What the Hell can I Eat?

Lipstick: A Kiss of Death?

May 28, 2009 · 2 Comments

From the New York Times:

A Simple Smooch or a Toxic Smack? 28skin.span

By ABBY ELLIN
Published: May 27, 2009
THE debate seems to resurface every few years. Do some lipsticks contain lead? If so, is the amount so negligible that consumers have nothing to be concerned about? Or will all those years of applying lipstick several times a day add up to a worrisome accumulation of a dangerous substance?

On one side are advocacy groups and doctors who insist that, over time, those who wear lipstick containing lead are at risk of absorbing high levels of a neurotoxin that may cause behavioral, learning and other problems. On the other side are the Food and Drug Administration and outside experts who say that any traces of lead that do exist are too minute to cause harm.

In February, the debate reared its head again when the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of health and environmental groups, issued a plea to the F.D.A. to release information the agency had accumulated on the amount of lead in lipstick. The study was conducted in response to an independent analysis in 2007, paid for by the safe cosmetics group, which found that one-third of 33 lipsticks had lead in excess of 0.1 parts per million, the federal limit for candy.

Among the worst offenders were L’Oreal Colour Riche “True Red” lipstick (with a lead content of 0.65 parts per million) and Cover Girl’s Incredifull Lipcolor “Maximum Red” (0.56 p.p.m.). Price had nothing to do with lead levels: less expensive brands, like a $1.99 tube of Wet and Wild Mega Colors “Cherry Blossom,” contained no lead, whereas a $24 tube of Dior Addict “Positive Red” contained 0.21 p.p.m.

In response to the study, L’Oreal said: “Each and every ingredient used in our products has been thoroughly reviewed and tested by our internal safety team made up of toxicologists, clinicians, pharmacists and physicians.” Parfums Christian Dior, which said it no longer makes the Positive Red shade, said, “we are confident that our products meet the highest standards and are entirely safe to be used by consumers every day.”

Cover Girl said, “Our perspective is that our cosmetics products meet the rigorous safety standards set by the U.S. F.D.A. and are safe.”

Stacy Malkan, a founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, said that lead is often present in the pigment of the reddest lipsticks. The campaign urged manufacturers to reformulate their products and called for the F.D.A. to set a safety standard for lead in lipstick. Last November, Senators John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein asked the F.D.A. to do the same.

“The F.D.A. now says they are waiting for a peer-reviewed journal to publish their study of lead in lipstick,” Ms. Malkan said. “That could take years.”

Read the whole article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/fashion/28skin.html?ref=health

→ 2 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

Swine Flu: a lab mistake?

May 28, 2009 · 2 Comments

Swine Flu May Be a Human Error From Vaccine Production

A(H1N1), swine flu, bird flu, flu, influenza, pigs, swine, vaccine, tamiflu, adrian gibbsThe World Health Organization is investigating a claim by Australian researcher Adrian Gibbs, who says that the swine flu virus circling the globe may have been created as a result of human error.

Gibbs, who collaborated on research that led to the development of Tamiflu, said in an interview that he intends to publish a report suggesting the new strain may have accidentally evolved in eggs scientists use to grow viruses and drugmakers use to make vaccines. Gibbs said he came to his conclusion as part of an effort to trace the virus’s origins by analyzing its genetic blueprint.

“One of the simplest explanations is that it’s a laboratory escape,” Gibbs said in an interview with Bloomberg Television today. “But there are lots of others.”

Gibbs, who has studied germ evolution for four decades, is one of the first scientists to analyze the genetic makeup of the virus.

Sources:

www.mercola.com

→ 2 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

Truth about “Clean” Coal

May 20, 2009 · Leave a Comment

http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/how-clean-coal-cooks-your-brain


images-19 images-20

“Clean coal” is not an actual invention, a physical thing – it is an advertising slogan. Like “fat-free donuts” or “interest-free loans.”

Several years ago, in Gillette, Wyoming, I fell into a long conversation with the vice-president of alarge American coal company about coal’s public image problem. Gillette is inthe center of the Powder River Basin, the epicenter of the coal boom in America, where 60 foot seams of coal lay just below the surface.

This vice president, who did not want his name to appear in print, was deeply concerned about coal’s future and expressed frustration with environmental attacks on coal, suggesting that it was all a problem of perception: “People don’t like coal because it’s black,” he told me.

“If it were white, all our problems would be solved.”

Whenever one of those slick ads for “clean coal” pops up on CNN, I think about that conversation in Gillette. The $35 million “clean coal” campaign, [1] spearheaded by a coal industry front group called American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity [2] (formerly known as Americans for BalancedEnergy Choices), is nothing less than a nationwide effort to paint coal white.

And to the coal industry’s credit, they’re doing a pretty good job.”Clean coal” is touted by Republicans and Democrats alike as the solution to America’s energy troubles.

The logic is simple: America has lots of coal. We are a technologically advanced society. Ergo, we can clean up coal. What’s the problem?

Well, here’s one: “clean coal” is not an actual invention, a physical thing – it is an advertising slogan. Like “fat-free donuts” or “interest-free loans,” “clean coal” is a phrase that embodies the Bush-era faith that there is an easy answer for every hard question in America today. We can have a war in Iraq without sacrifice. We can borrow more than we can afford without worrying about how we’ll pay it back. We can end our dependency on oil by powering our SUVs with ethanol made from corn. And we can keep the lights on without superheating the climate through the magic of “clean coal.”

Here’s another: mining and burning coal remains one of the most destructive things human beings do on this earth. [3] It destroys mountains, poisons water, pollutes the air, and warms the atmosphere. True, if you look at it strictly from the point of view smog-producing chemicals like sulfur dioxide, new coal plants are cleaner than the old coal burners of yore. But going from four bottles of whiskey a week down to three does not make you clean and sober.

Of course, the “clean coal” campaign is not about reality – it’s about perception. It’s an exercise in re-branding. Madison Ave. did it for Harley Davidson motorcycles and Converse shoes. Why not Old King Coal?

It’s not a difficult trick – just whip out some slick ads with upbeat music and lots of cool 21st century technology like fighter jets and computers. Run the ads long enough, and people will believe.

But the real goal of the campaign is not simply to re-brand coal as a clean and modern fuel – it’s to convince energy-illiterate TV viewers that the American way of life depends on coal. The ads remind us (accurately) that half the electricity in America comes from coal, then shows images of little girls getting tucked into bed at night or Little Leaguers playing ball under the lights.

The subtext is not simply that, without the electricity from coal, the lights will go out and your family will be plunged into darkness. It’s that, without coal, civilization as we know it will come to an end. As one utility industry executive asked me while I was reporting Big Coal, “Have you ever been in a blackout? Do you remember how scary it was?”

From the coal industry’s point of view, this is a brilliant way to frame the argument. If the choice is, coal or chaos, they win. This framing also disarms environmental arguments – yes, it’s too bad that mountaintop removal mining has destroyed or polluted 1200 miles of streams in Appalachia and that the Environmental Protection Agency projects [4]a loss of more than 1.4 millionacres – an area the size of Delaware – by the end of the decade.

But hey, if it’s a choice between losing flattening West Virginia and keeping our lights on, good-bye West Virginia!

That’s a false choice, of course.

The coal industry may not want to acknowledge it, but we’re living in the 21st century now. We have indeed figured out other ways to generate electricity besides burning out 30 million year old rocks. And with each passing year, those alternatives are getting cheaper and smarter. [5]

Wind is already less expensive than coal in many parts of the country, and so is large-scale solar thermal. Google is exploring [6]enhanced geothermal. The creaky old electricity grid will soon morph into a system that looks more like the internet, [7] driving big gains in efficiency and allowing for real-time pricing of a kilowatt of power.

This does not that mean we can shut down coal plants tomorrow. But it does mean that coal is no longer the engine of civilized life as it has been since the industrial revolution.

Big Coal is best understood as a beast of inertia, pushed along by hundreds of billions of dollars worth of heavy metal infrastructure, and kept on track by an army of lobbyists, and our own ignorance of what goes on behind the light switch.

That may be changing.

Even seven year-olds know that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, is warming the planet. Coal is by farthe most carbon-intensive of fossil fuels, with roughly twice the carbon content as natural gas.

Right now in the U.S., there is no financial cost to dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s likely to change during the next administration. Big Coal is fighting for loopholes and safety valves to keep CO2 costs low, because if legislation passes that actually puts a serious price on CO2, coal’s reign as a “cheap” energy source is officially over.

Big Coal believes they have solution for CO2. [8] It’s called carbon capture and storage. [9] In most scenarios, capturing and storing CO2 from coal involves building a new kind of power plant that uses heat and pressure to gasify the coal, instead of burning it. In these new plants, the CO2 can be removed, compressed into an oil-like fluid, then injected underground in abandoned gas and oil wells or deep saline aquifers.

Big Coal says that capturing and storing CO2 from these new coal plants is a slam-dunk technology — but one that’s not quite ready for prime time yet (capturing CO2 from existing combustion coal plants, while possible, is expensive and cuts the electricity output of the plant by as much as 30 percent).

Of course, Big Coal has always been better at touting new technology than actually deploying it. Yes, there are serious questions about how much it will cost to build new coal plants that can capture and store CO2, [10] how soon will it happen, and whether or not the technology can scale up quickly enough [11] to really make a difference. But it’s not technology that’s holding back CCS. It’s politics. Without a price on carbon, there is little incentive to do anything serious about CO2 emissions from coal plants. Indeed, for Big Coal, the game now is not to prove that carbon capture and storage is a viable technology. It’s to use the expense and complexity of it as leverage in negotiations over climate legislation.

Meanwhile, the need to reduce CO2 emissions grows more urgent every year. As NASA climatologist James Hansen has repeatedly pointed out, [12] continuing to burn coal the old-fashioned way is a sure-fire way to melt Greenland and turn Miami into an aquarium.

In the end, the “clean coal” campaign is about using the tools of the 21st century to keep us locked in the 19th century. Like other greenwashing campaigns, [13] it’s about using the iconography of sexy technology and down-home Americana to maintain the status quo.

These campaigns always pretend to offer inspiration about we can do in America if we set our minds and hearts to it, but in fact the real message is what we can’t do: we can’t power America without coal, we can’t keep our lights on without destroying Appalachia, and most important of all, we can’t pass meaningful carbon legislation without wrecking the American economy.

This is why the false promise of “clean coal” is dangerous.

The goal is not to solve our problems, but to perpetuate our addiction. In one ad, [14] the narrator even adopts the feel-good language of substance abuse and recovery: cleaning up coal is a “big challenge,” he explains,”but we’ve made a commitment – a commitment to clean.”

After decades of stoking the engines of denial and obfuscation on global warming, it’s nice that Big Coal wants to be a good citizen. But just because your pusher decides to shower and shave, don’t delude yourself into thinking that he cares about your welfare.

His real goal is to keep you hooked.

http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/how-clean-coal-cooks-your-brain

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

Hexane bars and gasoline cheese? More OY for Soy!

May 20, 2009 · Leave a Comment

I’m sorry to everyone who loves the stuff, I know this isn’t easy to hear, but really, soy is NOT the miracle food that the industry has been pushing on us.  images-16

As I’ve been saying for a long time, stop with all the soy substitue stuff (soy meat, soy cheese, soy milk, soy protein shakes, bars, and infant formula!) The stuff is just more Franken-food in its current mass-produced form. Yet one more example of how manufacturers, eager to cash in on any new trend,  go far and beyond how the original food was intended to be consumed and they create a mega-industry, finding uses for everything from scraps to by-products, finding cheaper and cheaper sources for ingredients, and adding noxious chemicals to process them.

While this is not new information, I don’t think it’s widely understood yet. So, at the risk of seeming, well, a bit zealous, here are MORE reasons to avoid the stuff, if you needed them.

Soy Protein Used in “Natural” Foods Bathed in Toxic Solvent Hexane         images-17

(originally published by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor)

Virtually all “protein bars” on the market today are made with soy protein. Many infant formula products are also made with soy protein, and thousands of vegetarian products (veggie burgers, veggie cheese, “natural” food bars, etc.) are made with soy protein. That soy protein is almost always described as safe and “natural” by the companies using it. But there’s a dirty little secret the soy product industry doesn’t want you to know: Much of the “natural” soy protein used in foods today is bathed in a toxic, explosive chemical solvent known as hexane.

To determine the true extent of this hexane contamination, NaturalNews joined forces with the Cornucopia Institute (www.Cornucopia.org) to conduct testing of hexane residues in soy meal and soy grits using FDA-approved and USDA-approved laboratories. The Cornucopia Institute performed the bulk of this effort, and NaturalNews provided funding to help cover laboratory costs.

The results proved to be worrisome: Hexane residues of 21ppm were discovered in soy meal commonly used to produce soy protein for infant formula, protein bars and vegetarian food products.

These laboratory results appear to indicate that consumers who purchase common soy products might be exposing themselves (and their children) to residues of the toxic chemical HEXANE — a neurotoxic substance produced as a byproduct of gasoline refining.

But how dangerous is hexane, exactly?

Is it something that could be dangerous at a few parts per million? And which soy-based products on the market right now might be contaminated with hexane?

To answer these questions, NaturalNews looked into public documents surrounding Martek Biosciences Corporation, a company that manufactures DHA for infant formula, using hexane for extraction.

We found disturbing details about Martek, including a documented explosion in the wastewater treatment system downstream from the manufacturing plant. This explosion was caused by hexane pollution.

We also found documents revealing Martek’s application for permission to pollute hexane into the environment, as well as a planned emission cap that would put the company just under the limit for being considered a “major polluter” of Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Additional documents reveal concerning information about the safety of Martek’s oils used in infant formula. All this information is being released in tomorrow’s feature story on NaturalNews, so be sure to check back to read that. The remainder of this story focuses on the use of hexane in soy products.

To read more, click the link: http://www.naturalnews.com/026303.html

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

New Soy “Ratings” raise more questions on safety

May 19, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Silk, SoyDream, Pacific Natural Foods and Vitasoy all Rebuked in New Soy Scorecard Ratings

(The following story was adapted from a piece by by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor)

(NaturalNews) The Cornucopia Institute (www.cornucopia.org) has just released a new report about organic soy products that’s sending shockwaves through the soy industry. By compiling information on the sourcing of soybeans, the use of toxic chemicals for soy protein extraction, and the use or avoidance of genetically modified soybeans, the Cornucopia Institute has created an Organic Soy Scorecard that reveals which soy product companies are truly trustworthy vs. those that are not.

(NaturalNews contributed funding to this investigative reporting, specifically on the subject of the laboratory testing for hexane residues in soy products.)

The scorecard (http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/05/s…) takes into account:

• Where the soybeans are sourced from (many companies use “organic” soybeans sourced from China!)

• How the soybeans are processed (some companies bathe soybeans in toxic chemicals, then put the resulting extracts into infant formula!)

• How forthright the companies are in providing information to investigators.

• Whether the company tests for and avoids genetically modified soybeans.

… and other details.

You can read the full report on www.Cornucopia.org

Here’s who came out on top:

The soy companies scorecard

5-star rating
• Eden Foods – 100% of their soybeans are grown in the U.S. and Canada.

Vermont Soy (Vermont) – 100% of soybeans also grown in U.S. and Canada (mostly in Vermont). Low-heat pasteurization helps preserve soybean nutrients.

• Small Planet Tofu (Washington) – Buys solely from American farmers.

• FarmSoy (Tennessee) – Real tofu made from soybeans bought from American farmers.

• TwinOats (Virginia) – Buys soybeans from an organic family farm in Virginia.

• Unisoya / Green Cuisine (Canada) – They grown their own organic soybeans on 400 acres.

4-star rating
• Organic Valley
• Great Eastern Sun
• Fresh Tofu
• Wildwood
• Tofu Shop

3-star rating
• Harris Teeter

2-star rating
• Trader Joe’s – refused to disclose sourcing information

1-star rating
• Pacific Natural Foods – Buys soybeans from China and refused to disclose the name of the organic certifier in China. Refused to respond to questions about the certification of their “organic” soybeans. Cornucopia wonders whether Pacific Natural Foods is engaged in “a marketing gimmick” when it claims its products are “Certified to the Source.” (Certified by who?)

• Vitasoy USA – Buys soybeans from China.

• Westsoy / SoyDream (both owned by Hain Celestial Group) – Refused to share sourcing information.

• Silk (Dean Foods) – Refused to participate. Says the report: Since Dean Foods acquired WhiteWave, its founder, Steve Demos, has left the company, along with almost all of the pioneering management — those who believed in “green” values. According to Demos, the company is now all about “green, with the dead presidents on it.”

To read more of Mike’s opinion and information, click the link below. Personally, I do not drink soy milk any longer though I do eat moderate amounts of quality tofu and and other LONG fermented soy products.

You can find more information on the dangers of over-consuming soy in previous posts here on this blog (see the entry Again: the Dangers of Soy posted Sept 16 2008).

http://www.naturalnews.com/026294.html

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

A Family’s Nightmare

April 23, 2009 · Leave a Comment

The following story comes from the very excellent blog Journal of Whole Food and Nutritional Health wholefoodusa.wordpress.co

It is truly terrifying to me that our civil liberties can be so easily shredded without so much as an explanation or chance to defend ourselves.

Now that spring is finally here we are, at last, heading up to the mountains this weekend where I will be able to “score” some fresh raw milk. Should I bring a lawyer???

And what the HELL is going on in Ohio these days anyway!?

April Update: SWAT Team Raid on Homeschool and Food/Health Ministry for Hungry Families

April 21, 2009 · 29 Comments

torn-flag

Is this image illegal, too? Or is it unpatriotic?

If a dozen or more terrorists held two women, 10 children, toddlers and a baby hostage for six hours, the event would be on television nationwide and on the front pages of newspapers the next day.

I suppose it would not mean so much to me if the victims were not my friends, as if they are my brothers and sisters. In fact, they are probably the most loving family I have met in many, many years. I cannot help but bring the story to the forefront again along with new details and nestling all the legal documents and video together in one place.

In this latest Update video, an investigative reporter interviews the victims and the sheriff’s office and includes video of their children and small farm.

It happened before Christmas 2008 at a food and health ministry for hungry families in Ohio. It was as if the family were bio-terrorists or something.

Three snipers with high-powered rifles were aimed at the home with ten children being homeschooled. Babies and toddlers were inside also. About twelve armed sheriff deputies along with agents from the Lorain County (Ohio) Health Department and the Ohio Department of Agriculture raided and ransacked the inside and held the family for six hours inside a room in their home outside Lagange, Ohio.

Food, computers and phones were seized from their private home along with 61 boxes of grass-fed beef and lamb were taken that was butchered, wrapped and labeled by a licensed and USDA inspected butcher shop and delivered the day before. According to the expired search warrant, deputies were to seize money and bank accounts. The storehouse of organic foods from a variety of suppliers as well as the personal food stock were taken as the terrified family watched.

Why? A dozen eggs had been sold after being coerced by an undercover agent. As anyone would say, “there is more to it than that”. Yes, there was more. The owners of the home, Jackie and John Stowers, and their Manna Storehouse, an organic food co-op inside, were alleged to have operated without having a retail food license.

But this event did not make the newspapers or television news much at all, leaving the public unaware to this day what occurred on December 1, 2008, not far from my house.

In homeschool, the children are being taught the 3Rs, as well as Greek and Hebrew. The two Stower teenagers raise the sheep and goats they care for and love so much. The authorities had apparently been tipped off as to their time to strike as the kids lambs were led to slaughter. This was so they could make the bust the day the packed meat was delivered to their home for distribution. Yes, the grinches stole Christmas-even the Christmas dinner, not for just the Stowers, but for many hungry families in the LaGrange area.

But where is the news media, the fair and balanced team?

Where is the Ohio health rule that states a private co-op who does not sell food but arranges for orders of food to be delivered at one location, is required to have a retail food license? There is none.

No charges have yet been filed against the Stowers and The Manna Storehouse. So, where is the beef? Has it been eaten? Or is it rotting in a leased storage facility?

flag-raise

Substitute Photo

Is this how the Lorraine County Sheriff protects and serves? Is this how the Ohio Department of Agriculture promotes sustainable, organic agriculture and small, family farms? And is this how the Ohio Department of Health and their county counterparts promote and protects public health through their food safety program?

Just who are the terrorists?

It will be a Christmas never forgotten for the Stowers families and the 12 children, including those of Katie, the wife of Chad Stower. Chad is serving America in the Iraqi War as a Navy SeaBee.

The official motto of the Seabees is “Construimus, Batuimus” – translated into English as “We Build, We Fight.” The Seabees have several unofficial mottos as well. Their best known unofficial motto is the simple phrase “Can Do!”

What will you do?

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

Agave nectar: the new “health” fraud

April 22, 2009 · 1 Comment

agave-left1

Here’s another great reminder to KNOW WHAT YOU ARE REALLY EATING FOLKS! Man it’s getting harder every day!

The following is from my good friend in nutrition Kimberly Hartke and The Weston A. Price Foundation:

AGAVE WORSE THAN SUGAR, NUTRITION FOUNDATION WARNS

New Product Contains More Synthesized Fructose than High Fructose Corn Syrup

April 21, 2009, Washington, D.C. Agave “nectar,” a sweetener increasingly appearing in products aimed at health-conscious consumers, poses greater health hazards than high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), according to a recent article in Wise Traditions, the journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a leading voice for accurate nutrition information. Although agave “nectar” is promoted as a healthy alternative to sugar, its high fructose content has nutrition experts raising the caution flag. According to the article, agave contains more free synthetic fructose than high fructose corn syrup, which experts now link to obesity and other health problems.

READ FULL TEXT HERE:

www.http://hartkeisonline.com/

→ 1 CommentCategories: Uncategorized

Ingredient Names: What’s really IN that?

April 21, 2009 · 4 Comments

Here is yet another reason to read labels carefully, learn what names really mean, and do as much fresh, home-cooking as reasonably possible.
MSG: Is This Silent Killer Lurking in Your Kitchen Cabinets?

MSG, additive, processed foodby Dr. Mercola

A widespread and silent killer that’s worse for your health than alcohol, nicotine and many drugs is likely lurking in your kitchen cabinets right now.[1] “It” is monosodium glutamate (MSG), a flavor enhancer that’s known widely as an addition to Chinese food, but that’s actually added to thousands of the foods you and your family regularly eat, especially if you are like most Americans and eat the majority of your food as processed foods or in restaurants.

MSG is one of the worst  food additives on the market and is used in canned soups, crackers, meats, salad dressings, frozen dinners and  much more. It’s found in your local supermarket and restaurants, in your child’s school cafeteria and, amazingly, even in baby food and infant formula.

MSG is more than just a seasoning like salt and pepper, it actually enhances the flavor of foods, making processed meats and frozen dinners taste fresher and smell better, salad dressings more tasty, and canned foods less tinny.

While MSG’s benefits to the food industry are quite clear, this food additive could be slowly and silently doing major damage to your health.

What Exactly is MSG?

You may remember when the MSG powder called “Accent” first hit the U.S. market. Well, it was many decades prior to this, in 1908, that monosodium glutamate was invented. The inventor was Kikunae Ikeda, a Japanese man who identified the natural flavor enhancing substance of seaweed.

Taking a hint from this substance, they were able to create the man-made additive MSG, and he and a partner went on to form Ajinomoto, which is now the world’s largest producer of MSG (and interestingly also a drug manufacturer).[2]

Chemically speaking, MSG is approximately 78 percent free glutamic acid, 21 percent sodium, and up to 1 percent contaminants.[3]

It’s a misconception that MSG is a flavor or “meat tenderizer.” In reality, MSG has very little taste at all, yet when you eat MSG, you think the food you’re eating has more protein and tastes better. It does this by tricking your tongue, using a little-known fifth basic taste: umami.

Umami is the taste of glutamate, which is a savory flavor found in many Japanese foods, bacon and also in the toxic food additive MSG. It is because of umami that foods with MSG taste heartier, more robust and generally better to a lot of people than foods without it.

The ingredient didn’t become widespread in the United States until after World War II, when the U.S. military realized Japanese rations were much tastier than the U.S. versions because of MSG.

In 1959, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeled MSG as “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS), and it has remained that way ever since. Yet, it was a telling sign when just 10 years later a condition known as “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” entered the medical literature, describing the numerous side effects, from numbness to heart palpitations, that people experienced after eating MSG.

Today that syndrome is more appropriately called “MSG Symptom Complex,” which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) identifies as “short-term reactions” to MSG. More on those “reactions” to come.

Why MSG is so Dangerous

One of the best overviews of the very real dangers of MSG comes from Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board-certified neurosurgeon and author of “Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills.” In it he explains that MSG is an excitotoxin, which means it overexcites your cells to the point of damage or death, causing brain damage to varying degrees — and potentially even triggering or worsening learning disabilities, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease and more.

Part of the problem also is that free glutamic acid is the same neurotransmitter that your brain, nervous system, eyes, pancreas and other organs use to initiate certain processes in your body.[4] Even the FDA states:

“Studies have shown that the body uses glutamate, an amino acid, as a nerve impulse transmitter in the brain and that there are glutamate-responsive tissues in other parts of the body, as well.

Abnormal function of glutamate receptors has been linked with certain neurological diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease and Huntington’s chorea. Injections of glutamate in laboratory animals have resulted in damage to nerve cells in the brain.”[5]

Although the FDA continues to claim that consuming MSG in food does not cause these ill effects, many other experts say otherwise.

According to Dr. Blaylock, numerous glutamate receptors have been found both within your heart’s electrical conduction system and the heart muscle itself. This can be damaging to your heart, and may even explain the sudden deaths sometimes seen among young athletes.

He says:

“When an excess of food-borne excitotoxins, such as MSG, hydrolyzed protein soy protein isolate and concentrate, natural flavoring, sodium caseinate and aspartate from aspartame, are consumed, these glutamate receptors are over-stimulated, producing cardiac arrhythmias.

When magnesium stores are low, as we see in athletes, the glutamate receptors are so sensitive that even low levels of these excitotoxins can result in cardiac arrhythmias and death.”[6]

Many other adverse effects have also been linked to regular consumption of MSG, including:

  • Obesity
  • Eye damage
  • Headaches
  • Fatigue and disorientation
  • Depression

Further, even the FDA admits that “short-term reactions” known as MSG Symptom Complex can occur in certain groups of people, namely those who have eaten “large doses” of MSG or those who have asthma.[7]

According to the FDA, MSG Symptom Complex can involve symptoms such as:

  • Numbness
  • Burning sensation
  • Tingling
  • Facial pressure or tightness
  • Chest pain or difficulty breathing
  • Headache
  • Nausea
  • Rapid heartbeat
  • Drowsiness
  • Weakness

No one knows for sure just how many people may be “sensitive” to MSG, but studies from the 1970s suggested that 25 percent to 30 percent of the U.S. population was intolerant of MSG — at levels then found in food. Since the use of MSG has expanded dramatically since that time, it’s been estimated that up to 40 percent of the population may be impacted.[8]

How to Determine if MSG is in Your Food

Food manufacturers are not stupid, and they’ve caught on to the fact that people like you want to avoid eating this nasty food additive. As a result, do you think they responded by removing MSG from their products? Well, a few may have, but most of them just tried to “clean” their labels. In other words, they tried to hide the fact that MSG is an ingredient.

How do they do this? By using names that you would never associate with MSG.

You see, it’s required by the FDA that food manufacturers list the ingredient “monosodium glutamate” on food labels, but they do not have to label ingredients that contain free glutamic acid, even though it’s the main component of MSG.

There are over 40 labeled ingredients that contain glutamic acid,[9] but you’d never know it just from their names alone. Further, in some foods glutamic acid is formed during processing and, again, food labels give you no way of knowing for sure.

Tips for Keeping MSG Out of Your Diet

In general, if a food is processed you can assume it contains MSG (or one of its pseudo-ingredients). So if you stick to a whole, fresh foods diet, you can pretty much guarantee that you’ll avoid this toxin.

The other place where you’ll need to watch out for MSG is in restaurants. You can ask your server which menu items are MSG-free, and request that no MSG be added to your meal, but of course the only place where you can be entirely sure of what’s added to your food is in your own kitchen.

To be on the safe side, you should also know what ingredients to watch out for on packaged foods. Here is a list of ingredients that ALWAYS contain MSG:

Autolyzed Yeast Calcium Caseinate Gelatin
Glutamate Glutamic Acid Hydrolyzed Protein
Monopotassium Glutamate Monosodium Glutamate Sodium Caseinate
Textured Protein Yeast Extract Yeast Food
Yeast Nutrient

These ingredients OFTEN contain MSG or create MSG during processing:[10]

Flavors and Flavorings Seasonings Natural Flavors and Flavorings Natural Pork Flavoring Natural Beef Flavoring
Natural Chicken Flavoring Soy Sauce Soy Protein Isolate Soy Protein Bouillon
Stock Broth Malt Extract Malt Flavoring Barley Malt
Whey Protein Carrageenan Maltodextrin Pectin Enzymes
Protease Corn Starch Citric Acid Powdered Milk Anything Protein Fortified
Anything Enzyme Modified Anything Ultra-Pasteurized

So if you do eat processed foods, please remember to be on the lookout for these many hidden names for MSG.

Choosing to be MSG-Free

Making a decision to avoid MSG in your diet as much as possible is a wise choice for nearly everyone. Admittedly, it does take a bit more planning and time in the kitchen to prepare food at home, using fresh, locally grown ingredients. But knowing that your food is pure and free of toxic additives like MSG will make it well worth it.

Plus, choosing whole foods will ultimately give you better flavor and more health value than any MSG-laden processed food you could buy at your supermarket.


[1] Mercola.com “The Shocking Dangers of MSG You Don’t Know,” video Part 1

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/28/dangers-of-msg.aspx?aid=CD12

[2] Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Samuels, Jack “MSG Dangers and Deceptions”

http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/MSG.htm

[3] Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Samuels, Jack “MSG Dangers and Deceptions”

http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/MSG.htm

[4] MSGTruth.org “What Exactly is MSG?”

http://www.msgtruth.org/whatisit.htm

[5] U.S. Food and Drug Administration “FDA and Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)” August 31, 1995

http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/msg.html

[6] eMediaWire “Athlete Alert: Renowned Neurosurgeon Identifies Aspartame & MSG in Sudden Cardiac Death” April 15, 2005

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/4/emw225071.htm

[7] FDA Consumer Magazine “MSG: A Common Flavor Enhancer” January-February 2003

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/103_msg.html

[8] TruthinLabeling.org “This is What the Data Say About Monosodium Glutamate Toxicity and Human Adverse Reactions”

http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Proof_AdverseReactions_AR.html

[9] Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Samuels, Jack “MSG Dangers and Deceptions”

http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/MSG.htm

[10] Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Samuels, Jack “MSG Dangers and Deceptions”

http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/MSG.htm

→ 4 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

More bad news about plastic containers?

April 17, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Sorry to start the weekend with such a flurry of bad news. Try to be safe out there and have a good one anyway!


New research analyzing mineral water held in bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) raises questions about whether contaminants might leach from PET into the water where they mimic estrogen’s effects. In the study reported online in Environmental Science and Pollution Research on March 10 (DOI 10.1007/s11356-009-0107-7), ecotoxicologists Martin Wagner and Jrg Oehlmann of Johann Wolfgang Goethe University (Germany) report evidence of the bottles’ estrogenicity from multiple tests, but they have yet to pinpoint the exact source.

Billions of bottles and food containers made of PET are sold every year. The plastic is considered safer than others that contain endocrine-disrupting compounds, such as polyvinyl chloridewhich is made with phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA)and polycarbonate, which has been shown to release BPA into liquids at high temperatures.

For the new study, Wagner and Oehlmann used both a yeast-based assay and a reproduction test with the New Zealand mud snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum to tease out whether traces of chemicals in PET or other compounds mimic estrogen’s activity. The researchers tested 20 brands of mineral water sold in either glass or plastic bottles or both.

The yeast-based assay of different samples of mineral water showed that more than half the brands of water had “significantly elevated estrogenic activity,” the researchers note. On average, the effects seen were similar to those elicited by a dose of about 18 nanograms per liter of 17β-estradiol (a natural estrogen). For all but one brand, mineral water stored in plastic bottles had higher estrogenicity than the same water stored in glass bottles. And multiuse PET bottlesmeant to be refilled several timesshowed lower estrogenicity than the bottles meant for one-time use.

The researchers also raised snails in both plastic and glass bottles for up to 56 days. The animals in plastic bottles were shown to have higher reproductive rates than average, and they created more than twice as many embryos as the snails housed in glass bottles.

The formulation and possible chemical content of PET vary. Past studies from William Shotyk of the University of Heidelberg (Germany) and his colleagues (e.g., DOI 10.1021/es061511+) have documented that antimony leaches from plastic water bottles in different amounts according to temperature, length of time on the shelf, and other storage conditions. Antimony or other heavy metals could be acting as an endocrine-disrupting compound in plastics, but such effects are not proven.

The new study has generated some disagreement. PET has long been approved for food container use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In response to the new research, industry trade groups (such as the PET Resin Association in North America) reaffirm that past studies have shown no endocrine-disruption effects from PET in standard lab animal tests. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, known as BfR, released a statement on March 18 calling the results inconclusive. The BfR statement noted that nonylphenols in bottle lids, for example, might be contaminating the waters tested. The agency called for further research.

But Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri Columbia, who advised the researchers on the new experiments, believes that the new findings add PET to the list of plastics that expose humans and the environment to harmful contaminants. “If these snails are showing a response that is clearly an estrogen response” to endocrine disrupters in the plastic or the water, says vom Saal, “then there’s enough estrogenicity in these containers that they can stimulate abnormal reproductive behavior in an animal.” The snails are a “canary in the coal mine,” he says, and “as far as we know, not as sensitive to these hormones as a human cell.” The study also clearly shows high estrogenic activity coming from some but not all ethylene-based plastic bottles, adds vom Saal.

“We are now trying to figure out which compounds are hiding behind this estrogenic activity,” which will be a “hard task,” Wagner says. “We can’t expect that there’s one chemical present at high concentrations that’s causing this activity. It may be more realistic to expect the presence of 5 or 10 estrogenic compounds” acting in concert. Also, estrogenicity of compounds such as phthalates or BPA occurs at such low concentrations that detecting the chemicals’ presence at active doses is difficult.

“It’s a work in progress,” Wagner adds. “You can’t conclude [from the current results] that it’s dangerous to drink mineral water, but it’s clear that we are exposed to [many] more endocrine disrupters than we currently think.”

Snails growing in plastic water bottles made of PET had higher reproductive rates than those raised in glass bottles.

MARTIN WAGNER
Naomi Lubick
Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/es900885t
Publication Date (Web): April 8, 2009
Copyright © 2009 American Chemical Society

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

Carcinogens STILL allowed in Baby Baths

April 17, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Unlabeled toxics in children’s bath products toxic-tub

The U.S. does not require product labels to alert consumers to the presence of formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane in personal-care products.

Kellyn Betts
Publication Date (Web): April 8, 2009

Dozens of children’s bath products are contaminated with formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, both considered probable human carcinogens by the U.S. EPA, according to a study published by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. No More Toxic Tub documents that more than 60% of 48 popular products tested, including Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and Sesame Street Bubble Bath, contained one or both of the toxic chemicals.

READ MORE HERE:

http://pubs.acs.org/action/showStoryContent?doi=10.1021/on.2009.04.07.346168

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized