The National Post, CNN and probably others have posted an item about high levels of PCBs in some fish oils. If you are wondering which brands, well you won't find them at the National Post, so this blog has found the list right here. This is a U.S. report by The Environmental Defense Fund, and may not necessarily include any brands on Canadian shelves. A couple of brands that I have used for example, Jamieson, and Swiss Natural Sources fish oils, are not listed there, but it leaves a bit of wondering about their purity as well.
Four out of 75 companies listed in this report were considered the "worst" choice, while 23 of them did not submit complete data. The remaining 48 in this report were called "good choice" - Their responses indicate that the majority are purifying their fish oils to meet stringent safety standards.
Around these parts one gets skeptical of some environmental groups who have common interests as former anti-seal industry advocates, like Canada's Environmental Defence director Rick Smith. The fact that there are certain levels of toxins in basically everything we eat or drink is not new, but it is still helpful at any time to be warned of potential contaminants in any product. While nutrition manufacturers advertise to sell products that are in your best interest, it's profits that are their ultimate goal, and often, what consumers don't know, yet, about products, won't hurt profits.
Showing posts with label food toxins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food toxins. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Monday, April 28, 2008
Overview of Pesticide Use
(a shorter version of this post was published earlier this year in the local health magazine, The Wellness Guide)
Ridding society and the environment of harmful chemicals and toxins is going to be a generations-long process. At least there are signs of progress - banning BPA in baby bottles, Ontario banning pesticide use. Summer is coming, I think, and there is sure to be pesticide use. Below are some facts and tips on pesticide use.
Pesticides used in foods and lawn care can make you very sick. It may be through direct contact with them in the garden, or in the kitchen. The more you avoid them the more you lower the risk of developing an illness caused by them.
What is a pesticide? (source: EPA)
A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended prevent, destroy, repel, or reduce pests like bugs, bacteria or rodents.
The term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other sustances used to control pests. (source)
Many household products contain pesticides. For instance, Insect repellents for personal use, Rodent poisons, kitchen, laundry, bath disinfectants and sanitizers, and lawn and garden products like week killers.
In order to affect a pest, a pesticide must act upon some vital system or chemical process within that organism.
How Can Pesticides Harm You?
The harmful effects of a pesticide can be either acute - an immediate response to short term exposure to a high dosage - or chronic - a response to long term exposure to a low dosage. They pose the greatest risk to the people who handle them. Insecticides are particularly dangerous, especially when a person directly handles it.
Many insecticides attack the nervous system of the target insects and therefore are toxic, to some degree, to other species with a nervous system (i.e., humans and many other members of the animal kingdom).
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/362/envi/reports/rp1031697/envi01/12-ch5-e.html">Chronic Health Effects
It is no easy task to associate a particular health problem with a specific chemical, but there is plenty of research that points out the long-term effects or potential effects of exposure to pesticides. Here are some:
Research on pesticides suspected of acting as endocrine disruptors appear to be linked to the development of breast, prostate and testicular cancers, endometriosis, abnormal sexual development, lowered male fertility, damage to the thyroid and pituitary glands, lowered immunity, and behavioural problems
What Happens to a Pesticide After Application?
(source: http://www.agcare.org/pdf/PesticideDebate.pdf)
Some pesticides are strongly attracted to soil particles and are held tightly by them. They endanger the environment either by affecting non target species or by contaminating water.
After pesticides are applied there are other dangers
• they can convert from a solid or liquid into a gas and move into the atmosphere.
• they can move from a field or lawn in runoff water
• they can leach materials down through the soil with water
• they can cause plant uptake - movement into plants through either the leaves or roots
Infants and children may be more vulnerable to pesticide exposure (source: Consumer Information Center)
Since their internal organs are still developing and maturing, infants and children may be more vulnerable to health risks posed by pesticides.
In relation to their body weight, infants and children eat and drink more than adults, which may increase their exposure to pesticides in food and water.
Certain behaviors - such as playing on floors or lawns or putting objects in their mouths - increase a child's exposure to pesticides used in the homes and yards.
Sensible Food Practices
Organic foods have the lowest risk of containing pesticides. However, if you are buying regular fruits and vegetables, then you will want to follow these helpful tips:
Washing:
Wash and scrub all fresh fruits and vegetables thoroughly under runny water. Running water has an abrasive effect that soaking that not have. This will help remove bacteria and traces of chemicals from the surface of fruits, vegetables and dirt from crevices. Not all pesticide residues can be removed by washing.
Peeling and Trimming:
Peel fruits and vegetables when possible to reduce dirt, bacteria, and pesticides. Discard outer leaves of leafy vegetables. Trim fat from meat and skin from poultry and fish because some pesticides residues collect in fat.
Selecting a Variety of Foods:
Eat a variety of foods, from a variety of sources. This will give you a better mix of nutrients and reduce your liklihood of exposure to a single pesticide.
Although Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency evaluates, and monitors domestic and foreign products and foods, the fact remains that food we eat are exposed to toxic chemicals. With 85,000 chemicals used in growing food, consumers are wise to take every precaution to reduce the risk of consuming these chemical residues.
Reading the pesticide label is the quickest way to obtain information regarding the relative risk posed by a pesticide.
Buying or growing organic food is your best option to reduce your intake of pesticides. For lawn care look for more natural ways to maintain it. This will allow the kids to play on the grass without being exposed to harmful pesticides.
-------------------
Here are a couple of links with alternatives to chemical pesticides:
http://www.leps.bc.ca/altpest.html
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/healthy_lawns/lawns/alternatives/index_en.html
Ridding society and the environment of harmful chemicals and toxins is going to be a generations-long process. At least there are signs of progress - banning BPA in baby bottles, Ontario banning pesticide use. Summer is coming, I think, and there is sure to be pesticide use. Below are some facts and tips on pesticide use.
Pesticides used in foods and lawn care can make you very sick. It may be through direct contact with them in the garden, or in the kitchen. The more you avoid them the more you lower the risk of developing an illness caused by them.
What is a pesticide? (source: EPA)
A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended prevent, destroy, repel, or reduce pests like bugs, bacteria or rodents.
The term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other sustances used to control pests. (source)
Many household products contain pesticides. For instance, Insect repellents for personal use, Rodent poisons, kitchen, laundry, bath disinfectants and sanitizers, and lawn and garden products like week killers.
In order to affect a pest, a pesticide must act upon some vital system or chemical process within that organism.
How Can Pesticides Harm You?
The harmful effects of a pesticide can be either acute - an immediate response to short term exposure to a high dosage - or chronic - a response to long term exposure to a low dosage. They pose the greatest risk to the people who handle them. Insecticides are particularly dangerous, especially when a person directly handles it.
Many insecticides attack the nervous system of the target insects and therefore are toxic, to some degree, to other species with a nervous system (i.e., humans and many other members of the animal kingdom).
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/362/envi/reports/rp1031697/envi01/12-ch5-e.html">Chronic Health Effects
It is no easy task to associate a particular health problem with a specific chemical, but there is plenty of research that points out the long-term effects or potential effects of exposure to pesticides. Here are some:
Chronic health effects typically include cancer, interference with the development of the fetus and child, and disruption of the reproductive, endocrine, immune and/or central nervous systems (neurotoxic effects).
A particularly big problem is the effect pesticides have as Endocrine Disruptors. The endocrine system is made up of glands, which secrete hormones.
Research on pesticides suspected of acting as endocrine disruptors appear to be linked to the development of breast, prostate and testicular cancers, endometriosis, abnormal sexual development, lowered male fertility, damage to the thyroid and pituitary glands, lowered immunity, and behavioural problems
What Happens to a Pesticide After Application?
(source: http://www.agcare.org/pdf/PesticideDebate.pdf)
Some pesticides are strongly attracted to soil particles and are held tightly by them. They endanger the environment either by affecting non target species or by contaminating water.
After pesticides are applied there are other dangers
• they can convert from a solid or liquid into a gas and move into the atmosphere.
• they can move from a field or lawn in runoff water
• they can leach materials down through the soil with water
• they can cause plant uptake - movement into plants through either the leaves or roots
Infants and children may be more vulnerable to pesticide exposure (source: Consumer Information Center)
Since their internal organs are still developing and maturing, infants and children may be more vulnerable to health risks posed by pesticides.
Sensible Food Practices
Organic foods have the lowest risk of containing pesticides. However, if you are buying regular fruits and vegetables, then you will want to follow these helpful tips:
Washing:
Wash and scrub all fresh fruits and vegetables thoroughly under runny water. Running water has an abrasive effect that soaking that not have. This will help remove bacteria and traces of chemicals from the surface of fruits, vegetables and dirt from crevices. Not all pesticide residues can be removed by washing.
Peeling and Trimming:
Peel fruits and vegetables when possible to reduce dirt, bacteria, and pesticides. Discard outer leaves of leafy vegetables. Trim fat from meat and skin from poultry and fish because some pesticides residues collect in fat.
Selecting a Variety of Foods:
Eat a variety of foods, from a variety of sources. This will give you a better mix of nutrients and reduce your liklihood of exposure to a single pesticide.
Although Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency evaluates, and monitors domestic and foreign products and foods, the fact remains that food we eat are exposed to toxic chemicals. With 85,000 chemicals used in growing food, consumers are wise to take every precaution to reduce the risk of consuming these chemical residues.
Reading the pesticide label is the quickest way to obtain information regarding the relative risk posed by a pesticide.
Buying or growing organic food is your best option to reduce your intake of pesticides. For lawn care look for more natural ways to maintain it. This will allow the kids to play on the grass without being exposed to harmful pesticides.
Here are a couple of links with alternatives to chemical pesticides:
http://www.leps.bc.ca/altpest.html
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/healthy_lawns/lawns/alternatives/index_en.html
Monday, January 21, 2008
Bisphenol A Dangers were Known before 2003
* Update - Jan. 22. This issue has been broadcast on CBC's Here & Now Monday & Tuesday. It is good to see it becoming more public knowledge. Evening news broadcasts could easily devote a section of their hour long formats to health news/consumer alerts or health education.
You really have to question all plastics, and can liners, or avoid them as much as possible. Check the number at the bottom of bottles and avoid # 7 bottles for sure!
Even five years ago, there were already 40 studies that polycarbonate plastics containing Bisphenol A (BHA) were dangerous. In 2003, it was known that exposure to low amounts of BHA caused genetic defects in mice. In fact, in a major study by Dr. Patricia Hunt & colleagues, mice drank from old baby bottles, that leached (BPA) into their systems.
Damage occurred in the egg cells of female mice. Hunt explained, "so when the cells divide, their chromosomes don't line up...In humans, this results in spontaneous abortion, birth defects, or mental retardation."
Other experts were quoted in the same article mentioned above. Biologist Frederick S. von Saal has studied BPA for many years, and had this to add:
What about other plastic compounds? Another plastic compound called Antimony, used in PET bottles, has been and is being studied for its potential hazardous effects. How many others are unsafe, and are years aways from garnering the danger status of BPA?
There are food containers of every shape and size that millions use all their lives. Bisphenol A, and any other plastic compound may very well have contributed to a variety of health problems, including prostate enlargement and cancer, and breast cancer because it has been seeping into food and liquid.
The bottling industry has carried out their own studies, and guess what, they have not found any harmful effects from BPA, despite 90% of 150 independent studies which says otherwise. I guess that unless you want to be fired, industry sponsored research designs will have predictable outcomes.
Previous Bisphenol A posts
You really have to question all plastics, and can liners, or avoid them as much as possible. Check the number at the bottom of bottles and avoid # 7 bottles for sure!
Even five years ago, there were already 40 studies that polycarbonate plastics containing Bisphenol A (BHA) were dangerous. In 2003, it was known that exposure to low amounts of BHA caused genetic defects in mice. In fact, in a major study by Dr. Patricia Hunt & colleagues, mice drank from old baby bottles, that leached (BPA) into their systems.
Damage occurred in the egg cells of female mice. Hunt explained, "so when the cells divide, their chromosomes don't line up...In humans, this results in spontaneous abortion, birth defects, or mental retardation."Other experts were quoted in the same article mentioned above. Biologist Frederick S. von Saal has studied BPA for many years, and had this to add:
In a recent study, fetal umbilical blood shows higher BPA levels than we generated in mice. Human exposure levels are already high. The horrifying thing is that it looks as though these effects in the Hunt study happen at lower doses than what is actually found in human fetal blood - umbilical cord blood.
What about other plastic compounds? Another plastic compound called Antimony, used in PET bottles, has been and is being studied for its potential hazardous effects. How many others are unsafe, and are years aways from garnering the danger status of BPA?
There are food containers of every shape and size that millions use all their lives. Bisphenol A, and any other plastic compound may very well have contributed to a variety of health problems, including prostate enlargement and cancer, and breast cancer because it has been seeping into food and liquid.
The bottling industry has carried out their own studies, and guess what, they have not found any harmful effects from BPA, despite 90% of 150 independent studies which says otherwise. I guess that unless you want to be fired, industry sponsored research designs will have predictable outcomes.
Previous Bisphenol A posts
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Parents Beware: Baby Bottles & Canned Baby Food Contain Toxic Ingredient - Bisphenol A
Plastic baby bottles and canned baby food contain a substance that is listed as toxic. It can leach out and be subsequently ingested by infants and any user of containers with that compound. 
Here's a big reason to be aware of this:
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a synthetic chemical compound used in a wide range of consumer products and is classed by the Government of Canada as a hormone disruptor. (see Bisphenol A Fact Sheet here)
Bisphenol A has been getting a lot of attention in the last year particularly because it's been linked with breast and prostate cancer. I posted last year when it made the news then. Recently an article appeared in the Globe, which I have saved (the online version at the Globe is only available if you purchase it).
Parents can reduce child exposure by avoiding food and beverage containers made of polycarbonate plastic (often identified by the number 7 in the recycling symbol) and by avoiding plastic-lined (white-coloured) canned foods.
Here's the whole article from this Globe & Mail site:
Bisphenol A most harmful to infants, study says
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 11, 2008 at 3:58 AM EST
A new U.S. study on the plastic compound bisphenol A indicates that the chemical may be far more dangerous for young children than for adults.
The finding has been submitted to Health Canada for its current safety review of BPA, and bolsters the case for limiting bisphenol A exposure in infants, who lack the capacity that adults have to detoxify it.
Bisphenol A is used in polycarbonate baby bottles and the epoxy linings of cans, including those for almost all types of infant formula. Because BPA can mimic estrogen, many researchers suspect it is a factor in health trends linked to sex hormone imbalances, such as prostate and breast cancer.
In the new study, researchers found that neonatal mice exposed to trace amounts of bisphenol A, either orally or through injection, ended up with similar amounts of the chemical in their blood because they do not have high amounts of the liver enzyme that breaks it down into an inactive form.
Young rodents don't fully develop the capacity to make the enzyme until they are weaned, a trait they share with humans. By contrast, adult rodents fed BPA have been found to rapidly clear it from their bodies using the enzymes.
Similar experiments are not done on babies for ethical reasons, but given the similarity of biological processes among mammals, many scientists consider the results applicable to humans.
The research study is expected to be issued next week by the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.
The finding is "extremely scary," said Dr. Frederick vom Saal, a professor in the biological sciences department of the University of Missouri, and a member of the team that conducted the study.
Dr. vom Saal is a leading authority on BPA, and he contended that formula and polycarbonate baby bottles expose children to worrisome amounts of the synthetic estrogen. "You are significantly dosing your baby with bisphenol A every day and every time the baby is consuming food," he said.
Health Canada said in a statement to The Globe and Mail yesterday that "it is too early for us to state whether we have a concern or not with infant formula or baby bottles which contain BPA."
But two major formula makers - Nestle Canada and Mead Johnson Nutritionals - dismissed the concerns.
"Health Canada, as well as other international authorities such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have approved the use of BPA in food packaging," Nestle Canada said in an e-mail statement.
"The preponderance of valid scientific literature right now upholds the position that BPA and the levels found in the food chain of humans is absolutely safe," said Gail Wood, spokeswoman for Evansville, Ind., based Mead Johnson. She also discounted the significance for humans of research on mice.
Based on a preliminary risk assessment in 2006, Health Canada said that bisphenol A was a chemical for which it had a "predisposition to conclude toxic." It is expected to issue a formal evaluation by May.
The study also contradicts a major contention on the safety of bisphenol A advanced by chemical manufacturers. Many of the nearly 200 studies finding severe health effects from bisphenol A exposure have been done by injecting young or pregnant rodents with the chemical.
The American Chemistry Council, an Arlington, Va., trade group for major BPA manufacturers, has argued that injection study results aren't applicable to humans because people are thought to have most of their exposures from oral sources, such as food, subject to rapid metabolizing by liver enzymes. Delivering BPA by injection bypasses this detoxification process and may cause health effects that wouldn't occur by ingesting the chemical, according to the industry's view.
However, the new research indicates that both oral and injection approaches are equally valid for experiments during fetal and neonatal development.
Health Canada said it hasn't yet decided whether to accept or reject the industry's position on the dosing controversy.
The council did not respond to a request for comment on the new research.
Here's a big reason to be aware of this:
Bisphenol A is used in polycarbonate baby bottles and the epoxy linings of cans, including those for almost all types of infant formula. Because BPA can mimic estrogen, many researchers suspect it is a factor in health trends linked to sex hormone imbalances, such as prostate and breast cancer. (see rest of Globe article below)
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a synthetic chemical compound used in a wide range of consumer products and is classed by the Government of Canada as a hormone disruptor. (see Bisphenol A Fact Sheet here)
Bisphenol A has been getting a lot of attention in the last year particularly because it's been linked with breast and prostate cancer. I posted last year when it made the news then. Recently an article appeared in the Globe, which I have saved (the online version at the Globe is only available if you purchase it).
Parents can reduce child exposure by avoiding food and beverage containers made of polycarbonate plastic (often identified by the number 7 in the recycling symbol) and by avoiding plastic-lined (white-coloured) canned foods.
Here's the whole article from this Globe & Mail site:
Bisphenol A most harmful to infants, study says
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 11, 2008 at 3:58 AM EST
A new U.S. study on the plastic compound bisphenol A indicates that the chemical may be far more dangerous for young children than for adults.
The finding has been submitted to Health Canada for its current safety review of BPA, and bolsters the case for limiting bisphenol A exposure in infants, who lack the capacity that adults have to detoxify it.
Bisphenol A is used in polycarbonate baby bottles and the epoxy linings of cans, including those for almost all types of infant formula. Because BPA can mimic estrogen, many researchers suspect it is a factor in health trends linked to sex hormone imbalances, such as prostate and breast cancer.
In the new study, researchers found that neonatal mice exposed to trace amounts of bisphenol A, either orally or through injection, ended up with similar amounts of the chemical in their blood because they do not have high amounts of the liver enzyme that breaks it down into an inactive form.
Young rodents don't fully develop the capacity to make the enzyme until they are weaned, a trait they share with humans. By contrast, adult rodents fed BPA have been found to rapidly clear it from their bodies using the enzymes.
Similar experiments are not done on babies for ethical reasons, but given the similarity of biological processes among mammals, many scientists consider the results applicable to humans.
The research study is expected to be issued next week by the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.
The finding is "extremely scary," said Dr. Frederick vom Saal, a professor in the biological sciences department of the University of Missouri, and a member of the team that conducted the study.
Dr. vom Saal is a leading authority on BPA, and he contended that formula and polycarbonate baby bottles expose children to worrisome amounts of the synthetic estrogen. "You are significantly dosing your baby with bisphenol A every day and every time the baby is consuming food," he said.
Health Canada said in a statement to The Globe and Mail yesterday that "it is too early for us to state whether we have a concern or not with infant formula or baby bottles which contain BPA."
But two major formula makers - Nestle Canada and Mead Johnson Nutritionals - dismissed the concerns.
"Health Canada, as well as other international authorities such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have approved the use of BPA in food packaging," Nestle Canada said in an e-mail statement.
"The preponderance of valid scientific literature right now upholds the position that BPA and the levels found in the food chain of humans is absolutely safe," said Gail Wood, spokeswoman for Evansville, Ind., based Mead Johnson. She also discounted the significance for humans of research on mice.
Based on a preliminary risk assessment in 2006, Health Canada said that bisphenol A was a chemical for which it had a "predisposition to conclude toxic." It is expected to issue a formal evaluation by May.
The study also contradicts a major contention on the safety of bisphenol A advanced by chemical manufacturers. Many of the nearly 200 studies finding severe health effects from bisphenol A exposure have been done by injecting young or pregnant rodents with the chemical.
The American Chemistry Council, an Arlington, Va., trade group for major BPA manufacturers, has argued that injection study results aren't applicable to humans because people are thought to have most of their exposures from oral sources, such as food, subject to rapid metabolizing by liver enzymes. Delivering BPA by injection bypasses this detoxification process and may cause health effects that wouldn't occur by ingesting the chemical, according to the industry's view.
However, the new research indicates that both oral and injection approaches are equally valid for experiments during fetal and neonatal development.
Health Canada said it hasn't yet decided whether to accept or reject the industry's position on the dosing controversy.
The council did not respond to a request for comment on the new research.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Sending Out an S.O.S. - Message in a Bottle
In April this year, bisphenol A, a chemical used in plastic containers and in cans, got major media scrutiny, as it had been identified as a dangerous substance that is found in drinking bottles and many other children's 
and household containers. Bisphenol A has been linked to cancer and reproductive problems in animals. The Globe ran a story on it, but you can not access it without paying, so here is some key information from that article that is worth re-iterating:
In April, it looked like this chemical would surely be in the news again, and affect the bottling and canning industry. Today, and several days ago, bisphenol A has indeed gotten more national attention. This is good news. The lead story on the Yahoo Canada home page is "Canadian retail chain pulls plastic water bottles".
Here are a couple of extra pieces of information of interest from the Yahoo site:
Another piece of promising news is the federal government's creation of a chemical substance web site. Harper's government appear to failing in the eyes of the world on its role in climate change. However, some credit to them, on what appears to be the right direction in protecting Canadians from harmful substances. From CTV on Saturday,
Here is a list of other potentially hazardous substances listed on the government chemical substance web site as Chemical Substances of Interest to Canadians.
Here's more on bisphenol A from the Gov. of Canada web site.
There is a number 1 - 7 system used on bottle bottoms to represent what kind of plastic is in it. Check the number at the bottom of bottles for information on what type of bottle you're using. Bisphenol A is a polycarbonate bottle, that is # 7 on the bottom of the bottle. Here's a link for more detailed information on what these numbers mean. No. 1 bottles should never be reused.
Pop drinks like Coke, add bisphenol A
to the linings of cans to prolong shelf life. It helps make food and beverage companies extremely rich and is dangerous for people at the same time.
Hmm, there are messages in the bottles. See if you have unlucky 7. Bottoms up.
and household containers. Bisphenol A has been linked to cancer and reproductive problems in animals. The Globe ran a story on it, but you can not access it without paying, so here is some key information from that article that is worth re-iterating:Low amounts of bisphenol A have been suspected to be associated with:
- the early onset of puberty
- declining sperm counts
- and the huge increase in breast and prostate cancer
In April, it looked like this chemical would surely be in the news again, and affect the bottling and canning industry. Today, and several days ago, bisphenol A has indeed gotten more national attention. This is good news. The lead story on the Yahoo Canada home page is "Canadian retail chain pulls plastic water bottles".
Vancouver-based Mountain Equipment Co-op became the first major Canadian retailer to stop selling products that contain bisphenol A over fears the chemical can leach from plastic food and water containers.
"Inconclusive science and regulatory uncertainty presently surrounds bisphenol-A (BPA)," the company said in a statement.
Here are a couple of extra pieces of information of interest from the Yahoo site:
Besides hard-plastic water bottles, bisphenol A is also used in some baby bottles and the linings of some food cans, including most major brands of infant formula, according to a study co-released this week by Environmental Defence Canada and the Washington-based Environmental Working Group.
"We have study after study showing that this chemical is toxic,... and there are safe and available alternatives that are affordable, (ed. emphasis)" said Aaron Freeman, policy director of Environmental Defence Canada.
Another piece of promising news is the federal government's creation of a chemical substance web site. Harper's government appear to failing in the eyes of the world on its role in climate change. However, some credit to them, on what appears to be the right direction in protecting Canadians from harmful substances. From CTV on Saturday,
The government has pledged $300 million towards assessing 200 potentially harmful substances on the market, and regulate the most toxic within the next few years.
Here is a list of other potentially hazardous substances listed on the government chemical substance web site as Chemical Substances of Interest to Canadians.
Here's more on bisphenol A from the Gov. of Canada web site.
There is a number 1 - 7 system used on bottle bottoms to represent what kind of plastic is in it. Check the number at the bottom of bottles for information on what type of bottle you're using. Bisphenol A is a polycarbonate bottle, that is # 7 on the bottom of the bottle. Here's a link for more detailed information on what these numbers mean. No. 1 bottles should never be reused.
Pop drinks like Coke, add bisphenol A
to the linings of cans to prolong shelf life. It helps make food and beverage companies extremely rich and is dangerous for people at the same time.Hmm, there are messages in the bottles. See if you have unlucky 7. Bottoms up.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Preventative Medicine & Health Savings
“Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty.” ~ Plato
If preventing health problems were promoted much more, then our health care system would save money, and people could be healthier. The investment of advertisements to show people how to prevent problems could save tens of millions in the long run for our province. Peoples' habits are alot to blame for many medical problems. Of course no matter how much some people take care of themselves, they will still get diseases and problems. People are also free to decide and choose how they want to live their lives. Because we have freedom and a free market economy, popular culture and society is also composed of contradictory forces which send mixed messages to us. For example, let's take fast food. Everywhere you go, on any media out there, and around the clock, we are bombarded with ads that associate feeling good with many foods that are ticking time bombs. Foods full of harmful ingredients like saturated and trans fats are offered then gobbled up by consumers. In every commercial, the tactic is to send the message that you will be feeling good, or the product will somehow bring you happiness. These food products may taste good for the time being, but they act like sludge on drain pipes and eventually need to be "snaked" or give the balloon treatment (angioplasty).
I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of what harmful things are in our typical every foods. Nitrates, and other preservatives, are they really linked to cancer? Possibly. What about the kind of feeds for cattle? What we don't know won't hurt business. In the meantime get preventative check ups like prostate digitals for men, breast exams for women, etc., and learn as much as you can about foods, what's really in them, and what are the effects of accumulating additives. I will guess that like the cover up of nicotine by Phillip Morris, and the whole food industry secret of the danger of trans fats, there are many other juicy bites of food hazard information that is not being disclosed because corporate money silences scientists.
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed" ~ Mahatma Ghandi
The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC)
If preventing health problems were promoted much more, then our health care system would save money, and people could be healthier. The investment of advertisements to show people how to prevent problems could save tens of millions in the long run for our province. Peoples' habits are alot to blame for many medical problems. Of course no matter how much some people take care of themselves, they will still get diseases and problems. People are also free to decide and choose how they want to live their lives. Because we have freedom and a free market economy, popular culture and society is also composed of contradictory forces which send mixed messages to us. For example, let's take fast food. Everywhere you go, on any media out there, and around the clock, we are bombarded with ads that associate feeling good with many foods that are ticking time bombs. Foods full of harmful ingredients like saturated and trans fats are offered then gobbled up by consumers. In every commercial, the tactic is to send the message that you will be feeling good, or the product will somehow bring you happiness. These food products may taste good for the time being, but they act like sludge on drain pipes and eventually need to be "snaked" or give the balloon treatment (angioplasty).
I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of what harmful things are in our typical every foods. Nitrates, and other preservatives, are they really linked to cancer? Possibly. What about the kind of feeds for cattle? What we don't know won't hurt business. In the meantime get preventative check ups like prostate digitals for men, breast exams for women, etc., and learn as much as you can about foods, what's really in them, and what are the effects of accumulating additives. I will guess that like the cover up of nicotine by Phillip Morris, and the whole food industry secret of the danger of trans fats, there are many other juicy bites of food hazard information that is not being disclosed because corporate money silences scientists.
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed" ~ Mahatma Ghandi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)