Production of Rat Poison Halted d-CON… Will Cease Production in July

 

Kian Schulman, an advocate against using anticoagulant rodenticides (rat poisons), checks the label on a rat trap by a business in Malibu. (Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times)

• Maker agrees to stop producing harmful rat poison for consumer market
• Powerful rat poison to be replaced has accidentally harmed children and animals
• 'This is a significant victory for environmental protection,' attorney says of rat poison halt

LA Times  -  Cross Posted at JOMP: After years of battling federal environmental officials, the maker of d-CON has agreed to stop producing for the consumer market certain rat poisons that have accidentally harmed children, wildlife and pets.

The company's rodent-control products will be replaced next year with a new line of baits the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved for use in every state.

Environmental activists hailed the agreement announced Friday.

"This is a significant victory for environmental protection and corporate responsibility," said Jonathan Evans of the Center for Biological Diversity in San Francisco. "While the fight isn't over until all of these hazardous products are off the market, this decision keeps the worst of the worst products from residential consumers."

The poisons will still be available for use in agriculture and by licensed pest-control operators.

The rat poisons that Reckitt Benckiser Group has agreed to discontinue contain "second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides." These are more toxic and persistent than the previous generation of products. The poisons are designed to kill rodents by thinning the blood and preventing clotting.

Scientists say the products have for years wreaked havoc by working their way up the food chain.

The state of California took sweeping action in March, when the Department of Pesticide Regulation signaled plans to halt retail sales of second-generation rat poisons to consumers after July 1. Reckitt Benckiser, the maker of d-CON, lost its bid to stop the ban.

Kian Schulman, secretary of the Malibu Agricultural Society, points out that dumpsters where the lid is not closed attracts rodents. The maker of a powerful, and harmful, rodent pesticide has agreed to stop consumer production. (Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times)

The department said the national agreement would not affect the state's action, and it urged stores to continue the process of removing the products from shelves.

Some activists credited California's action with inducing the company to give in.

"California is a huge market," said Greg Loarie, an attorney with Earthjustice, a public interest environmental law firm in San Francisco. With the July 1 deadline looming, he added, "I suspect [Reckitt Benckiser] took a look around and saw the writing on the wall."

Reckitt Benckiser is one of 17 manufacturers of rodent poisons, but it is the only one that had not altered its packaging and ingredients to comply with federal safety standards.

During nearly two decades of research in and around the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, National Park Service scientists have documented widespread exposure in carnivores to common household poisons. Of 140 bobcats, coyotes and mountain lions evaluated, 88% tested positive for one or more anticoagulant compounds. Scores of animals are known to have died from internal bleeding, researchers said.

The poisons also affect protected or endangered species, including golden eagles, northern spotted owls and San Joaquin kit foxes.

Among heavy users of the poisons are growers of illegal marijuana throughout California. Scientists have linked rat poisons to the deaths of Pacific fishers, which are small carnivores, that had eaten rodents poisoned by illegal pot growers.

Under the agreement, Reckitt Benckiser will begin to phase out production of 12 d-CON rat and mouse poison products next month and will stop production by year-end. The company will cease distribution of existing stocks by March 31, 2015. Retailers will be allowed to keep the products on shelves until stocks are depleted.

*These types of poisons have also harmed and killed family pets and children.

Related:

Household rat poison linked to death and disease in wildlife

Was poisoning of scientist's dog a warning from Humboldt pot growers?

Technorati Tags: Rats,Rat Poison,Toxins,Wildlife,Chemicals,Food Chain,California,d-CON,Poisons,Pets,Endangered Species,Rodenticides

DANGER: do you really know what is placed in infant formula?

Why Is Pesticide Used As An Ingredient In Infant Formula?

GreenMedInfo: Why is cupric sulfate -- a known herbicide, fungicide and pesticide -- being used in infant formula? And why is it displayed proudly on product labels as a presumably nutritious ingredient?

Used to kill fungus, aquatic plants and roots of plants, parasitic infections in aquarium fish and snails, as well as algae and bacteria such as Escherichia coli, cupric sulfate hardly sounds fit for human consumption, much less for infants.

Indeed, infants are all too often looked at as "miniature adults" from the perspective of toxicological risk assessments, rather than what they are: disproportionately (if not exponentially) more susceptible to the adverse effects of environmental exposures. Instead of reducing or altogether eliminating avoidable infant chemical exposures (the precautionary principle), the chemical industry-friendly focus is always on determining "an acceptable level of harm" – as if there were such at thing!

It boggles the imagination how cupric sulfate ended up in infant formula, as well as scores of other consumer health products, such as Centrum and One-A-Day vitamins?

After all, it is classified, according to the Dangerous Substance Directive (one of the main European Union laws concerning chemical safety), as "Harmful (Xn), Irritant (Xi) and Dangerous for the environment (N)."

Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that the warning signal "DANGER" appear on the labels of all copper sulfate end-products containing 99% active ingredient in crystalline form.

The Material Safety Data Sheet for Cupric Sulfate clearly states, in 'Section 3: Hazards Identification," that it has the following adverse health effects:

"Potential Acute Health Effects: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.
Potential Chronic Health Effects: CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. TERATROGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENT TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to kidneys, liver. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage."

In 'Section 7: Handling and Storage" the following precautions must be taken:

"Do not ingest. Do not breathe dust. Wear suitable protective clothing. In case of insufficient ventilation, wear suitable respiratory equipment. If ingested, seek medical advice immediately and show t he container or the label. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. Keep away from incompatibles such as metals, alkalis."

Cleary we have a problem here.  Cupric sulfate is used in most mass market infant formulas. Even Similac's "sensitive" formula contains the ingredient:

Could this be one reason why infant formula has been linked to over 50 adverse health effects, both short and long term, in infants given it in place of breast milk? The common explanation/claim is that infant formula isn't intrinsically harmful, rather, breast milk and breastfeeding is just healthier.  I believe this perspective in untenable, given the problems with cupric sulfate, and dozens of other questionable ingredients being used in these products, such as petroleum-derived and chirally inverted dl-alpha tocopherol (synthetic vitamin E), zinc sulfate, sodium selenate, manganese sulfate, etc.

For additional research on the inherent problems associated with the use of chemicals in infant formula, take a look at our evaluation of another Similac product.

Or, take a look at the "Organic" infant formula by Earth's Best:, which is surprisingly not that much better.

---

Related Article

Chemicals Used As "Nutrients" In "USDA Organic" Infant Formula

Additional Research

· Cupric Sulfate – Pesticide Information Profile

· Cupric Sulfate – Toxicology Research on GreenMedInfo.com

· Blog: Infant Formula For Disaster

· Blog: Is Your Multivitamin Toxic?

Sayer Ji is the founder and chair of GreenMedInfo.com. His writings have been published in the Wellbeing Journal, the Journal of Gluten Sensitivity, and have been featured on numerous websites, including Mercola.com,NaturalNews.com, Infowars.com, Care2.com. His critically acclaimed essay series The Dark Side of Wheat opens up a new perspective on the universal, human-species specific toxicity of wheat, and is now available for PDF download.

Related:

Some Baby Foods are Worse Than Junk Food

The Evidence Against Soy

Traditional parenting 'leads to well-adjusted children'

Empowerment: Women Now Choose Objectification Over ‘Creepy’ Breastfeeding

Myth Busted: Vaccinations Are Not Immunizations

Technorati Tags: infant formula,soy,pesticides,babies,breastfeeding,healthy choices,baby food,Similac,parenting,cupric sulfate

Perils of Peanuts and Peanut Butter… Even Organic

Pretty much everyone is aware that many people are allergic to peanuts, and many schools even ban any form of peanuts because of the dangers to children who may be allergic.  Any severe allergy to a food, or something else, can be life threatening.  (It may actually be the molds/fungus or aflatoxin that people are allergic to rather than the peanuts.)

What a lot of people aren't aware of are the other dangers of peanuts.  I don't eat peanuts, in any form, mostly because of that.  Peanuts can be confusing because we hear they contain a good fat, monounsaturated, but so do avocados, nuts (which peanuts aren’t)and olive oil, which would be healthier choices.  Peanuts also contain a high amount of omega-6, but a more balanced omega-6 to omega-3 ratio would be best as in hemp seeds, fish oil or a high grade natural supplement.  We also hear peanuts are high in antioxidants and some vitamins and minerals.  The biggest claim to health lately has been that they contain resveratrol, which they do, but so do other foods, such as grapes, cranberries and blueberries, so you don't need to eat peanuts for that benefit either.

One problem with peanuts is that they are one of the most highly pesticide contaminated crops there is.  One important reason to only use organically grown peanut products if you choose to continue to eat peanuts.  Conventional peanut farmers have a disproportionately high rate of cancer, mainly because of all the pesticides they use, and because they eat a lot of peanuts.

But the most important reason not to eat peanuts or peanut butter is because they are often contaminated with aflatoxin.  Aflatoxin is a mycotoxin that is produced by many different species of a fungus called Aspergillus.  It is very dangerous, and it is a carcinogen.  It is so potent it has been known to wipe out complete tribes in Africa because of contaminated food there.  In smaller amount it can be a slow killer, as in cancer, and is believed to cause liver cancer.  (Aflatoxin can be in other products as well, corn is another likely one, which is another thing I don't eat.)

Peanuts are particularly susceptible to contamination during growth and storage. Poor storage of peanuts can lead to an infection by the mold fungus Aspergillus flavus, releasing the toxic and highly carcinogenic substance aflatoxin. The aflatoxin-producing molds exist throughout the peanut growing areas and may produce aflatoxin in peanuts when conditions are favorable to fungal growth.

Organic Peanut Butter is part of the top 5 items to buy organic.  Why should you focus on peanut butter? This is because, many peanut farms contaminate their peanut crops with a chemical to treat mold. This mold is one of the major problems that causes peanut crops to die. This chemical is classified as a fungicide.

The peanut, or groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), is a species in the legume or "bean" family (Fabaceae).

The most common way most people get aflatoxin in their diets is through peanut butter. Peanuts have an especially high naturally-occurring concentration of aspergillus flavus mold. Furthermore, while most peanuts are roasted, the roasting process rarely kills all the mold. The longer peanuts sit around in the store or in your house, the more of the mold will grow back--and again, it generally won't be visible to the naked eye. The longer the mold grows, the more aflatoxin builds up.

Here's the most interesting thing about all this: usually your "organic" or "natural" peanut butters will have the highest aflatoxin concentration. The highest concentration of all, though, will typically be the stuff you buy in the store where they take peanuts and grind them into peanut butter for you while you wait. Because while the USDA and FDA has rules for how much aflatoxin is allowed in food before it's shipped to stores, there's no measure of it after it reaches the stores. Those peanuts could have been sitting on the shelves at the story for weeks or months at room temperature, building up mold. It's even worse if the air is mildly moist. Furthermore, if you fresh-grind those nuts into peanut butter, the mold keeps growing in the peanut butter.

This means that your safest source of peanut butter is generally your cheap, garden variety Jif or Skippy or the like (But Skippy just had a recall). The companies that make those generally get the peanuts fresh, roast and grind them immediately, put them through an effective cooking and homogenization process, then seal them in airtight jars. The mold buildup on those will be much lower than your typical "fresh" or "natural" peanut butters and they pretty quickly out of the stores.

The risks for children are the highest as their health can be even more impacted then adults because of their size and their still developing immune systems.  And often they eat more of it regularly than adults.  Pets can also have both allergies or negative affects from the molds, fungus and toxins.

Our suggestion… don’t eat peanuts, peanut butter or organic peanut butter… period!!

By the way, the aflatoxin threat is taken seriously enough that OSHA actually requires workers dealing with large quantities of peanuts to wear facial masks so they don't breath in too much of the mold. And statistically, just as a rule of thumb, two tablespoons of peanut butter a day (regular or organic) produce a higher risk of death than living next to a nuclear power plant.

The number one thing to look for in organic peanut butter is that it is made from organically ‘grown’ peanuts and that it is a brand bought at a store where the jars move quickly!

From the lists and surveys, these seem to be the top 6 Organic Peanut Butters:

1. Nature's Promise - This peanut butter is made of 100% natural ingredients. Also, Nature's Promise has been around for a while, and supplies many products. Such as, milk, butter, broth, snacks, pizza, and cookies.

2. SunLand Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter- SunLand has been around since 1988, and it is dedicated strictly peanut butter. Best of all, it is United States based; New Mexico to be exact. SunLand's peanut butter is very unique also; the company has many different flavors. The flavors range from "Regular" to "Hickory Smoke".

3. Santa Cruz Organic Peanut Butter - Their peanut butter comes in four flavors; Dark Roasted Creamy, Dark Roasted Crunchy, Light Roasted Creamy, Light Roasted Crunchy. Although, this brand does not only make peanut butter. They also make a variety of items from juices to chocolate syrup.

4. Adams - Adams has been around since 1922. There peanut butter is 100% all natural. They make natural, organic, and no stir peanut butter. While their natural peanut butter has four choices, their organic peanut butter has two choices of varieties.

5. Justin's Organic - This brand is awesome. They now make chocolate flavored peanut butter. Those flavors are "Chocolate Peanut Butter", "Chocolate Hazelnut Butter", and "Chocolate Almond Butter". My personal favorite is "Chocolate Hazelnut Butter", and "Chocolate Almond Butter".

6. Maranatha Nut Butters  - This company has been around since 1982 in Ashland, Oregon. The company to use the purest ingredients, and now allows for their peanut butters to be brought online. I favor two of the products by Maranatha Nut Butter. Those products are Dark Chocolate Peanut Spread and Dark Chocolate Almond Spread. Both have a dark chocolate flavor, making them both irresistible.

 

Does anyone else long for the days when rat droppings were the scariest thing about peanut butter? Anyone? Show of hands?

Let's see. The problems with peanut butter now include:

• Really scary chemicals, including neurotoxins (as if we need something else getting on our nerves).
• Deadly salmonella outbreaks.
• The mysterious rise of very serious peanut allergies.
• A peanut butter aisle so big that it makes you want to curl into a ball and rock back and forth -- right there in the store -- from stimulation overload. (Omega-3 peanut butter ... really?)
• Rat feces, still.
• The Frankenut-butter threat. Although there are no genetically modified peanuts on the market right now, according to the National Peanut Board website, money is being poured into genomic research. (Note to peanut growers: Consider inserting the genes of a Labradoodle. As far as I can tell, no one is allergic to them.) But seriously, on the upside genetically modified peanuts could save lives.

OK, peanut allergies aside, some of the contemporary problems with peanut butter can be avoided by buying organic peanut butter. Of course, this begs some questions: Do any of these organic spreads taste good? And do you have to break the bank for a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich?

And while we're at it, is the "Skippy Factor" real? A while back, when I wrote about turkey, I spoke with Cooks Illustrated senior editor Lisa McManus. She described the Skippy Factor this way: Tasters often favor foods that are comfortingly familiar, such as Skippy peanut butter, over something higher quality. (This also explains why Cooks, which I read regularly, is so shockingly successful. For these food science geeks, taste trumps all. They don't really give a rip about health-consciousness or greenness or food trends.)

So, back to the point: Do organic peanut butters taste good? ARe they worth the extra money? And if they are… choose from the six organic creamy peanut butters that were readily available at local grocery stores that move off the shelves.

 

h/t to Lou Bendrick, Jeanne Coffey, Sanoviv, Dr. Mercola

 

One Way To Mitigate The Risks Of Aflatoxin

The best way to avoid any risks from peanuts is to avoid eating them. There is something you can do, though, if you still feel the need to consume peanuts and peanut butter, even with all the risks.  One type of peanut has been fairly resistant to aflatoxin, and that is the Valencia peanut, which is grown mostly in New Mexico.  These type of peanuts, when they are grown in the southwest of the US, mainly New Mexico, grow in dry conditions not conducive to aflatoxin, a mold which likes moisture.

One problem is that not all Valencia peanuts are grown in that area, but most are.  If you use Arrowhead Mills organic peanut butter, you will avoid the pesticides and the aflatoxin, because it is made with organic Valencia peanuts, and that particular brand has never been shown to contain aflatoxin at all.

Although, that is no guarantees it will be that way forever, but it is certainly the safer way to go.

Choices:

• Stop eating peanuts and peanut products
• Eat regular peanut butter because is moves quicker and there is somewhat less chance of getting sick from the molds and fungus (aflatoxin)
• Eat organic peanut butter because you won’t get the pesticides, but you might get more of the mold and fungus
• Through care to the wind and take your chances…

 

So in the end we suggest… skip eating peanuts, peanut butter and organic peanut butter all together… period!!  And definitely don’t feed feed them to your kids or pets!

Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food… but healthier

Systematic review of literature over 50 years finds no evidence for superior nutritional content of organic produce

There is no evidence that organically produced foods are nutritionally superior to conventionally produced foodstuffs, according to a study published today in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Consumers appear willing to pay higher prices for organic foods based on their perceived health and nutrition benefits, and the global organic food market was estimated in 2007 to be worth £29 billion (£2 billion in the UK alone). Some previous reviews have concluded that organically produced food has a superior nutrient composition to conventional food, but there has to-date been no systematic review of the available published literature. **See note below)

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine have now completed the most extensive systematic review of the available published literature on nutrient content of organic food ever conducted. The review focused on nutritional content and did not include a review of the content of contaminants or chemical residues in foods from different agricultural production regimens.

Over 50,000 papers were searched, and a total of 162 relevant articles were identified that were published over a fifty-year period up to 29 February 2008 and compared the nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. To ensure methodological rigor the quality of each article was assessed. To be graded as satisfactory quality, the studies had to provide information on the organic certification scheme from which the foodstuffs were derived, the cultivar of crop or breed of livestock analyzed, the nutrient or other nutritionally relevant substance assessed, the laboratory analytical methods used, and the methods used for statistical analysis. 55 of the identified papers were of satisfactory quality, and analysis was conducted comparing the content in organically and conventionally produced foods of the 13 most commonly reported nutrient categories.

The researchers found organically and conventionally produced foods to be comparable in their nutrient content. For 10 out of the 13 nutrient categories analyzed, there were no significant differences between production methods in nutrient content. Differences that were detected were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use (nitrogen, phosphorus), and ripeness at harvest (acidity), and it is unlikely that consuming these nutrients at the levels reported in organic foods would provide any health benefit.

Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and one of the report's authors, comments: 'A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority. Research in this area would benefit from greater scientific rigor and a better understanding of the various factors that determine the nutrient content of foodstuffs'.

By Gemma Howe

Source: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Press Office

*There are better reasons to buy organic foods, which are grown without the use of most synthetic chemicals--if you can afford to: Organic farming uses less fossil fuel, produces less pollution, and isn't as likely to endanger farm workers and wildlife. And though organic foods are not necessarily pesticide-free (pesticides are ubiquitous in the environment and can drift onto organic farms), they generally contain fewer pesticide residues than conventional foods--and no antibiotics or growth hormones.

**Organic Farms that use mulch and rotate their crops effectively do improve the nutritional content of their food.

Posted:  True Health is True Wealth

Unconscionable Police Raid on Family's Home and Organic Food Co-Op

Video - The Stowers tell their story

Steps have been taken to start legal action against the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) and the Lorain County Health Department for violating the constitutional rights of John and Jacqueline Stowers of LaGrange, Ohio.

The Stowers operate an organic food cooperative called Manna Storehouse. ODA and Lorain County Health Department agents forcefully raided their home and seized the family's personal food supply, cell phones and personal computers.

On the morning of December 1, 2008, law enforcement officers forcefully entered the Stowers' residence without first announcing they were police or stating the purpose of the visit. With guns drawn, they swiftly and immediately moved to the upstairs of the home, where ten children were in the middle of a home-schooling lesson. Officers then moved Jacqueline Stowers and her children to their living room, where they were held for more than six hours.

There has never been a complaint filed against Manna Storehouse or the Stowers related to the quality or healthfulness of the food distributed through the co-op.

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Seems I’ve been reporting on ever increasing, and downright shocking losses of freedom in the U.S. over the past couple of years, and listening to the Stowers’ personal account in the video above shows that this is no exception.

This is simply inexcusable government intrusion on the freedom of choice of American consumers – your right to chose nutritious, organic and locally grown foods, and to save money by buying in bulk through a community co-op.

Was the Raid on Manna Storehouse Justified?

In December last year, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) joined forces with the Buckeye Institute’s 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in filing a civil lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Agriculture and the Lorrain County Health Department for performing an illegal raid on the Stowers family residence in La Grange, Ohio.

The Stowers had run a community co-op called Manna Storehouse since 1999. The 60 regular members pooled their resources and bought food in bulk from organic growers across the state of Ohio, which enabled them get discounts on the healthiest foods available, such as grass-fed beef, free-range poultry, organic eggs and produce, raw milk and cheese —all produced without man-made chemicals, hormones, pesticides, dyes, or additives.

Those of you who read this newsletter on a regular basis are well aware that this type of diet is a powerful way for many to achieve and maintain optimal health and longevity, especially if you eat according to your nutritional type. It’s even more important if you suffer with any type of food allergies, intolerance to chemical additives, or chronic illness.

The problem, according to the Feds, stems from the fact that the Stowers were selling foods without a retail license. However, they were not selling to the general public, only to co-op members who pay a membership fee and agree to take full responsibility for the food they purchase, which exempts them from requiring a license, according to the FTCLDF and the Buckeye Institute who are now defending them.

Said FTCLDF President Pete Kennedy,

 “We joined in this suit because it furthers the mission of the Fund, which is to protect and defend the rights of farmers and consumers to have direct commerce with each other free from governmental interference and harassment.

We hope that the Lorrain County Court of Common Pleas recognizes that government is overreaching in this case and is basically engaged in intimidation tactics to frighten people into believing that they cannot provide food for themselves.”

FTCLDF General Counsel Gary Cox added,

“This is an example where, once again, the government is trying to deny people their inalienable, fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice. The purpose of our complaint is to correct that wrong.”

Violating Constitutional Rights in the Name of… What?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Section 14, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution, guarantees the right of peaceful citizens to be free from paramilitary police raids, searches and seizures. And yet these types of constitutional breaches over food, nutritional supplements, and wholesome alternative remedies are performed at an ever increasing rate.

For example, just as the consumption of raw milk is growing in America, so are heavy-handed attempts by state officials in some states to kill it. They've confiscated thousands of dollars worth of food, which is often all it takes to bankrupt a business and squelch a movement.

You’re not even safe carrying organic personal care products across state or country borders, as getting caught with certain products can lead to being thrown in jail for possession of illegal drugs, due to flawed drug testing kits.

Forceful raids and sweeping searches and seizures are not “routine,” and exceed the authority granted to Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) and county health departments.

The lawsuit filed by the Buckeye Institute and FTCLDF maintains that the paramilitary style execution of a search warrant against a peaceful family whose only alleged crime was failure to obtain a permit – which is a third degree misdemeanor under state law – is clearly unconstitutional.

The armed agents from the ODA, the Loraine County Department of Health, and the local police carried the type of search warrant used to bust potentially violent and dangerous drug dealers!

How You Can Help Protect Your Rights  

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is a non-profit organization made up of farmers and consumers joining together and pooling resources to:

• Protect the constitutional right of the nation’s family farms to provide processed and unprocessed farm foods directly to consumers through any legal means
• Protect the constitutional right of consumers to obtain unprocessed and processed farm foods directly from family farms
• Protect the nation’s family farms from harassment by federal, state, and local government interference with food production and on-farm food

If you want to help the fund carry out their mission, and help farmers and citizens like the Stowers with their legal defense costs, you can make a donation to the fund by going to this site.

Remember, today, conventional agriculture uses an arsenal of more than 600 pesticides – enough to ensure that about three pounds of it ends up on your plate every year, if you consume conventionally-grown produce. 

And the routine use of antibiotics, synthetic hormones, and genetically modified organisms to beef up yields has created a number of serious health concerns, including early puberty and an array of new allergies.

If you want to be optimally healthy, knowing what you eat and where it comes from is of prime importance, and belonging to a co-op is a great way to save money while ensuring your family eats well.  

For more information on where to find wholesome, organic and locally grown foods, please check out my Sustainable Agriculture page.

Source: Dr. Mercola - Posted 05.02.09

Posted:  True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources:

• Sanoviv Medical Center

Common Chemicals Linked to Infertility

Your cookware and cleaning supplies could make it harder for you to have a baby.

Researchers have found chemicals called perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) might be linked to delays in getting pregnant. PFCs are everywhere -- in Teflon cookware, shampoos, floor wax, food wrapping, carpet treatments and other cleaning products. PFCs are also present in air and water in the form of industrial waste from chemical plants.

The new study looked at more than 1,200 women when they were six to 12 weeks pregnant. If they reported that it took them longer than 12 months to get pregnant or if they used drugs designed to increase their chances of conceiving, they were considered to have infertility -- this is a generally accepted definition of infertility by experts in the field.

One kind of PFC, called PFOS, increased the odds of infertility anywhere from 70 to 134 percent. Another PFC called PFOA was linked to a 60 to 154 percent increase in the chance of infertility.

Sources:

ABC News January 29, 2009

Human Reproduction January 28, 2009

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Only about 5 percent of all the chemicals used in the United States have ever been tested to see how they impact the human reproductive system. This latest study reveals the consequences of this utter lack of safety concern.
PFCs, which are extremely common chemicals used in Teflon non-stick cookware, carpet treatments, food wrappers, cleaning products, shampoo and more, may seriously impact fertility. Women with the highest levels had up to a 154 percent greater chance of being infertile!

This is an extremely concerning finding, considering that 95 percent of Americans, including children, have the perfluorinated compound PFOA in their blood. But it is not really surprising.
PFCs Have a Long History of Health Risks

In 2007, a study at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health linked PFOA to lower birth weights among newborns. Years earlier, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed that PFOA “poses developmental and reproductive risks to humans.”
Further, in animal studies PFOA has been associated with:

• "Significant increases in treatment related deaths" in rat offspring at doses that did not affect the mothers
• Serious changes in the weight of various organs, including the brain, prostate, liver, thymus, and kidneys
• The deaths of a significant number of rat pups of mothers that had been exposed to PFOA
• Damage to the pituitary at all doses in female rat offspring (The pituitary secretes hormones that regulate growth, reproduction, and many metabolic processes. Change in pituitary size is associated with toxicity)

Other unrelated studies have also found evidence of birth defects in babies from PFOA-exposed workers. In 1981, two out of seven women who worked at a DuPont Teflon plant gave birth to babies with birth defects. DuPont then moved 50 women workers at the plant to reduce their exposure to PFOA.

Additionally, PFOA has been associated with tumors in at least four different organs in animal tests, and has been associated with increases in prostate cancer in PFOA plant workers. The EPA has also ruled PFCs as “likely carcinogens.”

As for PFOS, the other PFC mentioned in the above study, this was the active ingredient in Scotchgard until it was removed from the market by the EPA in 2000 due to safety concerns. PFOS has similar chemical properties to PFOA, and neither product breaks down in the environment.

What is being done about all of this?

While the EPA convinced 3M, the manufacturer of PFOS, to stop producing it years ago, PFOA continues to saturate the market. A voluntary program for companies to reduce PFOA emissions and products by 2010, and eliminate them entirely by 2015, has been introduced by the EPA. But again, it is entirely voluntary.

In my opinion, this is entirely too little, too late, as babies are already being born with toxins in their bodies due to their mothers’ toxic loads. A2004 study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) actually found blood samples from newborns contained an average of 287 toxins, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides and Teflon chemicals.

How to Help Rid Your House of PFCs

These chemicals are so widespread that it will be difficult to eliminate them entirely, but there are some major offenders that might be in your home right now. Some of the products that contain PFCs, which I highly recommend getting rid of, include:

• Teflon and other non-stick cookware
• Microwave popcorn bags
• Packaging for greasy foods
• Stain-proof clothing
• Carpet and fabric protectors
• Flame retardants

Avoiding these products is especially crucial for pregnant women or couples who want to have children, but really anyone who is interested in protecting their health would probably be best off avoiding them.

What ELSE Should You Avoid During Pregnancy?

Avoiding environmental chemicals as much as possible is very important for couples trying to conceive and during pregnancy, and I highly recommend reading Dr. Doris Rapp’s book Our Toxic World: A Wake Up Call for tips on how to do this. Her Web site also has a great list of what women can do prior to pregnancy to help avoid chemicals.

What are some of the most important chemicals and other substances to stay away from if you’re pregnant (and also if you’re breastfeeding)?

• Pesticides: Pesticide exposure to pregnant women has been linked to a host of health problems to their developing baby, including miscarriages and stillbirths. There’s also evidence that babies conceived in the summer may have lower IQs due to increased levels of pesticides in surface water at that time of year.
• Mercury: This heavy metal is toxic to the nervous system and developing brain of children and fetuses. It’s also been linked to premature delivery. Where might you be exposed to mercury? From eating contaminated seafood or getting a flu shot, for starters.
• Coffee: Caffeine in coffee and other beverages is an addictive, stimulant drug that passes easily through the placenta to the developing fetus. It is also transferred through breast milk. A developing fetus has no ability to detoxify caffeine.

Studies have shown the equivalent of just two cups of coffee during your entire pregnancy may affect your child’s heart function, and if your baby is male, could also lead to a weight problem. Caffeine during pregnancy has also been linked to miscarriages, low birth weight and birth defects, so I highly recommend pregnant women to avoid ALL caffeine.

• Soy: Soybeans contain compounds called phytoestrogens that act on hormones. These hormones affect the way your baby’s brain is organized, development of reproductive organs, and even your child’s immune system.

Infants who receive excess amounts of phytoestrogens in the womb or after birth from soy formula, risk health problems as wide ranging as early puberty, learning and behavioral problems, and severe allergies.

What to do if You’re Having Fertility Problems

If you are planning to have a baby, I also strongly suggest you get your vitamin D level optimized before and while you are pregnant. It could be one of the most important things you can possibly due in your pregnancy.

You can also read this recent article about the importance of vitamin D for fertility, and make sure you’re getting plenty of safe sun exposure to optimize your levels.

It would also be helpful to add a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fats to your diet and also to optimize your eating habits, get regular exercise and watch your stress levels. These are the basic ingredients that most everyone needs for good fertility.

**Many of the chemicals that cause fertility issues, still births and birth defects in humans also cause the same results in pets and animals. And perhaps these and additional health hazards are even multiplied in them and in toddlers and small children since the exposure in of toddlers, small children, pets and animals is multiplied by the amount of time they all spend on the floor in direct contact with carpets, floor wax and other chemicals like pecticides and cleaning products, plus their propensity for sticking objects and their own contaminated hands and paws into their mouths.**

10 Dangerous Everyday Things in Your Home

Even if you carefully monitor what you eat, and pay close attention to the household products and items you purchase, your chance of being exposed to hazardous toxins is still quite high. Lead, arsenic, mercury, PCBs, flame retardants, and an array of other chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects and neurological diseases are well represented in most people’s bloodstream.

These dangerous chemicals and toxins are in the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat and the products you use. Over the last 50 years, from 70,000 to 100,000 different chemicals have been introduced into the world‘s markets with about 1,500 new ones added each year.

Household consumer products injure 33.1 million people in the United States every year. These incidents cost $800 billion in related expenses from death, injury or property damages. And many scientists are starting to believe that, in particular, the chemicals found in a wide variety of the goods you use every day may be more toxic than previously thought. Here are 10 of the most common products that may be hazardous to your health: 10. Mothballs Since moths chew holes through clothing and other textiles, people pack away these stinky repellents to kill them. But studies on one active ingredient in some repellents, paradichlorobenzene, found that it can cause cancer in animals. Other types of moth balls use naphthalene, which after prolonged exposure can damage or destroy red blood cells, and which can also stimulate nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. 9. Pesticides Ninety percent of households in the United States use some form of pesticide, a broad term that encompasses a variety of chemical formulas that kill everything from tiny microorganisms up to rodents. In 2006, the American Association of Poison Control Centers received nearly 46,000 calls regarding children under 5 years old who had been exposed to potentially toxic levels of pesticides. 8. Pressed Wood Products This faux wood takes bits and pieces of logs and wood leftovers and combines them together. Pressed wood products include paneling, particle board, fiberboard and insulation, all of which were particularly popular for home construction in the 1970’s. However, the glue that holds the wood particles in place may use urea-formaldehyde as a resin. The U.S. EPA estimates that this is the largest source of formaldehyde emissions indoors. Formaldehyde exposure can set off watery eyes, burning eyes and throat, difficulty breathing and asthma attacks. Scientists also know that it can cause cancer in animals. The risk is greater with older pressed wood products, since newer ones are better regulated. 7. Chemicals in Carpets Indoor carpeting has recently come under greater scrutiny because of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with new carpet installation. The glue and dyes used with carpeting are known to emit VOCs, which can be harmful to your health in high concentrations. However, the initial VOC emissions will often subside after the first few days following. 6. Laser Printers Chemicals A 2007 study found that some laser printers give off ultra fine particles that can cause serious health problems. Another study confirmed that laser and ink-jet printers can release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ozone particulates. All of these have been linked with heart and lung disease. 5. Lead Paint In 1991, the U.S. government declared lead to be the greatest environmental threat to children. Even low concentrations can cause problems with your central nervous system, brain, blood cells and kidneys. It's particularly threatening for fetuses, babies and children, because of potential developmental disorders. Many houses built before 1978 contain lead paint. Once the paint begins to peel away will, it release the harmful lead particles that you can inhale. 4. Air Fresheners and Cleaning Solutions Air fresheners and cleaning solutions, when used excessively or in a small, unventilated area, can release toxic levels of pollutants. This comes from two main chemicals called ethylene-based glycol ethers and terpenes. While the EPA regards the ethers as toxic by themselves, the non-toxic terpenes can react with ozone in the air to form a poisonous combination. Air fresheners in particular are linked to many volatile organic compounds, such as nitrogen dioxide, and some fresheners also contain paradichlorobenzene, the same chemical emitted by mothballs. 3. Baby Bottles and BPA Canada has taken the first steps to outlaw the sale of baby bottles made from polycarbonate plastics, which are the most common type on the market. It has done so because the plastics are made with a chemical called bisphenol-a (BPA). BPA has a structure very similar to estrogen and for that reason is referred to as a "hormone disruptor." Hormone disruptors can interfere with the natural human hormones, especially for young children. 2. Flame Retardants Commonly used in mattresses, upholstery, television and computer casings and circuit boards, flame retardants use polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs for short. Two forms of PBDEs were phased out of use in manufacturing in the United States in 2004 because of related health threats, but the products containing them linger on. Studies have linked PBDEs to learning and memory problems, lowered sperm counts and poor thyroid functioning in rats and mice. Other animal studies have indicated that PBDEs could be carcinogenic in humans, although that has not yet been confirmed. 1. Cosmetic Phthalates Phthalates, also called plasticizers, go into many products including hair spray, shampoos, fragrances, and deodorants. Phthalates bind the color and fragrance in cosmetic products, and are also used to increase the durability and flexibility of plastics. Like BPA, these hormone-like chemicals are linked to reproductive and developmental problems in animals. Because of these findings, California and Washington state have banned the use of phthalates in toys for younger children. Sources: How Stuff Works