Environmental Health Risks | Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health

Which Chemicals in Your Home Are Toxic? EPA Doesn’t Know!

Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:14:40 +0000

In a rare showing of bipartisanship, the Senate hopes to repair a hopelessly broken system. Action Alert!

Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), who died this week at the age of 89, and David Vitter (R-LA) recently introduced legislation to address toxic chemicals in household and manufacturing products. S 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), will try to plug the holes in the thirty-seven year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), one of the few pieces of legislation that has never been amended.

While this new bill is a big step in the right direction, we have some concerns that we request Congress address.

Chemicals are used to produce 96% of manufactured consumer goods. Many of them are toxic. In 1976 Congress passed the TSCA to regulate the introduction of new or already existing chemicals. However, the TSCA does not separate chemicals into categories of toxic and non-toxic—it simply prohibits the manufacture or importation of chemicals that are not on the TSCA Inventory.

Under the TSCA the government must, for the most part, prove that a chemical is unsafe before it can be removed from market, instead of requiring manufacturers to prove that their chemicals are safe in the first place. In fact, manufacturers often do not provide data to the EPA regarding toxicity, so it’s hard for EPA to have information on the safety of the chemical or show “unreasonable risk.” EPA has been able to require the testing of about 200 chemicals, and has taken action against only five chemicals or chemical classes, even though there are now roughly 85,000 chemicals on the market.

In other words, the current law is broken. Because these chemicals are mostly new to nature, one cannot assume they are safe for humans or the environment without studies.

This new bill will require safety evaluations on all existing chemicals, which will be labeled either high or low priority in terms of risk to human health. For high-risk chemicals, EPA must conduct further evaluations. If a chemical is determined to be unsafe, EPA is then empowered to take action—from a labeling requirement to a phase-out of the chemical to an outright ban.

However, the bill does not create mandatory deadlines for completing safety assessments and determinations. While the justification is that the review periods for different chemicals vary, and the EPA is more likely to abide by their own established deadlines, in reality it is far too easy for the government to needlessly drag out the review of chemicals.

Under the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, new chemicals entering the market must undergo a safety assessment, and EPA will have the authority to prohibit unsafe chemicals from being sold. Unfortunately, the bill does not (though it should) require determination of the aggregate and cumulative exposure to chemicals—something earlier TSCA reform bills did consider. Aggregate exposure looks at one’s exposure to a chemical from different sources and different routes, and cumulative looks at simultaneous exposure to different chemicals that affect the body through same modes of action.

The agency will also be empowered to get the necessary health and safety information from chemical manufacturers, while at the same time balancing manufacturers’ needs for proprietary information. Under the bill, EPA will take special care to properly evaluate the risk to vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women.

The bill also allows EPA to exempt chemicals from risk management under certain circumstances (e.g., national security, economic disruption). But the EPA does not have any burden of proof to justify their exemption. We would ask that the bill require EPA to show “clear and convincing evidence” that the chemical falls under an exemption.

If the federal government makes a law and there is already a state law on the books on the same issue, the federal law preempts the state law. With the TSCA, a state can petition the EPA for an exemption of TSCA’s preemptive effect so long as three conditions are met: the state requirement does not violate federal law; the state requirement provides a “significantly higher degree of protection from such risk than the requirement under federal law”; and interstate commerce is not unduly burdened.

Our greatest concern about CSIA, the new bill, is that the preemption language is more inclusive and carries a broader standard. Under CSIA, no state may require additional information on a chemical or additional development of test data when companies have to submit similar information to the EPA. Moreover, states cannot create new restrictions or even enforce existing restrictions on the manufacture, processing, distribution, or use of a chemical after EPA completes its safety determination for the chemical. Arguably, this could even limit a state’s ability to require chemical warning labels on product labels—companies could argue that this is part of “distribution.” A state can request a waiver from these limitations if the state law does not burden interstate commerce, and there are compelling state or local conditions, and the requirement is supported by “the best available science and is supported by the weight of the evidence.” This is an extraordinarily difficult bar to meet.

Instead, the new preemption language should be struck from the bill so it reverts to the preemption language under current law.

Besides its strong bipartisan support, the bill is enjoying the unique position of having the support of both industry trade associations and a number of public advocacy organizations. That’s a good thing—we like the bill in general, but we hope our concerns about the bill will be addressed.

Toxic chemicals can be found in a tremendous number of everyday products from BPA in food containers to flame retardants on our furniture, which can spread to the dust on the floor that children can ingest when playing. Flame retardant chemicals have been linked to lower IQ and the development of diabetes. Toxic chemicals can cause a number of health problems, and exposure to chemicals in the womb can have long-lasting affects on the child’s life. This bill will go a long way toward getting rid of, or at least identifying, the toxic chemicals that citizens may be encountering on a daily basis.

Action Alert! Write to your senators and ask them to support the Lautenberg bill with amendments that address our serious concerns. Tell them that you work hard to keep your family safe from dangerous chemicals, but this bill is desperately needed to help ban the truly toxic ones. Please contact your senators immediately!

The post Which Chemicals in Your Home Are Toxic? EPA Doesn’t Know! first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

FDA Turns South Floridians into Human Guinea Pigs

Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:00:47 +0000

Untested, bio-engineered mosquitoes will likely be released in the Florida Keys.

The British firm Oxitec is in the process of seeking approval in the US for a mosquito that has been genetically engineered to combat dengue fever (an infectious, mosquito-borne tropical disease that causes fever, headache, muscle and joint pains, and a skin rash similar to measles). The company wants to release the mosquitoes for testing in the Florida Keys, and has opened an Investigational New Drug (IND) application with the FDA.
The Florida Keys Mosquito District had earlier said that a release of mosquitoes “will only take place once all necessary regulatory and ethical approvals have been obtained from regulatory agencies at both federal and state level, based on the results of independent, rigorous, scientific review”—and that the proposal is now “on indefinite hold.” To the contrary, permits for testing in Florida Keys, and eventual approval of GE mosquitoes, could be in our immediate future—now that Oxitec has an IND with the industry-friendly FDA.
According to our sources, the USDA issued a permit on June 4 for “GE yellow fever mosquitoes” for import to Florida. We have received word that the USDA is planning to study Oxitec’s mosquitoes (in containers) to see how well they mate with native Key West mosquitoes.
Note that GE mosquitoes haven’t been proven safe, either for the environment or for the human population. It hasn’t even been proven that they can effectively reduce spread of dengue fever! The people of Florida Keys will be guinea pigs in this experiment, but who knows how far these mosquitoes might spread—or with what consequences?

For more natural health news,
follow us on Facebook and Twitter

The post FDA Turns South Floridians into Human Guinea Pigs first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Agent Orange Soy: Just Another Day at USDA

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:00:38 +0000

The poison can drift up to 100 miles, and may be in your water! Action Alert!

Remember our article from February about the strain of corn that has been genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide 2,4-D, one of the active ingredients in Agent Orange? Here’s the sequel: Dow AgroSciences has petitioned USDA for the deregulation of a new genetically engineered soybean seed that is resistant to the same infamous herbicide. Agent Orange, you may recall, was used in Vietnam as chemical warfare, and devastated a generation of both the Vietnamese and the American soldiers who used it.
The USDA has already released a plant pest assessment stating that “the DAS-68416-4 soybean is highly unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.” The agency’s draft environmental assessment stated that their “preferred alternative” was to deregulate. Even so, we need to file our protests now. This will also lay the groundwork for possible later court action.
Deregulation of this toxic new soybean seed would be a financial boon for Dow. About half of all US farmland is planted in corn and soy, and about 90 percent of soy and 70 percent of corn are from Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds—that is, they’ve been engineered to withstand Roundup, Monsanto’s herbicide. The problem, as we’ve noted before, is that “superweeds” are becoming resistant to Roundup. So Dow has genetically engineered a soybean that can withstand an even more toxic herbicide, 2,4-D, the Agent Orange ingredient. This gives Dow a chance to make a tidy profit and try to grab some of the market from Monsanto.
This poison has been shown to get into drinking water, and has a tendency to drift up to 100 miles on the breeze. It has been shown to cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma and to act as an endocrine disruptor. It is carcinogenic, a neurotoxin, causes liver and kidney damage, and produces birth defects. Nor is there any research on how 2,4-D and glyphosate affect human and wildlife health in combination.
Action Alert! USDA’s comment period for this new genetically engineered soy is now open. Please write the agency today and ask them not to deregulate this soybean and open the way for widespread use of this Agent Orange herbicide! Please take action today!

The post Agent Orange Soy: Just Another Day at USDA first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The Backlash against Backscatter

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:27:07 +0000

The airport x-ray machines are not safe. And for over a year, TSA has been defying a court order.

A few months ago we told you about the dangers of airport full-body scanners—that they emit low levels of ionizing radiation and can cause cancer. The x-rays skim the entire surface of your skin instead of being directed to a localized area of your body, which means that radiation levels could be 10 to 20 times higher than the manufacturer’s calculations. The cancer threat has the European Union so concerned that it has put a moratorium on the machines.
Some doctors opt out of the backscatter scan and instead go for a full-body pat-down, intrusive as it is (more on that later). Among them is Dr. Dong Kim, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ neurosurgeon and chair of the department of neurosurgery at the University of Texas Medical School. “There is really no absolutely safe dose of radiation,” he says. “Each exposure is additive, and there is no need to incur any extra radiation when there is an alternative.” Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, never goes through a scanner when he travels because he’s concerned about whether the machines are calibrated and inspected properly.
That’s a valid concern, since a report released this year from the Department of Homeland Security found inconsistencies in how the machines are calibrated to ensure radiation safety and image quality, and says that not all TSA screeners have completed required radiation safety training. Inspectors found that the TSA made more than 3,500 maintenance calls in the first year the scanners were deployed, meaning that, on average, each machine needed service more than once a month. Millions of people go through these machines—and ProPublica reports that up to 100 US passengers could get cancer from them every year.
There has been a public backlash against the backscatter machines—from citizens, from advocacy groups like ours, and from integrative health groups. ProPublica, Dr. Joseph A. Mercola, and Natural News have all run series of articles on the dangerous x-ray scanners.
Two years ago, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition with the DC appeals court to suspend the TSA’s full-body scanner program, arguing that the Department of Homeland Security had violated the Administrative Procedures Act by implementing body scanners without inviting public comment, as well as the Privacy Act and the Fourth Amendment.
Last year the court ordered the agency to “promptly” undertake a formal rulemaking process and open up a public “notice and comment” period to discuss and justify the need for these scanners. A year later, Homeland Security has still not done so, thumbing its nose at the court order! So this month EPIC and other organizations filed another lawsuit to end the delay.
Moreover, two different congressional committees have now determined that not only are the machines extremely expensive, they’re also ineffective! In May, members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee sharply criticized the TSA (the Transportation Security Administration) for spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a technology that they said had not been properly tested and is ineffective. And John L. Mica, chair of the House Transportation Committee, found that the machines’ ability to detect actual threats was so disappointing that he asked that no more be commissioned.
Both TSA’s own procurement specifications and a subsequent report by the Government Accountability Office indicate that the machines were never designed to detect powdered explosives. This is particularly ironic since the machines’ use was initially justified after the underwear bomber incident—and he used powdered explosives!
In January, senators on the the Homeland Security Committee introduced a bill that would require the TSA to post signs about the radiation exposure at the security checkpoints, and to hire an independent laboratory for a health study of the machines. A companion bill in the House was filed in February.
We would say they have this backwards—the health studies should have to be conducted before the machines are installed! The government is pushing this technology without conducting adequate safety testing, without properly evaluating its effectiveness, and without an open and transparent public review process.
Dr. David J Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, notes the complete lack of independent and clinical data on the machines. The studies that are cited come largely from either the government or the scanner’s manufacturer, and as we noted last November, TSA has also reneged on earlier promises it made to conduct an independent study.
So why not just opt out of the backscatter screening, the way the doctors do? First, it routinely takes an extra two minutes per person, assuming nothing unusual is found during the pat-down. Let’s say the average plane has 200 passengers. If even half of them were to opt-out of screening, it would take over three hours and twenty minutes just to get through the screening line.
Opting out also means subjecting yourself to an invasive pat-down procedure that appears designed to embarrass the traveler. There have been many pat-down incidents that are, quite frankly, outrageous, such as the bladder cancer survivor whose pat-down left him humiliated and urine-soaked when a TSA agent broke the seal on his urostomy bag. Or the breast cancer survivor who was forced to remove her prosthetic breast from her blouse and show it to a TSA agent. Or the three-year-old who was patted town, screaming hysterically, because she didn’t want her teddy bear to go through the scanner.
An ANH-USA staff member reports that it appeared TSA deliberately tried to detain her on a recent trip. First she was subjected to an invasive pat-down, and when they didn’t find anything of concern, they rubbed a cotton swab on their gloves and put it into a machine to see if it picked up any explosive device–related powders. It set off the alarm and three TSA agents came and took her into a back room for a more thorough screening, as if she were a terrorist.
Needless to say, no explosives were found!

The post The Backlash against Backscatter first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

FDA Tries to Wiggle Out of BPA Problem with Doublespeak and a Partial Ban

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:00:02 +0000

Even this limited action is taken only at industry request.

The US Food and Drug Administration has amended food additive rules to “no longer provide for the use” of BPA (bisphenol-A) in infant bottles and children’s sippy cups. BPA is a common ingredient in polycarbonate plastics and, as regular Pulse readers know, an endocrine-disrupting chemical that has been linked with serious health problems, including cancer, birth defects, and heart disease. China banned BPA in baby bottles last year; the European Union banned it two years ago, and Canada declared BPA to be a toxic substance.
What the FDA is doing is indirectly banning the substance in this one application, without having to say so explicitly or even take a strong position on the subject! Moreover, FDA is being careful not to make any statement on BPA’s safety. All of this came in response to a request from the American Chemistry Council, which is seeking to even the playing field of their producers’ market share.
What does this mean? We think this means that some producers are complaining about the cost of using substitute ingredients because of a consumer backlash against BPA, and no longer want their competitors to be able to use it.
We and others in the nonprofit world have been working on the BPA issue for years. It is not at all surprising that we actually got what we wanted, after numerous rejections from FDA—but only because industry eventually joined our side for profit reasons. Is there nothing FDA won’t do for them? Big Business says, “Jump!” and FDA asks, “How high?”
BPA is not a substance that is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). So several years ago, companies had to seek FDA approval to use BPA, and FDA put it on the official list of approved food additives. Now FDA has amended that list “to no longer provide for the use of polycarbonate (PC) resins in infant feeding bottles (baby bottles) and spill-proof cups, including their closures and lids, designed to help train babies and toddlers to drink from cups (sippy cups) because these uses have been abandoned” by industry, so baby bottles and cups using BPA-laced polycarbonate will be considered adulterated if they contain BPA.
Another factor behind the industry’s change of heart is the slew of state bills that have been introduced and passed banning the use of BPA. In fact, eleven states so far have banned BPA in children’s products.
Furthermore, if the ACC is petitioning for the removal of BPA, it is worrying to think about what they are using in its place—since, as we noted a few weeks ago, many products that now boast they’re “BPA-free” have simply switched to a BPA relative that may be equally toxic!
FDA’s ban on BPA in baby products is another blessing for the chemical industry: it mitigates the urgency of banning BPA in other products. Because the petition was based on an assertion of “abandonment,” FDA did not request comments on the safety of the use of polycarbonate (PC) resins, which use BPA in their manufacturing process: “Such safety information is not relevant to abandonment and, therefore, any comments addressing the safety of PC resins were not considered in the Agency’s evaluation of this petition.” How convenient! By sidestepping the issue of safety, FDA is protecting the chemical industry’s stake in using BPA in other applications—or liability for past use in baby products.
While we are pleased that infants will no longer be exposed to BPA in their bottles and cups, we would argue that this ban doesn’t go nearly far enough. FDA is not considering other things that children can put in their mouths, such as pacifiers, teethers, tableware, or items that may come in contact with breast milk, such as breast pumps, pumping supplies, or breast milk storage kits—not to mention children’s dental sealants, fillings, and dental devices.
BPA should banned in all products, though the government has been deaf to its citizens’ requests:

ANH-USA filed a petition with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban BPA in thermal cash register receipts, the principal means by which BPA appears to enter mothers’ bodies. Our petition was denied. We still have a request pending with OSHA.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a petition with FDA to have BPA banned from food and beverage containers (most tin cans are lined with BPA). After the request was left hanging in limbo for three years, NRDC filed a lawsuit to force a response. FDA finally ruled against the petition.
Even Rep. Ed Markey petitioned FDA to ban BPA, though FDA has yet to respond.

A recent study indicates that BPA may affect memory and alter brain structure in adults. Another study shows that BPA’s estrogenic effects can encourage insulin release, which promotes diabetes.
It is clear from what has just happened that the only way BPA will be removed from other products is for consumers to refuse to buy them. The FDA couldn’t care less.

The post FDA Tries to Wiggle Out of BPA Problem with Doublespeak and a Partial Ban first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Sugar Dumbs Us Down

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:00:47 +0000

But new evidence shows that omega-3s may reverse sugar’s brain damage.

Mainstream medicine is finally waking up to what the natural health community has known for quite a while. Sugar, particularly in the form of refined fructose, impairs one’s cognitive ability. So far the evidence is limited to rats. But it is very likely that the results apply to humans too.
In a recent UCLA study, rats spent five days learning how to navigate a new maze. Then they were kept away from the maze and divided into two groups and fed different diets: one rich in omega-3 fatty acids from flaxseeds and fish oil, and one deficient in omega-3s. In both groups, the rats’ drinking water was replaced with a syrup that was 15% fructose (most sodas are about 12% sugar). Six weeks later, the rats were put back into the maze to see how well they performed.
None of the rats were able to navigate the maze as quickly as they did six weeks earlier, though those on the high-omega-3 diet did significantly better than those in the other group.
The group fed fructose without omega-3s also had higher triglyceride levels, higher glucose levels, and higher insulin levels. In fact, they seemed to enter a state of insulin resistance. Their brains showed a decrease in brain energy metabolism and synaptic activity, which is important for learning and memory.
Insulin resistance, together with belly fat, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, low HDL, and high triglycerides, are precursors to Type 2 diabetes. Together these risk factors are known as metabolic syndrome.
The good news is that the UCLA study suggests that cutting out the sweet drinks and eating a diet rich in omega-3s may actually reverse the damage done by metabolic syndrome.
Besides improved memory function (making it vital for Alzheimer’s patients), omega-3s can also help prevent heart attacks, resolve depression, reduce pain, and even prevent prostate cancer.
Another recent study estimates that 68 million Americans had metabolic syndrome in 2006, up from 50 million in 1990—which the researchers primarily attributed to growing rates of abdominal obesity and high blood pressure. The most significant increases were in women between the ages of 20 and 39.
Of course, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is found in a lot of processed food; the average American consumes more than 60 pounds of it annually. The consumption of cane sugar and beet sugar, which also contain fructose, was only slightly lower.
There are many types of sweeteners besides fructose. And all of them have a direct impact on the way our body functions. As we noted in February, HFCS, fructose, sugar, aspartame, neotame, saccharine, and sucralose are all chemical sweeteners often added to processed foods at great risk to health with no benefits. There are a number of natural alternatives available, many of them rich with antioxidants and minerals, that health-conscious people should look into: raw organic honey, maple syrup, unsulfured raw sugarcane molasses, coconut palm sugar, and Lo Han Guo. But even these natural sweeteners should be used in moderation! Low-calorie alternatives include the South American herb stevia, inulin (a powder isolated from the Jerusalem artichoke), and sugar alcohols like erythritol (sugar alcohols should probably be used in moderation).
This UCLA study is extremely important. Mainstream medicine grudgingly acknowledges sugar’s negative effects on the body in general, but now has to admit there is probably a negative effect on the brain as well. The study also affirms the importance of omega-3 fatty acids to sustain one’s health.

The post Sugar Dumbs Us Down first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Is “BPA-Free” a Lie?

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:00:27 +0000

Close. Many products that now boast they’re “BPA-free” have simply switched to a BPA relative that may be equally toxic!

Regular readers will be aware of our campaign against BPA. Bisphenol-A is a dangerous, endocrine-disrupting chemical found in many polycarbonate plastics. It has been linked with serious health problems, including cancer, birth defects, and heart disease, but has been used in baby bottles, children’s dental sealants and fillings, and cash register receipts.
Some unscrupulous manufacturers, responding to the controversy, have switched BPA in their products with bisphenol-S (BPS), a BPA analogue in the same bisphenol chemical class—which may be every bit as toxic. This allows them to trumpet that their products are now “BPA-free,” and technically, they are: but they still contain bisphenol.
BPA has become a concern worldwide, and many countries have banned it in baby bottles and other applications. In the US, several states now prevent BPA from being used in children’s products, and consumers are demanding that their products no longer contain BPA—which is why substituting BPA with BPS seems like such a devious shell game to us.
Two studies published recently in the journal Environmental Science and Technology discuss how BPS is increasingly being substituted for BPA. BPS was found in thermal cash register receipts in the US, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam in similar concentrations to original BPA. BPS was also found in 87% of paper currency from 21 countries. And BPS was found in the same concentrations as BPA in individuals from eight countries.
The health effects of BPS have been studied less than with BPA, but a growing body of additional research indicates that BPS is an artificial estrogen just like BPA, with clear potential for carcinogenic effects and damage to reproductive health.
Many companies simply do not disclose the chemical used in their plastic. For example, the famous Nalgene water bottle is made with “co-polyester” plastic. While they claim to be “BPA-free,” they do not disclose what chemical they are using instead!
Bisphenols are part of a broad family of chemicals, each with different properties but all, it seems, potentially dangerous to humans. Bisphenol AF is used in electronic devices, optical fibers, etc., and studies show it to be an even more potent endocrine disrupter than BPA. Bisphenol B and F are also frequently substituted for BPA. Bisphenol B is potentially more potent than BPA in stimulating breast cancer cells.
However, most of the best research concerns BPA rather than its lesser-known siblings. New reports show that:

This chemical can encourage cells in the pancreas to secrete insulin inappropriately, supporting a link between type 2 diabetes and exposure to low doses of BPA.
Mothers who expose their fetuses to BPA risk having obese children because BPA can alter the development of stem cells, affecting both the DNA and the number of fat cells a person will have.
And BPA may impair memory, according to study in published in Behavioral Neuroscience. Adult rats exposed to a single dose of BPA had trouble recognizing objects or remembering their location only a few hours later.

This is all in addition to the risk to reproductive health outlined in the groundbreaking book Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? by Theo Colborn et al.
Despite the chemical’s demonstrative dangers, FDA has refused to ban BPA in food packaging, claiming that “there is not compelling scientific evidence to justify new restrictions” on the chemical. In the past, FDA has relied on industry studies in reaching its decisions.

The post Is “BPA-Free” a Lie? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Doctors Fighting Gag Rule in Pennsylvania

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:00:49 +0000

If you’ve been exposed to dangerous fracking chemicals, your doctor can find out what these chemicals are—but can’t tell you! Action Alert!

As we reported last year, fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a method of natural gas extraction employed in deep natural gas well drilling that can threaten water supplies. Once a well is drilled, millions of gallons of water, sand, and 596 different proprietary chemicals are injected under high pressure into the well shaft. The pressure fractures the shale and opens fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out.
The chemicals enter the water table and the air, causing severe pollution. As proponents of integrative medicine know, the body’s chemical burden, due in great measure to environmental pollutants, may trigger or worse many diseases—and some of the chemicals released during the fracking process are particularly toxic. They include:

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, which in low levels can cause drowsiness, dizziness, rapid heart rate, headaches, tremors, confusion, and unconsciousness, and in high concentrations can cause leukemia and death;
barium, which is found in underground ore deposits and can cause high blood pressure, breathing difficulties, muscle weakness, swelling of the brain, and kidney damage;
radium, a naturally occurring radioactive (and carcinogenic) substance; and
strontium, which is necessary in trace amounts for bone development, but in too large amounts can disrupt it and cause cancer.

Then there’s the question of what to do with the contaminated water. Standard procedure is to use disposal wells drilled deep into the earth; each well uses about 4.5 million gallons of chemical-laced water. Many experts believe that the use of these disposal wells is creating earthquakes—and data from Midwest shows that it is happening more often than originally thought. A US Geological Survey report found that the frequency of earthquakes started rising in 2001 across a broad swath of the country between Alabama and Montana. In 2009, there were 50 earthquakes greater than magnitude-3.0, then 87 quakes in 2010. The 134 earthquakes in the zone last year is a sixfold increase over 20th century levels.
So what if your physician believes you may be ill from fracking chemicals, but needs to know which ones to make sure your diagnosis and treatment are correct? A Pennsylvania law signed earlier this year allows physicians to access information about the proprietary chemicals being used (which are protected by trade secrets) so they can help their patients who are sick from the chemicals. But here’s the catch: they have to sign a confidentiality agreement that they won’t tell anyone else—not you their patients, and not even other doctors—what’s in those formulas. It’s being called the “doctor gag rule.”
The Pennsylvania gag rule is strikingly similar to a law in Colorado—which also influenced laws in Texas and Ohio. In Colorado there was near silence on the issue. The Texas Medical Association actually endorsed the doctor gag rule!
Happily, such quiet compliance at the expense of citizens’ health doesn’t have to be the norm in other states. A new bill has been introduced in Pennsylvania that would remove the gag rule. HB 2415 allows the health professional to disclose information on the chemicals to anyone she or he determines is necessary for the patient’s diagnosis or treatment—whether that be another health professional, the patient, or a public health official.
The Pennsylvania bill is currently in the state’s Environmental Resources and Energy Committee. If you are a Pennsylvania resident, contact your legislators immediately and voice your support for HB 2415. Restore your doctor’s freedom of speech and your right to know about what is making you sick! Please take action today!

The post Doctors Fighting Gag Rule in Pennsylvania first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

New Scientific Data Forces Government to Reverse Its Stance on Fluoride in the Water Supply

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:00:44 +0000

Why are some states simply ignoring the latest studies, and passing new laws that will hurt your teeth and harm your health? Action Alert!

Water fluoridation was introduced to the United States in the 1940s as a way to use waste product from the manufacture of aluminum, a waste product that was expensive to dispose of and which was harming cattle and farmland. Since then, the federal government has taken the stance that the fluoridation of drinking water, which conveniently disposed of the waste, is vitally important to help prevent tooth decay; the CDC called it one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. But the the latest scientific studies have finally made the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) change their tune on how much fluoride is safe.
The data indicates that dental fluorosis—damage to the teeth from fluoride, ranging from lacy white markings or spots on the enamel to staining and pitting of the tooth surface—happens when fluoride levels are too high. Water is only one of several sources of fluoride. Other common sources include dental products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, prescription fluoride supplements, fluoride applied by dental professionals, and exposure through our food, which is often sprayed with fluoride-based pesticides.
Today the fluoride in your water mostly comes from the phosphate fertilizer industry—but it’s still toxic waste, containing other byproducts such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. And two studies show that fluoride increases the accumulation of lead in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich tissues, transporting heavy metals into areas of your body they normally would not be able to go—like your brain.
Another study revealed that prolonged, high intake of fluoride can increase the risk of brittle bones, fractures, and crippling bone abnormalities. Longtime readers may recall our 2008 article on the effects of fluoride on teeth and bones (harming kidney patients worst of all); we also noted that fluoride is a known neurotoxin, and can have detrimental effects on the thyroid, which could affect intelligence.
Moreover, fluoride can combine with other chemicals in the water to make them even more harmful. For example, when chloramines combine with the fluoride in water, they work together to extract lead from old plumbing systems, which leads to the accumulation of lead in the water supply.
EPA and HHS now recommend the level of fluoride in drinking water to be set “at the lowest end of the current optimal range”—that is, no more than 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water instead of the current recommended range which goes as high as 1.2 milligrams.
Despite studies so compelling that the federal government has started back-pedaling, the states of New Jersey and Vermont are attempting to mandate the fluoridation of water supply. Unfortunately, the New Jersey bill is very close to being passed. By contrast, Illinois and New Hampshire have introduced bills to prohibit fluoride in drinking water.
In New Jersey, both S959 in the Senate and A1811 in the Assembly are on red alert—they have been reported out of committee and are already on the floor, so they can be voted upon at any time. These bills mandate the fluoridation of water. At minimum, this is a freedom of choice issue—citizens should be able to choose whether they want to ingest fluoride or not. Write your legislators and ask them to oppose these bills—take action now!
In Vermont, H615 (currently in the Health Care Committee) contains many provisions to do with oral care—so we are specifically opposing section 108a, which mandates fluoridation of water. It requires that any municipality, government agency, or other entity that owns or controls a water system shall maintain fluoride in the water supply. Write your representative and request an amendment to strike out that part of the bill—take action now!
In New Hampshire: HB1529 would amend current law to say, “No fluoride, nor any chemical containing fluoride, shall be introduced into the public water supply,” as well as other specific provisions against the the use of herbicides within ten miles upgradient (that is, uphill) from a water intake of a domestic water supply. Write your representative and express your strong support for this bill—take action now!
In Illinois: HB5383 would do one thing: repeal the current fluoridation mandate. The bill is now in the Environmental Health Committee. Write your representative and express your strong support for this bill—take action now!

The post New Scientific Data Forces Government to Reverse Its Stance on Fluoride in the Water Supply first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Toxic Chemical Being Sold as a Health-Conscious Sweetener

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:00:45 +0000

Splenda Essentials pretend to be health-supporting, when in fact they seem to have more in common with pesticides than with sugar.

Sucralose, sold under the brand name Splenda, is simply chlorinated sugar; in chemical terms, it is a chlorocarbon. The idea behind this is that the body would no longer recognize it as sugar. But, as Johns Hopkins-trained physician and biochemist James Bowen, MD, points out, chlorine is “nature’s Doberman attack dog—a highly excitable, ferocious atomic element employed as a biocide in bleach, disinfectants, insecticide, WWI poison gas and hydrochloric acid.” Common chlorocarbons include chlordane and DDT, a product so harmful that it is now banned for agricultural use the world over.
Now Splenda is selling a product called Splenda Essentials. Different formulations contain B vitamins, antioxidants (vitamins C and E), or fiber. The marketing and advertising appear to be targeting health-conscious people who are interested in vitamins and nutrition—despite the fact that Splenda is highly toxic and has no place in a healthy diet.
Splenda’s advertising says the addition of B1, B5, and B6 “help support a healthy metabolism.” The antioxidant product “contains vitamin C and E, like those found in fruits and vegetables,” while the fiber product is touted as containing “one gram of healthy fiber.” It is worth noting that the regular Splenda product already contains fiber—the powdery dextrose and/or maltodextrin that forms the carrier for the sweetener—but only between 0.5 and 1.0 grams of it. For the fiber product, they bumped it up an even 1.0 grams. Whoopee.
For the vitamins, Splenda has added 20% of the recommended daily allowance; for the fiber, they’ve added 0.03% of the RDA. But let’s compare those amounts with the recommendations from the late scientist, researcher, and physician Dr. Emanuel Cheraskin of the International Academy of Science:

	B1	B5	B6	C	E	Fiber
RDA	1.2 mg	5 mg	15 mg	85 mg	15 mg (22.35 IU)	32 mg
Amount per packet	0.24 mg	1 mg	3 mg	17 mg	4.5 IU	1 mg
Cheraskin	25 mg	100–200 mg	25 mg	1,000 mg	450 IU

With the minute amounts of nutrients per packet, one would need to be consuming unconscionable numbers of packets to make any impact at all on one’s health—that is, provided one weren’t also consuming the sucralose itself! As we noted last year, Splenda alters the microflora in the intestine and “exerts numerous adverse effects,” according to a Duke University study, including an increase in body weight (not quite what a “diet aid” is supposed to do!) and an elevation of liver enzymes, which hurts the bioavailability of nutrients.
In “The Lethal Science of Splenda, a Poisonous Chlorocarbon,” Dr. Bowen says that “any chlorocarbons not directly excreted from the body intact can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs. The liver is a detoxification organ which deals with ingested poisons. Chlorocarbons damage the hepatocytes, the liver’s metabolic cells, and destroy them.”
Dr. Bowen notes that the high solvency of chlorocarbons like Splenda attacks the human nervous system and can produce cancer, birth defects, and immune system destruction. In test animals, Splenda produced swollen livers (as do all chlorocarbon poisons), calcified their kidneys, shrunk their thymus glands (the biological seat of immunity) and produced liver inflammation.
Our colleagues at ANH-Europe point out other adverse effects in animals as a result of sucralose ingestion: DNA damage in gastrointestinal organs, increase in the number of normal cells in the surface tissue of the kidney, hemorrhagic degeneration of the adrenal cortex (which regulates carbohydrate and fat metabolism, salt, and water balance), incidence of cataracts, marked gastrointestinal disturbance, and deaths in pregnant rabbits and aborted rabbit fetuses. Splenda’s adverse effects in humans include headaches and migraines and a long list of consumer-reported side effects including skin rashes/flushing, panic-like agitation, dizziness and numbness, diarrhea, swelling, muscle aches, intestinal cramping, bladder issues, and stomach pain.
Splenda has replaced aspartame as the number one artificial sweetener in foods and beverages; aspartame’s popularity declined after the public learned that that it is both a neurotoxin and an underlying cause of chronic illness. As Dr. Bowen warns, “We should not be fooled again into accepting the safety of a toxic chemical on the blessing of the FDA and saturation advertising. In terms of potential long-term human toxicity we should regard sucralose with its chemical cousin DDT, the insecticide now outlawed because of its horrendous long term toxicities at even minute trace levels in human, avian, and mammalian tissues.”
Splenda’s online marketing includes a series of YouTube videos called Splenda Essential Choices for Healthy Living, which features an ADA-certified Registered Dietitian giving people health advice—though we might call it “natural health lite”—including prominent endorsements of Splenda Essentials.
ANH-USA is filing a citizen petition with the Federal Trade Commission regarding Splenda’s deceptive advertising. Their marketing clearly targets health-conscious people interested in nutrition, while trying to pass off a toxic chemical as healthy.

The post Toxic Chemical Being Sold as a Health-Conscious Sweetener first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.