People in 18 countries across Europe have been found to have traces of the weed killer glyphosate in their urine, show the results of tests commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe and released today [1].
The findings raise concerns about increasing levels of exposure to glyphosate-based weed killers, commonly used by farmers, public authorities and gardeners across Europe. The use of glyphosate is predicted to rise further if more genetically modified (GM) crops are grown in Europe [2].
Despite its widespread use, there is currently little monitoring of glyphosate in food, water or the wider environment. This is the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the presence of the weed killer in human bodies.
Friends of the Earth Europe's spokesperson Adrian Bebb said: "Most people will be worried to discover they may have weed killer in their bodies. We tested people living in cities in 18 countries and found traces in every country. These results suggest we are being exposed to glyphosate in our everyday lives, yet we don't know where it is coming from, how widespread it is in the environment, or what it is doing to our health.
"Our testing highlights a serious lack of action by public authorities across Europe and indicates that this weed killer is being widely overused. Governments need to step-up their monitoring and bring in urgent measures to reduce its use. This includes rejecting any genetically modified crops that would increase the use of glyphosate."
Friends of the Earth Europe is calling on the European Union to urgently investigate how glyphosate is finding its way into people's bodies; to increase the levels of monitoring in the environment and in food and water; and to introduce immediate restrictions on the use of glyphosate.
Friends of the Earth Europe commissioned laboratory tests on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countries across Europe and found that on average 44% of samples contained glyphosate. The proportion of positive samples varied between countries, with Malta, Germany, the UK and Poland having the most positive tests, and lower levels detected in Macedonia and Switzerland.
All the volunteers who provided samples live in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run-up to the tests which were carried out between March and May 2013.
Glyphosate is used on many genetically modified crops. 14 new GM crops designed to be cultivated with glyphosate are currently waiting for approval to be grown in Europe. Approval of these crops would inevitably lead to a further increase of glyphosate spraying in the EU.
The biggest producer of glyphosate is Monsanto which sells it under the brand name 'Roundup'. Two weeks ago the US Department of Agriculture announced that it had found GM wheat developed by Monsanto that has not been approved anywhere in the world growing in a field in Oregon, leading to some countries restricting or testing US wheat imports and farmers in the US starting legal cases against the company.
Image Credit: www.gmonside.org
Notes:
[1] Urine samples were collected from volunteers in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Macedonia, Malta, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the UK. A total of 80/182 samples tested were found to contain glyphosate. Volunteers were all city-dwellers and included vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets. No two samples were tested from the same household. The samples were analysed by Dr Hoppe at Medical Laboratory Bremen in Germany.
The full results of "Determination of Glyphosate residues in human urine samples from 18 European countries" by Medical Laboratory Bremen are available online:
https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/glyphosate_studyresults_june12.pdf
Originally Posted On: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14907:weedkiller-found-in-human-urine-across-europe
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
U.S. dairy industry petitions FDA to approve aspartame as hidden, unlabeled additive in milk, yogurt, eggnog and cream
You probably already know that the FDA has declared war on raw milk and even helped fund and coordinate armed government raids against raw milk farmers and distributors. Yes, it's insane. This brand of tyranny is unique to the USA and isn't even conducted in China, North Kora or Cuba. Only in the USA are raw milk farmers treated like terrorists.
But now the situation is getting even more insane than you could have imagined: the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition with the FDA asking the FDA to alter the definition of "milk" to secretly include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.
Importantly, none of these additives need to be listed on the label. They will simply be swept under the definition of "milk," so that when a company lists "milk" on the label, it automatically includes aspartame or sucralose. And if you're trying to avoid aspartame, you'll have no way of doing so because it won't be listed on the label.
This isn't only for milk, either: It's also for yogurt, cream, sour cream, eggnog, whipping cream and a total of 17 products, all of which are listed in the petition at FDA.gov.
As the petition states:
IDFA and NMPF request their proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener -- including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame.
This is all being done to "save the children," we're told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would reduce calories.
Milk industry specifically asks to HIDE aspartame from consumers
Astonishingly, the dairy industry is engaged in extreme doublespeak logic and actually arguing that aspartame should be hidden from consumers by not listing it on the label. Here's what the petition says:
IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as "reduced calorie" are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk -- including flavored milk -- as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value."
In other words, hiding aspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!
Yep, consumers are best served by keeping them ignorant. If this logic smacks of the same kind of twisted deception practiced by Monsanto, that's because it's identical: the less consumers know, the more they are helped, according to industry. And it's for the children, too, because children are also best served by keeping them poisoned with aspartame.
Consumers have always been kept in the dark about pink slime, meat glue, rBGH and GMOs in their food. And now, if the IDFA gets its way, you'll be able to drink hormone-contaminated milk from an antibiotics-inundated cow fed genetically modified crops and producing milk containing hidden aspartame. And you won't have the right to know about any of this!
The FDA confirms this "secret" status of aspartame, stating, "If the standard of identity for milk is amended as requested by petitioners, milk manufacturers could use non-nutritive sweeteners in flavored milk without a nutrient content claim in its labeling."
The bigger question is this: If an industry is pushing to hide aspartame in its products, what else is it already hiding?
How about the pus content of its dairy products? How about its inhumane treatment of animals who are subjected to torture conditions and pumped full of genetically engineered hormones? How about the fact that homogenization and pasteurization turn a whole food into a dietary nightmare that promotes obesity, autoimmune disorders and cardiovascular disease?
There are lots of dirty little secrets in the dairy industry of course, and that doesn't even get into the secret closed-door conversations to encourage the FDA to destroy the competition of raw milk.
The only rational answer to all this is to stop buying and consuming processed dairy products, period!
I gave up ALL milk products many years ago and have never looked back. I drink almond milk, not pus-filled pasteurized cow's milk. (Click here for a recipe to make your own almond milk at home.) I don't eat yogurt. If I want probiotics, I get them from tasty chewable probiotics supplements such as Sunbiotics. I parted ways with processed dairy products many years ago, and as a result, my cardiovascular health, skin health, digestive health and stamina have all remained in outstanding shape.
There's also a philosophical issue here: Don't buy products from an industry that habitually LIES about everything. The dairy industry is like a mafia. They actively seek to destroy the competition, keep consumers ignorant and monopolize the market. They run highly deceptive ads with ridiculous claims like, "drinking milk helps you lose weight" and other nonsense.
The U.S. dairy industry is steeped in deception at every level, and now they want you and your children to unknowingly drink aspartame that's secretly blended into the product.
The dairy industry is to food as Lance Armstrong is to sports. It's all a big lie, laced with secret chemicals and false claims.
Stop drinking milk. Stop financially supporting the food mafia.
FDA petition page:
http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavore...
Originally Posted On: http://www.naturalnews.com/039244_milk_aspartame_FDA_petition.html#ixzz2WfNHdDFc
But now the situation is getting even more insane than you could have imagined: the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition with the FDA asking the FDA to alter the definition of "milk" to secretly include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.
Importantly, none of these additives need to be listed on the label. They will simply be swept under the definition of "milk," so that when a company lists "milk" on the label, it automatically includes aspartame or sucralose. And if you're trying to avoid aspartame, you'll have no way of doing so because it won't be listed on the label.
This isn't only for milk, either: It's also for yogurt, cream, sour cream, eggnog, whipping cream and a total of 17 products, all of which are listed in the petition at FDA.gov.
As the petition states:
IDFA and NMPF request their proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener -- including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame.
This is all being done to "save the children," we're told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would reduce calories.
Milk industry specifically asks to HIDE aspartame from consumers
Astonishingly, the dairy industry is engaged in extreme doublespeak logic and actually arguing that aspartame should be hidden from consumers by not listing it on the label. Here's what the petition says:
IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as "reduced calorie" are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk -- including flavored milk -- as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value."
In other words, hiding aspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!
Yep, consumers are best served by keeping them ignorant. If this logic smacks of the same kind of twisted deception practiced by Monsanto, that's because it's identical: the less consumers know, the more they are helped, according to industry. And it's for the children, too, because children are also best served by keeping them poisoned with aspartame.
Consumers have always been kept in the dark about pink slime, meat glue, rBGH and GMOs in their food. And now, if the IDFA gets its way, you'll be able to drink hormone-contaminated milk from an antibiotics-inundated cow fed genetically modified crops and producing milk containing hidden aspartame. And you won't have the right to know about any of this!
The FDA confirms this "secret" status of aspartame, stating, "If the standard of identity for milk is amended as requested by petitioners, milk manufacturers could use non-nutritive sweeteners in flavored milk without a nutrient content claim in its labeling."
FDA requests comments
The FDA is requesting comments on this petition. You have until May 21st, 2013 to submit your comments. Click here for instructions. [CLOSED]This is a clue to stop drinking processed milk and milk products altogether
There's a bigger story here than just the industry hoping to get FDA approval to secretly put aspartame in milk products while not listing aspartame on the label.The bigger question is this: If an industry is pushing to hide aspartame in its products, what else is it already hiding?
How about the pus content of its dairy products? How about its inhumane treatment of animals who are subjected to torture conditions and pumped full of genetically engineered hormones? How about the fact that homogenization and pasteurization turn a whole food into a dietary nightmare that promotes obesity, autoimmune disorders and cardiovascular disease?
There are lots of dirty little secrets in the dairy industry of course, and that doesn't even get into the secret closed-door conversations to encourage the FDA to destroy the competition of raw milk.
The only rational answer to all this is to stop buying and consuming processed dairy products, period!
I gave up ALL milk products many years ago and have never looked back. I drink almond milk, not pus-filled pasteurized cow's milk. (Click here for a recipe to make your own almond milk at home.) I don't eat yogurt. If I want probiotics, I get them from tasty chewable probiotics supplements such as Sunbiotics. I parted ways with processed dairy products many years ago, and as a result, my cardiovascular health, skin health, digestive health and stamina have all remained in outstanding shape.
There's also a philosophical issue here: Don't buy products from an industry that habitually LIES about everything. The dairy industry is like a mafia. They actively seek to destroy the competition, keep consumers ignorant and monopolize the market. They run highly deceptive ads with ridiculous claims like, "drinking milk helps you lose weight" and other nonsense.
The U.S. dairy industry is steeped in deception at every level, and now they want you and your children to unknowingly drink aspartame that's secretly blended into the product.
The dairy industry is to food as Lance Armstrong is to sports. It's all a big lie, laced with secret chemicals and false claims.
Stop drinking milk. Stop financially supporting the food mafia.
FDA petition page:
http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavore...
Originally Posted On: http://www.naturalnews.com/039244_milk_aspartame_FDA_petition.html#ixzz2WfNHdDFc
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Toxic Drinking Water in 43 States, Affecting 100 Million Americans
A new Environmental Working Group analysis of 2011 water quality tests by 201 large U.S. municipal water systems that serve more than 100 million people in 43 states has determined that all are polluted with unwanted toxic chemicals called trihalomethanes. These chemicals, an unintended side effect of chlorination, elevate the risks of bladder cancer, miscarriages and other serious ills.
“Many people are likely exposed to far higher concentrations of trihalomethanes than anyone really knows,” said Renee Sharp, a senior scientist at EWG and co-author of the analysis. “For most water systems, trihalomethane contamination fluctuates from month to month, sometimes rising well beyond the legal limit set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.”
Trihalomethanes are formed when chlorine, added to treated water as a disinfectant, reacts with rotting organic matter such as farm runoff, sewage or dead animals and vegetation. Their concentrations tend to rise when storms increase organic pollution in waters that serve as sources for tap water.
Scientists suspect that trihalomethanes in drinking water may cause thousands of cases of bladder cancer every year. These chemicals also have been linked to colon and rectal cancer, miscarriages, birth defects and low birth weight.
Only one of the systems studied by EWG – Davenport, Iowa – exceeded the EPA’s upper legal limit of 80 parts per billion of trihalomethanes in drinking water. Since that regulation was issued in 1998, a significant body of scientific research has developed evidence that these chemicals cause serious disorders at much lower concentrations. Among the research are two Taiwanese studies conducted in 2007 and 2012 that associated increased risks of bladder cancer and stillbirth to long-term consumption of tap water with trihalomethane contamination greater than 21 parts per billion. Some 168 of systems, or 84 percent of the 201 large systems studied, reported average annual concentrations greater than that level.
California public health officials reviewed the research around trihalomethane contamination in 2010 and determined that to reduce the risk of bladder cancer to no more than 1 in a million, the drinking water standard would need to be set at 0.8 parts per billion, which is 100 times lower than the current legal limit set by EPA.
“New science makes a compelling case for stronger regulations and a stricter legal limit,” Sharp said.
The EPA regulates four members of the trihalomethane family, the best known of which is chloroform, once used as an anesthetic and, in pulp detective stories, to knock out victims. Today, the U.S. government classifies chloroform as a “probable” human carcinogen. California health officials consider it a “known” carcinogen. The EPA does not regulate hundreds of other types of toxic contaminants formed by water treatment chemicals. Among these unregulated but dangerous chemicals are nitrosamines, which are formed when a chloramine, a chlorine compound used for water treatment, reacts with organic matter. In 2010, then-EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson launched a drinking water initiative that committed the agency to investigate nitrosamine contamination. The U.S. government considers some chemicals in the nitrosamine family to be "reasonably anticipated" to be human carcinogens.
Clean source water is critical to breaking this cycle. The EPA has found that every dollar spent to protect source water reduced water treatment costs by an average of $27 dollars.
“We must do a better job of keeping farm runoff, sewage and other pollutants from getting into our drinking water in the first place,” said Sharp. “By failing to do so, Congress, the EPA, and polluters leave no choice for water utilities but to treat dirty water with chemical disinfectants. Americans are left to drink dangerous residual chemicals generated by the treatment process.”
EWG is calling on federal officials to:
· Reform farm policies to provide more funds to programs designed to keep agriculture pollutants, such as manure, fertilizer, pesticides, and soil out of tap water.
· Renew the conservation compliance provision by tying wetland and soil protection requirements to crop insurance programs and requiring farm businesses who receive subsidies to update their conservation plans.
· Strengthen and adequately fund conservation programs that reward farmers who take steps to protect sources of drinking water.
· Fund more research on the identity of and toxicological profiles for hundreds of water treatment contaminants in drinking water.
· Reevaluate the measurement of water treatment contaminants so that consumers cannot be legally exposed to spikes of toxic chemicals.
· Expand source water protection programs to prevent and reduce pollution and to conserve land in buffer zones around public water supplies.
To reduce exposure to trihalomethane and many other pollutants in drinking water, EWG recommends consumers use a water filter system. EWG has released its online water filter guide, which helps consumers figure out which filter is best for themselves and their families.
Originally Posted On: http://www.ewg.org/release/more-100-million-americans-exposed-toxic-trash-drinking-water
______________________________________
States With the Most Toxic Tap Water:
1. California
2. Wisconsin
3. North Carolina
4. Florida
5. Texas
6. New York
7. Nevada
8. Pennsylvania
9. Ohio
10. New Mexico
"With 40 percent of U.S. community water systems in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act, which sets drinking-water quality standards and is directly linked to the Clean Water Act, 23 million people received low-quality drinking water. "
"North Carolina- In this state, 6.1 million citizens were exposed to 59 contaminants that exceeded the EPA's limits. Nitrate, which can have a negative impact on kidneys, blood, the heart and the reproductive systems, was the most common contaminant.
The suspected carcinogen enters water through fertilizer runoff, leaching septic tanks and erosion of natural deposits.
Bromodichloromethane showed up in amounts that exceeded health limits in 373 communities, exposing 5 million people to potentially dangerous amounts of the toxic compound."
The EPA's Web site provides directions for finding out more information about your drinking water:
"262d7qCpv_QSkn4CYWOB1BWjlNg", event);' rel="nofollow" target="_blank"'>http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/sdwis_findwatersystem.html
Water filter discussion:
"262d7T71e5H4uOGoG_kytBgI4Wg", event);' rel="nofollow" target="_blank"'>http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=1139875
Are You Drinking Contaminated Tap Water?:
"262d7NX9eekVNeAV9i7ocPDTR0w", event);' rel="nofollow" target="_blank"'>http://www.aolhealth.com/2009/10/30/pollution-water-effects/
Depending upon which contaminants you are trying to remove and your price point, the alternatives vary greatly. To just remove chlorine is probably not sufficient, since many excreted and flushed medications are in city water. Apparently, they do not remove medication from city water. Plus, some do/don't remove fluoride.
So, distillation is the most effective, but not really home use friendly. Reverse osmosis probably does about the same job, and has a lot of filter issues and cost, maintenance and installation. Might be overkill, if you are on healthy well water. But, if you have your own water tested, or read the government's city water reports, you could gauge more accurately which type of chemical removal you need.
This thread discusses the filtration issues and the concerns with removing minerals concurrently:
"262d7Q0L-g5hbT0cJe9T0IbBaxw", event);' rel="nofollow" target="_blank"'>http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=1139875
I really don't believe that most home water filtration systems remove BPA and Phthalates, unfortunately. My understanding is that an RO system may. Yes, this seems to indicate RO does remove phythalates:
I really don't believe that most home water filtration systems remove BPA and Phthalates, unfortunately. My understanding is that an RO system may. Yes, this seems to indicate RO does remove phythalates:
"262d7kACk_U-1-gT3k-CY9PX35w", event);' rel="nofollow" target="_blank"'>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TFX-4CNGSBG-X&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F10%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor&view=c&_searchStrId=1372747196&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=875fd787431d92291218b676d60c6688
Seems you need a carbon filter to remove BPA...
and others report no filtration system will remove the BPA and that water is a minor source of BPA compared to other contaminants in our food supply with BPA.
Environmental Toxins in Drinking Water: Phthalates
- Phthalates are found in our drinking water, air, and food all over the world.
Researchers estimated that more than 75% of the U.S. population is exposed to phthalates. Starting as early as the 1950s, scientists have published research findings in peer-reviewed academic and science journals on human and animal exposure to phthalates and their wide variety of health problems, as follows:
- Infertility (especially among men)
- Cancers (e.g., liver, breast, prostate, testicular, colon)
- Autoimmune diseases (e.g., lupus)
- Fertility problems (e.g., low sperm count, poor mobility of sperm, DNA damage in sperm, lower testosterone level, and ovarian dysfunction)
- Obesity, resistance to insulin, and diabetes in men
- Smaller testes and smaller genitals on average among male babies exposed to phthalates in mothers' wombs
- Asthma
- "Feminization" of male fish, frogs, and other amphibians living in phthalates-contaminated
rivers in the wild
What Are Phthalates and Where Are They Found?
Phthalates are a class of synthetic chemical compounds used widely as softeners in many plastic products (or commonly called as "plasticizers" in plastics) and other consumer products, as follows:
Phthalates are a class of synthetic chemical compounds used widely as softeners in many plastic products (or commonly called as "plasticizers" in plastics) and other consumer products, as follows:
- All polyvinyl chloride plastics (PVCs), including PVC plastic bags and PVC pipes
- Pharmaceutical products and medical devices (e.g., tubes, PVC blood bags, dialysis
equipment, disposable medical examination and sterile surgical vinyl gloves) - Cosmetics, perfumes, and other beauty products (e.g., face cream, nail polish)
- Personal care products (e.g., lotion, shampoo, soaps)
- Children's soft-squeeze plastic toys
- Baby's pacifiers, infants' teething rings
- Common household products (e.g., shower curtains, raincoats)
- Industrial lubricants
- Building products (e.g., carpet backing, putty, caulk)
- Solvents in glues and other adhesives, paints, and wood finishes
- As the inert ingredient in pesticides and insect repellents
- Food packaging
- Sex toys (specifically the so-called jelly rubber toys)
Avoid Phthalates in Your Drinking Water and Food
For your health and your family's health, it is best to avoid all plastic containers—both for water and food—labeled #3 PVC and all containers containing phthalates. It is best to use glass or stainless-steel food and water bottles and containers when bottling your own filtered water at home. It is difficult to avoid phthalates in this world even if you want to, so do not voluntarily ingest more phthalates by using phthalate-containing water bottles and food containers!
Apparently, reverse osmosis water filters will remove phythlates. BUT, RO tanks are lined with BPA! ! ! !
"262d7qkRo7yjw-HyE8sFCsVlxwg", event);' rel="nofollow" target="_blank"'>http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water_quality/quality2/envtoxin-phthalates1-quality.htm
Here are some further resources: "262d7B1EOTHExkCYNYXLsDft8Ug", event);' rel="nofollow" target="_blank"'>http://www.nsf.org/consumer/drinking_water/index.asp?program=WaterTre
I normally don't use blogs, but this article was well made.
Originally Posted On: http://heal-thyself.ning.com/profiles/blogs/toxic-water
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(240)
- ► Aug 25 - Sep 1 (2)
- ► Aug 18 - Aug 25 (4)
- ► Aug 11 - Aug 18 (9)
- ► Aug 4 - Aug 11 (17)
- ► Jul 28 - Aug 4 (17)
- ► Jul 21 - Jul 28 (15)
- ► Jul 14 - Jul 21 (13)
- ► Jul 7 - Jul 14 (19)
- ► Jun 30 - Jul 7 (11)
- ► Jun 23 - Jun 30 (22)
- ► Jun 16 - Jun 23 (18)
- ► Jun 9 - Jun 16 (14)
- ► Jun 2 - Jun 9 (16)
- ► May 26 - Jun 2 (21)
- ► May 19 - May 26 (18)
- ► May 12 - May 19 (21)
- ► May 5 - May 12 (2)


