By Dr. Mercola

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, has earned the ominous distinction of being the most heavily used agricultural chemical of all time.¹ Use skyrocketed starting in 1996, when Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-tolerant crops (soy, corn and cotton) were introduced. The GE crops are impervious to Roundup's toxic effects, which allows farmers to spray the chemical onto their crops with abandon.

As such, use increased nearly 15-fold since 1996.² The chemical is now so ubiquitous in the environment that over a period of 23 years — from 1993 to 2016 — levels in humans increased by more than 1,200 percent.³ We're now set to find out what the results of this giant human experiment pan out to be, whether we like it or not, as glyphosate has been detected in blood, breast milk and urine samples, as well as numerous foods such as oatmeal, bagels, coffee creamer, organic bread and honey.

In short, Americans are already being exposed, and if what's happening in the environment serves as a form of bellwether, there's cause for serious concern. Two recent studies have raised red flags, including one indicating that glyphosate may be contributing to antibiotic resistant and another showing Roundup may be harming beneficial fungi in soil.

Glyphosate Linked to Antibiotic Resistance

In 2015, researchers first found that commonly used herbicides promote antibiotic resistance by priming pathogens to more readily become resistant to antibiotics.⁴ This includes Roundup (the actual formulation of Roundup, not just glyphosate in isolation), which was shown to increase the antibiotic-resistant prowess of E. coli and salmonella, along with dicamba and 2,4-D. Rodale News reported:⁵

"The way Roundup causes this effect is likely by causing the bacteria to turn on a set of genes that are normally off, [study author] Heinemann says. 'These genes are for 'pumps' or 'porins,' proteins that pump out toxic compounds or reduce the rate at which they get inside of the bacteria...'

Once these genes are turned on by the herbicide, then the bacteria can also resist antibiotics. If bacteria were to encounter only the antibiotic, they would instead have been killed. In a sense, the herbicide is 'immunizing' the bacteria to the antibiotic ... This change occurs at levels commonly used on farm field crops, lawns, gardens, and parks."

The new study, published in the journal Microbiology, set out to determine what ingredients of the commercial formulations caused this effect, with results showing the active ingredients are to blame.⁶ "Active ingredients induced changes in antibiotic responses similar to those caused by complete formulations. This occurred at or below recommended application concentrations," the researchers noted.

It's important to note that dicamba was also found to promote antibiotic resistance, especially in light of Monsanto's new GE Roundup Ready Xtend soy and cotton, which are resistant not only to Roundup but also dicamba (this means dicamaba usage is set to increase).

Could Glyphosate Residues on Food Promote Antibiotic Resistance in Humans?

While the concentration of glyphosate necessary to induce antibiotic resistance is lower than that typically found as residue on food, adults could probably reach the level that causes antibiotic resistance by eating large amounts of food with low levels of residue, while children could also be at risk, according to the researchers.⁷ Siouxsie Wiles, microbiologist and senior lecturer at the University of Auckland, told Scoop news:⁸

"This paper by Professor Jack Heinemann and his colleagues builds on their earlier work looking at the impact of pesticides on bacteria. Now they have shown that exposure of two common gut bacteria to commercial pesticide formulations and some of their active ingredients can change how much antibiotic is needed to kill the bacteria. The bacteria they have examined [salmonella and E.coli] are both able to infect humans and other animals, including farm animals."

Heather Hendrickson, senior lecturer in molecular bioscience at Massey University told the Genetic Literacy Project, "The message from the paper is clear, we need to reconsider our use of herbicides in light of the effect that they are having on the microbial world."⁹ Already, at least 2 million Americans are infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and at least 23,000 die as a result every year.¹⁰

Unless the underlying causes are properly addressed, it's estimated that by 2050 antibiotic-resistant disease will claim the lives of 10 million people around the world each year.¹¹

Roundup Disturbs Beneficial Soil Fungus

A separate study published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research revealed that Roundup also causes disturbances to a soil fungus called Aspergillus nidulans.¹² The disturbances occurred at the cellular level after exposure to glyphosate doses far below the recommended agricultural application rate, and without causing any visible effects. Speaking with GM Watch, the study's lead author, Christian Vélot, said:¹³

"The results show that even at this low dose, Roundup causes a modulation of about 6% of the detected proteins, mainly affecting the process of cellular detoxification and stress response, protein synthesis, protein and amino acids metabolism, and energy and respiratory metabolism … metabolic disturbances due to pesticide residues may occur at exposure doses for which there are no visible toxic effects, such as the agricultural doses used on Roundup-tolerant genetically modified crops."

Importantly, the researchers said the findings "are likely to challenge the concept of 'substantial equivalence' when applied to herbicide-tolerant plants."¹⁴ From a regulatory perspective, GE crops are considered "substantially equivalent" to their non-GE counterparts. This means, in essence, that they are essentially the same, with no meaningful differences for your health or the environment.

Yet, the problem, and it's a major one, is that research is increasingly showing GE crops are notsubstantially equivalent to their conventionally grown counterparts, and they're already being unleashed into the environment. It is also due to substantial equivalence that no oversight or long-term safety testing has been required of GE crops.

The researchers noted, "Our study reveals the need to undergo detailed molecular and metabolic studies of these genetically modified plants prior to any decision to keep or place them on the market."

Not Just Antibacterial and Antifungal, Glyphosate May Technically Be Anti-Life

Glyphosate is in fact patented as an antibiotic, and when broken down, the word antibiotic actually means "anti-life." It's increasingly appearing that this chemical is detrimental to life. Even as farmers continue spraying GE crops with the chemical, which appear to be impervious to it, changes are occurring.

For instance, a 2012 nutritional analysis of GE versus non-GE corn showed non-GE corn contains 437 times more calcium, 56 times more magnesium and seven times more manganese than GE corn. GE crops and glyphosate also impact soil ecology and biology, as the fungi study showed.

After farm fields are treated with glyphosate for years, you can see the physical damage that glyphosate causes. After two years, the fields are still green but after 11 years, the documentary, "Poisoned Fields: Glyphosate, the Underrated Risk?" shows drone footage of brown, burned-out fields that the farmers reported as mysterious damage. The fine roots of plants are responsible for taking in nutrients from the soil, but if they're damaged the plant cannot do so efficiently.

Not surprisingly, researchers found severely restricted root growth, with far fewer fine roots, among plants growing in the fields treated with glyphosate for more than a decade. Robert Kremer, Ph.D., coauthor of the book "Principles in Weed Management" and retired microbiologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), found that glyphosate disrupts plant growth. Glyphosate's primary mode of action is that it shuts down amino acid synthesis, followed by inhibition of protein synthesis necessary for plant growth.

A complementary mode of action is that when this happens, it causes the plant to be more susceptible to the microbes (and any pathogens) in the soil. The reason for this is because the amino acids are also building blocks for other compounds that have defensive functions against soil pathogens.

As a result, the plant becomes more susceptible to attack and infection by many microorganisms in the soil. Glyphosate also acts as a mineral chelator, and minerals such as zinc, copper, and manganese are essential cofactors in many plant and human enzymes.

Chelating or removing these minerals from the plants is largely responsible for impairing their protein synthesis, as the enzymes involved in syntheses require the minerals to function. This then opens the plant up to attack. By impairing soil biology and disrupting plant growth, glyphosate is threatening the very essence of life. As Hendrickson noted, "We are living in a microbial world and we have been affecting that world in ways that we have not fully grasped for much of the industrial era."

Will Toxic Roundup Usage Cease?

The studies once again linking glyphosate to antibiotic resistance as well as causing harm to soil fungi are the latest nails in the coffin for Roundup, which was also deemed a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015. Monsanto continues to contest the determination, even as it's become clear that they may have worked with a U.S. EPA official to stop glyphosate investigations.

As of July 2017, California's Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) also listed glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65, which requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.

Meanwhile, in the EU, European Commission leaders met in March 2016 to vote on whether to renew a 15-year license for glyphosate, which was set to expire in June of that year. The decision was tabled amid mounting opposition, as more than 180,000 Europeans signed a petition calling for glyphosate to be banned outright. Ultimately, more than 2 million signatures were collected against relicensing the chemical.

In June 2016, however, the European Commission granted an 18-month extension to glyphosate while they continued the review. In October 2017, the European Parliament voted in favor of phasing out glyphosate over the next five years and immediately banning it for household use.

How to Lower Your Exposure to Toxic Herbicides Like Roundup

In addition to avoiding the use of Roundup in your backyard, eating organic as much as possible and investing in a good water filtration system for your home are among the best ways to lower your exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides. In the case of glyphosate, it's also wise to avoid desiccated crops like wheat and oats.

Purchasing organic, grass fed, antibiotic-free meats will also help to stop the spread of antibiotic resistance. If you'd like to know your personal glyphosate levels, you can now find out, while also participating in a worldwide study on environmental glyphosate exposures.

The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide. Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination.

In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.

By Dr. Mercola

The overprescription of powerful opioid drugs to treat everything from back pain to arthritis has resulted in an unprecedented crisis of overdose and death in the U.S. Even when taken as directed, prescription opioids can lead to addiction as well as tolerance, which means you need an increasingly stronger dose to get the pain-relieving effects. Physical dependence, in which you suffer withdrawal symptoms if you stop taking the drugs, is common.¹

In fact, more than 91 Americans fatally overdose on opioids every day.² The statistic includes prescription opioids, heroin and fentanyl, but many of the deaths stem from prescription drug use. Of the more than 33,000 Americans killed by opioids in 2015, nearly half of them involved a prescription for the drugs.³

However, rather than cracking down on the prescription opioids that are the root of the problem, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going after a natural plant called kratom (Mitragyna speciosa), even going so far as to issue a warning that consumer groups say is patently false.

FDA Warns of ‘Deadly Risks’ Associated With Kratom

Kratom is a plant native to Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, which has become popular as an opioid alternative in the U.S. Leaves from the kratom tree have been used for pain relief for hundreds of years, but scientists now know they contain compounds that target the brain similarly to opioids, helping to relieve pain.

Unlike opioid drugs, however, which can cause slowed breathing, or respiratory depression that’s deadly (respiratory depression is the leading cause of opioid overdose deaths), kratom does not appear to cause this effect.

In an animal study published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, researchers noted that, compared to morphine, kratom use did not result in tolerance and physical dependence or respiratory depression, suggesting it “might represent a promising new generation of novel pain relievers.”⁴

In short, it appears the plant may be safer than opioids for pain relief and could even act as a tool to help those suffering from opioid withdrawal. In November 2017, however, the FDA issued a public health advisory regarding risks associated with kratom use, suggesting that its usage could “expand the opioid epidemic” and stating:⁵

“Calls to U.S. poison control centers regarding kratom have increased tenfold from 2010 to 2015, with hundreds of calls made each year. The FDA is aware of reports of 36 deaths associated with the use of kratom-containing products. There have been reports of kratom being laced with other opioids like hydrocodone.

The use of kratom is also associated with serious side effects like seizures, liver damage and withdrawal symptoms … Before it can be legally marketed for therapeutic uses in the U.S., kratom’s risks and benefits must be evaluated as part of the regulatory process for drugs that Congress has entrusted the FDA with.”

American Kratom Association Calls for FDA to Withdraw ‘Discredited’ Advisory

The American Kratom Association (AKA) is a nonprofit consumer group that represents more than 3 million adult consumers of kratom in the U.S. They’ve filed a formal dispute resolution petition with the FDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to challenge the FDA’s advisory.

According to AKA’s petition, the public health advisory “contains numerous unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements … and therefore must be rescinded immediately.” The petition took issue with the FDA’s claim that kratom is associated with 36 deaths, stating:

“Kratom consumption has not emerged as a public health or medical problem for adults or children despite more than two decades of rapidly increasing consumption by millions of Americans served by approximately 10,000 vendors.

Specifically, among the 3-4 publicly documented deaths that have ever been suspected to possibly have involved the consumption of kratom, none have been shown to merit designation as a kratom overdose death and all have involved either other substances or physical or mental health conditions that may have been the primary causes of, or significant contributors to, the death.

Remarkably, no deaths, serious adverse effects, or emergency department exposures have been reported in children. It is important to understand that this conclusion does not mean that such events have never or will never occur, but the signal for a public health problem associated with kratom marketing and consumption is very weak.”⁶

Further, while the FDA claims that kratom is associated with serious side effects to opioids and presents significant safety issues, AKA points out that its risk profile appears far safer than that of opioids or even other pain relievers like acetaminophen:

“Consumption of kratom products appears to provide positive benefits such as relief of pain and fatigue without the adverse consequences produced by other products that are used for similar purposes as reported in the appended testimonials and over a century or more of documented consumption in Southeast Asia.

For example, liver disease caused deaths associated with the use of acetaminophen is a serious problem in the U.S., and there are problems of serious GI side effects and cardiovascular problems associated with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS).

At the far extreme, there is the inherent risk of overdose and serious addiction associated with the use of opioids. For those who manage various ailments with kratom instead of such products, the benefit to risk ratio appears favorable.”

‘Eight-Factor Analysis’ Points to Kratom’s Safety Compared to Opioids

The FDA advisory is not the first time kratom has been attacked by the U.S. government. In August 2016, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a notice saying it was planning to ban kratom and list it as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. However, following massive outrage from kratom users who say opioids are their only alternative, the agency reversed its decision.

In November 2016, AKA also released a report by Jack Henningfield, Ph.D., vice president of research, health policy and abuse liability at PinneyAssociates, concluding that there is “insufficient evidence” for the DEA to ban or restrict kratom under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The report analyzed the eight factors of the CSA, concluding the DEA had no grounds for CSA scheduling of kratom, let alone a ban:

“Based on all lines of evidence considered in the 8-factor analysis, kratom’s potential for abuse, tolerance, and dependence is lower than that of many schedule IV and V drugs and is well within the range of many nonscheduled drugs and substances (e.g., caffeine, nasal nicotine spray, fluoxetine, bupropion, dextromethorphan).

Although kratom and its primary alkaloids MG and 7-OH-MG share certain characteristics with controlled substances, as do many nonscheduled substances, there does not appear to be a public health risk that would warrant control of kratom products or their alkaloids under the CSA.”⁷

In fact, AKA noted that according to Henningfield’s analysis, “kratom’s potential for abuse and dependence is no greater than such widely used and unscheduled substances as “nutmeg, hops, St. John’s Wort, chamomile, guarana and kola nut.” This isn’t to say that kratom usage is without risk.

It’s important to recognize that kratom is a psychoactive substance and should not be used carelessly. There's very little research showing how to use it safely and effectively, and it may have a very different effect from one person to the next.

Also, while it may be useful for weaning people off opioids, kratom is in itself addictive. So, while it appears to be a far safer alternative to opioids, it's still a powerful and potentially addictive substance. So please, do your own research before trying it. That said, it does appear that the FDA’s claims of deaths from kratom are unsupported.

New York, Florida ‘Kratom Deaths’ Unsupported by Facts

As mentioned, many of the deaths attributed to kratom may have actually been due to other causes. AKA detailed two such cases, which were debunked after an analysis by lawyer and molecular biologist Jane K. Babin, Ph.D. The first involved the death of police Sgt. Matthew Dana in Tupper Lake, New York, who died from hemorrhagic pulmonary edema with the presence of mitragynine (kratom's primary constituent) in his blood. The report noted:

“Mitragynine alone has never been found to cause hemorrhagic pulmonary edema, nor any death, and has only been implicated when other substances or conditions sufficient to cause death were present.

The Coroner and Medical Examiner erred in not analyzing blood for substances other than opioids and narcotics including cocaine and anabolic steroids, which could have caused the death, and for presuming kratom caused Sgt. Dana’s death without considering known causes of sudden death from hemorrhagic pulmonary edema.”⁸

The second death involved Christopher Waldron in Hillsborough County, Florida, who was found to have mitragynine and two prescription drugs, citalopram and cyclobenzaprine, in his system. According to the report:

“Both of these prescription medicines contain specific warnings required in FDA labeling that, if used in combination, can cause coma and even death. In addition, the kratom brand and product Mr. Waldron is believed to have consumed has been known to be counterfeited, and often adulterated with toxic substances. Mr. Waldron also had left ventricular hypertrophy, an enlarged liver, and thyroid disease, which may have contributed to his death.

The Medical Examiner rushed to judgment when opining that the active compound in the botanical supplement, kratom, caused Mr. Waldron’s death, despite numerous findings that point to sudden death from drug-induced Long QT Syndrome, Torsade de Pointes and/or Serotonin Syndrome, exacerbated by pre-existing heart disease, thyroid disease and possible liver disease.”⁹

In another example, a Tennessee news outlet broadcast a quote from a Georgia county coroner claiming there had been 17 deaths linked to kratom in Georgia in 2017. AKA has called on the TV station to retract the “fake news” report, as they say there is nothing in the public medical record showing even one death linked to kratom.¹⁰

FDA Cracks Down on Canadian Drug Imports

The FDA is not only cracking down on kratom — a plant that appears to offer much potential for pain relief with a far better safety profile compared to opioids. It’s also going after stores that help U.S. consumers get drugs from outside the U.S., including Canada. The stores in question are located in Central Florida and help consumers order drugs from Canadian pharmacies at prices much lower than those in the U.S.

Most of the customers are elderly people who don’t want to order the drugs online, and the stores require that customers have a valid prescription to order, as well as use foreign pharmacies certified as safe by the Canadian International Pharmacy Association. As noted by KHN news, “The drugs from foreign pharmacies often are made in the same manufacturing plants around the world as drugs sold in U.S. pharmacies,”¹¹ they’re just much cheaper when they’re bought from Canada as opposed to the U.S.

The FDA, however, claims that ordering drugs from foreign pharmacies poses a safety risk and, as such, raided nine storefronts in October 2017, seizing computer files, customer records and financial and banking information.

Some of the stores have been helping consumers get less expensive medications for 15 years and now fear they will be forced to shut down. “It’s a shame because this will drive people who are not competent using the internet to buy from rogue websites,” Roger Bate, a health economist with the think-tank American Enterprise Institute, told KHN news.¹²

FDA Facilitates ‘Drug Care System’ Instead of Health Care System

While targeting kratom and people who seek to get less expensive drugs from outside of the U.S., the FDA continues to protect opioids and was instrumental in facilitating the opioid crisis to begin with. It wasn’t long ago — during the 1980s and 1990s — that many prominent physicians and health organizations urged the use of opioids for chronic, noncancer pain, even going so far as to state that the risk of misuse and addiction was low.

The game-changer occurred in 1995, when Purdue Pharma received FDA approval for extended-release oxycodone (Oxycontin) for the management of moderate to severe pain. The company launched an extensive marketing blitz surrounding the drug, including doubling its marketing team and paying $40 million in bonuses, offering free initial supply coupons to patients, and hosting “all-expenses-paid pain management and speaker training conference at lavish resorts” for clinicians.

The drug became a blockbuster, in large part due to non-rigorous patenting standards and lack of policing of fraudulent marketing. A Harvard study, “The Opioid Epidemic: Fixing a Broken Pharmaceutical Market,” explains that the overprescription of opioids was, and continues to be, a fundamental cause of the opioid epidemic, noting that such prescriptions rose 104 percent from 2000 to 2010.^13,14

In 2015 alone, the report noted, about 300 million prescriptions for opioids were written, which is more than one for every U.S. adult. Where was (and is) the FDA and other public health agencies while all of this was occurring? Apparently looking the other way. The Harvard report noted:¹⁵

“Purdue’s success was attributable in part to low patenting standards that enabled the company to secure and extend market exclusivity for extended-release oxycodone, providing motivation for its aggressive marketing.

A history of tepid enforcement against pharmaceutical companies engaging in illegal marketing further incentivized Purdue to make false claims about the safety and effectiveness of the drug. Both practices helped drive opioid overuse and misuse, with tragic public health consequences.”

Even now, as AKA notes, the FDA’s targeting of a natural substance in the midst of a prescription opioid crisis is not only misleading but dangerous: “For years, the FDA has willfully published scientifically inaccurate information on the health effects of consuming kratom, directly influencing regulatory actions by the DEA, states and various local government entities. AKA believes the FDA health advisory on kratom will lead to more state and local bans, all based on discredited, incomplete and mischaracterized scientific claims.”¹⁶

If you’d like to express your opinion about the FDA’s misguided kratom warning, you can do so via the AKA’s call to action page.¹⁷ Meanwhile, if you’re looking for safer options for pain relief than opioid drugs, please see these options for treating pain without drugs.

By Dr. Mercola

Mandatory influenza vaccinations for health care workers — who really benefits from this draconian measure? While public health officials tell you that mandatory flu shots for all health care workers will protect patients from influenza, there's virtually no good scientific evidence to support such claims.

If health and safety were really the chief aim of this forced vaccination policy, why not mandate vitamin D testing and optimization, since vitamin D supplementation has been shown to be 10 times more effective than getting a flu shot if you are vitamin D deficient?^1,2

Even if you're not deficient in vitamin D, studies evaluating the "number needed to treat" (NNT) reveal it is estimated that one person would be spared from getting sick with influenza for every 33 people taking a vitamin D supplement (NNT = 33), whereas 40 people would have to receive the flu vaccine in order to prevent a single case of the flu (NNT = 40).³

But, what would the financial incentive be for that? Unfortunately, it appears mandating annual flu shots for health care workers is little more than a for-profit scheme transformed into oppressive health policy and law by drug industry insiders and powerful lobbyists.

Health Care Personnel Fired for Vaccine Refusal

Over the past few years, a number of health care workers have been threatened and gotten the boot for refusing to get an annual flu shot; most recently, just before Thanksgiving, Duluth-based Essentia Health — a company founded in 2003 that owns and operates 15 hospitals and 75 medical clinics located in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Idaho — added their name to the list.

In addition to owning hospitals and clinics, the company also owns and operates fitness and therapy centers, rehabilitation centers, long term care facilities, assisted/independent living facilities, medical equipment and supply centers and pharmacies.⁴ They made headlines when it was first reported that they had fired some 50 employees who refused to get an annual flu shot.^5,6,7 A few days later The BMJ reported that a total of Essentia Health 69 employees had been let go.⁸

Hundreds more workers were warned their jobs were in jeopardy unless they get the flu shot. Minnesota employees were particularly disturbed by the requirement, as state law does not mandate influenza vaccinations for health care workers. Still, Essentia decided to extend the mandate to its Minnesota workers, as well.

According to Dr. Rajesh Prabhu, Essentia's chief patient safety officer, the 69 workers were fired because they refused vaccination and did not meet Essentia's strict criteria qualifications for either a medical or religious vaccine exemption.⁹

The problem is the medical exemption defined by federal public health officials is so narrow that more than 99 percent of people do not qualify for it. A personal history of many autoimmune and neurological disorders — or even serious reactions to previous vaccinations — are not considered contraindications to vaccination according to federal health officials, and often those government guidelines are the ones used by companies like Essentia to deny medical exemptions to vaccination.

Scot Harvey, a night and weekend administrator at an Essentia hospital in Duluth said he refused the flu vaccine because he had suffered severe fatigue and other symptoms after receiving government-mandated vaccines during his military service. His vaccine exemption request was denied by company officials, and he became one of the 69 employees fired for vaccine refusal. Harvey spoke out in an article in the Star Tribune:¹⁰

"Harvey said … the form limited exemptions to medically documented vaccine allergies or histories of Guillain-Barre Syndrome following vaccinations … A registered nurse, Harvey said his stance might make it harder to find work. But he felt it was an issue of free choice. 'If nobody stands up and says, 'Hey, this isn't right,'' he said, 'then next year everybody in health care is going to have to have a flu shot, and then everybody in every job is going to have to have a flu shot.'"

Workers' Unions Object to Mandatory Vaccination Requirement

In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio, Harvey added, "I don't see how an employer can have the right to decide what I have to do to my body in order to keep a job."¹¹ Surgical technologist Paula Bullyan, who has worked for more than 15 years for a Duluth hospital now owned by Essentia, expressed a similar sentiment. She said that whether or not to receive the flu vaccine is "my choice, and they're taking away my choice, to either receive or to take an injection into my body that I do not want."¹²

Jen Hutzell, a cleaner and care aide at the Oak Crossing long-term care facility in Detroit Lakes owned by Essentia, told the Star Tribune she sought a vaccine exemption based on previous experience with the flu vaccine. The Star Tribune reported: ¹³ "Hutzell said the only year she suffered flu-like illnesses was 1995 — the one year she received a flu shot in order to be around her newborn son, who was born prematurely and needed intensive care. 'That was the sickest year of my life,' she said."

Several workers' unions have objected to the policy. The Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) and the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees have filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Board, and MNA has announced its intent to file grievances on behalf of fired nurses. According to the article featured in the Star Tribune:¹⁴

"As many as 400 doctors, nurses or other workers hadn't been vaccinated as of Nov[ember] 15, when Essentia reported 97 percent compliance among its 15,000 employees. But many of those holdouts got shots or filed exemptions before the company's Nov[ember] 20 deadline. Prabhu said 99 percent of Essentia's workers have now complied …"

Vaccine Mandate Based on Flawed and Weak Evidence

Earlier this year, published research called into question the scientific evidence used to push for mandatory flu vaccination of all hospital personnel. As reported by STAT News,¹⁵ "The study … concludes that the research used to justify mandatory flu shots for health sector workers is flawed, and that the policies cannot plausibly produce the benefits that had widely been assumed," adding that:

"[T]he methodology of the studies produced results that don't stand up to scrutiny … None of the studies were conducted in hospitals; all took place in long-term care facilities. One the studies, from Britain, calculated that one influenza death would be averted for every eight staff members vaccinated.

But if that were correct, vaccinating the estimated 1.7 million health care workers employed in long-term care in the United States should prevent 212,500 flu deaths a year among residents. There's an obvious problem though, the paper noted. Nowhere near that many people die from flu in the U.S. …

'The study … does not refute that vaccination could have some impact on reducing transmission from infected health care workers to patients. But it clearly shows there's no well-conducted study that demonstrates that at this time. Our public policy should be guided as such,' said Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy. …"

Other studies have concluded that vaccinating all health care workers does not decrease incidence of or mortality from influenza among patients, which essentially renders the practice useless.

After the largest flu-vaccination campaign in Canadian history, a Canadian-led study published in 2010 by the Cochrane Collaboration,¹⁶ a well respected international network of researchers who analyze the scientific evidence and methodology used in clinical trials, concluded that vaccinating nursing home workers had no effect on lab-confirmed influenza cases among the elderly residents of nursing homes.

Lead researcher Dr. Roger Thomas explained, "What troubled us is that [flu vaccinations] had no effect on laboratory-confirmed influenza. What we were looking for is proof that influenza ... is decreased. Didn't find it. We looked for proof that pneumonia is reduced. Didn't find it. We looked for proof deaths from pneumonia are reduced. Didn't find it."

Flu Vaccine Can Cause Serious Problems and May Do Seniors More Harm Than Good

An influenza vaccine study published in 2005¹⁷ warned that, rather than saving lives, the influenza vaccine may actually be useless in preventing influenza in a significant number of senior citizens,¹⁸ an age group that for decades has been strongly advised to get a flu shot every year. According to the authors of this study:

"We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group. Because fewer than 10 percent of all winter deaths were attributable to influenza in any season, we conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit."

Pregnant women are a "high risk" group told by public health officials and doctors to get a flu shot during any trimester because influenza-related complications during pregnancy have been associated with increased risk of death for the mother and developing fetus.

However, a study published this year¹⁹ found pregnant women who had received a pandemic H1N1-containing influenza vaccination (pH1N1) and were given another flu shot during pregnancy, were more likely to suffer miscarriage within 28 days after receiving the second influenza vaccination. Most miscarriages occurred during the first trimester, but some took place in the second trimester.

The median fetal age at the time of miscarriage was seven weeks. Pregnant women who received concurrent pH1N1-containing flu vaccines had a nearly eightfold higher risk of miscarriage than those who did not receive the vaccine. Despite such risks, pregnant health care workers have been, and will likely continue to be, fired for refusing influenza vaccine.²⁰

Fear of Financial Penalties Drive Mandatory Vaccination Policy

Public health officials and owners of hospitals, clinics and other medical facilities insist that mandatory vaccination policies for health care workers protect patients — a claim that remains unsupported by credible science.

A far greater incentive for companies to force flu shots on health care workers appears to be the financial penalties hospitals and other medical care facilities face from the federal government if their vaccination rates are too low. Since 2013, hospitals have been required to report influenza vaccination rates among hospital personnel under the federal Medicare quality care reporting program.

The average flu vaccination coverage rate for health care workers has historically hovered around the 70 percent mark, although some health care facilities have reported rates as low as 20 percent.²¹

The goal of officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is to achieve a 90 percent health care worker vaccination rate by 2020,²² and a key strategy for meeting this goal is to tie a health care facility's employee flu vaccination rate to the facility's Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements from the federal government.²³

In other words, health care facilities participating in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Prospective Payment System Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program that fail to meet a 90 percent employee flu vaccination rate now get reimbursed 2 percent LESS from Medicare and Medicaid.

This is a drop in funding that can translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.²⁴ This loss of federal funding, far more so than any concern for patient welfare, is a more likely explanation for why hospitals are now choosing to fire essential medical personnel refusing a flu shot rather than allow them to simply wear a mask during flu season, as was done in the past.

Elizabeth Fowler, the Health Insurance Executive Who Drafted Obamacare

So, who came up with this strategy? A key "mastermind" behind the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, abbreviated as ACA, but colloquially known as Obamacare, was Elizabeth Fowler, chief health policy counsel to the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus. Evidence suggests Fowler drafted the entire legislation.^25,26

As reported by The Guardian in 2012, before joining Baucus' office, Fowler was vice president for public policy and external affairs at WellPoint, the largest health insurance provider in the U.S. "Watch the five-minute Bill Moyers report from 2009 …  on the key role played in all of this by Liz Fowler and the 'revolving door' between the health insurance/lobbying industry and government officials at the time this bill was written and passed," The Guardian wrote.²⁷

I've included the video in question above. As offensive as it is to allow a former health insurance industry executive to write the nation's health care bill, the Obama Administration chose Fowler as the overseer of the implementation of the bill as well. According to her bio,²⁸ she also "played a key role in the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act."

Fowler, a poster child for the revolving doors between industry and government, then went on to become special assistant to the president for health care and economic policy at the National Economic Council before taking a senior executive position with pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, as vice president of its global health policy, government affairs and policy group. As noted by The Guardian:

"The pharmaceutical giant that … hired Fowler actively supported the passage of Obamacare through its membership in the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby. Indeed, PhRMA was one of the most aggressive supporters — and most lavish beneficiaries — of the health care bill drafted by Fowler.

Mother Jones' James Ridgeway proclaimed "Big Pharma" the "big winner" in the health care bill. And now, Fowler will receive ample rewards from that same industry as she peddles her influence in government and exploits her experience with its inner workings to work on that industry's behalf …"

US Federal Government — Bought and Paid for by Industry  

The documentary "Bought,"²⁹ embedded above for your convenience, reveals how the U.S. government has been overtaken by the food and health care industries. While these may seem like two distinctly separate industries that have little in common, they are actually inextricably linked, and you cannot effectively address one without addressing the other.

Filmmaker Jeff Hays described his film, "[T]he film covers how our entire health care system, from education to practice has been Bought ... three story lines converge on Wall Street, in a tale of corruption, greed and shocking lack of conscience."

Forced vaccinations are part and parcel of this larger scheme where industries write the rules and profit from public health policies, such as recommendations for universal use of all federally recommended vaccines and state mandatory vaccination laws that restrict or eliminate vaccine exemptions.

If you think mandatory vaccination requirements are as bad as they can possibly get, think again. It's just the beginning. Once we give up our right to exercise informed consent to vaccination and choose which vaccines we or our children do or do not use, you can be sure other basic human rights will be swiftly removed as well.

It's just a matter of time. In some states, children now cannot get an education in a public or private school — from kindergarten through college — unless they've received all federally recommended childhood vaccines and boosters.

Before you know it, you won't be able to get an education or work anywhere unless you're fully up-to-date on all government recommended and mandated vaccinations. It is also probable that, in the future, you won't be able to travel without proving you have gotten a certain number of vaccines. It may sound unlikely, but plans are already in motion to make these nightmare scenarios a reality. After that, say hello to forced medical care and forced prescription drug use.

In drafting the Affordable Care Act, Fowler — a former health insurance executive — helped make sure you have no choice when it comes to buying health insurance; you either buy it or you pay a fine. That's what happens when Congress allows industry insiders to write the nation's laws, and why the revolving doors between government and industry need to be closed.

The fact that these revolving doors exist is also why we must fight to retain the legal right to take control of our health and make our own health choices, especially when it comes to medical and vaccine risk-taking.

Flu Vaccine Is Not Worth the Risk to Your Health

As shown in my "2017 to 2018 Flu Vaccine Update," numerous studies have shown the flu vaccine simply does not work, so why force health care workers to risk their own health? After all, the risks of harm and failure are quite real. Influenza vaccinations are actually among the leading cases in the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP). There are more adults receiving compensation for influenza vaccine injuries, such as Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), than any other injury covered by the VICP.

"You can be, literally, completely paralyzed from the neck down and not be able to do anything if you get a very severe case of GBS following vaccination," Barbara Loe Fisher, president and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, warns. "People need to wake up and understand that you need to get information about not only influenza but the risks and failures associated with these flu vaccines.

There are many manufacturers now who are manufacturing flu vaccines, because it's such a lucrative market now that the government has said that every year, every single American from the age of 6 months through the year of death, has to get a flu shot."

As time goes on scientists are also discovering there's a lot we don't understand about infectious diseases and how viruses mutate and vaccines work. For example, the influenza vaccine used during the 2012- 2013 flu season was found to be ineffective, but not due to mutations in the circulating virus.

Instead, researchers concluded the vaccine did not work due to mutations in the egg-adapted H3N2 vaccine strain, the lab-altered influenza virus strain used in the vaccine. This mutation of the vaccine strain virus ultimately caused the vaccine to be a mismatch to the most prevalent influenza strain circulating that year.³⁰

A study³¹ published in 2013 also showed that getting vaccinated against one strain of influenza raises your risk of severe infection from a related but different influenza strain. So, are annual flu shots making the health of Americans better or worse? And is mandating annual flu shots for health care workers really in the best interest of patients and the public health?

Based on the evidence, one could easily argue that this employment requirement places essential health care personnel at an ever-increasing risk for severe health complications, while doing very little, if anything, to protect the health of patients in their care. Ultimately, the only real winners, and the ones whose risk is zero, are the pharmaceutical companies marketing vaccines and other companies and special interest groups that profit from vaccine mandates for children and adults.

By Dr. Karen Shaw Becker

Wallabies are marsupial animals native to Australia. Along with other marsupials like kangaroos and wombats, wallabies have very short pregnancies, giving birth to underdeveloped, embryo-like young that climb into their mother's pouch to complete development. It's often said that marsupials lack a placenta (a key difference separating them from so-called placental mammals, like people), but new research suggests a placenta may be present after all, just in a very unique form: milk.

While "placental mammals," otherwise known as eutherians, have complex placentas made from different cells and tissues, marsupials have a simple placenta made of a few layers of cells, researchers wrote in eLife, adding:

"The simpler placenta means that marsupials give birth to young that are underdeveloped compared to eutherians. These young must develop further inside the mother's pouch, where they are fed with milk that changes over time to support the different stages of their development."¹

Wallaby Babies Get Placental Support From Their Mother's Milk

Researchers looked into the development of tammar wallabies, which is a small wallaby that grows up to weigh about 6 to 12 pounds. Their pregnancies last only 26.5 days, supported by a yolk-sac type of placenta, followed by a period of lactation that lasts nearly one year, which is necessary not only to promote growth and development but also to provide immune protection.

What's fascinating is that the milk changes dramatically as the wallaby grows, secreting different proteins and amino acids depending on the stage of development.

The way the milk changes over the course of lactation "is so potent," researchers said, "that early pouch young fostered by a mother lactating for an older pouch young results in accelerated growth and development."² Also interesting, when researchers analyzed the genetic expression of the wallaby's placenta, they found it had "striking molecular similarity" to eutherians' placenta, such as mice, despite it being quite different.

For instance, during the later days of the wallaby's pregnancy, gene expression patterns in the placenta are similar to those seen in the eutherian placenta during the early stages of pregnancy.³ Their analysis also revealed that, once the baby wallaby finds its way into its mother's pouch (which it does by crawling in all on its own) and latches on, the milk it feeds on acts as its placenta for the next approximately 12 months.

In fact, wallaby moms express placental genes in their milk, the same genes expressed by eutherian placentas late in pregnancy. Senior study author Julie Baker, Ph.D., professor of genetics at Stanford, said in a news release:⁴

"What we're learning is that the marsupial placenta functions much as it does in eutherians in the very early stages of development, but the expression of later-stage eutherian placental genes instead occurs in the mammary gland. So clearly although the placentas of humans, cows or mice are extraordinarily different from those of marsupials, the animals are fulfilling the same necessary functions in different ways."

Wallabies Begin Climbing in Utero

Part of the mystery of marsupials is how the barely formed babies are able to make the trek — independently — to their mother's pouch. Using high-resolution ultrasound, researchers monitored the short in-utero development of a tammar wallaby, detecting strong, rolling movements in the lining of the uterus, which may enhance the exchange of uterine secretions and gases between the mother and baby.

Further, they observed climbing movements by the fetus about three days before birth, which mimicked those necessary to climb to the pouch.⁵

"These findings emphasize the remarkable adaptations of the [undeveloped] … wallaby young to survive the journey from the uterus to the pouch and successfully attach to a teat from which it will gain all its nourishment for the next nine months," the researchers noted.⁶ Once in the pouch, the wallaby baby attaches to its mother's nipple, which swells in its mouth. This makes it so the baby can't let go until later in development.

Young wallabies are known as joeys. When they initially leave the safety of their mother's pouch, they stay close by and return if they feel threatened. In case you were wondering, wallabies are very similar to kangaroos, though smaller, and, like kangaroos, can support three babies in different stages of development all at the same time — one developing in utero, one feeding in the pouch and a joey that lives outside the pouch but still comes back to drink milk.

Many Wallaby Species Are Threatened

There are many different wallaby species, including shrub wallabies, brush wallabies and rock wallabies, which are grouped by habitat, and hare wallabies, named for their hare-like behavior.⁷ According to the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, tammar wallabies are considered endangered in South Australia, where fewer than 10,000 animals are thought to exist in the wild.

They live primarily in coastal heath and scrub and are threatened by predators (including foxes and cats) as well as habitat loss due to clearing for agriculture. In some areas, the animals are at risk due to being perceived as agricultural pests.⁸ Further, according to the New South Wales (NSW) Office of Environment & Heritage:⁹

"Two centuries ago there were 21 species of macropod [kangaroos and wallabies] in NSW, now there are only 15. The smallest species, and those with special habitat requirements and restricted ranges, have suffered the most, both from predators and from the destruction of their habitats. A number of species of kangaroo and wallaby are listed as threatened in NSW."

Serabie is one lion who likes playing her own version of fetch, totally showing up the male lions who observe as she goes after one stick that landed in a tree.

By Dr. Karen Shaw Becker

A very common question many pet parents have is, "Why does my cat meow constantly? Is he sick, or is he just trying to drive me nuts?" Even if the crying isn't constant, it can be frequent enough to be of concern, and sometimes it's just plain annoying. Just as some dogs bark more than others, some kitties tend to meow a lot (just ask anyone with a Siamese at home). If Mr. Whiskers is otherwise healthy and is meowing right at you, he probably wants something. And that something is usually food or attention.

Cats whose owners answer their meows tend to grow more meow-y over time, until the cat and his human are actually having lengthy conversations. And kitties who learn they get food if they meow will ramp up the behavior — especially around mealtime. Senior and geriatric cats also tend to vocalize more, especially at night.

8 Types of Cat Vocalizations

Cats meow to communicate with other cats as well as with humans, and they actually have a rather extensive range of vocalizations. You may know the difference between your cat's dinnertime meow, for example, and the way she sounds if she's frightened or annoyed. But many kitty sounds and intonations are more subtle and don't fit a particular pattern, which can make them harder to interpret. Here's a cheat sheet for decoding some common kitty chatter:¹

When to Worry About Your Cat's Meowing

Since you know your pet better than anyone else, it's up to you to learn his "normal" when it comes to vocalizations so you can immediately pick up on any change in the way he communicates.

Changes in your cat's meow can signal an underlying medical condition, such as laryngeal disease, high blood pressure or hyperthyroidism. It can also mean he's dealing with a painful and potentially life-threatening problem such as a urinary tract blockage, especially if he cries out while in his litterbox.

In older cats, increased meowing can be the result of cognitive dysfunction, which is essentially a form of dementia. If your senior or geriatric kitty also seems disoriented, he could be vocalizing due to stress or confusion.

When to Call the Vet

Generally speaking, almost any feline medical condition that results in physical or mental discomfort can cause your cat to vocalize more often or abnormally. If kitty is typically fairly quiet but suddenly gets talkative, or cries when she jumps onto or off of high surfaces, or when you're holding or petting her, you should make an appointment with your veterinarian.

This is especially true if you've noticed other changes, such as a decrease or increase in appetite or sleep patterns, eliminating outside the litterbox, a change in the way she walks or sits or rests, a lack of interest in grooming or a desire to hide away from the rest of the family. Also keep in mind that a normally talkative cat who suddenly grows quiet can also be cause for concern.

Por el Dr. Mercola

Los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades de los Estados Unidos han afirmado durante mucho tiempo que, entre 1998 y 2008, hubo dos muertes por la leche sin pasteurizar.

A menudo, este número se utiliza en los medios que informan sobre leche sin pasteurizar.

Pero, en realidad, esas enfermedades parecen provenir de una forma de queso que es ilegal, según las regulaciones actuales de la FDA, llamado queso fresco.

Mark McAfee, el dueño de Organic Pasture Dairy, cuestionó las declaraciones que aparecían en el sitio web de los Centros para el Control de Enfermedades, las cuales indicaban que la leche sin pasteurizar era peligrosa.

La agencia acordó realizar algunos ligeros cambios en el vocabulario que utilizaba en el sitio, pero no modificó un informe sobre una muerte por Salmonella Typhimurium en California.

Pero el estado no informó esa muerte.

Él no recibió una respuesta de los CDC hasta que amenazó con presentar una solicitud amparada por la Ley de Libertad de Información. En ese momento, descubrió que la muerte fue ocasionada por esa misma forma de queso mencionada anteriormente, queso fresco.

De acuerdo con Health Impact News Daily:¹

"¿Por qué es importante esto? Porque las estadísticas se han convertido en armas importantes en la guerra por los derechos alimenticios.

Cuando los CDC indicaron que hubo dos muertes por leche sin pasteurizar, entre 1998 y 2008, esa estadística tuvo el poderoso mensaje de: podría morir por beber leche sin pasteurizar...

Si resultara que las dos personas que indicaban que habían muerto por beber leche sin pasteurizar no habían fallecido por eso, entonces los CDC perderían un arma importante en la campaña gubernamental de miedo a la leche sin pasteurizar.

Si no hubiera muerto nadie durante ese período de 11 años, repentinamente, la leche sin pasteurizar ya no sería el peligro que nos han hecho creer".

Los CDC defienden el uso del mercurio en las vacunas y del fluoruro en el agua, no obstante le dicen que debe tener mucho miedo a la leche sin pasteurizar. ¿Acaso le parece lógico?

¡por supuesto que no!

Lo que los CDC le informan² sobre los peligros de la leche sin pasteurizar es completamente todo lo contrario de la verdad.

La realidad es que el riesgo de enfermedades de origen alimenticio que proviene de muchos otros alimentos (tal como la leche pasteurizada, producción masiva de carne y aves, y vegetales envasados) es mucho mayor que la leche sin pasteurizar, siempre que este tipo de leche provenga de una lechería que se apegue a los estándares apropiados.

Los CDC y la FDA continúan utilizando, manipulando y suprimiendo incorrectamente los datos para asustar al público.

Secretos, Mentiras y Propaganda Contra la Leche Sin Pasteurizar

El prejuicio de los CDC contra la leche sin pasteurizar no es algo nuevo. En un comunicado de prensa³ del 2007 hecho por A Campaign for Real Milk (parte de la Fundación Weston A. Price) dilucida un poco sobre el ocultamiento de la verdad por parte de los CDC.

El artículo surgió luego de un aviso de advertencia pública por parte de la FDA y los CDC, de que la leche sin pasteurizar era "peligrosa".

El artículo declara que:

"El aviso conjunto FDA/CDC afirma que entre 1998 y 2005, la leche sin pasteurizar estuvo implicada en 45 brotes, 1007 casos, 104 hospitalizaciones y 2 muertes.

Sin embargo, la referencia citada en Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report de los CDC para la semana del 2 de marzo de 2007 (MMWR para 02-03-07), no proporcionaba tal información, ni se encontró dicha información en ningún otro documento de la FDA o de los CDC. Las numerosas solicitudes a la FDA para hacer aclaraciones no han sido respondidas".

Entonces, no solo NO debieron haberse atribuido esas dos muertes a leche sin pasteurizar, sino que según Sally Fallon (Presidenta de la Fundación Weston A. Price), la FDA y los CDC nunca han brindado una sola referencia para respaldar la afirmación sobre la existencia de una enfermedad generalizada en la leche durante ese período de siete años. Fallon declaró que:

"Existen informes de personas que se han enfermado después de tomar leche sin pasteurizar, aunque no se citó ninguna en el reciente aviso de los CDC y la FDA. Pero, incluso, por lo general, estos informes no proporcionan pruebas de que la leche sin pasteurizar haya causado enfermedades.

Cuando alguien que bebe leche sin pasteurizar se enferma, las agencias informan inmediatamente una ‘relación’ con la leche sin pasteurizar, al ignorar otros vectores de enfermedades y las pruebas posteriores que demuestran que la leche está limpia. Definitivamente, la FDA y los CDC tienen un doble estándar cuando se trata de la leche sin pasteurizar".

La leche pasteurizada es responsable de muchas más enfermedades y muertes. Por ejemplo, de acuerdo con RealMilk.com, el mayor brote registrado por Salmonela en los Estados Unidos fue ocasionado como resultado de la leche pasteurizada, pero de forma alarmante, los CDC nunca emitieron un Informe Semanal de Morbilidad y Mortalidad sobre este brote.

El incidente, que ocurrió entre junio de 1984 y abril de 1985, produjo 200 000 enfermedades y 18 muertes. Este y otros brotes de enfermedades resultantes del consumo de leche pasteurizada, de alguna manera pasan desapercibidos públicamente, al escapar a las advertencias tanto de los CDC como de la FDA.

¡De hecho, nunca han emitido una advertencia contra la leche pasteurizada que se comercializa! Por lo tanto, no es terriblemente sorprendente que los CDC hayan desalentado a Mark McAfee. Este solo es un ejemplo más del prejuicio continuo de los CDC hacia los productos lácteos sin pasteurizar.

La Leche Sin Pasteurizar es un Alimento Vivo y Saludable

La leche sin pasteurizar de alta calidad tiene una gran cantidad de beneficios para la salud, al contrario de la leche pasteurizada. Por ejemplo, la leche sin pasteurizar:

• Está cargada de bacterias saludables que son beneficiosas para su tracto gastrointestinal
• Está completamente cargada de más de 60 enzimas digestivas, factores de crecimiento e inmunoglobulinas (anticuerpos)
• Tiene un alto contenido de ácido linoleico conjugado (CLA), que es un elemento anticancerígeno
• Tiene un alto contenido de aminoácidos, proteínas y grasas sin procesar beneficiosas en una forma altamente biodisponible y 100 % digerible en su totalidad
• Está cargada de vitaminas (A, B, C, D, E y K) en formas sumamente biodisponibles, y una mezcla muy balanceada de minerales (calcio, magnesio, fósforo, hierro) cuya absorción es reforzada por los lactobacilli vivos

No es inusual que las personas que toman leche sin pasteurizar experimenten una mejoría o resuelvan sus padecimientos problemáticos--desde alergias hasta problemas digestivos y eczema.

También, es común que las personas que tienen "alergia a la leche" toleren perfectamente la leche sin pasteurizar. La leche pasteurizada es una historia completamente diferente.

La Pasteurización Crea un Líquido Sin Vida y Blanco Que NO Es Beneficioso Para Su Salud

La pasteurización convierte la leche en un líquido blanco sin vida cuyos beneficios para la salud son considerablemente destruidos. Si consideramos lo que el proceso de pasteurización le hace a la leche:

• El precio por destruir a las bacterias patógenas es que también destruye a las bacterias beneficiosas que ayudan a digerir la leche y la convierten en un alimento tan nutritivo.
• Las proteínas y enzimas son completamente destruidas o desnaturalizadas, y son menos digeribles y aprovechables por el cuerpo
• Se destruyen las inmunoglobulinas, las proteínas que unen a los metales, las proteínas que unen a las vitaminas, las proteínas transportadoras, los factores de crecimiento y los péptidos antimicrobianos, tales como la lactoferrina.
• Muchas vitaminas y minerales se vuelven biológicamente inservibles
• Las grasas están dañadas y desestabilizadas

Además, las bacterias que mueren durante el proceso de pasteurización no son eliminadas, por lo que sus cadáveres sin vida permanecen en la leche y activan reacciones inmunológicas en las personas que la consumen, que es una de las principales causas de alergias a la leche. Realmente, esta no es una alergia a la leche en sí, sino a los fragmentos de células orgánicas que contiene la misma.

Para empeorar las cosas, a las vacas CAFO (operaciones concentradas de alimentación animal) se les administran medicamentos de forma rutinaria para contrarrestar una salud deficiente y problemas inmunológicos causados ​​por una deficiente calidad de vida.

Las unidades de engorda son ambientes ideales para el desarrollo de todo tipo de bacterias dañinas. Entonces, las vacas son bombardeadas con antibióticos. Esta leche TIENE que pasteurizarse, porque sencillamente está cargada de bacterias, y no de las del tipo beneficioso.

Los investigadores que recurren a una prueba altamente sensible para determinar qué tipo de medicamentos y hormonas podrían estar presentes en la leche pasteurizada, han encontrado algunos resultados sorprendentes. Los medicamentos y hormonas que detectaron incluyeron a los siguientes:

Si bien todos los tipos de leche dieron positivo a sustancias químicas--incluso la leche materna--la leche de vaca contenía los niveles más elevados.

Algunos de estos medicamentos y hormonas se les proporcionaron a las vacas directamente, mientras que otras, probablemente los consumieron a través del alimento para ganado o la contaminación en la granja.

Cuando bebe leche sin pasteurizar proveniente de estas enormes lecherías comerciales, de hecho, podría poner en riesgo su salud. Pero, este es un producto muy diferente en comparación con la leche sin pasteurizar de granjas más pequeñas, donde las prácticas agrícolas son más naturales, sostenibles, limpias y humanizadas.

La leche sin pasteurizar de estas vacas es limpia y nutritiva y está cargada de bacterias benéficas—las cuales necesita para tener un intestino saludable.

Por el Dr. Mercola

La modesta tortilla es utilizada en diversos platillos deliciosos, desde tacos hasta enchiladas y quesadillas—esta ha demostrado su versatilidad en el mundo culinario.

Es un alimento básico en México, donde se consumen anualmente 264 libras per capita. Por lo general, los adultos de la localidad comen entre 8 y 10 tortillas por día, mientras que los niños suelen comer 2 tortillas por día.¹

Este tipo de alimento sencillo pero delicioso, también ha cruzado fronteras, y ahora está profundamente arraigado en la cultura estadounidense.

Actualmente las tortillas sirven como un sustituto para la masa tradicionalmente utilizada en sándwiches, pizzas y lasañas, y podría contener diferentes tipos de rellenos. Podrían ser cocinadas al vapor, a la parrilla, fritas, tostadas o cocinadas en el horno.

De hecho, la Asociación de la Industria de la Tortilla estima que la población de los Estados Unidos consumió hasta 85 mil millones de tortillas, tan solo en el año 2000--en realidad, es más popular que otros tipos de pan étnico, tal como el pan de pita, los muffins ingleses e inclusive los bagels.²

¿Pero sabía que las tortillas que se consumen actualmente son muy diferentes a las tortillas tradicionales que sus abuelos disfrutaron hace muchos años?

La Historia de la Modesta Tortilla

Una tortilla es un tipo de pan aplanado similar a los hotcakes, que está hecho a base de harina de trigo o "masa de harina", o harina de maíz, y luego se cuece en una plancha.³

La antigua leyenda maya afirma que las tortillas fueron elaboradas por primera vez por un campesino para satisfacer a su hambriento rey. Se dice que las primeras tortillas datan de 10 000 años antes de Cristo, y que estaban hechas de maíz nativo con granos deshidratados.⁴

Cuando los conquistadores españoles llegaron al Nuevo Mundo en 1519, se encontraron con que los habitantes, los Aztecas o "Mexicas", hacían un tipo de pan aplanado a base de maíz, llamado por su nombre nativo Náhuatl como "tlaxcalli".⁵ Los españoles lo apodaron el pan como "tortilla", que significa "pastelito".⁶

Por lo general, en las regiones del Norte de México y la mayoría de los Estados Unidos, las tortillas se elaboran con harina, pero en la mayoría de las áreas de México, las tortillas de maíz continúan siendo el alimento tradicional que se sirve en las comidas.

Si las tortillas de maíz se preparan de manera adecuada y obtienen de variedades que no son transgénicas, podrían proporcionar nutrientes beneficiosos, tales como calcio y potasio, así como proteínas y fibra.⁷

Pero, para obtener estos beneficios, hay un paso importante que debe incorporarse en el proceso de elaboración de las tortillas--y si las obtiene de fuentes convencionales, es probable que este se haya omitido.

Nixtamalización: Este Proceso Tradicional ‘Libera’ la Aportación Nutricional del Maíz

La nixtamalización es un proceso que implica remojar el maíz en una solución alcalina de agua con cal durante ocho horas, y es utilizado en más de 300 alimentos diferentes a base de maíz.

El término proviene de dos palabras en náhuatl: "nextli" o cenizas y "tamalli", en referencia a la masa de maíz cocido. Después de que el maíz es remojado, se vuelve más digerible y tiene un mejor valor nutricional.

Se dice que la nixtamalización aumenta los niveles de proteínas en el maíz, e incrementa su contenido de hierro, calcio, cobre, zinc y folato.

Además, este proceso libera la niacina de origen natural (vitamina B3) presente en el maíz, lo que la vuelve más fácil de absorber en el cuerpo.⁸ Esto ayuda a prevenir una enfermedad llamada pelagra. De acuerdo con Health Impact News:⁹

"Cuando el maíz era introducido en una nueva cultura a través de un viaje o intercambio, y se ignoraba la práctica histórica del proceso de nixtamalización del maíz, a menudo, las personas se enfermaban de trastornos cutáneos, digestivos y mentales. Posteriormente, esto fue diagnosticado como pelagra.

No obstante, los que habían subsistido con maíz por generaciones y que se les había enseñado a remojar el maíz con cal, consumían el maíz como el pilar de su alimentación sin manifestar tales síntomas. Su [sic] era su sabiduría en la preparación".

Desafortunadamente, las tortillas producidas industrialmente ya no pasan por el proceso de nixtamalización, y en vez de eso, utilizaban un proceso de enzimatización.

Esto comenzó durante la Revolución Verde en los años 40, cuando las variedades de maíz nativas de México fueron reemplazadas por las variedades híbridas con alto contenido de almidón. La disminución de la cantidad de granos ocasionó la pérdida de otros elementos beneficiosos del maíz, como las grasas y las proteínas.

Además, dos fábricas de elaboración de masa--Molinos Azteca S.A. (Maseca) y Maíz Industrializado S.A. (Minsa)—realizaron una investigación y elaboración subvencionadas por el gobierno, para crear un proceso más sencillo para hacer tortillas, que consistía en agregar agua a un maíz adicionado de forma artificial.

Y ¿cuál fue el resultado? Un mayor volumen de tortillas producidas a un ritmo más acelerado—pero, en términos nutricionales, todas estas tenían una calidad inferior.¹⁰

Asegúrese de Buscar Tortillas de Maíz Hechas a Mano Que No Sean Elaboradas con Transgénicos

Otro de los problemas que padece la industria de la tortilla actual es que muchos productores industriales de tortilla utilizan maíz transgénico importado de los Estados Unidos.

De hecho, un equipo de investigadores de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México encontró que, hoy en día, más del 90 % de las tortillas que se venden en México contiene rastros de maíz transgénico.

Lo que es más, el 82 % de todos los productos derivados del maíz, tal como la harina, tostadas y snacks, también tienen rastros de transgénicos. De todas las muestras, el 27.7 % del maíz resultó positivo en transgénicos.

Los investigadores, cuyo estudio fue publicado en la revista Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems,¹¹ también encontraron que las tortillas hechas a mano elaboradas a través de más procesos artesanales que utilizaban variedades de maíz casero, tenían una cantidad significativamente menor de transgénicos, en comparación con las variedades comerciales.

Tampoco contenían glifosato--lo que significa que, simplemente, estas tortillas nixtamalizadas hechas a mano son una opción más segura.¹²

Como Unirse al Movimiento 'Tortilla 100 % Nixtamalizada' de la OCA

Las tortillas son un alimento básico en la alimentación mexicana, pero la triste realidad es que la mayoría de los mexicanos son engañados sobre la calidad de las tortillas que consumen. Ahora, las grandes corporaciones engañan a los consumidores para que compren tortillas industrializadas que dicen ser "caseras", pero que no han pasado por el proceso esencial de nixtamalización.

Como siempre he dicho, cuando se trata de los alimentos, nada puede vencer a la tradición. Nuestros abuelos y antepasados ​​consumieron una alimentación mucho más saludable que nosotros, y eso es porque en su época, los alimentos procesados ​​no eran algo usual.

Debido a la necesidad de la rapidez y conveniencia, ahora consumimos alimentos menos nutritivos y altamente procesados--y la trayectoria de la modesta tortilla es la prueba sólida de ello.

En vista de esto, la Asociación de Consumidores Orgánicos (OCA) de México lanzó la campaña "Yo quiero mi Tortilla 100 % Nixtamalizada", que tiene como objetivo educar a los consumidores sobre los beneficios de la nixtamalización y por qué deben evitar las tortillas de harina de maíz enriquecidas artificialmente. De acuerdo con la OCA:¹³

"Entonces, los consumidores informados podrían usar su poder adquisitivo para presionar a los legisladores a fin de que regulen mejor el uso de esta sagrada palabra, nixtamalización.

Al aplicar apropiadamente estas regulaciones, los subsidios ya no irían a los grandes productores industrializados de tortillas, tales como Maseca, sino a los pequeños productores que aún respetan y practican el antiguo proceso de nixtamalización.

Ya sea en los Estados Unidos o América Latina, todos los consumidores deben ser conscientes de los beneficios nutricionales esenciales de los cuales podrían carecer las tortillas".

Para unirse a la campaña, le invito a visitar el siguiente enlace. También, podría seguir estos pasos para apoyar a los fabricantes tradicionales de tortillas:

1. Identifique los tres ingredientes principales de las tortillas nixtamalizadas: maíz, agua y cal.
2. Si puede, hable con las personas que elaboran las tortillas y pregúnteles sobre el proceso de producción y si aplican el proceso de nixtamalización.
3. Si lo hacen, comparta su experiencia con el hashtag #puronixtamal, junto con un video de un minuto de duración. También, puede agregar esa tortillería al mapa colaborativo de la OCA.

>>>>> Únase a la Campaña "Yo Quiero Mi Tortilla 100 % Nixtamalizada" <<<<<

¡Este cachorrito es una belleza! ¿En tu vida has visto a un bulldog a esta edad?

Por la Dra. Karen Shaw Becker

Especialmente para las personas que no lo han experimentado, la muerte de una mascota de la familia puede ser inesperadamente difícil de aceptar.

Para los niños, el fallecimiento de una mascota querida es a menudo la primera experiencia de una pérdida significativa. Los sentimientos fuertes de tristeza y soledad que se presentan frecuentemente después de la muerte de una mascota pueden ser difíciles de procesar para una persona joven.

Para los adultos, el dolor podría parecer casi insoportable. Esto puede ser así, en particular, con los dueños de una mascota que no entendían completamente la profundidad del vínculo que compartían con su perro, gato u otro animal de compañía.

Muchos de nosotros no anticipamos qué tan devastador puede ser perder a un miembro no humano de la familia. Los dueños de mascotas a menudo se sienten avergonzados de lo abrumadora que es la pérdida – especialmente frente a las personas que jamás han compartido una conexión especial con un animal.

Si tú o alguien que conoces está en duelo por la muerte de una mascota, ten en cuenta que, lo que sea que estés sintiendo y al grado sea, es normal y es de esperarse. Aceptar tus sentimientos – y permitirlos – es la única forma saludable de avanzar en el duelo.

Finalmente podrás aceptar la pérdida y encontrarás la fuerza para superarla.

El papel que representan los animales de compañía en la vida de sus dueños se ha expandido y profundizado durante las últimas décadas.

Parece haber una relación entre la desaparición de los núcleos familiares tradicionales, el aislamiento generado por el mundo en línea y la posición elevada que las mascotas han tomado en la vida de muchas personas.

Los avances en el entendimiento del poderoso vínculo humano-animal también han causado un mayor uso de la terapia con animales para los niños, los ancianos, las personas confinadas y aquellas con enfermedades crónicas. El apego entre los dueños de animales de terapia y sus mascotas a menudo es más fuerte y más duradero que muchas relaciones entre seres humanos.

El Proceso del Duelo

Cuando una mascota querida muere, se puede esperar que los miembros de su familia entren y salgan, avancen y retrocedan entre las cinco etapas del duelo, de forma muy similar a lo que pasaría si falleciera un miembro humano de la familia.

Estas cinco etapas, según una estructura descrita originalmente por Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, cuyo trabajo innovador sobre el tema de la muerte y el fallecimiento se pide como lectura obligatoria en la mayoría de los programas médicos, de enfermería, psiquiatría y teología, son:

1. Negación
2. Ira
3. Negociación
4. Depresión
5. Aceptación

Negación

La negación es la etapa que muchos dueños de mascotas atraviesan cuando una mascota ha sido diagnosticada con una enfermedad terminal.

La negación es la forma que la mente utiliza para proteger temporalmente de la información que es demasiado dolorosa para ser aceptada en el momento en que se recibe.

A corto plazo, la negación puede ser útil para armarte de valor y aceptar gradualmente que tu querido animal está llegando al final de su vida. Sin embargo, si la negación persiste, puede quitarte la capacidad de prepararte emocionalmente para lo inevitable.

Llevada al extremo, la negación puede evitar que busques ayuda médica para tu mascota enferma. También puede provocar que prolongues el sufrimiento de un animal moribundo, lo cual no te gustaría recordar con remordimiento durante el resto de tu vida.

Así que, mientras que la negación podría ser un mecanismo temporal de defensa útil, que te permite lidiar con la dolorosa situación bajo tus propios términos, es importante superarla y ser realista acerca de lo que le pasa a tu mascota y cómo te sientes acerca de ello.

Ira

Los sentimientos de ira, ya sea al recibir la noticia de que tu mascota está muriendo o cuando ya se ha ido, es otra técnica que utiliza la mente para distraerte del dolor que no estás preparado para experimentar.

Podrías sentirte resentido con el veterinario de tu mascota porque percibes que no hizo lo suficiente o que no actuó con más rapidez – los veterinarios son un blanco común para la ira que los dueños sienten ante la pérdida de sus mascotas.

Podrías estar enojado con la enfermedad que se llevó a tu animalito o con los medicamentos, o algún otro tratamiento que tu mascota no fue lo suficientemente fuerte para superar.

Podrías sentirte lleno de ira contra el conductor del auto que golpeó a tu animal o contra el perro agresivo que atacó y mató al tuyo.

También podrías sentirte enojado contigo mismo por no haber hecho más para prevenir la enfermedad o la muerte de tu mascota. La ira sin resolver que se dirige hacia dentro a menudo se convierte en sentimiento de culpa o remordimiento.

Es importante entender que la mayoría de nosotros, la mayoría del tiempo, hacemos lo que mejor podemos. Es por esto que los sentimientos de culpa y remordimiento, aunque son muy comunes después de la muerte de una mascota, solo sirven para prolongar tu miseria.

Aprendemos con la experiencia. Lo mejor que cualquiera de nosotros puede hacer es aplicar las lecciones del pasado conforme la vida continúa. Si sientes que podrías haber cuidado mejor a una mascota que falleció, ¿qué mejor forma de honrarla que usar ese conocimiento para mejorar la calidad de vida de un miembro peludo actual o nuevo de la familia?

Como con la negación, es importante superar los sentimientos de ira, culpa y remordimiento ante la pérdida de una mascota. Lo ideal es no estancarse en ninguna fase del proceso de duelo, ya que la única forma de recuperarse de una pérdida es poner un pie frente al otro, hasta que hayas andado el camino entero.

Negociación

En la etapa de la negociación, los dueños de mascotas podrían intentar hacer “tratos” con un poder superior para impedir la muerte. Por ejemplo, el dueño de una mascota con una enfermedad terminal podría pedir al cielo que acorte su propia vida a cambio de un poco más de tiempo con su animal moribundo.

La negociación también podría tomar la forma de un trato con uno mismo o incluso con la mascota moribunda como una oferta desesperada para evitar lo inevitable.

Depresión

La depresión generalmente precede la etapa final del duelo, que es la aceptación.

La tristeza y el vacío a menudo vienen acompañados por un sentimiento de agobio ante el peso del dolor. Es una sensación física que puede ser temible y, a veces, podría parecer intolerable.

Por dolorosa que pueda ser esta etapa, es a la que se debe llegar para superar y dejar atrás la pérdida de una mascota muy querida. Los sentimientos en esta etapa son de lo que las etapas anteriores del duelo, la negación, ira y negociación, intentaban protegerte.

La etapa de la depresión en el duelo es la parte más importante de tu sanación. Demasiadas personas intentan eludir los sentimientos dolorosos de esta etapa del proceso, aunque debes sentirlos para lograr aceptar y recuperarte de tu pérdida.

La muerte es una función de la vida y los sentimientos dolorosos que vienen con ella no deben evitarse.

La depresión, como las etapas que la preceden, solo es útil si se supera y se llega a la aceptación. Quedarse estancado en esta etapa puede llevarte de los sentimientos necesarios de dolor y tristeza a un nivel de abatimiento que podría requerir la intervención profesional.

Aceptación

La etapa final del proceso de duelo es la aceptación. Es el punto en el que la “nueva vida” ya no se siente nueva – has integrado la pérdida de tu mascota a tu estilo de vida.

Cuando piensas en tu mascota, tienes recuerdos afectuosos, en vez del dolor de su muerte.

La aceptación de la muerte de tu mascota no es un estado alegre. No deberías esperar sentirte feliz, aunque puedes anhelar una sensación de tranquilidad conforme aceptas el hecho de la muerte de tu mascota.

Cada uno de nosotros experimenta la muerte y el proceso de duelo de forma diferente. Qué tan profundo o duradero sea tu duelo dependerá de muchos factores, como los siguientes:

• Tu edad
• Las circunstancias de la muerte de tu mascota
• La relación que tú y otros miembros de tu familia compartían con tu mascota
• Otras situaciones estresantes o pérdidas al momento del fallecimiento de tu mascota

Consejos Para Ayudar a los Niños a Superar la Pérdida

Los niños tienden a superar el dolor más rápidamente que los adultos, especialmente cuando el tema se trata de forma honesta y paciente. Prepárate para que tu hijo retome el tema una y otra vez, hasta que haya resuelto por sí mismo la situación.

• No evadas el tema. Habla honestamente sobre la muerte, sin inculcarle inadvertidamente miedo a tu hijo acerca de (por ejemplo) Dios ("Dios se llevó a tu gato"), el sueño ("Pusimos a dormir a tu perro"), o tu veterinario ("El Dr. Smith mandó al cielo a Fluffy"). No intentes suavizar el golpe al usar palabras que hagan que la muerte parezca una condición temporal.
• Fomenta el debate abierto. Haz que sea seguro y cómodo para tu hijo hacer preguntas, hablar libremente y compartir sus sentimientos acerca de la muerte de su mascota.
• Dile su maestro, niñera o al personal de la guardería. Asegúrate de que cualquier otra persona que cuide a tu hijo en la vida diaria esté al tanto de la muerte de su mascota. Comunícales cómo estás lidiando con la situación para que todas las personas que tengan que ver con tu hijo estén en la misma sintonía.

¿Deberías Conseguir Otra Mascota?

Como el proceso de duelo, la decisión y el momento de traer a otra mascota a la familia es altamente personal.

Cuando un animal de compañía muy querido muere, lo único que la mayoría de las personas quieren es tener a su mascota de regreso. El pensamiento de una “mascota de remplazo” es incomprensible para muchas personas que acaban de perder a un animal.

Otras personas comienzan inmediatamente a buscar a otro miembro de cuatro patas para integrarlo a la familia.

En mi experiencia, las personas que comparten su vida con animales se sienten obligados a ello sin importar del número de veces que su corazón se rompe ante la muerte de una mascota muy querida.

Lo que importa no es tanto el momento, sino el consenso de los miembros de la familia y la capacidad de cada uno para ver a la mascota nueva como un individuo.

Especialmente si el nuevo chico es de la misma raza o muy similar en apariencia a la mascota fallecida, es fácil hacerse expectativas del nuevo miembro de la familia, que podría o no cumplir.

Para obtener información acerca de los servicios para las mascotas terminales, como la eutanasia, entierro, cremación, urnas y servicios conmemorativos, visite Loving Memorial Pet Care, una organización que yo recomiendo a los clientes de mi hospital animal Natural Pet, en el área de Chicago. O busca un proveedor de servicios similares en tu área.

By Dr. Mercola

Oxybenzone (benzophenone-3)¹ is one of the most common ingredients found in sunscreen products. Its primary function is to prevent your skin from absorbing ultraviolet (UV) light. Since the chemical is cost effective and increases the sunblock protection in a sunscreen product, it can be found in nearly 3,500 brands of sunscreen worldwide.²

If you reapply the product every two hours as directed, an average day at the beach may mean you are exposed to 2 to 4 ounces of a product containing chemicals known to disrupt human hormones.³ Studies have also suggested oxybenzone is a hormone disruptor in marine creatures.⁴

Although much media attention is focused on oxybenzone, other chemicals in sunscreens trigger damage to human health and the environment. These include octinoxate, which has demonstrated hormone disruption in animals and behavioral alterations, homosalate, which is unstable and breaks down in the sun, and avobenzone that may damage sperm.⁵

As you swim, sunscreen is released into the water, necessitating reapplication. However, this release also dumps up to 14,000 metric tons of product into coral reef areas each year.⁶ Much of the sunscreen contains oxybenzone that may damage marine life at levels as low as 62 drops per trillion, or the equivalent of one drop in 6.5 Olympic-sized swimming pools of water.⁷

In an effort to protect the coral reefs surrounding the Hawaiian Islands, democratic state senator for Hawaii’s 19th District, Will Espero, has introduced legislation that would ban the use of sunscreen that contains oxybenzone on the Islands in an effort to protect the surrounding coral reefs.⁸

How Sunscreen Works

Sunscreen use has risen dramatically in the past decade as the medical community began warning against sunburn and sun exposure to reduce the risk of skin cancer.⁹ This created a growing billion-dollar sunscreen industry. According to industry analysts, the global market for sun care products is projected to hit $11.1 billion by 2020.¹⁰

Sunscreen products work one of two ways to protect your skin from UV rays from the sun. The first is a mechanical barrier used by mineral products that create a physical barrier to protect your skin. The two most common are titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. In the past, these products were a thick white paste. However, in response to consumer demand for more visually pleasing products, manufacturers have turned to using nanoparticles of the same chemicals.

While much of the danger to humans is inhalation of these nanoparticles,¹¹ which is why spray-on products are best avoided, these nanoparticles have also been shown to cause ecological and aquatic damage after being released into the environment.¹² The second form of sunscreen product, chemical filters, hold greater potential for harm to the environment and human health.

A chemical filter works by undergoing a chemical reaction after it is absorbed into your skin,¹³ in the presence of UV light and heat. This means it gradually loses protective properties and requires reapplication every two to three hours.¹⁴  These sunscreens also include other ingredients meant to increase the penetration of the chemicals into your skin, called "penetration enhancers."¹⁵

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) reports that oxybenzone, one of the most "worrisome" chemicals found in sunscreen, is in 65 percent of sunscreen products on the market.¹⁶ Laboratory testing has demonstrated this chemical causes allergic skin reactions, and has weak estrogenic and powerful antiandrogenic effects in the body. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report found oxybenzone in more than 96 percent of people living in the U.S.¹⁷

Data collected from adolescents reveal young boys with higher levels of oxybenzone had lower levels of testosterone.¹⁸ EWG gives oxybenzone a hazard score of 8 out of 10 in humans based on skin penetration, widespread use and links with skin allergies and hormone disruption.¹⁹

Oxybenzone: Sunscreen Chemical Damages Coral Reefs

The potential damage by oxybenzone is not limited to human health. Research has associated this chemical with death and damage to the vibrant coral reefs off the coasts of Hawaii and the Virgin Islands.²⁰ An international team²¹ led by Craig Downs, Ph.D., forensic ecotoxicologist²² and executive director of Haereticus Environmental Laboratory, found the highest concentrations of oxybenzone along reefs popular with tourists in the Caribbean and along Hawaii's coastline.

Downs explained the concentration of oxybenzone illuminates why they didn't observe a healthy number of baby coral in the area, as oxybenzone is fatal to young coral and alters the DNA of adults, making them more prone to lethal bleaching and death. Even small amounts of the chemical have been shown to alter DNA in a baby coral, causing it to encase itself in its skeleton and die.

Oxybenzone also creates a situation in which the coral starves. Most reef building coral have a symbiotic relationship with tiny algae. The algae supply sugar for energy to the coral and the coral provides a sheltered home and carbon dioxide from metabolism to the algae.²³ When the algae are poisoned by oxybenzone, the coral expel them and then die from lack of nutrients.

This means tourists snorkeling along the coral reefs for an up close and personal experience with one of nature's truly amazing and unique sights may well be depositing chemicals during their swim that are killing the reefs. In an effort to fight for the health of the local environment, Espero and his team put together a bill to ban the sale of sunscreen containing oxybenzone in Hawaii.

The irony is that damage to the environment by oxybenzone is more potent in sunny environments, and the sunnier the area the more sunscreen tourists use each day.²⁴

As you may expect, this bill is being met with resistance by cosmetic companies as they predict a ban would have a large negative impact on their immediate revenue. However, while the bill was not successful in 2017, Espero and his supporters plan to continue to push for a ban on the sale of sunscreen with oxybenzone in Hawaii. If passed, it is likely other states will follow suit.²⁵

Cosmetic Companies Concerned With Financial Losses

In this short news video, you'll see the extent of the damage to the coral reef along the coastline of the big island in Hawaii and hear from Robert Richmond, Ph.D., biologist, who studies the effect of oxybenzone on marine life. Large cosmetic companies and their trade associations blocked the legislation during the current state legislative calendar, claiming the case against oxybenzone is not strong enough to warrant impacting the financial gain of their companies. 

A group representing nearly 90 percent of the personal care product industry commented,²⁶ "There is no conclusive, scientific evidence that sunscreen ingredients negatively impact coral reefs at levels that have been detected in tourist areas." Richmond strongly disagrees with this opinion.

Levels found in the waters off the coasts of Hawaii and the Virgin Islands are known to have a biological impact on coral. While personal care product companies are concerned over a loss of sales, Espero argues that reef-friendly sunscreen is already on the market, so a ban of the more dangerous products should not hurt the market.²⁷ 

In November 2015, a group from the European Union attempted a similar ban but the push has stalled.²⁸ It is anticipated that should the ban in Hawaii pass, it could give the ban in Europe the support needed to pass and protect more marine and human life. Any bill that included oxybenzone-related regulation has met with resistance by the Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee in the House²⁹ that regulates trade, business and other matters pertinent to consumer protection or protection of commerce and industry in the state.³⁰

Although using sunscreen with oxybenzone at the beach has a significant risk of washing off into the ocean water, it is important to remember that anytime sunscreen is used and the wearer showers, the chemicals wind up in the sewer system and eventually into the waterways.³¹ As Hawaii fights to protect their coral reefs locally, it is important to note that the sunscreen you use in the Midwest may have an impact on the health of coral reefs as the chemicals wash downstream into the ocean waters.

Coral Reefs Protect the Coastline From Damaging Storms and More

Although coral reefs are beautiful, they also serve a unique and compelling purpose for the protection of the coastline. They are a priceless part of the marine ecosystem as they provide a habitat for fish and other sea creatures and help absorb carbon dioxide from the environment and protect coastal cities. Nearly 25 percent of all marine life on the planet can be found in the coral reefs around the world.³²

Together the marine plants and animals form an ecosystem that support marine biodiversity, performing critically important functions.³³ As all ecosystems are complex and interconnected, the loss of biodiversity in marine life over the past decades has significantly impacted basic food sources for marine animals and ultimately humans.

The physical framework of coral reefs serves as a mechanical buffer, protecting the coastline from ocean waves and currents. Passing over the reefs, the energy in ocean waves may be reduced by as much as 90 percent.³⁴ This protects the coastline from erosion and loss of more delicate plant life, including mangroves, seagrass beds and the destruction of coastal communities.

The reefs perform a number of other functions as well.³⁵ They change molecular nitrogen in the water and convert it to products marine life are able to use. They supply sediment that washes up on shore, helping to line the coastline with white sand. The skeletons of the coral can provide scientists with historical accounts of environmental conditions and can be used as a tool to measure the impact of environmental disturbances.

The value of the coral reefs along the U.S. coastlines has been set between $30 and $172 billion each year as the areas provide food, shoreline protection, increased tourism and even medicines.³⁶ Marine organisms found along the reefs are rich in compounds they use to protect themselves from predators, but which scientists have used in medicines, including cancer agents, anti-inflammatories, anticoagulants and bone grafts.³⁷

These reefs may also form the backbone of local economies, funneling tourist dollars into restaurants, hotels, diving equipment, boats and entertainment facilities. These may be sustainable when tourists are monitored to reduce damage to the local environment through damage to the reefs. In 2001, it was estimated the commercial value to U.S. fisheries from the reefs topped $100 million each year.³⁸

Using Chemical Sunscreens May Increase Your Risk of Disease

While protecting the coral reefs is an important responsibility as they protect our coastline and marine wildlife, chemical sunscreens also affect your health.  Oxybenzone is a known hormone disruptor, acting like estrogen in the body, altering sperm production in men and contributing to the development of endometriosis in women.³⁹

A comparison of daily use of sunscreen against physical barriers, such as wearing long sleeves and a hat or seeking shade, was evaluated in respect to the development of two of the more common types of skin cancer, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Over a period of 4.5 years and 1,600 Australian participants, the researchers found no difference in the rate of development of these types of skin cancer.⁴⁰

I don't recommend spending enough time in the sun to be burned, but a one-size-fits-all recommendation to apply sunscreen daily may have a higher risk profile than anticipated. Some sunscreens may increase your risk of skin cancer as they contain retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A that has been found to promote the development of skin tumors⁴¹ when applied topically and exposed to the sun.⁴² Despite this knowledge, there are no warning labels to alert consumers of this potential danger.

It is important to remember the SPF rating on sunscreen refers to protection against UVB light, which are the rays within the light spectrum that allow your body to produce vitamin D. However, the rating doesn't indicate protection against UVA rays linked with skin damage and cancer. Blocking the ability of your body to produce vitamin D increases your risk of cancers. One study found vitamin D levels above 40 ng/mL are associated with a more than 65 percent lower risk of cancer. The researchers commented:⁴³

"We found a clear association between 25(OH)D [vitamin D] serum concentration and cancer risk, according to multiple types of analyses. These results suggest the importance of vitamin D for the prevention of cancer. Women with 25(OH)D concentrations ≥40 ng/ml had a significantly lower risk of cancer (~70 [percent]) compared to women with concentrations <20 ng/ml."

Naturally Enjoy Sensible Sun Exposure

Sensible sun exposure is important to your body's ability to produce vitamin D and for a number of other functions, including improving mental health,⁴⁴ preventing chronic illnesses, improving cardiovascular health⁴⁵ and reducing your risk of dying from heart disease or stroke.⁴⁶

As there are thousands of different sunscreen products on the market, it may seem challenging to find one without hormone disruptors that is safe for pregnant women and children and that does not have carcinogenic potential. The worst products contain synthetic fragrances, retinyl palmitate and oxybenzones, and are created with nanoparticles. Safe choices are lotions or creams with zinc oxide, as it is stable in the sun and provides the best protection against UVA rays.⁴⁷

It is important to ensure the product does not contain nanoparticles and protects against both UVA and UVB rays. Although not harmful, the higher SPF rating may engender a false sense of security, resulting in staying longer in the sun without adequate UVA protection. For more tips on sensible sun exposure, see my previous article, "Is Your Sunscreen Doing More Harm Than Good?"

By Dr. Mercola

A number of recent investigations have revealed a significant truth: The sugar industry has long known that sugar consumption triggers poor health, but hid the incriminating data, much like the tobacco industry hid the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer. The most recent of these investigations, based on unearthed historical documents, found the sugar industry buried evidence from the 1960s that linked sugar consumption to heart disease and cancer.

The research didn’t see the light of day again until Cristin E. Kearns, assistant professor at UCSF School of Dentistry, discovered caches of internal industry documents stashed in the archives at several universities. The unearthing of these documents has resulted in three separate papers showing how the industry has systematically misled the public and public health officials about the dangers of sugar.

Emails obtained by Freedom of Information Act requests have also revealed Coca-Cola’s corporate plan to counter dietary warnings against soda consumption — tactics that include reshaping existing data and creating new studies, working with scientific organizations and influencing policymakers.¹ All in all, the evidence clearly reveals that the food industry has but one chief aim, and that is to make money, no matter what the cost to human health.

Sugar Industry Influenced Dietary Recommendations

In 2016, Kearns and colleagues published a paper² in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine, detailing the sugar industry’s influence on dietary recommendations. In it, they revealed how the industry has spent decades manipulating, molding and guiding nutritional research to exonerate sugar and shift the blame to saturated fat instead. As reported by The New York Times:³

“The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease.

The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article,⁴ which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat. Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.”

Kearns also partnered with science journalist and author Gary Taubes to write the exposé “Big Sugar’s Sweet Little Lies.”⁵ In it, the pair notes that one of the primary strategies used by the industry has been to simply shed doubt on studies suggesting sugar is harmful. This stalling tactic, where more research is called for before a conclusion is made, has worked like a charm for five decades. Industry-funded scientists who served on federal panels also made sure the panels relied on industry-funded studies that exonerated sugar.

Industry Buried Research Linking Sugar to Heart Disease and Cancer

The latest paper^6,7,8 based on the historical documents Kearns unearthed was published in PLOS Biology on November 21. Here, Kearns and colleagues focus on industry research linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer, and how and why this research was ultimately buried. In 1968, the Sugar Research Foundation, which later became the Sugar Association, funded an animal project to determine sugar’s impact on heart health.

Considering what we know today, it’s no surprise to learn the study showed that sugar promotes heart disease. However, the mechanism of action suggested sugar might also cause bladder cancer. At that point, the study was shut down. The results were never published. Co-author Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at UCSF, told The New York Times⁹ this latest report continues “to build the case that the sugar industry has a long history of manipulating science.”

In a public statement,¹⁰ the Sugar Association rejected the report, calling it “a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago, conducted by a group of researchers and funded by individuals and organizations that are known critics of the sugar industry.” According to the association, which confirmed the existence of the study, the research was shut down not because of adverse results, but because of delays that made it go over budget.

Industry Maintains Sugar Is Part of ‘Balanced’ Lifestyle

The Sugar Association also boldly proclaims that, “We know that sugar consumed in moderation is part of a balanced lifestyle …” But is it really though? And what is a “balanced” lifestyle anyway? Half poison, half healthy nutrition? I don’t know about you, but to me that’s not a prescription for a healthy lifestyle. That’s like saying that smoking in moderation is part of a healthy, balanced lifestyle — a claim few would fall for these days.

Here’s just one recent example of what that kind of “balanced” lifestyle achieves. UCSF researchers concluded children who drink sugary beverages have shorter than average telomeres, which is associated with higher risk of chronic disease and reduced life span.¹¹ According to the author:

“Even at relatively low levels of sugared-beverage consumption, we found that how often these young children drank sugar-sweetened beverages was associated with telomere length, mirroring the relationship that has been found in some studies of adults.”

Big Sugar, Big Tobacco

The 1960s sugar industry campaign aimed at countering “negative attitudes toward sugar” by funding studies showing favorable results was led by John Hickson, a Sugar Association executive who went on to work for the Cigar Research Council. As noted in The New York Times:¹²

“As part of the sugar industry campaign, Mr. Hickson secretly paid two influential Harvard scientists to publish a major review paper in 1967 that minimized the link between sugar and heart health and shifted blame to saturated fat … Hickson left the sugar industry in the early 1970s to work for the Cigar Research Council, a tobacco industry organization.

In 1972, an internal tobacco industry memo on Mr. Hickson noted that he had a reputation for manipulating science to achieve his goals. The confidential tobacco memo described Mr. Hickson as ‘a supreme scientific politician who had been successful in condemning cyclamates, on behalf of the Sugar Research Council, on somewhat shaky evidence.’”

While the Sugar Association claims¹³ it “has embraced scientific research … to learn as much as possible about sugar, diet and health,” and “will always advocate for and respect any comprehensive, peer-reviewed scientific research that provides insights,” in the real world, the industry has consistently condemned or downplayed evidence of harm, despite the overwhelming amount of such evidence.

Once you know how the game is played, you start seeing pages from the game book in action everywhere you look. Case in point: While concerns about obesity grow, Coca-Cola is now shifting its corporate health initiative from the failed promotion of exercise, back to the solidly refuted idea that “all calories count” and that you can manage your weight by counting of calories.¹⁴ Both of these strategies conveniently circumvent the truth that drinking less soda, or none at all, will improve your health, even if you do nothing else.

The fact is, you cannot compare calories from an avocado and calories from soda, and reducing intake of nutritious food to squeeze in sugary beverages while maintaining a certain calorie count is not going to do your health any favors. Soda companies are also eyeing new markets where soda consumption is low,¹⁵ now that Western consumers are starting to catch on to the fact that sugar is a major driver of obesity and ill health. This includes China, India and Mexico.¹⁶

Failure to Publish Project 259 Hid Carcinogenic Potential

While Hickson was still working for the Sugar Association, studies emerged suggesting sugar calories were more detrimental to health than calories from starchy carbs like grains and potatoes. He suspected this effect might be related to the way gut microbes metabolize sugar and other carbs. To investigate this link, the association launched Project 259, to assess how animals lacking gut bacteria would respond to sugar and starches, compared to animals with normal microbiomes.

The research was led by WFR Pover, a researcher at the University of Birmingham in the U.K, who was paid the equivalent of $187,000 in today’s currency to perform the study. The initial results, detailed in a 1969 internal report, showed that rats fed sucrose produced high levels of beta-glucuronidase, an enzyme associated with both arterial hardening and bladder cancer. According to the internal report, “This is one of the first demonstrations of a biological difference between sucrose and starch fed rats.”

Pover also found that sucrose had an adverse effect on cholesterol and triglycerides, and that, indeed, this was the work of gut bacteria. While animal research carries less weight today than it did back then, federal law at the time banned food additives shown to cause cancer in animals. This means that, had this research been published rather than buried, it could have had very serious ramifications for the sugar industry. As noted in Kearns’ paper:¹⁷

“The sugar industry did not disclose evidence of harm from animal studies that would have (1) strengthened the case that the CHD [cardiovascular heart disease] risk of sucrose is greater than starch and (2) caused sucrose to be scrutinized as a potential carcinogen.”

Sugar Industry Influenced Dental Policy as Well

A third report based on Kearns cache of historical records reveal the sugar industry also played a significant role in the creation of dental policy.^18,19 As a result of this collusion, dental policy not only downplays the impact that sugar and processed junk food has on dental health, it also ignores the toxic nature of fluoride.

Just like it defended sugar in food by shifting the blame onto dietary fats, the sugar industry made sure sugar did not become a concern within dentistry by shifting the focus onto the need for fluoride. According to this paper,²⁰ published in PLOS Medicine in 2015, the sugar industry’s interactions with the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) significantly altered and shaped the priorities of the National Caries Program (NCP), launched in 1971 to identify interventions that would eradicate tooth decay.

As noted in the paper, “The sugar industry could not deny the role of sucrose in dental caries given the scientific evidence. They therefore adopted a strategy to deflect attention to public health interventions that would reduce the harms of sugar consumption rather than restricting intake.” This industry-led deflection strategy included:

• Funding research on enzymes to break up dental plaque, in collaboration with allies in the food industry
• Funding research into a highly questionable vaccine against tooth decay. Another failed research goal included developing a powder or agent that could be mixed or taken with sugary foods to lessen the destruction to teeth caused by the Streptococcus mutans bacterium²¹
• Forming a task force with the aim to influence leaders in the NIDR (nine of the 11 members of the NIDR’s Caries Task Force Steering Committee, charged with identifying the NIDR’s research priorities, also served on the International Sugar Research Foundation’s Panel of Dental Caries Task Force)
• Submitting a report to the NIDR, which served as the foundation for the initial proposal request issued for the NCP

Industry Derailed Research That Might Have Led to Sugar Regulations

Omitted from the NCP’s priorities was any research that might be detrimental to the sugar industry, meaning research investigating the role and impact of sugar on dental health. Here, as with Project 259, “The sugar industry was able to derail some promising research that probably would’ve been the foundation for regulation of sugar in food,” co-author Glantz said.²²

Even today, Big Sugar is being evasive about fessing up the truth, despite overwhelming evidence showing that excessive sugar consumption — which is part and parcel of a processed food diet — is a key driver of dental cavities. According to the World Health Organization (WHO),²³ people across the U.S. and Europe need to cut their sugar consumption in half in order to reduce their risk of tooth decay and obesity.

WHO’s guidelines call for reducing sugar consumption to 10 percent of daily calories or less, which equates to about 50 grams or 12 teaspoons of sugar for adults. Ideally, the WHO says, your intake should be below 5 percent, which is more in line with my own recommendations.

Sugar Labeling Is Long Overdue

We probably will not see sugar being removed from the GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list anytime soon, even though a reassessment would probably be warranted, considering the evidence. Still, there is some good news. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized its new Nutrition Facts rules in May 2016,²⁴ and once the changes take effect, food manufacturers will be required to list added sugars in grams and as percent daily value (based on a 2,000 calorie-a-day diet) on their nutrition facts labels.

By listing the percentage of daily value for sugar on nutritional labels, it will be easier to identify high-sugar foods, and could help rein in overconsumption caused by “hidden” sugars. Unfortunately, we won’t see these changes until January 1, 2020. Manufacturers with annual sales below $10 million will have one additional year to comply.

Sugar Industry Has Lost All Scientific Credibility

Large sums of money have been spent, and scientific integrity has been tossed by the wayside, to convince you that added sugars are a “staple” nutrient that belongs in your diet, and that health problems like obesity, chronic disease and dental caries are due to some other issue — be it lack of exercise, too much saturated fat, or lack of fluoride.

Clearly, the sugar industry’s ability to influence policy for public health and research put us decades behind the eight-ball, as it were. It’s really time to set the record straight, and to stop looking to the industry as a credible source of information about sugar.

To learn more about how sugar affects your health, check out SugarScience.org, created by scientists at three American universities to counter the propaganda provided by profit-driven industry interests. This educational website²⁵ provides access to independent research that is unsoiled by industry interference. This kind of research really is key, and anyone who believes industry-funded research is as trustworthy is deluding themselves.

By Dr. Mercola

Nearly 13,000 chemicals are used in cosmetics and personal care products, but only 10 percent have been tested for human safety. The average American woman uses 12 personal care products or cosmetics every day that contain approximately 168 different chemicals. While men use fewer products and are exposed to nearly half the number of chemicals than women, teens use more products and are exposed to even more chemicals.¹

Your personal care products are applied on an active, living and complex organ system. Your skin is not just a covering for your body, but rather provides temperature regulation, protection, and can produce vitamin D when exposed to the sun. The nerve cells that are packed over the expanse of your body act as messengers to your brain and are a crucial part of your ability to interact with the world.

Your skin may also be used to deliver medications as whatever you put on your skin can be absorbed. For instance, nicotine patches or pain medication patches deliver drugs directly into your bloodstream as they pass through your skin. The same may happen with the personal care products you use. If the molecules are small enough to be absorbed, they migrate through the skin and directly into your blood.

Analysis of Popular Moisturizers Finds an 83 Percent Failure Rate

Many cosmetics and personal care products on the market advertise they are fragrance-free and hypoallergenic to increase their consumer base and include customers who are concerned about chemicals. Like many dermatologists, Dr. Steven Xu, a dermatologist at Northwestern University Hospital, was asked almost daily about the moisturizers or sunscreen that would work best for sensitive skin.²

One year ago, Xu led an analysis of popular sunscreen products and discovered nearly half failed to meet basic sun safety guidelines set by the American Academy of Dermatology.³ The guideline failure fell under the category of being water or sweat resistant.⁴ During the study, the researchers found consumers made their decision about sunscreen predominantly based on the bottle's "cosmetic elegance," which was defined as any feature linked to skin sensation on application, color or scent.⁵

Once completed, Xu and his colleagues began questioning if other products commonly applied daily, such as moisturizers, were accurate in their advertising. Specifically, Xu was interested if claims for fragrance-free or hypoallergenic were true since many of his patients needed products that wouldn't exacerbate skin conditions. He said,⁶ "I found myself really struggling to provide evidence-based recommendations for my patients."

Xu and his colleagues gathered 174 different moisturizers that were popular brands sold on Amazon and at Target and Walmart to analyze these claims. They found a surprising 45 percent of products advertised as fragrance-free actually contained a fragrance and over 80 percent of those advertised as hypoallergenic contained a potentially allergenic chemical.⁷ The researchers found the majority of best-selling moisturizers that were labeled fragrance-free or hypoallergenic had some form of potential skin allergen.

Are Mislabeled Products Frustrating or Damaging?

A similar study, performed by a team led by dermatologist Dr. Matthew Zirwas, analyzed 276 moisturizers and found 68 percent contained fragrances, 62 percent contained parabens, 24 percent had benzyl alcohol, and 20 percent contained propylene glycol and formaldehyde releasers.⁸ The researchers concluded:⁹

"Many ingredients of moisturizers have the potential to cause irritant and allergic contact dermatitis; therefore, it is necessary for clinicians to be aware of such potential allergens in order to manage and advise their patients accordingly."

For some, a little irritation where moisturizer was applied is frustrating. However, for those who suffer from psoriasis, eczema or sensitive skin, the result can be damaging. One study found at least 33 percent of people who used cosmetics had at least one skin reaction.¹⁰ Those reactions may range from a simple, short-lived rash, to a full-blown systemic contact dermatitis affecting your face, neck and upper torso.

Irritant contact dermatitis affects the area where the product was applied and may result in a burning sensation, stinging or itching. The area may also turn red, and if you scratch the area, blisters may appear. The second type of reaction is an allergic contact dermatitis that involves a systemic immune reaction. Symptoms may include itching, swelling, redness or hives on any part of your body, but more frequently on your face, eyes, ears, lips and neck. In other words, in many of the areas you may have applied the moisturizer.

Those with skin conditions are faced with finding a moisturizer using trial and error. Unfortunately, the errors are costly since products that trigger reactions must be thrown out, and sometimes the reactions require medical treatment. Kathryn Walter, an eczema sufferer from Ann Arbor, Michigan, discussed her frustrations trying to find a moisturizer that would sooth her skin condition, without triggering a reaction. She says:

"I will start to itch and I have to get it off my body right away. My ankles and calves are all scratched up as we speak — and my hands. Because you can't just go to a drugstore and open up all their tubes of cream to make sure they don't aggravate your skin. Basically, it's a big expense."

Absorbing Chemicals Contributes to Poor Health

Since your skin absorbs chemicals from your personal care products directly into your bloodstream, it's particularly important to reduce exposure. Women with higher levels of chemicals detected in their blood or urine are at higher risk for experiencing menopause two to four years earlier than women who have lower levels of chemicals in their body.¹¹

The long-term health problems associated with early menopause, regardless of the cause, include an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, neurologic disease, psychiatric disease, osteoporosis and death.¹² A meta-analysis of 32 studies, including over 300,000 women, reached a similar conclusion.¹³ Overall the group of women who entered menopause at 45 or earlier suffered a 50 percent greater risk of heart disease.

The age-related findings in the study showed a clear association between the time of menopause and the risk of heart disease. Women who entered menopause early had an increased risk of heart disease and premature death, while women who entered menopause between the ages of 50 and 54 had a lower risk of fatal heart disease — even lower than women younger than 50.

The study identified 15 chemicals associated with early menopause and declining ovarian function.¹⁴ Many of those have already been linked to other health risks, such as cancer, early puberty and metabolic syndrome.

For instance, phthalates, a plastic chemical commonly found in personal care products including lotions, perfumes and hairspray, has been linked in studies to asthma, attention deficit disorder, breast cancer, obesity¹⁵ and a reduction in your child's cognitive ability,^16,17 to name just a few damaging health conditions.

And phthalates are just one class of chemicals found in moisturizers and lotions that have allergic potential. Other chemicals frequently found include parabens, toluene, sodium lauryl sulfate and formaldehyde releasers, all of which have their own unique list of adverse health effects.

Who Regulates Product Ingredients?

Deceptive labeling on personal care products is likely the result of a lack of federal regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Unless the product contains a currently banned chemical, all cosmetics and personal care products are allowed on the market without prior approval from any governmental agency.¹⁸ The FDA makes the differentiation that they regulate the industry but do not approve products before they show up on your grocery store shelves.¹⁹

The FDA places the responsibility of ensuring the safety of personal care products squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturer,²⁰ which is a clear conflict of interest. The FDA defines cosmetics:²¹

"… by their intended use, as ‘articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body ... for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance’ (FD&C Act, sec. 201(i)).

Among the products included in this definition are skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup, cleansing shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, and deodorants, as well as any substance intended for use as a component of a cosmetic product."

Product ingredients are protected from disclosure by the FDA as it falls under proprietary information. The argument is the industry is highly competitive, and if an adversarial company were to be able to recreate a popular product, it could significantly impact the profitability of the first company.

The intent of the law was to protect the viability of a manufacturer while depending on the company to protect the health of the nation. Dr. Robert Califf, vice chancellor for Health Data Science at Duke University School of Medicine and former FDA commissioner, puts it succinctly:²²

"The cosmetics industry is highly competitive, and if someone can easily copy someone else's successful cosmetic, that would be a competitive disadvantage."

What Can You Do To Help

However, with advancing technology and testing ability, Xu tested for chemicals included in products that were not on the labels. Most large companies have access to chemists with the same abilities, negating much of the argument for protecting propriety blends of chemicals. In April 2015, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA), introduced bill S.1014, the Personal Care Products Safety Act, with the intent to:²³

"… require cosmetics companies to register their facilities with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and to submit to the FDA cosmetic ingredient statements that include the amounts of a cosmetic's ingredients. Companies must pay a facility registration fee based on their annual gross sales of cosmetics. The collected fees can only be used for cosmetic safety activities."

As you may have anticipated, this bill has a long road before it may pass. After being read by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, hearings were held in September 2016, after which no further action has been taken. You can write to your representative²⁴ and your senator²⁵ to let them know how important this issue is to your health and the health of your skin.

Skin Care From the Inside Out

Your healthiest choice is to protect your skin from the inside out. Your skin reacts to variables inside and outside your body. For instance, if you work outside during the winter months, or are in health care and wash your hands frequently throughout the day, your skin may become dry and cracked. Exposure to these factors reduces the natural oils on your skin that protect against drying and cracking. Internal factors that affect the ability to stay supple and soft is whether your diet supplies the necessary nutrients.

One nutrient is essential omega-3 fats, as your body cannot manufacture them independently. A deficiency may present as cracked heels, thick patches of skin or eczema. These fats also have an anti-inflammatory effect and help soothe your complexion. In the past, I've shared some of the best types of fish to consume high in omega-3 fats, but the general guideline is the smaller and closer to the bottom of the food chain, the less contaminated with pollution they will be. These fish include sardines, anchovies and herring.

Another healthy option is wild-caught Alaskan salmon. If you've incorporated these fish in your diet but are still suffering from dry skin, an omega-3 supplement, such as krill oil, may be highly beneficial. Pure, virgin coconut oil is another all-natural moisturizer you can use topically on your skin and added to your cooking. When absorbed, it helps to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles by keeping your connective tissue strong and supple.

When your outer skin layer lacks hydration, your skin can become cracked. While it's not entirely clear whether drinking more water can counteract dry skin, it stands to reason that a hydrated body is conducive to hydrated skin. You should drink enough water so that your urine is a very pale yellow.

Perhaps the most important step you can take to improve the health of your skin is to avoid sugars, fructose, processed foods and grains. If you eliminate sugars, grains and fructose for just a few weeks you'll likely notice a rapid improvement in your complexion and condition of your skin.

Your overall health and the quality of your skin is strongly associated with the health of your gut. Including fermented vegetables is an ideal way of promoting the growth of beneficial gut bacteria. Normalizing your gut microbiome may help fight against skin irritations and chronic skin conditions, such as psoriasis and eczema. If you don't regularly eat fermented foods, then a high-quality probiotic supplement is definitely recommended.