The Trump administration is considering allowing states to require drug testing for some food stamp recipients. The plan would narrowly target and affect mostly “able-bodied” people, according to an anonymous administration official, AP reports. The rule would apply to around five percent of those enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), according to AP’s source. In addition, the plan would target people without dependents who are seeking certain specialized jobs, the AP reported.

Conservatives have been pushing for mandatory drug testing for people who receive SNAP benefits for years. Federal law prevents states from implementing their own conditions for individuals to be eligible for SNAP.

Secretary Sonny Perdue wants to provide states with “greater control over SNAP.”

As a former governor, I know first-hand how important it is for states to be given flexibility to achieve the desired goal of self-sufficiency for people. We want to provide the nutrition people need, but we also want to help them transition from government programs, back to work, and into lives of independence.”

On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order calling for federal agencies to establish expand on existing work requirements for individuals on federal welfare programs.

Ed Bolen, the senior policy analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities think tank thinks implementing drug testing for SNAP recipients is legally murky.

Are people losing their food assistance if they don’t take the test, and in that case, is that a condition of eligibility, which the states aren’t allowed to impose? And does drug testing fall into what’s allowable under a state training and employment program, which typically lists things like job search or education or on-the-job experience? This is kind of a different bucket.”

Utah did its own welfare drug testing on 4,730 applicants from Aug 2012 to July 2013 for their Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program. Less than one percent were found to be using illegal drugs.

Remeber that Keystone crude oil pipeline leak in rural South Dakota last November? The spill size is nearly double the original estimate. The spill was considered said to be the largest spill in South Dakota, but now this estimate makes it the seventh largest inland spill in the whole U.S. since 2010.

Previous reports had estimated the spill to be about 5,000 barrels or 210,000 gallons. Robynn Tysver, a spokeswoman for Calgary-based TransCanada Corp, which owns the pipeline, told the Aberdeen American News now states that 9,700 barrels of oil leaked, or 407,400 gallons.

Keystone has leaked substantially more oil, and more often, in the United States than the company indicated to regulators in risk assessments before operations began in 2010, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.” – Reuters

The Keystone Pipeline is 2,687-miles long.  It runs from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska, where it then splits, going to Illinois and Texas. The pipeline is owned by TransCanada, which is seeking to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. A federal investigation showed that construction damage was most likely the cause of the oil spill.

The spill was originally estimated to have released some 210,000 gallons of crude. Then federal investigators reported that they had an “unconfirmed lower spill estimate,” but did not specify further.

They say the spill was likely caused because of mechanical damage that occurred when this portion of the pipeline was built in 2008. The damage, the investigators add, was probably caused by a weight installed at the time. ‘Such weights are used in places where changing water levels could make a pipeline float.’ ” – NPR’s Jeff Brady reported

Must Reads:

• Quick Facts on Estrogen, Testosterone, Candida, and Autoimmune Disease
• Starbucks Coffee Has to Have Cancer Warning In California, Judge Says
• Co-Sleeping is Not the Reason for High Infant Mortality Rates in the U.S.

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.”

Recommended: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

Phthalates and Food

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.

Sources

• Dietary sources of cumulative phthalates exposure among the U.S. general population in NHANES 2005–2014 – Environment International
• What Are Phthalates? Dining Out ‘Raises Level Of Chemicals Linked To Cancer’ – Newsweek
• Phthalates are everywhere, and the health risks are worrying. How bad are they really? – The Guardian

A lawsuit was filed in 2010 by the little-known Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT). This not-for-profit group sued 90 coffee retailers, including Starbucks, on grounds they were violating a California law that requires companies to warn consumers about the chemicals in their products that could cause cancer. The law is often called “Prop 65.” A judge just ruled that Starbucks and other coffee sellers need a cancer warning on coffee sold in California. The ruling calls for fines as large as $2,500 for every customer exposed to the chemical since 2002 at the coffee shops. Any civil penalties, which will be decided in a third phase of the trial, would likely be massive in California, with a population of nearly 40 million.

One of the chemicals in coffee that’s problematic is acrylamide, a byproduct of roasting coffee beans that is present in high levels in brewed coffee. Acrylamide isn’t just in coffee. The National Cancer Institute says it’s also often found in French fries, potato chips, crackers, bread, cookies, cereals, canned black olives, and prune juice. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been considering issuing guidelines on the acrylamide content in food for some time.

Related: Advanced Glycated End Products

Aside from food, the other main source of acrylamide is cigarette smoke—though people are exposed to substantially more acrylamide from tobacco smoke than from food, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said that Starbucks and the other companies did not prove there isn’t risk from carcinogens produced by the coffee roasting process. This ruling could potentially expose the companies to millions of dollars in fines. Starbucks and other defendants have until April 10 to file objections.

Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health.” – Judge Elihu Berle

Starbucks and the other defendants lost the first phase of the trial because it failed to show that the level of acrylamide in coffee was below levels that pose significant risk of cancer. In the second phase of the trial, the defendants failed to prove there was an acceptable “alternative” risk level for the carcinogen, according to court documents showed.

Recommended: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

Several defendants settled the case before Wednesday’s verdict. They agreed to post warnings about the cancer-linked chemical and they agreed to pay millions in fines.

Source:

• Coffee Warning? What You Need to Know About Acrylamide – Shape
• Starbucks coffee in California must have cancer warning, judge says – Reuters

GMO Arctic apples are being sold on Amazon. There is no notice that the food is GMO. There’s nothing illegal about this; GMO foods do not have to be labeled.

If you’re wondering what they look like and what to watch out for, here they are:

Arctic apples have been genetically engineered not to brown. They are devoid of the enzyme that causes apples to oxidize when the flesh comes in contact with air. Retailers, restaurants, and other foodservice sectors have expressed interest in using the GMO apples. Expect to see them in hospitals, restaurants, schools, vending machines, and anywhere you may see presliced apples.

Right now three new genetically engineered, non-browning apples have been approved: Golden Delicious, Granny Smith, and recently the addition of the Fuji. Gala apples are next. Only Goldens and Granny trees have been in the ground long enough to produce fruit in commercial quantities by next fall.

Recommended:

• How to Avoid GMO Apples
• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Doctors Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

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.

image credit: Mom Loses Custody Of Her Kids Because Of Something You've Probably Done

Cosleeping and Infant Mortality

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?

Related: Common Bad Parenting Advice You Should Ignore

Infant Mortality in Other Countries

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.

Related: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

The Problem with Cosleeping

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?

Sources:

• U.S. infant mortality high even for full-term babies – Reuters
• Cosleeping Around The World – The Natural Child Project
• Japanese Parenting: Co-sleeping For Your Baby’s Health and Wellbeing – Well-Being Kid
• Bed-sharing, Co-sleeping, or Separate Sleeping? – Ergo Baby
• The vast majority of American adults are overweight or obese, and weight is a growing problem among US children – IHME

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.

Related: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

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.

Related: Glyphosate Drenched Crops

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.”

Related: Monsanto’s Glyphosate, Fatty Liver Disease Link Proven – Published, Peer-reviewed, Scrutinized Study

Sources:

• Glyphosate exposure in pregnancy and shortened gestational length: a prospective Indiana birth cohort study – Environmental Health Journal
• Heavily used herbicide tied to shorter pregnancies – ReutersHeavily used herbicide tied to shorter pregnancies – Reuters