(NaturalNews – Jonathan Benson) It is safe to say that the link between soda consumption and health conditions like diabetes and weight gain has been clearly established by a plethora of scientific research published in recent years. But what has not necessarily been fully recognized or understood is how consuming soft drinks affects the behavioral normalcy of children, particularly young children — that is, until now.

A new study set to appear in the Journal of Pediatrics has found, perhaps not surprisingly, that soft drinks like soda pop and processed juice can make children hyper, irritable and unable to focus, especially compared to their non-soda-drinking peers. Sugar-filled beverages, it turns out, can also make children aggressive, violent and even suicidal, altering brain chemistry and disrupting normal physiological balance.

To come to these conclusions, Shakira Suglia, Sc.D., and her colleagues from Columbia University, the University of Vermont and the Harvard School of Public Health assessed roughly 3,000 five-year-old children enrolled in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. The participating children came from 20 large U.S. cities, and their mothers reported information on their soft drink consumption patterns and behavioral profiles.

Upon analysis, it was found that a shocking 43 percent of children consumed at least one serving of soda or other soft drink per day, and four percent consumed four or more servings daily. But the really disturbing part is that, with each increase in soda consumption among all the children, aggression issues, withdrawal, attention disorders and other conditions became more pronounced.

In essence, after accounting for various outside influencing factors like socioeconomic status, parental stability (or lack thereof) and living situations, the study team verified that soda consumption is a direct cause of behavioral problems in young children. In fact, children who drank four or more soft drinks per day were found to be twice as likely as their peers to get in fights, destroy other people’s property and physically attack others.

“We found that the child’s aggressive behavior score increased with every increase in soft drinks servings per day,” says Dr. Suglia about the findings.

People of all ages damage their brains by drinking soft drinks, research shows

Earlier studies have found that older children, teenagers and even adults are behaviorally affected by soft drink consumption as well. A 2011 study published in the journal Injury Prevention, for instance, found that teenagers who drink at least five cans of soda per week, less than one per day, are more likely to have violent, aggressive tendencies.

Similarly, individuals of all ages were found in another study by the same authors to be more prone to mood-related behavioral problems, including feelings of belligerence, depression and suicide. All across the board, drinking soda and other sugar-dense beverages is a surefire way to mess up your brain and mental health, based on this collective research.

“Soft drinks are highly processed products containing carbonated water, high-fructose corn syrup, aspartame, sodium benzoate, phosphoric or citric acid, and often caffeine, any of which might affect behavior,” say the authors of the Journal of Pediatrics study.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.sciencedaily.com
http://healthland.time.com
http://www.reuters.com
http://science.naturalnews.com

(NaturalNews – Zach C. Miller) Lately, it seems that every supermarket has a hand-sanitizing station prominently displayed near the doors. In fact, the trend of using hand sanitizers has really ramped up in recent years, with more people carrying around their own personal-size versions of the stuff around with them.

And why not? Hand sanitizers seem like the perfect way to stay clean and disinfect on the go and don’t seem to have any downside. Unfortunately, there are some hidden down sides lurking in supposedly “clean” hand sanitizers that could lead to trouble with regular and repeated use. As you’ll see below, finding out the real truth about products we use daily is vital, especially when matters of health and well-being are concerned.

Triclosan

Triclosan is antibacterial chemical agent added mainly to soaps and personal care and cleaning products. Strangely, it’s also found in clothing, cookware, furniture and toys in an attempt to reduce bacteria levels. Research on triclosan has raised questions about potential hazards to human health. Triclosan has been shown to disrupt hormone regulation, disrupt immune system function and contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (i.e. superbugs). Indeed, the use of triclosan is contributing to an epidemic of antibiotic resistance. This happens when bacteria are regularly exposed to antibacterial agents; the bacteria adapt and grow stronger, more resistant and more immune.

Parabens

Parabens are ubiquitously found in many personal care products such as shampoo, conditioner, body wash, soaps, hand sanitizers and lotions for the purpose of discouraging the growth of microbes. If you look at the label of personal care products, you’ll see one or more of these names: ethylparaben, butylparaben, methylparaben and propylparaben. Unfortunately, parabens are linked to endocrine disruption, skin irritation, reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity and cancer. Parabens also mimic estrogen by binding to estrogen receptors on cells, and they increase the expression of genes regulated by estradiol, a natural form of estrogen. Because parabens are used to kill microbes in water-based products, they inherently contain toxicity for cells in general.

Chemically synthesized artificial fragrances

Most hand sanitizers have a fragrance, and that means that they are very likely to be full of toxic chemicals. Because fragrances are considered to be “trade secrets,” companies aren’t required to disclose what ingredients they contain. That means that they can be created from just about anything — including hundreds of dangerous chemical compounds. Artificial and chemical fragrances have been associated with allergies, dermatitis, respiratory distress, hormone disruption and potentially negative effects on the reproductive system. The solution here is to look for unscented hand sanitizers to avoid chemically synthesized fragrances. But even unscented hand sanitizers may still contain triclosan and parabens; if you look at the label and see the word antibacterial, it means that your hand sanitizer likely contains triclosan and you should inspect the ingredients label to make sure.

Better options and solutions

While not as convenient or trendy, getting back to basics and just using soap and water is really a better, time-tested way to clean your hands. But there are also natural hand sanitizers appearing on the market which don’t contain yucky chemicals. It’s always nice to support companies that create products that have ingredients in them that you can actually pronounce…

Sources:
http://www.thealternativedaily.com
http://www.organicauthority.com
http://www.mayoclinic.org
http://safecosmetics.org
http://science.naturalnews.com

(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.

(NaturalNews – L.J. Devon) Coca-Cola’s global sales have dropped for the third straight year. For the first time in 15 years, Coca-Cola’s global soda sales volumes fell in the first quarter of the year. The excitement of the fizzy drinks is begging to fizzle out. Consumers are growing concerned with their waistlines, their diabetes and their overall health, as they gradually shift away from all the sugar, the calories, the caramel colors, the artificial flavors and the preservatives.

That’s why Coca-Cola is coming out with a new marketing campaign targeting the consumers’ health-diligence. Coke executives plan on boosting global marketing spending by one billion dollars over the next three years. The company has already started adorning their bottles and cans of Coke with labels that claim “no artificial flavors, no preservatives added.” While this sounds like a positive step in the right direction for any company, it doesn’t compensate for the fact that the Coke is full of phosphoric acid, which is essentially an artificial flavor and preservative. On top of that, phosphoric acid lowers bone density and causes kidney disease. So is the new Coca-Cola label claim a downright lie?

Class action suit targets Coca-Cola’s misleading new label claims

In October 2013, a man named Paul Merrit filed a class action suit in California challenging Coke’s all-natural label claims. A federal class action suit filed in March 2014 by a man named Ronald Sowizrol follows along with the same challenge against Coca-Cola.

George Engurasoff and Joshua Ogden are now representing a class action suit against Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc., claiming the company is falsely advertising their signature beverage. The complaint wants Coca-Cola to label the phosphoric acid as an artificial flavor and preservative instead of pretending that it doesn’t exist. Coca-Cola executives argued that phosphoric acid is not on the FDA’s list of artificial flavors and therefore does not qualify as one.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White responded to Coca-Cola, saying that “these lists are not exhaustive” and that “the absence of phosphoric acid on these lists does not mean that the FDA has made a finding that phosphoric acid is not an artificial flavor.” In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says artificial flavors are used specifically to add flavor and are anything not derived from natural sources like fruit and vegetable juice, plant materials or dairy products. The industry must admit that phosphoric acid is a non-natural mass-produced chemical added to give soda its tart and tangy flavor.

Facts about phosphoric acid

Phosphoric acid gives beverages like Coca-Cola a strong acidity which is greater than lemon juice or vinegar. Although colorless, odorless and clear, phosphoric acid is not tasteless. It’s the very acidifying agent that gives the beverage a tangy flavor. That same tangy flavor ingredient can also remove rust on vehicles. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition shows how phosphoric acid chemically robs the bones, lowering human bone density. Furthermore, it’s been linked to kidney stones and kidney disease. Similar phosphate compounds are also found naturally in meat and dairy products, which helps explain why meat, dairy and sodas similarly cause inflammation in the human body. Phosphoric acid is mass-produced in large quantities and is also recognized in the industry as E338, orthophosphoric acid or phosphoric(V) acid.

If Coca-Cola desires to continue selling phosphoric acid poison, then they should at least be honest about it and not pretend that their beverages contain “no artificial flavors [and] no preservatives.”

Sources for this article include:
http://www.courthousenews.com
http://blog.fooducate.com
http://finance.yahoo.com
http://science.naturalnews.com

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.

If you shop in a typical US supermarket or big-box store, there may be more to your food purchases than meets the eye. Even the simplest of foods – apples, oranges, and chicken, for example – are commonly altered, treated with chemicals, or even injected with artificial coloring.

If you value pure real food, there’s no getting around the fact that buying your food directly from a farm (or via a farmer’s market), or, alternatively, growing it in your own backyard, are among the last remaining ways to secure such unadulterated food for your family.

6 Food-Industry Tricks That Might Shock You

TIME recently featured six food-industry tricks that should be common knowledge, but instead are mostly swept under the carpet. The food industry would rather you believe that your apple is just an apple, rather than a fruit with an added wax coating, for example – and that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

As TIME reported:1

“…your food goes through a lot to make it to you, from being treated with antibiotics to getting a chlorine bath and a wax coating. Many of these steps are no big deal… but some are bad for your health and others huge money wasters.”

1. Farm-Raised Salmon Is ‘Colored’ Pink

Wild salmon swim around in the wild, eating what nature programmed them to eat. Therefore, their nutritional profile is more balanced and complete, with micronutrients, fats, minerals, vitamins, and antioxidants like astaxanthin, which gives salmon its naturally pink, or in the case of sockeye salmon, red-colored, flesh.

Farmed salmon, on the other hand, are fed an artificial diet consisting of grain products like corn and soy (most of which is genetically modified), along with chicken and feather meal, artificial coloring, and synthetic astaxanthin.

Ironically, synthetic astaxanthin is not approved for human consumption, but is permitted to be used in fish feed that humans ultimately eat. How rational is that?

Astaxanthin is added to turn their flesh pink – the color most people expect their salmon to be. Natural salmon get astaxanthin from green algae. However, farmed salmon, without these synthetic “pigment pellets” added to their diets, would be an unappetizing grey color.

There are other reasons to avoid farm-raised salmon (and farm-raised seafood of all kinds). For instance, levels of critical omega-3 fats may be reduced by about 50 percent in farmed salmon, compared to wild salmon, due to increasing amounts of grain and legume (e.g. soy) feed.

The other issue with farmed salmon is the high levels of contaminants. The Norwegian Department of Health has raised serious concerns about high levels of contaminants in farm-raised salmon. The contaminants in question originate in wild fish, courtesy of environmental pollution.

These toxic contaminants bind to the fat molecules in wild fish, and when these fish are ground up for use in fishmeal together with added high-fat fish oils, ultimately these molecules can enter your body where they bind to your cells.

In 2006, Russia actually banned Norwegian farmed salmon, claiming it contained excessive amounts of lead and cadmium (originating from the feed).

Norway is the world’s top producer of farmed salmon. Last year, reports of farmed salmon toxicity actually spread through Norwegian news, and the Norwegian Health Department went on the record warning against eating too much farmed salmon due to contamination concerns.

2. Your Oranges Might Be Dyed

Why would orange producers go to the trouble of dying an orange orange? Because early in the season, some oranges might not be orange enough to attract consumers, so some Florida oranges are sprayed with Citrus Red No. 2.

This artificial dye is toxic to rodents at modest levels and caused tumors of the bladder and possibly other organs. It is not allowed to be used in California oranges.

Citrus Red No. 2 is not intended for consumption, which is why it’s typically added to juice oranges. If your oranges are dyed, it should state it on the bag’s label; be sure to avoid using the zest or peel of dyed oranges in your cooking.

3. Many Foods Are Dyed

It’s not only oranges that may be dyed with artificial colors. Your wheat bread may contain caramel color, as might your roast beef deli meat. Pickles spears are often dyed yellow to make the look more appealing, as are countless other foods.

In their 58-page report, “Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks,” CSPI revealed that nine of the food dyes currently approved for use in the US are linked to health issues ranging from cancer and hyperactivity to allergy-like reactions — and these results were from studies conducted by the chemical industry itself.2

For instance, Red # 40, which is the most widely used dye, may accelerate the appearance of tumors of the immune system in mice, while also triggering hyperactivity in children.

Blue #2, used in candies, beverages, pet foods, and more, has been linked to brain tumors. And Yellow #5, used in baked goods, candies, cereal, and more, may not only be contaminated with several cancer-causing chemicals, but it’s also linked to hyperactivity, hypersensitivity, and other behavioral effects in children.

4. Produce Often Gets a Wax Coating

Some produce is waxed after harvest to withstand the long journey to market unscarred and to protect against the many hands that touch it. While the wax is supposed to be food-grade and safe, there are different types used:3

• Carnauba wax (from the carnauba palm tree)
• Beeswax
• Shellac (from the lac beetle)
• Petroleum-based waxes

The natural waxes are far preferable to the petroleum-based waxes, which may contain solvent residues or wood rosins. Produce coated with wax is not labeled as such, but organic produce will not contain petroleum-based wax coatings (although it may contain carnauba wax or insect shellac).

The other potential issue is that wax seals in pesticide residues and debris, making them even more difficult to remove with just water. To reach the contaminants buried beneath the surface of your vegetables and fruits, you need a cleanser that also removes the wax, which is what my fruit and vegetable wash does. Produce that is often waxed includes:

5. Olive Oil Might Be Mixed with Cheaper Oils

Olive oil is a common target of food fraud, in which it is deliberately adulterated at your expense, according to the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention’s (USP) Food Fraud Database. Even “extra virgin” olive oil is often diluted with other less expensive oils, including hazelnut, soybean, corn, sunflower, palm, sesame, grape seed, and walnut. But these other oils will not be listed on the label, nor will most people be able to discern that their olive oil is not pure. If you live in an area where olive oil is made, buying from a local producer is the ideal solution as it allows you to know exactly what’s in your oil.

If not, try an independent olive oil shop that can tell you about the growers, or at least seek out a brand name that you trust to produce quality oil from your local supermarket. If at all possible, taste the oil before you buy it. While this won’t necessarily be a guarantee of quality (especially if you’re not skilled at picking out all the potentially subtle taste differences), it can help you to pick out the freshest-tasting oil possible (and if you open a bottle at home and find that it tastes rancid or “bad,” return it to the store for a refund).

6. Chicken Is Given a Chlorine Bath

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) permits poultry producers to put all the poultry through an antimicrobial wash, using chlorine and other chemicals to kill pathogens. We already have a problem with antibiotics causing antibiotic-resistant “super germs” when used in the animals’ feed, and this likely makes the problem even worse. Workers in the plants have also reported health problems from the chemical washes, including asthma and other respiratory problems. Not to mention, it’s unclear how much of the chlorine residue remains on the chicken when you eat it. In the European Union (EU), the use of chlorine washes is not only banned, but they won’t even accept US poultry that’s been treated with these antimicrobial sprays.

Germans Alarmed Over US ‘Chlorhuehnchen’ (Chlorine Chicken)

Both the USDA and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claim that giving chickens a chlorine bath is safe, but that’s not enough to convince many Germans, who are now among the most vocal opponents to a free trade agreement between the US and EU. The so-called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, could generate an estimated $100 billion a year in economic growth for both the US and the EU, but many Germans believe a trade agreement with the US would compromise their food safety and quality. According to Reuters:4

“The phrase ‘Chlorhuehnchen,’ or chlorine chicken, has entered the parlance of everyone from taxi drivers to housewives since trade negotiations began a year ago. An Internet search for the term generates thousands of results, bringing up cartoons of animals dumped in vats of chemicals and stabbed with needles. A majority of Germans believe chlorine-washed chicken is a danger to human health despite its successful use in the United States to kill bacteria, according to survey by pollster Forsa.”

The US Food Industry Allows These Dodgy Practices That Are Banned in Europe

If it surprises you that the EU may be more forward thinking when it comes to food safety than the US, it shouldn’t. Thanks to a largely industry-beholden government and regulatory system, Americans are simply not being afforded many of the same protections given to Europeans. For instance, the EU has historically taken a strict, cautious stance regarding genetically modified (GM) crops, much to the chagrin of biotech giant Monsanto and in stark contrast to the US.

While GM crops are banned in several European countries, and all genetically modified foods and ingredients have to be labeled, the US has recently begun passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion, in addition to the fact that GM ingredients do not have to be labeled on a federal level. In another example, chicken litter, a rendered down mix of chicken manure, dead chickens, feathers, and spilled feed, is marketed as a cheap feed product for US cows. The beef industry likes it because it’s even cheaper than corn and soy, so an estimated 2 billion pounds are purchased each year in the US.

However, any cow that eats chicken litter may also be consuming various beef products intended for chickens – raising concerns about Mad Cow Disease. And it’s not only the spilled feed that’s the problem; the infectious agent can also be passed through the chicken manure as well. In the US, the use of poultry litter in cow feed is unrestricted. Europe banned all forms of animal protein, including chicken litter, in cow feed in 2001. Want yet another example? The drug ractopamine is banned in 160 countries, including Europe, Taiwan, and China.

If imported meat is found to contain traces of the drug, it is turned away, while fines and imprisonment result for its use in banned countries. Yet, in the US an estimated 60-80 percent of pigs, 30 percent of ration-fed cattle, and an unknown percentage of turkeys are pumped full of this drug in the days leading up to slaughter because it increases protein synthesis. In other words, it makes animals more muscular… and this increases food growers’ bottom line.

Adding insult to injury, up to 20 percent of ractopamine remains in the meat you buy from the supermarket, and this drug is also known to cause serious disability, including trembling, broken limbs and an inability to walk, in animals. It’s also killed more pigs than any other animal drug on the market. While Europe has remained steadfast on its Ractopamine ban, including refusing imported meat treated with it, the US is actively trying to get other nations to change their minds and accept Ractopamine-treated pork.

What Are the Worst Processed Food Additives?

Processed foods can last a long time on the shelf without going bad, thanks to their chemical cocktails of preservatives and other additives. Unfortunately, their makers put a lot of money and time into strategies to increase shelf life and create attractive packaging, with little attention put on the foods’ nutrient value or how it will actually detract from lasting health. Limiting your intake of processed foods is crucial to optimal health, but, if you choose to eat them, be aware of these worst offenders to avoid if you want to protect your health (many of these are already banned in other countries due to health risks):

Beat the Food Industry at Their Own Game: Choose Real Food

When it comes to staying healthy, avoiding processed foods and replacing them with fresh, whole foods is the “secret” you’ve been looking for. Additionally, the more steps your food goes through before it reaches your plate, the greater the chance of contamination, alteration, and adulteration becomes. If you are able to get your food locally, you eliminate numerous routes that could expose your food to contamination with disease-causing pathogens and other intentionally added (yet still disease-causing) additives. Quite simply, swapping your processed food diet for one that focuses on fresh whole foods may seem like a radical idea, but it’s a necessity if you value your health.

And when you put the history of food into perspective, it’s actually the processed foods that are “radical” and “new.” People have thrived on vegetables, meats, eggs, fruits and other whole foods for centuries, while processed foods were only recently invented. If you want to eat healthy, I suggest you follow the 1950s (and before) model and spend quality time in the kitchen preparing high-quality meals for yourself and your family.

If you rely on processed inexpensive foods, you exchange convenience for long-term health problems and mounting medical bills. It’s also important to source your food directly from high-quality, local sources so you can determine that your chicken is not doused in chlorine and your apples are not coated in wax, for instance. For a step-by-step guide to make this a reality in your own life, simply follow the advice in my optimized nutrition plan along with these seven steps to wean yourself off processed foods.

(NaturalNews – S. D. Wells) Step right up to your favorite food bar, whether at Whole Foods, Harris Teeter or Farm Fresh, and “get you some” potato salad, coleslaw, egg salad, pasta salad, chicken salad, tuna salad, baked goods, or just make your own salad with lots of salad “dressing” and you are most likely getting a few heaping tablespoons of rapeseed oil with each serving, better known these days as canola oil. Now, whether or not there really is any such thing as organic canola oil, well, the jury is still out on that one. Regardless, canola oil is not good for you, and it ALL goes through a “deodorizing” processing stage that removes the “stink” of rapeseed, in case you didn’t know.

Canola oil can have detrimental effects on your health, especially the genetically modified (GM) canola that Monsanto so conveniently manufacturers for the masses to consume. It’s all mixed into those fancy, condiment-loaded, creamy salads at the friendly grocer, and it’s FRESH! Step right up to the fresh bar! Add in some tasty conventional spices and keep it hot or cold in those little bins for those “whole” food enthusiasts. Lots of people pack a few of the canola “mixtures” into plastic (BPA) containers and take them home. What exactly are you taking home, though?

There is no such thing as a canola plant

Wait, did you think there was a canola plant, like corn, soy or sunflower? Did you think making canola is just about pressing seeds? How DOES rapeseed oil magically turn into canola oil? It’s “deodorized” with a chemical component. Do you want to put a “hex” on your health? Insert “hexane” and wait for problems to rear their ugly head. Hexane, a vapor component of gasoline, is used to process oils and has been since World War II. And yes, hexane is flammable. Hexane is a chemical made from crude oil, the mainstream solvent extraction method of the entire Western world. So how is this organic? Good question.

The omega-3 fatty acids of processed canola oil are transformed during the deodorizing process into trans fatty acids. The reason why canola is particularly unsuitable for consumption is that it contains a very-long-chain fatty acid called erucic acid, which under some circumstances is associated with fibrotic heart lesions.

Here’s an interesting fact: In 1985, the Federal Register (official journal of the federal government of the United States) stated that the FDA outlawed canola oil in infant formulas because it retarded growth. So, 25 years ago it was not good for babies, but now it’s suddenly okay for everyone else? (http://www.functionalmedicineuniversity.com)

There’s a “not-so-heart-healthy” nation just below Canada

Just when you think that you’re eating healthy, you get fooled again. It’s the “cash crop” canola con! They’ve exploited that “gray area” so well for years. If you’re not sure, it probably “ain’t pure.” Oh, but its Canada’s top export to the USA by the millions of pounds of seed, oil, and meal per year.

But wait, some fast food chains were bragging recently because they are getting rid of their trans fat oils and switching to canola oil, like it’s some big move toward a “heart-healthy” nation, instead of using that pesticide-ridden soybean oil. So they must have been using that “close by choice” sales trick, where the consumer chooses from a lesser of evils but still falls for the gag. Sounds like two-party politics. So what’s your mayonnaise made with? What is the most prominent ingredient of your salad dressing, meaning what are the first few ingredients listed, because you know food manufacturers must list ingredients from the most first to the least last, right?

Oh, but the backlash will come, because people love their canola! Either that or they have no idea how much they are eating each day. They’re not doing the math. Add up those items from the canola food bar, condiments at home and some baked goods and what have you got? A “little bit” of rapeseed oil is moving through your digestive tract and your cleaning organs, and your body is not happy about it. Do you think Whole Foods uses organic canola for the food bar, or should you ask? Should it say? Everything that is prepackaged says so on the label. Too bad you can’t “Fooducate” the food bar items using the phone app (http://fooducate.com). Would it even matter if it was organic? I mean, can you have organic fibrotic heart lesions?

A biochemist would tell you that canola oil has higher levels of trans fatty acids than soybean oil and other toxic GMO “hybrid” oils that the masses use on a regular basis. This would include the hydrogenated vegetable oils cottonseed, safflower and corn.

Avoid the “All-You-Care-to-Eat” Canola Food Bar!

Take a quick look at the short-term and long-term damage you could be doing to your body by consuming canola regularly:

• Canola depletes vitamin E.
• Canola increases the rigidity of membranes, which can trigger degenerative diseases.
• Because of canola’s high sulfur content, it goes rancid easily, which can exacerbate allergies and compound problems for people with bronchial or asthmatic issues.
• Human studies reveal canola causes an increase in lung cancers.
• Canola can shorten lifespan of animals and lower platelet count.
• Daily canola consumption can raise your triglycerides over 40 percent.
• Canola oil molds quickly and also inhibits enzyme function.
• It opens the door for free radicals, undermining natural antioxidants, and can be linked to increased incidence of many diseases.
• Canola leaves no foul taste when it’s spoiled, so it’s hard to tell if you’re eating rancid erucic acid.

The Harvard School of Public Health stated decades ago that there is no safe level of trans fats, yet still, if there are less than 500 mg per half-cup serving, the FDA allows food manufacturers to use the label saying “no trans fats.” So who measures that half-cup at the food bar? Maybe you’re getting A HALF-CUP of CANOLA for lunch and dinner. Do you know the chemistry of your own cell membranes? Maybe you should. (http://www.bostonglobe.com)

Did you know that canola was man-made by a scientist at a university lab in Canada? The genes of the rapeseed plant were actually bred to produce less toxic erucic acid. Great, design a poisonous crop to meet FDA guidelines, then ship it to the USA! After creating this infamous genetically modified “invention,” this same scientist, Dr. Baldur Steffanson, went to work for Calgene, which was later bought by the biotech giant Monsanto! Who do you think also developed the “Roundup-Resistant” variety of GMO Canola? You guessed it – Dr. Steffanson, the “Father of Canola.” Thanks doc – for your contribution of weed killer and rapeseed oil hidden in our food! (http://timemachine.siamandas.com)

Still want to fill up those handy “to-go” containers at the “whole” foods bar? Still think all those creamy salads are the “bomb”? Think again. Don’t be fooled by canola just because the “debate” isn’t settled. Thanks to the “cloud” around the debate, it infiltrates the “whole food” market. Try grape seed oil or coconut oil for your own salads that YOU put together and can trust. Both of those oils can also tolerate high heat. Organic extra-virgin olive oil is good for you, but only if you don’t cook it at high heat. Stay healthy my friends.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.greencradle.net
http://www.youtube.com
http://www.organicconsumers.org
http://timemachine.siamandas.com
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.laleva.cc
http://preventdisease.com
http://www.functionalmedicineuniversity.com
http://www.bostonglobe.com