The problem is that the plastic liner is typically an epoxy resin whose “key building block,” according to the American Chemistry Council, is BPA. Bisphenol A, a chemical which can mimic human estrogen and which is linked to breast cancer and early puberty in women.

To avoid the dangers of BPA, consider stainless steel water bottles which do not need a plastic liner and are a great refillable alternative to plastic bottled water

* These synthetic fragrances found in laundry and cleaning products including laundry detergents, fabric softeners, dryer sheets as well as in “air fresheners” emit dozens of different chemicals.

* A recent study found that a plug-in air freshener emitted 20 different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which included seven compounds regulated as toxic or hazardous under U.S. federal laws yet the label simply lists “fragrance”.

* Beware of products that list “fragrance” on the label as many terrible chemicals come under this “catch all” word.

* Most “fragrances” are manufactured from oil and their health effects on humans when inhaled have often never been studied.

* One example is phthalates which are often used in fragrances and have been shown to disrupt hormones in animals.

* You should look for fragrance-free or naturally-scented laundry products.

* You should use baking soda, borax and vinegar as cleaners where possible and avoid cleaners with artificial fragrances.

* Do not use aerosol sprays such as deodorants, hair sprays, carpet cleaners, furniture polish, and air fresheners.

* Open windows when possible so toxins will not build up in your home or install a heat recovery ventilator to your furnace which reduces energy losses but keeps fresh air circulating into your home constantly.

* Use sliced lemons and baking soda for a clean scent in your kitchen.

* Houseplants which are not poisonous to children or pets are a great way to naturally purify the air indoors.

* The mass consumption of sugar began with the industrialization of Victorian England.
The British Empire has significant quantities of sugar available from plantations in the colonies.
The cities of Britain will filled with factory workers who needed to be fed cheaply.

* In the factories of Victorian Britain the “afternoon tea break” was born. The tea was primarily warm water and sugar to keep the workers “alive”. Some workers who were “well off” could also afford bread with heavily sugared jam.

* There was a 500 percent increase in per capita sugar consumption in Britain between 1860 and 1890, around the time when the life expectancy of a male factory worker was seventeen years.

* By 1900 the average person in Britain was getting about one sixth of his total nutrition from sugar, exactly the same percentage Americans get today and which is DOUBLE what nutritionists recommend.

* The only thing which has changed in the last 100 years is that over half of our sugar comes from corn and sugar beets to create “high-fructose corn sweeteners” which are the keystone ingredient in three quarters of all processed foods, especially soft drinks, the food of America’s poor and working classes.

* It is not a coincidence that the American pandemic of obesity tracks rather nicely with the fivefold increase in corn-syrup production over the past forty years

* We MUST create a viable means from growing and distributing a variety of affordable “unprocessed” foods to our population to restore health and vitality to our society.

* HCAs form when amino acids in proteins chemically react combine with creatine in muscles at high cooking temperatures.

* Studies have shown that an increased risk of developing colorectal, pancreatic, and breast cancer is associated with high intakes of well-done, fried, or barbequed meats and HCAs may be the reason.

* Researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as well as by Japanese and European scientists have identified 17 different HCAs resulting from the cooking of muscle meats that may pose human cancer risk.

* Various studies have found that people who ate their beef medium-well or well had a three times higher incidence of stomach cancer than those who ate rare or medium rare beef.

* Frying, broiling, and barbecuing produce the largest amounts of HCAs because meat cooks at very high temperatures.

* Research has found that cooking at 250°C versus 200°C (482°F versus 392°F) increases HCA formation by 300%.

* Oven roasting and baking typically done below 150°C form much lower levels of HCAs however, gravy made from meat drippings does contain substantial amounts of HCAs.

* Stewing, boiling, or poaching are done at or below 100°C (212°F) produces negligible amounts of HCAs.

* Foods cooked a long time (“well-done” instead of “medium”) by other methods will also form slightly more of the chemicals.

* Partially cooking meats in the microwave oven before flame grilling or barbecuing will reduce the amounts of HCAs and helps to decrease mutagens by destroying precursors.

* If you microwave defrosted meats for at least 2-3 minutes at full power prior to cooking them, you can reduce HCA formation by up to 90 percent, and even more if you pour off the juices formed during microwaving prior to further cooking.

* Do not eat gravy made from meat drippings. Many simple recipes exist to make “gravy” such as caramelizing some onions in olive oil, adding some nice mushrooms, and then adding water and boiling the mixture to form a gravy. Starch can be added to thicken if desired. This type of gravy will not contain HCAs.

- Many of the poorest people on earth rely on grains as their primary diet so that when we choose to eat meat, the livestock we are feeding compete with the needs of those people.

- It takes 10 to 16 pounds of grain and 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef, thereby converting 16,000 to 25,600 calories of grain into just 1,210 calories of meat (beef).

- The grain to produce the beef for a single meal could feed a person directly for 8-12 days.

- Farm animals consume 70% of the grain grown in America.

- If we reduced our meat consumption by HALF, and replaced it with legumes (beans) or soy products, we would save enough grain to feed 190 to 304 million people!! If we just enjoyed smaller cuts of meat, or a single burger rather than a double, we could make a big difference in the availability of grain as food for people.

- Farm animals consume 50% of the water used in America.

- Farm animals in America produce 86,000 pounds of excrement per second — about 130 times as much as is produced by all the humans in the United States. This enormous amount of pollution is huge.

- A single cow creates more pollution than driving a car every day.

- There is more than enough food in the world to feed the entire human population yet more than 840 million people still going hungry every day.
Our meat-based diet is partly to blame, as land, water, and other resources that could be used to grow food for human beings are being used to grow crops for farmed animals instead.

- It takes 10 to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh such as beef.
It takes 3 to 4 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible chicken flesh.
It takes only 2 to 3 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible fish.

- My family and I are working with systems to use hydroponics to create food for people and to feed fish raised to be eaten. This provides a healthier diet for us with less waste and less water use. We have chosen to reduce our beef consumption to 1 meal per week. This will save 1,581- 2,529 pounds of grain which is enough to feed 4-6 people FOR A YEAR!!! This will also save 395,281 gallons of water.

- As an added benefit, reducing our meat consumption and controlling our total caloric intake reduces our chances for cancer, diabetes and heart disease and will likely extend our lives by 3-5 years. A simple choice to create a more sustainable future, help reduce world hunger, and still enjoy a great steak or burger once in a while.

Related article: QRC – Eating Meat and Your health
http://omachron.com/articles/2009/09/09/qrc-eating-meat-and-your-health/

Unfortunately, nothing is further from the truth.

Many studies have shown that farmed fish and shellfish, which form a growing percentage of the seafood consumed around the globe, may pose unexpected risks to wild species, as well as to the environments in which they are raised.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), an international group of scientists and other scientific groups have found may unintended impacts of fish farming that put both oceans and the aquaculture industry at risk.

Aquaculture, the raising of fish and other aquatic species is the fastest growing sector of the world food economy, and is increasing by 11 percent a year. Many people expect that fish farming will relieve pressure on ocean fish stocks which are already fished beyond capacity, and will provide a reliable source of food to a world population. The problem is that unsustainable fish farming practices are causing more harm than good. Dr. Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre released a global study, “Farming Up Marine Food Webs“, showing that major sectors of the booming aquaculture industry are literally feeding on world fisheries. Paradoxically, Pauly’s new study shows that the increasing trend toward farming carnivorous fish means that many types of aquaculture are contributing to a worldwide collapse of wild fisheries.

The “farming” of one pound of fish eating species such as shrimp, salmon, tuna or cod requires two to five pounds of wild caught fish to be caught and processed into meal and oil for fish feeds.

Thus, we are intensively fishing the oceans of the world to feed our “farmed fish” thereby increasing the rate of depletion of fish stocks and endangering wild populations of carnivorous fish.

Tilapia and carp are among the most common, and potentially most sustainable farm raised fish as they can be fed plants and “bottom muck” which minimizes their overall environmental impact. However, in an effort to increase the growth rates of the fish thereby increasing profits, many fish farming operation feed these “herbivorous” (plant eating) fish with fishmeal and fish oil for faster weight gain and marketability.

Thus, the “ideal” of efficiently feeding a hungry world in a sustainable manner with aquaculture is eluding us. The current trend in aquaculture is to drain the seas to feed the fish farms to feed people.
Traditional sustainable aquaculture which is the farming of fish that eat plants and bottom muck is being replaced by modern intensive farming of large, carnivorous fish because overfishing has decimated these fish in the wild.

There are however more sustainable fish farming operations such as Fish Breeders of Idaho, which raise a sustainable fish species, white tilapia, with the help of sustainable geothermal energy

Many proponents of current fish farming practices which rely on fish meal defend the practices on the basis that fish meal is abundant and inexpensive and consumer preferences for lower costs dictate aquaculture production and the use of fishmeal”.
According to Dr. Albert Tacon, head of the Oceanic Institute’s Aquatic Feeds and Nutrition Program in Hawaii. “Aquaculture is at a critical crossroads, and Fish farming could decrease pressure on fisheries and feed the worlds growing population. That’s why it is so important to proceed on a sustainable path.”

Aquaculture need not be so disruptive. There are many ways that the fish farming industry can produce more efficiently and with fewer negative environmental effects.

What you can do as an individual is eat herbivorous fish species such as Carp and Talapia which have been farmed by sustainable methods. Take the time to let your purchasing decisions impact your food supply and help to ensure a stable food supply for future generations. Reduce you intake of carnivorous fish species such as Salmon, Cod and Tuna, and avoid farmed carnivorous fish where possible.

2. In the presence of heat or light sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate can combine with ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300) to form benzene, a known carcinogen.

3. Professor Peter Piper of the University of Sheffield claims that sodium benzoate by itself can damage and inactivate vital parts of DNA in a cell’s mitochondria which produces the energy for cells.

4. Sodium benzoate can create an increased retention of water which is an issue if you have heart disease according to drug monographs.

5. Sodium benzoate can increase your chances of side effects if you have cancer.

6. Some recent research has found that artificial food colors combined with SODIUM BENZOATE may adversely effect the behaviour patterns of children. The work published in the medical journal Lancet outlines work at the University of Southampton (U.K.) which found that a significant number of the about 250 kids studied displayed hyperactive behavior when given food colors + sodium benzoate in controlled double blind conditions. This research has shown the adverse effect for a specific set of food colors plus sodium benzoate, a preservative. It does not PROVE artificial food colors alone or sodium benzoate alone are a problem BUT WHY TAKE A CHANCE WITH YOUR KIDS HEALTH?.

7. My family and I are avoiding products containing sodium benzoate preservative when possible.

For more info subscribe to a Healthy Choice Products newsletter and read some of our other blogs and upcoming blogs:

- Quick Reality Check – Artificial Food Colorings – avoid when possible

- Quick Reality Check – “Herbal” & “Organic” Shampoos and Conditioners contain potentially harmful ingredients

- Quick Reality Check – Vitamin C – Miracle Vitamin?

- Quick Reality Check – The scary stuff in shampoo

- Over 14,000 health products contain at least 1 carcinogen

- Body Wash dries skin and expensive moisturizer is the antidote!

- You are what you “wash with”

- Sunscreen Choices – Simple Health Aid or Toxic Soup

- How to Prevent Skin Cancer

Wayne Conrad

2. The most common food colorings used in the United States include:

FD&C Blue No. 1 – Brilliant Blue FCF, E133 (Blue shade), a synthetic dye derived from coal tar which often found in ice cream, tinned processed peas, dairy products, sweets, and drinks, soaps, shampoos and other personal hygiene and cosmetic products.

FD&C Red No. 40 – Allura Red AC, E129 (Red shade) is a red azo dye that goes by several names including: Allura Red, Food Red 17, C.I. 16035, FD&C Red 40, 2- naphthalenesulfonic acid, 6-hydroxy-5-((2-methoxy-5-methyl-4-sulfophenyl)azo)-, disodium salt, and disodium 6-hydroxy-5-((2-methoxy-5-methyl-4-sulfophenyl)azo)-2-naphthalene-sulfonate, or E129.
In Europe, Allura Red AC is not recommended for consumption by children. And is banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Austria.

FD&C Yellow No. 5 – Tartrazine, E102 (Yellow shade) or FD&C Yellow 5 or C.I. 19140) is a synthetic lemon yellow azo dye often mixed with FD&C Blue No. 1 to produce a green color. Products including tartrazine include candies, cotton candy, soft drinks, instant puddings, flavored chips such as Doritos, cereals suchas corn flakes and muesli, cake mixes, pastries, custard powder, soups, sauces, and even some rices and pastas, Kool-Aid, Gatorade, ice creams, marzipan, jam, jelly, gelatins, marmalade, mustard, horseradish, yogurt, pickles, and even in some honey products! .

3. In the past many studies have been carried out which suggest that artificial food colors are safe and adverse reactions occur in less than 1 in 10,000 people, which is about 33,000 people in the United States.

4. Some stidues in the past few years have found that artificial food colors may impact a much larger segment of the population. The medical journal Lancet published the work of University of Southampton (U.K.) researchers who studied the effects of drinks containing artificial colors and additives on 3-year-old and 8 to 9-year-old British kids and found that the additives made them hyperactive which is an effect that has long been debated. This study tested a range of kids and not just those diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Some US experts say that scientific evidence overall does not point to a definitive link between additives and hyperactivity and that further study is needed. IT WAS ALSO SAID BY MANY EXPERTS THAT THERE WAS NO CLEAR LINK BETWEEN SMOKING CIGARETTES AND CANCER FOR MANY YEARS AS WELL!

5. In my opinion as a scientist the research done at Southhampton is valid as a large group was studied ( 153 3-year-olds and 144 8- and 9-year-olds) and 267 of the 297 children completed the study and the scientific methods were good. The children were given two types of beverages to drink with food additives commonly found in sweets, beverages, and other foods, and then a placebo drink with no additives. One mix had artificial colorings, including sunset yellow (also called E110), carmoisine (E122), tartrazine (E102), ponceau 4R (E124), and the preservative sodium benzoate. Another beverage mix included the current average daily consumption of food additives by the two age ranges of children and included quinoline yellow (E104), allura red (E129) , sunset yellow, carmoisine, and sodium benzoate. Both teachers and parents evaluated behaviors after the children drank each type of beverage, and the older children also were tested on their attention spans. The older children’s behavior was adversely affected by both of the mixtures with additives, compared with placebo, Stevenson’s group found. The younger kids had more hyperactivity with the first mixture compared with placebo, but their responses to the second beverage varied greatly. This research has shown the adverse effect for a specific set of food colors plus sodium benzoate, a preservative. It does not prove all artificial food colors are bad.

7. Another Study by KS Rowe on Synthetic food colourings and hyperactivity: A. double-blind crossover study was published in the Australian Paediatric Journal 24:143­147, 1988. This research, done at the Department of Paediatrics, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia studied 220 children referred for suspected ‘hyperactivity’. 55 were subjected to a 6 week trial of the Feingold diet to elimiate all food colors from their diet. Forty (72.7%) demonstrated improved behavior and 26 (47.3%) remained improved following liberalization of the diet over a period of 3-6 months. The parents of 14 children claimed that a particular cluster of behaviors was associated with the ingestion of foods containing synthetic colorings. A double-blind crossover study, employing a single-subject repeated measures design was conducted, using eight of these children which is a small sample size. Subjects were maintained on a diet free from synthetic additives and were challenged daily for 18 weeks with either placebo (during lead-in and washout periods) or 50 mg of either tartrazine or carmoisine, each for 2 separate weeks. Two significant reactors were identified whose behavioral pattern featured extreme irritability, restlessness and sleep disturbance. One of the reactors did not have inattention as a feature. The findings raise the issue of whether the strict criteria for inclusion in studies concerned with ‘hyperactivity’ based on ‘attention deficit disorder’ may miss children who indicate behavioral changes associated with the ingestion of food colorings.

8. Boris M, Mandel FS. Foods and additives are common causes of the attention deficit hyperactive disorder in children. Annals of Allergy 72:462­468, 1994. North Shore Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, Manhasset, New York. A study was carried out which evaluated 26 kids who meet the criteria for ADHD. Treatment with a multiple item elimination diet showed 19 children (73%) responded favorably, P < .001. On open challenge, all 19 children reacted to many foods, dyes, and/or preservatives. A double-blind placebo controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) was completed in 16 children. There was a significant improvement on placebo days compared with challenge days (P = .003). Atopic children with ADHD had a significantly higher response rate than the nonatopic group. This study demonstrates a beneficial effect of eliminating reactive foods and artificial colors in children with ADHD. Dietary factors may play a significant role in the etiology of the majority of children with AD

9. I have found many other scientific studies linking artificial colorants to behavioral disorders and other diseases. The link between food additives and hyperactivity in children has been debated for decades, I believe that reducing my family's exposure to artificial colors is becoming a priority. I am looking into cereals, drinks, and other foods free of artificial food colors and I will provide you with information and links if you subscribe to a Healthy Choice Products newsletter and read some of our other blogs and upcoming blogs:

Quick Reality Check – Vitamin C – Miracle Vitamin?

- Quick Reality Check – The scary stuff in shampoo

- Over 14,000 health products contain at least 1 carcinogen

- Body Wash dries skin and expensive moisturizer is the antidote!

- You are what you “wash with”

- Sunscreen Choices – Simple Health Aid or Toxic Soup

- How to Prevent Skin Cancer

Wayne Conrad