Top 30 Worst Foods in America

Today’s food marketers have loaded many of their offerings with so much fat, sugar, and sodium that eating any of the foods in this article on a daily basis could destroy all your hard work and best intentions of eating healthy. Beware! This list is brought to you by Eat This Not That and Men’s Health.

1. Worst Meal in America

Carl’s Jr. Six Dollar Guacamole Bacon Burger with Medium Natural Cut Fries and 32-oz Coke

1,810 calories – 92 g fat (29.5 g saturated, 2 g trans) – 3,450 mg sodium

Of all the gut-growing, heart-threatening, life-shortening burgers in the drive-thru world, there is none whose damage to your general well-being is as potentially catastrophic as this. A bit of perspective is in order: This meal has the caloric equivalent of 9 Krispy Kreme Original Glazed doughnuts, the saturated fat equivalent of 30 strips of bacon, and the salt equivalent of 10 large orders of McDonald’s French fries!

2. Worst Drink

Baskin-Robbins Large Chocolate Oreo Shake

2,600 calories – 135 g fat (59 g saturated, 2.5 g trans) – 1,700 mg sodium – 263 g sugars

We didn’t think anything could be worse than Baskin-Robbins’ 2008 bombshell, the Heath Bar Shake. After all, it had more sugar (266 grams) than 20 bowls of Froot Loops, more calories (2,310) than 11 actual Heath Bars, and more ingredients (73) than you’ll find in most chemistry sets. Yet the folks at Baskin-Robbins have shown that when it comes to making America fat, they’re always up to the challenge. The large Chocolate Oreo Shake is soiled with more than a day’s worth of calories and 3 days’ worth of saturated fat. Worst of all, it takes less than 10 minutes to sip through a straw.

3. Worst Ribs

Outback Steakhouse Baby Back Ribs

2,580 calories

Let’s be honest: Ribs are rarely served alone on a plate. When you add a sweet potato and Outback’s Classic Wedge Salad, this meal is a 3,460-calorie blowout. (Consider that it takes only 3,500 calories to add a pound of fat to your body. Better plan for a very, very long “walkabout” when this meal is over!)

4. Worst Pizza

Uno Chicago Grill Classic Deep Dish Individual Pizza

2,310 calories – 165 g fat (54 g saturated) – 4,920 mg sodium – 120 g carbs

The problem with deep dish pizza (which Uno’s knows a thing or two about, since they invented it back in 1943) is not just the extra empty calories and carbs from the crust, it’s that the thick doughy base provides the structural integrity to house extra heaps of cheese, sauce, and greasy toppings. The result is an individual pizza with more calories than you should eat in a day and more sodium than you would find in 27 small bags of Lays Potato Chips. Oh, did we mention it has nearly 3 days’ worth of saturated fat, too? The key to success at Uno’s lies in their flatbread pizza.

5. Worst Mexican Dish


Chili’s Fajita Quesadillas Beef with Rice and Beans, 4 Flour Tortillas, and Condiments

2,240 calories – 92 g fat (43.5 g saturated) – 6,390 mg sodium – 253 g carbs

Since when has it ever been a smart idea to combine 2 already calorie- and sodium-packed dishes into one monstrous meal? This confounding creation delivers nearly a dozen Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnuts worth of calories, the sodium equivalent of 194 saltine crackers, and the saturated fat equivalent of 44 strips of bacon. Check please.

6. Worst Seafood Dish


Romano’s Macaroni Grill Parmesan Crusted Sole

2,190 calories – 141 g fat (58 g saturated) – 2,980 mg sodium – 145 g carbs

Fish is normally a safe bet, but this entrée proves that it’s all in the preparation. If you fry said fish in a shell of cheese, be prepared to pay the consequences. Here that means meeting your daily calorie, fat, saturated fat, and sodium intake in one sitting.

7. Worst Chinese Dish

P.F. Chang’s Combo Lo Mein

1,968 calories – 96 g fat (12 g saturated) – 5,860 mg sodium

Lo mein is normally looked at as a side dish, a harmless pile of noodles to pad your plate of orange chicken or broccoli beef. This heaping portion (to be fair, Chang’s does suggest diners share an order) comes spiked with chicken, shrimp, beef, and pork, not to mention an Exxon Valdez-size slick of oil. The damage? A day’s worth of calories, 1 ½ days’ worth of fat, and 2 ½ days’ worth of sodium. No meat-based dish beats out the strip.

8. Worst Appetizer

On the Border Firecracker Stuffed Jalapenos with Chili con Queso

1,950 calories – 134 g fat (36 g saturated) – 6,540 mg sodium

Appetizers are the most problematic area of most chain-restaurant menus. That’s because they’re disproportionately reliant on the type of cheesy, greasy ingredients that catch hungry diners’ eyes when they’re most vulnerable—right when they sit down. Seek out lean protein options like grilled shrimp skewers or ahi tuna when available; if not, simple is best—like chips and salsa.

9. Worst Burger


Chili’s Smokehouse Bacon Triple Cheese Big Mouth Burger with Jalapeno Ranch Dressing

1,901 calories – 138 g fat (47 g saturated) – 4,201 mg sodium

Any burger whose name is 21 syllables long is bound to spell trouble for your waistline. This burger packs almost an entire day’s worth of calories and 2 ½ days’ worth of fat. Chili’s burger menu rivals Ruby Tuesday’s for the worst in America, so you’re better off with one of their reasonable Fajita Pitas to silence your hunger.

10. Worst Sandwich

Quizno’s Large Tuna Melt

1,760 calories – 133 g fat (26 g saturated, 1.5 g trans) – 2,120 mg sodium

In almost all other forms, tuna is a nutritional superstar, so how did it end up as the headliner for America’s Worst Sandwich? Blame an absurdly heavy hand with the mayo the tuna is mixed with, along with Quiznos’ larger-than-life portion sizes. Even though they’ve managed to trim this melt down from the original 2,000-plus calorie mark when we first tested it, it still sits squarely at the bottom of the sandwich ladder.

11. Worst Salad

On the Border Grande Taco Salad with Taco Beef and Chipotle Honey Mustard

1,700 calories – 124 g fat (37.5 g saturated) – 2,620 mg sodium

The dismal dawn of the 1,700-calorie salad is upon us. With as much saturated fat as 37 strips of bacon and more calories than 11 Taco Bell Fresco Beef Tacos, this abdomen expander earns a well-deserved spot on our list of the Worst Foods in America.

12. Worst Dessert

Romano’s Macaroni Grill New York Cheesecake with Caramel Fudge Sauce

1,660 calories – 97 g fat (57 g saturated) – 950 mg sodium – 165 g carbs

Considering the fact that Macaroni Grill’s savory menu is already cluttered with one of the country’s most potent arrays of calorie, fat, and sodium bombs, its lineup of destructive desserts only adds insult to injury. There’s the Dessert Ravioli (1,630 calories), the Lemon Passion (1,360 calories), and the always classic and catastrophic caramel-smothered cheesecake, which, with more calories than 3 Big Macs and as much saturated fat as 57 strips of bacon, is the worst dessert in America. Seek solace in a scoop of sorbetto—one of the country’s best sit-down sweets

13. Worst Pancake Breakfast


Bob Evans Stacked & Stuffed Caramel Banana Pecan Hotcakes

1,543 calories – 77 g fat (26 g saturated, 9 g trans) – 2,259 mg sodium – 109 g sugars

This appalling platter is stacked and stuffed with the sugar equivalent of 7 Twinkies, the caloric equivalent of 8 Dunkin’ Donuts glazed doughnuts, the sodium equivalent of 6 ½ large order of McDonald’s French fries, and 4 ½ times your daily limit of trans fat. It’s made numerous lists in our newest book, Eat This, Not That! The Best (and Worst!) Foods in America, including Worst Foods, Most Sugar-Packed Foods, and Trans-Fattiest Foods. Above all of these dubious distinctions, it’s the undisputed Worst Breakfast in America.

14. Worst Omelet Breakfast

IHOP’s The Big Steak Omelette

1,490 calories

We’re not sure what’s more concerning: IHOP’s never-ending stacks of margarine-slathered sweets or their reckless attempts at covering the savory side of breakfast with entrees like this one. With close to three-quarters of a day’s worth of calories folded into its eggy shell (thanks to a heaping portion of fatty beef), you’re committing to eating rice cakes for your next 2 meals when you start your morning off with this bomblette. Why not enjoy the substantial Garden Scramble and 2 more real meals instead?

15. Worst “Healthy” Sandwich

Applebee’s Chicken Fajita Rollup

1,450 calories

For some curious reason, wraps have come to be viewed as a healthy upgrade from sandwiches, as if those massive tortillas can be filled with nothing but anticalories. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. The problem with wraps is that they function as holding tanks for fluids, so hurried fry-cooks can squirt in as much sauce as they want without making it look messy. With Applebee’s rollup, the offending sauce is a Mexi-ranch sauce, which looks suspiciously more like ranch than anything eaten in Mexico. But here’s the final insult: This “healthy” meal is served with fries. Eat them and you tack on 400 extra calories.

16. Worst Sliders

Ruby Tuesday Bacon Cheddar Minis

1,358 calories – 86 g fat – 75 g carbs

Diminutive dishes are one of the hottest trends in the restaurant world right now (probably since most are looking for ways to stretch a buck), and you’d think that would serve health-conscious eaters well. But not under the reckless watch of the burger barons at Ruby Tuesday, who manage to turn 4 “mini” burgers into the caloric equivalent of 7 Dunkin’ Donuts Sugar Donuts.

17. Worst Kids’ Meal

Uno Chicago Grill Kids Kombo with French Fries

1,270 calories – 79 g fat (11.5 g saturated) – 2,850 mg sodium

For food marketers, the color of money isn’t green—it’s beige. Any parent knows that most foods kids clamor for, from fries to white bread to chicken nuggets, come in beige. It’s also a marker of cheap, calorie-rich, nutritionally bankrupt foodstuffs. So when you see this monochromatic cluster of cheese sticks, dinosaur-shaped chicken and fried potatoes, you know your kid’s in trouble. Make it a rule when eating out: All dishes must come with at least two colors (and ketchup doesn’t count).

18. Worst Vegetarian Sub

Blimpie Special Vegetarian Sub (12″)

1,186 calories – 60 g fat (19 g saturated) – 3,532 mg sodium – 131 g carbs

“Vegetarian” doesn’t automatically translate to “healthy.” Sure, this sandwich has vegetables, but it also has 3 different kinds of cheese and a deluge of oil tucked into a hulking 12” roll. No wonder it contains more than half a day’s worth of calories and a cascade of carbs. For a truly healthy pile of vegetables, try the garden salad. If a sandwich is the only thing that will do, you’ll have to settle for the small VeggieMax, still far from a model of meatless eating.

19. Worst Frozen Meal

Stouffer’s White Meat Chicken Pot Pie

1,160 calories – 66 g fat (26 g saturated) – 1,780 mg sodium

The potpie is one of the world’s worst dietary inventions to begin with, and the damage is all the more extreme when the pie seems as big as a child’s head. Stouffer’s tries to get away with it by falling back on the serving-size sleight of hand; that is, to list as 2 servings what every person with a fork will consume as 1. Nobody splits potpies, and eating this whole thing will fill your belly with more saturated fat than you should eat in an entire day.

20. Worst Mall Treat

Cinnabon Regular Caramel Pecanbun

1,110 calories – 56 g fat (10 g saturated, 5 g trans) – 151 g carbs – 47 g sugars

Cinnabon and malls are inseparable. Consider it a symbiotic relationship: Researchers have found that men are turned on by the smell of cinnamon rolls, and further studies have shown that men are more likely to spend money when they’re thinking about sex. But just because Cinnabon might be good for Gap doesn’t mean it’s at all good for you. This dangerously bloated bun contains nearly an entire day’s worth of fat and more than half of your daily allotment of calories. (For those keeping score, that’s as much as you’ll find in 8 White Castle hamburgers.)

21. Worst Breakfast For Your Blood Pressure

Arby’s Sausage Gravy Biscuit

1,040 calories – 60 g fat (22 g saturated, 2 g trans) – 4,699 mg sodium

This is absolutely one of the worst ways you could start your day. Make a date with this and you’ll have consumed 2 full days’ worth of sodium before the noon hour. The key to maintaining a reasonable blood pressure for most folks is to take in at least the equivalent amount of sodium and potassium throughout your day. (A 1:1 ratio is seen as ideal.) The problem with this biscuit is that you’re consuming a heart-stopping level of sodium and almost no potassium. Throw in an abundance of calories and trans fat and you may have been better off sleeping in.

22. Worst Adult Beverage

Red Lobster Traditional Lobsterita

890 calories 183 g carbs

Lobsterita means a lobster tank-sized glass filled with booze and high-fructose corn syrup. You’d have to drink 4 regular on-the-rocks margaritas to outdo the massive caloric load. Pair that with a dinner and you might be pushing a full day’s calories in one meal. If you want to get drunk, take a shot. If you want to enjoy a cocktail, make sure it doesn’t start with a bottle of mix—your body and your taste buds will thank you.

23. Worst Frozen Breakfast


Jimmy Dean Pancake and Sausage Breakfast Bowl

710 calories – 31 g fat (11 g saturated) – 890 mg sodium – 34 g sugars

A disastrous trifecta of refined carbs from the pancakes, saturated fat from the sausage, and added sugar from the syrup. Jimmy’s got his name attached to more than a few solid breakfast choices, so find one less than 400 calories immediately and make the switch. Hint: Look to the breakfast sandwiches and the D-Lights line.

24. Worst Frozen Pizza


DiGiorno for One Supreme pizza with Garlic Bread Crust

840 calories 44 g fat (16 g saturated, 3.5 g trans) 1,450 mg sodium

Regardless of the crust you choose, DiGiorno’s For One line is dominated by nutritional duds. The bloated crust and the greasy toppings will saddle you with 60 percent of your day’s sodium, 80 percent of your day’s saturated fat, and nearly twice the amount of trans fat you should take in daily. Hands off!

25. Worst Side Dish For Your Arteries

Jack in the Box Bacon Cheddar Potato Wedges

760 calories – 52 g fat (16 g saturated, 13 g trans) – 960 mg sodium

It’s no surprise this side dish is bursting with fat and calories—it’s a plate of fried potatoes topped with bacon and melted cheese. The Jack in the Box menu is so thoroughly swaddled in trans fats that they truly have earned the bottom slot on our list of the trans-fattiest foods in America—not to mention, the title of Trans-Fattiest Restaurant in America. The good news is that not all of Jack’s items are filled with the bad stuff—a smarter appetizer or side dish would be the Grilled Chicken Pita Snack.

26. Worst Supermarket Kids’ Lunch


Oscar Mayer Maxed Out Turkey & Cheddar Cracker Combo Lunchables

680 calories – 22 g fat (9 g saturated) – 1,440 mg sodium – 61 g sugars

The Maxed Out line is the worst of the lackluster Lunchables, with a back label that reads like a chemistry textbook. By cramming dessert and a superweet drink into the box, Oscar manages to saddle this already-troubled package with more added sugar than your child should take in all day. This meal has the sugar equivalent of 10 Dunkin’ Donuts jelly-filled doughnuts!

27. Worst Gas Station Treat


Hostess Chocolate Pudding Pie

520 calories – 24 g fat (14 g saturated, 1.5 g trans) – 45 g sugars

This is the type of snack you pick up at a gas station in a pinch and feel vaguely guilty about, not knowing that you just managed to ingest nearly three-quarters of a day’s worth of saturated fat before your tank finishing filling up. And considering these little packages of doom cost a buck or less across the country, the pudding pie qualifies as one of the cheapest sources of empty calories in America.

28. Worst Supermarket Drink

Sobe Pina Colada Liz Blizz (20 oz bottle)

325 calories – 0 g fat – 78 g sugars

Don’t be fooled by the natural motifs that adorn Sobe’s bottles. It has more sugar than you’ll find in two Snickers bars! We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Don’t buy products with cartoon animals on the front.

29. Worst Snack For Your Arteries

Pop Secret Kettle Corn (1/3 bag)

180 calories – 13 g fat (2.5 g saturated, 5 g trans) – 150 mg sodium

The only “secret” here is that the company has no qualms about trans fat. Eat an entire bag of this kettle corn, and you’ll consume 15 grams of the artery-clogging junk—that’s more than 7 times your recommended daily limit. Choose Orville Redenbacher’s Movie Theater Butter for fewer calories and no trans fat.

30. Worst Canned Fruit

Del Monte Peach Chunks Yellow Cling Peaches in Heavy Syrup

100 calories – 23 g sugars

Peaches themselves aren’t bona fide junk food; they are, after all, still fruit. But why manufacturers feel the need to can, packaged, and bottle nature’s candy with excess sugar is a question we will never stop asking. In this case, the viscous sugar solution clings to the fruit like syrup to a pancake, soaking every bite with utterly unnecessary calories. Looking for cheap sources of fruit to have on hand at any time? Opt for the frozen stuff—it’s picked at the height of season and flash frozen on the spot, keeping costs low and nutrients high.

Source: www.eatthis.menshealth.com/slideshow…

The Dangers of Estrogens in Our Environment

Posted in Green/Organic/Eco-Conscious on September 26th, 2010

The Dangers of Estrogens in Our Environment

.

The natural environment is one of great splendor. Beautiful trees, lush fields, flowing waters and a myriad of colorful plants are all within grasp for humans to touch and behold.

This same landscape, however, is also full of chemicals known to be gravely dangerous. These are called xenoestrogens, and mounting evidence implicates them in a vast assortment of human and wildlife health problems.

Xenoestrogens essentially mimic the estrogen that occurs naturally within human bodies. An estimated 70,000 registered chemicals contain xenoestrogens, which enter a person’s endocrine system and disrupt normal processes. In addition to being carcinogenic and toxic, xenoestrogens increase the body’s real estrogen production and can cause infertility, a variety of cancers, chronic diseases and a host of other health complications that do not quickly cease.

Personal Care Products

One of the foremost ways that xenoestrogens enter the body is through personal care products. This is especially true of women’s products, including cosmetics, face and body lotions, nail polish remover and acrylic nails. Such ingredients as phthalates, parabens, triclosan and hydroquinone are illegal in the European Union because they have been proven to cause cancer and reproductive developmental toxicity. In the United States, however, such ingredients continue to be readily found in a variety of cosmetic products.

Dr. Phillippa Darbre with the University of Reading’s School of Biological Sciences in England wrote a report that investigated the connection between breast cancer and cosmetics use. As the skin does not act to prevent such chemicals from entering the body, she contended that xenoestrogens are largely responsible for many breast cancer occurrences. This is based upon the fact that 90 percent of breast cancers are environmental in origin, and the major influence is constant exposure to estrogen.

Judi Vance, author of Beauty to Die For: the Cosmetic Consequence, claims that female hormonal imbalances are only a North American problem that may also be connected to cosmetic use. According to her research, countries like China and Japan do not suffer from such problems as PMS and menopausal symptoms. This is because xenoestrogens communicate with cells as if they were natural estrogen. Such common products as bubble bath, hair conditioner and shampoo all have the potential to contain xenoestrogens.

Estrogen in the Food and Bottled Water Supply

According to researchers, 75 percent of all Americans will be overweight by the year 2015. Some scientists attribute this statistic to a sedentary lifestyle, but others believe that estrogen is the culprit. According to Ori Hofmekler, author of The Anti-Estrogenic Diet, “Most conventional food is estrogenic.” This is because meat and dairy products are ridden with hormones, while fruits and vegetables are laced in pesticides. Such chemicals are intended to protect and procure meat and produce. Once inside the body, however, those hormones mimic the actions of estrogen. Hofmekler further states that this is responsible for breast cancer in women and infertility in men.

Indeed, studies show that xenoestrogens substantially lower sperm counts in men. In the past 50 years, male sperm counts have plummeted by 50 percent. Today, the average man’s testosterone and sperm levels have dropped 20 percent compared to just 20 years ago. Researchers believe this is owed to heavily processed foods with additives and, again, personal care products.

Dr. Russell Blaylock concurs with Hofmekler and also takes the estrogen theory one step further. Not only is estrogen present in the foods consumed by humans, but also in bottled waters. This is because xenoestrogens appear in plastic containers. When foods or liquids sit in those containers, they absorb the xenoestrogens and pass them to humans during consumption. Dr. Blaylock states, “Studies show that xenoestrogens from plastics appear to cause premature menses in young girls, decreased sperm in men and a dramatic increase in breast disease.”

How to Avoid the Estrogen Environment

Individuals can take proactive measures to avoid such an overload of estrogen, as caused by the environment. For example, grocery purchases should include only organic meats and produce items. Personal care products should also be used minimally and include organic ingredients.

In order to become healthier, experts agree that people need to first become informed. This means reading the labels of all commercial products, making conscious decisions and staying abreast of new consumer developments.

Sources:

http://www.organicauthority.com/health/health/cosmetics-and-breast-cancer.html

http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303213610

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/85704.shtml

Gluten then and now

Monday, June 27, 2011 by: Julie McGinnis, Published in Natural News
Read the Original Article Here

(NaturalNews) Over the past decade, the frequency of conversations about gluten intolerance (GI) and celiac disease (CD) in the United States has gone from almost unheard of to commonplace. Chances are your local supermarket sells dozens of items labeled “gluten free” where none existed five years ago. Restaurants and school lunch programs frequently offer gluten-free alternatives. What happened?

Before I dive into that discussion, I want to clarify some terms to minimize confusion. “Gluten” is the general term for a mixture of tiny protein fragments (called polypeptides), which are found in cereal grains such as wheat, rye, barley, spelt, faro, and kamut. Gluten is classified in two groups: prolamines and glutelins. The most troublesome component of gluten is the prolamine gliadin. Gliadin is the cause of the painful inflammation in gluten intolerance and instigates the immune response and intestinal damage found in celiac disease. Although both conditions have similar symptoms (pain, gas, bloating, diarrhea), or sometimes no gastrointestinal symptoms at all, celiac disease is an autoimmune reaction to gluten that can cause severe degradation of the small intestine; whereas, gluten intolerance/sensitivity is an inability to digest gliadin with no damage to the intestines.

The medical community’s use of improved diagnostic tools (saliva, blood, and stool tests; and bowel biopsies) as well as self-diagnosis by aware individuals has certainly contributed to the swelling ranks of people afflicted with these maladies; however, that’s not the whole story. A combination of hybridized grains, America’s growing appetite for snacks and fast food, and the genetics of gluten intolerance and celiac disease have brought discussions of these once uncommon conditions front and center.

New evidence indicates that the hybrid versions of grains we eat today contain significantly more gluten than traditional varieties of the same grains. Experts such as Dr. Alessio Fasano, medical director of the Center for Celiac Research at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, believe this recent increase in the amount of gluten in our diet has given rise to the number of people suffering from gluten intolerance and celiac disease.

According to Fasano, “The prevalence of celiac disease in this country is soaring partly because changes in agricultural practices have increased gluten levels in crops.” He further states, “We are in the midst of an epidemic.”

For example, the ancient wheat that Moses ate was probably very different from our wheat today. Moses lived about 3,500 years ago, when wheat, spelt, and barley were all popular grains. Modern wheat varieties, however, have been bred to grow faster, produce bigger yields, harvest more efficiently, and bake better bread. The downside to today’s hybridized cereal grains is that they contain more gluten.

Celiac disease was once considered a rare malady and was estimated to have afflicted approximately 1 in 2,000 people in the United States. According to research done by the Mayo Clinic, CD is four times more common today that it was five decades ago. This increase is due to increased awareness and diagnostics, and the estimate today is that 1 out of every 133 people in the United States has celiac disease. To read more facts and figures please read The University of Chicago Celiac Disease center at http://www.uchospitals.edu/pdf/uch_…

Here are estimates for other parts of the world:
· 3 in 100: United Kingdom
· 1 in 370: Italy
· 1 in 122: Northern Ireland
· 1 in 99: Finland
· 1 in 133: United States
· Once thought rare for African-, Hispanic- and Asian-Americans, current estimates in these populations: 1 in 236
· 1 in 30 are estimated to have gluten intolerance in the United States.

More than 6,000 years before Moses was born, an agricultural revolution took place in the Middle East that allowed humans to embrace farming (sewing and harvesting wild seeds), herding, and other forms of agriculture and move away from our hunter-fisher-gatherer ancestors. This was the first major introduction of gluten into the human diet.

According to Dr. Loren Cordain, PhD, author of The Paleo Diet, “The foods that agriculture brought us — cereals, dairy products, fatty meats, salted foods, and refined sugars and oils- proved disastrous for our Paleolithic bodies…. studies of the bones and teeth early farmers revealed that they had more infectious diseases, more childhood mortality, shorter life spans, more osteoporosis, rickets, and other bone mineral density disorders than their ancestors thanks to the cereal-based diet. They were plagued with vitamin and mineral deficiencies and developed cavities in their teeth.”
In other words, people traded their health for sustainable food sources and a less nomadic way of life.

Two hundred years ago, the global diet received another big injection of gluten with the birth of the Industrial Revolution and steam-powered mills that were able to produce refined-grain flours that had significantly longer shelf lives, making flour (aka: gluten) more accessible and available to an almost global market. “We were able to mill and process grains for consumption and eat them in larger quantities than we had ever done in the past,” writes Cordain.

Jack Challem, “The Nutrition Reporter,” offers a different long view of human consumption of gluten: “Look at in another way, 100,000 generations of people were hunter-gatherers, 500 generations have depended on agriculture, and only 10 generations have lived since the start of the industrial age, and only two generations have grown up with highly processed fast foods. This short period of time in the course of man’s existence that grains have been around has proven that many of us are not physiologically able to tolerate gluten.”

Historical evidence of people having trouble digesting gluten was first documented in the 2nd century A.D. when the Greek physician Aretaeus of Cappadocia, diagnosed patients with celiac disease. The symptoms included “wasting and characteristic stools.” Since Aretaeus’ time, the disease has gone by a variety of names, including “non-tropical sprue,” “celiac sprue,” “non-celiac gluten intolerance,” “gluten intolerance enteropathy,” and “gluten sensitive enteropathy.”

Fast forward to 1950, when the Dutch pediatrician Willem-Karel Dicke proposed wheat gluten was the cause of the disease. His theory was based on observations that celiac children improved during World War II when wheat was scarce in Holland.

As Challem points out, today, thanks in large part to the fast food and snack food industries, gluten is in just about every kind of food imaginable.

So Why Can’t Everyone Handle Gluten?

People who that carry any of the genes for CD and GI (expressed or not) are more susceptible to developing either condition. You can carry two dominate genes for celiac disease and perhaps end up developing CD or you can carry one dominant gene and one recessive gene and develop only GI. Your genes determine the body’s immune response in the presence of gluten, and many different health problems may result from that response. Some people may have their brain affected and develop cognitive problems such as depression or impaired brain function, while others suffer pancreatic problems and develop diabetes. Research still needs to be done to answer the question as to why these maladies affect different parts of the body in different people.
When populations that are genetically predisposed to CD and GI are exposed to cereal grains with higher gluten content, there’s little wonder why more people are having these genes “turned on” and develop gluten insensitivity on a much larger scale — especially now that the flour made from these grains are part of the “hidden ingredients” in foods from ice cream to lunch meats.

OK, Now What?

So, gluten has changed, and we have changed, and it appears not for the better. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, identifying and eliminating the foods and ingredients from your life that do not work for your body is the only answer. There is no magic pill to take to make it all go away.

If you, or someone you know, is experiencing major health issues that aren’t getting better, enlisting a knowledgeable physician who understands the complexities of CD and GI testing is an excellent idea; however, on average, it takes the medical community 10 years to diagnose people who are suffering with severe health problems from undiagnosed CD and GI.?

The Bottom Line

Gluten intolerance is not a fad diet. I have seen countless cases display miraculous improvements in?long standing ailments — simply by adapting this lifestyle. Even if you have a test for CD and it comes back negative?and medical community clears you to continue?eating gluten, but you feel better without it,?listen to your body. You?know yourself far better than anyone else and you deserve?good health. If you have doubts about your diet, try going gluten-free for two weeks and see how you feel. Those with more advanced illnesses (autoimmune diseases and such) will usually not experience changes until they have been gluten-free for six months to a year.

About the author:
Julie McGinnis, M.S., R.D., certified herbalist holds a Master’s degree in nutrition from the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut and has been involved in the field of nutrition for twenty years. Upon completion of her herbal certification she began her career in complementary health and worked for years in research and development for a professional line of nutrition supplements. She has written professional nutrition and health literature for national retailers and other small businesses. She is one of three owners of The Gluten Free Bistro in Boulder, CO a manufacturer of gluten-free pizza, pasta and flour.www.theglutenfreebistro.com

Are Your Kids Allergic To Food – Or What’s In It?

Posted on Healthy Child, Healthy World, Written by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Executive Director/CEO, Healthy Child Healthy World
Necessary News, Thursday, June 23, 2011
…………………………………………………………..

This week, it’s all about food. A study released by Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine found that childhood food allergies are twice as common as experts previously thought, with one in 13 kids affected, WebMD reported.

The survey of 38,000 was the largest ever to track childhood food allergies in the United States, and found that eight percent of kids under 18 are allergic to at least one food, with peanuts, milk and shellfish as the top three offenders. Previous studies, including a government survey published in 2009, had estimated four percent. Many food allergies are mild, but this new study found that 40% of children had experienced severe, potentially life-threatening reactions.

Why are these childhood staples now considered poisonous to so many?

Some are pointing fingers at new introductions of genetically modified organisms. Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec are set to publish a study in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology that found pesticides associated with Genetically Modified (GM) crops in the blood of women, as well as pregnant women, their placentas and their infants. In their coverage of the study, Food Consumer referenced an article in the UK’s Daily Mail reporting that organizations in England and New Zealand are now calling for a halt to the growth of GM crops until more investigations can take place. This type of investigation is exactly what Healthy Child Healthy World Parent Ambassador Robyn O’Brien has been calling for since she founded Allergy Kids in 2010, after one of her four kids experienced a life-threatening food allergy reaction.

Robyn’s theory, which she espoused in the YouTube sensation that is her Austin TedX talk—viewed by nearly 200,000 people—as well at a private luncheon hosted by Stonyfield Farm, which I was lucky enough to attend last week, is that the dramatic rises in allergy rates that we’ve seen over the past few years are the direct result of the dramatic increase in the genetically modified organisms that the food industry is now using to grow crops.

Our kids may not be allergic to food. They may be allergic to what’s in the food. Today, nearly 75 percent of the food on your grocer’s shelves contains genetically modified ingredients, yet manufacturers are not required to label them as such.

Since the introduction of genetically engineered foods in the 1990s, there has been a 265 percent increase in the rates of hospitalizations due to food-related allergic reactions, according to the Huffington Post’s Jennifer Grayson.

What can you do to protect your kids?

Healthy Child Healthy World’s 5 Easy Steps recommends choosing organic foods whenever possible; by law, organic foods must be made without genetically modified ingredients (as well as pesticides and insecticides). Then take it a step further and sign the Allergy Kids petition to force U.S. manufacturers to disclose GM ingredients in their foods so that Americans can make an informed choice about the foods we feed our families. “They may be only 30 percent of the population,” Robyn said, “but they’re 100 percent of our future.” I couldn’t agree with her more.

Read more: http://healthychild.org/blog/comments/are_your_kids_allergic_to_food_or_whats_in_it/#ixzz1QZb5ryZg

Study Found Toxin from GM Crops is Showing up in Human Blood

Posted By Dr. Mercola | May 31 2011 |

Read the original article here

Genetically Modified Crops

A new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.

Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.

India Today reports:

“Scientists … have detected the insecticidal protein …  circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women. They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation.”

Sources:

Dr. Mercola’s Comments

Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from genetically modified (GM) crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:

  • 93 percent of maternal blood samples
  • 80 percent of fetal blood samples
  • 69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples

Writing in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the researchers noted:

“This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF [pesticides associated with genetically modified foods] in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.”

This GM insecticide toxin is already showing up in fetal blood, which means it could have an untold impact on future generations.

Bt Toxin is a Built-In Pesticide

Upwards of 85 percent of U.S. corn crops contain a special gene added that allows them to produce an insecticide. This way, when bugs attempt to eat the corn they’re killed right away (specifically their stomach is split open) because the plant contains an invisible, built-in pesticide shield.

The particular gene added to most corn crops is a type of Bt-toxin — produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Genetic engineers remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn (and cotton) plants.

They claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in human stomachs — and even if it survived, it won’t cause reactions in humans or mammals …

But studies are now showing that this is not the case, as Bt toxin is readily passing into the human bloodstream and animal studies have already shown that Bt-toxin does cause health effects in animals, including potentially humans. As Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, wrote:

“Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.

Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin, and authorities acknowledge that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”

In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.

… The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn’t wash off the plants like the spray does, nd it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version.

In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others.”

GM Insecticide Poisons Also Showing Up in Waterways

Given that Bt toxin has now been confirmed in the human bloodstream, it should come as no surprise that it has also infiltrated the environment. According to one study, 50 of the 217 streams, ditches and drains near cornfields that researchers tested were found to contain Cry1Ab above six nanograms per liter.

The protein is getting into the waterways via corn stalks, leaves, husks and cobs that blow into the water — a phenomenon that’s incredibly common since farmers often leave such material in fields to help minimize soil erosion.

Eighty-six percent of the streams tested contained various corn material with the potential to transmit Bt-toxin into the water. Further, because the study was conducted six months after crops were harvested, it indicates that the GM protein lingers in the environment. Now that this GM toxin is showing up in waterways, it has the potential to devastate aquatic life and continue to spread, uncontrolled and unrestricted, across the entire United States and world.

GM Foods May be Leaving GM Proteins in Your Body

In case it’s not clear, I want to reiterate that this new study in Reproductive Technology has confirmed that if you eat GM foods that contain the insecticidal Bt toxin, it appears likely that it will be transferred to your bloodstream.

As I mentioned earlier, as of right now about 85 percent of the corn grown in the United States is genetically engineered to either produce an insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup herbicide.

What this means is that nearly ALL foods you buy that contain either corn or soy, in any form, will contain GM components unless it’s certified organic by the USDA.

There’s very convincing evidence that eating these genetically modified foods spells nothing but trouble for your health. As Smith discusses in this interview, scientists have discovered a number of health problems related to genetically modified foods in general, however these studies have been repeatedly ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide.

In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy.

However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn — which contains the BT toxin — might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines. Now the evidence has come through nonetheless, as the study in Reproductive Technology shows that it does transfer, at least to your bloodstream (and the bloodstream of your baby if you’re pregnant).

This is extremely concerning, as in this interview Smith also mentions an Italian study where they fed BT corn to mice. As a result, the mice expressed a wide variety of immune responses commonly associated with diseases such as:

Rheumatoid arthritis Inflammatory bowel disease Osteoporosis
Atherosclerosis Various types of cancer Allergies
Lou Gehrig’s disease

I’ve gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States, EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the “USDA Organic” label is filled with GM components. So you’re eating GM foods, and you have been for the last decade, whether you knew it or not. You can thank Congress for this, and the USDA and Monsanto. What ultimate impact these GM foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects.

How to Say “No” to GMOs

If you don’t already have a copy of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, please print one out and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Also remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.

You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

If you’re feeling more ambitious, you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure from the Institute of Responsible Technology in bulk and give it to your family and friends. When possible, buy your fresh produce and meat from local farmers who have committed to using non-GM seeds and avoid non-organic processed foods as much as possible, as again these are virtually 100-percent guaranteed to contain GM ingredients.

E.coli superbug outbreak in Germany due to abuse of antibiotics in meat production

hursday, June 02, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

Read the original article here

(NaturalNews) The e.coli outbreak in Germany is raising alarm worldwide as scientists are now describing this particular strain of e.coli as “extremely aggressive and toxic.” Even worse, the strain is resistant to antibiotics, making it one of the world’s first widespread superbug food infections that’s racking up a noticeable body count while sickening thousands.

Of course, virtually every report you’ll read on this in the mainstream media has the facts wrong. This isn’t about cucumbers being dangerous, because e.coli does not grow on cucumbers. E.coli is an intestinal strain of bacteria that only grows inside the guts of animals (and people). Thus, the source of all this e.coli is ANIMAL, not vegetable.

But the media won’t admit that. Because the whole agenda here is to kill your vegetables but protect the atrocious practices of the factory animal meat industries. The FDA, in particular, loves all these outbreaks because it gives them more moral authority to clamp down on gardens and farms. They’ve been trying to irradiate and fumigate fresh veggies in the USA for years. (http://www.naturalnews.com/023015_f…)

Meanwhile, scientists have been cracking the code of this particular lethal strain of e.coli. Microbiologists from the University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf now say “A preliminary analysis pointed to possible reasons for this strain of E. coli’s extreme aggressiveness and resistance to antibiotics. In addition, it can now be researched how this new type of E. coli strain developed, why the strain can spread at great speed and why the illness it unleashes is so serious.” (http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/Ki…)

Complete blackout of the obvious source of this new strain

The mainstream media is predictably pretending it has no idea where this new strain came from. They’re all scratching their heads and just focusing on the “killer cucumbers” which is of course a particularly lame bit of disinfo.

Want to know where this e.coli really came from? The abuse of antibiotics in factory animal farms.

Factory animal farm operations, you see, raise cattle, pigs and chickens in such atrociously bad and dirty conditions that they have to pump them full of antibiotics just to avoid the rapid spread of infection. This constant dosing with antibiotics creates the perfect breeding ground for superbugs in the guts of these animals.

Then, these animals defecate and drop billions of e.coli bacteria with their stools which are then collected and used as crop fertilizers. So the crops are actually grown in this stuff that’s contaminated with animal fecal matter containing antibiotics-induced superbugs.

The veggies grown in the e.coli fertilizer then get shipped to supermarkets, where people buy the produce and fail to wash it properly. Once they consume it, the e.coli goes to work in their own guts which are largely devoid of friendly flora because many people are also on antibiotics which wipe out their own intestinal flora, creating a perfect environment for food borne infection.

That’s when people start dying, you see. It’s all basic cause and effect.

So, you see, antibiotics play a double role in this tragedy: They’re widely abused throughout the animal ranching industry, and they’re also widely abused by doctors treating human patients. And yet the media is just strangely reluctant to print this obvious fact. They almost outright refuse to tell readers the truth: E.coli superbugs are an antibiotics problem, not a vegetable problem!

What the press says about this outbreak – wow!

Some astonishing quotes from the press:

Chinese and German scientists analyzed the DNA of the E. coli bacteria and determined that the outbreak was caused by “an entirely new, super-toxic” strain that contains several antibiotic-resistant genes, according to a statement from the Shenzhen, China-based laboratory BGI. It said the strain appeared to be a combination of two types of E. coli.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4324754…

“This is a unique strain that has never been isolated from patients before,” Hilde Kruse, a food safety expert at the World Health Organization, told The Associated Press. The new strain has “various characteristics that make it more virulent and toxin-producing” than the many E. coli strains people naturally carry in their intestines. Preliminary genetic sequencing suggests the strain is a never before seen combination of two different E. coli bacteria, with aggressive genes that could explain why the outbreak appears to be so massive and dangerous, the agency said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110602…

How to protect yourself from e.coli

On the practical side, what can you do to protect yourself from e.coli contamination of vegetables? There are FOUR simple things you can do:

1) EAT LOCAL. Grow your own food and / or buy from local farmers’ markets.

2) WASH YOUR VEGGIES. If you wash them well, even e.coli won’t be a problem. The e.coli is only present in those veggies that aren’t adequately washed.

3) TAKE PROBIOTICS. The more “friendly” bacteria you have in your gut, the less space there is for toxic e.coli to take hold. The secret truth about these infections — that you’re not being told — is that virtually everyone infected with toxic e.coli is someone with compromised digestive flora. Taking probiotics gives you a buffer against invading nasties.

4) AVOID ANTIBIOTICS. Most antibiotics are prescribed to humans by clueless doctors who prescribe them for things like viral infections and asthma, none of which are treated in the least by antibiotics.

These four simple steps will protect nearly everyone from e.coli infections acquired through food. So why doesn’t the mainstream media teach people these four simple steps? Because they’re too busy blaming cucumbers, tomatoes and spinach, I guess. They’re utterly ignorant of the simple dynamics of e.coli superbug mutation and propagation.

Food safety isn’t rocket science, folks. It’s simpler than you’ve been told. And it’s based on the fundamental idea that you shouldn’t raise cattle, hogs and chicken in dirty, inhumane conditions requiring a constant dose of chemical antibiotics just to keep them alive.

 

Sunscreens Exposed: 9 surprising truths

Published on EWG’s (Environtmental Working Group) Skin Deep, Sunscreens 2011

Sunscreens prevent sunburns, but beyond that simple fact surprisingly little is known about the safety and efficacy of these ubiquitous creams and sprays. FDA’s failure to finalize its 1978 sunscreen safety standards both epitomizes and perpetuates this state of confusion. EWG’s review of the latest research unearthed troubling facts that might tempt you to give up on sunscreens altogether. That’s not the right answer – despite the unknowns about their efficacy, public health agencies still recommend using sunscreens, just not as your first line of defense against the sun. At EWG we use sunscreens, but we look for shade, wear protective clothing and avoid the noontime sun before we smear on the cream. Here are the surprising facts:

1. There’s no consensus on whether sunscreens prevent skin cancer.

The Food and Drug Administration’s 2007 draft sunscreen safety regulations say: “FDA is not aware of data demonstrating that sunscreen use alone helps prevent skin cancer” (FDA 2007). The International Agency for Research on Cancer agrees. IARC recommends clothing, hats and shade as primary barriers to UV radiation and writes that “sunscreens should not be the first choice for skin cancer prevention and should not be used as the sole agent for protection against the sun” (IARC 2001a). Read more.

2. There’s some evidence that sunscreens might increase the risk of the deadliest form of skin cancer for some people.

Some researchers have detected an increased risk of melanoma among sunscreen users. No one knows the cause, but scientists speculate that sunscreen users stay out in the sun longer and absorb more radiation overall, or that free radicals released as sunscreen chemicals break down in sunlight may play a role. One other hunch: Inferior sunscreens with poor UVA protection that have dominated the market for 30 years may have led to this surprising outcome. All major public health agencies still advise using sunscreens, but they also stress the importance of shade, clothing and timing. Read more.

3. There are more high SPF products than ever before, but no proof that they’re better.

In 2007 the FDA published draft regulations that would prohibit companies from labeling sunscreens with an SPF (sun protection factor) higher than “SPF 50+.” The agency wrote that higher values were “inherently misleading,” given that “there is no assurance that the specific values themselves are in fact truthful…” (FDA 2007). Scientists are also worried that high-SPF products may tempt people to stay in the sun too long, suppressing sunburns (a late, key warning of overexposure) while upping the risks of other kinds of skin damage.

Flaunting FDA’s proposed regulation, companies substantially increased their high-SPF offerings in 2011. Nearly one in five products now lists SPF values higher than “50+”, compared to only one in eight in 2009, according to EWG’s analysis of more than 600 beach and sport sunscreens. Among the worst offenders are Walgreens and CVS stores and Neutrogena. Walgreens’ boasts of SPF higher than “50+” on nearly half of its sunscreens; CVS and Neutrogena make the same misleading claim on about a third of theirs. Read more.

4. Too little sun might be harmful, reducing the body’s vitamin D levels.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that sunshine serves a critical function in the body that sunscreen appears to inhibit — production of vitamin D. The main source of vitamin D in the body is sunshine, and the compound is enormously important to health – it strengthens bones and the immune system, reduces the risk of various cancers (including breast, colon, kidney, and ovarian cancers) and regulates at least 1,000 different genes governing virtually every tissue in the body (Mead 2008). Over the last two decades, vitamin D levels in the U.S. population have been decreasing steadily, creating a “growing epidemic of vitamin D insufficiency” (Ginde 2009a). Seven of every 10 U.S. children now have low levels. Those most likely to be deficient include children who are obese or who spend more than four hours daily in front of the TV, computer or video games (Kumar 2009).

Experts disagree on the solution. The American Medical Association has recommended 10 minutes of direct sun (without sunscreen) several times a week (AMA 2008), while the American Academy of Dermatology holds that “there is no scientifically validated, safe threshold level of UV exposure from the sun that allows for maximal vitamin D synthesis without increasing skin cancer risk” (AAD 2009). Vitamin D supplements are the alternative, but there is debate over the proper amount. The Institute of Medicine has launched new research to reassess the current guidelines. In the meantime, your doctor can test your vitamin D levels and give advice on sunshine versus supplements. Read more.

5. The common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A may speed the development of cancer.

Recently available data from an FDA study indicate that a form of vitamin A, retinyl palmitate, when applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions (NTP 2009). This evidence is troubling because the sunscreen industry adds vitamin A to 30 percent of all sunscreens.

The industry puts vitamin A in its formulations because it is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging. That may be true for lotions and night creams used indoors, but FDA recently conducted a study of vitamin A’s photocarcinogenic properties, the possibility that it results in cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight. Scientists have known for some time that vitamin A can spur excess skin growth (hyperplasia), and that in sunlight it can form free radicals that damage DNA (NTP 2000).

In FDA’s one-year study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent sooner in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream (at a concentration of 0.5%) than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream. Both groups were exposed to the equivalent of just nine minutes of maximum intensity sunlight each day.

It’s an ironic twist for an industry already battling studies on whether their products protect against skin cancer. The FDA data are preliminary, but if they hold up in the final assessment, the sunscreen industry has a big problem. In the meantime, EWG recommends that consumers avoid sunscreens with vitamin A (look for “retinyl palmitate” or “retinol” on the label). Read more.

6. Free radicals and other skin-damaging byproducts of sunscreen.

Both UV radiation and many common sunscreen ingredients generate free radicals that damage DNA and skin cells, accelerate skin aging and cause skin cancer. An effective sunscreen prevents more damage than it causes, but sunscreens are far better at preventing sunburn than at limiting free radical damage. While typical SPF ratings for sunburn protection range from 15 to 50, equivalent “free radical protection factors” fall at only about 2. When consumers apply too little sunscreen or reapply it infrequently, behaviors that are more common than not, sunscreens can cause more free radical damage than UV rays on bare skin. Read more.

7. Pick your sunscreen: nanomaterials or potential hormone disruptors.

The ideal sunscreen would completely block the UV rays that cause sunburn, immune suppression and damaging free radicals. It would remain effective on the skin for several hours and not form harmful ingredients when degraded by UV light. It would smell and feel pleasant so that people use it in the right amount and frequency.

Unsurprisingly, there is currently no sunscreen that meets all of these criteria. The major choice in the U.S. is between “chemical” sunscreens, which have inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body’s hormone systems, and “mineral” sunscreens (zinc and titanium), which often contain micronized- or nano-scale particles of those minerals.

After reviewing the evidence, EWG determined that mineral sunscreens have the best safety profile of today’s choices. They are stable in sunlight and do not appear to penetrate the skin. They offer UVA protection, which is sorely lacking in most of today’s sunscreen products. Mexoryl SX (ecamsule) is another good option, but it’s sold in very few formulations. Tinosorb S and M could be great solutions but are not yet available in the U.S. For consumers who don’t like mineral products, we recommend sunscreens with avobenzone (3 percent for the best UVA protection) and without the notorious hormone disruptors oxybenzone or 4-MBC. Scientists have called for parents to avoid using oxybenzone on children due to penetration and toxicity concerns. Read more.

8. Europe’s better sunscreens.

Sunscreen makers and users in Europe have more options than in the United States. In Europe, sunscreen makers can select from among 27 chemicals for their formulations, compared to 17 in the U.S. Companies selling in Europe can add any of seven UVA filters to their products, but have a choice of only three when they market in the U.S. European sunscreens could earn FDA’s proposed four-star top rating for UVA protection, while the best U.S. products would earn only three stars. Sunscreen chemicals approved in Europe but not by the FDA provide up to five times more UVA protection; U.S. companies have been waiting five years for FDA approval to use the same compounds. Last but not least, Europeans will find many sunscreens with strong (mandatory) UVA protection if proposed regulations in Europe are finalized. Under FDA’s current proposal, Americans will not. Read more.

9. The 34th summer in a row without final U.S. sunscreen safety regulations.

In the United States, consumer protection has stalled because of the FDA’s 33-year effort to set enforceable guidelines for consumer protection. EWG has found a number of serious problems with existing sunscreens, including overstated claims about their perfomance and inadequate UVA protection. Many of these will be remedied if and when the FDA’s proposed sunscreen rule takes effect. But even after the rule is enacted, gaps will remain. FDA does not consider serious toxicity concerns such as hormone disruption when approving new sun filters. The new rules would also still allow sunscreen makers to use ingredients like vitamin A that can damage the skin in sunlight, and would fail to require makers to measure sunscreen stability despite ample evidence that many products break down quickly in sunlight. Read more.

Recommended List of Best Beach & Sport Sunscreens

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

Tips for Enjoying the Summer Outdoors by Dr. Mercola

If Your Sunscreen Contains Any of These Chemicals That I Consider Dangerous and Potentially Life Threatening, Do Yourself a BIG Favor…

Dump it in the trash now . Yes, that’s right. Toss your sunscreen in the trash if it contains any of these questionable chemicals:

  • Para amino benzoic acid…
  • Octyl salicyclate…
  • Avobenzone…
  • Oxybenzone…
  • Cinoxate…
  • Padimate O…
  • Dioxybenzone…
  • Phenylbenzimidazole…
  • Homosalate…
  • Sulisobenzone…
  • Menthyl anthranilate…
  • Trolamine salicyclate…
  • Octocrylene…

And, oh yes, let me not forget…

Potentially harmful chemicals such as dioxybenzone and oxybenzone (two chemicals I just mentioned) are some of the most powerful free radical generators known to man!

So if your sunscreen contains dioxybenzone, oxybenzone, or any of the other chemicals I just revealed, I highly recommend you switch to a formula that is safe and healthy for your skin.

And a note to moms … You are undoubtedly very conscientious about caring for your children.  But when you lather up your son or daughter with sunscreen thinking you’re doing the right thing, you could in fact be doing more harm than good.

So check the labels on your sunscreen, and throw them out if they contain any of the potentially dangerous chemicals named above.  After all, your skin is your largest organ, as your child’s skin is theirs.

Fortunately, there’s a much better option than chemical-laden commercial sunscreens…

Top 7 Supermarket Foods to Avoid

Emma Sgourakis
Food Matters
May 14, 2011

Read the original article here

In a recent article, seven experts in the fields of both food and the environment (scientists, doctors and farmers) were asked just one simple question: “What foods do you avoid?” Their responses had nothing to do with calories or nutrient-density, but all to do with their insider knowledge on how certain seemingly “healthy” foods that they closely work with are produced and packaged. The findings are scary.

If the farmer who grows the food won’t eat it himself, then I won’t touch it either.

Here’s a summary of the findings. You can add these seven to your ‘Foods to Avoid‘ list:

1. Canned Tomatoes

An endocrinologist and expert on the topic of the synthetic oestrogen bisphenol-A (BCA), linked to heart disease and infertility, won’t go near canned tomatoes. Tin cans are lined with a resin containing BCA which is especially a problem with canning tomatoes, as the acid in tomato breaks this down in dangerous amounts. This is a serious health concern for everyone who loves a Spag Bol, especially children. My advice: if you still want the convenience of stored, ready-to-cook tomatoes, opt for sauces and passata in glass bottles.

2. Conventional Beef

For fat cows (and fat people) feed them grain, corn and soy. This is what farmers do to increase profits. The end product is meat that is nutritionally inferior. Cows were meant to eat grass. Studies show that grass-fed beef (compared to corn-fed) is higher in important vitamins, minerals and the heart-healthy, anti-inflammatory fats. Then there’s also the issue of all the antibiotics used on those inappropriately-fed, sick cows… My advice: Look for “grass-fed” or “pasture-fed” organic beef from strong healthy beasts.

3. Microwave Popcorn

Another poisonous packaging issue: Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) lines the bags of those popcorn bags, and the heat in the microwave leaches this straight onto your movie munchies. The UCLA links this compound to infertility. My advice: Corn kernels + butter + sea salt + plus a big pot (with a lid!) Simple.

4. Conventional Potatoes

More than any other vegetable, non-organic potatoes are heavily sprayed with herbicides, pesticides and fungicides throughout every stage of their growth, harvesting and storage. So much so that potato growers never eat the potatoes they sell and grow their own separate plots without all the chemicals. My advice: Organic or Bio-dynamic potatoes only.

5. Farmed Salmon

This is particularly scary considering that in Australia, the only fresh Salmon we have access to is farmed; all farmed, this includes “Atlantic” Salmon. These fish are crammed in pens and fed all manner of junk from soy and hydrolyzed chicken feathers and pellets. A scientific study on fish contamination showed high levels of DDT and PCB’s (carcinogens). So serious were the findings that the director for the Institute for Health warns that any more than one salmon meal every 5 months increases your cancer risk. Not to mention that fact that the levels of Omega 3 and Vitamin D are devoid in these poor factory-versions that their wild, up-stream-swimming ancestors contain. My advice: For fresh fish, choose small & wild varieties wherever available. For salmon in Australia, your only wild option is out of a tin. Look for brands like Paramount Wild Alaskan Salmon, or other brands form Norway and Canada are often wild too. Even still, eat these only occasionally.

6. Conventional Milk

Dairy cows today are fed growth hormones to maximize milk production. Not only does this make for a potentially breast/prostate/colon cancer milk shake, but it also leads to increased incidence of udder infection for the poor cow, leading to pus in the milk. My advice: if you do drink cows’ milk, make sure it states clearly on the label that it is produced without artificial hormones, and ideally choose organic whole milk from pasture-fed cows.

7. Conventional Apples

There’s no coincidence that farm workers have higher rates of many cancers. Of all common fruits, apples are the most heavily and frequently doused with pesticides. Pesticide reside on conventional fruits is also linked to Parkinson’s. To limit exposure, be wary of apples especially. My advice: Organic. Or at the very least, wash and peel.

Greenpeace: Japan nuclear plant radiation accumulating in marine life

May 26th, 2011, 08:31 AMET

Radiation from Japan’s damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is accumulating in marine life off Japan’s coast above legal limits for food contamination, Greenpeace said Thursday.

The environmental group said its findings run counter to Japanese government reports that radiation from the Fukushima plant, damaged in the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, is being diluted as time passes.

“Despite what the authorities are claiming, radioactive hazards are not decreasing through dilution or dispersion of materials, but the radioactivity is instead accumulating in marine life,” Greenpeace radiation expert Jan Vande Putte said in a press release.

Greenpeace said its teams collected samples of marine life along the Fukushima coast and in international waters outside Japan’s 12-mile territorial limit. The samples were tested by nuclear research laboratories in France and Belgium, and high levels of radioactive iodine and cesium were found, it said.

Fish, shellfish and seaweed all showed significant levels of radioactive contamination, according to Greenpeace. All are widely consumed in Japan.

Besides consumers, fishermen are at risk from the elevated radiation levels, Greenpeace said.

“Ongoing contamination from the Fukushima crisis means fishermen could be at additional risk from handling fishing nets that have come in contact with radioactive sediment, hemp materials such as rope, which absorb radioactive materials, and as our research shows, radioactivity in fish and seaweed collected along Fukushima’s coast,” Wakao Hanaoka, Greenpeace’s Japan oceans campaigner, said in the statement.

The Japanese government has evacuated nearly 80,000 people from areas within 20 kilometers (12.5 miles) of the plant to reduce their radiation exposure. Tens of thousands more may be moved if an exclusion zone is widened to reduce long-term radiation exposure.

Officials from Tokyo Electric Power Co., which owns the Fukushima plant, said last week they expected an end to the nuclear crisis by January. But utility officials said this week that two of  the reactors at the Fukushima plant may be riddled with holes, which would hamper plans to cool the units and bring the crisis to an end.

While no deaths have been attributed to the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the earthquake and tsunami have killed nearly 15,000 and left 10,000 more missing, Japan’s National Police Agency has reported.