CSC announces boycott against J&J for continuing to needlessly add cancer-causing chemicals to baby shampoos

(NaturalNews) A new report put together by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) reveals that, despite numerous petitions from consumers and consumer advocacy groups, Johnson and Johnson (J&J) continues to produce baby shampoos that contain two known cancer-causing chemicals. And perhaps the worst part about the whole thing is that J&J has reformulated these products for some countries, but continues to use the toxic versions in North America. Entitled Baby’s Tub is Still Toxic , the CSC report explains that J&J’s Baby Shampoo, Oatmeal Baby Wash, Moisture Care Baby Wash, and Aveeno Baby Soothing Relief Creamy Wash all contain 1,4-dioxane, a petrochemical byproduct of the ethoxylation process that lessens the severity of other chemical ingredients, but can also lead to cancer. J&J’s Baby Shampoo also still contains quaternium-15, a harmful preservative added to products to kill bacteria. In the process, though, it releases formaldehyde, a highly poisonous ingredient also used in rat poison. Formaldehyde can cause permanent lung damage, gastrointestinal corrosion, skin burns, and cancer. What is particularly disturbing, though, is the fact that J&J does not need to even be using these chemicals in its baby products. It already makes versions of these same products that are free of these chemicals for Denmark, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and the UK. It is only those baby products made for the US, Australia, Canada, China, and Indonesia that still contain them. “Clearly there is no need for Johnson and Johnson to expose babies to a known carcinogen when the company is already making safer alternatives,” says Lisa Archer, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at the Breast Cancer Fund. “All babies deserve safer products.” J&J responded in a statement by saying that it will eventually phase out these deadly chemicals. But it has yet to reveal whether or not it will do so by the November 15 deadline that CSC is petitioning it to do. “Natural” versions of J&J’s baby shampoo products, which are free of these and other harmful chemicals, are already available in the US and other markets. But they typically cost twice as much as J&J’s conventional varieties, which discourages many consumers from making the switch. “While it is encouraging to see that Johnson and Johnson has made progress in formulating a safer ‘natural’ version of its iconic baby shampoo, now is the time for the company to rise to the occasion and make the safer products the world market is demanding for all its customers,” adds Archer. To read the full Baby’s Tub is Still Toxic report on the J&J double standard, visit: http://www.safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=887

Research shows apples prevent stroke

(NaturalNews) Strokes can occur at any age but three-quarters strike those over the age of 65. Many people are always on the hunt for the superfood that will protect them from degenerative diseases, and few are as scary as the aftermath of a stroke. If you survive, you are usually left with debilitating health consequences due to lack of oxygen to the brain, which can leave you mild health issues or requiring around the clock nursing care. Fruits and vegetables are staples of health and are sure to assist in prevention, but which are best for people specifically concerned with a pending stroke in terms of prevention? A recent study from researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands published in Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association indicates fruits with white flesh such as apples and pears can reduce the risk of stroke by 52%. Strokes are the third leading cause of death in the United states with over 143,579 people dying each year. Approximately 795,000 people suffer a stroke annually meaning 650,000 survive their stroke and are left to suffer the post-stroke health conditions for the remainder of their lives. These post-stroke health conditions include (in no specific order): difficulty moving one side of the body and trouble speaking, which cause many mini-symptoms in and of themselves such as difficulty swallowing, aphasia (slurred speech or inability to speak at all), hemiplegia (weakness on one side of the body), or difficulty with bowel and bladder control. Some conditions do resolve depending on the severity of the stroke but worst case scenarios for survivors include loss of cognitive functioning equal to Alzheimer’s, inability to walk or use appendages and never being able to speak again. All of these problems can be life altering if they are unable to return to normal post stroke. This study compared vegetables and fruits of different colors to determine which would be most beneficial in preventing a stroke. The fruits and vegetables were broken down in color into the following groups: -cabbages, lettuces and other dark green leafy vegetables -orange and yellow colors, most of which were citrus fruits -red and purple colors, most of which were red vegetables -white colors, apples and pears making up 55% of the whites The follow-up period was 10 years and the researches documented 233 strokes. They observed that strokes were not reduced in any significant manner by consumption of orange/yellow and red /purple fruits. However, vegetables and white fruits were found to lower the risk of developing stroke by 52%. A reduction of this size is significant considering the size of the study included 20,069 adults with an average age of 41 years old (none of whom had any cardiovascular disease when the study began). Many people base a lot of their fruit and vegetable purchase on the dark colors of leafy greens and fruits because of the knowledge that they contain more antioxidants, but it appears white fruits also play an important part of the puzzle in lowering the risk of strokes. By increasing your white fruit and vegetable consumption by 25 grams there was a 9% reduction in stroke risk. On average an apple weights 120 grams, meaning for every quarter apple you eat you average close to 10% less chance of having a stroke. These researchers indicated that further studies are needed to verify their work. If apples, pears and other fruits with white edible portions can reduce the risk of developing stroke by 52%, pass the apple pie please. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/234574.php http://www.strokecenter.org/patients/stats.htm http://www.medicinenet.com/stroke/article.htm About the author Duke Mansell is a personal trainer with a complementing life style of organic and natural living. A researcher of health and wellness, his client training emphasizes a whole foods approach to weight loss and fitness. He is a student of applied kinesiology, trained in muscle testing to address body issues from hormone disfunction to leaky gut. He is also completing a BA and Masters in acupuncture and medicinal herbs. Duke Mansell maintains a blog devoted to overall fitness and health at AlltheWayFitness.blogspot.com

Researchers find side effect-free natural way to slash stroke risk by half

(NaturalNews) It is common sense that eating a healthy diet should help prevent disease. But Big Pharma must surely have superior elixirs, pills, potions and shots when it comes to serious prevention of the big killer diseases like stroke, right? If the drug companies have a prescription drug, without any side effects, that can slash the risk of a stroke by 52 percent, please write and let NaturalNews know – because we can’t find it anywhere in the scientific literature. Instead, we’ve found a mountain of evidence from peer reviewed studies showing that natural substances in food can help prevent and heal a multitude of illness. And now there’s another dramatic finding that shows eating an abundance of certain foods can help protect against stroke — specifically the white flesh of foods like pears and apples. That’s the conclusion of research just published in Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association by Dutch scientists. Earlier studies have already shown a strong association between a high consumption of fruits and vegetables and a lower stroke risk, but this is the first research to investigate links between specific vegetable color groups and stroke. Why does color make a difference? Research has shown that the color of edible parts of veggies and fruits is a signal of the type of health building phytochemicals they contain (such as carotenoids and flavonoids). The Dutch research team studied the link between fruits and vegetable color group consumption in 20,069 adults with an average age of 41 for about 10 years and documented how many of these people had strokes during this period. Before the study began, the research subjects were free of cardiovascular disease. The study participants completed a 178-item food frequency questionnaire. It documented consumption of fruits and vegetables that were classified into four groups: green (including dark leafy vegetables, cabbages and lettuces), orange/yellow (mostly citrus fruits), red/purple (such as beets) and white (of which 55 percent were pears and apples). During the decade of follow-up, 233 strokes occurred. The research subjects with the lowest risk of stroke turned out to be those who had the highest intake of white fruits and vegetables, compared to people with a low intake. Over all, they had an average of a 52 percent reduced risk of stroke. “To prevent stroke, it may be useful to consume considerable amounts of white fruits and vegetables,” Linda M. Oude Griep, M.Sc., lead author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow in human nutrition at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, said in a press statement. “For example, eating one apple a day is an easy way to increase white fruits and vegetable intake.” Other white flesh fruits and vegetables that appear to lower stroke risk include bananas, cauliflower, chicory and cucumber. That doesn’t mean other fruits and vegetable color groups aren’t worth eating. Dr. Griep pointed out they may protect against other chronic diseases — such as heart disease and cancer. For more information: http://stroke.ahajournals.org/

World to be force-fed test tube meat after livestock failure

(NaturalNews) In vitro meat is one of the latest attempts from scientists and bio-engineers to create a substitute for traditional meat production. The technology for creating meats through meat cultures in vitro is far from perfected, but enthusiasm for the effort is plentiful. Support for cultured meat technology comes from a wide spectrum of interests as well. Many vegans are stepping forward in endorsement of the pseudo meats citing the cruelty of traditional animal meat production, the use of hormones, antibiotics and ultimately the slaughter of millions of animals yearly. Animal rights advocates have also stepped forward in support of this technology. In fact, PETA has gone so far as to offer a reward of a million dollars to any entity that can develop an in vitro meat product that can be cost effectively mass produced. The scientists and backers of this technology suggest that a burgeoning population makes developing in vitro meats a necessity for a litany of reasons. For instance, traditional animal husbandry requires vast tracts of land, and stores of water. Livestock also contributes to global warming. Pundits suggest that in vitro meat will be safer and healthier. Their reasoning includes the argument that cholesterol and fat can be regulated during production. In addition, because the product will be produced under strict quality control, food borne bacteria will be significantly reduced. How is in vitro meat produced? A simple explanation of in vitro meat includes: 1. Harvesting of cells from a healthy donor animal 2. Separation of cells from tissue – Primarily muscle cells and stem cells 3. Cultivating cells in a nutritious solution 4. Bulking newly formed tissue up 5. Mincing for meat product That sounds easy enough. What’s the problem? Apparently there are a few. For example, though there has been success in making in vitro meat strips suitable for mincing, the appearance and taste of the meat is less than appealing up to this point. The technology is far from economical at this stage for a variety of reasons. For instance, much of the current production of in vitro meat relies on using non animal based nutrients to grow the cells in. Animal products can’t be used in the process because the cells can’t digest animal derived nutrients themselves. Instead solutions must contain nutrients from other sources such as plant and microorganisms. This result in a slower process, so mass production is not available at this point. Though in vitro meat production doesn’t require the use of genetically modified organisms, the idea of using enhanced meat is being discussed as a means to speeding up the production process. In addition, the use of growth hormone has also been considered by some researchers. Engineered meat may help meet the high demand world wide as traditional ranching and farming flounders under the demand, but there are unanswered questions with the use of these products. For instance, how will in vitro meat stack up nutritionally to natural beef? Will in vitro meats be affordable especially to people in third world countries or to poor people in developed nations? Will GMOs and growth hormones be necessary for the production of this food, and who will have control over this new technology? Meat consumption may not necessarily be essential to survival, but animal products remain one of the most efficient ways of acquiring certain nutrients such as B12, and iron. This is especially important for areas with limited agricultural opportunities and for cultures that rely heavily on animal products for sustenance. In vitro meats are also a concern for people who are concerned about turning over control of the world s food supply to a handful of agribusinesses. For specialized food production such as in vitro products may be cost prohibitive, and traditional family owned agribusinesses will likely go bankrupt. The world has an enormous appetite for animal products and that combined with a population explosion means that we will have to look for solutions that are affordable, safe and nutritious. If we are unable to do so, control of the world’s food supplies will slip away from individuals, families, regions, and even independent nations and fall into the hands of large agribusinesses and corporations. Even more disturbing will be having no control whatsoever in what goes in to the foods we eat. Furthermore relinquishing control over what foods we eat and how it is produced sets a dangerous president as well. For instance, will we be penalized if we choose to raise our own foods, or buy natural or organic foods produced by small companies? Will the in vitro meat industry be required to label their foods for any genetic modifications they deem necessary? Science has made huge contributions to food production and feeding the population. However, science shouldn’t rule the world; rather it should enhance and support the population and their will. Here is a quote from the web page of The Centre for Society and Genomics, a think tank heavily invested in in vitro meat based in the Netherlands, for your consideration: “Genomics can lead to better quality foodstuffs. What’s more, genomics research can contribute towards a personalized diet, leading to a healthier lifestyle. But are these promises not too rash, considering the complex relationship between food and health? And what if the knowledge and opportunities are available, but consumers refuse to follow the lifestyle that is good for them, should they then be held personally responsible for the consequences?” (8) Sources and further reading 1. http://www.futurefood.org Accessed online 6/29/11 2. http://www.invitromeat.org Accessed online 6/30/11 3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008347/Test-tube-burger-coming-soon- Lab-grown-meat-needed-feed-world.html Accessed online 6/29/11 4. http://www.new-harvest.org/faq.htm Accessed online 6/30/11 5. http://www.new-harvest.org/research.htm 6. http://www.society-genomics.nl/en/projects/nutrition.html 7. http://www.new-harvest.org/img/files/datar_and_betti.pdf 8. http://www.society-genomics.nl/en/projects/nutrition.html Accessed 6/29/11

Artificial ‘nano-food’ could soon show up at a store near you

(NaturalNews) The scientific community has once again caught food-tampering fever. Recent reports indicate that food scientists are busy developing nanoparticle-modified (NM) food that could one day end up on your dinner plate — and you may never even know about it. By shifting around nanoparticles, food scientists say that fat-free foods can taste like full-fat foods, and they can be programmed to digest more slowly–two changes that some say may help reverse the obesity epidemic. But most of this research is going on in secret because of fears over how the public will respond. Like genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), nano-modifying food involves literally changing its molecular properties, which has never been proven safe. So naturally, consumers are likely to reject NM food if given the choice. “These particles could be hazardous and we need to know more about their effects both in the body and in the environment,” said Frans Kampers, coordinator of research on food nanotechnology at Wageningen and Research Center in the Netherlands. “Since these particles are very small, they can…enter cells or even the nucleus of a cell if they have the right characteristics.” The stated goal of nanotechnology research in food is to create foods that behave differently than real ones in terms of digestion, assimilation, taste and nutritional value. By altering the “nano-structure” of food, so to speak, NM food can be programmed to make people feel fuller faster, for instance. And nutrients in food can also be nano-encapsulated to release at timed intervals to specific parts of the body. Even though NM food has yet to see the light day, the European Union (EU) is already taking proactive steps to make sure that, if it does make it to consumers, NM food will at least be regulated and labeled. Thus, the EU has developed a research project called NanoLyse to address the “very limited knowledge [that is] available on the potential impact of engineered nanoparticles on consumers’ health.” Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68E24W20100915

Does wi-fi radiation cause tree deformities, or is the fear overblown?

(NaturalNews) New research conducted at Wageningen University in the Netherlands concludes that wi-fi signals might damage nearby trees, causing them to develop severe abnormalities in their bark and leaves. In the Netherlands, about 70 percent of trees in urban areas already show such symptoms, although trees in the wild have no such symptoms. These deformities could not be attributed to viral, bacterial or fungal infections. The study was paid for by the city of Alphen aan den Rijn which was trying to determine what was causing its trees to suffer deformities. The study exposed 20 ash trees to varying frequencies of electromagnetic radiation over a three-month test period. The trees located nearest the wi-fi radio, researchers found, showed a “metallic luster appearance . . . followed by desiccation and death of a portion of the leaf.” Government agency expresses doubt about study conclusions However, a statement from the Netherlands’ Antenna Agency (the government department there that handles electromagnetic broadcast authority, much like the FCC in the United States) has issued a statement denying any conclusive link between Wi-Fi and tree health. The statement reads (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.antennebureau.nl/actueel/nieuws/2010/eerste-indruk-kennisplatform-onderzoek-naar-bomen-en-wifi-zendsignalen&ei=V_nnTI-bNcH_lge208iqCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q7gEwAg&prev=/): The researcher from Wageningen University indicates that these are initial results and that has not been confirmed in a repeat survey. He warns strongly that there are no far-reaching conclusions can be drawn from its results. Based on the information now available cannot be concluded that the WiFi radio signals leads to damage to trees or other plants. It takes into account previously published studies showing no effect. The knowledge center awaits with interest the publication of the survey. It should also be noted that this study involved only 20 trees , which is a small sample size, and so far the study results have not been repeated. In fact, the tree health problems observed in the study could be due to something much simpler. For example, perhaps the trees closest to the wi-fi radio were also close to an air duct that was exhausting air contaminated with fungal spores. Until the study is repeated and expanded to a larger sample size, it’s simply not conclusive. Many people are “sensitive” to wi-fi signals Personally, I understand very well that people may be sensitive to wi-fi signals. I’m sensitive to mobile phone signals and get a headache if I talk on a mobile for more than a few minutes (which I try to avoid doing, of course). I’ve also spoken with people who told me they experience similar headaches around wi-fi signals. It seems entirely reasonable to be concerned about the health implications of wi-fi radios, especially given that there are now so many of them in urban environments. Hopefully, further study will be conducted on this topic so that we might all learn more.

You can change your fat destiny, turn off genetic predisposition to obesity

(NaturalNews) If you are overweight, it can be pretty discouraging to know you come from a fat family — your parents, siblings and even cousins and grandparents may mostly be overweight, too. It can make you think you are destined to be fat due to your ancestry. And in fact, for some people, there is a genetic predisposition to obesity. But there’s new hope you can conquer this inherited fat factor. Research headed by Dr. Ruth Loos from the Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit in Cambridge in the United Kingdom concluded that the genetic predisposition to obesity can be reduced by an average of almost half — not through drugs or starvation, but by simply increasing regular physical activity. The study, which was just published in PLoS Medicine , used data on 20,430 people living in Norwich, UK, to investigate 12 different genetic variants which are known to increase the risk of being overweight. Dr. Loos and her research team tested how many of these variants each of the study participants had inherited from either their mother or father. Most of the research subjects had inherited between 10 and 13 variants, some had only 6 or less, but others had inherited more than 17 variants. Then, by computing the number of variants inherited into a genetic predisposition score , the researchers assessed the research subjects’ overall genetic susceptibility to obesity. The scientists also documented the occupational and leisure time physical activities of each individual by using a validated self-administered questionnaire. Next, the research team investigated whether a higher genetic predisposition score was associated with a higher body mass index (BMI), which indicated obesity. They also looked to see if a physically active lifestyle could change the genetic influence on BMI and tendency to be overweight. The results showed that every additional genetic variant in the score was associated with a significant increase in BMI. The size of this effect was clearly more pronounced in the people who tended to be couch potatoes. Overall, the odds for obesity plunged dramatically — by 40 percent — in people who were physically active, despite their having a high risk for being overweight due to their “fat genes”. In a statement to the media, the scientists said their findings challenge the idea a genetic predisposition means people are destined to be fat. “Our findings further emphasize the importance of physical activity in the prevention of obesity,” they concluded. In other breaking obesity research from Europe, Anja Rosenow, Ph.D., and colleagues at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, have come up with new evidence that shows how extra weight may damage health. The scientists have found “spare tires” and lower belly pooches are not just storage sites for surplus calories — instead, this fat tissue acts as an active organ that sends chemical signals to other parts of the body. These chemical messengers could increase the risk of heart attacks, cancer, and other diseases. The Maastricht researchers reported discovering 20 new hormones and other substances not previously known that are secreted into the blood by human fat cells. The study was just published in the Journal of Proteome Research . For more information: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000332 http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/pr100621g

Mainstream media now citing ridiculous junk science to discredit omega-3s

(NaturalNews) A study out of the Netherlands has put the mainstream media in a mindless tizzy about the health effects of omega-3 fatty acids. Because a group of people fed four teaspoons of omega-3-enriched margarine a day for more than three years did not experience a reduction in heart events, many media outlets are foolishly reporting that omega-3s are not as beneficial as commonly believed. Margarine, as many people now know, is a synthetic, hydrogenated food product that is actually not a food at all. It is a product composed of synthetic trans-fatty acids that are highly toxic and harmful to health. Margarine is exactly the type of substance that causes heart attacks and cardiovascular illness, making it ridiculous to include as part of a health study. “[T]rans-fatty acids not only increase the likelihood of a variety of metabolic disorders including arthritis and cancer, but also contribute to heart disease,” explains Paul Pitchford in his book Healing with Whole Foods: Asian Traditions and Modern Nutrition . “In the United States, 95 percent of trans-fatty acid ingestion is from eating margarine and shortening.” So just because a toxic food product is enhanced with low levels of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids does not mean that it will help people to avoid a heart attack. But it is precisely this flawed methodology that the media has preyed upon in an effort to debunk the true health-promoting benefits from omega-3s. Ironically, a study conducted several years ago found that women who consume four or more teaspoons of margarine a day are 66 percent more likely to develop cardiovascular disease than women who consume less than one teaspoon a month. In other words, margarine is directly responsible for causing heart disease. But these facts have not stopped the media from initiating what appears to be a misinformation campaign designed to deceive the public into thinking that omega-3s are not all that great. Do not be fooled. Foods and oils naturally rich in omega-3 fatty acids, and balanced in terms of omega-6 fatty acids, will do wonders to promote health and prevent disease. These include foods like hemp and flax oils, wild fish and chia seeds. Sources for this story include: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014603,00.html http://www.naturalpedia.com/C/Cardiovascular_Disease-Study.html http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=84

Vitamin D is a prognostic marker in heart failure, study finds

Survival rates in heart failure patients with reduced levels of vitamin D are lower than in patients with normal levels. This is the finding of a major study carried out in the Netherlands.

Sunbathing boosts men’s testosterone (thanks to vitamin D)

(NaturalNews) By increasing circulating levels of vitamin D, sunbathing may help increase men’s testosterone levels and thereby their sex drive, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Medical University of Graz, Austria, and published in the journal Clinical Endocrinology . “Men who ensure that their body is at least sufficiently supplied with vitamin D are doing good for their testosterone levels and their libido among other things,” said Ad Brand of the Netherlands-based Sunlight Research Forum. Researchers tested vitamin D and testosterone levels of 2,299 men over the course of several months. They found that like vitamin D levels, testosterone levels peaked in the summer and dropped during the winter. They also found that men who had at least 30 nanograms of vitamin D in every milliliter of blood had the highest levels of circulating testosterone. Vitamin D is produced by the body upon exposure to sunlight. Scientists recommend that light-skinned people get at least 15 minutes of direct sun per day on their face and hands, while darker skinned people may need up to three times as much. The body can synthesize all the vitamin D it needs in a fraction of the time it takes to sunburn. “Enjoying the sun safely while taking care not to burn should help people strike a balance between making enough vitamin D and avoiding a higher risk of skin cancer,” said Jessica Harris of Cancer Research UK. Sunscreen blocks the ultraviolet radiation necessary for the body to synthesize vitamin D. As people spend less time in the sun, vitamin D deficiency has become an issue of growing concern, especially in regions far from the Equator where the sun is weaker. Vitamin D is now known to not only help the body develop and maintain a healthy skeleton, but also to help regulate the immune system and prevent against chronic health conditions such as heart disease, dementia and cancer. Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8493042.stm.

Next Page »