Our oceans cover 70% of the Earth. Home to untold species of plants and animals, these waters have provided food for mankind since time immemorial. Bountiful, abundant, teeming with life – the oceans have always seemed and endless resource.

Today’s unsustainable fishing practices and high levels of pollution are destroying aquatic life and the ocean habitat. Our waters are becoming cesspools of waste with floating “islands” of plastic debris. Countless species of fish, turtles, plants, and animals are endangered or newly extinct. Coral reefs are dying.

In 1999, a forward-thinking group of environmental foundations commissioned a study which revealed startling information. Less than ½ of one percent of all U.S. environmental dollars were being spent on ocean advocacy, and there wasn’t one single organization working on a global scale to address the needs of the oceans. This group founded Oceana, creating the world’s first and only international oceanic environmental organization.

Under the leadership of CEO Andrew Shrimp Boat Sharpless and a diverse board of directors which includes foundation members, scientists, entertainers, and activists, Oceana carefully selects and designs its campaigns.

“To achieve real change for the oceans, Oceana conducts focused, strategic campaigns,” says Sharpless. “We are different than most non-profits. We resist the temptation to spread ourselves thinly across too many objectives, doing just enough to lose. We focus.”

Through careful investigation of a need and its causal factors, Oceana determines a strategy that includes a broad, multi-level response with clearly defined, achievable goals that can be reached within 3-5 years. Rather than simply alert the global community about a problem, Oceana provides education and alternative action. It advocates for change, demands accountability, and takes steps to change existing laws and regulations to ensure success.

“We manage scientists, lawyers, press people, organizers, and advocates in tightly focused campaigns,” says Sharpless. “It works. We have won more than a dozen policy victories that are helping restore abundant oceans.”

Oceana doesn’t tilt at windmills. Battles are carefully chosen. But even global warming is not too unwieldy a challenge for this group, barnacles not when the problem is so dire and solutions are so readily available.

Oceana tells us that ocean waters have absorbed 80% of the heat added to the atmosphere as well as 1/3 of the CO2 we have produced since the beginning of the industrial age. As the oceans absorb more CO2 their waters become more acidic, which affects coral reefs and shell-producing animals, interfering with their ability to make skeletons and shells. More acidic waters also look likely to catastrophically disrupt marine food webs and ecosystems.

Oceana is raising awareness of the shipping industry’s effect on global warming. If the industry were a country, it would rank in sixth place as a CO2 emitter, surpassed only by the United States, China, Russia, India, and Japan.

According to the International Maritime Organization, ocean-going vessels released 1.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2007, an amount equal to that produced by 205 million cars. (Compare this number to the 135 million cars registered in the United States in 2006). This pollution Cruise Ship continues to be emitted and remains unregulated, while the shipping industry grows at an alarming rate of 5% each year.

Out of every industry that burns fossil fuels, the shipping industry uses the dirtiest fuel. (The fuel is so unrefined it can be solid at room temperature, so solid you can walk on it.) This dirty fuel releases a high rate of CO2, other greenhouse gases, and black carbon (soot). Black carbon is believed to be responsible for 30% of Arctic warming. Oceana is raising awareness about this problem and how we can dramatically reduce emissions by changing to cleaner fuel, using available technology to decrease emissions, and decreasing the amount of fuel used.

A 10% reduction in speed results in a 23.3% reduction in emissions. Ships can turn off their diesel engines while in port. Ships can utilize sail or kite technology, harnessing wind energy while out at sea. A special coating can be added to propellers, which reduces fuel requirements by 4%-5%. Oceana is educating the shipping industry about these and other energy saving and pollution reduction strategies. And voluntary changes are being made. But Oceana is also teaming up with Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Biological Diversity to create regulatory change through the Environmental Protection Agency. A formal petition, which was ignored by the EPA, has been followed by a letter of intent to sue. If the EPA refuses to take action, the next step will be a lawsuit.

Commercial fishing creates enormous waste. Sixteen billion pounds of by-catch fish are wasted each year and hundreds of thousands of sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds are killed. U.S. commercial fishing operations alone throw away more than one million metric tons of fish each year, nearly a third of its annual commercial catch.

“Fishermen end up throwing fish and other sea life away for several reasons – they’ve caught the wrong species, gone over quota, or simply incidentally caught untargeted wildlife like sharks, sea turtles, and marine mammals,” says Sharpless. “To give one example, the pollock fishery in Alaska has incidentally caught tens of thousands of king salmon, a commercially important and vulnerable species, in its trawls.”

Oceana advocates a “count, cap and control” approach to reduce by-catch. This includes documenting the amount of by-catch, setting strict limits on acceptable levels, and taking measures to control and reduce it through interventions such as changes in fishing gear or by restricting fishing in areas with a history of high by-catch levels.

Sharpless tells us, “The federal government, following campaigning by Oceana, is evaluating establishing a cap, count and control program to limit salmon by-catch in the pollock fishery.”

Bottom trawling is a particularly destructive practice Oceana targets. “Trawlers used to raise their nets and heavy gear up over the rocks so they wouldn’t get destroyed, but now the technology is so sophisticated that they don’t have to, and the weight of the gear destroys everything on the seafloor, including coral beds and other living creatures that provide the nooks and crannies where little fish grow up into the bigger fish we enjoy eating,” says Sharpless. “Scientists believe that the extensive use of bottom trawls and dredges by commercial fishing causes more direct and avoidable damage to the ocean floor than any other human activity in the world.” As a direct result of Oceana’s advocacy efforts, more than 1 million square miles of seafloor is now protected from bottom trawling.

Mercury contamination is also a serious problem. When Oceana began its campaign to urge chlorine companies to switch to mercury-free technology, there were nine plants using outdated technology. In the last five years, that number has been reduced to four—which Oceana calls the “foul four.” These four plants are still dumping thousands of pounds of mercury into the environment each year.

Through Oceana’s Grocery Store Campaign, consumers are warned about high levels of mercury in predatory fish like tuna and swordfish, and are urged to limit their consumption.

Oceana’s current campaigns include efforts to save sea turtles, bluefin tuna, and sharks.

If you’re not a scientist or a politician, if you’re landlocked and thinking the only thing you can do to help the oceans is to reduce your carbon footprint—think again. Andrew Sharpless says, “Join Oceana! Sign up to be a Wavemaker at www.Oceana.org/join. We’ll email you when we need you to contact your member of Congress to help pass positive ocean legislation, and we’ll keep you up to date on Oceana news, challenges, and victories.”

Oceana is certainly making waves. And in their wake, the whole world reaps the benefits of Oceana’s hard work and dedication.

Oceana’s North American website 

Oceana’s international website

Success Stories

May 2004: Potty Training Royal Caribbean – Eleven months after the launch of Oceana’s Stop Cruise Pollution campaign, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines agreed to major reform of its waste treatment practices.

DECEMBER 2008: Sharks Get a Boost in Rome – Thanks in part to Oceana’s work, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) in Rome, Italy, decided to boost conservation initiatives for four migratory shark species: the porbeagle, spurdog, shortfin mako and longfin mako. Nearly half of all migratory shark species are threatened with extinction due to overfishing and habitat degradation.

JANUARY 2009: Dr. Lark Caves – After more than a year of pressure from Oceana, Dr. Susan Lark announced that she will sell cosmetic products containing squalene derived from olives rather than deep sea sharks. More than 15,000 wavemakers contacted Lark, telling her it was unconscionable to sacrifice already at-risk shark populations for the sake of beauty.

AUGUST 2008: Costco Joins Green List — Costco Wholesale Corporation commits to warn its customers about mercury contamination in fish by posting the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mercury advice on signs at seafood counters in all its stores. The move, prompted by requests from Oceana and Costco members, follows similar action by other major grocery chains nationwide.

JULY 2008: Freezing the Bering Sea’s Footprint – The National Marine Fisheries Service announces that it will adopt Oceana’s “freeze-the-footprint” approach by closing nearly 180,000 square miles of the Bering Sea to destructive bottom trawling to protect important seafloor habitats and marine life.

JULY 2008: U.S. House Protects Sharks – After campaigning by Oceana, the U.S. House of Representatives passes the Shark Conservation Act of 2008, which improves existing laws to prevent shark finning by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins still naturally attached in all U.S. waters.

JULY 2008: Saving Bluefin Tuna – Oceana launches a new campaign to document the plight of the bluefin tuna and to establish a sanctuary in the Mediterranean Sea, one of the world’s key breeding grounds for the species. Without intervention, scientists believe that bluefin tuna populations are headed for collapse.

JUNE 2008: Reducing Salmon By-catch in Pollock Fishery – The world’s largest fishery has taken the first step toward reducing wasteful king salmon by-catch. After pressure from Oceana and its allies, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council moved forward in June on capping salmon by-catch in the Alaska pollock fishery.

FEBRUARY 2008: Banning Mediterranean Driftnetting – The European Court of Justice rejects any further requests by the French government for exemptions from the EU ban on driftnetting in the Mediterranean Sea. This ruling will spare 25,000 juvenile bluefin tuna annually, along with 10,000 non-targeted marine species caught annually in the driftnets.

JANUARY 2008: Safer Seafood – Kroger and Harris Teeter grocery stores are added to Oceana’s Green List after agreeing to post the FDA advice about mercury in seafood. The Green List now accounts for almost 30% of the major market share of grocery companies.

MAY 2007: Cutting Fishing Subsidies – After campaigning by Oceana, the U.S. Congress passes resolutions supporting worldwide cuts in harmful fishing subsidies that lead to overcapacity in fishing fleets and thus to overfishing. Oceana is working with nations in the current World Trade Organization negotiations to end these harmful taxpayer handouts.

JANUARY 2007: Italy Closes Loopholes on Illegal Driftnetters – Two months after Oceana presented its findings to the scientific committee ACCOBAMS, the Italian Attorney General announced new efforts to crack down on illegal driftnetting by declaring it illegal for vessels to carry driftnets on board, regardless of whether or not they are being used when detected.
DECEMBER 2006: Pioneer Industries Switches to Mercury-Free Technology – Since early 2005, Oceana has urged chlorine companies to use mercury-free technology. Of the original nine plants that were using the outdated technology, Pioneer Industries is the fourth to convert.

DECEMBER 2006: New Magnuson-Stevens Act Passed – Oceana helped campaign for new legislation that significantly improves the protection of deep-sea corals and sponges from bottom trawling and other destructive fishing gear. This bill as passed makes marginal improvements to the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act.

SEPTEMBER 2006: Protecting Sharks from Finning – Oceana and other members of the Shark Alliance scored a major victory for sharks in the European Parliament when the Parliament decided to reject a recommendation from its own Fisheries Committee to increase the allowable ratio of shark fins to bodies from 5% to 6.5%.

JULY 2006: Saving the “Dolphin Deadline” – After months of persistent campaigning by Oceana, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that maintains an important deadline for protecting tens of thousands of dolphins, whales, and other beloved ocean creatures from dirty fishing gears and practices.

MARCH 2006: Protecting Pacific Krill – The Pacific Fishery Management Council voted to prohibit commercial krill fishing in the federal waters off of California, Oregon, and Washington. More than 5,000 Oceana activists contacted the Council to support a prohibition on krill fishing in the Pacific to protect our ocean ecosystem food web.

SEPTEMBER 2005: Limiting Destructive Trawling – After two years of intensive lobbying by Oceana staff in Brussels and Madrid, the European Union prohibited destructive fishing practices, including bottom trawling, in over 250,000 square miles around the Azores, Madeira, and the Canary Islands.

MAY 2005: Stopping Illegal Oil Dumping – Responding to intensive advocacy by Oceana Europe, the EU Parliament approved new legislation to punish violators of international oil dumping laws.

MAY 2005: Protecting Pacific Corals – In an historic conservation move, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council adopted the Oceana approach and closed nearly one million square kilometers of ocean to destructive trawling.

MAY 2005: Ending Backroom Deals in Fisheries – Oceana’s lawyers won a change in the rules for fishery policy-making in Chile that will stop government officials from keeping secrets. Now they must publicly disclose the information they use to set quotas and other rules for commercial fishing companies operating along Chile’s massive coastline.

APRIL 2005: Establishing an Observer Program – In Chile, for years a law to place professional observers aboard fishing fleets existed, but was ignored. Oceana successfully convinced the government to enforce the law and professional observers are now at last beginning to monitor Chile’s commercial fishing operations.

MARCH 2005: Protecting Marine Mammals – After lobbying by Oceana and other conservation organizations, the Chilean congress added ten new marine mammals to the government’s protected species list.

JANUARY 2005: Saving Dolphins and Whales from Active Sonar – After requests from Oceana, both the European Parliament and the Spanish Government took action to prohibit the U.S., NATO, and other navies from using active sonar in European waters.

February 2003: Saving 60,000 Sea Turtles – Oceana successfully pressured the government to require larger TEDs (turtle excluder devices) on shrimp nets in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Ocean, saving some 60,000 sea turtles a year.

No Sweeteners for You, and that Includes Agave!

We get asked about every new sweetener put out by the purveyors of unhealthy sweetness. Agave nectar or syrup is the most recent. Put a gun to our heads and we’ll tell you not to eat it. Actually, we’ll do that without the pistol and dramatics. We’re quite consistent that way.

Whole foods have fiber, vitamins, and nutrients that enrich the body and in some cases slow down the sugar hit that comes from glucose and fructose. When a naturally sugary food like an apple or a generous hunk of agave cactus is processed into a syrup or nectar, everything good about the whole food is lost in the production vat.

In the specific case of agave, the debate comes down to whether glucose or fructose is more harmful to the body. Natural agave, the plant from which tequila is derived, is approximately half and half glucose to fructose. The nectar or syrup appears primarily to be all fructose, according to published statistics from agave distributors.

Now, is fructose better for you than glucose or sucrose? If you listen to the fructose manufacturers and some diabetes experts, then yes, fructose is better for you. Fructose doesn’t raise glucose levels in the bloodstream, which means there is less of an insulin response and a consequent benefit to diabetics because insulin Agave Plant management is the name of the game.

But is spiking up on fructose any better for anyone whether diabetic or not? We say No! And we’re not alone. Fructose has been linked to raised triglycerides, fatty liver disease, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and more belly fat, which can all be collected together as Metabolic Syndrome.

Agave seems to have other drawbacks as well. The first one that sets our teeth on edge is the fact that agave nectar you buy might not actually be agave nectar.

According to the Chicago Tribune, products labeled as being from the blue agave plant …may in fact be mostly corn syrup or high-fructose corn syrup. may, in fact, be mostly corn syrup or high-fructose corn syrup. Tequila manufacturers get first call on the expensive blue agave cactus that grows in Mexico. There are strict requirements for tequila to come from the blue agave in the same way the German Beer Purity Law says beer must be made from wheat or barley, hops, water, and fermenting yeast. So, when supply did not meet demand, some nectar producers cut what agave they had with similar corn-based fructose.

“Agave is really chemically refined hydrolyzed high-fructose syrup and not from the blue agave plant, organic or raw, asclaimed,” says Russ Bianchi, a food and beverage formulator.

So far the Food and Drug Administration sees no reason to regulate agave for any safety concerns, but admits that agave products may have been “economically adulterated and misbranded by adding corn syrup or high-fructose corn syrup.”

The Chicago Tribune also reports some less well-documented effects of agave nectar consumption that may be a concern. Apparently, some agave products and other sweeteners may have botulism spores and thus shouldn’t be given to small children. There are assertions that agave may cause miscarriages and/or other harm to pregnant or lactating mothers, and agave, like many other sugary products, has also been linked to increased acne.

Agave does have some possible health benefits touted by its proponents. As stated, glucose levels aren’t raised. Agave is loaded with inulin, a complex sub-variant of fructose, which is broken down by friendly bacteria to make fatty acids that may fight colon cancer. Additionally, agave may have some anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer properties. But, these effects are hotly debated.

“It’s almost all fructose, highly processed sugar with great marketing,” says Dr. Ingrid Kohlstadt of the American College of Nutrition and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. “Fructose interferes with healthy metabolism when taken at higher doses. Many people have fructose intolerance like lactose intolerance. They get acne or worse diabetes symptoms even though blood glucose is OK.”

Even some agave proponents like Dave Grotto, a Registered Dietician and author of101 Foods that Could Save Your Life, will admit that “excess consumption of any sweetener is not wise. But, honey and agave are value-added sweeteners, if used moderately.”

If the best the pro-agave people can come up with for their product is “use in moderation,” we should translate that statement into “avoid as much as possible.” If sugar, fructose, honey, agave, and other sweeteners can lead to addiction, then how is the average person to know what in moderation actually means? How much is too much before a small dose of agave that may help with cancer and inflammation becomes a mainline hit of fructose to the bloodstream and liver?

Limit yourself to less than two teaspoons a day for any refined sweetener to avoid the many related health effects. We live in the same world you do, and we understand about occasionally falling off the wagon. But remember that any sweetener removed from its natural state is a refined sweetener that should be avoided as much as possible. Agave is no different. Now you know.

There are many obvious signs that you need to detox and a few not so obvious signs. A brief and far from complete list of not-so-obvious indicators of a toxic body includes the following:

• Cold feet and/or hands
• Dandruff and/or itchy scalp
• Greasy and/or dry skin
• Greasy and/or dry hair
• Aches and pains Slow healing
• Zits, pimples, and/or blackheads
• Hair loss
• Attention deficit disorder hyperactivity
• Trouble sleeping
• Discolored teeth
• Vision deterioration
• Vision “floaters”
• Trouble urinating
• Body odor
• Bad breath
• Lower back pain
• difficulty concentrating
• Brittle and/or broken nails
• Dark cirlces under Eyes Chapped lips
• Having trouble staying warm
• Glasy or dull eyes

There are many who argue that a proper whole foods diet is all anyone needs to be healthy. OLM’s stance on this is that in today’s modern, toxic world, our bodies are constantly inundated with toxins. If you have eaten very well all your life, have avoided foods with toxins (like tuna with mercury and beef with hormones and antibiotics), have never taking drugs (prescription or otherwise), have never had vaccinations, and have never worked or lived in a heavily polluted environment, then you won’t need to detox. For that matter, you probably don’t need to supplement your diet with vitamins and minerals. If you are included in the other 99.9999% of the population, you need to detox, at least every few years. Dr Shillington recommends once or twice a year.When we talk about a ‘detox’ we mean detoxifying your body and ridding it of wastes and toxins. We do not mean “fasting” in a way that restricts your nutrition. While reducing your calories and eliminating certain foods may be fine under normal circumstances, we recommend you ingest vitamins, minerals, and enzymes during your detox. We do not feel that restricting nutrients is wise, especially when detoxifying.

This is especially true for anyone with a sign or symptom of any kind of ailment. For most people (and by most, we mean 97% or more) a proper detox, followed by a proper diet (and we mean an organic diet with 80% or more fresh, raw, fruits and vegetables), will rid your body of any and all problems. Very few people are too far gone to completely heal and get off of drugs. Some may need more supplemental support (in the form of high quality supplements) than others.

If you have cancer, diabetes, ADHD, migraines, Lupus, thyroid problems, or deteriorating eye sight, it’s time to quit blaming your genetics and take action.

A detox is a radical lifestyle change for a brief period of time. A proper detox will last a minimum of two weeks, and typically, much longer, depending on one’s health. If you have ailments but feel a “radical” detox is too inconvenient, consider the inconvenience of taking 5 to 15 prescription drugs. Consider the inconvenience of waking up stiff and sore with aches and pains every morning. Consider the inconvenience of headaches, fuzzy memory, or any of the chronic or “incurable” diseases that have become so common.

Check out our Cheap and Easy Detox.

Last year I had the good fortune to be invited as a panel member to the Autism Conference in upper Michigan, along with Dr. Ed Yazbak and Dr. Boyd Haley. The conference was a grassroots event, organized by a local group of parents of autistic kids. It was promoted to the general public.

What brought these people together was the growing suspicion that the local medical authorities might be trying to cover up the reasons why an enormous percentage of their local children were turning out autistic – a proportion obviously far higher than the Vaccine Toxins There is no government agency responsible for following up on the consequences of lots that have been verified as contaminated. estimated national average of 1 child in 150.

Dr. Yazbak’s presentation was brilliant and compelling as he traced the rise of autism in this country since the 1990s. Or I should say, it was brilliant and compelling for me, since it is my area. But as I watched the crowd from my seat on the panel, I did not see many signs of comprehension.

Next was Dr. Haley’s equally cogent PowerPoint on mercury toxicity and how mercury acts in human physiology. Again the message was clear and powerful, documented beyond all reasonable doubt.

As I took the stage and began my presentation, I looked out into the audience and saw those same blank stares. It suddenly occurred to me to ask for a show of hands. “How many of you people in this room have an autistic child?” I was momentarily speechless when I saw nearly every hand go up. It took me so off guard that it was several days before I realized the significance of all those hands being raised.

The first thing that dawned on me was the likelihood that this small community was experiencing the living consequence of one or more vaccine hot lots.

As I explain in the new 12th edition of The Sanctity of Human Blood, vaccines are produced in batches, called lots. A lot is comprised of anywhere from 20,000 to 700,000 or more doses. Certain lots cause an unusual number of reactions and deaths. These are called hot lots. Some sources define a hot lot as one which has more than 2 deaths or 10 serious adverse reactions, but others assign no set number.

So what we were looking at here in this small backwoods community was very likely the textbook example of hot lot damage. Of course, it will never be investigated. There is no government agency responsible for following up on the consequences of lots that have been verified as contaminated. In this case, no one was even suggesting it, because the locals never heard of hot lots.

The other thing that will never happen is the calculation of the actual ratio of autistics to normal children in this community. With 1 child in 150 as the accepted national average, this community’s true number was probably closer to 1 in 50 or even 1 in 25. But they’ll never know because no one’s tracking it. And there’s no reason to, because even if it were proven, there is no law that would force the manufacturer to withdraw the hot lot. No manufacturer has ever withdrawn a hot lot, even a verified one.

My second realization was more disconcerting: vaccines are recommended for the entire childhood population. Overwhelming scientific evidence of their potential for permanent neurological and developmental damage now exists. These sources are carefully evaluated in my book. Yet the majority of parents who are interested in learning about their kids’ chances of vaccine injury are those whose lives have already been directly affected, usually as the result of permanent damage to their own child. When it’s too late, they study it. As Sascha Sarnov says, the child goes to sleep as the parent wakes up.

This is certainly the case for most of the researchers and activists in the vaccine awareness arena. Personal tragedies in their own families motivated them to research and publish. For example, Congressman Dan Burton, the organizer of the Congressional hearings into vaccine damage, is the grandfather of an autistic child.

Why should we worry about something that doesn’t affect us? Because today the risk of being affected by vaccine damage is too high for parents to simply ignore. As Mark Geier has shown, one child in six in the U.S. has a neurodevelopmental disorder. This is an astounding indictment: one child in six! Fourteen percent are actually enrolled in a learning disability program.

There is no office downtown where you go to sign up when your child becomes autistic. No one really knows how extensive that epidemic is. What is known is that between 1993 and 2006 there was an average increase in autism of 1700% across the U.S. At present we know there are at least 1.1 million autistic children in the U.S., but it is completely possible that the actual number might be more than four million. There is no government office making an effort to find an accurate count. On the contrary, there is a systematic effort to cover up the actual figures and data and to publish only those studies which confirm the approved mantra, namely that there can be no possible connection with vaccines.

Upon discovering that their child is autistic, parents often go through five psychological phases:

1. Denial
2. Dawning awareness
3. Anger
4. Guilt
5. Acceptance

These phases are not universal, nor are they always separate and distinct, but most parents experience them in some form or other.
Phase One, the ‘Not My Kid’ phase, is characterized by a disbelief either in the disease itself, or that the condition will be permanent in their child.
Phase Two brings an awareness that their child will not learn any more words and will gradually withdraw and deteriorate mentally.
Phase Three is anger directed outward. No one told them about the dangers of vaccines.

Phase Four is when the parents blame themselves for not having taken the time or the trouble to be informed about a defect that has taken away their child’s chances of a normal life, a tragedy that could have been avoided.

Phase Five is the inevitable acceptance phase as parents realize their child is truly autistic. Unfortunately most of these children will not receive the daily care and treatment Vaccine Argument they need. This lifetime commitment is incredibly time consuming and horrifically expensive, impossible for most families.

As we look more closely at vaccines, we find that autism is not the only danger. The shocking increase in the number of vaccines since 9/11, the ingredients and culturing techniques, the sharp increase in childhood cancer and diabetes, the rising percentage of state monies now devoted to learning disabilities and other defects, the nature of the economic motivators behind the scenes – these are some of the issues that the responsible parent should know about before blindly sub-mitting to the Well Baby Program. To obtain all of one’s information about vaccines from the same people who make a living selling them may not be the best way to keep children out of harm’s way. Parents today must protect their children from all threats, from any quarter. And the only way to do that is with a little homework.

The sad result of that trip to Michigan is the low possibility that anything will evolve from the convention that would substantially improve the situation in that community. It was obvious that the majority of the people at the lectures did not understand what they were hearing, because it was so outside the standard conventional line they’ve heard all their lives – namely that childhood vaccines are safe and necessary for their children’s wellbeing. But even if they did generally understand the well-documented likelihood of the vaccine connection for their local autism epidemic, what could they do? Organize a local boycott of the Well Baby Program? Petition the state government to hold a moratorium on vaccines until they are proven safe and effective? Such a movement is not forthcoming in the lemming warren this country has become today, let alone in upstate Michigan.

Mainstream media is not reporting on the vaccine controversy or on the growing number of parents who are signing their state exemption forms to opt out of vaccines for their children. These parents agonized over the issue as a moral dilemma. Through much study and research, they finally came to the conclusion that as responsible parents they could not permit their children to take part in a mass experiment. And they will not reconsider until a more thorough testing protocol (including risk-to-benefit studies) is implemented by an agency less economically involved in conflicts of interest than today’s FDA.

Dr. Tim O’Shay is the author of The Sanctity of Human Blood, 12 ed. 2008 Visit his website for a wealth of information about health and nutrition: thedoctorwithin.com.

On their website, Lush lists its company’s core beliefs. The first is, “We believe in making effective products from fresh, organic fruit and vegetables, the finest essential oils and safe synthetics.”

Their second core belief is, “We invent our own products and fragrances. We make them fresh by hand using little or no preservative or packaging, using only vegetarian ingredients, and tell you when they were made.” They go on to say, “Preservatives are by nature poisonous.”

This sounds like our kind of company, right? We thought so…

Imagine our surprise when Lush sent us a number of samples, among them their Rub Rub Rub Shower Scrub, which happens to contain FD&C Blue # 1 and FD&C Red # 28, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Sodium Cocoamphoacetate, Lauryl Betaine, and synthetic perfume.

Why send it to us? For that matter, why make it? Lush does have some good ideas. It sounds like they want to make things the right way. But their primary focus is on fresh more than natural or organic. Why not both? Why have one foot in and one foot out?

Oh, yes. Back to the issue of the product review for Rub Rub Rub Shower Scrub. Sorry, no review. We don’t take chemical baths.

Angels on Bare Skin Cleanser

Lush’s website says Angels on Bare Skin is the perfect, all-round cleanser. “Ground almonds gently exfoliate, rose absolute tones and lavender oil soothes. A pea-sized amount mixed with water in the palm of your hand to create an even paste is all you need. The result: angelic skin!”

The product looks a bit unusual. It’s like a rolled up chunk of clay, and it looks very “earthy” – but this is OLM, and we dig this kind of stuff. Does it work? Yes, it does. And it was not a problem for our sensitive skin testers. After using this product our faces felt soft and clean. It works, but it doesn’t work any better than the average product. And the fact that it does not list all of its ingredients (what’s in the perfume?) really bothers us.

The ingredients listed on their website are ground almonds (prunus dulcis), glycerine, kaolin, water (aqua), lavender oil (lavandula hybrida), rose absolute (rosa centifolia), lavender flowers (lavendula hybrida), *limonene, *linalool, and perfume.

Breath of Fresh Air Skin Toner

Lush says Breath of Fresh Air Skin Toner re-hydrates dry skin with soothing, nutritious, rejuvenating ingredients like real sea water, natural spring water, aloe vera gel, patchouli oil, rosemary oil and seaweed absolute. “A spritz after cleansing softens and balances, while a spritz any other time of day refreshes and renews.” Unlike the Angels on Bare Skin Cleanser, this toner has no perfume listed on the website as an ingredient, but it does have Methylparaben, a synthetic antifungal.

This toner feels good to the face, refreshing, and cooling, and it does moisturize. Most of the other products we have tried of similar nature will “wear off” leaving your skin feeling dry and itchy. Not this toner.

Vanishing Cream Facial Moisturizer

Lush says “This low fat moisturizer has minimal oil, making it perfect for those with acne, oily skin or a spotty T-zone (forehead, nose and chin). Light-as-a-feather Vanishing Cream sinks into the skin quickly… Vanishing Cream really does make skin troubles, well, vanish.” Ingredients listed in black include stearic acid, cetearyl alcohol, triethanolamine, methylparaben, and propylparaben. Our testers evaluated this product by putting it on one side of the face only. A few hours later all testers found that side drier than the other. One of our testers said, “Normally, I would go put more moisturizer on, but now I know that this stuff actually caused the dryness!”

Lush has a variety of all natural products on their website, and again, we are surprised by their decision to send us anything that wasn’t all natural to test. The one product which did meet our standards for ingredients was also the best according to our testers.

We do hope Lush continues making all natural, fresh, products and discontinues the products that contain artificial colors and preservatives.

Advertising – Letter From the Editor

Ask OLM

Healthy Skin

Holistic Approaches to Emotional Eating

How to Keep Your New Year’s Resolutions

Our Toxic Loads

18 Ways to Live a Healthier Life

Meet K. Rashid Nuri

Ten Organic Lifestyle New Year’s Resolutions

What About Vaccinations?

Dr. Shillington’s Total Body Cleanse

Morrocco Method Hair Care Review

An Eco-Organic Family Holiday Season

There is a strict criterion for advertising with Organic Lifestyle Magazine. We will not allow a company to advertise with us unless it shares our vision – to make the world a better place. Companies that are “green washing” or “organic washing” (my Enewly coined term) will not be allowed to advertise in these pages.

We want our readers to know that every product advertised in OLM, is (as far as we know) good for the environment and good for our bodies. But whether or not a product meets these standards can be a little tougher to determine than it sounds. Some health food products and supplements, for instance, may be good for one person and not for another. Multilevel marketing’s latest trend is superfood juice drinks. These products are often too sweet. A very healthy person would not have any need for them. But the average person, one who gets very little nutrition, may get more vitamins and minerals from one of these juice drinks than he or she would get all week from the packaged and processed food.

You may have seen the “OLM Endorses” label on some of our product highlights and product tests. While some products are good products developed by good companies, the OLM Endorses label means that through our research or testing we believe a product to be of superior quality, and we believe the company did what it could to limit its environmental footprint. Some products we’ve tested may meet this criteria, but we were not able to determine whether or not the products were made with the environment in mind (maybe the company was not available for comment) so no OLM endorsement was given.

We want you, our readers, to know also that our product evaluations are as fair and unbiased as possible. Even if a company advertises with us, this does not influence our evaluation. When we highlight or test a product, we may do so after the company decided to advertise with us, but rest assured, this will not affect our opinion of a product.

If you own a company with a product you would like us to try, email us at editor@organicmail.net. If you are a consumer, know that you can trust OLM to be fair, and please, check out our advertisers! When you support companies that advertise with OLM, you support OLM.

Michael Edwards

Editor in Chief