Prenatal exposure to phthalates could affect infant behavior

Phthalates are used to make plastics more flexible and durable.  They are the most abundant man-made environmental pollutants and have been found to disrupt the endocrine system.

Where will you find phthalates?  Everywhere!  Upholstery material, shower curtains, children's toys, metal foils (like those found on yogurt containers), aluminum foil, cosmetics, perfumes, hairspray, nail polish, and food packaging material.  And this is just the short list.

Phthalates have long been suspected in connection with rising infertility rates, particularly among men. These substances are considered highly hazardous to human health because they disrupt the hormonal balance and impair reproduction and development.  New research has found significantly high levels of phthalates in almost 70 percent of girls with early onset of puberty.

Prenatal exposure to phthalates could affect infant behaviour

The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act: Executive Summary

This a compelling new report put out last month by Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.  It created quite a stir in the media so I wanted to be sure my readers had a chance to read it for themselves and take action.  If you are tired of the governments lack of concern regarding the dangers of toxic chemicals in our homes, speak up on behalf of chemical reform by adding your name to the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families campaign.

The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act: Executive Summary

There is growing agreement across the political spectrum that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 does not adequately protect Americans from toxic chemicals. In the 34 years since TSCA was enacted, the EPA has been able to require testing on just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals produced and used in the U.S., and just five chemicals have been regulated under this law. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson has asked Congress to provide her agency with better chemical management tools for safeguarding our nation’s health.[1]

Much has changed since TSCA became law more than 30 years ago. Scientists have developed a more refined understanding of how some chemicals can cause and contribute to serious illness, including cancer, reproductive and developmental disorders, neurologic diseases, and asthma.

The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition believes that, by reforming TSCA, we can reduce our exposure to toxic chemicals, improve our nation’s health, and lower the cost of health care. This report documents some of the scientific findings and economic analysis underlying our position.

Chronic disease is on the rise

More than 30 years of environmental health studies have led to a growing consensus that chemicals are playing a role in the incidence and prevalence of many diseases and disorders in our country, including:

•Leukemia, brain cancer, and other childhood cancers, which have increased by more than 20% since 1975.[2]

•Breast cancer, which went up by 40% between 1973 and 1998.[3] While breast cancer rates have declined since 2003, a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is now one in eight, up from one in ten in 1973.[4]

•Asthma, which approximately doubled in prevalence between 1980 and 1995 and has stayed at the elevated rate.[5][6]

•Difficulty in conceiving and maintaining a pregnancy affected 40% more women in 2002 than in 1982. The incidence of reported difficulty has almost doubled in younger women, ages 18–25.[7][8][9]

•The birth defect resulting in undescended testes, which has increased 200% between 1970 and 1993.[10]

•Autism, the diagnosis of which has increased more than 10 times in the last 15 years.[11]

The health and economic benefits of reforming TSCA

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 133 million people in the U.S.—almost half of all Americans—are now living with these and other chronic diseases and conditions, which now account for 70% of deaths and 75% of U.S. health care costs.[12]

Estimates of the proportion of the disease burden that can be attributed to chemicals vary widely, ranging from 1% of all disease[13] to 5% of childhood cancer[14] to 10% of diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and neurodevelopmental deficits[15] to 30% of childhood asthma.[14] Whatever the actual contribution, effective chemical policy reform will incorporate the last 30 years of science to reduce the chemical exposures that contribute to the rising incidence of chronic disease. And any decline in the incidence of chronic diseases can also be expected to bring health care cost savings. Even if chemical policy reform leads to reductions in toxic chemical exposures that translate into just a tenth of one percent reduction of health care costs, it would save the U.S. health care system an estimated $5 billion every year.

The U.S. now spends over $7,000 per person per year directly on health care.[12] This sum does not include the many other kinds of costs, such as the costs of raising a child with a severe learning disability or coping with a young mother’s breast cancer diagnosis. Chemical policy reform holds the promise of reducing the economic, social and personal costs of chronic disease by creating a more healthy future for all Americans.

For more information and to take action now, please visit Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
For alternative Green NonToxic cleaners, please click here.

Citations:

1.^U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Administrator Jackson Unveils New Administration Framework for Chemical Management Reform in the United States,” http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/D07993FDCF801C-2285257640005D27A6 (accessed November 8, 2009)

2.^Tracey J. Woodruff, et al., America’s Children and the Environment, (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008)

3.^Holly L. Howe, et al., “Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer (1973 through 1998), Featuring Cancers with Recent Increasing Trends,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93, no. 11 (June 2001): 824–42

4.^Janet Gray, ed, State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, (San Francisco: Breast Cancer Fund, 2008)

5.^Tracey J. Woodruff, et al., “Trends in Environmentally Related Childhood Illnesses,” Pediatrics, 113, no. 4 (April 2004): 1133– 1140

6.^Jeanne E. Moorman, et al., “National Surveillance for Asthma, United States 1980–2004,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5608a1.htm (November 1, 2009)

7.^Anjani Chandra and Elizabeth Hervey Stephen, “Impaired Fecundity in the United States: 1982–1995,” Family Planning Perspectives, 30, no 1, (1998): 34–42

8.^Anjani Chandra, et al., “Fertility, Family Planning and Reproductive Health of US Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth,” Vital and Health Statistics, 23, no. 25 (2005)

9.^Kate Brett, “Fecundity in 2002 National Survey of Family Growth Women 15–24 Years of Age”, Hyattsville, MD, National Center for Health Statistics (2008)

10.^Leonard J. Paulozzi, “International Trends in Rates of Hypospadias and Cryptorchidism,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 107, no. 4, (1999): 297–302

11.^National Institute of Mental Health, “NIMH’s Response to New Autism Prevalence Estimate,” http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/updates/2009/nimhs-response-tonew-autism-prevalence-estimate.shtml (November 4, 2009)

12.^ abNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, The Power of Prevention: Chronic Disease...the Public Health Challenge of the 21st Century, (Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009)

13.^Commission of the European Communities, “Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictions of Chemicals (REACH), establishing European Chemicals Agency and Amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC) on Persistent Organic Pollutants: Extended Impact Assessment.” (October 29, 2003): 30

14.^ abPhilip J. Landrigan, et al., “Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American Children: Estimates of Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs for Lead Poisoning, Asthma, Cancer, and Developmental Disabilities,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 110, No. 7 (July 2002): 721–8

15.^Tom Muir and Mike Zegarac, “Societal Costs of Exposure to Toxic Substances: Economic and Health Costs of Four Case Studies That Are Candidates for Environmental Causation,” Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements, 109, No. S6 (December 2001): 885–903

A Natural Approach to ADD/ADHD

There is increasing concern about the growing number of children on Ritalin and similar drugs, and many parents are looking for more natural alternatives. The following is a summary of some of the nutrients and herbs that many parents are using with good results to offer nutritional support for learning and brain function.

To give a good nutritional foundation to the brain and nervous system and to the whole child, a good program should always begin with a high quality multi-vitamin/mineral. The B vitamins are really important for the brain…parents have reported that they makes children not only smart, but pleasant!

Calcium-magnesium: These essential minerals are often referred to as natural nerve tranquilizers and muscle relaxants. Pediatric Allergist Dr. Doris Rapp and other authorities feel many learning and behavioral problems are related to allergies and brain sensitivities. Therefore, many recommend limiting milk and dairy products as well as artificial dyes, flavorings, preservatives, etc.

Zinc: In addition to its reputation for improving our immune systems, especially viruses and sore throats, zinc is essential for the brain and helps protect the eyes from aging.

Bifidus and Acidophilus (Probiotics): Essential friendly bacteria that ideally live in our lower intestines. These good bacteria help prevent over growth of bad bacteria and Candida yeast – often associated with attention deficit disorder.

Probiotics are especially important for a child who has ever been on an antibiotic or steroid-based medications (common with asthma). These medications kill off much of these essential “friendly microbes” that live in the lower intestine. Without adequate amounts of these microbes, research now shows the body is more susceptible to infection (especially sinus and upper respiratory) because 70% of the immune system resides in the intestines.

It is very difficult to find an acidophilus/bifidus product that guarantees live delivery of microflora to the intestine. Tests show that many of them do not make it live to your door, much less to your colon. 90% of the microflora alive in these products at the time of manufacture are killed off long before they reach the intestine. So please choose wisely—I know of only one product that guarantees delivery of 500,000 live microorganisms to the intestines without being destroyed by the highly acidic environment of the stomach.

In addition to the above recommendations, for hyper activity, allergies or asthma consider replacing your cleaning and laundry products with non-toxic alternatives. Here’s an excerpt from a powerful testimony: “In your homes, laundry soap stays in the fabric, cleaning chemicals under the sink give off fumes in the air (remember the smell of the cleaning isle in the store!!)…. I wanted to get "as much as possible" out of our environment...so we went completely Shaklee!! BIG difference !!!! After we cleared out the chemicals and started to clean and do laundry with Shaklee, his rash on his face cleared, all of our sinus infections cleared up, my husband now comments on the smell of homemade bread!!!”

The best and most affordable health insurance is a diet based on 6 to 9 servings of fruits and vegetables, whole grains and a basic supplementation program combined with regular exercise… and lots of love and laughter.

Feel free to contact me to request information on nutritional programs for ADD/ADHD. 

Do Toxic Homes Cause Asthma?

Note: Today’s blog entry was written by Dr. Stephen Chaney. Dr. Chaney is a professor of biochemistry, biophysics and nutrition at UNC Medical School in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He is also a prominent cancer researcher with a well established research lab he directs at UNC.

Everybody is going green. Biodegradable cleaners are finally in fashion.

But did you realize that many of the cleaners that you buy in the supermarket - and some of the biodegradable cleaners that you buy in the health food store - release toxic fumes in your home that can adversely affect the health of you and your children?

I'm going to focus on just one aspect of this topic - household chemical exposure and childhood asthma.  But first a bit of background information: The prevalence of childhood asthma increased 74% between 1980 and 1994 and has continued to increase in the years since.

The causes of this rapid increase in asthma prevalence are likely to be complex, but evidence has accumulated in recent years that some of the increase may be caused by early exposure to toxic chemical fumes in the home.

Why is that?

The American consumer keeps demanding cleaners that work better (It's considered a big plus if they require no effort) and are easy to use (Don't bother with messy liquids and pastes - just spray it on).  And manufacturers have been willing to oblige by adding ever more exotic chemicals to household cleaners and putting them in aerosol spray cans.

And of course no one opens their windows any more. That would be wasting energy and contributing to global warming.

The result is that these toxic chemicals accumulate in the air that we breathe in our own homes. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency has stated that the air inside our homes is often more polluted than in Los Angeles or New York on a smoggy day.

A number of studies have pointed to an association between these toxic household fumes and childhood asthma, but I'd like to focus on one particularly good study on this topic that was published recently in the European Respiratory Journal (31: 54-57, 2008).

This study measured the household chemical exposure of 7,162 pregnant women in England and looked at the incidence of asthma in their children at age 8.5 years.

A maternal composite household chemical exposure (CHCE) score was derived by measuring the pregnant mother's exposure to a number of common household products known to contain toxic chemicals.

The household products used most frequently were disinfectants (87.4%), bleach (84.8%), aerosols (71.7%), air fresheners (68%), window cleaners (60.5%), carpet cleaners (35.3%) and pesticides/insecticides (21.2%). (For information on the toxic chemicals in these and other common household products visit:  http://www.householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/products.htm)

Asthma was quantified based on persistent wheezing (reported by the parents) and several lung function tests that were administered at age 8.5 years.

To make sure that the asthma was not caused by simple allergies the children were also given a skin prick test against a panel of 6 common childhood allergens (house dust mites, cats, mixed grass, mixed nuts, peanuts and milk).  The study also controlled for confounding variables such as exposure to tobacco smoke, damp housing, pets in the home and maternal history of asthma.

In short, this was a very large and particularly well controlled study.

And the results were clear.  Higher household chemical exposure during pregnancy was associated with a 41% increase in childhood asthma in children with no known allergies.

What does that mean to you and me? It means that it is not enough to select household products that are safe for the environment.  We also need to select products that we use in our homes on the basis of their safety for us and our family - not just on the basis of cost and convenience.

To Your Health!

Dr. Stephen G Chaney

P.S. Shaklee, the company that brought us one of the very first biodegradable cleaners and the very first company in the world to be certified as climate neutral, makes a "Get Clean" line of household cleaners that are not only biodegradable but also contain no toxic fumes that could be harmful for your health.

 

INSTANT OR DEHYDRATED POTATOES...ARE YOU SURE THEY’RE JUST POTATOES?

What is it? Potatoes in a box or bag.

Why eliminate it? The number of chemicals and their effects on the
body can be very harmful

Although the amounts of the toxins listed may be extremely low, however, we
have no way of knowing the following:

1. How much it takes to harm
2. How long the chemical accumulate in our bodies
3. How it may interact with other chemicals, even with the ones in the  same food,
4. Will the repeated assaults on our DNA ultimately overcome our ability to repair our DNA.

I personally find it to be outrageous that if an industry were to use a product  that contains the ingredients below for industrial uses, there is a requirement for them to have something called a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on file on the premises so that they are aware of the toxicity in the product and the sheet warns about ingestinknown for that ingredient. 

Some of the chemical ingredients in instant potatoes are used in industrial applications, and they are dangerous to the degree that the government’s Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) requires industrial users to be aware of proper use and the effects of misuse.

For the millions of us who just go to the grocery store to unknowingly buy them, no such warnings are required! All of the information about the chemicals below came from the MSDS for the specific chemical. What I also think is outrageous is that the same thing holds true for ingredients in household cleaners and chemicals and for personal and skin care and cosmetic products, when we consider that if we feed these fake foods to our young children we must multiply the “dosage” that they are getting compared to what we get, because not only are their bodies so much smaller, but typically they will
absorb a higher percentage of a chemical than will an adult.

Here is a catalogue of the ingredients that are too often included in the pack of dehydrated potatoes,
- potato (you would actually be surprised if this was not included)
- monocerides (these are fats)
- diglycerides (another sort of fats)
- citric acid (a weak acid found in citrus foods, but can be synthetic, used for flavoring)

In addition to the ingredients above, as you will see in the table below, there are also some ingredients that I personally wouldn’t want to ever eat or allow my family to eat.  The information on safety and health concerns is presented on required Government Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). The table below lists the chemicals that are in instant potatoes and the associated information from the MSDS. Although the cautions in the MSDS are, as we noted, for industrial usage, it is interesting to see that they still show the hazards that are present if someone ingests them. How come it isn’t ok to ingest
them if you are working in industry, but it is ok if you buy the same chemical if it is placed in a food?

INGREDIENT MSDS INFORMATION
Sodium acid pyrophosphate (used in electroplating)
Very Hazardous – in case of skin contact or eye contact as an irritant.
Hazardous – in case of ingestion or inhalation
Slightly Hazardous – in case of skin contact or eye contact as a corrosive. Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering and itching. Skin contact is characterized by itching, scaling, reddening, or occasionally blistering.

Sodium metabisulfate 
Hazardous – in case of skin contact (irritant) of ingestion, of inhalation, the substance may be toxic to upper respiratory tract, skin and eyes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organ damage. (Gee, do they think people are only gong to eat this one time, and no other foods have it?)
Toxic effects on humans- Acute potential health effects.
Ingestion: May be harmful if swallowed. May cause gastrointestinal tract irritation with abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, violent colic, and possible gastric hemorrhaging. May affect behavior/central nervous system and cause central nervous system depression/seizures. It may also affect the cardiovascular system (hypotension, tachycardia, cardiovascular collapse), ingestion of sulfite compounds may cause a severe allergic reaction (anaphylactic symptoms) in sensitive individuals and some asthmatics. (And that is only for the immediate effects) Prolonged or repeated ingestion may affect the liver, urinary system, and metabolism (weight loss). Future exposures may also cause asthma like allergy with coughing, shortness of breath, wheezing and/or chest tightness.

BHT – Butylated hydroxytoluene (Used in the food processing industry)
Hazardous – in case skin contact, eye contact, or inhalation.
Slightly hazardous - in case of ingestion.
Mutagenic - for mammalian somatic cells. (All mammals body cells, (that’s us!), except the reproductive cells. (Well, at least the reproductive cells are not in danger of mutating! I tend to think
that the possibility of this causing my cells to mutate is pretty darn hazardous!).)


WHAT CAN I DO INSTEAD?
I hope I have given you some helpful information that you can use to improve your own and your family’s health and wellbeing. You know what the problems are with “the 4 Whites” and why it is so
important to eliminate them from your diet. Now we are going to cover the ways you can work toward this goal without turning yourself “inside out”! And then we’ll explore the next step in achieving your dream of enjoying optimal health.

WHITE RICE... PRETTY LITTLE GRAINS OF BERI-BER

This was the conclusion the 1929 Nobel Prize winner, Christian Eijkman declared in 1896 on his return to the Netherlands, after ten years of research in Batavia, Java in the Dutch East Indies (now Jakarta, Indonesia). If you want to learn about his research an his findings that white rice does indeed cause beri-beri, a
horrible disease that killed many people, click here to read about him.

Perhaps a good place to start this discussion  and comparison is with the question of why we have white rice. The same questions and
answers also apply to refined and unrefined sugar and refined and unrefined flour. In all cases the unrefined is healthier and the refined is more frequently used. The answer is based on economics and history. 

 

First, the economics, live plants have a shorter shelf life before they spoil. The refining process removes matter that will decay. Most bugs won’t even bother to get into white rice because they sense that there is nothing to sustain their lives in it.

Now, for the history...When the milling of grains started and the resulting flour was so fresh and clean looking, the wealthy and the aristocracy felt that they deserved to have this delicacy and even kept it from the common people. The same thing happened with white rice and white sugar. 

 

That feeling of having something special, carried over even after the common people were allowed to have it, just because they were allowed. That made them feel special. Fortunately, at that time, the products were more expensive so a lot of people still couldn’t afford them. Because of that, many people have been convinced that white bread, white sugar, and/or white rice are more desirable. So, one bottom line is that we, the consuming public, choose to buy less healthful products and convenience. 

 

The differences between brown and white rice begins shortly after harvest.  The rice we eat is the seed of the rice plant. For brown rice, the outer husk of the seed is removed by milling. This leaves the product that we call brown rice. Whole grain Basmati rice looks more like white rice but has the benefit of being very healthy. White rice is the result of a polishing process in which the germ (the nutritious part that spoils sooner) and bran of the rice are also removed.

Removing the germ and bran results in a considerable nutrient loss. Brown rice offers a number a health advantages. The body’s insulin response to brown rice is significantly lower that for white rice. Brown rice is higher in fiber, B vitamins, Vitamin E, potassium, magnesium and macronutrients than all types of white rice.  Brown rice also has more dietary fiber than white rice, and it has been shown to maintain a superior microflora in the intestine. Studies show higher numbers of beneficial bacteria and lower numbers of harmful bacteria in the colon.   This is very important because many disorders including diverticulitis, cancer, and constipation are known to result from larger numbers of harmful bacteria and insufficient numbers of beneficial bacteria in the colon.

Fortified white rice is sold, and in some cases the label may indicate higher vitamin and/or mineral levels than brown rice. But, the synthetic vitamins used in fortifying are less bioavailable; that is they
are not assimilated as well for purposes of feeding the cells. Thus the brown rice is still a healthier choice. This is another example of a good principle, whenever you take a natural food from nature and change its composition or strip nutrients from it, you will always have less human nutritional benefits. Mother Nature really knows best.

GLEAMING WHITE FLOUR...THE BEAUTIFUL POISON

What is it? Refined bleached or unbleached wheat flour.

Why eliminate it? It is essentially converted by the body back into the same simple sugar as sucrose. It has all the same effects of sucrose so you could almost think of it as white sugar without the sweetness. By the way, if you can chew a piece of white bread or cracker long enough without having to swallow it, you will notice that the change to sugar starts in your mouth and you can actually taste it getting sweeter.

The origin of white flour is a whole grain. In making white flour, the whole grain is “refined.” In making white bread the refined flour is then, “enriched.” The refining process removes the fiber rich bran outer layer and the nutrient rich embryo, called the germ. So we start with a healthy food that has both fibers and nutrients and we end with negative nutrition...it takes more nutrients to deal with the resulting “food” than that food provides. If the flour is used to make white bread, the flour is also “bleached” with chemicals.

One such chemical, chlorine oxide, is allowed by the FDA even though it destroys beta cells in the pancreas and is linked to diabetes. Another chemical used in bleaching is alloxan, which selectively
destroys insulin-producing cells in the pancreas when administered to rodents and many other animal species. This causes an insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (called "Alloxan Diabetes") in
these animals, with characteristics similar to type 2 diabetes in humans.

Over 50 years ago studies showed that because of the “refining” process, more vitamin B complex and iron deficiencies were appearing. The government requires that white bread be “enriched,” because bread is a staple. Although refining the flour totally removes 15 nutrients, the “enrichment” process adds back only 3 B vitamins and iron. “Refining” robs a larger amount of healthful natural nutritional ingredients and then to prevent severe vitamin deficiencies returns a minimum amount of synthetic B vitamins and iron.  In “refining” flour, we also destroy complex carbohydrates (the fiber rich bran) and are left with a simple carbohydrate. Complex carbohydrates are processed during digestion without causing sudden spikes in sugar. Additionally fiber enhances healthy elimination. The lack of fiber is
related to constipation, and white flour is one contributor.

Simple carbohydrates cause sudden spikes in sugar which then causes the pancreas to release insulin in order to protect the brain from too much sugar. This cycle of spikes in sugar followed by a demand for insulin from the pancreas leads to Type 2 Adult Onset Diabetes. Sadly, Type 2 Diabetes is more and more often diagnosed in children under the age of 15 now.  While many people have consciously reduced their use of sugar, they may not be as careful in monitoring their white flour intake. As I
mentioned above, white flour essentially is converted to the equivalent of white sugar and produces very similar results in your body. They both are major contributors to diabetes and weight gain, and other degenerative diseases.

There are unbleached enriched breads. Don’t be fooled! These breads are slightly darker in color, but present all the same nutritional deficiencies of the enrichment process, just without the bleach toxins.
Remember, a diet that includes a lot of refined foods results in many women being malnourished, constipated, and vulnerable to chronic illness. Fertility problems and difficulty carrying a baby to term can also frequently be related to nutritional deficiencies that are so often related to the Standard American Diet... S.A.D!