Microwave containers leaching toxins into food at alarming rates (NATURAL NEWS.COM)

Microwave containers leaching toxins into food at alarming rates

Wednesday, November 09, 2011 by: S. D. Wells

(NaturalNews) Microwaving food inside containers made of plastic, cellophane, cardboard and styrofoam may leach toxins into the food and increases the levels of carcinogens being consumed. Since most containers do not visibly melt or get hot, consumers have the false notion that the synthetic boxes and wrappers are not releasing toxins, but new research shows they are, and at levels that are alarming.

Consumers are guaranteeing a triple dose of poison when they buy processed food (which contains synthetic ingredients), "nuke" them in a microwave, and then consume the radiated chemicals and vapors from the packaging.

The FDA claims that if it's labeled microwave safe, then it's fine, but there are several major gray areas being exploited. The FDA also says that microwave-safe plastic wrap should never directly touch the food. The labels on many plastic wraps recommend a one inch space between the plastic and the food, but it's all locked in the oven with your food anyway.

For starters, chemical migration from packaging material to a food does not require direct contact. Excessive heat applied to the container drives off the chemical gases from the container. It is now proven that chemicals like BPA, Bisphenol-A, seep out of the container and affect humans, causing hormonal imbalances, lowered sperm count, and various other forms of cancer.

Watch out for rubber lids and their containers. Also put on the caution list freezer bags which can emit phthalates and BPA. The amount of toxins released from the synthetic depends on how long you freeze or cook them for, and also the strength of each particular microwave oven.

Meat trays, foam containers, coated cardboard, and most soup and noodle cups top the danger list. It is very common to cover a plate of food with Saran wrap. These "methods" are not safe at all.

The FDA claims that leached substances pose no threat to a person's health. They say to use containers and materials that are specifically labeled as microwave-safe, but not to microwave margarine tubs and carryout containers from restaurants.

That brings us to research the difference between margarine tubs and all other plastic containers. Some plastics marked with recycle codes 3 or 7 can actually be made with BPA. Yogurt, butter, margarine, cottage cheese, sour cream, and many more similar foods are all sold in plastic containers, many of which are made from Polypropylene (plastic # 5), one of the least-recyclable plastics. Most city recycling centers won't even accept it!

How can the FDA allow toxic chemicals in food containers that are not recyclable? Understanding this is important to realizing the true betrayal we face with the FDA. In other words, it is not acceptable to incur the expense of sorting, collecting, cleaning and reprocessing containers, but it is acceptable that we treat millions of Americans with chemotherapy after "eating" cancer.

Radiation is the result of nuclear decay. In simplest terms, a microwave oven decays the molecular structure of the food and packaging by using radiation. Had the manufacturers named them radiation ovens, it's very doubtful they would be popular today.

Solution: Get rid of the microwave oven right now, and just deal with cleaning your own safe pot or stainless steel pan. Then drastically reduce your use of plastic. Look for natural alternatives like textiles, solid wood, bamboo, and glass.

Sources for this article include:

http://environment.about.com/od/red... http://www.riversideonline.com/heal... http://healthychild.org/5steps/5_st... http://curezone.com/foods/microwave... http://www.comfortncolor.com/HTML/P... http://www.chasinggreen.org/article... http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/pro... http://www.plasticsinfo.org/babybot... http://lancaster.unl.edu/food/ftsep... Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034101_microwaveable_containers_plastics.html#ixzz1dFA0mWg0

Corn Herbicide Dangers? (WSJournal)

This is disturbing...espeically if you've seen the documentary "King Corn."  Everything we eat is corn based these days...

XOXO

 

Wall Street Journal

EPA to Review Health Effects of Corn Herbicide

By BILL TOMSON

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday it is launching an investigation into whether the herbicide atrazine, popular among U.S. corn farmers, causes cancer and birth defects.

"Our examination of atrazine will be based on transparency and sound science, including independent scientific peer review, and will help determine whether a change in EPA's regulatory position on this [herbicide] is appropriate," said Steve Owens, an EPA assistant administrator.

But agribusiness giant Syngenta AG, maker of atrazine for 50 years, said the chemical has already been proved safe. The company, in a recent statement, said the EPA, the World Health Organization and others have previously reviewed the drug and pronounced it safe.

Sherry Ford, a spokeswoman for Syngenta, said the EPA re-licensed atrazine for sale in the U.S. in 2006 and said the chemical wasn't likely to cause cancer.

U.S. corn farmers have come to rely on the herbicide to control weeds in their fields. Ken McCauley, former president of the National Corn Growers Association, said Wednesday that atrazine is used on most corn fields in the U.S.

Syngenta's Ms. Ford said about 60% of the corn, 75% of the sorghum and 90% of sugarcane grown in the U.S. is done so with the aid of atrazine.

"When EPA re-registered it in 2006...they estimated that atrazine saves corn farmers about $28 per acre in herbicide costs and yield advantages," Ms. Ford said.

Mr. McCauley, who farms 4,500 acres in Kansas, said he relies on the herbicide to "enhance" the effects of other chemicals. While he and many farmers rely heavily on atrazine, they use less of it than when the chemical was first sold on the market. Initially, atrazine was used as a primary herbicide and farmers would use about three to five pounds per acre. Now, Mr. McCauley said, it is common practice to use about a pound or less.

Use of the herbicide makes it possible for many corn producers to conduct "no-till" farming, Mr. McCauley said, a practice that eliminates plowing to protect against soil erosion.

U.S. farmers are currently in the midst of harvest and are expected to produce about 13 billion bushels of corn on 80 million acres of land, according to USDA data.

Atrazine is already regulated by the EPA, which warns of human health threats from contamination of drinking water. The EPA said atrazine may cause "congestion of heart, lungs and kidneys; low blood pressure; muscle spasms; weight loss; damage to adrenal glands" if "people are exposed to it at levels above [three parts per billion] for relatively short periods of time."

Rice Krispies Boost Your Kids' Immune System Now! (Wash Post)

Washington Post

The Checkup
Health in the News and in Your Life

By Adapted from voices.washpost.com/checkup
Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Scale Back the Sweet Tooth

Do you have any idea how much added sugar you can safely eat in a day?

A new statement from the American Heart Association may surprise many: While the average American is accustomed to ingesting more than 22 teaspoons -- totaling 350 calories -- of "added" sugar per day, we really shouldn't allow ourselves more than about 10 teaspoons, for a total of 150 calories. (That's for men; women should restrict themselves to no more than six teaspoons, for about 100 calories.)

Excess sugar consumption is thought to be a major contributor to Americans' increasing obesity; it's also associated with high blood pressure and other conditions that raise the risk of heart disease and stroke.

"Added" sugars encompass those in regular sodas, fruit drinks, candy, baked goods and sweetened dairy products -- anything that's made to taste sweet by adding caloric sweeteners such as sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. The term does not include foods that are naturally sweet, such as fruit. Sugar also shows up in all kinds of packaged and processed foods that don't necessarily taste all that sweet such as salad dressing and spaghetti sauce.

If I have sweets at breakfast, it sets me up to crave more sugar the whole day. I also avoid processed foods, which means that my salad dressing and pasta sauce are homemade, without any added sugar. If I want sweets, I have to make them, and that is usually more trouble than it's worth.

How Potent Is Your Brand of Cereal?

They snap. They crackle. They pop. But do Rice Krispies boost immunity?

Kellogg's has reformulated its Rice Krispies and Cocoa Krispies cereals, fortifying them with vitamins A, C, and E and a bunch of B vitamins. The boxes and ads now tout that "each and every box" of Krispies has ingredients that "help support your child's immunity."

It's a potent message in these days of swine flu fear. Let's take a look:

Some of the added nutrients are believed to help strengthen your immune system, but it's not clear whether they work as well when isolated from the whole foods that naturally contain them, as they are here, as when you get them from, say, an apple or an orange. In any case, they haven't added all that much: The Rice Krispies nutrition facts panel shows that the cereal provides 50 percent of the daily value for iron but only 25 to 30 percent of most of the other nutrients listed. Oddly, there's hardly any fiber in a serving. And a quick glance at the ingredient list isn't encouraging: The first ingredients are rice, sugar, salt, malt flavoring and high-fructose corn syrup.

As has been noted elsewhere, Rice Krispies aren't the worst cereal in the world. They're pretty low-calorie and less sugary than most. But to suggest to parents that feeding them to kids will help protect the little ones against disease -- and that's what they mean when they talk about "boosting immunity" -- seems absurd.

-- Jennifer LaRue Huget

Still buying organic? (Dr. Weil)

Question: Still Buying Organic?

I was surprised to hear that British researchers reported that organic food is not nutritionally superior to conventionally grown food. What's your take on this subject?

Answer (Published 8/28/2009)

You're referring to a much-publicized analysis published online July 29, 2009, in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine looked at previously published papers to compare the nutrients available in organically produced crops and livestock products to those found in conventionally produced foods. They found no nutritional advantage to organic foods.

Aside from the inherent problems of this kind of review, they missed the point. The reason to choose organic foods is not necessarily nutritional superiority: it is to avoid the residues of pesticides and other agrichemicals used on conventional crops and the hormones and other drugs fed to conventionally raised livestock. Indeed, the researchers concluded that they found "no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

You wouldn't know that from the sensationalist way the review was covered by the news media. Most reports I read omitted mention of toxic agrichemicals. While we are still performing true studies to demonstrate that, overall, organic foods are nutritionally superior to conventionally produced food, for now we have evidence of pesticide residues in 71 to 90 percent of conventionally produced foods compared to 13 to 23 percent of organically grown foods. Pesticides are not good for your health.

Russell Greenfield, M.D., a graduate of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine and an assistant clinical professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, also writes a weekly health blog in which he analyzed the study and made some important points that you won't see in news coverage:

• The authors didn't find enough data in the 162 scientific papers they reviewed to enable them to compare single foods raised by organic or conventional methods. Instead, they focused on specific nutrient categories, which unfortunately did not include a wide range of phytonutrients known to offer potential health benefits. Dr. Greenfield noted that previously published studies have shown that organic produce contains higher levels of antioxidants and other health-promoting phytonutrients than matched samples of conventional produce.
• The researchers treated the papers they reviewed as if they were equal even though many different research methods were used. Then they combined findings from the various trials to draw a single conclusion.
• Two few studies of livestock were considered, not enough to have confidence in the findings.
• And, tellingly, the researchers said "we did not address differences in contaminant contents (e.g., herbicide, pesticide, or fungicide residues) or the possible environmental consequences of organic and conventional agricultural practices because this was beyond the scope of our review."

I wouldn't base a decision on whether or not to choose organic foods on the results of this analysis. Recent headlines notwithstanding, organic foods are better for you.

Andrew Weil, M.D.

HFCS fed to bees? (Amer Chem Society)

Research study reveals that high-fructose corn syrup is used as a sweetener in beverages

27. August 2009 00:51

Researchers have established the conditions that foster formation of potentially dangerous levels of a toxic substance in the high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) often fed to honey bees. Their study, which appears in the current issue of ACS' bi-weekly Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, could also help keep the substance out of soft drinks and dozens of other human foods that contain HFCS. The substance, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), forms mainly from heating fructose.

In the new study, Blaise LeBlanc and Gillian Eggleston and colleagues note HFCS's ubiquitous usage as a sweetener in beverages and processed foods. Some commercial beekeepers also feed it to bees to increase reproduction and honey production. When exposed to warm temperatures, HFCS can form HMF and kill honeybees. Some researchers believe that HMF may be a factor in Colony Collapse Disorder, a mysterious disease that has killed at least one-third of the honeybee population in the United States.

The scientists measured levels of HMF in HFCS products from different manufacturers over a period of 35 days at different temperatures. As temperatures rose, levels of HMF increased steadily. Levels jumped dramatically at about 120 degrees Fahrenheit. "The data are important for commercial beekeepers, for manufacturers of HFCS, and for purposes of food storage. Because HFCS is incorporated as a sweetener in many processed foods, the data from this study are important for human health as well," the report states. It adds that studies have linked HMF to DNA damage in humans. In addition, HMF breaks down in the body to other substances potentially more harmful than HMF.

Source: American Chemical Society

12 Food Additives to Remove From Your Diet (Mercola.com)

http://thehealthyclub.blogspot.com/

12 Food Additives to Remove From Your Diet

Many food additives have been studied and linked to various diseases. Becoming informed about the additives in everyday food items can make for an easier shopping experience and healthier food for everyone.

Here's a list of some of the most medically questionable and harmful additives in everyday foods:

• Sodium nitrite
• BHA & BHT
• Propyl gallate
• Monosodium glutamate
• Trans fats
• Aspartame
• Acesulfame-K
• Food colorings (Blue, Red, Green, Yellow)
• Olestra
• Potassium bromate
• White sugar
• Sodium chloride (salt)

Since some of these may not be familiar to you, sodium nitrite is a preservative added most commonly bacon, ham, hot dogs, sandwich meats, and smoked fish. BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT(butylated hydroxytoluene) are other preservatives added to foods like cereal, gum, potato chips, and vegetable oils. Propyl gallate is found in meats, chicken soup base, and gum. All of these preservatives have been linked to cancer.

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) can cause migraines and other adverse effects. Trans fats are being eliminated from most foods, as the studies linking them to heart disease, strokes, and kidney problems are widely accepted.

Aspartame is an artificial sweetener found in products like NutraSweet and Equal as well as diet foods and soft drinks. And acesulfame-K is a newer sweetener used in soft drinks and some baked goods.

Many food colorings have been banned by the FDA, but some can still be found in foods that require a particular color. Olestra was common for a time in potato chips as an additive that prevented fat from being absorbed in the digestive system. Food colorings have been tied to cancer and Olestra blocks vitamins from being processed.

Potassium bromate is sometimes added to white flour, breads, and rolls to increase the volume of the products, but it has cancer-causing properties that have prompted some states in America to actually require a label to that effect.

Finally, white sugar and sodium chloride (salt) can be dangerous if not kept to a minimum.

Sources:

Health News June 29, 2009

Another reason not to eat farmed fish (Medical News)

Just gross to think about this. Fish eating cows?

XOXO

Farmed fish and mad cow disease – researchers air new concerns

16. June 2009 06:48

University of Louisville neurologist Robert P. Friedland, M.D., questions the safety of eating farmed fish in the June issue of the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, adding a new worry to concerns about the nation's food supply.

Friedland and his co-authors suggest farmed fish could transmit Creutzfeldt Jakob disease--commonly known as mad cow disease--if they are fed byproducts rendered from cows. The scientists urge government regulators to ban feeding cow meat or bone meal to fish until the safety of this common practice can be confirmed.

"We have not proven that it's possible for fish to transmit the disease to humans. Still, we believe that out of reasonable caution for public health, the practice of feeding rendered cows to fish should be prohibited," Friedland said. "Fish do very well in the seas without eating cows," he added.

Creutzfeldt Jakob disease is an untreatable, universally-fatal disease that can be contracted by eating parts of an animal infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease). An outbreak in England attributed to infected beef prompted most countries to outlaw feeding rendered cow material to other cattle because the disease is so easily spread within the same species.

The risk of transmission of BSE to humans who eat farmed fish would appear to be low because of perceived barriers between species. But, according to the authors, it is possible for a disease to be spread by eating a carrier that is not infected itself. It's also possible that eating diseased cow parts could cause fish to experience a pathological change that allows the infection to be passed between the two species.

"The fact that no cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease have been linked to eating farmed fish does not assure that feeding rendered cow parts to fish is safe. The incubation period of these diseases may last for decades, which makes the association between feeding practices and infection difficult. Enhanced safeguards need to be put in place to protect the public," Friedland said.

There have been 163 deaths from Creutzfeldt Jakob disease in the United Kingdom attributed to eating infected beef. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been identified in nine Canadian and three U.S. cattle.

Full bibliographic information: Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, June 2009

http://www.iospress.nl/html/13872877.php

Artificaially Fattened Chickens, New Strains of E. Coli - Firm Seeks to 'Expose" US Food Industry (FOX News)

As most of you know, I am fairly passionate about what my family eats, the quality of our food, and it's source.  If you, too, want to try to be more diligent with your family's health, consider watching this documentary when it comes out...add it to your Netflix queue, rent it, watch it online...take the time.  Comes out June 12.

Be healthy!

 

XOXO

Preview of Movie on You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://thehealthyclub.blogspot.com/

FOXNews.com

Artificially Fattened Chickens, New Strains of E. Coli - Film Seeks to 'Expose' U.S. Food Industry

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Bigger-breasted chickens fattened artificially. New strains of deadly E. coli bacteria. A food supply controlled by a handful of corporations.

The documentary "Food, Inc." opens in the United States on Friday and portrays these purported dangers and changes in the U.S. food industry, asserting harmful effects on public health, the environment, and worker and animal rights.

Big corporations such as biotech food producer Monsanto Co., U.S. meat companies Tyson Food Inc. and Smithfield Foods, and poultry producer Perdue Farms all declined to be interviewed for the film.

But the industry has not stood silent. Trade associations across the $142-billion-a-year U.S. meat industry have banded together to counter the claims. Led by the American Meat Institute, they have created a number of websites, including one called SafeFoodInc.com.

"Each sector of the industry that's named is doing its part to counter a lot of the misinformation in the movie," said Lisa Katic, a dietitian and consultant with an unnamed coalition of trade associations representing the food industry.

Their campaign promotes the U.S. food supply as safe, abundant and affordable, whereas the film asserts that images of animals grazing on grassy farms emblazoned on U.S. food product labels are misleading.

"Food, Inc." explores the argument that food comes not from friendly farms but from industrial factories that put profit ahead of human health.

"The film pulls back the curtain on the way food is produced," said Michael Pollan, who appears in the film and is the best-selling author of several books including "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto.

"Products with farm labels attached — this stuff comes from factories now," he said.

But an industry spokesman said 98 percent of U.S. farms were family owned and operated and they accounted for 82 percent of farm production.

Mace Thornton of the American Farm Bureau, the nation's largest farm group, said the industry was interested in the well-being of farm animals.

"If a farmer or rancher is not the kind of person to take care of their animals, they're not going to be in business long," he said.

A PEEK INSIDE

The film shows footage inside cattle, pork and chicken production plants, some secretly recorded by immigrant workers under cramped conditions for both workers and the animals.

Maryland farmer Carole Morison let cameras in to show chickens collapsing and dying before they are put on the market because, she said, of fast weight gain caused in part by antibiotics in the feed. Morison said she lost her contract with Perdue.

The film says U.S. food corporations now widely use industrial techniques linked to growing problems like obesity, diabetes, salmonella, toxic strains of common E. coli bacteria and environmental pollution.

"Confined animal agriculture is so unsustainable in so many ways. It depends on using antibiotics in the feed that lead to antibiotic-resistant diseases. It produces more pollution than any other industry," Pollan said.

"It costs treasury, costs the public health system," he said. "The film vividly shows it costs the people who do the work and of course it is brutal to the animal."

Barbara Kowalcyk, whose 2-year-old son Kevin died from an infection of E. coli, appears in the film trying to persuade Congress to pass "Kevin's law," which would give the U.S. Department of Agriculture the power to shut down plants that produce contaminated meats. It has not passed.

Consumers can effect change, the film says, pointing to Stonyfield Farm's Gary Hirshberg, who now offers his line of organic products at giant chain Wal-Mart due to demand.

"You vote for what you eat by what you buy at the supermarket," Pollan said.

Study: Rx's in US Fish (FOXNews.com)

Study: Pharmaceuticals Found in Fish Across U.S.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

 

FOXNEWS.com

Fish caught near wastewater treatment plants serving five major U.S. cities had residues of pharmaceuticals in them, including medicines used to treat high cholesterol, allergies, high blood pressure, bipolar disorder and depression, researchers reported Wednesday.

Findings from this first nationwide study of human drugs in fish tissue have prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to significantly expand similar ongoing research to more than 150 different locations.

"The average person hopefully will see this type of a study and see the importance of us thinking about water that we use every day, where does it come from, where does it go to? We need to understand this is a limited resource and we need to learn a lot more about our impacts on it," said study co-author Bryan Brooks, a Baylor University researcher and professor who has published more than a dozen studies related to pharmaceuticals in the environment.

A person would have to eat hundreds of thousands of fish dinners to get even a single therapeutic dose, Brooks said. But researchers including Brooks have found that even extremely diluted concentrations of pharmaceutical residues can harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species because of their constant exposure to contaminated water.

Brooks and his colleague Kevin Chambliss tested fish caught in rivers where wastewater treatment plants release treated sewage in Chicago, Dallas, Phoenix, Philadelphia and Orlando, Fla. For comparison, they also tested fish from New Mexico's pristine Gila River Wilderness Area, an area isolated from human sources of pollution.

Earlier research has confirmed that fish absorb medicines because the rivers they live in are contaminated with traces of drugs that are not removed in sewage treatment plants. Much of the contamination comes from the unmetabolized residues of pharmaceuticals that people have taken and excreted; unused medications dumped down the drain also contribute to the problem.

The researchers, whose work was funded by a $150,000 EPA grant, tested fish for 24 different pharmaceuticals, as well as 12 chemicals found in personal care products.

They found trace concentrations of seven drugs and two soap scent chemicals in fish at all five of the urban river sites. The amounts varied, but some of the fish had combinations of many of the compounds in their livers.

The researchers didn't detect anything in the reference fish caught in rural New Mexico.

In an ongoing investigation, The Associated Press has reported trace concentrations of pharmaceuticals have been detected in drinking water provided to at least 46 million Americans.

The EPA has called for additional studies about the impact on humans of long-term consumption of minute amounts of medicines in their drinking water, especially in unknown combinations. Limited laboratory studies have shown that human cells failed to grow or took unusual shapes when exposed to combinations of some pharmaceuticals found in drinking water.

"This pilot study is one important way that EPA is increasing its scientific knowledge about the occurrence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment," said EPA spokeswoman Suzanne Rudzinski. She said the completed and expanded EPA sampling for pharmaceuticals and other compounds in fish and surface water is part of the agency's National Rivers and Stream Assessment.

Well Water Should be Tested Annually to Reduce Health Risks to Children (NIH)

National Institutes of Health

Well Water Should be Tested Annually

to Reduce Health Risks to Children

Private well water should be tested yearly, and in some cases more often, according to new guidance offered by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health, took a lead role in working with the AAP to develop these recommendations and draft a new AAP policy statement about the things parents should do if their children drink well water. The recommendations call for annual well testing, especially for nitrate and microorganisms such as coliform bacteria, which can indicate that sewage has contaminated the well. The recommendations point out circumstances when additional testing should occur, including testing when there is a new infant in the house or if the well is subjected to structural damage.

"Children are especially vulnerable to waterborne illnesses that may come from contaminated wells," said Walter J. Rogan, M.D., an epidemiologist at NIEHS and lead author on the policy statement and technical report that appears in the June issue of Pediatrics. The new policy statement, "Drinking Water from Private Wells and Risks to Children," offers recommendations for inspection, testing and remediation of wells providing drinking water for children.

"With few exceptions, well owners are responsible for their own wells," said Rogan. Private wells are not subject to federal regulations and are only minimally regulated by states. With proper care, well water is safe; however, wells can become contaminated by chemicals or pathogenic organisms.

Nitrate, which comes from sewage or fertilizer, is the most common contaminant in wells. The presence of nitrates can be a problem particularly for infants under three months who can not metabolize nitrate. Water with a nitrate concentration of more than 1.0 milligrams per liter should not be used to prepare infant formula or given to a child younger than one year. The policy statement suggests using bottled water for infants when nitrate contamination is detected, or when the source of drinking water is not known.

The policy statement and accompanying technical report point out that water contamination is inherently local, and that families with wells need to keep in contact with state and local health experts to determine what should be tested in their community. For example, some parts of the country may have arsenic, radon, salt intrusion or agricultural runoff that may get into the water supply.

"As people move out of urban and suburban areas into areas that are not reached by municipal water supplies, it is more important than ever that people know who to contact in their local health department to get information about local groundwater conditions," said N. Beth Ragan of NIEHS, who served as consultant on these reports. A compilation of state by state telephone and Web-based resources of local experts is included in the technical report. Approximately one-sixth of U.S. households now get their drinking water from private wells.

NIEHS Director Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., says she is pleased that NIEHS researchers took the lead in writing this statement, and continue their longstanding liaisons with the American Academy of Pediatrics to develop state-of-the-science technical reports that can have a direct impact on public health.

"This statement will be extremely useful to many audiences — especially pediatricians," Birnbaum said. "Pediatricians needed a one-stop shopping document that they can share with parents who have concerns about their children's sources of drinking water."

The NIEHS supports research to understand the effects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH. For more information on environmental health topics, visit our Web site at http://www.niehs.nih.gov.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation's Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

---

Reference(s):
Rogan WJ, Brady MT, the Committee on Environmental Health and the Committee on Infectious Diseases. June, 2009. Technical Report. "Drinking Water from Private Wells and Risks to Children." Pediatrics,123:6. DOI: 10.1542/peds2009-0751.

Sugars 101

This is some research I did to better understand the differences in sweeteners. 

 

XOXO

 

 

_____________________________________________

 

NATURAL SUGARS

_____________________________________________

 

Fructose:  ripened fruit sugar, honey sugar, most sweet of all the natural sugars, low glycemic index (breaks down slowly), resulting in a slow release of sugar, rather than a sudden rush, recommended for diabetics.

 

Dextrose (aka Glucose):  main energy source for the body, another name for glucose, some food packagers like to use "dextrose" on their packaging instead of "glucose" because they believe that people have negative associations with glucose. Found in numerous plant and animal tissues, often works along with other sugars such as fructose. The body relies on glucose for energy, using this sugar to power cells. When people measure their blood sugar, they are actually measuring the amount of dissolved glucose in the blood.

 

Lactose:  naturally occurring sugar in milk, "lactose intolerant" means the body doesn't digest this sugar properly.

 

Maltose:  naturally occurring sugar in grains.

 

Natural Maple Syrup:  Combination of fructose and glucose is the most prevalent sugar in natural maple syrup.  (Did you know it takes 10 gallons of sap to make 1 quart of syrup?  Find a local, natural source, it tastes so much better than the junky processed syrup in the supermarket.  Read the ingredients.)

 

Stevia, Honey, Agave Nectar:  ok, these not a sugars at all, but are natural alternatives to sugar!  We use agave as our main sweetener.

 

_____________________________________________

 

PROCESSED SUGARS

_____________________________________________

 

To make sugar, sugar cane is cut and then run through a press to extract the juice. Once the juice has been extracted, it is boiled and then cooled, allowing it to crystallize. At this stage it has a high molasses content and is sold as raw sugar. Further processing makes it into white sugar and brown sugar.

 

 

Raw Sugar:  Same as white sugar but as not as heavily refined and processed so some of the naturally occurring molasses from the sugarcane is still in it.

 

White Sugar (aka Sucrose): is when the fructose and glucose/dextrose molecules are combined, an enemy to your intestines and body, high glycemic index (breaks down quickly), refined from cane or beet juice by stripping away all its vitamins, minerals, protein, fiber, water, and other synergists. 

 

Brown Sugar:  same as refined white sugar above with some molasses spun back into it for color and flavor, depending on the process.

 

Corn Syrup:  Fructose and glucose, made by processing cornstarch. (Light corn syrup has been further clarified to remove all color.)

 

High Fructose Corn Syrup:  Is corn syrup that has been further processed to make it sweeter by increasing the fructose (which is sweeter than glucose).  Uses an enzymatic processing process.  HFCS is sweeter than corn syrup, which is why you find it in so many foods both processed and fast food, and especially sodas (the corn syrup isn't sweet enough to be used in sodas).

 

Processed Maple Syrup:  Corn syrup and/or HFCS, artifical flavors, colors, etc. Yuk.

 

Artificial Sweetners:  ie Splenda, not even spending a minute of time on this one.  It's evil.

 

Cane Juice:  Evaporated cane juice is a healthy alternative to refined sugar. While both sweeteners are made from sugar cane, evaporated cane juice does not undergo the same degree of processing that refined sugar does. Therefore, unlike refined sugar, it retains more of the nutrients found in sugar cane.  In lots of organic food as the sugar replacement.

 

 

XOXO

 

Why is rocket fuel in baby formula? (Contemporary Pediatrics)

http://thehealthyclub.blogspot.com/

 

I don't see the answer to that question in this article.  How does rocket fuel get into formula?  Into the water?  I understand how the Pharma Rx's get in the water...but not rocket fuel.  Gosh, what else is in there?  How can we get CLEAN water in our homes?  I wonder if those fancy water filtration systems filter out Rx's, fuel and all the other wonderful unknown ingredients!

 

XOXO

 

 

Why is rocket fuel in baby formula?

Apr 10, 2009 By: Stephanie Skernivitz Contemporary Pediatrics

All fifteen brands of powdered infant formula in a sample testing was found to contain the chemical perchlorate, which has been found in rocket fuel since the 1940s.

The investigators shared their findings online in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology.The highest levels of the chemical (5.05 mcg/L) were found in a cow's milk-based formula sample, report the team of government scientists.

The Environmental Protection Agency's reference dose is 15 mcg/L of perchlorate in drinking water. All formulas' levels were significantly below that mark. The reference dose, if exposed to it daily and orally, is said to be harmless during a lifetime, even for newborns and fetuses.

Yet some critics contend that because the powdered formulas are combined with water, which both contain perchlorate, it would increase risk of exposing the infant population to more of the chemical.

Testing hypothetical models of daily exposure to perchlorate in infants, researchers showed that more than half (54%) would extend beyond the reference dose, assuming that water with as little as 4 mcg/L of perchlorate was used to mix the formula.

In a statement, researchers noted, "Further work is needed to clarify both the complex interrelationships among the thyroid, perchlorate, and iodide, as well as any potential public health risk with exceeding the perchlorate reference dose."

Perchlorate is a chemical also used in road flares and fireworks, and also medically to treat some thyroid conditions. It has been discovered in 5.4% of U.S. utilities in 26 states and two territories. Its effect on the body is that it blocks the transport of iodine into the thyroid. It may interrupt the production of thyroid hormone, which would slow fetal and infant brain development.

Yet, several studies were unable to show a relationship between perchlorate-contaminated water and neonatal thyroid function or fetal growth.

In January, the EPA released a perchlorate health advisory, seeking a new evaluation of the chemical by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.

There is no FDA guidance on changing the diet to limit exposure to perchlorate. However in regions where the chemical concentration in water is higher, FDA recommends mixing the product with bottled water. Currently, less than 1% of water supply systems surveyed had levels this high.

For the study, researchers evaluated three samples each from 15 brands of powdered formula, including those based on cow's milk, soy products, and synthetic amino acids (elemental formula). Perchlorate was found in each sample.

At-risk infants, according to 48 possible exposure situations, would be 1- and 6-month-old infants in the 10th, 50th, or 90th percentiles of weight (six scenarios). The models assumed the formula was based on cow's milk with lactose and was mixed with perchlorate-free water.

"The findings of these studies are somewhat reassuring, although higher iodine intake in the population may have reduced perchlorate-mediated inhibition of iodide transport," researchers said in a statement. "This would likely lessen the possibility of perchlorate-induced thyroid dysfunction. However, the complex relationships among iodine, perchlorate, and their effects on thyroid hormone production are still being elucidated."

Be informed about common poultry products (NaturalNews.com)

http://thehealthyclub.blogspot.com/

NaturalNews.com

Be Informed about Common Poultry Products

by Jo Hartley, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author


(NaturalNews) Chickens on regular farms are treated inhumanely. Hens are confined to very small spaces and are subjected to high-intensity artificial light to simulate daylight hours. This increases egg production. These laying hens are also fed many different hormones and antibiotics to increase their production as well. It is important that consumers realize the background of the poultry products they are buying and consuming because there are serious ramifications for both the consumer and the animals in question.

Due to these inhumane treatments being disclosed to the public, more and more people are switching to consuming free range eggs instead. Their belief is that the hens that lay free range eggs are raised in better conditions and are healthier. Unfortunately, the common misconception is that eggs labeled "free range eggs" are actually "organically produced eggs." Free range eggs are more expensive than regular eggs and this has also led people to believe that they are a healthier product. A close inspection of the package will not indicate that this is true, however.

Furthermore, comparing a carton of organic eggs and a carton of free range eggs will result in another big difference in products. First of all, organic eggs are even more expensive than free range eggs. There is a reason for this price difference, though.

The USDA allows labeling eggs as "free range eggs" if they are from a farm that allows the hen access to an outside area for at least five minutes each day. Nowhere is it stipulated that the hen actually has to go outside; it only has to have the access to do so for at least five minutes in each 24 hours. There is no stipulation about what the hen is fed or the use of hormones and antibiotics.

One may conclude that the USDA`s and the FDA`s primary concern is to protect the egg producers and their income rather than in protecting the interests of the American consumers. Not to mention the well-being of the laying hens!

These same USDA criteria are also applied to the chickens that are sold for food from the grocery stores. Unless chickens are labeled as organic, they are subjected to similar treatment and conditions as the laying hens.

A large number of animals that live in a confined area are a perfect way for diseases to become rampant. The way that the farmers combat this situation is by using a large amount of antibiotics on the animals. Unfortunately, we now know that doing this over an extended period of time will cause the bacteria to mutate and become resistant to the antibiotics. Then when humans become infected with these same bacteria, many of the common antibiotics will no longer be effective because the bacteria are resistant to the commonly used treatment options.

The pharmaceutical companies have everything invested in this practice continuing. Bayer is the producer of the antibiotic Baytril. This is a pharmaceutical that is commonly used for treating chickens and it has similarities to the antibiotic Cipro. Bayer has reportedly been urged by the FDA to discontinue sale of Baytril to poultry farmers. Bayer is resisting this recommendation. They argue that if Baytril were withdrawn it would then be necessary for integral changes in the US poultry raising system. Bayer has stated that more evidence showing the damage from these practices is necessary before they will consider withdrawing their products.

The lifespan of a laying hen today is two years and that short lifetime will be a disease-ridden one. Typically, these hens produce eggs prolifically during their first year of life but this is not normal. These hens are forced to grow abnormally fast and because of this they have a premature onset of egg laying during their first year. This premature egg laying happens because of hormones and antibiotics and it contributes to the hen`s shortened lifespan.

For those hens that do manage to continue to survive, the hormones and antibiotics eventually take their toll on the hens` livers. Liver cancer is common and these hens are often slaughtered before the cancer sets in and then these hens go on to become grocery store poultry.

Chickens that are raised naturally and fed a natural diet will begin laying eggs around their first birthday. Hens that are raised on hormones and antibiotics are usually worn out and stop laying by their first birthday. Hens raised organically have a lifespan that is approximately twice as long as hormone-fed chickens.

The best thing to do in the face of this information is to simply stop buying commercially produced chicken products. Organically produced eggs and chicken do cost more, but they also taste better and are infinitely healthier products. In the absence of effective laws that control how poultry is raised and produced, stopping the purchase of these products may be the only way to send a message that these methods are unacceptable.

Source: http://www.healthynewage.com/spirit...

Pesticides & Jersey Tomatoes - NJ fines company $1 million (Star Ledger)

N.J. fines Florida-based tomato grower $1 million for misuse of pesticides

by BrianT. Murray/The Star-Ledger

Thursday January 29, 2009, 4:55 PM

A Florida-based tomato grower facing pesticide misuse charges in North Carolina was hit in New Jersey today with a record-high fine of nearly $1 million, officials said today.

Ag-Mart Produce Inc., which has an office in Cedarville, Cumberland County, faces allegations it misused pesticides in 17 Garden State fields, jeopardizing workers and consumers alike in what officials are calling the worst pesticide case in state history.

 

Ag-Mart is already battling record-high fines and charges of pesticide misuse in North Carolina, where female workers claim their babies were born with serious defects.

Today, New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection slapped the company with hundreds of violations, claiming it denied state investigators access to facilities, applied pesticides to tomatoes more frequently than permitted and harvested and shipped pesticide-sprayed tomatoes before they were safe for public consumption on 17 occasions.

"We don't have specifics right now on how much of that crop went to market, and we have no reports of illness. We only discovered these violations while inspecting records, years later, so it was after the fact," said Darlene Yuhas of the DEP, adding that the probe began in 2005, continued until recently and involved searching records dating back to 2004.

The state also charged the firm with careless record-keeping, failing to properly ventilate areas during pesticide use, failing to post important pesticide-safety information for workers, using forbidden mixtures of pesticides and losing track of a 2.5 gallon container of highly toxic insecticide. The penalties linked to the violations amount to $931,250.

"Ag-Mart has repeatedly shown a stunning disregard of laws and regulations intended to protect the workers who harvest their tomatoes, the people who consume them and New Jersey's environment," Acting DEP Commissioner Mark N. Mauriello said in a prepared statement. "Ag-Mart's pesticide violations are the most serious DEP inspectors have ever uncovered. We have imposed a record-high penalty not only to hold Ag-Mart accountable for their failure, but to make sure it doesn't happen again."

Telephone calls requesting a response were placed to Ag-Mart's Cedarville office and corporate headquarters in Plant City, Florida, but the calls were not returned. The company, a subsidiary of Procacci Brothers Sales Corp. in Philadelphia, Pa., is the sole grower of Santa Sweets, a brand of grape tomatoes, and UglyRipe heirloom tomatoes.

It has farms in New Jersey, Mexico, Florida and North Carolina, where hundreds of charges were filed against Ag-Mart in 2005, after three women who worked in company fields gave birth to babies with serious defects and told authorities they were regularly sprayed with pesticides. Ag-Mart has denied the charges, and, last year, without disclosing the details or acknowledging any fault, settled one lawsuit with one farm-worker couple whose baby was born without limbs.

North Carolina is still pursuing its charges, although the case exposed gaps in that state's regulations of pesticide use. Two weeks ago, the state tightened its rules, particularly regulations requiring farmers to document and maintain records on when and how pesticides are used.

New Jersey, which already has strict regulations, claimed Ag-Mart failed to keep required records on its pesticide applications and ignored a regulation that it wait until 90 days after a pesticide application to harvest and distribute a crop. The company employs about 700 workers on 17 farms in New Jersey.

DEP officials said they uncovered violations after a series of inspections on Ag-Mart farms in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and that Ag-Mart tried to interfere with the probe. In May 2006, according to the DEP, the company barred an environmental investigator from inspecting facilities and forced the investigator to wait several hours before finally allowing him access only to a portion of a packing house that was not the subject of his inquiry.

On another occasion, three state inspectors were overcome by chlorine vapors in the company's packing house because the firm failed to provide proper ventilation, the DEP claims.

Mercury in High-Fructose Corn Syrup? (WebMD)

Mercury in High-Fructose Corn Syrup?

Researchers Say 17 Products Tested Had Some Mercury; Industry Group Says Syrup Is Safe
By Miranda Hitti
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Jan. 27, 2009 -- Some foods and drinks rich in high-fructose corn syrup may contain detectable levels of mercury, a new report shows.

The report, published on the web site of the Minneapolis-based nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), shows detectable levels of mercury in 17 out of 55 tested products rich in high-fructose corn syrup.

But the researchers aren't telling people to avoid those products or other items containing high-fructose corn syrup, and they aren't sure what form of mercury those products contained.

The Corn Refiners Association stands by high-fructose corn syrup, calling it "safe." [GEE WHAT A SURPRISE - KA NOTE]

Mercury and High-Fructose Corn Syrup

The new report comes from researchers including David Wallinga, MD, director of the IATP's food and health program. They bought 55 products that list high-fructose corn syrup first or second on their list of ingredients, which means high-fructose corn syrup was a leading ingredient in those products.

Wallinga's team sent samples of those products to a commercial lab, which checked the levels of total mercury in each sample.

"Overall, we found detectable mercury in 17 of 55 samples, or around 31%," write Wallinga and colleagues.

Here is the list of those products:

• Quaker Oatmeal to Go bars
• Jack Daniel's Barbecue Sauce
• Hershey's Chocolate Syrup
• Kraft Original Barbecue Sauce
• Nutri-Grain Strawberry Cereal Bars
• Manwich Gold Sloppy Joe
• Market Pantry Grape Jelly
• Smucker's Strawberry Jelly
• Pop-Tarts Frosted Blueberry
• Hunt's Tomato Ketchup
• Wish-Bone Western Sweet & Smooth Dressing
• Coca-Cola Classic: no mercury found on a second test
• Yoplait Strawberry Yogurt
• Minute Maid Berry Punch
• Yoo-hoo Chocolate Drink
• Nesquik Chocolate Milk
• Kemps Fat Free Chocolate Milk

Wallinga and colleagues caution that their list was "just a snapshot in time; we only tested one sample of each product. That clearly is not sufficient grounds to give definitive advice to consumers."

Mercury exposure at high levels can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system. A form of mercury called methylmercury is particularly risky to a baby's developing brain and nervous system, according to background information from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Wallinga points out that the lab only tested for total mercury levels, not methylmercury or other types of mercury. He also notes that the EPA has a "reference dose," or upper limit, for methylmercury intake but not for other forms of mercury.

Where Did the Mercury Come From?

Wallinga's report doesn't prove that the mercury in the tested products came from high-fructose corn syrup, but "I'm hard pressed to say where else it would come from," Wallinga tells WebMD.

Wallinga explains that mercury can be used to make caustic soda, which is one of the products used to make high-fructose corn syrup. That's outdated technology; mercury isn't needed to make caustic soda, notes Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, in a statement emailed to WebMD.

Level Set for Chemical in Nonstick Products (Washington Post)

Washington Post

Level Set for Chemical In Nonstick Products

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 17, 2009; A10

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued the first national guidelines establishing safe levels for perfluorinated chemicals used to make nonstick and stain-resistant materials in the nation's drinking water.

The chemical, which has been linked to cancer and birth defects in animals, is a key processing agent used to make products including microwave popcorn bags and nonstick pans. It has been seeping into drinking water supplies around the country and has been detected in the blood of 95 percent of Americans, including pregnant women, as well as in the blood of marine organisms and Arctic polar bears.

Environmentalists criticized the "provisional health advisory" setting the acceptable level of short-term exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) at 0.4 parts per billion. They noted that Lisa P. Jackson, who headed New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection and has been nominated by President-elect Barack Obama to take over the EPA, set a chronic exposure standard of 0.04 ppb in 2007 while heading the state agency.

Benjamin H. Grumbles, the EPA's assistant administrator for water, said in an interview that the agency decided to issue guidelines Thursday after it had found elevated levels of both PFOA and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in sewage sludge from a wastewater treatment plant that was used to fertilize farm crops near Decatur, Ala. The agency set a standard of 0.2 ppb for PFOS.

"We have no evidence of levels that would present a risk to public health," Grumbles said of the drinking water near Decatur, adding that the agency defines "short-term exposure" as lasting as much as two years. He said the suggested safety levels apply nationwide but could be revised by the next administration.

"I've no doubt scientists in the agency will continue to look at this, and policymakers may revisit it," Grumbles said, adding that although the EPA's recommendation differs from New Jersey's, "we feel that's the best available science, and that's the right number to select."

Richard Wiles, executive director of the Environmental Working Group, said the EPA failed to take into account that drinking water exposure to PFOA produces a hundredfold concentration of the chemical in human's blood.

"Nobody would say that's safe," Wiles said of a 40 ppb concentration. "It's a pretty big win for the polluters."

Chemical giant DuPont issued a statement saying the new advisory is in line with other exposure guidelines. Parkersburg, W.Va., which is near a DuPont plant that produces the chemical, has set a local safety limit of 0.5 ppb, which is identical to the level established by the Minnesota Department of Heath.

"We are reviewing the document, and at this time it appears the advisory value for PFOA is consistent with nearly all regulatory guidelines established by EPA regions, states and other countries," the DuPont statement said.

Eight U.S. companies, including DuPont, have agreed that by 2015, they will no longer release PFOA into the environment from finished products or manufacturing plants, and that they will cut emissions of the chemical 95 percent by next year.

US Poultry Industry Cheers WTO Flap with EU (WSJournal)

U.S. Poultry Industry Cheers WTO Flap With EU

By SCOTT KILMAN

The U.S. poultry industry patted the outgoing Bush administration on the back for escalating an 11-year-old trade dispute with the European Union over the way bird carcasses are washed.

The U.S. Trade Representative said Friday it filed a case with the World Trade Organization over the EU's long-standing ban on importing chicken meat that has been treated with chemicals such as chlorine dioxide to kill pathogens, which is a common practice in the U.S. industry.

"The EU has refused to listen to its own scientific advisors and has hidden behind bogus sanitary barriers with no scientific basis," said a statement released by the three major U.S. poultry groups, including USA Poultry & Egg Export Council.

It's far from clear how the outcome of any WTO case might impact U.S. chicken processors such as Tyson Foods Inc. and rival Pilgrim's Pride Corp., which is operating under bankruptcy protection.

The U.S. chicken industry is a far bigger exporter now than it was in 1997 when the EU began prohibiting the chemical treatments used in U.S. poultry processing plants. The U.S. chicken industry currently exports about 16% of its production to customers such as Russia and China.

One headache for U.S. poultry executives is the loss of foreign markets when nations join the EU.

The U.S. poultry industry has been battered in recent months by a price-depressing glut of chicken as well as gyrating prices of the crops that are fed to their birds.

Write to Scott Kilman at scott.kilman@wsj.com

Mouthwash with alcohol linked to mouth cancer (FOXNews.com)

Study Links Mouthwash Ingredient to Oral Cancer

Monday, January 12, 2009

Mouthwash that contains alcohol has been linked to cancer, a recent study found.

The study, published in the Australian Dental Journal, concludes there is ``sufficient evidence'' that "alcohol-containing mouthwashes contribute to the increased risk of [the] development of oral cancer."

The ethanol in mouthwash is thought to allow cancer-causing substances to permeate the lining of the mouth more easily and cause harm.

Acetaldehyde, a toxic by-product of alcohol that may accumulate in the oral cavity when swished around the mouth, is also believed to be carcinogenic.

Some mouthwash contains as much as 26 percent alcohol.

The study's author ProfessorMichael McCullough told The Sunday Telegraph alcohol-containing mouthwash should be reclassified as prescription-only and carry written health warnings.

"We see people with oral cancer who have no other risk factors than the use of alcohol-containing mouthwash, so what we've done in this study is review all the evidence that's out there,'' he said.

Click here to read more on this story.

Click here for more on this study published in the Australian Dental Journal.

One LARGE glass of wine a day increases cancer risk 20% (FOX News)

1 Large Glass of Wine Per Day Raises Cancer Risk 20 Percent

Monday, December 29, 2008

Drinking a glass of wine every day may be good for your heart health, but experts say it increases your chances of liver and bowel cancer by about 20 percent, Asian News International reported.

And the same can be said for drinking a pint of beer every day or a couple glasses of alcohol, like gin or vodka, said Dr. Rachel Thompson, a science program manager for the World Cancer Research Fund.

"If you are drinking a pint of lager or a large glass of wine every day, then this might not seem like a lot, but the science shows you are increasing your risk of bowel cancer by 18 percent and your risk of liver cancer by 20 percent," Thompson said.

Click here to read more on this story from NewKerala.com.

Sugar makes kids hyper? & 6 other myths debunked (News-Medical.net)

Does sugar make kids hyperactive? and six other myths debunked

Published: Friday, 19-Dec-2008

Printer Friendly

Miscellaneous News Does sugar make kids hyperactive? Do we lose most of our body heat through our head? Will eating at night make you fat? Do suicides increase over the holidays? Are poinsettias toxic? Hangovers cures, do they work? These are some of the common myths that are fictitious, according to an article in the Christmas issue published on bmj.com. Researchers from the Indiana University School of Medicine looked at six myths related to the holiday and winter seasons. The authors, Rachel Vreeman and Aaron Carroll, then analysed the evidence to find out if the myths were true or false. While parents may be convinced that sugary drinks, sweets and chocolate make their children hyperactive at least 12 studies have shown that there is no evidence to support this belief. Yet parents are so convinced about this myth that when they think their children have been given a drink containing sugar (when it is actually sugar-free) they rate their children's behaviour as more hyperactive. In fact, the difference in behaviour is all in the parents' mind. As the Christmas and New Year cold weather approaches many people start wearing hats because of the strongly held belief that we lose 40-45% of our body heat through our head. Not so, say the authors, who argue that there is nothing special about the head and heat loss and "if this were true, humans would be just as cold if they went without trousers as if they went without a hat". If it's cold outside it makes sense to wrap up warm but covering your head does not make a big difference. Some people swear by the rule that if you don't eat at night you won't get fat. Hogwash say the authors. One Swedish study seemed, at first glance, to support this theory as obese women reported eating more at night than non-obese women. However, in reality the women were not just 'night eaters' but were generally eating more meals. The simple truth is that people put on weight because they consume more calories than they burn-there is no getting round this, say the authors. The research also finds that suicides do not increase over the holidays, poinsettias are not toxic and that hangover cures do not work. The only way to avoid a hangover over Christmas is to drink in moderation or not at all! http://www.bma.org.uk/