Banned Ingredients that Are Still Legal in the U.S.

You think the FDA has your back? Sure, they recently proposed two new regulations to up food safety measures, specifically how food processors and farmers can work better to keep their fresh products free of dangerous bacteria (remember that killer cantaloupe outbreak from 2011?). But while it may seem like the government is out to protect us from bad-even fatal-food-borne illnesses, which cause some 3,000 deaths a year, they don't completely have our best interest-or health-in mind. 

 "For numerous suspicious and disturbing reasons, the U.S. has allowed foods that are banned in many other developed countries into our food supply," says nutritionist Mira Calton, who together with her husband Jayson Calton, Ph.D., wrote the new book Rich Food, Poor Food due out this February. 

During a six-year expedition that took them to 100 countries on seven continents, the Caltons studied more than 150 ingredients and put together a comprehensive list of the top 13 problematic products that are forbidden by governments, outside the U.S., due to their detrimental effects on human health. 

 "If you see any of the following ingredients listed on the nutrition label, don't buy the product,"Calton warns. "Leaving these banned bad boys on the shelves will speak volumes to grocery stores and food manufactures about what informed consumers simply won't tolerate." 

RELATED: 7 Foods a Nutritionist Would Never Eat 

Ingredients: Coloring agents (blue 1, blue 2, yellow 5, and yellow 6) 
Found In: Cake, candy, macaronic and cheese, medicines, sport drinks, soda, pet food, and cheese 
Why the U.S. Allows It: We eat with our eyes. "Recent studies have shown that when food manufacturers left foods in their natural, often beige-like color instead of coloring them with these chemical agents, individuals thought they tasted bland and ate less, even when the recipe wasn't altered," Calton says. This may explain why the use of artificial dyes-the most popular being red 40, yellow 5, and yellow 6-have increased five-fold since 1955. 
Health Hazards: Back in the day, food coloring came from natural sources, such as saffron and turmeric. "Today most artificial colors are made from coal tar, which is also used to seal-coat products to preserve and protect the shine of industrial floors," Carlton says. "It also appears in head lice shampoos to kill off the small bugs." 

Ingredient: Olestra (aka Olean) 
Found In: Fat-free potato chips 
Why the U.S. Allows It: Procter & Gamble Co. took a quarter century and spent a half a billion dollars to create "light" chips that are supposedly better for you, Calton says. They may need another half a billion bucks to figure out how to deal with the embarrassing bathroom side effects (including oily anal leakage) that comes with consuming these products. 
Health Hazards: "This fat substitute appears to cause a dramatic depletion of fat-soluble vitamins and carotenoids, robbing us of the vital micro-nutrients," Calton says, adding that many countries, including the U.K. and Canada, have banned it. 

Ingredient: Brominated vegetable oil (aka BVO) 
Found In: Sports drinks and citrus-flavored sodas 
Why the U.S. Allows It: BVO acts as an emulsifier, preventing the flavoring from separating and floating to the surface of beverages, Calton says. 
Health Hazards: "Because it competes with iodine for receptor sites in the body, elevated levels of the stuff may lead to thyroid issues, such as hypothyroidism, autoimmune disease, and cancer," Calton says. That's not all. BVO's main ingredient, bromine, is a poisonous chemical that is considered both corrosive and toxic. It's been linked to major organ system damage, birth defects, growth problems, schizophrenia, and hearing loss, which explains why it's been nixed in more than 100 countries. 

Ingredient: Potassium bromate (aka brominated flour) 
Found In: Rolls, wraps, flatbread, bread crumbs, and bagel chips 
Why the U.S. Allows It: This flour-bulking agent helps strengthen dough, reducing the amount of time needed for baking, which results in lowered costs, Calton explains. 
Health Hazards: Made with the same toxic chemical found in BVO (bromine), this additive has been associated with kidney and nervous system disorders as well as gastrointestinal discomfort. "While the FDA has not banned the use of bromated flour, they do urge bakers to voluntarily leave it out," Calton says. 

Ingredient: Azodicarbonamide 
Found In: Breads, frozen dinners, boxed pasta mixes, and packaged baked goods 
Why the U.S. Allows It: While most countries wait a week for flour to naturally whiten, the American food processors prefer to use this chemical to bleach the flour ASAP. 
Health Hazards: It's not enough to just ban this product in Singapore. You can get up to 15 years in prison and be penalized nearly half a million dollars in fines for using this chemical that's been linked to asthma and is primarily used in foamed plastics, like yoga mats and sneaker soles. 

Ingredients: BHA and BHT 
Found In: Cereal, nut mixes, gum, butter, meat, dehydrated potatoes, and beer 
Why the U.S. Allows It: "Made from petroleum [yummy!], these waxy solids act as preservatives to prevent food from becoming rancid and developing objectionable odors," Calton says. A better solution may be natural rosemary and sage. In a 2006 study, some organic herbs and spices proved to be efficient at preventing oxidative decay in meat, which ultimately could improve the shelf-life of these products. 
Health Hazards: California is the only state that recognizes the U.S. National Institute of Health's report that BHA may be a human carcinogen, a cancer-causing agent. 

Ingredients: Synthetic hormones (rBGH and rBST) 
Found In: Milk and dairy products 
Why the U.S. Allows It: Gotta keep moo-ving things along. Dairy farmers inject cows with genetically-engineered cow growth hormones to boost milk production by about 10 percent, according to Calton. 
Health Hazards: "Cows treated with these synthetic hormones often become lame, infertile, and suffer from inflamed and infected udders," Calton says. Humans, who consume these cows byproducts, are in no better shape, she adds: "The milk is supercharged with IGF-1 (insulin growth factor -1), which has been linked to breast, colon, and prostate cancers." 

RELATED: 3 "Healthy" Foods that Aren't so Healthy 

Ingredient: Arsenic 
Found In: Poultry 
Why the U.S. Allows It: Big brother FDA permits arsenic in chicken feed to promote growth, improve efficiency in feeding the birds, and boost pigmentation. "The arsenic affects the blood vessels in chickens and turkeys, causing them to appear pinker and, therefore, fresher," Calton says. 
Health Hazards: The European Union has outlawed the use of arsenic since 1999, Calton says, and the Environmental Protection Agency classifies inorganic arsenic as a "human carcinogen." Take matters into your own hands by sticking to organic birds only. 

Originally Posted On: http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/banned-ingredients-still-legal-u-132100120.html

USDA Organic Infant Formula Contains Pesticide Labeled As A "Nutrient"

The USDA organic label is supposed to protect the consumer against GMOs and avoidable chemical exposures, but the sobering fact is that USDA-certified infant formula manufacturers are not only being allowed to use a pesticide in their formulas, but are advertising it as a 'healthy' mineral to unsuspecting consumers.

Unbeknownst to the vast majority of U.S. consumers, the nutritional adequacy of infant formula it not determined by its ability to support and produce health in those who receive it, as would be expected. Instead, it is deemed nutritionally adequate solely by virtue of it containing minimum quantities of a list of 29 nutrients, without specifying or even acknowledging the significant qualitative differences that exist between minerals in the form of nutrients and those in the form of industrial chemicals, e.g. amino acid-chelated forms of iron (iron glycinate) are much safer than relatively inorganic forms (ferrous oxide). Surprisingly, all that regulators do is ensure that those ingredients are there in the amounts deemed necessary, and that some basic quality control measures are followed during the manufacturing process.

A recent review summarized the U.S. rules as follows:

Infant formula, like no other food, is regulated by its own law, the Infant Formula Act of 1980 as amended in 1986. The act sets lower limits on 29 nutrients (so-called "table nutrients" because they appear in table form. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR 107.100). . . . Manufacturers are required to follow "good manufacturing practice," but no requirement for sterility is specified. . . . Powdered formula is not guaranteed  nor required to be free of pathogenic organisms  (Baker, 2002).

Another researcher opined on the topic: "If we assess formula by its results, rather than by whether its ingredients matched a specific list, we would have to conclude that there has never been an infant formula that would "satisfy," by itself, the nutritional requirements of infants during the first months of life." [1]   

Essentially, the only thing infant formula does is keep children alive, and hopefully growing at a pace deemed acceptable by pediatric clinical growth standards.

But even infant formula's ability to 'keep children alive' is increasingly coming into question. A recent review published in Archives of Diseases in Childhood revealed a disturbing statistic:

Currently, suboptimal breastfeeding is associated with over a million deaths each year and 10% of the global disease burden in children.[2]

Considering this estimate, a fair question to ask is how much of this mortality burden is caused solely by a lack of breastfeeding/breast milk, and how much of this is being caused by the formula itself?

There is no denying that a sizable body of clinical and epidemiological research now exists proving that breastfeeding prevents at least 70 health conditions in breastfed infants, and that infant formula contributes to or causes 57 adverse health conditions, making the widespread promotion of infant formula in the US all the more troubling.

But, what may be most disturbing of all, is what ingredients are actually being put into these so-called breast milk alternatives, and under the ostensibly 'pure' and 'healthy' banner of the USDA organic label. 

Enter the strange story of Copper Sulfate....

Copper Sulfate: Pesticide, Algaecide or "Organic" Nutrient?

Do a google search for "Copper Sulfate" and you'll find a fascinating array of products vying for your attention, such as:

• Rooto Brand 'Root Killer,' 2lb Copper Sulfate: used to effectively kill and destroy roots in your drain. 
• Crystal Blue Copper Sulfate 'Smart Crystals,' 5 lb Copper Sulfate: used to kill algae and kill roots in septic systems.
• Seed Ranch 100% Pure Copper Sulfate Crystals, 1lb: used to kill snails and slugs, pond cleaner to kill mosquito larvae and algae, fungicide/mildew cleaner, tree stump remover.

Nothing here indicates that Copper Sulfate is a 'nutrient,' correct? 

Indeed, if you dig deeper into its toxicological classification you will find that, according to the Dangerous Substance Directive (one of the main European Union laws concerning chemical safety),Copper Sulfate is "Harmful (Xn), Irritant (Xi) and Dangerous for the environment (N)."  According to research performed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the lowest dose of copper sulfate that had an acutely toxic impact on humans is 11 mg/kg, which is approximately 748 mg for a 150 lb adult.[3]

Similac Advance Organic ingredients

All the more surprising to find this chemical in USDA certified Organic infant formulas, such asSimilac's new Advance® Organic Infant formula, and not as a contaminant, or even as a preservative, but as a mineral that  '...helps give babies a strong start in life,' according to the Similac website, describing its line of infant formulas and human breast milk fortifiers.

Even trusted brands within the natural products channel, such as Earth Best's Organic formula, andBaby's Own Organics contain Copper Sulfate as a "mineral" nutrient.

How can this be?

The USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) presently regulates the definition of organic. According to NOP guidelines, any multi-ingredient product that contains 95% or more organic ingredients (excluding water and salt) may be labeled "organic." Therefore the Copper Sulfate in Similac's Advance Organic formula falls within the "contains less than 2%" ingredient list, giving the chemical a free pass.

But it gets even more interesting. Part 205.601 of the NOP's guidelines specifies that copper sulfate is a "synthetic substance allowed for use in organic crop production," as long as it is used in a way that "minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil."[4] We can assume, therefore, that its classification as an acceptable synthetic substance for use in organic crop production, it has evaded raising red flags among regulators.

There are several conclusions we can arrive at from here:

1. Faced with chemically-watered down USDA Organic Standards, the time has come to look to truly organic agriculture (you know, what our grandparents simply called "food"), produced locally, and whenever possible with permaculture and biodynamic farming practices, which do not allow chemicals of any kind into their self-sustaining systems.
2. We should be weary of all infant formula, including so-called "organic" formula, as it has well-known health risks, is not produced with any assurance that it has a beneficial effect on infant physiology (beyond preventing death from starvation), and likely also contains a known pesticide/herbicide.
3. Time has come to focus on the irreplaceable importance of breastfeeding in infant health. When a mother's milk fails, or production drops off prematurely, milk sharing clubs should be utilized. Worse case scenario, and these options are not available, goat milk products should be considered as an alternative, primarily because they do not contain the problematic casein protein known as beta-casein alpha 1, which is found in most cow's milk in the US.
4. Finally, hold manufacturers accountable. Advocate the Precautionary Principle, and put the burden of proving copper sulfate, sodium selenite, and various other chemicals used in infant formulas, and children's vitamins, safe instead of turning exposed populations  into guinea pigs by using animal-based toxicological risk assessment models to determine the highly Orwellian "acceptable level of harm."

---

[1] http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/NutritionalAdequacy.pdf

[2] June Pauline Brady. Marketing breast milk substitutes: problems and perils throughout the world. Arch Dis Child. 2012 Jun ;97(6):529-32. Epub 2012 Mar 14. PMID: 22419779
[3]National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1981–1986. Registry of toxic effects of chemical substances (RTECS). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

[4] www.ecfr.gov, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7: Agriculture, Part 207, National Organic Program.

Originally Posted On: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/usda-organic-formula-contains-ingredient-worse-gmos?utm_source=www.GreenMedInfo.com&utm_campaign=3538e253d4-Greenmedinfo&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_193c8492fb-3538e253d4-86991265

____________________________

"Why Is Pesticide Used As An Ingredient In Infant Formula?"

Why is cupric sulfate -- a known herbicide, fungicide and pesticide -- being used in infant formula? And why is it displayed proudly on product labels as a presumably nutritious ingredient?

Used to kill fungus, aquatic plants and roots of plants, parasitic infections in aquarium fish and snails, as well as algae and bacteria such as Escherichia coli, cupric sulfate hardly sounds fit for human consumption, much less for infants.

Indeed, infants are all too often looked at as "miniature adults" from the perspective of toxicological risk assessments, rather than what they are: disproportionately (if not exponentially) more susceptible to the adverse effects of environmental exposures. Instead of reducing or altogether eliminating avoidable infant chemical exposures (the precautionary principle), the chemical industry-friendly focus is always on determining "an acceptable level of harm" – as if there were such at thing!

It boggles the imagination how cupric sulfate ended up in infant formula, as well as scores of other consumer health products, such as Centrum and One-A-Day vitamins?
After all, it is classified, according to the Dangerous Substance Directive (one of the main European Union laws concerning chemical safety), as "Harmful (Xn), Irritant (Xi) and Dangerous for the environment (N)."

Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that the warning signal "DANGER" appear on the labels of all copper sulfate end-products containing 99% active ingredient in crystalline form.

The Material Safety Data Sheet for Cupric Sulfate clearly states, in 'Section 3: Hazards Identification," that it has the following adverse health effects:

"Potential Acute Health Effects: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.

Potential Chronic Health Effects: CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. TERATROGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENT TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to kidneys, liver. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage."

In 'Section 7: Handling and Storage" the following precautions must be taken:

"Do not ingest. Do not breathe dust. Wear suitable protective clothing. In case of insufficient ventilation, wear suitable respiratory equipment. If ingested, seek medical advice immediately and show t he container or the label. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. Keep away from incompatibles such as metals, alkalis."

Cleary we have a problem here.  Cupric sulfate is used in most mass market infant formulas. Even Similac's "sensitive" formula contains the ingredient:

Could this be one reason why infant formula has been linked to over 50 adverse health effects, both short and long term, in infants given it in place of breast milk?  The common explanation/claim is that infant formula isn't intrinsically harmful, rather, breast milk and breastfeeding is just healthier.  I believe this perspective in untenable, given the problems with cupric sulfate, and dozens of other questionable ingredients being used in these products, such as petroleum-derived and chirally inverted dl-alpha tocopherol (synthetic vitamin E), zinc sulfate, sodium selenate, manganese sulfate, etc.
For additional research on the inherent problems associated with the use of chemicals in infant formula, take a look at our evaluation of another Similac product.
Or, take a look at the "Organic" infant formula by Earth's Best:, which is surprisingly not that much better.

Originally Posted On: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-pesticide-used-ingredient-infant-formula

14-year-old kid arrested for wearing pro-NRA shirt now faces a year in jail

"The 14-year-old kid arrested over his pro-NRA shirt now faces a year in jail"

The West Virginia eighth-grader who was suspended and arrested in late April after he refused to remove a t-shirt supporting the National Rifle Association appeared in court this week and was formally charged with obstructing an officer.

As CBS affiliate WTRF reports, 14-year-old Jared Marcum now faces a $500 fine and a maximum of one year in prison.

The boy’s father, Allen Lardieri, is not pleased.

“Me, I’m more of a fighter and so is Jared and eventually we’re going to get through this,” Lardieri told WTRF.  “I don’t think it should have ever gotten this far.”

“Every aspect of this is just totally wrong,” Lardieri added.  “He has no background of anything criminal up until now and it just seems like nobody wants to admit they’re wrong.”

Officials at Logan Middle School in Logan County, West Va. maintain that Marcum, who has since completed eighth grade, was suspended for one day because he caused a disruption after a teacher asked him to remove a shirt emblazoned with a hunting rifle and the statement “protect your right.”

“She said, ‘Are you supposed to wear that in school?’” Marcum had previously explained in an interview with local station, WOWK-TV. “I said, ‘I don’t see why I shouldn’t.’”

Continued: http://news.yahoo.com/14-old-kid-arrested-over-pro-nra-shirt-071819724.html

________________________________

"Eighth Grader Could Face Year in Jail for Wearing NRA T-Shirt"

A West Virginia judge has ruled that an eighth grader who was arrested after wearing an NRA t-shirt to school will stand trial for obstructing an officer, a crime that can carry up to a year in jail and $500 fine.

Jared Marcum, 14, was charged last week after wearing the shirt to school in April. The shirt included the logo of the National Rifle Association, an image of a rifle, and words “protect your right.”

Jared was asked to remove the shirt or turn it inside out by a secretary and then a teacher at Logan Middle School in Logan, W.Va. When he refused to do so he was brought to the principal, who called police.

The boy said that when police arrived at the school, they told him “sit down and shut up” and threatened to charge him with making terroristic threats when he tried to explain his side of the story.

Jared said he was detained in a room with the principal and two officers. He was unarmed and presented no threat to the officers or students, according to his lawyer.

“I never thought it would go this far because, honestly, I don’t see a problem with this,” the boy told WOWK-TV in April. “There shouldn’t be a problem with this.”

He received just one day of suspension from school.

Jared’s attorney today filed a motion to dismiss the case.  A hearing on that motion will take place on July 11.

The law allows persons under arrest to question police and tell their side of a story, said his lawyer, Ben White.

“Case law says you can question police and you can talk to  police – you just can’t use foul language, or insult them,” said White.

Continued: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/06/eighth-grader-could-face-year-in-jail-for-wearing-nra-t-shirt/

The EPA Is Letting Energy Companies Pollute Our Drinking Water

Federal officials have given energy and mining companies permission to pollute aquifers in more than 1,500 places across the country, releasing toxic material into underground reservoirs that help supply more than half of the nation's drinking water.

In many cases, the Environmental Protection Agency has granted these so-called aquifer exemptions in Western states now stricken by drought and increasingly desperate for water.

EPA records show that portions of at least 100 drinking water aquifers have been written off because exemptions have allowed them to be used as dumping grounds.

"You are sacrificing these aquifers," said Mark Williams, a hydrologist at the University of Colorado and a member of a National Science Foundation team studying the effects of energy development on the environment. "By definition, you are putting pollution into them…If you are looking 50 to 100 years down the road, this is not a good way to go."

As part of an investigation into the threat to water supplies from underground injection of waste, ProPublica set out to identify which aquifers have been polluted.

We found the EPA has not even kept track of exactly how many exemptions it has issued, where they are, or whom they might affect.

What records the agency was able to supply under the Freedom of Information Act show that exemptions are often issued in apparent conflict with the EPA's mandate to protect waters that may be used for drinking.

Though hundreds of exemptions are for lower-quality water of questionable use, many allow grantees to contaminate water so pure it would barely need filtration, or that is treatable using modern technology.

The EPA is only supposed to issue exemptions if aquifers are too remote, too dirty, or too deep to supply affordable drinking water. Applicants must persuade the government that the water is not being used as drinking water and that it never will be.

Sometimes, however, the agency has issued permits for portions of reservoirs that are in use, assuming contaminants will stay within the finite area exempted.

In Wyoming, people are drawing on the same water source for drinking, irrigation, and livestock that, about a mile away, is being fouled with federal permission. In Texas, EPA officials are evaluating an exemption for a uranium mine—already approved by the state—even though numerous homes draw water from just outside the underground boundaries outlined in the mining company's application.

The EPA declined repeated requests for interviews for this story, but sent a written response saying exemptions have been issued responsibly, under a process that ensures contaminants remain confined.

"Aquifer Exemptions identify those waters that do not currently serve as a source of drinking water and will not serve as a source of drinking water in the future and, thus, do not need to be protected," an EPA spokesperson wrote in an email statement. "The process of exempting aquifers includes steps that minimize the possibility that future drinking water supplies are endangered."

Yet EPA officials say the agency has quietly assembled an unofficial internal task force to reevaluate its aquifer exemption policies. The agency's spokesperson declined to give details on the group's work, but insiders say it is attempting to inventory exemptions and to determine whether aquifers should go unprotected in the future, with the value of water rising along with demand for exemptions closer to areas where people live.

Advances in geological sciences have deepened regulators' concerns about exemptions, challenging the notion that waste injected underground will stay inside the tightly drawn boundaries of the exempted areas.

"What they don't often consider is whether that waste will flow outside that zone of influence over time, and there is no doubt that it will," said Mike Wireman, a senior hydrologist with the EPA who has worked with the World Bank on global water supply issues. "Over decades, that water could discharge into a stream. It could seep into a well. If you are a rancher out there and you want to put a well in, it's difficult to find out if there is an exempted aquifer underneath your property."

Aquifer exemptions are a little-known aspect of the government's Underground Injection Control program, which is designed to protect water supplies from the underground disposal of waste.

The Safe Drinking Water Act explicitly prohibits injection into a source of drinking water, and requires precautions to ensure that oil and gas and disposal wells that run through them are carefully engineered not to leak.

Areas covered by exemptions are stripped of some of these protections, however. Waste can be discarded into them freely, and wells that run through them need not meet all standards used to prevent pollution. In many cases, no water monitoring or long-term study is required.

The recent surge in domestic drilling and rush for uranium has brought a spike in exemption applications, as well as political pressure not to block or delay them, EPA officials toldProPublica.

"The energy policy in the US is keeping this from happening because right now nobody—nobody—wants to interfere with the development of oil and gas or uranium," said a senior EPA employee who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. "The political pressure is huge not to slow that down."

Many of the exemption permits, records show, have been issued in regions where water is needed most and where intense political debates are underway to decide how to fairly allocate limited water resources.

In drought-stricken Texas, communities are looking to treat brackish aquifers beneath the surface because they have run out of better options and several cities, including San Antonio and El Paso, are considering whether to build new desalinization plants for as much as $100 million apiece.

And yet environmental officials have granted more than 50 exemptions for waste disposal and uranium mining in Texas, records show. The most recent was issued in September.

The Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency that regulates oil and gas drilling, said it issued additional exemptions, covering large swaths of aquifers underlying the state, when it brought its rules into compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in 1982. This was in large part because officials viewed them as oil reservoirs and thought they were already contaminated. But it is unclear where, and how extensive, those exemptions are.

EPA "Region VI received a road map—yes, the kind they used to give free at gas stations—with the aquifers delineated, with no detail on depth," said Mario Salazar, a former EPA project engineer who worked with the underground injection program for 25 years and oversaw the approval of Texas' program, in an email.

Originally Posted On: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/12/epa-water-aquifer-drilling-fracking-waste

The top 10 worst sources of aspartame

If you think you are making a healthier option because you chose to have diet soda over a regular soda drink, its time to think again. Crafty advertising may have given the term "sugar free" an impression of healthy alternative, but the truth of the matter is that chemical sweeteners are far from healthy.

Despite the dismissive stand of aspartame producers that aspartame is safe for human consumption, various studies over the years have shown that aspartame is actually linked to headaches, migraines, dizziness, tumors and even cancer. The U.S. FDA made public 92 symptoms attributed to aspartame from submitted complaints. Despite its questionable effect, aspartame was approved for use in 1981 and still continues to be so today. Ironically, aspartame was never tested in humans before its approval. Its use in over 6,000 products and by 250 million people has made the public its unwitting guinea pig in a grand experiment 40 years in the making.

Key to health: Low-Sugar, not sugar-free
Stocking up on diet foods is the best way to gain weight. Latest research on aspartame has revealed that it actually increases the risk of weight gain. Being 200 times sweeter than sugar, aspartame appears to be the perfect answer to dieting since it contains only a few calories while still having the sweet taste of sugar. Unfortunately, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, major components of aspartame, trigger the release of insulin and leptins. The latter are hormones that stimulate storage of body fat.

Moreover, large doses of phenylalanine lower serotonin levels and lead to food cravings. Since both real and artificial sweeteners stimulate the taste buds, they affect the same taste and pleasure pathways in the brain. Artificial sweeteners, however, merely activate but do not satiate the pleasure-related region of the brain, proving to be an inferior system in preventing sugar cravings. In the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, researcher Qing Yang - a faculty at the Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology - published findings that revealed artificial sweeteners more likely to cause weight gain than weight loss.

This is over and above the fact that aspartame is also highly addictive. The phenylalanine and methanol components increase the dopamine levels in the brain and cause a certain high. This further creates an addiction that is only made worse by the release of methyl alcohol or methanol, which is considered a narcotic. Keeping this in mind, it's time we reconsider the "health benefits" aspartame is supposed to give.

Products containing aspartame

The following are well-known products that use aspartame:

• Diet sodas
  


• Yogurts
  


• Chewing gum
  


• Cooking sauces
  


• Crisps
  


• Tabletop sweeteners
  


• Drink powders
  


• Flavored water
  


• Sugar-free products
  


• Cereals
  

The above mentioned popular products are just a few of many that contain aspartame. Despite the rising reports of aspartame's toxicity, a re-investigation by the FDA as well as of key regulatory bodies worldwide doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon. We can only protect ourselves by making a conscious choice to check the label of every product we buy at the grocery store.

If you have complaints regarding aspartame, don't be shy in making your complaint known. The last thing you want to be is a face in a crowd lining up before a government office that doesn't have your interest at heart.

Originally posted on: http://www.naturalnews.com/035141_aspartame_worst_sources_products.html#ixzz2Wr7v6nCS

Simple, cheap, green, cleaning recipes!

Note: You do not have to use Heinz Vinegar, you can go with any brand you like. A lot of the White Vinegar sold on market shelves are derived from Genetically Modified vegetable plants. 

There are many inexpensive, easy-to-use natural alternatives which can safely be used in place of commercial household products. Here is a list of common, environmentally safe products which can be used alone or in combination for a wealth of household applications.

• Baking Soda - cleans, deodorizes, softens water, scours.
• Soap - unscented soap in liquid form, flakes, powders or bars is biodegradable and will clean just about anything. Avoid using soaps which contain petroleum distillates.
• Lemon - one of the strongest food-acids, effective against most household bacteria.
• Borax - (sodium borate) cleans, deodorizes, disinfects, softens water, cleans wallpaper, painted walls and floors.
• White Vinegar - cuts grease, removes mildew, odors, some stains and wax build-up.
• Washing Soda - or SAL Soda is sodium carbonate decahydrate, a mineral. Washing soda cuts grease, removes stains, softens water, cleans wall, tiles, sinks and tubs. Use care, as washing soda can irritate mucous membranes. Do not use on aluminum.
• Isopropyl Alcohol - is an excellent disinfectant. (It has been suggested to replace this with ethanol or 100 proof alcohol in solution with water. There is some indication that isopropyl alcohol buildup contributes to illness in the body. See http://drclark.ch/g)
• Cornstarch - can be used to clean windows, polish furniture, shampoo carpets and rugs.
• Citrus Solvent - cleans paint brushes, oil and grease, some stains. (Citrus solvent may cause skin, lung or eye irritations for people with multiple chemical sensitivities.)

Originally Posted On: http://eartheasy.com/live_nontoxic_solutions.htm

______________________________

The dangers of Dioxin (found in Lysol)

Lysol...Even More Dangerous than we thought!

From the Environmental Health Newsletter, spring 1991:

We've known for a long time that Lysol contains a substance called Phenol, the ingestion of which even in small amounts can cause nausea, vomiting, circulatory collapse, paralysis, convulsions, coma, respiratory failure and cardiac arrest. (Why would anyone with children keep such a product in their home?)

We have learned recently Lysol also contains Dioxin. that's the deadly ingredient used in Agent Orange that can cause genetic mutation, birth defects and cancer.

In a recent court case, Monsanto, (Lysol's parent corporation) admitted to a 30 year cover-up, lying about the presence of Dioxin in the Chlorophenol used in Lysol. They admitted knowing how devastating Dioxin is to the environment and in the human body...yet they still put it in and they still lied and said it wasn't there.

A recent article in Greenpeace Magazine recently discussed Dioxin at length. The article explained Dioxin causes cancer, birth defects and reproductive problems, as well as developmental and nervous and immune system abnormalities and damage to the kidneys, liver and skin. Even worse, it not only causes cancer, it promotes the growth of cancers begun by other carcinogens!

Not surprisingly, the article also pointed out that Monsanto (one of the nation's largest manufacturers of Dioxin) manipulated studies designed to test Dioxin's effect on the environment and made the studies scientifically invalid. In other words... They changed the data and lied again.

The preceding article is from Dr. Rexroad's "Natural Living Association's Newsletter" Dr. Arloa Rexroad, N.O.,Ph.D. 419 W. 5th Ave. North Esthervile, IA 51334-1222

More on Lysol
http://lists.essential.org/1999/dioxin-l/msg00780.html

Originally posted on: http://themomsoffice.blogspot.com/2012/05/dangers-of-dioxin-found-in-lysol.html

Top children's vitamin brand chock-full of GMOs, aspartame and other deadly ingredients

"...On October 15, 1982, G.D. Searle petitioned the FDA for

approval to use aspartame in soft drinks and children's
vitamins (Gordon 1987, page 499 of US Senate 1987; Farber
1989, page 38)"

Source: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012203/02P-0317_emc-000202.txt

Do you know all the ingredients contained in the multivitamin you feed to your children? Thousands of American parents apparently do not, as one of the top selling multivitamins for children, Flintstones Vitamins, is loaded with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), aspartame, aluminum, petroleum-derived artificial colors, and all sorts of other toxic additives that are literally poisonous to humans, and especially to children.

One would assume that because it is a "multivitamin," and one marketed specifically to children, that it contains only nutritious ingredients in the most appropriate doses and nothing more. To the contrary, the Flintstones Vitamins brand, which is manufactured by global drug giant Bayer, contains a host of synthetic additives that are actually banned in many countries due to their toxicity not only in humans but also in the environment.

A quick look at the Flintstones Complete Chewables page, for instance, reveals a laundry list of additives that serve absolutely no nutritional purpose whatsoever. Refined sugars, sorbitol, ferrous fumarate, hydrogenated soybean oil, GM corn starch, and artificial, aluminum-based food colorings top the list of questionable additives in this particular children's multivitamin. Also included in the mix is a host of synthetic compounds labeled as vitamins, all of which have minimal bioavailability.

"Bayer's Flintstones vitamin brand is far from a natural product, and the consumer should be aware of the unintended, adverse health effects that may occur as a result of using it," writes Sayer Ji on his health site GreenMedInfo.com about the issue. "It is important to hold accountable brands that refuse to label their products honestly, especially when they contain ingredients that have been produced through genetic modification."

You can view the full ingredients list for Flintstones Complete Chewables here:
http://www.flintstonesvitamins.com

The rest of the Flintstones vitamin line is not much better. Flintstones Complete Gummies, which are labeled on the company's site as having a "new formula," contain many of the same toxic additives. Artificial flavors, coal tar-based artificial coloring agents, and synthetic isolated vitamin compounds are all present in this particular vitamin formula as well.

Many of the 'vitamins' used in Flintstones are considered hazardous substances in Europe
Interestingly, many of the ingredients promoted in Flintstones vitamins as helping children get their daily intake of nutrients are actually listed as hazardous or outright banned in places like the European Union (EU), where additive safety is taken more seriously. Cupric oxide, for instance, which is listed as a supposedly nutritional source of copper in Flintstones vitamins, is actually classified as a "hazardous substance" in the EU's Dangerous Substance Directive.

Similarly, zinc oxide, which is often added to conventional sunscreen products, is listed as a substance that is "dangerous for the environment." Not only is zinc oxide a poor choice for a zinc supplement as the human body can hardly recognize or use it, but the EU Dangerous Substance Directive considers the substance to be an environmental hazard - how, then, can it be considered healthy for children to ingest?

Then there is the issue of the extreme neurotoxicity of aspartame, which has no place in the human food supply, let alone in children's multivitamins. And the same goes for artificial colors, which have been shown in scientific studies to trigger attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and various other behavioral disorders in children - why add these to vitamins in the first place?

Parents looking for an alternative to mainstream vitamins like Flintstones may want to take a look at whole food-based vitamin supplement brands like MegaFood, Garden of Life, and Pure Synergy. These brands use vitamins and nutrients derived from whole foods rather than laboratory concoctions, which means the body can assimilate them more effectively.

To learn more about the differences between whole food-based and synthetic vitamins, visit:
http://blog.healthkismet.com/whole-food-synthetic-vitamins

Sources for this article include:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://blog.healthkismet.com/whole-food-synthetic-vitamins

Originally Posted On: http://www.naturalnews.com/040872_Flinstones_vitamins_multivitamins_synthetic_additives.html#ixzz2Wl9nchCX

Yes it's true, Kashi was purchased by the Kellogg Company, BUT...

When I posted this image, many of you were surprised to see the Kashi brand fall under the GMO category.

"Kashi is an American food company. Founded in October 1984 by Philip and Gayle Tauber,^[2] the La Jolla-based company sought a nutritionally balanced breakfast and began experimenting with different whole grains and seeds. Kashi was purchased byKellogg Company in 2000 and was independently operated in La Jolla, California^[2] until March 2013 when the Kellogg company moved Kashi headquarters to Battle Creek, Michigan."

"In April 2012, a grocer in Rhode Island found out Kashi used genetically engineered, non-organic ingredients, and pulled Kashi products from his store's shelves and later posted pictures and notification through social networking tools. Some customers began to call into question Kellogg's use of the term "natural" used on Kashi product labels.^[3] Kashi's general manager responded by stating, "The FDA has chosen not to regulate the term 'natural.'"^[3]

In 2012, the parent company of Kashi, the Kellogg Company, donated $790,000 to the NO on Prop. 37 campaign, which asked voters if they wanted foods containing Genetically Modified Organisms to be labeled in California.^[4][5]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashi_(company)

However, some of their cereals (11) have recently (2013) gained the "Non-GMO Project" verified seal. According to the Kashi website, they plan to gain the "Non-GMO Project" seal on over half their products by the end of 2015. From now on, look for the 'Non-GMO Project' seal before you purchase another Kashi Product. 

Source: www.kashi.com