Six Ingredients To Avoid In Your Beauty Product

By Betsy Jabs
Source: DIY Natural

Body care and cosmetics are not regulated like foods, so many contain toxic chemicals. Here’s a list of the top six ingredients to avoid, and a list of homemade natural alternatives.

If you haven’t yet completely made the switch to all-natural homemade personal products (or at least reputable organic store-bought), consider this: your hair, skin, nails, and body are probably all stressed out and need a break.

Body care and cosmetics are not regulated like foods, so many of them contain toxic chemicals. Some of these chemicals are added intentionally, and some are contaminants or impurities that are released by other ingredients or created when certain ingredients are combined.

Over time, our bodies collect toxins in much the same way a bicycle wheel collects rust. All of that toxicity contributes to weight gain, wrinkles, breakouts, and dull skin, hair, and nails.” Kimberly Snyder, CN ~The Beauty Detox Solution

You’ll find an array of chemicals in beauty products on store shelves. Some have extremely low health risks, while others are known carcinogens or linked to other serious health problems. If you want truly “natural” products, you’ll have to learn to pour over labels and determine which ingredients won’t cause you to grow horns or a third eye. (I’m only *kind of* kidding about that.)

So if you want what’s best for your body, you can start by avoiding the following products in your beauty and personal care products:

Parabens

What are they?

Parabens are additives that possess antimicrobial activity, frequently used as a preservative in cosmetics (and some foods).

Why they’re dangerous

Concerns about parabens in personal care products have cropped up due to their ease of penetration into the skin. They have been shown to mimic estrogen in the body, interfering with hormone function. They have been detected in human breast cancer tissue, suggesting a possible relationship between parabens in cosmetics and cancer. (source, source)

Where they’re found

You can find parabens in things like fragrances (although they won’t be listed on labels as such), deodorants, makeup, lotions, lip sticks, shampoos, conditioners, body wash, and most other beauty products that contain water. Parabens are a family of chemicals, so they’ll show up under many names on labels.
ON LABELS, LOOK FOR: methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, butylparaben, and other ingredients ending in -paraben. 

Phthalates

What are they?

Phthalates are chemicals that are used as solvents, dyes, plasticizers, and as a solubulizer in many cosmetics and perfumes.

Why they’re dangerous

Scientists in several countries have agreed that phthalates can cause a range of health and reproductive problems. Phthalates can not only be absorbed through the skin, but also inhaled when found in things like cologne and perfumes. Studies have shown that phthalates can cause damage to the kidneys, liver, lungs, and reproductive systems. They have been linked to reduced sperm count, disruptions in hormone activity, and even liver and breast cancer. (source, source, source)

Where they’re found

You can find phthalates in products like perfume/cologne, shampoos, hand lotion, eye liner, eye shadow, mascara, lip stick, bronzer, nail polish, hair gels, deodorants, hairspray, and aftershave lotion. There are several forms of phthalates that may be lurking in your beauty products.
ON LABELS, LOOK FOR: diethly phthalates (DEP), dimethyl phthalate (DMP), benzylbutyl phthalate (BzBP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP).

Petroleum Byproducts

What are they?

Derived from crude oil, petroleum-based ingredients form a barrier over the skin, not allowing it to breath. These products are used by companies because they’re extremely cheap.

Why they’re dangerous

Because petroleum products form a barrier over the skin, they interfere with the body’s natural moisture-production, resulting in dehydration of the skin. Furthermore, the skin is the body’s largest organ, often assisting overloaded organs in the job of detoxification. When petroleum products are introduced to the skin they can interfere with the body’s detox efforts. Petroleum products have also been linked to premature aging of the skin and are a possible carcinogen. (source)

Where they’re found

Petroleum byproducts can be found in lip products, petroleum jelly, baby oil, hair products, skin moisturizers, sunblocks, deodorant, soaps, and more.
ON LABELS, LOOK FOR: petrolatum, mineral oil, paraffin, paraffin oil, paraffin wax, propylene glycol, PVP/VA copolymere, and even isopropyl alcohol! 

Formaldehyde

What is it?

A highly toxic impurity, formaldehyde is released by a number of preservatives used in cosmetics. The use of formaldehyde in personal products has been banned in many countries, but not in the US.

Why it’s dangerous

Formaldehyde has been classified as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). It has also been identified as a substance that is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by the US National Toxicology Program. Formaldehyde is also well known as a skin irritant. Yet, there is still no requirement for the amounts of formaldehyde to be tested in personal products here in the US. (Can anyone say “YIKES?”)

Where it’s found

Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives can be found in some nail polishes, shampoos, liquid hand soaps, body washes, nail glues, toothpastes, hair gels, hair smoothing products, lotions, and more.
ON LABELS, LOOK FOR: DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, quaternium-15, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, and sodium hydroxylmethylglycinate.

1,4-Dioxane

What is it?

According to the Environmental Working Group, 1,4-dioxane is “an unwanted byproduct of an ingredient processing method called ethoxylation used to reduce the risk of skin irritation for petroleum-based ingredients. Though 1,4-dioxane can easily be removed from products before they are sold, its widespread presence in products indicates that many manufacturers fail to take this simple step.” So I guess you could say it’s an unwanted by-product of an already harmful ingredient (petroleum byproducts) that is put into personal care products.

Why it’s dangerous

Several organizations, including the Environmental Protection agency (EPA) and the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), have classified 1,4-dioxane as a probable human carcinogen. It has been linked to organ toxicity, neurotoxicity, and birth defects.

Where it’s found

This contaminant can be found in most products that produce lather, such as shampoos, liquid soaps, body washes, etc. It can also be found in hair relaxers and other products.
ON LABELS, LOOK FOR: PEG (polyethylene glycol), and any other ingredients that contain “eth,” like “laureth,” “ceteareth,” “oleth,” etc.

Synthetic Fragrances

What are they?

Synthetic fragrances are added to products to make them smell good. These fragrances can contain a laundry list of chemicals that don’t have to be disclosed on labels, since most fragrances are a unique blend formulated by companies. (A fragrance is considered a trade secret that is actually legally protected!) Instead, you’ll only see “fragrance” listed in the ingredients.

For more information: 
http://www.diynatural.com/ingredients-to-avoid-in-beauty-products/.
 

Strontium, PFOA and toxic chemicals found in one-third of U.S. water supply

December 29, 2013
by: Ethan A. Huff
Source: Natural News



 (NaturalNews) You may want to think twice before further drinking or even bathing in unfiltered tap water, as a new report set to be published next year has found that a striking percentage of the U.S. water supply is contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides and other toxic chemicals. Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that an astounding one-third of U.S. water systems contain traces of at least 18 unregulated and potentially hazardous contaminants, many of which are linked to causing endocrine disruption and cancer.

Based on a nationwide survey of 25 unnamed water utilities, scientists found traces of the herbicide metolachlor, for instance, a pesticide commonly applied to conventional corn, soy, cotton, safflower, potato and other crops, as well as the heavy metal strontium, which is linked to causing bone problems. Other chemicals identified include so-called perfluorinated compounds like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which numerous scientific studies have found can cause thyroid disease and various types of cancer.

"Traces of 18 unregulated chemicals were found in drinking water from more than one-third of U.S. water utilities in a nationwide sampling," reports Environmental Health News (EHN). "Included are 11 perfluorinated compounds, an herbicide, two solvents, caffeine, an antibacterial compound, a metal and an antidepressant."

More than 250 potential hazardous compounds detected in tap water

Among the 25 water samples, more than 250 chemicals, bacteria, viruses and microbes were identified, but only 134 of these were detected in treated drinking water. As many as eight of the treated water samples collected contained upwards of 113 chemicals. According to the researchers, water samples were taken from a range of water utilities, including both large and small plants and plants using varying treatment technologies.

"The good news is the concentrations are generally pretty low," stated Dana Kolpin, a research hydrologist from USGS who helped work on the study. "But there's still the unknown. Are there long-term consequences of low-level exposure to these chemicals?"

Study reveals most water treatment technologies do not remove perfluorinated compounds

Of particular concern was the wide range of perfluorinated compounds identified in the water samples. These byproducts of various industrial processes, including the production of non-stick cookware and stain-resistant food packing and fabrics, was detected in most of the water samples, both treated and untreated.

"The perfluorinated compounds were at similar concentrations in the untreated and treated drinking water, suggesting that treatment techniques are largely unsuccessful," writes Brian Bienkowski for EHN. "Only one plant was successful at removing them, and it used activated carbon treatment."

This is all highly concerning, as a panel of scientists recently concluded that perfluorinated compounds, and PFOA in particular, are a probable cause of high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer and pregnancy-induced hypertension, among other conditions. Many of th(NaturalNews) You may want to think twice before further drinking or even bathing in unfiltered tap water, as a new report set to be published next year has found that a striking percentage of the U.S. water supply is contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides and other toxic chemicals. Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that an astounding one-third of U.S. water systems contain traces of at least 18 unregulated and potentially hazardous contaminants, many of which are linked to causing endocrine disruption and cancer.

Based on a nationwide survey of 25 unnamed water utilities, scientists found traces of the herbicide metolachlor, for instance, a pesticide commonly applied to conventional corn, soy, cotton, safflower, potato and other crops, as well as the heavy metal strontium, which is linked to causing bone problems. Other chemicals identified include so-called perfluorinated compounds like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which numerous scientific studies have found can cause thyroid disease and various types of cancer.

"Traces of 18 unregulated chemicals were found in drinking water from more than one-third of U.S. water utilities in a nationwide sampling," reports Environmental Health News (EHN). "Included are 11 perfluorinated compounds, an herbicide, two solvents, caffeine, an antibacterial compound, a metal and an antidepressant."

More than 250 potential hazardous compounds detected in tap water

Among the 25 water samples, more than 250 chemicals, bacteria, viruses and microbes were identified, but only 134 of these were detected in treated drinking water. As many as eight of the treated water samples collected contained upwards of 113 chemicals. According to the researchers, water samples were taken from a range of water utilities, including both large and small plants and plants using varying treatment technologies.

"The good news is the concentrations are generally pretty low," stated Dana Kolpin, a research hydrologist from USGS who helped work on the study. "But there's still the unknown. Are there long-term consequences of low-level exposure to these chemicals?"

Study reveals most water treatment technologies do not remove perfluorinated compounds

Of particular concern was the wide range of perfluorinated compounds identified in the water samples. These byproducts of various industrial processes, including the production of non-stick cookware and stain-resistant food packing and fabrics, was detected in most of the water samples, both treated and untreated.

"The perfluorinated compounds were at similar concentrations in the untreated and treated drinking water, suggesting that treatment techniques are largely unsuccessful," writes Brian Bienkowski for EHN. "Only one plant was successful at removing them, and it used activated carbon treatment."

This is all highly concerning, as a panel of scientists recently concluded that perfluorinated compounds, and PFOA in particular, are a probable cause of high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer and pregnancy-induced hypertension, among other conditions. Many of these conditions have reached epidemic proportions throughout the U.S., potentially as the direct result of failed water treatment technologies.

Then there is the issue of chlorination and fluoridation, both of which can trigger reactions with other contaminants in the water supply and create new deadly compounds. According to Laurel Schaider, a research associate at the Harvard School of Public Health, these and other water treatment chemicals may exacerbate the toxic burden of tap water.

"Chlorination and other treatment technologies will remove some contaminants, but will react with others," she is quoted as saying to EHN. "Some compounds may appear to be removed but may be transformed [into] a chemical we know even less about."

Sources for this article include:

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org

http://www.c8sciencepanel.org

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043356_water_supply_toxic_chemicals_perfluorinated_compounds.html#ixzz2oxLu2DE2

ese conditions have reached epidemic proportions throughout the U.S., potentially as the direct result of failed water treatment technologies.

Then there is the issue of chlorination and fluoridation, both of which can trigger reactions with other contaminants in the water supply and create new deadly compounds. According to Laurel Schaider, a research associate at the Harvard School of Public Health, these and other water treatment chemicals may exacerbate the toxic burden of tap water.

"Chlorination and other treatment technologies will remove some contaminants, but will react with others," she is quoted as saying to EHN. "Some compounds may appear to be removed but may be transformed [into] a chemical we know even less about."

Sources for this article include:

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org

http://www.c8sciencepanel.org

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043356_water_supply_toxic_chemicals_perfluorinated_compounds.html#ixzz2oxLu2DE2

What’s in Your Milk? 20+ Painkillers, Antibiotics, and More

12/28/2012
by Lisa Garber
Source: Natural Society

With the aid of innovative and highly sensitive testing, Spanish-Moroccan scientists determined that there could be up to 20 painkillers, antibiotics, and growth hormones in a single glass of milk. The researchers say that the traces are so small that consumers need not worry about adverse effects, so we’ll just have to take their word for it, it seems.

The scientists analyzed 20 samples of milk—cow’s, goat’s, and human—bought in Spain and Morocco, and found a chemical cocktail of ingredients added to the animal’s diet prior to milking or contamination through feed or on the farm. Some of the contaminants found in trace amounts include triclosan (an anti-fungal), 17-beta-estradiol (a sex hormone), and florfenicol (an antibiotic).

It’s worth noting that the image provided by the University of Jaen lists the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac twice in error. Their findings were published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

Advances in Food Safety

University of Jaen’s Dr. Evaristo Ballesteros marveled over their technique, which could be used to assess the food safety of other products. “We believe the new methodology will help to provide a more effective way of determining the presence of these kinds of contaminants in milk or other products.”

“Food quality control laboratories could use this new tool to detect these drugs before they enter the food chain. This would raise consumers’ awareness and give them the knowledge that food is…harmless, pure, genuine, beneficial to health, and free of toxic residues.”

While all types of milk tested contained chemicals cow’s milk was most contaminated. This is not surprising, seeing as cows are routinely given antibiotics, growth hormones, and fed questionable GMO feed. Unfortunately, you will probably be picking up some of these chemicals each time you purchase milk from big-time and conventional supermarkets.

What Milk Should You Buy?

If you do drink milk, there is always a better option than traveling to your nearest grocery store. Organic milk is superior to conventional milk, as the cows won’t typically be on an antibiotic, growth hormone, and GMO corn feed diet; they will likely be grass-fed and graze freely. But there is an even better milk than organic.

Raw milk, like organic, should not come from antibiotic-fed, hormone-injected cows. In addition, raw milk is not pasteurized, a process that destroys beneficial bacteria, transforms proteins, and ruins many of the other vitamins and nutrients found in the milk. It’s always smart to go one step further when buying raw milk to ensure safety, finding out a little bit about the farm and farmer the milk come.

Detoxing Your Body and Environment

Toxic residue in food is hardly limited to milk. The Daily Mail writes about earlier studies that have found fish with altered brain chemistry and sexuality thanks to caffeine, antibiotics, and hormones from contraceptive pills and HRT that survived treatment from sewage plants.

While some scientists say these trace amounts aren’t enough to affect people, many of them are stored in our bodies for great lengths of time, which can become problematic with frequent consumption. To this end, it’s important to limit our exposure to environmental toxins and poisons found in conventionally grown and prepared food and water. You can also take steps to detox your body naturally.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/the-cocktail-of-up-to-20-chemicals-in-a-glass-of-milk/#ixzz2Gd4fLGaH

FDA Approves Neurotoxic Flu Drug For Infants Less Than One

December 27th 2012

Written By: 

Sayer Ji
Source:GreenMedInfo.com

"Whereas the flu is self-limiting, the FDA's capacity for bad decisions is not...

The recent decision by the FDA to approve the use of the antiviral drug Tamiflu for treating influenza in infants as young as two weeks old, belies an underlying trajectory within our regulatory agencies towards sheer insanity.

Tamiflu, known generically as oseltamivir, has already drawn international concern over its link with suicide deaths in children given the drug after its approval in 1999. In fact, in 2004, the Japanese pharmaceutical company Chugai added "abnormal behavior" as a possible side effect inside Tamiflu's package.  The FDA also acknowledged in its April, 2012 "Pediatric Postmarket Adverse Event Review" of Tamiflu that "abnormal behavior, delirium, including symptoms such as hallucinations, agitation, anxiety, altered level of consciousness, confusion, nightmares, delusions" are possible side effects.[i]

Recent animal research on Tamiflu has found that the infant brain absorbs the drug more readily than the adult brain,[ii]  [iii]lending a possible explanation for why neuropsychiatric side effects have been observed disproportionately in younger patients.

The very mechanism of Tamiflu's anti-influenza action may hold the key to its well-known neurotoxicity. Known as a neuromindase inhibitor, the drug inhibits the key enzyme within the flu virus that enables it to enter through the membrane of the host cell.  So fundamental is this enzyme that viruses are named after this antigenic characteristic. For instance,  the "N" in H1N1 flu virus is named for type 1 viral neuromindase.

Mammals, however, also have neurimindase enzymes, known as 'sialidase homologs,' with four variations identified within the human genome so far; NEU1,NEU2,NEU3 and NUE4.  These enzymes are important for neurological health. For example, the enzyme encoded by NEU3, is indispensable for the modulation of the ganglioside content of the lipid bilayer, which is found predominantly in the nervous system and constitutes 6% of all phospholipids in the brain. 

It is therefore likely that neurimindase-targeted drugs like Tamiflu are simply not selective enough to inhibit only the enzymes associated with influenza viral infectivity. They likely also cross-react with those off-target neurimindase enzymes associated with proper neurological function within the host. This "cross reactivity" with self-structures may also explain why the offspring of pregnant women given Tamiflu have significantly elevated risk of birth defects (10.6%) relative to background rates (2-3%), according to a 2009 safety review by the European Medicines Agency.

Beyond the recognition of Tamiflu's intrinsic toxicity, there are two additional problems with the use Tamiflu in infants:

1. Infants do not yet have a sufficiently developed blood-brain barrier capable of keeping the chemical out of their rapidly developing brains
2. Their detoxification systems are not sufficiently developed to remove the chemical rapidly enough to prevent harm

The FDA's decision to include infants under one as treatable with Tamiflu is all the more disturbing when you consider that a 2010 study published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal found that of 157 evaluable infants (mean age 6.3 months) treated for influenza with Tamiflu, complications due to the medication were found in the majority (54%) of the treated group.

According to the study

Complications were recorded in 84 patients (54%), the most serious of which were meningitis in 1 infant (1%), pneumonia in 9 (6%), and otitis media in 2 (1%).

Are meningitis, pneumonia and otitis media (ear infection) acceptable risks for treating influenza?Apparently for the FDA, it is.

How about death? Is that an acceptable risk of Tamiflu treatment for flu, a self-limiting disease?

In 2011, the International Journal of Vaccine Risk and Safety in Medicine published an article titled, "Oseltamivir and early deterioration leading to death: a proportional mortality study for 2009A/H1N1 influenza," described 119 reports of Tamiflu-induced death. According to the study:  "of 119 deaths after Tamiflu was prescribed, 38 deteriorated within 12 hours (28 within 6 hours)."

The study concluded:

These data suggest Tamiflu use could induce sudden deterioration leading to death especially within 12 hours of prescription. These findings are consistent with sudden deaths observed in a series of animal toxicity studies, several reported case series and the results of prospective cohort studies. From "the precautionary principle" the potential harm of Tamiflu should be taken into account and further detailed studies should be conducted.

So, how did the FDA justify its decision to consider Tamiflu safe in infants under one year? Did it use controlled, randomized, placebo-controlled trials to ascertain safety?  Of course not. Testing drugs on infants is unethical, and no parent in their right mind would enroll their newborn in such a trial. Lacking definitive evidence of safety, the FDA's expanded approval in children younger than one year was based on extrapolation of data from previous results in adults and older children.[iv] This, of course, is inappropriate as it denies the aforementioned differences in the susceptibility to drug toxicity and neurotoxicity between infants and older individuals.  It also avoids proper consideration of the studies in the biomedical literature indicating its potential for severe, if not life-threatening toxicity to infants, children and adults alike.

Another concern, not addressed in the FDA announcement, is that as of Dec. 15^th, 2010, the World Health Organization has acknowledged that, based on over 300 tested worldwide samples of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 flu, resistance to Tamiflu is growing.[v]  Therefore, treating an infant with Tamiflu-resistant influenza would not only do nothing to combat the infection, but would poison that child and further disable their natural immune response.

The clear winner in the FDA's decision will be the bottom line of Roche, the manufacturer of thispatented chemical.  How much longer can the FDA continue to expect those subject to its regulatory decisions to maintain the illusion that it is interested in the public welfare? 

We must remember that infants do not get sick from the flu as a result of Tamiflu deficiency, or flu vaccine deficiency for that matter.  They do get sick from the immune-disrupting effects of synthetic chemicals completely foreign to human physiology (such as Tamiflu), and lack of vital hormone modulating compounds that result from adequate sunlight exposure (vitamin D3), and good nutrition.

For additional information on this topic view our research on natural anti-influenza agents.

---

Resources

• [i] Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Pediatric Postmarket Adverse Event Review on Tamiflu, April, 2012.

• [ii] Akiko Hatori, Joji Yui, Kazuhiko Yanamoto, Tomoteru Yamasaki, Kazunori Kawamura, Makoto Takei, Takuya Arai, Toshimitsu Fukumura, Ming-Rong Zhang. Determination of radioactivity in infant, juvenile and adult rat brains after injection of anti-influenza drug [¹¹C]oseltamivir using PET and autoradiography. Neurosci Lett. 2011 May 20 ;495(3):187-91. Epub 2011 Apr 2. PMID: 21443926

• [iii] Akiko Hatori, Takuya Arai, Kazuhiko Yanamoto, Tomoteru Yamasaki, Kazunori Kawamura, Joji Yui, Fujiko Konno, Ryuji Nakao, Kazutoshi Suzuki, Ming-Rong Zhang. Biodistribution and metabolism of the anti-influenza drug [11C]oseltamivir and its active metabolite [11C]Ro 64-0802 in mice. Nucl Med Biol. 2009 Jan ;36(1):47-55. PMID: 19181268

• [iv] FDA, News & Events: FDA expands Tamiflu use to treat children younger than 1 year, Dec. 12, 2012

• [v] "Update on oseltamivir resistance to influenza H1N1 (2009) viruses". World Health Organization (WHO). December 15, 2010. Retrieved December 30, 2010. "

Link:http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fda-approves-neurotoxic-flu-drug-infants-less-one.

Study Found Toxin from GM Crops is Showing up in Human Blood

May 31 2011
By Dr. Mercola
From Dr. Mercola's Website

A new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.

Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.

India Today reports:

“Scientists ... have detected the insecticidal protein ... circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women. They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation.”
Sources:
India Today May 11, 2011
Reproductive Toxicology February 18, 2011

Dr. Mercola's Comments:



Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from genetically modified (GM) crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:

* 93 percent of maternal blood samples
* 80 percent of fetal blood samples
* 69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples

Writing in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the researchers noted:

"This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF [pesticides associated with genetically modified foods] in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities."

This GM insecticide toxin is already showing up in fetal blood, which means it could have an untold impact on future generations.

Bt Toxin is a Built-In Pesticide

Upwards of 85 percent of U.S. corn crops contain a special gene added that allows them to produce an insecticide. This way, when bugs attempt to eat the corn they're killed right away (specifically their stomach is split open) because the plant contains an invisible, built-in pesticide shield.

The particular gene added to most corn crops is a type of Bt-toxin -- produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Genetic engineers remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn (and cotton) plants.

They claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in human stomachs -- and even if it survived, it won't cause reactions in humans or mammals ...

But studies are now showing that this is not the case, as Bt toxin is readily passing into the human bloodstream and animal studies have already shown that Bt-toxin does cause health effects in animals, including potentially humans. As Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, wrote:

"Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.

Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin, and authorities acknowledge that "People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt."

In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.

… The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn't wash off the plants like the spray does, nd it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version.

In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others."

GM Insecticide Poisons Also Showing Up in Waterways

Given that Bt toxin has now been confirmed in the human bloodstream, it should come as no surprise that it has also infiltrated the environment. According to one study, 50 of the 217 streams, ditches and drains near cornfields that researchers tested were found to contain Cry1Ab above six nanograms per liter.

The protein is getting into the waterways via corn stalks, leaves, husks and cobs that blow into the water -- a phenomenon that's incredibly common since farmers often leave such material in fields to help minimize soil erosion.

Eighty-six percent of the streams tested contained various corn material with the potential to transmit Bt-toxin into the water. Further, because the study was conducted six months after crops were harvested, it indicates that the GM protein lingers in the environment. Now that this GM toxin is showing up in waterways, it has the potential to devastate aquatic life and continue to spread, uncontrolled and unrestricted, across the entire United States and world.

GM Foods May be Leaving GM Proteins in Your Body

In case it's not clear, I want to reiterate that this new study in Reproductive Technology has confirmed that if you eat GM foods that contain the insecticidal Bt toxin, it appears likely that it will be transferred to your bloodstream.

As I mentioned earlier, as of right now about 85 percent of the corn grown in the United States is genetically engineered to either produce an insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup herbicide.

What this means is that nearly ALL foods you buy that contain either corn or soy, in any form, will contain GM components unless it's certified organic by the USDA.

There's very convincing evidence that eating these genetically modified foods spells nothing but trouble for your health. As Smith discusses in this interview, scientists have discovered a number of health problems related to genetically modified foods in general, however these studies have been repeatedly ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide.

In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy.

However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn -- which contains the BT toxin -- might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines. Now the evidence has come through nonetheless, as the study in Reproductive Technology shows that it does transfer, at least to your bloodstream (and the bloodstream of your baby if you're pregnant).

This is extremely concerning, as in this interview Smith also mentions an Italian study where they fed BT corn to mice. As a result, the mice expressed a wide variety of immune responses commonly associated with diseases such as:

Rheumatoid arthritis


Inflammatory bowel disease


Osteoporosis

Atherosclerosis


Various types of cancer


Allergies

Lou Gehrig's disease


I've gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States, EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "USDA Organic" label is filled with GM components. So you're eating GM foods, and you have been for the last decade, whether you knew it or not. You can thank Congress for this, and the USDA and Monsanto. What ultimate impact these GM foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects.

How to Say "No" to GMOs

If you don't already have a copy of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, please print one out and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Also remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.

You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

If you're feeling more ambitious, you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure from the Institute of Responsible Technology in bulk and give it to your family and friends. When possible, buy your fresh produce and meat from local farmers who have committed to using non-GM seeds and avoid non-organic processed foods as much as possible, as again these are virtually 100-percent guaranteed to contain GM ingredients.


Related Links:
GMO Poisons Found in Indiana Waterways
Why Did Officials Approve this Toxic Corn Chip that Creates a ‘Pesticide Factory’ in Your Gut?
Enjoy Pesticides in Every Bite of GMO Food?