Wellness

Restaurant sushi tuna loaded with mercury

(NaturalNews) A new study on sushi has found that higher-end, restaurant-grade tuna sushi often has higher mercury levels than the cheaper tuna sushi found at local supermarkets. Researchers evaluated the DNA of various tuna species and came to the conclusion that varieties like blue fin akami and big eye tuna that typically have firmer flesh and are more visually appealing, are generally higher in mercury than other less expensive varieties.

According to the research, which appeared recently in the journal Biology Letters, the reason why higher-grade tuna often has higher mercury levels than other grades is because mercury tends to build up in muscle rather than in fat. This is why species like the blue fin toro, which is a fatty variety of tuna, typically has lower levels of mercury than bluefin akami and bigeye tuna, which are leaner varieties.

One exception was yellow fin tuna, which is lean but also low in mercury. Researchers believe that because this species is smaller than other varieties, eats less, and is generally killed at a younger age, it tends to accumulate less mercury than other varieties.

Overall, researchers observed that all species of tuna typically have high levels of mercury that, on average, exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thresholds for daily consumption, as well as maximum levels in Japan. Blue fin akami was one of the worst, testing at levels of 1 part per million (ppm).

The study is the first of its kind to accurately identify tuna species for testing purposes. Utilizing a unique DNA bar-coding technology that keeps track of species' "fingerprints", scientists were able to track tuna origins and identify those that would otherwise be unknown.

The team hopes that the findings will lead to better labeling practices in the sushi industry because, as it stands, some restaurants and many retailers do not even know precisely what varieties of sushi they are buying and selling. Other than the specific varieties previously mentioned, many simply purchase "sushi-grade" tuna and sell it to customers.

"So far, the U.S. does not require restaurants and merchants to clarify what species they are selling or trading, but species' names and clearer labeling would allow consumers to exercise greater control over the level of mercury they imbibe," explained Jacob Lowenstein, a genetic researcher affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who worked on the study.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591350,00.html

Vitamin D promotes memory and cognitive function in seniors

(NaturalNews) A lack of vitamin D has already been linked in several studies to depression. Now it appears a deficiency of this crucial nutrient could also play a role in robbing the brain of the ability to process information correctly and clearly.

Defined as a person's ability to process thoughts, cognitive function includes memory and the ability to learn new information, as well as speaking and reading comprehension. Aging is known to affect cognitive function in many people, resulting in memory loss and difficulty thinking of the right words while speaking or writing. But what if a lack of vitamin D could be the culprit that is causing or contributing to cognitive impairment in many elders -- and not simply aging by itself? If that's the case, it offers hope that adequate vitamin D could help keep minds agile and memory sharp.

Research headed by epidemiologist Katherine Tucker with the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging (HNRCA) at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, and published in Journals of Gerontology raises that possibility. Metabolic pathways for vitamin D have been found in the hippocampus and cerebellum -- areas of the brain involved in planning, processing, and forming new memories. So it appears a lack of vitamin D could disrupt these cognitive processes.

Dr. Tucker and her colleagues studied more than 1,000 elders receiving home care. The research team investigated associations between measured levels of vitamin D in the blood of these people, who were all between the ages of 65 and 99, and compared them to results of neuropsychological tests. The participants were then grouped by their vitamin D status, which was categorized as deficient, insufficient, or sufficient.

The researchers noted in a statement to the media that older people needing home care have an elevated risk of not getting enough vitamin D because of their exposure to sunlight is often limited. And, in fact, only 35 percent of the research subjects had sufficient vitamin D levels in their blood for health. Those elders who did have adequate vitamin D scored far better on cognitive tests than those in the deficient and insufficient vitamin D categories, particularly on measures of executive performance, which included cognitive flexibility, perceptual complexity, and reasoning. The associations persisted after taking into consideration other variables that could also have influenced performance on the cognitive ability tests.

Another new study just presented at the Endocrine Society's 92nd Annual Meeting held in San Diego provides more disturbing evidence that older adults commonly have low vitamin D levels. Researchers from the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam investigated approximately 1,300 Dutch men and women age 65 and older and found almost 50 percent were deficit in vitamin D.

For more information: http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/64A/8/888.abstract?sid=0007591c-0f9e-4df7-bd44-dee95244c8bb http://www.naturalnews.com/vitamin_d.html

Pharmacists give themselves cancer from dispensing toxic chemotherapy chemicals

(NaturalNews) One of the side effects of chemotherapy is, ironically, cancer. The cancer doctors don't say much about it, but it's printed right on the chemo drug warning labels (in small print, of course). If you go into a cancer treatment clinic with one type of cancer, and you allow yourself to be injected with chemotherapy chemicals, you will often develop a second type of cancer as a result. Your oncologist will often claim to have successfully treated your first cancer even while you develop a second or third cancer directly caused by the chemo used to treat the original cancer.

There's nothing like cancer-causing chemotherapy to boost repeat business, huh?

During all this, the pharmacists are peddling these toxic chemotherapy chemicals to their customers as if they were medicine (which they aren't). While preparing these toxic chemical prescriptions, it turns out that pharmacists are exposing themselves to cancer-causing chemotherapy agents in the process. And because of that, pharmacists are giving themselves cancer... and they're dying from it.

Why pharmacists are dying of cancer
People who live in glass houses should never throw stones, they say. And you might similarly say that pharmacists who deal in poison shouldn't be surprised to one day discover they are killing themselves with it.

Chemotherapy drugs are extremely toxic to the human body, and they are readily absorbed through the skin. The very idea that they are even used in modern medicine is almost laughable if it weren't so downright disturbing and sad that hundreds of thousands of people are killed each year around the world by chemotherapy drugs.

Now you can add pharmacists to that statistic. For decades, they simply looked the other way, pretending they were playing a valuable role in our system of "modern" medicine, not admitting they were actually doling out chemicals that killed people. Now, the sobering truth has struck them hard: They are in the business of death, and it is killing them off, one by one.

The Seattle Times now reports the story of Sue Crump, a veteran pharmacist of two decades who spent much of her time dispensing chemotherapy drugs. Sue died last September of pancreatic cancer, and one of her dying wishes was that the truth would be told about how her on-the-job exposure to chemotherapy chemicals contributed to her own cancer.

Secondhand chemo
The Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), it turns out, does not regulate workplace exposure to toxic, cancer-causing chemotherapy chemicals. At first glance, that seems surprising, since OSHA regulates workplace exposure to far less harmful chemicals. Why not chemo?

The answer is because the toxicity of chemotherapy has long been ignored by virtually everyone in medicine and the federal government. It has always been assumed harmless or even "safe" just because it's used as a kind of far-fetched "medicine" to treat cancer. This, despite the fact that chemotherapy is a derivative of the mustard gas used against enemy soldiers in World War I. Truthfully, chemotherapy has more in common with chemicals weapons than any legitimate medicine.

So today, while workers are protected from secondhand smoke in offices across the country, pharmacists are still being exposed every single day to toxic, cancer-causing chemicals that OSHA seems to just ignore. The agency has only issued one citation in the last decade to a hospital for inadequate safety handling of toxic chemotherapy drugs.

As the Seattle Times reports, "A just-completed study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) -- 10 years in the making and the largest to date -- confirms that chemo continues to contaminate the work spaces where it's used and in some cases is still being found in the urine of those who handle it..."

That same article goes on to report more pharmacists, veterinarians and nurses who are dead or dying from chemotherapy exposure:

• Bruce Harrison of St. Louis (cancer in his 50's, now dead) • Karen Lewis of Baltimore (cancer in her 50's, still living) • Brett Cordes of Scottsdale, Arizona (cancer at age 35, still living) • Sally Giles of Vancouver, B.C. (cancer in her 40's, now dead)

The great contradiction in cancer treatments
As the Seattle Times reports:

"Danish epidemiologists used cancer-registry data from the 1940s through the late 1980s to first report a significantly increased risk of leukemia among oncology nurses and, later, physicians. Last year, another Danish study of more than 92,000 nurses found an elevated risk for breast, thyroid, nervous-system and brain cancers."

The story goes on to report how new safety rules are being put in place across the industry to protect pharmacists, veterinarians, nurses and doctors from toxic chemotherapy chemicals. But even the Seattle Times, which deserves credit for running this story, misses the bigger point:

If these chemicals are so dangerous to the doctors, nurses and pharmacists dispensing them, how can they be considered "safe enough" to inject into patients who are already dying from cancer?

It's a serious question. After all, if nurses can become violently ill after merely spilling chemotherapy chemicals on themselves (it's true), then what effect do you suppose these chemicals have when injected into patients?

The cancer industry, though, has never stopped injecting patients long enough to ask the commonsense question: Why are we in the business of dispensing poison in the first place? Poison, after all, isn't medicine. Not when dispensed in its full potency, anyway.

The whole idea of "safety" in the cancer industry is to find new ways to protect the health care workers from the extremely dangerous chemicals they're still injecting into the bodies of patients. Something is clearly wrong with this picture... if health care workers need to be protected from this stuff, why not protect the patients from it, too?

Nobody ever died from handling herbs
In contrast to all this, consider the truthful observation that no naturopath ever died from handling medicinal herb, homeopathy remedies or nutritional supplements. These natural therapies are good for patients, and as a bonus, you don't have to wear a chemical suit to handle them.

Furthermore, medicinal herbs, supplements and natural remedies don't cause cancer. They support and protect the immune system rather than destroying it. So they make patients healthier and more resilient rather than weaker and fragile.

But herbs, supplements and natural remedies don't earn much money for the cancer industry. Only the highly-toxic patented chemotherapy drugs bring in the big bucks. So that's what they deal in -- poison for the patients. And when you deal in poison, some of it always splashes back onto you.

Chemotherapy doesn't work
Beyond this whole issue of pharmacists and health care workers dying from exposure to secondhand chemotherapy, there's the issue of whether chemotherapy actually works in the first place. Scientifically speaking, if you take a good, hard look at what the published studies actually say, chemotherapy is only effective at treating less than two percent of the cancers that exist. And that two percent does not include breast cancer or prostate cancer.

Yet chemotherapy is routinely used to "treat" breast cancer even though it offers no benefit to breast cancer patients. In effect, the cancer industry is engaged in a criminal treatment hoax that promises to make you healthier but actually gives you even more cancer -- which is great for repeat business, but terrible for the cancer patients who suffer under it.

The level of quackery at work right now in the cancer industry is simply astonishing. You would think that if doctors and pharmacists were dishing out these chemicals to patients, they would make sure there was some sort of legitimate science to back them up. But they haven't. The science doesn't exist. Chemotherapy doesn't work at anything other than causing cancer -- and it accomplishes that indiscriminately, damaging any person it comes into contact with. Merely touching chemotherapy chemicals is dangerous for your health.

So if you're considering chemotherapy for yourself, think about this long and hard: If chemotherapy is so dangerous that it's giving the pharmacists cancer just from touching it, why on earth would you want to inject it into your body?

This is not an idle question. It is perhaps the most important question of all for someone considering conventional cancer treatment using chemotherapy. The question is essentially this: If chemotherapy causes cancer, how can it treat cancer?

Treating cancer with chemotherapy is like treating alcoholism with vodka. It's like treating heart disease with cheese, or like treating diabetes with high-fructose corn syrup. Cancer cannot be cured by the very thing that causes it.

And to those who deal in poison, watch out for the cause-and-effect laws of biology. If you deal in chemotherapy chemicals, don't be surprised if you get cancer one day. If you deal in chemical pesticides, don't be surprised if you get Alzheimer's. If you're a dentist installing mercury fillings in the mouths of clients, don't be surprised if one day you just go stark raving mad (because mercury causes insanity, and dentists breathe in mercury vapor thrown into the air from their drills).

If you work around chemicals, they will eventually impact your health, and never in a good way. There's a karmic element in all this, too: If you spend your life dishing out chemotherapy drugs as a pharmacist, you have a lot to answer for. You have been an enabler of a very real chemical holocaust against the people. Don't be surprised if that holocaust turns against you one day. Karma tends to work that way. Cause and effect is a universal law that cannot be escaped.

And if you're a cancer patient, I urge you to think twice about the toxicity of anything you might allow in your body. If you are trying to HEAL your body, why would you allow yourself to be poisoned with a chemical that causes cancer?

Don't let some cancer doctor talk you into chemotherapy using his fear tactics. They're good at that. So next time he insists that you take some chemotherapy, ask him to drink some first. If your oncologist isn't willing to drink chemotherapy in front of you to prove it's safe, why on earth would you agree to have it injected in your body?

Be sure to see my related CounterThink cartoon: "Chemotherapy Stickup" at: http://www.naturalnews.com/026284_chemotherapy_cancer_medicine.html

See all CounterThink cartoons at www.CounterThink.com

Sources for this story include: Investigate West http://invw.org/chemo-main

Seattle Times http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012327665_chemo11.html

From Deceptive Boardrooms to Closed-Mind Thinking, How The Fatally Flawed Medical System Killed More Americans with Just One Drug than the Entire Vietnam War – Part 3 of 4

By Dr. Mercola

Over 80 percent of the people on the Internet search for health information, but the field is loaded with misinformation, deception, and outright fraud.

When I started this Web site in 1997 it was with the intention to provide you with a treasure trove of knowledge and health wisdom that will allow you to avoid the well established dangers of choosing a conventional medicine approach.

Origins of “Doctors are the Third Leading Cause of Death”

In July 2000 I analyzed a JAMA article by Dr. Barbara Starfield from Johns Hopkins School of public health. I carefully reviewed her data and drew the conclusion that doctors were the third leading cause of death. I created that headline, and over the last ten years it has been widely distributed all over the Internet.

When I contacted Dr. Starfield for a follow-up, she told me that she did not agree with my conclusion, but still felt that the conventional medical system was the leading cause of death. Well four years later, Gary Null published a report which indeed confirmed that fact.

So, with time I realized that my purpose in life is to catalyze a transformation of this fatally flawed medical system that has been irreversibly corrupted by multinational corporate drug and food industry interests, which put their bottom line profits far ahead of improving the human condition.

The purpose of this site is to provide a comprehensive educational effort to expose the fraud, deception and misinformation that is prematurely killing hundreds of thousands of people every year in the US alone, and also causing needless pain and suffering in millions of others.

It might be obvious to most that I am bucking this corporate system, and they are not going to go down without a fight. They are constantly seeking to discredit me so the message won’t be heard.

Truth is Violently Opposed Before it is Accepted as Self Evident

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) was a German philosopher known for his philosophical clarity. I believe he made one of the most valuable observations on the shifting of human views on truth as he stated that all truth goes through three steps:

1. First, it is ridiculed.
2. Second, it is violently opposed.
3. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident

This is not only true for health but all areas of life. However since my entire formal professional training is in health, I would like to share with you a dozen experiences from my professional career that validates Shopenhauer’s observation, and why I will not quit despite the efforts of my critics and detractors.

The first three truths were covered in this previous article, followed by another three in part 2.

Some of the truths covered in this four-part series have reached the final stage and are now widely accepted by the medical profession, while other recommendations still include refinements that have yet to be embraced by conventional medicine.

The remainder is in varying degrees of acceptance, and some will not be widely accepted for quite some time, but the evidence is clear for all those who are willing to objectively review the data.

Truth # 7: Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs Do More Harm than Good

Statin drugs are one of the most blatant perversions of health truth.

Back in 2001 I stated, “It really appears that most of the statin drugs are an accident waiting to happen.”

Fast-forward to nearly a decade later to 2010 and I am still working on getting the word out about the well-documented dangers of statins, which are now among the most commonly prescribed medications in the world.

Statin drugs are also some of the most unnecessary drugs on the market today, making the damage they cause even more tragic.

Their use is based on a misinformed notion that cholesterol is the nemesis of good health, and, as I explained in part 2 of this series, on the flawed cholesterol guidelines that make normal and healthy cholesterol levels look like they need to be artificially lowered.

It has now become quite clear that statins are some of the most dangerous drugs on the market and are fraught with side effects.

One 2009 paper has cited nearly 900 studies on the adverse effects of statins!

Unfortunately, since statins are both highly effective and oftentimes do not impart any immediate side effects, many fail to connect the future side effects that occur with the drug. Instead, those side effects are interpreted as brand new, separate health problems.

However, there’s an ever-growing body of evidence showing that potentially serious side effects do begin to manifest several months after the commencement of therapy -- if you know what to look for.

The Numerous Health Risks of Statin Drugs

Muscle problems are the best known of statin drugs' adverse side effects, but cognitive impairment and pain or numbness in the extremities are also widely reported.

A spectrum of other problemscan also occur, including:

• Blood glucose elevation
• Tendon problems
• Anemia
• Acidosis
• Cataracts
• Sexual dysfunction

Further, all patients taking statins eventually become depleted in Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10).

Those patients who start with relatively low CoQ10 levels (the elderly and patients with heart failure) begin to manifest signs and symptoms of CoQ10 deficiency relatively rapidly -- in six to 12 months. Younger people can tolerate the statins for several years before they begin developing symptoms.

Frequently, a statin-induced CoQ10 deficiency can cause serious problems for your heart, so knowing this essential information now could be life-saving, and yet many doctors still fail to inform you of this.

Other serious and potentially life threatening side effects include, but are not limited to:

• An increase in cancer risk
• Immune system suppression
• Serious degenerative muscle tissue condition (rhabdomyolysis)
• Pancreatic dysfunction
• Hepatic dysfunction. (Due to the potential increase in liver enzymes, patients must be monitored for normal liver function)

According to the latest review published in the American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, adverse effects are dose dependent, and your health risks are also amplified by a number of factors, such as:

• Drug interactions that increase statin potency
• Metabolic syndrome
• Thyroid disease
• Other genetic mutations linked to mitochondrial dysfunction

How to Lower Your Cholesterol Naturally

There’s simply no reason for over 99 percent of those prescribed statins to take them and suffer the consequences. There are simple alternatives that are inexpensive and highly effective.

Here are some simple guidelines that can easily normalize your cholesterol level naturally, without any dangerous side effects:

• First, normalize your insulin levels by eliminating sugar and grains. Fructose is especially dangerous in this reqard as it just decimates insulin resistance. So please limit your total dose to 15 grams or less. You can review my previous article on this.
• Second, you can take a high-quality krill oil or fish oil that is chock full of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids.
• Eat the right foods for your nutritional type, and eat a good portion of your food raw.
• Additionally, if you are a man, or a woman who is in menopause, you should check your iron levels, as elevated levels of iron can cause major oxidative damage in the blood vessels, heart and other organs. Excess iron is also one of the major contributing factors of cancer risk.
• Regular exercise is another important tool that can help. When you exercise you increase your circulation and the blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of fighting an illness before it has the opportunity to spread. I am particularly impressed with 20 minute sprint cardio interval type training as being far more effective than 1-2 hour regular cardio workouts.
• Avoid smoking and drinking alcohol excessively.

Truth # 8: Krill Oil versus Fish Oil

For those of you now aware of the importance of omega-3 fats, the next step is deciding where to get them. Unfortunately, many people, including physicians, are not aware of the BEST source of animal based omega-3 available, a source I have been recommending for over five years now.

The Problem with Fish and Fish Oil as Omega-3 Source

Granted, in a perfect world you would be able to get all the omega-3s you need by eating fish. Unfortunately, studies show that eating fish can potentially expose you to high levels of industrial pollutants and toxins like mercury, PCBs, heavy metals and radioactive poisons.

I believe pollution has now become such a widespread problem I simply cannot recommend eating fish on a regular basis any longer.

To compensate for this lack of dietary source of omega-3, many people are choosing to supplement with fish oil or plant-based omega-3s such as flaxseed oil. However, these two sources of omega-3 are NOT optimal, and I have been saying this for years now.

I used to recommend taking fish oil to enhance your intake of omega-3 fat, and high-quality fish oils are certainly great products, with many important health benefits.

But there are drawbacks.

Major Difference is Absorption

When most people, physicians included, look at krill they are convinced, like I was when I initially reviewed it, that it’s a costly alternative to fish oil.

However what we have learned since then actually makes krill the value champion.

This is related to simple biochemistry. You see fish oil has its DHA and EPA attached as a triglyceride. It is impossible for your body to absorb it in that form so it must be digested in you gut to free floating fatting acids of DHA and EPA.

This is not a very efficient process and only about 15 percent of it actually makes it into your blood stream. The rest is digested in your gut and contributes to the reason why 50 percent of people can’t tolerate fish oil supplements due to burp back effect.

But once you absorb it, your body still can’t use it. It must attach a phospholipid to the DHA and EPA by way of your liver. Once it is in this form your body can finally use it. This wastes even more of the DHA and EPA.

With krill oil NONE of this is required because it is already in the form your body needs. This difference gives krill about a 10-15X increase over fish oil fat.

So if you take 100 mg of krill DHA and EPA, you are getting the equivalent of about 1000-1500 mg of DHA and EPA that you would from fish.

There are still many studies being done to work out the details, but it seems that even our recommendation of two 500 mg capsules is likely excessive and you only need one 500 mg capsule per day.

Antioxidants are Another Huge Advantage

Another major advantage of krill is that it comes loaded with its own antioxidant, Astaxanthin, which protects the DHA and EPA from going rancid.

Fish oil does not have this, and as a result, the large majority of fish oil supplements that you purchase are already rancid before you even open up the bottle.

Astaxanthin is such a powerful supplement that at doses of 4 mg it will likely be able to prevent cataracts and the most common cause of blindness: age related macular degeneration. Also, after being on it a few weeks, it virtually eliminates your risk of sun burn.

Amazing product indeed. It occurs naturally in krill but is supplemented in higher doses. In fact our krill has the highest amount of Astaxanthin on the market. But if you want to use it for the above indications you will need to take it at a bit higher doses than is in krill. We hope to have a pure Astaxanthin supplement out later this year.

I’ve taken 4 mg of this every day for the past few months now.

The Difference Between Plant- and Animal-Based Omega-3s

It is also important to note also that plant-based omega-3 fats do not provide the same benefits as animal-based, because most of us can’t convert the ALA in plant-based fats to the appropriate amount of DHA that is required.

So flax seeds, walnuts, and other plant sources of omega-3 should not be substituted for animal omega-3s. You simply will not receive the same benefits because they are not metabolized as efficiently.

You will ultimately be relatively deficient in DHA and EPA if you rely completely on plant sources of omega-3, which have no EPA and DHA and must rely on your body to make the conversion of the ALA to the higher carbon chain fats.

Further, in 2008 I also shared the major update that cod liver oil is not an optimal source of omega-3 fat either, because of potential problems with the ratios of vitamin A and vitamin D it contains.

Based on the research available, I believe the best source of omega-3 is not fish oil, not cod liver oil and not flax seeds, but rather krill oil … a supplement that is still very “new” to most mainstream health care providers.

It contains essential EPA and DHA in a double-chain phospholipid structure that makes it far more absorbable than the omega-3s in fish oil.

Krill oil also contains vitamin E, vitamin A, vitamin D and astaxanthin, which is a potent antioxidant. Research has shown the antioxidant potency of krill oil is, in terms of ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorptance Capacity) values, 48 times more potent than fish oil.

Fears about Krill Over-Harvesting are Unfounded

Some animal activists have been worried by claims that krill oil consumption by health-conscious consumers endangers wildlife due to over-harvesting. Please rest assured that these fears are unfounded.

Krill is the largest biomass in the world, weighing more than the population of any other animal, including humans, on earth. Krill harvesting is also one of the best regulated on the planet, using strict international precautionary catch limit regulations that are reviewed regularly to assure sustainability.

Each year there’s a very large standing stock of renewable krill for both natural predators and human use.

For more in-depth information about the sustainability of krill, please read this previous article.

Truth # 9: Low-Carb versus Low-Fat Diets

Low-carb diets are all the rage now, but I have been speaking out about the dangers of eating too many grains long before it became popular.

Interestingly enough, when I was in medical school over 25 years ago, I was referred to as "Dr. Fiber" for my passionate views about the health benefits of fiber. Since then, I have subsequently learned that all grains, yes even organic, whole-grain varieties, are best avoided by the vast majority of the population, and I have been spreading this information ever since.

This is because, typically, grains rapidly break down to sugar, which causes your insulin to rise and can exacerbate health problems such as:

• Overweight
• High cholesterol
• High blood pressure
• Type 2 diabetes
• Cancer

The only consistent exceptions would be those whose nutritional type is a carb type and who don’t suffer symptoms of intolerance.

Low-Carb Diet is More Effective for Weight Loss than Low-Fat Diet

Cutting carbs like grains and sugars from your diet is certainly a positive step, but there is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to "carb" restriction.

Most people believe that low-carb is the way to lose weight, when the reality is that fully one-third of them need a high-carb diet to lose, the only difference, of course, is that those carbs need to exclude grain carbohydrates.

Vegetables will NOT convert into sugar the way grains do, and most Americans need to eat far more vegetables in their diet. A mistake many make is to classify corn and potatoes as vegetables. When you think “vegetables,” it is far better to think “green.”

Eating carbs in the form of vegetables may make your carb intake higher, but will not be a hindrance to your health goals. Also, there are many low-carb products on the market that are little, if any, better than junk food.

As a desperate attempt to lose weight, many people are trying their own modified versions of the Atkins diet and are finding they are unable to limit their carbs to 40 to 60 grams a day.

The bottom line is that the reason why so many people fail at this diet is because a one-size-fits-all approach to diet just doesn’t work. Once you understand that everyone has their own nutritional type, you will be able determine whether a high-protein diet is right for you, or if you actually need a high-carb diet (with vegetables as the primary carb source) to look and feel your best.

Contrary to today’s popular belief, certain carbohydrates are not evil and some people actually need a high-carb diet to lose weight.

I have written extensive guidelines for how to implement this in my nutrition plan.

You will find that you can eat what you want as long as you know your nutritional type--and a brief test is included to help you determine what type you are.

My book Take Control of Your Health also provides you with 150 delicious nutritious low-carb recipes geared toward your metabolic type. So put the unhealthy low-carb snacks aside and put yourself on the right path to eating healthy and optimizing your health and weight for life.

How You Can Help Eliminate Dental Mercury

Grassroots activism counts -- even with the usually tone-deaf U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

FDA's abysmal 2009 amalgam rule -- allowing a cover-up of the very existence of the mercury, and not even protecting children and unborn children from this unnecessary mercury exposure -- triggered a massive response from grassroots America.

"Unprecedented consumer-level pressure," according to the respected independent publication FDA Webview, meant that "no final rule in FDA's modern history, or perhaps ever, has attracted this kind of organized opposition." With a myriad of consumers repeatedly phoning and e-mailing FDA, the agency had to seriously consider a series of excellent petitions for reconsideration, one filed by Washington lawyer Jim Turner for Citizens for Health, another by IAOMT lawyers Jim Love and Bob Reeves (which I joined), and a third by University of Virginia medical school professor emeritus Richard Edlich.

Then in June, 2010 the heat went from national to international. The United Nations convened the nations to negotiate a treaty on mercury, where the cause of mercury-free dentistry was well-represented. Charlie Brown of Consumers for Dental Choice founded the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry and brought a delegation from seven nations to the conference.

As the chief protector of dental mercury, FDA was exposed for the pariah that it has become on protecting consumer health and safety.

On the fifth day of the United Nations conference, FDA caved. FDA announced it will convene hearings this December before its Dental Products Panel to determine whether to stop amalgam use for children and pregnant women.

To the consumers of America and around the world, the Mercola Newsletter salutes you. You did it! FDA has agreed to re-examine its pro-mercury fillings position, and to consider protecting those whose brains are still developing, children and the unborn.

But FDA has pulled out the rug from consumers before on dental mercury. In 2008, settling a court case filed by Charlie Brown, FDA posted stark warnings that amalgam can injure the developing brains of children and fetuses. In 2009, FDA buried the warnings, placing them where they hoped parents wouldn't see them. If any agency requires continued vigilance, it is FDA.

The issue now is who will sit on the FDA panel that will determine the safety of dental mercury. FDA has a history of stacking the deck of its panels, so that the pro-industry staff position gets ratified. I ask you to write Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and ask that he convene a balanced panel -- that he not pack it with dental school deans and others with ties to the pro-mercury American Dental Association. If the FDA panel is to have any credibility whatsoever, Dr. Shuren needs all sides fairly represented on it.

So I recommend you write Dr. Shuren at Jeff.Shuren@fda.hhs.gov; ask him for a balanced dental products panel to review the FDA dental mercury rule -- a humane panel of people dedicated to protecting children and unborn babies from exposure to toxic products. Let him know that the public will not tolerate a panel biased in favor of the American Dental Association's pro-mercury position -- not when our children's health is at stake.

THIS Asthma Solution Costs No Money…

Asthmatic children with low blood vitamin D levels may have a greater risk of suffering severe asthma attacks.

A study followed more than 1,000 children with asthma for four years, and found those with vitamin-D insufficiency at the outset were more likely to have an asthma attack that required a trip to the hospital.

Reuters reports:

“When the researchers considered other factors -- including the severity of the children's asthma at the study's start, their weight and their family income -- vitamin D insufficiency itself was linked to a 50 percent increase in the risk of severe asthma attacks.”

Deadly and Dangerous Shampoos, Toothpastes, and Detergents: Could 16,000 Studies Be Wrong?

By Dr. Mercola

Personal care products have become a $50-billion industry in the United States. You are seduced on a daily basis by the intoxicating aromas, flashy packaging and enticing promises of everlasting youth these products offer. 

But what is the real cost of applying these products to your body?

If I were to tell you that your personal care products could be putting you at risk for hair and skin damage, immunological problems, damage to your eyes, and possibly even cancer, would you pay a little more attention to their ingredients?

The growing awareness of chemicals in the foods you eat has led many of you to begin reading labels. If you are doing this as part of your regular shopping routine, I commend you, and you will likely live longer for it.

But what about the products you are smearing all over yourself?

• Eye makeup can be absorbed by your highly sensitive mucous membranes.
• Hair sprays, perfumes and powders can be inhaled, irritating your lungs.
• Lipstick is licked off and swallowed.
• Sunscreen and lotions are absorbed through your skin.
• Shampoo can run into your eyes or your baby's eyes.
• Laundry detergent, in small amounts, comes in contact with your skin via your clothes

In 2004, a six-month study was done about personal care product use^[1] . More than 10,000 body care product ingredients were evaluated, involving 2,300 participants.

One of the findings was that the average adult uses nine personal care products each day, containing 126 different chemicals. The study also found that more than 250,000 women, and one out of every 100 men, use an average of 15 products daily.

Are these products as safe as the labels would have you to believe?

With the sheer multitude of chemicals out there, it would be impossible to cover them all in one report. But I have covered most of the significant players, and you can find those articles using the search engine at the top of this page.

This report will focus on a compound called sodium lauryl/laureth sulfate (SLS/SLES), a very common chemical used throughout the cosmetic industry.

A great deal of misinformation, myth and rumor surrounds SLS/SLES, and I would like to discuss what is really known about this chemical and it's potential risk to you.

What You Put ON Your Skin Can Be More Dangerous Than What You Eat

Putting chemicals on your skin or scalp may actually be worse than eating them. When you eat something, the enzymes in your saliva and stomach help to break it down and flush it out of your body. However, when you put these chemicals on your skin, they are absorbed straight into your bloodstream without filtering of any kind, going directly to your delicate organs.

Once these chemicals find their way into your body, they tend to accumulate over time because you typically lack the necessary enzymes to break them down.

There are literally thousands of chemicals used in personal care products, and the U. S. government does not require any mandatory testing for these products before they are sold.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) estimates that one out of five cosmetics might be contaminated with a cancer-causing agent^[2]. This nonprofit public-interest research group is known for making connections between chemical exposure and adverse health conditions.

The United Nations Environmental Programme estimates that approximately 70,000 chemicals are in common use across the world, with 1,000 new chemicals being introduced every year. Of all the chemicals used in cosmetics, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health reported that nearly 900 are toxic, and that estimate might be low.^[3]

Many of the same poisons that pollute your environment are also lurking in the jars and bottles that line your bathroom shelves. We all risk becoming a toxic waste dump from the products we use, the foods we eat, and the environment in which we live.

Why Worry About Your Skin?

Your skin is much more than a wrap to keep you from sliding down into a puddle of formless bio-goo. It is your body's largest organ.

You might not be aware of the many protective functions your skin serves. Consider that your skin:

1. Protects your internal organs from injury and infection and is your primary and most important defense against infections.
2. Helps eliminate wastes through perspiration.
3. Assists your immune system by providing a protective barrier to viruses and bad bacteria, thus preventing infections.
4. Provides a friendly habitat for good bacteria.
5. Helps maintain body temperature by controlling heat flow between you and your environment.
6. Seals in moisture, maintaining your body's delicate fluid balance.
7. Produces vitamin D, which is crucial for your health.
8. Sends sensory feedback to your brain because it is rich in receptors, such as hard/soft and hot/cold, so that you can react to dangerous conditions around you.

Your skin is vital to your health, yet many people fail to take care if it. Because your skin has the ability to absorb much of what you put on it, informed choices are critical to  optimize your health.

You should give your skin the same thoughtful care you give your diet, because much of what goes ON you ends up going IN you.

Choose Your "Natural" Cosmetics Carefully

There are no federal regulations for beauty products; anyone can claim their product is "natural" or "organic." A label with the word "natural" does not mean the product contains only natural or organic ingredients.

According to the Organic Consumers Association, whose current "Coming Clean Campaign" aims to clean up the organic personal care product industry, the word "organic" is not properly regulated with personal care products as it is with food products, unless the product is certified by the USDA National Organic Program.^[4]

In fact, some "organic" beauty products contain only a single-digit percentage of organic ingredients. Some brands use ingredients that were simply derived from natural sources but are highly processed and contain synthetic and petrochemical compounds.

When it comes to the labeling of cosmetics and body care products, it's kind of a free-for-all.

In a report released on March 14, 2008, the OCA found at least one toxic, cancer-linked chemical in over 40 percent of products that call themselves "natural."

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS), Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES), and Ammonium Laurel Sulfate (ALS)

Sodium lauryl sulfate is a surfactant, detergent and emulsifier used in thousands of cosmetic products, as well as in industrial cleaners. It is present in nearly all shampoos, scalp treatments, hair color and bleaching agents, toothpastes, body washes and cleansers, make-up foundations, liquid hand soaps, laundry detergents and bath oils/bath salts.

Although SLS originates from coconuts, the chemical is anything but natural.

The real problem with SLES/SLS is that the manufacturing process (ethoxylation) results in SLES/SLS being contaminated with 1,4 dioxane, a carcinogenic by-product^[5], which will be discussed in more detail later.

SLS is the sodium salt of lauryl sulfate, and is classified by the EWG Cosmetics Database as a "denaturant, surfactant cleansing agent, emulsifier and foamer," rated as a "moderate hazard."

Similar to sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is sodium laureth sulfate (short for sodium lauryl ether sulfate, or SLES), a yellow detergent with higher foaming ability. SLES is considered to be slightly less irritating than SLS.

Ammonium lauryl sulfate (ALS) is another surfactant variation commonly put into cosmetics and cleansers to make them foam. ALS is similar to SLS, with similar risks.

SLS goes by other names, including:

Sodium dodecyl sulfate	A13-00356
Sulfuric acid, monododecyl ester, sodium salt	Akyposal SDS
Sodium salt sulfuric acid	Aquarex ME
Monododecyl ester sodium salt sulfuric acid	Aquarex methyl

Can 16,000 Studies About SLS be Wrong?

According to the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Reviews^[6] , research studies on SLS have shown links to:

• Irritation of the skin and eyes
• Organ toxicity
• Developmental/reproductive toxicity
• Neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, ecotoxicology, and biochemical or cellular changes
• Possible mutations and cancer

If you visit the SLS page on the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) website^[6], you will see a very long list of health concerns and associated research studies. In fact, you will also see their mention of nearly 16,000 studies in the PubMed science library (as well as their link to that list) about the toxicity of this chemical.

There are clearly grounds for concern about using products containing this agent. Yet, skeptics abound who claim that these concerns are overblown and unfounded. It's no wonder that consumers are completely confused about just how much risk this chemical poses.

Since most of the research studies are done on SLS itself—not on products containing it—the EWG states:

"Actual health risks will vary based on the level of exposure to the ingredient and individual susceptibility."

Many of the studies on laboratory animals have involved applying SLS directly to the eyes of the animals and feeding them straight SLS. As would be expected with ANY chemical, eating it or putting it in your eyes would be bad news!

Even natural substances applied in high concentration (for example, cinnamon oil or oregano oil) can have harmful effects.

But high levels of SLS intake, either orally or through the skin, are not ordinarily experienced in normal cosmetics use—it's the gradual, cumulative effects of long-term, repeated exposures that are the real concern. And there is a serious lack of long-term studies on ALL of the chemicals in these products—so we don't really know what the long-term effects are.

It's not just repeated exposure to one chemical—it's the combined effect of thousands of little chemical exposures, day in and day out, that is of concern.

Sorting through the evidence is even more complicated when research findings are exaggerated and misquoted, and  then circulated around the Internet as if it were fact.

The Green Study Debacle

A huge source of misinformation arose from a gross misinterpretation (or misrepresentation) of a study^[7] done by Dr. Keith Green of the Medical College of Georgia, Department of Ophthalmology, which looked at the uptake of SLS by eye tissues. Paula Begoun (aka "The Cosmetics Cop") explains on her website^[8] how the Green controversy occurred.

Dr. Green investigated SLS uptake into the eye, but he did NOT study the effect of SLS on vision, nor did he study children or cataracts.

However, his findings were misquoted by anti-SLS zealots, to the point that he spent years trying to set the record straight about his findings and conclusions.

Dr. Green found that SLS is rapidly taken up and accumulated by eye tissues, where it is retained for up to five days. He also found that SLS uptake is greater in younger rabbits than in adult rabbits, and that SLS causes changes in some eye proteins.

However, someone quoted him as writing (in a report to the Research to Prevent Blindness conference):

"SLS is a systemic that can penetrate and be retained in the eye, brain, heart, liver, etc., with potentially harmful long-term effects. It can retard healing and cause cataracts in adults, and can keep children's eyes from developing properly."

Of course, this statement went far beyond the reaches of his study—and he denied ever saying it. The controversy that ensued led to a whole slew of articles and statements, based on this misinformation, that have done nothing but add to the confusion about SLS and fueling both sides of the issue.

Dr. Green later stated in an interview with Paula Begoun:

"There is no part of my study that indicated any eye development or cataract problems from SLS or SLES and the body does not retain those ingredients at all."

He also said that he did not even look at the issue with children, and later claimed his findings were so insignificant that he no longer had any interest in further researching the subject.

In spite of Green's later statements dismissing the importance of his findings, there are legitimate concerns about SLS and its systemic effects—based on multiple other studies.

The fact that one study's findings were misrepresented doesn't mean the risks aren't real. Naysayers are fond of citing the Green study debacle but NOT mentioning the other evidence of potential health risks of SLS.

Real Dangers of SLS—Rumors Aside

A number of studies report SLS being damaging to oral mucosa and skin. This is not at all surprising since SLS is actually used as a skin irritant during studies where medical treatments for skin irritation require an intentionally irritating agent.

• A study at the Stern College for Women at Yeshiva University in New York in 1997 examined SLS in mouthwash. They found that SLS in mouth rinses caused desquamation of oral epithelium and a burning sensation in human volunteers.^[9]
• A study appearing in Exogenous Dermatology confirmed SLS to be a very "corrosive irritant" to the skin—irritation which persisted in research subjects for 3 weeks.^[10] SLS exerts its damage by stripping your skin of protective oils and moisture.
• SLS is associated with increased aphthous ulcers (canker sores) due to the denaturing effect and irritation of the oral mucosa.^[11]

Swallowing SLS will likely lead to nausea and diarrhea and is even used as a laxative in enemas.^[12] So be careful not to swallow much of your toothpaste if it contains SLS.

According to Judi Vance, author of Beauty to Die For, SLS can cause cellular DNA damage. In an article for ConsumerHealth.org^[13], she states that a dental association in Japan tested the effects of SLS on bacteria, finding it to be mutagenic. She also states that hair follicles are significant transporters of harmful chemicals into your body.

Links Between SLS, Ethylene Oxide, 1,4 Dioxane, and Cancer

The evidence linking SLS to cancer is a bit challenging due to the paucity of scientific studies. However, carcinogenic effects are quite possible when you consider that SLS/SLES is often contaminated by two known carcinogens:

1. Ethylene oxide (which is what the "E" in SLES represents). A return to the Skin Deep website for ethylene oxide reveals a rating of "high hazard," which appears as an impurity in thousands of personal care products. It is used to "ethoxylate" SLS and other chemicals, to make them less harsh.
2. 1,4 dioxane, a byproduct of ethylene oxide, also receives a "high hazard" rating from Skin Deep and is associated with an even longer list of common personal care products. On the CDC site, 1,4 dioxane is described as "probably carcinogenic to humans," toxic to the brain and central nervous system, kidneys and liver. It is also a leading groundwater contaminant.

To avoid 1,4 dioxane, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) recommends avoiding products with indications of ethoxylation.

To do this, look for the following suffixes in the ingredient list: "myreth," "oleth," "laureth," "ceteareth," any other "eth," "PEG," "polyethylene," "polyethylene glycol," "polyoxyethylene," or "oxynol."

For example—sodium laureth sulfate.

Both polysorbate 60 and polysorbate 80 are also often contaminated with 1,4 dioxane, according to Dr. Samuel Epstein^[14].

The FDA continues to take the stance that the levels of 1,4 dioxane in body care products are too low to be considered harmful^[15]. But given that there are products available that have NO 1,4 dioxane, why take a chance with your health? 

Your best bet is to purchase products that are certified under the USDA National Organic Program, and if those aren't available, select products whose ingredients you recognize—and can pronounce!

SLS and Nitrosamines

SLS has also been linked to nitrosamines. Nitrosamines are potent carcinogens that cause your body to absorb nitrates, which are known to be carcinogenic as well.

According to one article by Greenfeet^[16], at least one study linked SLS to nitrate absorption.

The Greenfeet article states:

"A study citied in the Wall Street Journal (November 1, 1988) linked SLS to cataracts and nitrate absorption (nitrates are carcinogens—or cancer causing substances). Apparently, this absorption occurs when the SLS becomes contaminated with NDELA (N-nitrosodiethanolamine) during processing.

This contamination comes about as a result of SLS coming into contact with any number of chemicals including TEA (triethanolamine,), which is a commonly used ingredient in shampoos as a detergent."

So, the SLS combines with the TEA, resulting in NDELA, which is a nitrosamine and a recognized carcinogen.

The biochemistry is very complex due to the "chemical cocktail" that is your shampoo or hand wash. When these chemical ingredients come into contact with each other, all sorts of molecular bonds begin to form and new and unintended chemicals are produced.

Unfortunately, some of these unintended chemicals are nitrosamines.

As the above article points out, there is no way the FDA can possibly test all of the combinations of chemicals available, in every unique blend.

So, while the individual ingredients may be considered safe, once you mix them up into a brew, all bets are off. Just because SLS doesn't contain nitrogen, doesn't mean it can't GET a nitrogen from the chemical soup and bond with it to form deadly nitrosamine.

How to Evaluate Your Toxic Toiletry Burden

Lest you shrug these findings off, thinking that your exposure is "insignificant," think again.

Did you know that, if you use conventional cosmetics on a daily basis, you can absorb almost 5 pounds of chemicals and toxins into your body each year?

Daily use of ordinary, seemingly benign personal care products like shampoo, toothpaste and shower gel can easily result in exposure to thousands of chemicals, and many will make their way into your body and become "stuck" there, since you lack the means to break them down.

This toxic load can become a significant contributing factor to health problems and serious diseases, especially if your diet and exercise habits are lacking.

Women seem to be predisposed to more autoimmune disorders than men. Diseases such as thyroid disease, fibromyalgia, and multiple sclerosis are far more common in women. Perhaps one of the major contributing factors is that women tend to use far more personal products than men.

If you are a woman, acting on the information in this report is particularly important. Is your make-up cabinet a toxic wasteland?

It is especially challenging to establish a link between these routine chemical exposures and health problems down the road, because the adverse effects might not show up for years.

As Theo Colburn discusses in Our Stolen Future^[17], in some cases, effects are not seen in the person exposed but DO appear in her offspring. This has been seen in the animal kingdom, as well as in humans. Some adults have been known to suddenly show a disease many decades after prenatal exposure.

If you would like to learn more about the health effects of the chemicals you are routinely exposed to, I strongly urge you to read Our Toxic World: A Wake Up Call by Dr. Doris Rapp. She does a thorough job of uncovering the many ways we are exposed to toxic chemicals and how they contribute to chronic disease.

A Newer, Greener YOU!

With the jury still out about long-term exposure to SLS and its associated contaminants, the best advice is to avoid them and avoid the risk altogether—since there are safe alternatives available.

The easiest way to ensure that you're not being exposed to potentially hazardous agents is to make your own personal care products, using simple all-natural ingredients that you may already have in your home.

Finding recipes for your own homemade beauty products is a breeze when you have access to the Internet. Just Google "homemade cosmetics" for more than 400,000 pages of recipes and instructions.

If whipping up lotions and potions isn't your bag, be sure to read labels and check products out before buying them. The website mentioned above, Skin Deep, is an excellent resource. A newer site called Good Guide is also helpful in finding and evaluating healthful, green products—both personal care items and food.
I also offer a wonderful skin care line. A couple years ago, our team developed one of the few USDA certified organic cosmetic lines in the US. I am constantly amazed at the consistently good comments I receive from friends and relatives that I have given this to as a gift.
Final Tips and Tricks to Lighten Your Toxic Load
Here are a few other suggestions to help you avoid SLS and other nasty chemicals:

• Look for the genuine USDA Organic Seal¹⁸.
• If you can’t pronounce it, you probably don’t want to put it on your body. Ask yourself, “Would I eat this?”
• Look for products that are fragrance-free. One artificial fragrance can contain hundreds—even thousands—of chemicals, and fragrances are a major cause of allergic reactions.
• Pay attention to the order in which the ingredients are listed. Manufacturers are required to list ingredients in descending order by volume, meaning the first few ingredients are the most prominent. If calendula extract is the last ingredient in a long list, your calendula body wash isn’t very natural.
• Stick to the basics. Do you really need 20 products to prepare for your day? Simplify your life and rescue your bank account.
• Buy products that come in glass bottles rather than plastic, since chemicals can leach out of plastics and into the contents. Bisphenol A (BPA) is a serious concern; make sure any plastic container is BPA free.
• Drink plenty of filtered water every day to assist your body in flushing out toxins.
• Eat lots of vibrantly colored organic vegetables (and fruits, in moderation) to keep your body well stocked with antioxidants.
• Look for products that are made by companies that are earth-friendly, animal-friendly and green. [ For more information about how to buy cruelty-free, go to Group for the Education of Animal-Related Issues (GEARI).¹⁹ ]

---

1. Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database

2. Environmental Working Group (EWG), 

3. Hill A. "Make-up kit holds hidden danger of cancer," The Observer (April 7, 2002) 

4. Coming Clean Campaign, Organic Consumers Association

5. Chenery N. "The Case Against Sodium Laureth Sulfate," Organic Health Business Articles

6. Environmental Working Group: Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database: Sodium Lauryl Sulfate 

7. Green K, M Chapman J, Cheeks L, M Clayton R, Wilson M and Zehir A. "Detergent penetration into young and adult rabbit eyes: Comparative pharmacokinetics" Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology (1987);6(2):89-107. 

8.Begoun P. "Sodium Lauryl Sulfate," Paula's Choice: Superior Skin Care, Expert Information. 

9. Babich H and Babich J P. "Sodium lauryl sulfate and triclosan: In vitro cytotoxicity studies with gingival cells" (May 16, 1997) 91(3):189-196. 

10. Lee C H, Kim H W, Han H J, Park C W. "A comparison study of nonanoic acid and sodium lauryl sulfate in skin irritation," Exog Dermatol 2004;3:19-25 

11. Herlofson B B and Barkvoll P. "Sodium lauryl sulfate and recurrent aphthous ulcers: A preliminary study," Acta Odontol Scand 1994:257-259. 

12. Sodium lauryl sulfate, Wikipedia 

13. Vance J. "Deathtraps in the cosmetics we use," Consumer Health Organization of Canada 

14. "Sodium lauryl sulfate facts?" 

15. "1,4-Dioxane," US Food and Drug Association, CFSAN/Office of Cosmetics and Colors, July 3, 2007, 

16. "Sodium lauryl sulfate—The facts" by Greenfeet 

17. Colborn T, Dumanoski D and Meyers J P. Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? (Plume, 1996)

18. United States Department of Agriculture, Organic Certification Program 

19. Group for the Education of Animal-Related Issues(GEARI)