Buying organic has never been more popular when it comes to food. So why not tampons, asks Emma Lindsey.
When it comes to stocking the fridge, buying organic has become second nature for a huge number of people, as the nation's annual £1bn shopping bill revealed yesterday. Three out of four babies are now fed organic and overall we now have the third largest appetite for such products after the US and Germany. But our appetite does not seem to extend to all things organic. Organic cotton tampons, for instance, might seem a step too far.
I had noticed them lurking in the Wellbeing section of Sainsbury's and slap-bang next to Tampax in Waitrose, and was intrigued. A friend who had been warning me off tampons for ages - "Do you have any idea what's in them?" - suggested I try something else called Instead, a small rubbery thing that looks like a diaphragm and has to be inserted in much the same way. I was repulsed. Or what about the Keeper, she suggested, a reusable (lasts 10 years), easier to navigate version with a teat to pull it out so you can empty it, wash it out and reinsert? No thanks.
My friend, who lives in California, is a mother of three with full-time access to her own loo; the gory logistics of using this contraption in a public toilet were too horrible to contemplate. Besides, I thought, this was one area of my life at least that I had pretty well sorted. So why was I even bothering to search for something different?
Like many women, as it turns out, I had been feeling increasingly ill at ease with my usual brand of rocket launchers. Although I had used them for years without question, suddenly I felt it was time to start looking at alternatives. Rachel Murray, 29, from Milton Keynes, had similar doubts. She also suffered from soreness, inflammation and discharge, which resulted in repeated visits to her doctor. It got to the point, she says, where she felt like a fraud because nothing seemed to work.
"My GP didn't examine me, but just prescribed thrush creams and pessaries, which didn't help. Finally I was referred to a gynaecologist, who thought the problem might be an allergic reaction to the tampons and pads I'd been using, and gave me the telephone number of a company that makes organic cotton products. After using them, the symptoms cleared up right away. I put a friend who had been having similar problems on to them and she has found her symptoms cleared up too."
We have come a long way since Dr Earle Haas invented the first tampon in 1931, in response to his ballet-dancer wife's demand for something she could use internally during her period. His invention and all rights were bought by the company then known as Tampax - the rest is history.
Today our demand for products that are ever-more absorbent yet still small has led to an increase in the use of synthetics in their manufacture. Unless it is stated otherwise, most "Tambrands" (the generic term for Tampax, Playtex et al) and pads, are made from a blend of bleached cotton and/or synthetic products, such as rayon, viscose and plastic - and that is where the trouble lies.
According to Dr Nunns, consultant gynaecologist at Nottingham City Hospital, who recommends his patients change to all-cotton products, the skin of the vulva is the most sensitive on a woman's body and easily irritated by polypropylene, perfume and bleach, common ingredients in sanitary ranges. He says: "All too often, women are sent away with a prescription for Canesten or whatever, as thrush is the easiest thing for a GP to diagnose. They don't have the time or inclination to think beyond that. Most patients report that they aren't even examined."
All-cotton and organic cotton tampons such as Natracare, are between 10% and 20% more expensive than other tampons, but that does not stop them selling well in North America (where the natural products industry is leaps and bounds ahead of Britain's), and particularly in Iceland, where they are the third most popular choice across all sanitary protection products and are stocked in the majority of supermarkets.
Being taken onboard by big supermarkets in Britain is a victory for Natracare's founder, Susie Hewson, who came up with the idea in 1989. A former campaigner for Friends of the Earth, she says: "Store buyers have their own criteria for stocking products. Waitrose has a policy of integrating its natural, organic ranges with others so that's why you'll find us among the other brands. Sainsbury's doesn't, so we're in with all the other organic ranges. But ultimately we have to sell in order to earn our shelf space next to giants such as Proctor & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson." The Co-op has shown interest in stocking the range and it is about to be given a trial in the Morrisons chain.
Irritation from sanitary products can make you miserable, but far more serious is Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS). If left untreated, it can kill, and the latest figures suggest that as many as five out of 100,000 menstruating women still experience varying degrees of it.
Dr Philip Tierno, professor of microbiology at New York University Medical School, has spent 23 years doing independent research into TSS and its link to tampons. It boils down to the fact that the toxin that causes TSS grows in the sort of environment created inside the body around a tampon. What goes into a tampon and how long it is left in the body are both major contributing factors.
Dr Tierno has come up with a persuasive argument for going organic. As with other organically grown crops, because non-intensive farming methods are used, there are no pesticide residues to contend with. "The bottom line is that you can get TSS with synthetic tampons but not with an all-cotton tampon," says Dr Tierno. He says there are strict case criteria defining TSS, including a temperature of 102, rash and hypo-tension. However women can have variations on these reactions; a slightly lower temperature, for example, and those symptoms might go unreported because they don't meet the strict definition.
"People think TSS was a health scare of the 80s, that it has gone away, and it's true that manufacturers changed the blends in their tampons and people got educated about the right way to use them. But the problem is coming back as manufacturers start trying to increase the absorbencies of their products." His advice is clear: "Never use tampons if you have ever had TSS. Use all-cotton products, don't use higher absorbencies and don't leave a tampon in for longer than eight hours. Above all, you are the proponent of your own health - do your bit by raising your brand of tampons as a concern with your doctor."
So there I was, re-educated with a pack of Glad Rags in one hand - "cotton, washable pads which fasten around your pants with a snap stud" - and Lunapads in the other, thinking if my granny could see me now. Suddenly organic tampons seemed like a great idea.
Women absorb 5lb of chemicals from cosmetics every year - from cancer-causing compounds in face cream to arsenic in eyeshadow. We tested two beauty junkies to reveal the shocking toll on their bodies...
Charlotte Kohl and her sister Emma are attractive young women. Their looks, they admit, are very important to them, which is why, between them, they use more than 70 different beauty and cosmetic products every day. Take Charlotte, 27, an estate agent from East London. Each evening, after slathering her face with a concoction of night creams, she sleeps with a dental bleaching kit on her teeth and fake tan all over her body.
Every morning, she uses an array of products in the shower, ranging from shower gels and exfoliating scrubs to 'body building' lotions to give life to her fine hair.
Her make-up regime includes blusher, bronzer, eyeliner, eye shadow and mascara, and she never leaves the house without covering her head in a thick cloud of hairspray.
Her 24-year-old sister Emma, a personal trainer, follows a similar routine, but she also has an obsession with lipgloss: she owns 60 different ones and touches up her lips every few minutes. In a bid to ensure she always has fresh breath, Emma also cleans her teeth seven times a day and carries a tube of toothpaste in her handbag, which she rubs into her teeth and gums at almost hourly intervals. Between them, the two girls get through four cans of deodorant a week, and spend £1,000 a month on cosmetics.
"We have been into cosmetics since we reached our teens," says Emma. "We're the sort of people who rush out to buy a new mascara just because it claimed to do more for our eyelashes than any other mascara previously. "I'm a complete sucker for anything that says it can make me look or feel better, or that is endorsed by a celebrity."
And Charlotte and Emma are not alone. Last year, Britons spent £6.4billion on cosmetics and grooming products, with the average woman applying 12 toiletries every day. But here's the rub - these toiletries can bring with them at least 175 chemical compounds.
A recent study found that British women are one of the heaviest users of cosmetics in Europe and, as a result, we ingest through our skin, and occasionally through the mouth, up to 5lb of chemicals a year. Take Emma's favourite fuzzy peach lipgloss for instance: she loves its colour and the fact it 'tastes nice', but according to the list of ingredients, it contains 28 manmade chemicals. Her deodorant contains 26 chemicals and Charlotte's hairspray has 23. Of course, the manufacturers would say these chemicals and resulting products are safe, but a growing school of thought begs to differ.
As part of a new television documentary, presented by Sarah Beeny (who for the past two years has been on a personal mission to remove as many chemicals from her lifestyle as possible), Charlotte and Emma agreed to have their blood and urine tested for a selection of chemicals found in their cosmetics. They were then challenged to live without their beauty products for eight days, swopping everything for natural chemical-free varieties. They also stopped using domestic cleaning products. The results will surprise even those who find it hard to believe that everyday cosmetics could really be doing us any harm. Certainly, both sisters did not think there would be anything potentially dangerous in their make-up bags.
"The ridiculous thing is that I've always tried to avoid chemicals whenever I can," says Emma.
"I always buy organic food.
"I never in a million years thought I could be exposed to chemicals which could damage me through my make-up.
"Make-up makes me feel good and it wouldn't have even crossed my mind that it could be doing me harm."
Cosmetics contain many different kinds of chemicals, but of particular concern are a group of preservatives called parabens, which by some estimates are found in 99per cent of all 'leave on' cosmetics, and 77per cent of 'rinse off' cosmetics.
These are known hormone disruptors: evidence suggests they can mimic the female hormone oestrogen, and a lifetime of increased exposure to oestrogen is linked to a heightened risk of breast cancer.
One study found parabens present in 18 out of 20 breast cancer tissue samples (though it is important to note that the study did not prove they'd actually caused the breast cancer).Parabens are also thought to adversely affect male reproductive functions.
Another troubling chemical is the antibacterial agent and pesticide triclosan, which is used in toothpastes, soaps, household cleaning products and body washes.It belongs to the chlorophenol class of chemicals, which are suspected of causing cancer in humans and taken internally, even in small amounts, can cause cold sweats, circulatory problems and - in extreme cases - coma.
Also of concern are phthalates, a substance that gives our lotions that silky, creamy, texture, but which are also a 'plasticiser' used to make plastics flexible.Certain phthalates are known carcinogens, and studies have suggested they damage the liver, kidneys, lungs and the reproductive system, as well as affecting the development of unborn baby boys.
The list goes on. Sodium laureth sulphate, a frequent ingredient in shower gels and shampoos, is a skin irritant; Propylene glycol, found in soap, blushers and make-up remover, has been shown in large quantities to depress the central nervous system to make it function less effectively, and aluminum in deodorants is linked to breast cancer by medical research.
And did you know that certain eye shadows contain arsenic?
One thing is for sure: few of us would want to rub any of these chemicals into our eyes, far less ingest them in liquids by drinking them. Yet, every day, we rub them into our skin, and allow them to enter our bodies.Given the facts, it's hardly surprising that a growing number of experts believe these substances have a cumulative effect on our bodies.They think the 'chemical cocktail' inside us is contributing to the increased frequency of a host of illnesses ranging from eczema to cancers as well as developmental problems such as autism and dyslexia. "It's difficult to see the link between chemicals in cosmetics and damage to health unless you stand back and look at the wider picture," says Dr Paula Baillie-Hamilton, author of Toxic Overload and supporter of the campaign group Chemical Safe Skincare.
"Man-made chemicals first emerged 100 years ago, and every decade since, the overall production of these synthetic chemicals has doubled.
"We are surrounded by chemicals: in the air, in our food, in our water and especially in our cosmetics, and the fact is that our bodies can't break many of these substances down. "Our systems are becoming more polluted and we are beginning to see the results of that in terms of increased illnesses and even birth defects, especially in boys. "There is no doubt that one of the ways we are exposing ourselves to these chemicals is through our cosmetics."
Dr Baillie-Hamilton also thinks that absorbing chemicals through our skin is more dangerous than swallowing them. "At least if you ingest chemicals through your mouth, your digestive system can do something towards dealing with them," she says. "If they go through your skin they hit your blood stream immediately and are then transported to vital organs such as kidney and liver, where they may be stored for many years."
So how did Emma and Charlotte's chemical detox pan out?
Before they started, both girls had to get rid of all their old products.The contents of their make-up bags and bathroom cabinets filled a black bin liner, and they were given alternative products, from ranges including Elave, Skin Shop, Aubrey Organics, Jane Iredale, Burts Bees and Purenuffstuff. Household cleaning products came from Ecover.
"At first, I really missed my own cosmetics and our new make-up didn't seem that good," says Charlotte. "The chemical-free mascara I was using didn't seem to hold onto my lashes and the hairspray felt as if I was spraying my hair with water. "I had to reapply the natural lipgloss so many times because it kept rubbing off."Emma agrees: "We went out one night with our new make-up on and it was hopeless, the hairspray didn't hold, the lipgloss kept rubbing off and I ended up less than fragrant, too, because the natural deodorant wasn't powerful enough." During the experiment, perhaps to encourage them not to go back to their old products, the girls were given information about their usual make-up.
For instance, the average woman eats, albeit unwittingly, five lipsticks a year, which in her lifetime is the equivalent volume of 1.5 blocks of lard. But Emma's lipgloss obsession means that she'll eat 54 lipglosses a year - the equivalent of eight blocks of lard during her lifetime. And that's on top of all the chemicals it contains. Charlotte's obsession with hairspray is just as troublesome. "I was shown that when its sprayed onto a smooth surface, hairspray solidifies into a clear plastic that you can actually peel off in solid form," says Charlotte. "Not only had I been putting this onto my head all day, but I'd also been unwittingly breathing it in. I was effectively-clogging up my lungs with plastic.
" The girls' monthly trips to the hairdresser to have their hair coloured are fraught with hidden dangers. People who use permanent hair dye are more than twice as likely to develop bladder cancer as those that don't. Both ammonia and paraphenylenediamine (PPD) - chemical substances used in dyes - can cause allergic reactions, too.
As the experiment progressed, Charlotte and Emma began to grow accustomed to their new products, and to discover brands they felt were comparable to their old make-up. "I began to realise it was just a question of getting used to using different brands," says Emma. "After a week, we'd both completely forgotten that we weren't using our own make-up and were putting on the chemical-free alternatives as though nothing had changed."
So at the end of the eight days, had such a detox really made a difference to the chemical levels found in their bodies? The highest reading of parabens found in humans is 730mg per litre of urine. Tests taken at the beginning of the experience had revealed that Charlotte had 650mg, which is in the higher range. Her reading fell dramatically to 21mg at the end of the experiment. Her level of triclosan - found in toothpaste and body washes - fell from 490mg per litre to zero. "I was shocked at the results," says Charlotte. "I hadn't believed we'd see such a dramatic difference in such a short time, let alone as a result of something as simple as changing our cosmetics. "Once I understood what our old cosmetics contained, psychologically it felt better to be using chemical-free alternatives. We both noticed our skin seemed brighter and smoother. "Our eyes were also brighter and our hair felt softer."
Emma's results showed an equally dramatic fall in triclosan levels, which fell from 90mg per litre to just 2mg per litre. Her paraben level was more surprising - it actually increased from its initial level of 7mg per litre of urine, though medical experts point out that parabens can be taken into the body through eating dried and snack foods, in which they are used as preservatives, and medicines, so Emma's diet during the experiment may have had a bearing. "What really hit home to me was that the way we go about our daily life really does have an instant impact on chemical levels in our bodies," she says. "It made me realise that I am being bombarded with chemicals from all sorts of directions, many of which I can't avoid. Anything I can do to cut back, can only be a good thing." Since the experiment finished, both girls have continued to use natural make-up where possible and switched to natural cleaning products. Charlotte has reduced her use of hairspray and Emma now cleans her teeth a sensible twice a day. Both girls use a natural deodorant, which contains no chemicals. "We don't want to get fanatical about it, and the fact is that certain chemical-free cosmetics don't work as well," says Emma. "We've yet to find a chemical-free mascara that is as good as my normal one, and chemical-free hair dye isn't that great either. "But for pretty much everything else there is an excellent chemicalfree alternative. "Given what we've learned, it would be madness to go on as we were."
Recently in a mainstream newspaper a professor of human nutrition lent herself to an article which quite emphatically stated that 'organic (food) is no better.'
Following up with the professor and with the intention of knowing which research had led her to this conclusion, BFA Nutritionist Shane Heaton was posed with a second statement from the professor:
Even if there were a difference, the difference is irrelevant. Fruit and vegetables provide an excess of vitamins and minerals and we should be encouraging everyone to eat more of them - we don't need to get them from more alternate sources that are hard to find and more expensive to purchase.
This question is one worthy of further consideration. Shane Heaton writes "As a fellow nutritionist of course I agree we need everyone to eat more fruit & veg, but it appears we advocate very different strategies on how to achieve that..." he writes.
"Everyone interested in nutrition and public health agrees that encouraging greater consumption of fruit and vegetables is the simplest and most effective way to improving peoples' health. Some believe that encouraging greater consumption of organic food works against this ideal, and therefore organics should not be promoted. It's assumed that if people buy organic instead of non-organic food, they'll buy a lesser quantity because of the higher price. I strongly believe this is a false assumption.
"The average household can easily afford the premium for organic food if they buy less junk food (fizzy drinks, crisps, cakes, biscuits, icecream, chocolate, sweets, etc.). Or fewer cigarettes. Or less alcohol. How do I know this? Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that that average household spends more on junk food than on fruit and veg each week. More on take-away, and more on alcohol than fruit and veg. The cigarette market is 6 times the size of the organic food market.
"So let me make an assumption. With a household food and drink budget, most people will tend to buy the essentials first fruit, vegetables, cereals, some ready meals, bread, milk, meat, etc. and then use what’s left to buy luxuries junk food, alcohol, cigarettes, take-aways and the like.
"The key factor here is whether or not consumers consider organic food to be essential or a luxury. As people learn more about differences in nutrient content, pesticide residues, animal welfare, food safety, environmental impact, etc., many do come to believe that organic food and farming are essential for the health of ourselves and that of the environment. If people switch from conventional to organic on the essentials, it's entirely likely they will then spend less on junk-food, alcohol, cigarettes and take-aways, and indeed, research has confirmed that organic consumers have different consumption patterns from non-organic consumers along these lines.
"So if my assumption is correct, switching to organic food would not only mean consumers receive more nutrients and fewer toxins in their now largely organic diet, they’d also potentially consume less alcohol, fewer cigarettes and less fat and sugar-laden junk food. The benefits to their health, that of their families, and public health in general, could be enormous.
"They'd also avoid the considerable uncertainties regarding the health implications of multiple pesticide residues, GMOs, anti-biotic resistance, nitrates and artificial food additives. Those who argue there is no compelling scientific evidence of definite harm from these issues must also concede that there is so much we do not know, that there is equally no evidence that they are safe. Consumers pursuing wellness know better than to wait for scientific consensus on such issues, and often make a personal choice instead to follow the precautionary principle.
"Another important point in this question of how best to improve peoples fruit and veg intake is the issue of taste. A common experience of organic consumers is that organic produce tastes better. Kids especially notice the difference, and I've heard numerous reports from parents who's kids start actually enjoying fruits and vegetables when they make the switch to organic. Where they previously struggled to get their children to eat much fruit or any vegetables at all, all of a sudden they start asking for more! And they feel great about giving them to their kids, knowing they're not doused in who knows how many pesticides.
So which is the better strategy to encourage greater fruit and veg consumption? I'm convinced the organic argument. It's good for you, tastes great, doesn't pollute the planet, didn't risk the farmers health when growing it, and won't slowly poison your family.It is likely to be a far more effective strategy than Go on, it's good for you. Don't worry about the pesticides - it's cheap!!.
"The environmental and biodiversity benefits of organic farming are well documented and generally accepted. Buying organic food supports organic farming and thus benefits the environment. Do those who advocate increasing consumption of non-organic fruit and vegetables really think it's wise to pursue wellness with no regard to our environment? Can you be truly well while supporting practices that pollute the environment and reduce biodiversity?
"So the bottom line is that if people go organic they receive more nutrients, fewer toxins, and probably decrease their consumption of health-robbers like cigarettes and junk-food. Whether or not to go organic is a question of priorities. If pursuing optimum health and wellbeing is a priority for you and your family, then it's a very good idea. If your priorities currently lie elsewhere, that's fine. It's your journey. But your choices leave a toxic legacy for future generations, and as a father of two, I'd really rather you didn't.
"Cheap is expensive, and organic food isn't a luxury , it's how food is meant to be."
Bubble Bursts on FDA Oversight of Kids' Bath Products 14/04/2006 Bubble Bursts on FDA Oversight of Kids' Bath Products
From: The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics www.safecosmetics.org/
In early February, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author David Steinman released lab tests that showed 1,4-Dioxane-a hidden cancer-causing petrochemical-in bath products for kids and adults.
In the weeks following that press conference we've heard from worried and angry parents across the United States. Clearly the presence of this carcinogen in products you use to bathe your children is not OK with you-and why would it be? It turns out that companies can vacuum-strip the nasty stuff out cheaply, but they don't. And it's a contaminant, so it doesn't show up on labels.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics vowed to put the heat on the government agency that has been charged with making sure personal care products are safe for kids and adults: The Food and Drug Administration.
However, after our press conference the FDA admitted something alarming: The agency doesn't have any recommended limits for 1,4-Dioxane in the personal care products that we slather on our skin and use to bathe our babies. And as soon as reporters started asking the FDA questions, references to the guideline disappeared into cyberspace.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics isn't letting this problem run down the drain: We sent a letter to the FDA on February 22, 2007 that requested prompt, clear answers on 1,4-Dioxane. We followed up in March. We have not heard back from them.
Concerned parents, concerned people who shower, the issue is complicated but the bottom line is not: The FDA is not minding the tub! We not only need clarification on the FDA limits for 1,4-Dioxane in personal care products, we also want to know who's looking out for American consumers.
Dangerous chemicals in personal care products compromise health by Mike Adams 4/03/2005
Title:Dangerous chemicals in personal care products compromise health
From:http://www.newstarget.com
Researchers are now finding that the active ingredient in antimicrobial soaps and personal care products causes nerve damage. This really isn't surprising: I've been warning readers about this for years. The ingredient is called MIT (methylisothiazolinone), and it is found in antimicrobial soaps, hand soaps, dish soaps and a surprising number of personal care products. People buy these personal care products thinking they're protecting themselves from infectious microbes. They think it makes them immune to viruses and bacteria that might be found in their bathrooms or kitchens, and thus they believe in the mythology of using antimicrobial soaps to create a sterile environment in their own homes.
This mythology has been promoted by the manufacturers of these products who, through clever advertising, propagate the distortion that bacteria on the kitchen counter and in the bathroom are responsible for making people sick. But the reality is that we don't live in a sterile environment anyway: the only thing that prevents you from getting sick is a healthy immune system. We are exposed to bacteria and viruses literally hundreds of thousands of times each day. It is our immune system that takes care of these threats and keeps us safe, not antimicrobial soap.
But many consumers don't understand this. They think that they can make their homes spotless; that they can create a level-4 biohazard clean room in their kitchen by using this antimicrobial soap, and that this will somehow protect them from getting sick. But the reality is that they're giving themselves nervous system disorders while actually promoting the breeding of resistant strains of bacteria. And thanks to the nervous system damage caused by these antimicrobial ingredients, people are probably accelerating Alzheimer's disease by using these products. No doubt, they are impacting the learning ability of their children by poisoning their nervous systems, too.
It turns out that this active ingredient is chemically similar to Agent Orange. That's right, this was the Weapon of Mass Destruction used in Vietnam. And while it's not accurate to say that there's Agent Orange in your antimicrobial soap, there is indeed a chemical compound that's similar in its function, purpose, and molecular structure. Is this something that you want to be coating your dishes with? How insane is that?
Yet it's precisely what millions of Americans are doing each and every day that they use these products. They are literally placing a thin film of nerve agent chemicals on their dishes, and then drinking and eating from those dishes. Here, Johnny, be sure to clean up your plate! We washed 'em in something special: nerve toxins!
There are a great number of dangerous poisons in the average American home. The typical pantry is loaded with toxic chemicals. This is something I've been warning about for years, but most people just laugh it off and say "If these things were dangerous, they wouldn't be legal!" Yet they remain perfectly legal and quite dangerous at the same time.
For example, most people still use dryer sheets in their dryer. These sheets really serve no function other than to spread perfume all over your clothing. They're perfume sheets. And these perfumes are not essential oils harvested from flowers out in a wild field somewhere, they are synthetic chemicals, manufactured in a chemical plant, and many are highly carcinogenic. So after washing their clothes to get out all the dirt, people are then coating their clothes with a product that deposits a thin film of toxic chemicals onto their clothes. In other words, the clothes were cleaner before they went through the washer and dryer. And now that they come out of the dryer, they are dangerous to your health, because now they have been soaked in a toxic chemical cocktail. And people put these clothes on every single day, then walk around and produce sweat which moistens the clothes, and that accelerates the diffusion of such chemicals into their bloodstream through their skin. They do this and then they wonder why they are diseased. They think their laundry is clean because it smells like perfume.
The average American household is a toxic chemical dump. People have antimicrobial soaps, dryer sheets with toxic chemicals, and then there are people using all sorts of personal perfumes and fragrance products that are also loaded with cancer-causing chemicals. You've got people putting deodorant in their armpits, and that deodorant contains aluminum which promotes dementia and Alzheimer's disease. And if that's not enough toxicity, you can buy air fresheners that will release a mist of toxic chemicals into the very air that you breathe so that you can inhale carcinogenic chemicals directly into your lungs. Beyond all that, we have the shampoos which are also loaded with all sorts of toxic chemicals, and we have the cleaning products that contain solvents which directly promote cancer as well as birth defects. And this isn't even to mention the food supply yet, because the food supply in the average American household contains yet more toxic chemicals. But of course, that's for another article altogether.
So what do you do about all of this? Some people say to me "Mike, you sure are paranoid about all these products." Not really, only the ones that cause cancer and other chronic diseases. I'm fine with all the other products. The thing is, you can't find those healthy products at your regular convenience store or grocery store. You have to go to a health food store or a natural grocer, and you have to know the sources for these products. You have to be smart enough to read ingredient labels and figure out what's in these products. And then you have to educate yourself by reading articles like this so that you know what belongs in your body and what doesn't. It's not that difficult to understand; it isn't rocket science to figure out that the human body is not a toxic waste dump (regardless of what the consumer products companies try to convince you to believe).
The vast majority of these chemicals I'm talking about are considered environmental hazards by the EPA. And yet it's perfectly legal for manufacturers to put them in their products and indirectly allow consumers to put them into their bodies. You could be arrested if you dumped these same chemicals into a stream -- that would be a violation of federal law. And yet, you put them into your body every single day, and that's not only legal, it's actually encouraged by media coverage, advertisements, department stores, and retailers.
It is perfectly possible, by the way, to live a life free of these toxic products. All you have to do is stop buying the toxic products, throw them out, and start buying products that actually protect your health. You could start with your laundry detergent. Go to the health food store, or natural grocer, and get yourself some laundry detergent that isn't made with all these fragrance chemicals (a good brand is Seventh Generation).
Switch out all your soap: get rid of all that antimicrobial soap and switch to a product like Dr. Bronner's soap, which is only scented with natural oils like peppermint and almond oil. It's a wonderful soap, and I strongly recommend it. Throw out all those ridiculous brand name shampoos that are loaded with garbage ingredients that actually promote dandruff and hair loss because of all the toxic chemicals they contain. A lot of these products actually cause the very problems they claim to be solving. Throw those out! Go with olive oil shampoo from a company called Heritage Products.
And throw out all those perfumes and colognes, please, people, you are polluting the air for everyone else who actually has olfactory senses remaining. Maybe you can't smell yourself because your nose has been dulled from years and years of use of these products, but I tell you what - everybody else can smell you! And we're tired of it. Take those products, throw them away and try to live a day without smelling like an artificial fragrance factory, for God's sake.
And while you're at it, throw out the antimicrobial soap. Er, wait a minute, that might be an EPA violation. Better call a chemical waste processing facility and see if they can take it off your hands in an environmentally responsible way. Just don't be foolish enough to coat your skin with it.
Study points to cancer-risk from petroleum-based cosmetics By Simon Pitman 12/02/2007
Title: Study points to cancer-risk from petroleum-based cosmetics
From: http://cosmeticsdesign-europe.com
2/12/2007 - A new study carried out by lobby group the Environmental Working Group (EWG) suggests that a significant number of cosmetic and toiletry products with a petroleum-base may contain a cancer-causing impurity called 1,4-dioxane.
The group says that despite the fact that this impurity is easily removed during processing, it appears that many companies are neglecting to do so, something that is putting consumers at risk.
A computer assessment of 15,000 cosmetics found that 22 per cent of all cosmetic and personal care products may be contaminated with 14-dioxane, an estimate that the EWG says is based on its common presence in workhorse detergenet-like ingredients that the cosmetics industry uses in a wide array of products'.
The group says that this assessment is backed up by new product tests which found that that the cancer-causing chemical was found in 18 of more than two dozen products, 15 of which were marketed towards both babies and children.
Breaking the findings down, the group reported that 57 per cent of all baby soaps contained the chemical and 34 per cent of all body lotions. However, the biggest offender was hair relaxers, with 97 per cent of all products found to contain the chemical.
Although the group says that its latest study has chosen to highlight 1.4-dioxane, it says that this particular chemical is one of a number of cancer-causing substances commonly found in cosmetic and personal care products on sale in the US.
According to its statistics 80 per cent of cosmetic and personal care products sold in the country contain one or more of around 24 known impurities that have been linked to cancer.
As an integral part of its campaigns EWG has consistently stressed the fact that the FDA does not systematically enforce the testing of cosmetic ingredients for such impurities and is unable to enforce safety testing of finished cosmetic products, a situation the lobby group is working towards changing.
THEY'RE the world's most popular Christmas gifts, with global surveys predicting festive season sales of perfumes and cosmetics likely to rise by more than 20 per cent this year.
That's a handsome profit for a global industry worth $255billion.
Australian men now spend $488million on personal grooming products, with women spending more than double that amount on a battery of cosmetics, perfumes, hair care, manicure and tanning products.
But there's a battle being waged over the environmental and health impacts of synthetic chemicals used in beauty products and toiletries.
Scientists, health lobbyists and environmental campaigners argue that the cosmetics industry is among the world's least regulated, using thousands of chemicals that have not been subject to adequate assessment.
In the United States, studies by the Environment Protection Authority have linked endocrine disrupters used in toiletries and household cleaners to hormone disruption in wildlife, possibly caused by water pollution from urban wastewater.
A recent report by global lobby group Health Care Without Harm and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation tested 34 leading-brand cosmetics for phthalates synthetic chemicals linked to decreased fertility and reproductive defects and now one of the most abundant industrial pollutants in the environment.
Laboratory tests confirmed the chemicals were used in 80 per cent of products, with more than 50 per cent containing more than one type of phthalate. According to the report, "none of the products listed phthalates as an ingredient on the label".
When Hollywood actress Jennifer Lopez launched her first perfume, Glow by J.Lo in 2002, with its bling-bedecked pale pink bottle, she claimed she wanted a fragrance "that feels like you just came out of the shower".
It broke all global sales records for perfumes (the Lopez fragrance empire is now worth more than $US500million) and its success was swiftly followed by body lotions and bronzers.
A "younger, hotter little sister" called Miami Glow was launched described as "a blend of pink grapefruit, coconut water, cyclamen and vanilla orchid" which added up to "an irresistible combination for the girl who is extroverted and loves to celebrate."
But a laboratory analysis and consumer safety report by the United States Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep personal product care safety guide is more prosaic.
The Miami Glow "natural spray" has 23 ingredients, nine of which raise health concerns, four are subject to restrictions and warnings regarding their use and 16 have not been risk assessed by the cosmetics industry. Out of a potential score of five, Miami Glow is rated as 4.1 a red-card ranking, indicating a "product of higher concern".
One ingredient (coumarin a chemical compound used in artificial vanilla substitutes) is described as "thought to possibly cause cancer in humans", pose potential gastrointestinal, liver, cardiovascular and blood toxicity hazards and has "potential for reduced fertility or reduced chance for a healthy, full-term pregnancy ."
Another ingredient (Ethylparabenan used to inhibit microbial growth and to extend shelf life of products) is listed as "posing potential breast cancer risks".
Skin Deep's colour-coded scale of assessment (green, amber, red) rates Chihuahua-toting heiress Paris Hilton's perfume at the green end (lowest concern), scoring a consumer safety score of 1.2 and containing no ingredients listed as cancer hazards, irritants or endocrine disrupters.
Calvin Klein has 13 products ranked in the red zone, and even a genteel-appeal brand like Britain's Crabtree and Evelyn scored four red-zoners, including their Gardeners' Hand Therapy, which apparently has 15 ingredients that raise health concerns, according to the Skin Deep test criteria.
Aveda, a company that claims to use only "pure botanicals" in its hair care products, has four red-raters (out of a total of 109 products assessed) with five ingredients in its popular Sap Moss conditioner rated as posing potential breast cancer risks. However, their Rosemary Mint shampoo gets a green rating , with only three out of 15 of its ingredients (camphor, benzoic acid and glycerin) raising minor health concerns over potential allergies.
On its website Skin Deep offers comprehensive assessments of almost 15,000 skin and hair care products, cosmetics, sunscreens and toothpastes, providing safety ratings based on toxicity tests and regulatory databases.
The organisation claims more than one-third of all personal care products contain at least one ingredient linked to cancer; 57 per cent of all products contain "penetration enhancer" chemicals that can drive other ingredients faster and deeper into the skin to the blood vessels below; and 79 per cent of all products contain ingredients that may contain harmful impurities.
According to Pat Thomas, author of "What's In This Stuff", British research into parabens (used as skin sensitisers and preservatives) has identified them as oestrogen mimics.
"In studies of breast tumours, traces of parabens were also found in every single sample, suggesting that this oestrogenic effect is not just an artefact of the lab," writes Thomas.
Last month, scientists at the University of Pittsburgh's Centre for Environmental Oncology claimed use of personal care products containing oestrogen and parabens could explain why young African-American women were at greater risk of developing breast cancer.
In a study published in the journal Medical Hypotheses, they pointed out that products like hair straighteners and deodorants contained oestrogen and parabens and were "widely used in the African-American community throughout life, starting at very young ages".
The United States Geological Survey recently released a study revealing triclosan, a chemical that mimics the thyroid hormone and is commonly added to soaps, toothpaste, deodorant and dog shampoos, is present in 60 percent of the nation's rivers and lakes. It's bioaccumulative, building up in fatty tissue and has been found in human breast milk and fish.
The good news is that hundreds of ethical cosmetics companies throughout the world have signed the global Campaign for Safe Cosmetics's compact for safe health and beauty products, pledging not to use chemicals known or strongly suspected of causing cancer, mutation or birth defects in their products and to develop substitution plans replacing environmentally hazardous materials with safer alternatives.
Hundreds of personal care products contain untested, unapproved nano-scale ingredients that may pose consumer safety concerns by Ben Kage 11/11/2006
Title: Hundreds of personal care products contain untested, unapproved nano-scale ingredients that may pose consumer safety concerns
From: NewsTarget.com printable article Originally published October 11 2006
(NewsTarget) A computer analysis of 25,000 personal care product labels -- conducted by non-profit research organization, the Environmental Working Group -- found that hundreds of the products contain nano-sized or micronized materials, which can be very hazardous and unpredictable, according to the FDA.
Nano-materials' small size and exceptionally high surface area to volume ratio can produce chemical or physical properties that are vastly different from their larger counterparts. The analysis showed that more than 250 of the analyzed personal care products contain one or more of 57 different nano-scale ingredients that were identified on the labels, and another 9,500 contained ingredients that could be either nano- or conventional-sized, but were not clearly identified one way or the other.
Without a clear government definition for nano-sized materials, quantifying how much is present in any given personal care product is difficult, stated a news release at the EWG website, ewg.org. Neither the FDA nor the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel (CIR) has substantiated the safety of nano-scale materials, which means cosmetics manufacturers do not have to divulge the science supporting the safety of the materials to either the FDA or consumers. It is standard to rely on the CIR to assess the safety of ingredients, but the EWG release noted that the panel had not assessed a single nano-material, and had only reviewed 11 percent of conventional cosmetic ingredients.
"The industry may have the studies to support the safety of these nano-materials, but they are not required to make any of this information available to the public," said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at EWG, and author of the assessment. "Manufacturers seem to be following the pattern they established with conventional chemical ingredients: Put poorly tested chemicals into personal care products and do the science later if at all."
In response to the safety issues raised by the lack of safety definitions for nano-materials, the EWG is calling for the FDA to:
-- "Define, through a public process, what substantiation of safety means for nano-materials. Require industry to make public all of the studies it has substantiating the claim that products containing nano-materials are safe." -- "Identify the presence of nano-materials in all products."
-- "Request information on particle size from all personal care product manufacturers."
A list of nano-materials and micronized ingredients, as well as the products that contain them, can be found at www.ewg.org.
How 'Organic' Are Those Body Care Products That You See with Labels Claiming to Be Organic? 13/08/2006
Title:Are Products That Say Organic Telling The Truth? By Sara Underwood
From:CBS Broadcasting, August 13, 2006
CBS4 BOSTON Organic food is going main-stream with stores like Wal-Mart hopping on the bandwagon.
Now, there are all sorts of organic beauty products on the market, but are they worth the price you'll pay?
In the beauty aisle, the word "organic" appears on everything from body lotion to shampoo. And if you're like most people, you probably assume that means what's inside is organic.
But Lisa Lee Freeman, editor of ShopSmart, a new magazine from Consumer Reports, says you need to watch out for fake organic body care products. "One big problem is there is no enforcement of federal regulations to prevent companies from labeling these products organic, even when they're loaded with synthetic ingredients."
For example, a face mask has organic in the brand name, but contains propylparaben. A shampoo also calls itself organic, but includes cocmidolpropyl betain. These synthetics have not been approved as organic ingredients.
But Consumer Reports' ShopSmart has advice on how to tell if a product is really organic.
Look for a seal that says the product is certified organic. One common seal is from the U.S.D.A., and that means the product is 95 percent or more organic.
If you don't see a seal, a quick look at the ingredients will likely tell you it's not entirely organic -- that way you won't end up overpaying for something that's not quite as organic as it seems.
Consumer Reports ShopSmart is a brand new magazine designed with women in mind. It highlights the best in tests and gives valuable money saving advice on everything from TV's to toothpaste. The fall issue is on newsstands right now.
Europe Passes Watered-Down Version of 'Precautionary Principle' That Could Drive Thousands of Toxic Chemicals off the Market 13/10/2006
Title:European Parliament Approves Law Regulating Chemicals
From:Associated Press, Dec 13, 2006
STRASBOURG, France (AP) -- Some dangerous chemicals could be banned from the European market and about 30,000 substances used in everyday products ranging from detergents to toys will have to be registered in a central European Union database under a law approved Wednesday.
The European Parliament passed the law -- one of the most complex and far-reaching EU regulations ever -- after years of haggling marked by intense lobbying by the European chemicals industry and by protests from environmentalists who sought more restraints on the industry.
The law, a compromise balancing health and environmental concerns against fears that excessive red tape would stifle business, puts the burden of proof on companies to show that industrial chemicals and substances used in everyday products are safe.
It is likely to take effect in mid-2007.
"It is a major step forward for public health, workers' safety and protection of the environment. In the end, we want to get rid of the most dangerous chemicals while boosting research and development in Europe," said Italian Socialist Guido Sacconi, who was charged with steering the legislation through the EU assembly.
Under the rules, producers will have to register the properties of chemicals with an agency to be set up in Helsinki, Finland, that will have powers to ban those presenting significant health threats. Companies will be required to gradually replace the most high-risk chemicals -- so-called persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances -- where safer alternatives exist. If no alternative exists, producers will have to submit a plan to develop one.
Because of fears over potential job losses, the parliament scaled back chemicals-testing requirements in the first reading of the law -- known as REACH, for Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals -- last year. Some 13,000 substances, deemed of high concern, face automatic testing, but almost all tests were waived for little-used chemicals of which only 1 to 10 metric tons are produced or imported into the EU annually.
EU governments further scaled back the law passed Tuesday on second reading in an effort to reduce costs for the EU's chemicals industry, worth about $582.9 billion and employing 1.3 million people in 27,000 companies.
The registration process for all of the 30,000 chemicals should be completed in 11 years. The first stage of the process aims to register substances that are produced in the largest quantities and the most harmful ones, such as carcinogens, mutagens and toxins affecting reproduction.
The direct costs of supplying safety information about a substance range from $26,500 to $530,000, depending on the volume of data requirements, according to the parliament.
REACH replaces some 40 directives currently governing the use of chemicals in the EU. In the past, companies could sell almost any chemical without being required to provide detailed health and safety information.
The compromise has been criticized both by industry, which complains it is too complicated and will burden companies with unnecessary bureaucracy, and environmentalists, who say it will allow dangerous chemicals to enter the market through loopholes.
"This deal is an early Christmas present for the chemicals industry, rewarding it for its intense and underhand lobbying campaign. We are deeply worried that the key goal of this legislation - to offer EU citizens and the environment sufficient protection from dangerous chemicals - appears to have been lost in the haste to agree a compromise," said lawmaker Caroline Lucas of Britain's Green Party.
Environmentalists are also worried that under REACH, many high-concern chemicals will be allowed onto the market if producers can prove they can adequately control them.
The United States has also expressed concern about the law, worried about its effect on U.S. exports. But EU leaders said the legislation would set a global standard and called on the Americans and other nations to adopt similar restrictions.
"From a global perspective, the safety requirements established by REACH will be on a completely new level," said Finnish Trade Minister Mauri Pekkarinen, speaking for the EU presidency.
Pesticides exposure raises Parkinson's Risk 02/07/2006
Title: Pesticides but not other environmental contaminants, may boost the long-term risk for developing Parkinson's disease by 70 percent, a new study suggests.
Their finding does back up earlier animal studies linking pesticide exposure to motor function abnormalities and lower levels of the brain neurotransmitter dopamine. Declines in dopamine have long been associated with Parkinson's.
"This is the first large human study that shows that exposure to pesticide is associated with a higher incidence of Parkinson's," said study lead author Dr. Alberto Ascherio, associate professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.
Ascherio and his colleagues discussed their work in the July issue of the Annals of Neurology.
The authors reviewed lifestyle surveys completed in both 1982 and in 2001 by over 143,000 participants in the U.S. "Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort," launched in 1982.
The researchers studied 413 participants who were diagnosed with Parkinson's disease.
Exposed patients were twice as likely to be blue-collar workers and 14 times more likely to work as either a farmer, rancher, or fisherman.
The Harvard team found that, regardless of occupation, pesticide exposure boosted long-term Parkinson's risk by 70 percent over the long-term.
Robin Elliot, executive director for the Parkinson's Disease Foundation in New York City, described the findings as "important and solid."
"This is certainly the biggest and most serious populations study on people, and it appears to be the best proof today that there is a general association between pesticide and Parkinson's among people," said Elliot. "It merits further investigation," he said.
SOURCES: Alberto Ascherio, M.D., associate professor, nutrition and epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston; Robin Elliot, executive director, Parksinon's Disease Foundation, New York City; July, 2006 issue of the Annals of Neurology.
Whole Kids 11/10/2006
Extract from the article in Australian Organic Journal by James Meldrum, Co-founder of Whole Kids
With the increasing attention by parents, educators, nutrition experts and society in general on the role of school canteens in promoting healthy eating, can organics play a part in changing the school menu for our kids? Are there any examples from here or overseas we can learn from?
Healthy school meals can lead to better behaved students who are more alert in class, according to a report by the UK Soil Association. The report found that students who eat meals made with fresh (preferably organic), unprocessed ingredients have better concentration, improved attention spans, are less likely to be hyperactive, and are calmer and more alert in class. They also have an increased capacity to learn and are less likely to be absent from school (Soil Association, 2004).
Even a small change such as switching to organic milk can help children's concentration and behaviour. According to the researchers in Wales, organic milk contains 64% more Omega 3 fatty acids than non-organic milk. In some cases organic milk contains 240% more Omega 3 acids. The researchers also claim that behaviour problems often improve if you switch your child to organic milk and that organic milk consumption, compared to non-organic milk, can reduce the risk of developing Alzheimers (Medical News, 2004).
It Can Be Done - Organics at the School Canteen
It is not just organic food companies that are encouraging a change to our canteen menus. Here and overseas, schools, organizations and governments are taking the initiative by removing junk food from canteens and introducing organic and healthy alternatives:
Since 2000, it has been obligatory to offer organic food in Italian schools. Although only 500 of 8,100 communities regularly offer organic meals or organic components for lunches for school children, more than 25% of Italian children eat organic, as most large cities adhere to the regulation. And in Emilia Romagna, legislation was passed requiring all day nurseries and primary schools in the region to offer exclusively organic meals to around 350,000 school children. (OCA, October 2004)
In France, around 300,000 organic meals are served each year in ten schools in Languedoc Rousillon and 400,000 a year in the Provence-Alpes-Cotes-d Azur region (Soil Association, 2003)
South Africa has gone a step further through its EduPlant activities which promote the cultivation of organic food in schools across the country. EduPlant has reached 14,500 educators from over 12,000 schools around South Africa in the past nine years (OCA, September 2004).
At the University of California, USA, students can order organic salads prepared in the first-ever certified organic kitchen on an American college campus (OCA, April 2006)
Many schools in the UK have introduced organic food. For example, at St Peter's Primary School in Nottingham, children still eat pizza, but the bases are homemade in the school kitchen using organic milk, organic oil and organic flour.
At the Monterey Institute of International Studies, a small, private graduate university in Monterey, California, with about 700 students from around the world, one activist student led the way to convert coffee sold on campus from conventional to about 90 percent organic and fair trade.
HEALTH: Produce has been losing vitamins and minerals over the past half-century 05/06/2006 By Deborah K. Rich, Special to The Chronicle Saturday, March 25, 2006
The fruits and vegetables that our parents ate when they were growing up were more nutritious than the ones we'll serve our children tonight. On average, the produce we grow in the United States has lower levels of several vitamins and minerals today than it did 50 to 60 years ago. By growing or buying and eating organic produce, however, we can make up much of the difference. Organically grown fruits and vegetables are proving to have higher levels of anti-oxidants, vitamins and minerals than their conventionally grown counterparts. Donald R. Davis, a research associate with the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, recently analyzed data gathered by the USDA in 1950 and 1999 on the nutrient content of 43 fruit and vegetable crops. He found that six out of 13 nutrients had declined in these crops over the 50-year period (the seven other nutrients showed no significant, reliable changes). Three minerals, phosphorous, iron and calcium, declined between 9 percent and 16 percent. Protein declined 6 percent. Riboflavin declined 38 percent and ascorbic acid (a precursor of vitamin C) declined 15 percent. A study of the mineral content of fruits and vegetables grown in Britain between 1930 and 1980 shows similar decreases in nutrient density.
The British study found significantly lower levels of calcium, magnesium, copper and sodium in vegetables, and of magnesium, iron, copper and potassium in fruit. The report concludes that the declines indicate "that a nutritional problem associated with the quality of food has developed over those 50 years." The decline in our produce's nutritional value corresponds to the period of increasing industrialization of our farming systems. As we have substituted chemical fertilizers, pesticides and monoculture farming for the natural cycling of nutrients and on-farm biodiversity, we have lessened the nutritional value of our produce. Integrated well-established organic farming systems can counter the decline. Good science comparing the nutritional value of organic and conventional foods is accumulating rapidly. It isn't uncommon for researchers to find that the higher nutrient levels in organic produce completely offset the declines Davis found in conventional produce. "What all our data shows," says Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center and a former executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, "is that whenever there's been a valid comparison between conventional and organic, organic is virtually never lower than conventional and, in a significant number of cases, it's higher. Sometimes it's significantly higher in several important nutrients." For example, Virginia Worthington, a clinical nutritionist who earned her doctorate in nutrition at Johns Hopkins, published a review in 2001 of 41 studies comparing the nutritional value of organic and conventional produce. After tallying the data across all the studies, Worthington concluded that organic produce had on average 27 percent more vitamin C, 21.1 percent more iron, 29.3 percent more magnesium and 13.6 percent more phosphorous than conventional produce. Benbrook released a review in 2005 of the research comparing antioxidant levels in conventional and organic foods. In humans, anti oxidants reduce damage to cells and DNA from free radicals (molecules generated by metabolic processes within the body), and thereby promote cardiovascular health, inhibit the reproduction of cancerous cells, slow the aging process in the brain and nervous systems, and lessen the risk and/or severity of Alzheimers, Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases. Benbrook found that in 85 percent of the comparable data points, produce from organic farms had higher levels of anti oxidants than did produce from conventional farms. On average, antioxidant levels in organic produce were 30 percent higher. Earlier this year, a Swedish team of scientists demonstrated that extracts from organically grown strawberries slowed the proliferation of colon and breast cancer cells to a significantly greater degree than extracts from conventional strawberries did. The levels of all the antioxidants analyzed by the team were higher in the organic strawberries than in the conventional. "As someone that has been involved with science and science policy for my whole life," says Benbrook, "I think the scientific case has been made for organic produce. The case has been made firmly enough so that it is appropriate and, indeed, irresponsible at this point not to tell consumers straight up that choosing organic fruits and vegetables probably delivers nutritional benefits because of the higher levels of antioxidants and vitamins and minerals." To read the full and extensive article go to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/HOG3BHSDPG1.DTL
The healing power of honey: From burns to weak bones, raw honey can help by Kelly Joyce Neff 2/01/2007
Title: The healing power of honey: From burns to weak bones, raw honey can help
From: News Target.com - information that empowers
Raw honey - which has not been pasteurized or filtered, and ideally taken directly from the hive - is a treasure chest of nutritional value and medicinal remedies. It contains an abundance of vitamins and minerals and is a natural and powerful medicine, both internally and externally.
The list of honey's beneficial functions is a long one. Honey increases calcium absorption; can increase hemoglobin count and treat or prevent anemia caused by nutritional factors; can help arthritic joints, when combined with apple cider vinegar; fights colds and respiratory infections of all kinds; can help to boost gastrointestinal ulcer healing; works as a natural and gentle laxative; aids constipation, allergies and obesity; provides an array of vitamins and minerals; and supplies instant energy without the insulin surge caused by white sugar. Many have found raw honey helpful for its positive effects against allergies and hay fever, and one or two teaspoons last thing at night can help with insomnia. As an antiseptic, honey is also a drawing agent for poisons from bites or stings or infected wounds, and has outperformed antibiotics in treatments for stomach ulcerations, gangrene, surgical wound infections, surgical incisions and the protection of skin grafts, corneas, blood vessels and bones during storage and shipment.
"Raw honey is exceptionally effective internally against bacteria and parasites. Plus, raw honey contains natural antibiotics, which help kill microbes directly. Raw honey, when applied topically, speeds the healing of tissues damaged by infection and/or trauma. It contains vitamins, minerals and enzymes, as well as sugars, all of which aid in the healing of wounds."
So writes Dr. Cass Igram, D.O. in The Survivor's Nutritional Pharmacy. In a fascinating modern development, scientists and doctors are beginning to rediscover the effectiveness of honey as a wound treatment. In recent years, honey has been used effectively in clinical settings for the treatment of fist-sized ulcers extending to the bone, as well as for first, second and third degree burns. Complete healing has been reported without the need for skin grafts and with no infection or muscle loss. It can be applied full strength to such conditions, covered with a sterile bandage, and changed daily. When the wounds are clean, honey acts as a healer. This also is the same procedure for infected wounds, ulcerations and impetigo. Garlic honey can also be applied directly to infected wounds, which will help clean up the area of infection.
Dr. Peter Molan, professor of biochemistry at Waikato University, New Zealand, has been at the forefront of honey research for 20 years. He heads the university's Honey Research Unit, which is internationally recognized for its expertise in the antimicrobial properties of honey. Clinical observations and experimental studies have established that honey has effective antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties. Astonishingly, it painlessly removes pus, scabs and dead tissue from wounds and stimulates new tissue growth. "Randomized trials have shown that honey is more effective in controlling infection in burn wounds than silver sulfadiazine, the antibacterial ointment most widely used on burns in hospitals," explains Dr. Molan.
Dr. Molan believes that if honey were used from the start in cases of septicemia, there would be far less tissue damage resulting. "The remarkable ability of honey to reduce inflammation and mop up free radicals should halt the progress of the skin damage like it does in burns, as well as protecting from infection setting in", says Dr. Molan. "At present, people are turning to honey when nothing else works. But there are very good grounds for using honey as a therapeutic agent of first choice."
Researchers believe that the therapeutic potential of honey is grossly underutilized. With increasing interest in the use of alternative therapies and as the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria spreads, honey may finally receive its due recognition as a wound healer.
Indeed, it works: Raw honey makes a sterile, painless and effective wound dressing. Apply it directly to open cuts, abrasions and burns, and cover it with a piece of gauze. The results will occur quicker than with conventional alternatives, such as salves and creams.
Honey is also exceptionally effective for respiratory ailments. One Bulgarian study of almost 18,000 patients found that it improved chronic bronchitis, asthmatic bronchitis, chronic and allergic rhinitis and sinusitis. It's an effective treatment for colds, flu, respiratory infections and a generally depressed immune system. Whereas sugar shuts down the immune system, a good quality honey will stimulate it into action.
Here are some more ways to utilize the healing power of honey:
BURNS - Apply freely over burns. It cools, removes pain and aids fast healing without scarring. Apart from being a salve and an antibiotic, bacteria simply cannot survive in honey.
BED WETTING - A teaspoon of honey before bed aids water retention and calms fears in children.
INSOMNIA - A dessertspoon of honey in a mug of warm milk aids sleep and works wonders.
HYPERACTIVITY - Replace all use of white sugar with honey. White sugar is highly stimulating with no food qualities. Honey provides the energy without the "spike."
NASAL CONGESTION - Place a dessertspoon of honey in a basin of water and inhale fumes after covering your head with a towel over the basin. Very effective!
FATIGUE - Dissolve a dessertspoon of honey in warm water or quarter honey balance of water in a jug and keep in the fridge. Honey is primarily fructose and glucose, so it's quickly absorbed by the digestive system. Honey is a unique natural stabilizer: Ancient Greek athletes took honey for stamina before competing and as a reviver after competition.
FACIAL DEEP CLEANSER - Mix honey with an equal quantity of oatmeal, and apply as a face pack. Leave on for half an hour, then wash it off. Great as a deep cleanser for acne and other unwanted blemishes.
POOR DIGESTION - Mix honey with an equal quantity of apple cider vinegar and dilute to taste with water. This is also wonderful for the joints and promotes weight loss.
HAIR CONDITIONER - Mix honey with an equal quantity of olive oil, cover head with a warm tower for half an hour then shampoo off. Feeds hair and scalp. Your hair will never look or feel better!
SORE THROATS - Let a teaspoon of honey melt in the back of the mouth and trickle down the throat. Eases inflamed raw tissues.
FOR STRESS - Honey in water is a stabilizer, calming highs and raising lows. Use approximately 25 percent honey to water.
ANEMIA - Honey is the best blood enricher by raising corpuscle content. The darker the honey, the more minerals it contains.
FOOD PRESERVATIVE - If you replace the sugar in cake and cookie recipes with honey, they'll stay fresher longer due to honey's natural antibacterial properties. Reduce liquids in the mixture by about one-fifth to allow for the moisture present in the in honey.
BABY'S BOTTLE - Four teaspoons of honey to a baby's bottle of water is an excellent pacifier and multivitamin additive. If the baby's motions are too liquid, then reduce the honey by half a teaspoon; if too solid increase by half a teaspoon. (Caution: Don't give raw honey to babies under 1 year old; it's just too rich.) For teething, honey rubbed on a baby's gums is also a mild sedative and anesthetic.
OSTEOPOROSIS - Research has shown that a teaspoon of honey per day aids calcium utilization and prevents osteoporosis - probably not a bad idea for anyone over 50.
LONGEVITY - The most long-lived people in the world are all regular users of honey. An interesting fact, yet to be explained, is that beekeepers suffer less from cancer and arthritis than any other occupational group worldwide.
MIGRAINE - Use a dessertspoon of honey dissolved in half a glass of warm water. Sip at the start of a migraine attack, and, if necessary, repeat after another 20 minutes.
CONJUNCTIVITIS - Dissolve honey in an equal quantity of warm water. When cooled, apply as a lotion or eye bath.
COUGH MIXTURE - Combine 6 ounces (170 grams) liquid honey, 2 ounces (55 grams) glycerin and the juice of two lemons. Mix well. Bottle and cork firmly, and use as required.
Raw honey may become granulated, as some does after a week and another maybe only after several years. If the granulations bother you, simply place the honey into a pan of hot water (not boiling) and let it stand until becoming liquid again.
Kelly Joyce Neff has an interdisciplinary degree in Celtic Studies which includes work in cultural anthropology, history, linguistics, language, and literature. She is a traditional midwife and herbalist, a reiki master, and an active craftsperson. She lives in San Francisco.
Baking soda can clean your teeth, clear your complexion and act as a natural antacid 18/02/2007
Title: Baking soda can clean your teeth, clear your complexion and act as a natural antacid, by Kelly Joyce Neff
From: NewsTarget
Many components of the modern western diet - meats, fish, dairy products, most grains, sugars, alcohol and caffeinated drinks (in fact, almost everything except vegetables, millet, most fruits and, as we have just seen, apple cider vinegar) - contribute to one's body becoming too acidic. This in turn can open the door to a variety of problems, some of them (including arthritic complaints) potentially serious if this acidic condition persists for many years.
This is because your body will attempt to compensate by retaining alkaline salts in the bloodstream to offset the increase of tissue acidity. Since your body can only tolerate a small imbalance in blood pH (the acid-alkali balance), it will rob alkaline components from other places - including your body's precious alkaline reserves - in an effort to restore proper pH equilibrium. This can result in heartburn, digestive distress, stomach upset, fatigue and a multitude of other symptoms. Simple, inexpensive kitchen baking soda can fix this.
Very useful in keeping the body healthily alkalized is half to one teaspoon a day of baking soda in water. Don't take it with or within an hour of meals, though, as the stomach needs to retain its acidity in order to perform its digestive functions effectively. A great deal of tap water (or even store-bought spring water) is surprisingly acidic; filtration will remove toxins but will not affect the pH balance of the water. (Baking soda can be used to reduce the corrosion of acidic drinking water in municipal water supplies, therefore reducing the toxicity of the lead and copper, which are dissolved from the pipes.) You can purchase a pH testing kit for home use very cheaply, and if the water you usually drink is acidic (i.e. with a pH of less than 7.0) you could remedy this cheaply and easily by adding a pinch of baking soda to all the water you consume.
Baking soda is also effective for polishing teeth (without scratching the tooth surface) and fighting bad breath (sprinkle a little on the toothbrush bristles). It can even be tried for exfoliating skin when acne is a problem (add a little to a facial cleanser in place of using a commercial facial scrub).
When baking soda is added to bath water, sunburn sufferers often experience a notable reduction in pain. Place a cup (8 ounces) of baking soda under the running bath tap so it dissolves completely, and soak in a lukewarm tub for about half an hour. Such a bath will soothe the pain and you won't have to endure the stinging sensation of a shower. Adding baking soda to a hot bath at any time also helps wash acid wastes out of the body.
In addition, baking soda can be used in cool (but not cold) bath water to soothe other skin irritations and alleviate itching from prickly heat, bee stings, insect bites, and other minor skin ailments. A paste (made with just enough water to get the desired sticky consistency) placed on an insect bite or sting and allowed to dry is a time-tested approach for drawing out and neutralizing poisons.
People with skin allergies who tend to react to commercial laundry detergents might find that washing their clothing and bedding in baking soda is less irritating. Simple baking soda may also weaken the desire for a cigarette as well as reduce the desire for sugar and sweets. It's used in kidney dialysis to reduce the level of acids in the bloodstream, and acts to prevent bacterial growth in food products. For general purposes of alkalinizing the body, quarter to half a teaspoon twice a day in water is usually enough.
The medicinal and self-care uses of baking soda were recognized by the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) more than 150 years ago. For years, baking soda has been recommended because of its antacid effects, mainly to neutralize stomach acids that can cause heartburn, acid indigestion and related discomforts. As it mixes with the hydrochloric acid in the stomach, baking soda triggers a chemical reaction, and its end products are salt (NaCl, or sodium chloride), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. The water is harmless, and the carbon dioxide gets released as a gas, producing a familiar burp once the acid is neutralized.
However, commercial antacid products only lessen symptoms of over-acidity by blocking the production of acid and can often produce unwanted side effects. They alter your body's ability to absorb protein and calcium, which can then create the need for a calcium supplements to compensate.
If it were not for the presence of sodium - which makes the tissue in the stomach highly alkaline - the lining would be destroyed by the hydrochloric acid in the stomach. The stomach, intestines, joints and ligaments are in constant need of natural food-source sodium. Naturally occurring sodium is not to be confused with the sodium from common commercial table salt, which is processed with extreme heat using many chemical and bleaching agents.
Potassium neutralizes acid wastes, and in combination with sodium, maintains a healthy acid/alkaline balance. Potassium and sodium are nearly always found together in the body and perform many of the same functions. Second only to breathing and maintaining a heartbeat the most important metabolic function our body performs is to maintain a balanced pH. Baking soda, in small amounts, performs this function.
Kelly Joyce Neff has an interdisciplinary degree in Celtic Studies which includes work in cultural anthropology, history, linguistics, language, and literature. She is a traditional midwife and herbalist, a reiki master, and an active craftsperson. She lives in San Francisco.
