Monday, December 31, 2007

Steaming & Boiling Vegetables More Nutritious Than Frying - Zucchini, Carrots, Broccoli

Culinary Shocker: Cooking Can Preserve, Boost Nutrient Content Of Vegetables

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071224125524.htm

ScienceDaily (Dec. 30, 2007) — In a finding that defies conventional culinary wisdom, researchers in Italy report that cooking vegetables can preserve or even boost their nutritional value in comparison to their raw counterparts, depending on the cooking method used.

Their study is scheduled for the Dec. 26 issue of ACS’ Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, a bi-weekly publication.

Nicoletta Pellegrini and colleagues note that although many people maintain that eating raw vegetables is more nutritious than eating cooked ones, a small but growing number of studies suggest that cooking may actually increase the release of some nutrients. However, scientists are seeking more complete data on the nutritional properties of cooked vegetables, the researchers say.

In the new study, the researchers evaluated the effects of three commonly-used Italian cooking practices — boiling, steaming, and frying — on the nutritional content of carrots, zucchini and broccoli.

Boiling and steaming maintained the antioxidant compounds of the vegetables, whereas

frying caused a significantly higher loss of antioxidants in comparison to the water-based cooking methods, they say.

For broccoli, steaming actually increased its content of glucosinolates, a group of plant compounds touted for their cancer-fighting abilities.

The findings suggest that it may be possible to select a cooking method for each vegetable that can best preserve or improve its nutritional quality, the researchers say.

Adapted from materials provided by American Chemical Society.

Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Microbes Are Us - 1,000 Trillion Bacteria Cells with each 100 Trillion Cells Of A Person

Microbes Are US
http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=6111&Section=Vitamins

The State Journal-Register Springfield, IL

11-15-07

Each of us is a singular crowd - a walking, talking, air- breathing, waste-producing assemblage of microbial organisms.

Your body consists of 100 trillion cells, give or take, but they're in the minority. Each human also is home to, among other things, an estimated 1,000 trillion individual bacteria, or 10 times more microbes than human cells. What does this mean?

Well, for one thing, it means that you're not alone. Ever. But more importantly, it means you're alive - and well.

"People like to think of themselves as exclusively human," said Dr. Jeffrey Gordon, a molecular biologist at Washington University in St. Louis, "but we're really a composite of many species, an amalgamation of human and microbial attributes. To fully understand what it means to be human, we need to embrace, explore and explain what microbes mean to us."

Because they cause disease and bodily harm, bacterial pathogens such as Vibrio cholerae and Mycobacterium tuberculosis tend to grab most of our attention. But there are many more bacteria species that pose no threat to humans, and quite a few that are, in fact, symbiotic or mutually beneficial.

"These microbes provide humans with features we haven't had to evolve on our own, such as breaking down otherwise indigestible foods, detoxifying carcinogens, educating our immune system and generally keeping bad bugs out," Gordon said.

Bacterial symbionts tend to be found in and on specific parts of our bodies. The average person's mouth, for example, contains perhaps 25 species of bacteria, with a quarter-teaspoon of saliva holding up to 40 million individual cells.

But it's the intestines that are the real microbial zoo. Gordon says the human gut is the densest bacterial ecosystem known, home to perhaps 500 species and 10 trillion to 100 trillion individual microbes. That works out to about 4 pounds of bugs in an adult, but you don't want to lose the weight.

Besides breaking down otherwise indigestible carbohydrates and helping absorb minerals like copper and iron, intestinal bacteria produce vital nutrients like vitamin K (necessary for clotting blood) and folic acid.

When you upset them by, say, taking antibiotics that can kill good bacteria along with the bad, intestinal microbes could cause you to be, well, upset, too.

In the womb, human babies are essentially germ-free, but that soon changes. Newborns pick up their first bugs passing through Mom's birth canal, then spend the rest of their lives acquiring more and different bacterial residents and visitors.

Doing so may, in fact, be a factor in how long you live. A 2003 study by Caltech scientists found that fruit flies exposed to bacteria in the first week of life lived 30 percent longer than flies exposed to bacteria at midlife or not exposed at all. Some researchers suggest something similar may happen with people.

"Microbes in the human body is no accident," says Dr. Martin Blaser, a professor of internal medicine and microbiology at the New York University Medical Center. "They've been with us a long time. They've co-evolved with us. They've been naturally selected because they help keep us alive. They are indisputably important."

How important isn't completely understood. It's not known, for example, exactly how many types of bacteria inhabit humans. And the full nature of our symbiotic relationship with bacteria is even more mysterious, not the least because it's so incredibly complicated. Bacteria that are benign in one person may be pathogenic in another. They might be beneficial - or at least harmless - in one part of the body, but problematic somewhere else.

Lactobacillus bacteria, for example, helps break down foods in the intestines (and helps make foods like yogurt, cheese and pickles), but in the mouth, the bacteria converts sugars into plaque, promoting dental caries or cavities.

Escherichia coli 0157:H7 is a notorious food-borne strain of bacteria that causes illness and even death. But other E. coli strains are commonly found in the human gut, where they quietly go about their business and may, according to some research, confer increased resistance to urinary tract infections.

Blaser's fear, which Gordon and others echo, is that humans are permanently altering ages-old, evolved microbial relationships without really knowing what the consequences might be. Or what might be lost. The concern is similar to that voiced by environmentalists who contend unknown numbers and types of beneficial plants and organisms are going extinct, some before they've even been discovered.

Microbiologists like Blaser and Gordon are pushing for a national and international effort to map the human microbiome akin to the Human Genome Project.

Humans harbor an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 bacteria species. Each bacterium has its own genome. Microbial genes in the large intestine alone outnumber human genes 100 to 1. The majority of bacteria species have yet to be fully described or sequenced. And in combination, they form ecosystems that probably are unique to their hosts.

Understanding how these organisms live and work together and with us, said Gordon, presents incredible possibilities: "Microbes might be telltale signs, biomarkers of changes in ourselves and in other ecosystems. We might be able to learn how to intentionally manipulate microbiomes to improve health."

On the Web

www.microbeworld.org: A comprehensive site with articles, images, video and podcasts featuring news and information about bacteriaviruses, fungi and more.

adoptamicrobe.blogspot.com: Blogger Emily Lurie loves Salvador Dali, Pez dispensers and bacteria. Each day, she highlights a particular bug and why you should (or shouldn't) love it, too.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

At Least 25 Grams Of Fiber Each Day - Oatmeal 4, Berries 8, Peas/Beans 11

A Few Tricks to Easier Self-Control during the Holidays

Posted by: "Francesca Skelton" fskelton@erols.com fskelton2002

Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:26 am (PST)

Washington Post
By Sally Squires
Tuesday, November 27, 2007; Page HE05

Finding ways to feel full with fewer calories is a trick that can help you
sidestep nutritional mischief and added pounds, especially during the
tempting holiday season.

But what are the best choices to help you pull a fast one on your stomach?

Holding the line on weight is always important so that you don't increase
your risk of diabetes or other weight-related health problems. But it takes
on special meaning at the holidays, when food temptations are as common as
corner Santas.

"People already overweight or obese are at particular risk for packing on
the holiday pounds," notes Susan Yanovski, co-director of the Office of
Obesity Research at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases.

As part of a study of holiday weight gain, Yanovski and her colleagues
examined a group of healthy adults and found that overweight and obese
people were at greater risk of gaining five or more pounds from Thanksgiving
to New Year's than their leaner counterparts.

The team tracked some of the participants who added holiday pounds for a
full year. Although they lost a little weight from January through March, a
year after the study began they weighed roughly 1 1/2 pounds more. The
results suggest, Yanovski says, that "all of us are at risk for not only
holiday weight gain, but weight-gain retention."

That's where those high-volume, lower-calorie foods come in handy, an
approach to eating known as volumetrics. Research from Pennsylvania State
University indicates that eating foods with water as a main ingredient --
think fruit and vegetables, soup and stews -- helps reduce overall caloric
intake. Puffed and whipped foods -- popcorn and whipped yogurts, for example
-- do the same, because they contain so much air. So does food with a lot of
fiber.

It also turns out that some types of fiber may be better than others at
helping you feel full -- a tip that can come in handy at any time of year.

At last month's annual meeting of the Obesity Society, a professional group,
Minnesota researchers reported that fiber from bean, barley or oats was best
at helping study participants feel full and satisfied three hours after
eating. By comparison, polydextrose, a fiber substance used as a fat
substitute in some commercially prepared products, was least likely to do
so.

Most people fall short on eating the fiber recommended by the National
Academy of Sciences. Women are advised to aim for 25 grams per day; men, 38
grams.

There are plenty of easy ways to reach those goals. Start the day with
whole-grain cereal. Whether it's a steaming bowl of oatmeal (about four
grams of fiber per cup) or a serving of shredded wheat (about six grams of
fiber per cup), you'll get flavor and fiber. Add a cup of berries for an
additional eight grams of fiber.

Whole-wheat crackers, bread and pasta provide two or more grams of fiber per
serving. A medium sweet potato with the skin packs five grams of fiber. A
pear has four grams, while a banana and an orange clock in at three grams
each.

But beans are the fiber winner. Just one cup can provide at least 11 grams.
So split pea, lentil and navy bean soups are smart choices that won't make
you feel like you're chewing hay. Other easy options include hummus and bean
dips.

Staying active also can help you avoid mindless eating. That's why this
week's activity goal is to add another five minutes of walking or other
activity per day beyond what you did before Thanksgiving. Add that to the 10
extra minutes that was the goal last week, and you'll be doing 15 minutes
more of exercise.

Remember, no need to do it all at once. If you get up every hour for five
minutes to move around your office or around the block, you can add 15 more
minutes of activity in a morning. Plus, when you're walking, you're probably
not eating. Just avoid strolling past the holiday goodies your colleagues
are bound to bring in.

Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

CT Scan Radiation Health Risk - 20 Million People Exposed Unnecessarily

Over 20 Million People Unnecessarily Exposed To Radiation From CT Scans Each Year, Study Suggests

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071128172402.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 29, 2007) — Computed Tomography (CT) scans are an increasingly used X-ray-based tool for providing a three-dimensional view of a particular organ or tissue. The value of CT scanning to diagnose injury, cancer and other health problems is undisputed. But are these scans being used too frequently, in some cases unnecessarily? What are the health consequences of having too many CT scans over the course of a person's life?

In a Nov. 29, 2007 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, David J. Brenner, Ph.D., and Eric J. Hall, Ph.D., from the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, argue that the potential carcinogenic effects from using CT scans may be underestimated or overlooked. This is of particular concern, because perhaps one-third of all CT scans performed in the United States may not be medically necessary, the radiation researchers say.

It is estimated that more than 62 million CT scans per year are currently given in the United States, compared to three million 1980. Because CT scans result in a far larger radiation exposure compared with conventional plain-film X-ray, this has resulted in a marked increase in the average personal radiation exposure in the United States, which has about doubled since 1980, largely because of the increased CT usage.

It used to be widely believed that all radiological examinations were essentially harmless, because of the small amounts of radiation involved, but Drs. Brenner and Hall show that this is unlikely to be true for CT scans. In particular, Japanese atomic bomb survivors who were about two miles away from the explosions, actually received radiation doses quite similar to those from a CT scan.

Sixty years of study of these survivors have provided direct evidence that there will be an increased individual cancer risk, though small, for those who have this same dose of radiation from CT scans. Although the individual risk is small, the large number of CT scans currently being given may result in a future public health problem. In particular, Drs. Brenner and Hall suggest that, in a few decades, about 1½ to 2 percent of all cancers in the United States may be due to the radiation from CT scans being done now.

Defensive Medicine Leads to Overuse

Drs. Brenner and Hall suggest that the rapid increase in CT usage represents a potential public health problem in the United States that should be proactively addressed. This is particularly important for children, who are more sensitive than adults to radiation exposure. The issue arises, for example, when CT scans are requested in the context of so-called "defensive" medicine, or when scans are repeated as a patient passes through different parts of the medical system.

Compounding the issue, surveys suggest that the majority of radiologists and emergency-room physicians may not appreciate that CT scans are likely to increase the lifetime risk of cancer. Ultimately, the health care system, the doctor, and the patient (who can perhaps best track of the number of CT scans performed when dealing with multiple doctors) may have to share the burden of monitoring the appropriate dosage and number of scans.

Drs. Brenner and Hall suggest three strategies for proactively addressing the potential increased radiation risks associated with CT scans:

Reduce the CT-related radiation dose in individual patients.
Replace CT use, when appropriate, with other options that have no radiation risk, such as ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Decrease the total number of CT scans prescribed.

Drs. Brenner and Hall suggest in their paper's conclusion that these strategies could potentially keep 20 million adults and, crucially, more than one million children annually in the United States from being irradiated unnecessarily. They stress, however, that in the majority of individual cases, the benefits associated with a correct diagnosis through CT will far outweigh the individual risk.

Adapted from materials provided by Columbia University Medical Center.

Researchers at Columbia University Medical Center suggest in a new study that the potential carcinogenic effects from using CT scans may be underestimated or overlooked. (Credit: iStockphoto)

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

DANGEROUS BEAUTY: EUROPE REMOVES ALL TOXICS IN EVERYDAY COSMETICS

DANGEROUS BEAUTY: TAMING TOXICS IN EVERYDAY COSMETICS

WorldChanging, November 13, 2007
http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_dangerous_beauty.071114.htm

[Rachel's introduction: In 2003, the European Union passed legislation outlawing the use of known carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens in cosmetics -- more than 1,000 chemicals in all.

Their regulatory approach is similar to the "precautionary principle"

-- the idea that we should err on the side of caution when regulating products (or, more often, technologies) with potential for negative repercussions.]

By Erica Barnett

As someone who's used cosmetics since early adolescence (I'm from Texas, okay?), I'm particularly horrified by the awful stuff in ordinary makeup -- chemicals that cause infertility, birth defects, learning disabilities, and even cancer. (We've written before about the growing concerns around -- and awareness of -- the toxic substances that lurk in everyday household products.) I've long wished that someone would create a one-stop resource detailing what's safe, what's not, and why. That's why I'm eagerly awaiting my copy of Stacy Malkan's new book "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry."

Malkan, communications director for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, explores the health risks that are inflicted on women by the beauty industry. In an interview with Alternet, Malkin explained her motivation for writing the book:

I think cosmetics is something that we're all intimately connected to. They're products that we use every day, and so I think it's a good first place to start asking questions. What kinds of products are we bringing into our homes? What kinds of companies are we giving our money to?... I think of it as global poisoning. I think that the ubiquitous contamination of the human species with toxic chemicals is a symptom of the same problem (as global warming), which is an economy that's based on outdated technologies of petrochemicals -- petroleum. So many of the products we're applying to our faces and putting in our hair come from oil. They're byproducts of oil.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics got its start in 2002, when a coalition of women's, public health, labor, environmental health and consumer-rights nonprofits got together and tested 72 beauty products for phthalates, chemicals that act as plasticizers and hormone disrupters and cause birth defects, particularly in males. They discovered the chemicals were nearly ubiquitous, although none of the products they tested listed phthalates on their labels. In fact, Malkan says, the typical American woman uses 12 products containing about 180 chemicals every single day.

Nonetheless, the cosmetics industry remains virtually unregulated, with minimal oversight from the Food and Drug Administration, which must prove in court that a product is harmful before it can take any action.

In 2003, the European Union passed legislation outlawing the use of known carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens in cosmetics -- more than 1,000 chemicals in all. Their regulatory approach is similar to the "precautionary principle" -- the idea that we should err on the side of caution when regulating products (or, more often, technologies) with potential for negative repercussions. In the US, only California has followed in the EU's footsteps. In her interview with Alternet, Malkan said the most surprising toxin her organization has discovered in cosmetics is lead in lipstick; last month, the Campaign issued a controversial report claiming to have found lead in nearly a dozen brand-name lipsticks.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics offers a guide to "safer" companies that have signed its Compact for Safe Cosmetics, pledging not to use chemicals that are known or strongly suspected of causing cancer, mutation or birth defects in their products. Skin Deep, a cosmetic database that's searchable by name, is another useful resource, while Teens for Safe Cosmetics offers not only resources but grassroots youth action to tackle the problem (like Operation Beauty Drop -- which places large bins in malls for teens to drop their unsafe cosmetics -- and a successful campaign to pass a California law requiring cosmetics manufacturers to notify the Department of Health Services about any toxic or carcinogenic components in their makeup).

Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

A Few Walnuts, Blueberries Improve Brain Function As Do Eating Fruits & Vegetables

Diet Of Walnuts, Blueberries Improve Cognition; May Help Maintain Brain Function

ScienceDaily (Nov. 7, 2007) — Junk food junkies take notice. What you eat does more than influence your gut. It also may affect your brain. Increasing evidence shows that mom was right: You should eat your vegetables, and your blueberries and walnuts, too.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106122843.htm

Scientists are confirming that this age-old adage is worth following. And new studies show that diet may have implications for those who suffer from certain brain ailments.

Diets containing two percent, six percent, or nine percent walnuts, when given to old rats, were found to reverse several parameters of brain aging, as well as age-related motor and cognitive deficits, says James Joseph, PhD, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center at Tufts University in Boston.

In previous research, Joseph and his colleagues showed that old rats maintained for two months on diets containing two percent high antioxidant strawberry or blueberry extracts exhibited reversals of age-related deficits in the way that neurons function and in motor and cognitive behavior. In the brain, antioxidant molecules wage war against molecules known as free radicals, which can harm brain cells and brain function. The present research extends these findings and shows that walnuts can have a similar effect.

Walnuts contain alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), an essential omega-3 fatty acid, and other polyphenols that act as antioxidants and may actually block the signals produced by free radicals that can later produce compounds that would increase inflammation. Findings from the studies by Joseph and his colleague Barbara Shukitt-Hale, PhD, show for the first time that shorter chain fatty acids found in plants, such as walnuts, may have beneficial effects on cognition similar to those from long chain fatty acids derived from animal sources, which have been reported previously.

A six percent diet is equivalent to a person eating 1 ounce of walnuts each day, which is the recommended amount to reduce harmful low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, cholesterol, while a nine percent diet is equivalent to people eating 1.5 ounces of walnuts per day. "Importantly," Joseph says, "this information, coupled with our previous studies, shows that the addition of walnuts, berries, and grape juice to the diet may increase 'health span' in aging and provide a 'longevity dividend' or economic benefit for slowing the aging process by reducing the incidence and delaying the onset of debilitating degenerative disease."

Joseph and his colleagues are currently assessing whether increased neurogenesis or alterations in stress signaling, or both, may be involved in the mechanisms through which the walnut diets could be producing their effects. Ongoing research suggests that walnuts involve more than the mere "quenching" of free radicals and may in fact involve direct effects on blocking the deleterious "stress signals" generated by the oxidative stressors. "The beneficial effects of walnuts also may be the direct result of enhancements of signals which mediate such important functions as neuronal communication and the growth of new neurons," says Joseph.

A great deal of data suggests that the deficits associated with aging, for example, Alzheimer's disease and cardiovascular diseases, arise as a result of an increasing inability of the aging organism to protect itself against inflammation and oxidative stress, providing fertile ground for the development of neurodegenerative diseases. "The good news," Joseph says, "is that it appears that compounds found in fruits and vegetables -- and, as we have shown in our research, walnuts -- may provide the necessary protection to prevent the demise of cognitive and motor function in aging."

Other research shows that walnut extract may play a role toward developing novel treatments for Alzheimer's. Amyloid-ß plaques are the primary physiological hallmark of Alzheimer's. The presence of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase within these plaques has been confirmed, and the enzyme has been shown to induce plaque formation.

Modern Alzheimer's drugs typically target either acetylcholinesterase activity or plaque formation, but do not simultaneously inhibit both. "Therefore, they only have limited success in slowing the progression of the disease," says Gina Wilson, of Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, Ohio. Wilson and her colleagues have discovered through the use of strictly chemical techniques in the absence of living cells that walnut extract and two of its major components, gallic and ellagic acids, act as "dual-inhibitors" of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase. Chemical techniques included enzyme kinetics and colorimetric analyses of congo red, a dye that binds to amyloid-ß aggregates. It was found that gallic and ellagic acids not only inhibit the site of acetylcholinesterase associated with amyloid-ß protein aggregation, but will also inhibit the site of acetylcholinesterase responsible for the breakdown of acetylcholine.

"Initially, we confirmed earlier results showing that walnut extract inhibits amyloid-ß protein aggregation in the presence of acetylcholinesterase and breaks apart preformed aggregates," says Wilson. "However, the new findings have not been presented elsewhere or replicated by other laboratories, to the best of our knowledge." Wilson's research is the first set of data to demonstrate inhibition of acetylcholine breakdown by walnut extract and to isolate specific chemicals from that extract, gallic and ellagic acids, responsible for the observed dual-inhibition. The research is the first to suggest that ellagic acid, and possibly gallic acid, can break up preformed aggregates.

While exact replications are needed, Wilson and her colleagues plan to extend their research to live animals. They plan to inject rats with an amyloid-ß protein fragments that will aggregate in their brains. Experimental animals will then be treated with either chemical. This will allow for measurements of brain acetylcholinesterase activity, plaque formation, and oxidative damage. Additionally, this procedure will provide comparisons of cognitive-behavioral data between treated and untreated groups.

Acetylcholine is a brain chemical particularly important for learning and memory. Levels of acetylcholine found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients are significantly depleted. However, this is not the sole event responsible for progression of the disease. Abnormal amyloid-ß proteins aggregate and form what are known as plaques, another key feature found in the brains of Alzheimer's sufferers. Amyloid-ß plaques have also been linked to the memory impairments and cognitive decline associated with the disease. Acetylcholinesterase is an integral part of these plaques and accelerates plaque formation.

"It is important," Wilson says, "to investigate 'dual-inhibitors' of acetylcholinesterase in efforts to develop more efficient pharmacological treatments for Alzheimer's disease."

Another avenue of research regarding a link between diet and the brain shows that blueberries contain compounds that can reduce inflammation in the central nervous system. Inflammation in the central nervous system is known to be a key issue in the progression of neurodegeneration, and dietary intake of blueberries has been shown to alleviate cognitive decline associated with disease and aging.

Thomas Kuhn, PhD, of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and his colleagues have discovered that Alaska wild bog blueberries contain compounds that efficiently interfere with inflammatory processes in the central nervous system.

The study conducted in Kuhn's lab revealed an interaction between compounds in Alaska blueberries and a specific protein molecule in neuronal cells that reduces detrimental effects of inflammation. Understanding the interaction of these compounds could lead to the development of new drug therapies that would diminish inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.

While the health benefits of fruits and vegetables are largely attributed to polyphenols, molecules with strong antioxidant potential, Kuhn says that, surprisingly, the compounds in Alaska blueberries discovered in their study are neither antioxidants nor polyphenols, yet rather serve as specific inhibitors.

Using a cell-based model of nueroinflammation, Kuhn's lab exposed neuronal cells to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFa), a pivotal factor mediating inflammation in the brain and spinal cord. Exposure of neuronal cells to TNFa rapidly stimulates a cascade of reactions, which ultimately leads to the death of neuronal cells. The application of Alaska blueberry extracts to neuronal cells effectively prevented the degeneration of neuronal cells exposed to TNFa.

"Expanding our knowledge of natural products' health benefits and their molecular targets in the nervous system would improve preventative measures and potentially reveal new therapeutic strategies to alleviate inflammation in the brain and spinal cord," says Kuhn. Inflammation in the brain and spinal cord accompanies most chronic degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, or multiple sclerosis, or acute injuries including stroke and trauma. Moreover, inflammation is highly prevalent in psychiatric disorders such as depression and autism and in the normal aging process.

In other recent studies, Ron Mervis, PhD, of the Center for Aging and Brain Repair at the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, Fla., who collaborated with Joseph and Shukitt-Hale, has discovered that supplementing the diet of old rats with blueberries for a relatively short period (8 weeks), resulted in maintenance and rejuvenation of brain circuitry. These results, using a small amount of blueberry extract, two percent, to supplement a standard rat diet, are the first to show that a dietary intervention, specifically blueberries, can not only protect against the loss of dendritic branching and dendritic spines (e.g., synapses) seen in aged animals, but can result in neuroplastic enhancement of brain circuitry such that it looks like a much younger brain.

Mervis explains that age-related oxidation and inflammation in the brain can damage neurons. He notes that blueberries also contain various chemical compounds-flavonoids-which have strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities.

"These benefits, along with other indirect mechanisms, may help to minimize, or reverse, the age-related breakdown of communication between neurons," says Mervis, "and optimize brain function in the old rat." A two percent blueberry extract is equivalent to a human having about half a cup of blueberries added to their daily diet.

The decrease in the amount of dendritic branching, or atrophy, of neurons and loss of synapses on the branches in the aging mammalian brain is correlated with memory loss and cognitive dysfunction. Dendrites, which receive and process incoming information from other neurons, comprise about 95 percent of the surface area of the cell, and the vast majority of the synapses are on dendritic spines. Therefore, Joseph says, "analysis of dendritic branching and dendritic spines can accurately reflect the integrity of brain circuits and neuronal communication."

Previous research showed that blueberry-enriched diets fed to aging rats reversed age-related declines in cognitive function. The current data show that a diet supplemented with blueberry extract should be able to protect against the loss of dendritic branching and dendritic spines-in other words, Joseph says, the blueberry supplement diet "would enhance the neuronal circuitry back to the status associated with a younger brain."

While these parameters have not been investigated in humans, it is known that individuals who consume a diet high in fruits and vegetables are less likely to develop some of the neurodegenerative diseases associated with aging and may not exhibit declines in motor and cognitive function that are as great as those seen in people whose consumption is less.

Adapted from materials provided by Society For Neuroscience.

LED Light - Less Energy Used, No Toxic Mercury Of CFL Light Bulbs

[Here's an ad for LED (Light Emitting Diode) light that replaces both the extremely energy wasteful regular light bulbs and the toxic, with mercury, CFL light bulbs. It looks like they last much longer than CFL lights also. How does cost over the same amount of time compare to CFL? When someone gives these a try, I'd like to know how well they work. Is there a 'dark' side to using them?]

http://led.section9tech.com/

Finally, a practical and elegantly simple way of reducing our impact on the environment! At Section9 LED you will find the lowest prices on the most advanced LED lighting products available that will also significantly save you money on your energy bill and help save the environment at the same time. Our LED lamps typically use 8 times less energy than the equivalent incandescent bulb, and can last up to 50 times longer. Our lamps can last for up to 50,000 hours and our LED Tube Fluorescent replacements can last for up to 50,000 hours as well. Check back often for new product updates as we expand our lighting applications! Please contact us if you have any questions about our products or would like to learn about wholesale/dropshipping opportunities.
Not Found In Retail Stores!

A Lighting Revolution!
L.E.D. Technology advances lighting efficiency, helping us reduce our impact on our environment.
Why does it make so much sense to replace your old standard bulbs with Section9 LED lamps? Consider a standard 40 watt incandescent bulb rated at 1,000 hours in its lifetime will use $4.80 worth of electricity. Now a 5 watt LED bulb giving out the same amount of light will use $30 of electriciy during its rated 50,000 hour lifetime - that is $240 using standard incandescent and only $30 using Section9LED lamps over the operating time of 50,000 hours - not to mention you are burdened with having to buy and replace 50 standard bulbs during that time as well! All while simultaneously saving the environment by cutting down on your use of non-renewable energy sources and greenhouse gas emissions. It's a no-brainer!

Light, Light bulbs, Non-Toxic?, Better?

Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Just 30 Minutes Vigorous Exercise A Day Can Stabilize Body Mass Index

ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2007) — Don't slack off on exercise if you want to avoid packing on the pounds as you age.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071105164433.htm

A consistently high level of physical activity from young adulthood into middle age increases the odds of maintaining a stable weight and lessens the amount of weight gained over time, according to a new analysis from Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine.

People who reported at least 30 minutes of vigorous activity a day such as jogging, bicycling or swimming were more than twice as likely to maintain a stable Body Mass Index (BMI) over 20 years. BMI is a measure of body fat based on height and weight. But even highly active people who gained weight, gained 14 pounds less over 20 years than those with consistently low activity.

Although activity is often recommended as a way to prevent weight gain, this is one of the first studies to examine the relationship between activity and weight by looking at patterns of exercise over a long period of time.

Researchers examined data from over 2,600 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study to determine if high activity patterns over time were associated with maintaining a stable BMI. Participants in CARDIA, who were 18 to 30 years old when the study began, have been tracked for 20 years.

"The results will hopefully encourage young people to become more active and to maintain high activity over a lifetime," said Arlene Hankinson, lead author and an instructor in preventive medicine at the Feinberg School. Hankinson presented her findings on Monday, Nov. 5, at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in Orlando, Fla.

Adapted from materials provided by Northwestern University.

Quality Of Life Most Important For Living Longer Better Life

now we know quality of life is a critical factor in determining survival,

what matters most is what patients themselves are telling us about their quality of life"

quality of life remained the strongest predictor of overall survival.

patient's quality of life increased over time, we saw a corresponding increase in survival,"

underscore the importance of helping our patients improve the quality of life where we can in order to help them live longer better."

"Quality of life measures should be incorporated into treatment decision making and clinical trials,"

+++

Quality Of Life Is The Most Important Predictor Of Survival For Advanced Cancer Patients

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030170208.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 1, 2007) — Healthcare providers have observed it for years -- patients who appear to have a better quality of life while battling their cancer live longer. Now, a prospective, multi-institutional study examining the quality of life of patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer backs that observation. In fact, quality of life is so important, it out-weighs other classic predictors of survival.

"In the past, we've consider the stage of disease or tumor size along with other empirical data to predict how long a patient will survive, but now we know quality of life is a critical factor in determining survival," said Nicos Nicolaou, M.D., an attending physician in the radiation oncology department at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia and lead author of the abstract.

The study included patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer enrolled in a treatment trial (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9801 assessing the addition of amifostine to induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation). In addition to quality of life surveys, factors used to predict overall survival, included stage of disease, gender, age, race, marital status, type of tumor, tumor location in the lung, blood oxygen level, and type of treatment.

"Our study shows that what matters most is what patients themselves are telling us about their quality of life", said Benjamin Movsas, M.D., principal investigator of the RTOG study and senior author of the abstract. Movsas is chairman of the Radiation Oncology Department at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.

Of the 239 patients analyzed, 91 percent completed a pre-treatment quality of life questionnaire. Patients with a quality of life score less than the median (66.7) had a 69% higher rate of death than patients with a quality of life score greater than 66.7 (p=0.002).

"We conducted two different statistical analysis including all the usual prognostic factors and either way, quality of life remained the strongest predictor of overall survival.

What's more, if a patient's quality of life increased over time, we saw a corresponding increase in survival," Movsas said.

Married patients or those with a partner had the highest quality of life score.

"We found a significantly lower quality of life score for single, divorced and widowed patients which deserves further study," Nicolaou said. "These findings underscore the importance of helping our patients improve the quality of life where we can in order to help them live longer better."

"Quality of life measures should be incorporated into treatment decision making and clinical trials," Movsas concluded.

The results of the study were presented October 30, 2007 at the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology's 49th Annual Meeting in Los Angeles.

Adapted from materials provided by Fox Chase Cancer Center.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Rating Supermarket Foods - 3 stars is Healthier

Hannaford Guides Consumers

From Adbusters #74, Nov-Dec 2007
http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/74/Hannaford_Guides_Consumers.html

The Hannaford Brothers supermarket chain developed a formula based on 21 measures, from calcium to fat to sodium, to rate the nutritional value of 27,000 products. Three stars are awarded to its healthiest products and zero to products that did not meet certain standards. Almost eighty percent of the products rated did not receive any stars.

The clear winners: fresh fruit and vegetables. All received three stars.

alt Other high scorers included pasta (88 percent of the products reviewed earned stars), cereals (55 percent) and seafood – 43 percent of those items snagged at least one star, and salmon earned three. By comparison, the high sodium content of canned soup meant that just 12 percent of the rated items earned one star or more. About a quarter of meat products got at least a single star; boneless, skinless chicken breasts won three.

Soft drinks received no stars. Bakery products also didn’t fare well: just seven percent earned even one star. Cookies, cakes and pies had too much added fat and sugar and not enough fiber. Bread often scored too high on sodium to earn any stars.

In the dairy case, skim milk earned three stars, whole milk got none (due to its fat content) while one percent milk snagged two stars. Nonfat, plain yogurt also earned three stars, but most other yogurt received none because of too much added sugar. Eggs went unstarred, although egg substitutes, which are low in cholesterol, often earned a star or more. Margarine was not rated, but it may be assessed in the second phase of the program. Butter earned no stars.

For the last 50 years, large food corporations set the agenda on what kind of products end up on supermarket shelves and in the kitchen pantry for millions of people. Trans-fats, preservatives, processed edibles of all kinds were introduced not to respond to consumer demand, but to provide longer shelf life for food suppliers. Today, a small chain of grocers called Hannaford is reversing the tide, with a nutrition system that gives consumers a quick, non-biased rating of the healthiness of the foods they purchase. Their “Guiding Stars” nutrition system has led to consumer groups hailing them as “heroes,” and has put big food companies against the ropes for selling “health-conscious” foods that don’t deliver what they promise.

Hannaford began the Guiding Stars effort to help consumers navigate the aisles for healthy products, much like travelers used stars in the past to guide their travels. Using a mathematical formula that scored food on positive traits (vitamins and minerals, fiber and whole grains) as well as negative (trans-fats, saturated fat, cholesterol, added sodium and sugars), Hannaford’s team of nutritionists devised a three-star system to rate their products. Products were given one star (good nutritional value), two stars (better nutritional value) or three (best nutritional value). Of the 27,000 products surveyed, a surprising 77 percent of them received zero stars; among them were foods that are advertised as being good for you.

Companies like Campbell’s were quick to defend themselves when products in their Healthy Request line of soup received zero stars. “We don’t like the idea that there are good and bad foods out there,” said John Faulkner, director of brand communication at Campbell Soup Company in The New York Times. Calling the Guiding Stars an “arbitrary grading system,” he insisted that his company’s soup aligned with the government’s definition of healthy food. A. Elizabeth Sloan, president of Sloan Trends, also commented that it was unrealistic for the manufacturers to remove all the fat, sugar and salt because nobody would buy the result. “Look at all those super-duper healthy products that are in those healthy food stores. They don’t taste good.”

Marion Nestle, food guru and a professor of nutrition at New York University, feels that the abysmal marks given by Hannaford reveal “what happens when an independent group sets the criteria.” As evidence of the system’s lack of bias, most of Hannaford’s own store-branded products received no stars. Nestle told Adbusters that while Hannaford’s system is difficult to know because the company has not made the criteria public, she supports the store’s initiative. “I like the Guiding Stars idea in principle,” she commented, “and I think it could be really useful particularly because the criteria – whatever they are – must be really strict. I am most curious to know whether the system encourages healthier choices.” Nestle will be meeting with a member of Hannaford later this year to discuss the results of their program.

The publicity generated by the Guiding Stars is putting the heat on other distributors to label the health value of their products. Already, with the move toward local and organic food, consumer demand has swayed big food distributors to providing better food for the masses. Several companies, including Wegman’s, Kroger and heb have started their own versions of this type of program, albeit with different guidelines. Even if you don’t shop at one of the 150 Hannaford grocery stores in the us, it may not be long before every store boasts a similar system – completely independent of influence from manufacturers – that helps people distinguish the real healthy foods from those that only claim healthiness on the label. With the Hannaford Guiding Stars lighting the way, consumers are already on the path toward taking back control of what they eat.

_Jenny Uechi

Genes & Cells Affected By Thoughts - Genes Do NOT Control - Environment & Beliefs/Perceptions Influence

From the Better Humans Webpage:
http://www.betterhumans.com/

The Effect Of Thoughts On The Body
http://www.betterhumans.com/forums/thread/16774.aspx

Here are two lectures by Bruce Lipton (http://www.brucelipton.com/) click on the links and watch the videos. Lots of details that show genes do not determine how humans and other organisms work. Which means humans have much more influence over themselves than science has yet to admit against ever more evidence showing past hypothesises about genetic control are dead wrong.

Watch the last part of the 2nd webpage if the long winded details are too much. Then back up to learn a bit more.

Bruce's beliefs may well be as inaccurate as the bypothesises that have been shown to be inaccurate.
Knowing that old beliefs are not accurate doesn't mean the new ones are accurate. I doubt that all of his speculations have or will pan out.

Knowing that beliefs can be changed, that beliefs can cause considerable harm or can be helpful, opens up many more healthy possibilities.

If nothing else letting go of beliefs that are no longer useful can allow vast changes in ones life.

---
1. How DNA works - environmental signals activate the dna (blueprints) - behavior is created by perception, each cell has a brain, perceptions may not be accurate eg an unfounded belief - use it or loose it - the belief of aging will kill you -
http://www.eruptingmind.com/positive-thoughts-health/

accurate perceptions that are in line with what is healthful and what is possible in the environment can be life nurturing
dysfunctional beliefs that are not healthful or are not possible in the environment can be harmful to life

2. The universe is made of energy (Energetics, Wholistic, Uncertainty) - it is not only physical matter (Materialism, reductionism, determinism).
http://www.eruptingmind.com/how-thoughts-effect-body/
---

Notice what beliefs attempt to determine your behaviors. What beliefs/perceptions would you choose if you set aside the beliefs that were imported into you by culture, society, advertising, education etc etc.

Stress is a primary mechanism that allows cancer causing hormones to be influenced.
Energy healing is more affective than expected.

Cells move forward toward better health or retreat to protection or don't move. Both movements use energy. The more protection the less health. Can be so afraid that health shuts down.

Cells of a body work together as community. Stress reduces community.

Regulate stress for better health.

Reflex behavior reduces chances of intelligent decisions.

Adaptation/adjustments to stress can be a choice not random. Cells can actually choose to adjust to deal with stress - science used to say this was impossible.

Simultaneous creation and evolution.

Natural selection isn't what it was expected to be.

Body is saying deal with the stress - not cover up the symptoms. Covering up symptoms can be a disaster for a body.

The world has everything in it. Your beliefs generate perception of reality. Live in Fear - find fear. Live in belief of struggle - always fighting.

Brain waves sent out of body - broadcast. People interconnected by energy - power of prayer, power of hate -

Change beliefs, respond to the environment, can change your life as fast as you beliefs, you are not a victim since you can change your beliefs.

Turn off dysfunction beleifs. Watch your thoughts, create new thoughts, alter your environment.
Being powerful, being responsible ... much more than being determined by your genes, culture, society ...

From Bruce's website:

Insights into the Convergence of Science and Spirituality

Mind Over Genes

The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles is a book that brings attention to the amazing new awareness that is currently rewriting the science of biology and medicine. Until recently, conventional science has held that genes control life, a concept known as genetic determinism. While this disempowering belief is still held as truth by the mainstream public, leading edge research in the exciting new field of epigenetics reveals a completely different truth. Genes do not control life. It is the environment, and more specifically, our perception of the environment that controls gene activity. In the end, it comes down to a simple case of “mind over matter” in controlling the fate of our lives.

The Grand Convergence - Merging Science & Shamanism

Two events that are in-depth explorations of science, alchemy and shamanism:

Join Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. and Nicki Scully as they weave together science and spirituality in a dynamic presentation that may transform your core beliefs about reality. Bruce brings his extensive background in cellular biology, quantum physics, and consciousness. Nicki will apply her vast experience as a practioner of metaphysics, Alchemical Healing, shamanic traditions and ancient Egyptian mystical arts.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Carcinogens in cosmetics Petrochemicals in perfume A Toxic Reality

My best advice is that simpler is better. Really, fewer ingredients, fewer products.

there are a lot good (nontoxic) products out there on the market, and I would say start by switching out the ones that you use the most frequently like shampoo and deodorant that we're putting by our breast tissue

I think it's really important, especially for women in this culture, to recognize that the beauty industry is all about profit and bottom-line thinking. It's not concerned about our health issues. It is not concerned with telling the truth about its products.
+++

I'll Have My Cosmetics with a Side of Infertility, Please

By Heather Gehlert, AlterNet. Posted October 25, 2007.

Author Stacy Malkan reveals the dangerous truth about everyday products we put in our hair and on our skin.

Carcinogens in cosmetics? Petrochemicals in perfume? If only this were an urban legend. Unfortunately, it's a toxic reality, and it's showing up in our bodies.

In 2004, scientists found pesticides in the blood of newborn babies. A year later, researchers discovered perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel, in human breast milk. Today, people are testing positive for a litany of hazardous substances from flame retardants to phthalates to lead.

In her new book, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, Stacy Malkan exposes the toxic chemicals that lurk, often unlabeled, in the personal care products that millions of American women, men and children use every day.

AlterNet spoke with Malkan about these toxins and her five-year effort with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to get the beauty industry to remove them from its products.

Heather Gehlert: There are so many environmental issues you could've written a book about. Why cosmetics?

Stacy Malkan: I think cosmetics is something that we're all intimately connected to. They're products that we use every day, and so I think it's a good first place to start asking questions. What kinds of products are we bringing into our homes? What kinds of companies are we giving our money to?

It has something pretty interesting in common with global warming too.

It does. I think of it as global poisoning. I think that the ubiquitous contamination of the human species with toxic chemicals is a symptom of the same problem (as global warming), which is an economy that's based on outdated technologies of petrochemicals -- petroleum. So many of the products we're applying to our faces and putting in our hair come from oil. They're byproducts of oil.

Many cosmetic products on the market right now claim they are pure, gentle, clean and healthy. But, as you reveal in this book, they're far from it. Toxic chemicals in these products are showing up in people. What were some of the most surprising toxins you discovered in cosmetics?

Lead in lipstick was pretty surprising. We (the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics) just released that report last week. Many personal care products have phthalates, which is a plasticizer and hormone disruptor. That's why we started the cosmetics campaign -- because we know that women have higher levels of phthalates in their bodies, and we thought that cosmetics might be a reason. But, I think overall, the most surprising thing was to know that there's so much that we don't know about these products. Many, many chemicals are hiding in fragrance. Companies aren't required to list the components of fragrance. Products also are contaminated with carcinogens like 1,4 dioxane and neurotoxins like lead that aren't listed on the label. So it's difficult for consumers to know what we're using.

As a consumer I just want to know what ingredients to avoid, but you say in the book, protecting myself is not as simple as that. Why not?

There are no standards or regulations like there are in, for example, the food industry, where if you buy organic food or food labeled "natural," there's a set of standards and legal definitions that go behind those words. We might like to see those be stronger, but nevertheless, there are meaningful legal definitions. That's not the case in the personal care product industry, where companies often use words like "organic" and "natural" to market products that are anything but. And some of the most toxic products we've found actually had the word "natural" in their name, like natural nail strengtheners that are made with formaldehyde.

Generally speaking, risk assessment involves two factors: a hazard and people's exposure to that hazard. Could you explain some of the unique challenges to assessing risks with cosmetics?

That's a good question. Risk assessment is an extremely oversimplified way of pretending we have enough information to know how much chemicals we can tolerate in our bodies. A risk assessment equation will say, "How hazardous is a chemical, how much are we exposed to it from this one product, and is that harmful?" There's a lot of information left out of that picture: studies that haven't been done to determine impacts on fetuses, the fact that we're exposed to so many of these chemicals in so many places every day, and the fact there have been no -- or very few -- studies about chemical mixtures.

In chapter 2, you say that toxic cosmetics should raise concern for men too, regardless of whether they use any themselves. How so?

Well, men do, first of all, use personal care products. When I ask a group of people what products they've used today, the men will be keeping their hands down and eventually, reluctantly, raising their hands because they're using shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, cologne, lotion.

So it's not just a makeup problem.

No, it's not just a makeup problem. It's all products. And we know that some chemicals in these products are particularly problematic for men. We're all exposed to phthalates, and phthalates interfere with the production of testosterone, and they're linked to health effects like lower sperm counts, birth defects of the penis, testicular tumors.

You've had to struggle with some scary health problems. Tell us about that.

Like many of us, I've had bizarre health problems that nobody can explain: benign lumps in my breasts and thyroid, which is quite common among young women to have thyroid problems. And then also infertility, which is something that's becoming an increasingly common experience for people. And so many of us have heard from our doctors, "Well, we don't know why; we can't tell you why." But I think that's an interesting disconnect that we're looking at how to treat disease, but we're not looking at how to prevent disease.

You admit in the book that you used to be addicted to makeup and so-called personal care products. Do you think that could be related to the health issues you've had?

Well, who knows, and we can never say what caused what and so that's why risk assessment is not a useful tool to -- how do I want to say this -- that's why, in my opinion, we need to get rid of toxins wherever we possibly can in makeup, shampoo and lipstick is obviously a place where they don't need to be. But, yes, I did use a lot of cosmetic products -- 200 chemicals a day just in those products. And I also grew up in a very industrialized neighborhood near one of the largest incinerators in Massachusetts, near oil refineries. And we really didn't talk about these issues at all.

Do you think part of the problem with creating awareness around this issue is that the effects from toxins are often not that immediate? People don't say, Oh, I've been to this toxic site and now I have a rash all over my body.

Right, and that's what we hear from the cosmetics companies when they say, "Well, my product is safe if used as directed, and you can't prove otherwise." Which is true. We can't say that use of X product led to X disease because we're talking about long-term diseases with contributing factors. Doctors usually can't tell us why we got cancer, because it could be due to multiple factors in our pasts. We also know that exposures during critical windows of development -- babies in the womb, even teenagers -- can lead to later-life diseases.

Can you give me an idea of how many chemicals one product can contain? Earlier you said you were exposed to 200 chemicals a day during your youth, but that's not all from one product.

No, I used about 20 products a day. The average woman in the U.S. according to our survey uses 12 products a day with about 180 chemicals. And men use about six products with 80 chemicals combined. But it depends on the product. Some products have dozens of chemicals -- fragrances can have dozens or even hundreds of chemicals that aren't listed on the label. And even fragrance-free products can have a masking fragrance.

Talk a little about the history of the cosmetics industry. When did it come about and why is it so unregulated?

The cosmetics industry has fought really hard to keep itself unregulated for the last 30 years. It was first regulated under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938. That is a 350-page law with about 1.5 pages that address cosmetics. But it didn't give the FDA the power to require testing (cosmetic) products before they go on the market. The FDA can't require follow-up health monitoring; they can't even recall products. Basically, the FDA has to prove in court that a product is harmful before it can take action. There were several attempts to regulate the industry over the years, and the most well-known was in the 1970s with Thomas Eagleton, a senator from Missouri. He proposed that cosmetics should be regulated more like drugs, where there's a rigorous testing protocol that has to happen before products go on the market, but that was shot down and co-opted. What the industry has done is propose voluntary regulations every time a regulatory threat arises. And so the system that we have now is an industry-sponsored and run panel called the Cosmetics Ingredients Review Board, which is in charge of determining the safety of ingredients in cosmetics. We found lots of problems with that panel. They rushed through ingredients quickly, they hadn't looked at most of the ingredients or actually used these products and, most of the time, they find things to be safe. Even when they do make recommendations to restrict or eliminate ingredients, the industry is free to ignore them and sometimes does.

You say in the book that some companies have different formulations of the same products. Some, with harmful toxins removed, go to Europe, and others, with toxins, go to the U.S. Why is that?

Well, it's outrageous, but Europe has much better health protection laws, and they really take a precautionary approach. The European Union has banned 1,100 chemicals from cosmetics that are thought to cause cancer or reproductive harm, and so they take a precautionary approach by saying, "We know these chemicals are hazardous." Nobody argues about that. Instead of arguing about at what level are they safe in products, we need to take them out of the products and figure out how to make products without them. The United States, on the other hand, says, "We need to be able to prove that an ingredient in this product causes harm before we're going to do anything about it. Consequently, there are lots of known toxins in consumer products. It's not just cosmetics. Another example is formaldehyde in kitchen cabinets -- perfectly legal in the United States. You can buy kitchen cabinets, and they're wafting the carcinogen formaldehyde into your kitchen. You can't sell those cabinets in Europe, in Japan, even in China.

Is it really expensive for companies to reformulate their products to remove toxic chemicals?

It's not expensive to reformulate; many companies have already done it because they had to do it if they want to sell in the European market.

When did you begin working on cosmetic issues? How has the industry changed since then? What's the future outlook?

Well, we started the cosmetics campaign in 2002, when we were concerned about phthalates and found out they were in the majority of cosmetic products. At that time, we started to contact companies to try to have a dialogue with them about the chemicals they were using. ... Overall, I would say the mainstream companies have been incredibly resistant to any kind of change, but we have seen a big change in some products in the last few years. Because Europe banned phthalates, we were able to use that to pressure companies to remove phthalates from some U.S. products, particularly nail products. So we've seen a major shift in the formulation of nail products in the last few years because of the campaign (formaldehyde, toluene, and dibutyl phthalates have been removed from most nail products). So, it's possible that companies can change. They are changing, but not enough and not fast enough.

One thing that struck me about this book is that it's not just a story about cosmetic hazards. It's a story about activism. What was the thinking behind that?

Well, activism is fun, first of all. I think it's the best job in the world. And the inspiring stories from so many people from moms to former models who are speaking out, to the teenagers who have lobbied in Sacramento to get bills passed and now realize they have a political voice that they want to keep using, to nurses who have come together to pressure companies to pass protective policies. I think that's all so positive, and I think that people are coming together in ways that we haven't before.

What practical advice can you give to people wanting to clean up their cosmetics bags?

My best advice is that simpler is better. Really, fewer ingredients, fewer products. For instance, hair color and bubble bath are two things that I've given up. But there are a lot good (nontoxic) products out there on the market, and I would say start by switching out the ones that you use the most frequently like shampoo and deodorant that we're putting by our breast tissue, experiment with different kinds of natural products and just make changes as you can. You can also use the skin deep database to research your products. ... The onus at this point is on consumers to do our own research.

Anything else you'd like to add?

To learn more and take action, visit safecosmetics.org. To find out what toxins are in your personal care products, go to www.cosmeticdatabase.org. And to buy the book, check out notjustaprettyface.org.

AT7 Health News

Monday, December 31, 2007

Steaming & Boiling Vegetables More Nutritious Than Frying - Zucchini, Carrots, Broccoli

Culinary Shocker: Cooking Can Preserve, Boost Nutrient Content Of Vegetables

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Microbes Are Us - 1,000 Trillion Bacteria Cells with each 100 Trillion Cells Of A Person

Thursday, November 29, 2007

At Least 25 Grams Of Fiber Each Day - Oatmeal 4, Berries 8, Peas/Beans 11

A Few Tricks to Easier Self-Control during the Holidays

Posted by: "Francesca Skelton" fskelton@erols.com fskelton2002

Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:26 am (PST)

CT Scan Radiation Health Risk - 20 Million People Exposed Unnecessarily

Over 20 Million People Unnecessarily Exposed To Radiation From CT Scans Each Year, Study Suggests

Related Stories

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

DANGEROUS BEAUTY: EUROPE REMOVES ALL TOXICS IN EVERYDAY COSMETICS

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

A Few Walnuts, Blueberries Improve Brain Function As Do Eating Fruits & Vegetables

Diet Of Walnuts, Blueberries Improve Cognition; May Help Maintain Brain Function

LED Light - Less Energy Used, No Toxic Mercury Of CFL Light Bulbs

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Just 30 Minutes Vigorous Exercise A Day Can Stabilize Body Mass Index

Just 30 Minutes Vigorous Exercise A Day Can Stabilize Body Mass Index

Quality Of Life Most Important For Living Longer Better Life

Quality Of Life Is The Most Important Predictor Of Survival For Advanced Cancer Patients

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Rating Supermarket Foods - 3 stars is Healthier

Hannaford Guides Consumers

Genes & Cells Affected By Thoughts - Genes Do NOT Control - Environment & Beliefs/Perceptions Influence

The Effect Of Thoughts On The Body
http://www.betterhumans.com/forums/thread/16774.aspx

Insights into the Convergence of Science and Spirituality

The Grand Convergence - Merging Science & Shamanism

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Carcinogens in cosmetics Petrochemicals in perfume A Toxic Reality