. lags behind other affluent (and some not so affluent) nations when it comes to infant mortality. Cosleeping is the better option for your baby and for you but you have to be healthy enough to safely do it. This is the actual issue here. Why are so many Americans not healthy enough to cosleep safely?
In the 1980s supermarkets were even more concerned with proper shape and size of produce than they are today. Consumers expected carrots to be a particular size, shape, and color. Anything that didn’t fit the image was sold for juice or processing or animal feed, or often simply thrown away.
There are “true baby carrots” and then there are the processed “baby carrots” we normally see in stores. True baby carrots are just young carrots harvested before the root reaches its mature size. Some say they are sweeter this way. Some even think they’re healthier. These carrots aren’t nearly as common in grocery stores, but when you see them they often still have their stalks. What we typically see labeled as “baby carrots” in those small plastic bags are full grown carrots that would once have been rejected and wasted.
Broken and misshaped carrots that are not pretty enough for consumers were discarded, leaving farmers with as little as 30 percent of their crop to sell. Mike Yurosek was tired of this waste. He took his ugly reject carrots and used a potato peeler to reshape them into small pieces. Yurosek then scaled up with an industrial green bean cutter to quickly whittle the carrots into the well-known sizes we still see today. 1
How Are Baby Carrots Made Today?
The industry calls them “baby cuts.” They are no longer simply rejected carrots. These baby cuts you see in supermarkets come from carrots have been specifically bred to be smaller in diameter, and to be a bright orange without color variation, and they are also raised to have considerably sweeter than regular carrots. 2
These baby carrots are planted closer together than traditional carrots and they are harvested in about 120 days. But before packaging, the carrots are cut and peeled and scrubbed, then they get the infamous chlorine bath. But the amount of chlorine in the water is not really anything to be alarmed about. It’s likely that every time you eat out at a restaurant you will consume more chlorine than when eating baby carrots.
Grimmway Farms uses a chlorine solution on all its carrots — organic and non-organic — to prevent food poisoning, before a final wash in water. Grimmway says the chlorine rinse is well within limits set by the EPA and is comparable to levels found in tap water.” – Fox
The minute amount of chlorine in our water for washing carrots is nearly 90% less than the chlorine level in normal tap (drinking) water.” – The Truth About Baby Carrots
What’s the Concern?
Baby carrots are no longer a byproduct of the carrot industry, so buying baby carrots no longer helps to reduce food waste.
The chlorine is problematic but if you eat out at restaurants, even healthy ones, you’re getting plenty of chlorine in your food. If you shower without water filtration, you’re breathing it in.
The problem is that the food is processed. People think they are getting fresh carrots, but they’re not. The life force energy of the food is gone (the chlorine bath allows the food to last longer, and some may have additional preservatives). The enzymes are done. And the peel, which contains the highest concentration of nutrients, is gone.
Eating baby carrots is eating processed food, but it’s not the worst choice one could make. As poor food choices go, this is probably the best of them. I have been I situations where I was very hungry and the only food choice I saw that would not make me sick were baby carrots, and I have eaten plenty.
But the best carrots for you are unprocessed, unpeeled, un-messed-with carrots. Vitamin C and niacin are most concentrated in the peel. A little more than half of the phytonutrients are found in the peel. 3
Five Random Carrot Facts
Carrots come in orange, white, yellow, red, and purple
Cultivated carrots are usually about 88% water, 7% sugar, 1% protein, 1% fibre, 1% ash, and 0.2% fat
The world’s largest carrot producer is China, accounting for over 45% of the global output
The voice of cartoon character Bugs Bunny reportedly did not like carrots
Coffee, Glyphosate Levels, and Shorter Pregnancies
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is the most commonly used herbicide in the world. Nearly 300 million pounds of Roundup is sprayed on U.S. farms every year. A small Indiana study found that more than 90 percent of pregnant women had glyphosate in their urine. They also found that higher concentrations of glyphosate correlate to earlier deliveries.
Researchers recruited 71 pregnant women in central Indiana. The women provided two urine samples and two drinking water samples from their homes and answered questions about what food and beverages they consume and the kind of stress they deal with, as well as where they lived. Researchers tested the water and urine samples for glyphosate. Then researchers divided women into four groups based on how much glyphosate was in their urine. Researchers later used medical records after birth to determine their pregnancy length.
The study found that 93 percent of the women had detectable glyphosate in their urine and those who lived in rural areas more glyphosate in their urine than the suburban residents did.
The study also found that women who drank more than 24 ounces of caffeinated beverages daily had shown greater levels of glyphosate. The good news is that none of the drinking water samples had detectable glyphosate levels in them, but this looks like bad news for coffee addicts.
Only two of the women in the study gave birth prematurely, but researchers found that women with more glyphosate in their urine delivered earlier than women with less, on average. Glyphosate was not found to lead to correlate with low birth weight or head circumference.
It was mind-boggling that glyphosate was so prevalent in urine samples . . . but it was a pleasant surprise that none of the drinking water came out positive,” – Lead author Shahid Parvez
The link between caffeine intake and high glyphosate levels in urine surprised the researchers.
It makes sense to us since there are many different food products imported from Southeast Asia and South America but we don’t know what they contain. It indicates a need to think about these food products, such as coffee beans and other drinks that we import.” – Parvez
Most of the women were white. The sample was small. The study is limited by its small size and lack of geographic and racial diversity.
More research needs to be done, but the precautions are common sense. Be vigilant and careful, especially those living in areas where corn and soybeans are grown.”
Birth Control Pills for Men are Here. What Does that Mean for Reproductive Health?
Effective male birth control might finally be on its way, as scientists from the University of Washington Medical Center and the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, CA prepare to present their experimental oral contraceptive at the Endocrine Society’s 100th meeting in Chicago. The pill, called dimethandrolone undecanoate or DMAU, contains an androgen like testosterone, a progestin and a long-chain fatty acid (undecanoate) that keeps the birth control from clearing the body too quickly. This last component appears to be key to this new contraceptive offering, according to the study’s senior investigator, Stephanie Page, M.D., Ph.D., professor of medicine at the University of Washington.
DMAU is a major step forward in the development of a once-daily ‘male pill’…Many men say they would prefer a daily pill as a reversible contraceptive, rather than long-acting injections or topical gels, which are also in development.”
The sample size for this study was small, with a total of 83 men completing the study. At the highest dose of the contraceptive, participants had significantly lower levels of testosterone and two of the hormones required for sperm production. Previous male birth control efforts showed liver inflammation, but this new effort passed all kidney and liver safety tests.
Or Serious Side Effects?
The pill didn’t result in any liver damage, but all groups taking part in the trial reported weight gain and decreases in HDL (“good”) cholesterol levels. Researchers classified these issues as mild, but these side effects may indicate that men with lower testosterone experience a lower level of health.
In a recent study of over 5,000 Italian men, scientists found that men with lower sperm count were 20 percent more likely to have higher blood pressure, bad cholesterol, and weigh more. The lower sperms levels went hand in hand with decreased testosterone, leaving many men at increased risk for diabetes, heart disease, stroke and decrease muscle and bone health. Dr. Alberto Ferlin, the leader of this study and a professor of endocrinology at the University of Bresci, said, “Infertile men are likely to have important co-existing health problems or risk factors that can impair quality of life and shorten their lives.”
The side effects of this pill don’t appear to be serious, but a universally reported weight gain and increased bad cholesterol is the precursor to more serious health issues later in life. But it remains to be seen if men will be interested in managing their reproductive functions with a daily pill, especially one where it must be taken with food to be effective.
I’m not saying that women need to continue taking on the majority of the faux hormone contraceptive responsibilities…in fact, why hasn’t this happened sooner!! But there are still serious health issues stemming from that that we have yet to properly address in modern medicine. Are we adding on to that dog pile? Then again, by the year 2050, giving birth will likely be an extremely dicey proposition due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
