AddThis Feed Button "Frequently Copied, Never Duplicated"

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Holiday Help and Tummy Tamers

This comes from my newsletter, herbalYODA Says!, November 2011.  The information is still good considering canola oil is found in just about everything.
Canoloa oil is a liver toxin.
As is pepper, once you heat it pepper becomes a liver irritant.  Better to add after cooking. 
'Tis The Season: Tips for Surviving the Holidays with Better Digestive Health
It is always a challenge to come up with a topic for each herbalYODA Says! Newsletter. I don't have a system other than I try not to write about a topic I have covered before. I know too that I've asked many times for reader suggestions but this never seemed to supply ideas.
Back in the early years of this century I was motivated to write an article about fats: Nature’s Natural Foods - Fat Facts and Your Health found on my main domain,
The reason I wrote this article was because of a dietician (RD as educated under USDA guidelines) who often wrote articles for the coop I belonged to at the time. I wrote a retort to the article that and was dissed because I dared challenge the dietician's recommendation to use margarine, and never use butter.
About two weeks ago I was reading morning news on the internet, as I usually do, and came upon an article about a similar topic. The writer had contacted three dieticians (RD or registered dietician) for comments and each one of those suggested using canola oil.
For readers of HYS who aren't in the cognoscenti I am advising that USDA promotes a certain (corporate promoted) agenda via dieticians, so generally they promote this type of food propaganda.
I was so incensed about this that I looked up each one of these RDs and contacted them to try to pass on some facts. One works at supermarket chain in Illinois, one works at a hospital in Indiana, and the third is a nutrition science instructor educating future dieticians at a Tennessee college. Only the person from the grocery chain called me back but I missed her call, then called again with my message, and haven't received a reply.
Genetically modified canola oil is in just about every food you can find if you take time to read the labels. Canola oil is part of the “plant sterol” scam in things like vitamins, aspirin, and other products under the guise of giving you better heart health. You even find canola oil in 'health food products' more and more every day, and you wonder why all the cholesterol cheerleaders are alarmed over rising levels, even for children 9-11 years of age. As if cholesterol testing can make an impact on rising obesity levels that so worries everyone.
This excerpt from my article, Nature’s Natural Foods - Fat Facts and Your Health, explains more -
Nutrition researchers report that omega-6 oils and trans fatty acids, such as canola oil and all hydrogenated oils can lead to serious health problems. Trans-fats contribute to cancer, diabetes, high cholesterol, Crohn’s disease, cirrhosis of the liver, eczema, PMS, breast disease, ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, poor pituitary and thyroid function, heart disease, immune system dysfunction, sterility, learning disabilities, growth problems and osteoporosis.

It is best to avoid all hydrogenated and trans-fats, including canola oil and margarine. Canola oil is unsuited for human consumption because it contains a fatty acid called erucic acid. Erucic acid is associated with fibrotic heart lesions and is toxic to the liver. It goes rancid and becomes moldy easily. A recent study indicates that canola oil creates a deficiency of vitamin E required for heart health.

Nutrient-rich traditional fats such as butter have nourished people for thousands of years. Today butter consumption is down, yet cholesterol intake is up just 1%. Vegetable oil consumption (margarine, shortening and refined oils) is up about 400%
. “
Research at the University of Florida – Gainsesville, determined that as much as 4.6% of all the fatty acids in canola are "trans" isomers (plastic) also because of the refining process.
Erucic acid is a very–long–chain fatty acid and this in itself makes canola oil generally unfit for human consumption. This too is a factor in the development of fibrotic heart lesions. Chemists tell us that canola oil breaks down into the following components: 5% saturated fat; 57% oleic acid; 23% omega–6; and 10–15% omega–3.
Omega 6 oils are those that we get too much of in the Western standard diet. These oils are the ones we need to reduce and or avoid for health.
Another concern about canola oil is that it too monounsaturated for health.
If you notice, you'll find canola oil in pet food too.
Canola is deodorized in the oil making process as it has a very nasty odor in the natural state. Refining any canola oil and deodorizing it occurs at 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Any health benefit in this oil cannot be present as a result of “cooking” at high temperature.
Most know that oils high in omega 3 lose their nutritional health benefits when heated at even low level temperatures. When you cook with canola oil at high heat (because we are told it has a high smoke point) the oil distorts the fatty acid. High heat turns it into an unnatural form of trans-fatty acid that has been shown to be harmful to health. Fast food companies have turned to canola oil for preparing food under government pressure to help reduce cholesterol levels and fight obesity.
Many know that vitamin E in the correct form can be an effective tool in lowering cholesterol and preventing and reversing heart disease. In 1996, the Japanese announced a study wherein a special canola oil diet killed laboratory animals. Reacting to this information, a duplicate study was conducted by Canadian scientists using piglets and a canola oil based milk replacement diet.
In this second study published in Nutrition Research, 1997, v17, the Canadian researchers verified that canola oil reduced vitamin E to a dangerously low level.
In late January 1998, Omega Nutrition, a major producer of organic, cold pressed oils for the health food industry published a statement in a press release that says -
If you are cooking with canola oil of any quality, you might as well be using margarine. In the case of refined canola oil, the important health benefits have been processed away — leaving the consumer with the nutrition of ..., white flour — and, dangerous trans–fatty acids have replaced the beneficial omega 3 essential fatty acids.”
In the abstract of the Canadian study, the researchers made the following statement:
It is known that ingestion of oils containing polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) of the n–3 and n–6 series results in a high degree of unsaturation in membrane phospholipids, which in turn may increase lipid peroxidation, cholesterol oxidation, free radical accumulation and membrane damage.”
Vitamin E is absolutely essential to human health. When so much PUFA is available in today's diet, the demand evidently becomes more imperative because tocopherols control lipid peroxidation that result in dangerous free radical activity. This contributes to the formation of lesions in arteries and other problems.
Now that you know a little of the history about canola oil – thanks to Jim Lynn, here's a little more for thought -
Canola Oil is the suspected causative agent for Scrapie, a viral disease transmitted to cattle that were fed rendered sheep infected with Scrapie. Both Scrapie and Mad Cow Disease destroy the brain's ability to function. In the 1980's rape oil was widely used in animal feeds in England and throughout Europe. It was banned in 1991, and Scrapie in sheep has totally disappeared.
“Studies of Canola oil done on rats indicate many problems. Rats developed fatty degeneration of heart, kidney, adrenals and thyroid gland. When the Canola oil was withdrawn from their diet, the deposits dissolved, but scar tissue remained on the organs. Why were no studies done on humans before the FDA placed it on the GRAS (Generally Accepted as Safe) list?
Consumed in food, Canola oil depresses the immune system, causing it to "go to sleep." Canola oil is high in glycosides which cause health problems by blocking (inhibiting) enzyme function. its effects are accumulative, taking years to show up. One possible effect of long term use is the destruction of the protective coating surrounding nerves called the myelin sheath. When this protective sheath is gone, our nerves short-circuit causing erratic, uncontrollable movements.”
Reading over the text, one identifies these words and terms -
·         Canola oil is in everything
·         Canola is a trans fat
·         Trans-fats can lead to health problems such as high cholesterol, vitamin E depletion, immune suppression, Crohn’s disease, cirrhosis of the liver, eczema, ulcerative colitis, psoriasis, irritable bowel syndrome, poor pituitary and thyroid function.
I limited this list to issues involving integrity of the gastrointestinal system -
·         Liver function is important to healthy digestion. Canola disrupts healthy liver function and may lead to cirrhosis and keep your cholesterol level artificially elevated.
·         Fat soluble vitamins like E are needed for health and if they are not properly absorbed or depleted then all health is compromised. Vitamin E can help lower cholesterol without drugs.
·         About 70% of your immune system is in your GI tract and if it is not working then your immune system works poorly too. The same is in regard to thyroid function that has much to do with metabolism and is connected with pituitary function. Eczema is often considered a symptom of poor immune status.
·         IBS, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease do have a major impact on digestion and absorption of nutrients.
And now you say how does this concern digestion?
One new study shows that it is very important to eat vegetables, especially green ones. “The researchers subjected mice to a diet stripped of vegetables and found that after just three weeks, the mice lost 70 to 80 percent of a kind of white blood cell called intraepithelial lymphocytes, which, the press release states, "play a critical role in monitoring the large number of micro-organisms present in the intestine, keeping infections at bay and maintaining a healthy gut."
This is important because about 70% of your immune system functions in the GI tract. It is also important because about the same percentage of serotonin function involves your gut as well. You can see now that food and mood are directly related just as is immune strength. (About 70% of food intolerance issues involve decreased levels of serotonin. Hopefully you can see the link to all the drugs that alter serotonin function when nutrition might just be a better answer).
The original study as published in Cell pinpoints much of the importance of this issue, the need for a healthy gut mucosa (lining and coating), especially for the villi in your small intestine, and the importance of healthy bacteria.
In a continuing education seminar I attended focus on this subject and the importance of a health digestive system made some much directed points in support of my claim that you are what you assimilate. If you cannot assimilate nutrients because of gut health issues or poor liver function, and even poor gall bladder function, everything just gets worse.
I'm just going to include highlights here.  Hopefully there is enough to help you have a very clear picture of the importance of these issues because gut health concerns are rising much too rapidly.
·         Critical that you have good assimilation.
·         Critical that you stay adequately hydrated because if this is an issue you cannot properly absorb nutrients.
·         Critical to make sure your liver is in top filtering condition.
·         Critical to have proper iodine intake because the integrity of the mucosa needs this. This too is where you connect with thyroid health from your gut. Iodine deficiency is linked to gastric iodine and with atrophic gastritis (atrophic gastritis is one side effect of the new serotonin type anti-depressants which contain fluoride that will deplete iodine). Acid blockers contribute here too.
·         Critical to avoid acid blocker type meds or OTC products.
·         Critical to support the Liver-Gut-Heart “Circle of Life”.
While the gut health problems I listed above are an issue with canola they are the same - that for the most part - are the major gut health issues today. As this is rather complex I am not going to add more except that I want to specifically note the nutrient deficiencies that are connected with the current raft of these problems.
·         B vitamins, and especially B1, B2, B3,B9, B12
·         Iron
·         Calcium
·         Magnesium
·         Zinc
·         Selenium
·         Vitamins A-D-E- K (these are the FAT soluble vitamins)
·         Sodium Chloride
·         COQ10
·         EFAs
·         Amino acids, especially glutamine, arginine, and citriline
·         Hormone imbalance
·         Fiber – only 11% of the population gets enough fiber!
·         Flora *** a critical supplement
·         Low hydrochloric (HCl) and enzyme levels available for good digestions
Please consider the impact of other nutritional deficiencies caused by any prescription medications.  This is vitally important if your health care provider has prescribed an acid blocker because of the impact prescription drugs (especially many heart and psychiatric ones) have on your GI tract (stomach pain).
I'd like to add a note about vitamin A.  The integrity of the intestinal mucosa is highly dependent on this fat soluble vitamin. Non-fat diets limit absorption of fat soluble vitamins. Beta-carotene is not adequately converted to vitamin A by many people so you are best to choose fish oil based products or combination ones. The negative vitamin A studies you have heard so much about used only beta carotene.
Recently Dr. OZ told listeners to be very careful of this vitamin and limit your intake to 3500 units daily. Years ago the standard vitamin A product contained at least 10000 IU Vitamin A.  It is safe in the proper form at 25,000 units daily. It is also effective to prevent and reverse pneumonia but at very short treatment with a high dose. SO please check your facts before you buy into what celebrity docs spout in various venues.
Most studies are just recycled these days and not very valid as they are not based on any real science.  Peer review means just that all your cronies have read the article and made a comment.  Most of what you hear on the news or read on what you think are good websites are just reiterating the mis (dis)-information.
I am very sure there is much more that can occur, especially as time passes. I’ll put cell phones in this category for now.
What you can do -
·         First of all, be proactive. Read food labels and support the efforts to bring meaningful food labeling to all food.
·         Don't buy canola oil for any purpose and don't buy food products that contain canola oil. Call manufacturers and tell them you won't buy their products made with canola.
·         Avoid using margarine, including the so called “healthy“ products such as Promise or Smart Balance as these are both made with GMO soy and canola oils.
·         Make your own spread with one stick of softened, unsalted, hormone free butter and one half cup olive oil sold in glass bottles (plastic bottles leech toxic chemicals into the oil).
·         Use grape seed oil for high heat cooking, or health promoting coconut oil (Yikes! another 'saturated' fat). These oils have high smoke points and do not get as damaged when exposed to heat.
·         Eat slowly and chew your food thoroughly.
·         Eat smaller portions.
·         Avoid drinking liquids with your food so needed digestive enzymes are not blocked or diluted. Make sure you stay well hydrated.  If your tongue feels ‘sandy’ you are too dry.
·         Avoid or eat much less food from fast food outlets.
·         Clean your food thoroughly to remove pesticide residue and do the same even if it is organic. Remember the government wants to allow sludge in organic fertilizer.
·         If you are 35+ always use high quality digestive enzymes with at least your largest meal of the day, but at each meal is best. You may also need Betaine HCl.
·         Use the best quality plain yoghurt your money can buy (or make your own) and add plain fruit, vanilla extract or other natural flavoring. Avoid the products sold in the tiny packages as they are replete with additives and very overpriced. They also may be manufactured with non-fat milk and have artificial sweeteners.
·         Avoid using anti-acid pills. Unless you have been properly tested and know you have low stomach acid these pills can suppress your immune system, interfere with liver function, and block protein digestion. Using acidophilus pills, digestive enzymes, Betaine HCl, EFAs, or other natural approaches will correct this problem without drugs.
·         Never give anti-acid pills to an infant or small child even if prescribed by a doctor.
·         Eat real food. And remember, it actually doesn't take that much more time to cook from scratch.
·         Buy organic and buy local whenever you can.
Udo Erasmus, PhD, a highly regarded international expert on fats and oils, has said that the only safe oil to use for frying or baking is water!
An article related to GMO indicating the toxic effect of ingesting GMO foods, such as canola and canola oil.
Should you wish a more in depth consultation for liver, digestion, or other health issues, you may reach us for help through our Health Forensics program.  We are offering a 10% discount on all services through the end of January 2012.
Special products are available to help you with digestive rejuvenation.  Our clay capsules, Roopas Ayurvedic Herbal Tea, Okra-Pepsin, Full Spectrum Enzymes, and many more are available to help you with your program. All profits from sales help support this work.
CHI will be offering our Whole Systems Detoxification and Cleansing Program again in 2012.  This year long approach addresses every system in your body.  It includes the gall bladder too which we believe is an extremely important target organ to cleanse and protect.
Please consider making your tax deductible donation to our organization during this season so that we are able to continue our programs as needs and requests are increasing greatly.  You may do so at PayPal using the CHI email  Our thank you gift is a copy of our Rejuvenation Cleanse.
Search, Shop, and Dine using Good Search for CHI- Creating Health Institute
Celebrating 50+ years, blending science with the natural healing arts.

herbalYODA Says! is a public service and part of the long established Health Matters© series from CHI. TOC manages all educational services, publications and this newsletter. We're read around the world by thousands daily; please share our newsletter with your friends.  This newsletter is written by Gayle Eversole, DHom, PhD, MH, NP, ND, founder and director of Creating Health Institute (CHI) and The Oake Centre for natural health education (TOC).

CHI is a tax-exempt, non-profit 501(c) (3) organization since 1989.  We ask that you consider helping us continue this important work through your tax-deductible donations, and through purchases of our goods and services.  Donating directly via PayPal (membership not required), and searching the web or doing your on-line shopping at in support of Creating Health Institute helps us continue this important work.

" Frequently Copied, Never Duplicated! "     TOC Copyright © 2011. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013


Sunday, August 29, 2010

FDA Looking into Triclosan?

UPDATE: 8/29/10  Triclosan and antibacterial warnings -
Updates at Natural Healing through Natural Health -

New article here from Jill Richardson, compiling much of what we have been teaching about the risk of triclosan since the late 80s.

from Natural Health News...
Apr 09, 2010
In a claim filed Tuesday, the National Resources Defense Council says the FDA didn't regulate the levels of triclosan and triclocarban in the soap, two toxic chemicals that can cause problems with reproductive organs, sperm quality and ...
Apr 16, 2005
The main reason for my advice has been that these chemicals, such as triclosan, disturb the balance of naturally occurring staph bacteria on the skin's surface (epidermis). Now here is more convincing evidence. ...
Nov 01, 2009
If the product contains Triclosan, also be cautious: Researchers who added triclosan to water and exposed it to ultra-violet light found that a significant portion of the triclosan was converted to dioxin. Triclosan reacts with chlorine ...
May 26, 2008
But I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has some
Dec 26, 2009
These contain Triclosan and will kill off naturally occurring bacteria on your skin that serves to protect you from infection. Many non-effective anti-biotics are on the market today and some of these have very serious side effects.

UPDATE: 8/21/10 - Two Dangerous Ingredients in Everyday Products That Are Threatening Our Health
Triclosan and triclocarban are widely used in antibacterial soaps, body washes, deodorants, lip glosses, dog shampoos, shave gels and even toothpastes. Read more...
UPDATE: 7/30/10 - 

Health Group Sues FDA Over 'Dangerous' Antibacterial Soap

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is being sued by a nonprofit environmental group for what the members claim is dangerous “antimicrobial” soap, Reuters reports.
In a claim filed Tuesday, the National Resources Defense Council says the FDA didn’t regulate the levels of triclosan and triclocarban in the soap, two toxic chemicals that can cause problems with reproductive organs, sperm quality and the production of thyroid and sex hormones.
Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, is named as a defendant in the suit, but no specific manufacturers or retailers were mentioned, according to Reuters.
The nonprofit claims it first approached the FDA about regulating this soap and other personal care products for over-the-counter use more than 30 years ago, but no action has been taken.
According to the lawsuit, the FDA proposed a ban from interstate trading of both chemicals in 1978 but nothing changed until 1994 when some ingredients were reclassified, Reuters reports.
The FDA said in April that the ingredient triclosan has not been shown to be harmful
to humans and that further study is needed.
The plaintiffs are requesting the FDA be given a deadline to complete its study on the conditions for using these products.
posted April 2010: It never ceases to amaze me just how slow out US government agencies are slow to act to protect the citizenry. And they won't comment until sometime in 2011. Maybe an addendum to the health bill should require that the FDA clean up its political quagmires.

I've been warning about triclosan for at least 15 years, based on the science and at least the MSDS data.

What is so bad about triclosan is that is destroys what is referred to as the protective "acid mantle" of the skin, and creates a breeding ground for infection because it destroys the healthy bacteria on your skin:the healthy bacteria that is there to protect you from infection.

This is one time it pays to read labels and another to look to the use of natural castile soaps without fragrance and using truly health promoting skin lubrication like you can get from my colleague at Kettle Care.

FDA Warns of Risk in Antibacterial Additive
By Cole Petrochko, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: April 08, 2010

WASHINGTON -- The FDA has notified consumers that the antibacterial agent triclosan's safety data is being reviewed due to concerns raised in lab tests on animals.
Research from the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development found triclosan had thyroid and estrogen effects in animals.
The agent is a common ingredient in antibacterial soaps and washes, toothpastes, and cosmetics, all of which are regulated by the FDA.
The ingredient's profile was raised in January when Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, wrote the FDA to ask about a review of triclosan's use in consumer products.
Additional investigation was deemed necessary after animal studies showed potential negative effects of the ingredient, the FDA said in a prepared statement. Though studies are ongoing, the FDA does not currently have enough evidence to suggest a change to any consumer products with triclosan.
The FDA noted that although triclosan provided a clear benefit in some consumer products, the extra health benefit it offered in others was not as apparent.
The agency advised consumers that the ingredient poses no apparent danger to humans, but that soaps and body washes with triclosan may not provide additional health benefits over soaps without the additive; consumers concerned about its potential health hazards should switch to regular soaps without triclosan.
The FDA announced it will work with other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to study the effects of triclosan on humans, animals, and the environment.
The agency said it planned to publish its findings in spring 2011.
Chloroform Danger With Antimicrobial Soap, a 2005 post from Natural Health News
Nov 01, 2009
If the product contains Triclosan, also be cautious: Researchers who added triclosan to water and exposed it to ultra-violet light found that a significant portion of the triclosan was converted to dioxin.Triclosan reacts with chlorine ...
May 26, 2008
But I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has some ...
Dec 26, 2009
These contain Triclosan and will kill off naturally occurring bacteria on your skin that serves to protect you from infection. Many non-effective anti-biotics are on the market today and some of these have very serious side effects. ... 

Saturday, April 16, 2005:  Chloroform Danger With Antimicrobial Soap

It's now been over six or seven years that I have advised people not to use hand soaps with anti-bacterial ingredients. The main reason for my advice has been that these chemicals, such as triclosan, disturb the balance of naturally occuring staph bacteria on the skin's surface (epidermis). Now here is more convincing evidence.

The problem remains that this substance is not just in soaps, but many other items labelled as "anti-bacterial". It has been proven over the years that the process of hand washing, and the friction it causes, aids in the removal of dirt, grime and bacteria. A best bet is to get our natural hand cleaner with pure essential oils, and switch to one of our recommended 'safe'soaps, herbalYODA Says! 

By Kellyn Betts, Environmental Science & Technology

Washing dishes by hand with an antibacterial dishwashing liquid can do more than just ensure that the plates, glasses, and silverware are free from grease and germs, according to Peter Vikesland of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In research published this week on ES&T's Research ASAP website (es048943+), he and his colleagues show that the triclosan antimicrobial agent used in household dishwashing soaps reacts with chlorinated water to produce significant quantities of chloroform. The research also suggests that the reaction of triclosan with chlorine could be producing highly chlorinated dioxins in the presence of sun

Because of its antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral properties, triclosan is found in toothpastes, acne creams, deodorants, lotions, and hand soaps. It is also incorporated into a wide range of consumer goods, including kitchen tiles, children's toys, cutting boards, toothbrush handles, hot tubs, and athletic clothing. As triclosan flows down drains, it is making its way into surface waters and sewage treatment plants, the bile of fish, and breast milk, according to the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, a consumer group. Since 2000, the American Medical Association has been urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to closely monitor and possibly regulate the home use of antimicrobials such as triclosan. 

The formation of chloroform from triclosan is of concern because the U.S. EPA classifies the compound as a probable human carcinogen. Moreover, the presence of trihalomethanes such as chloroform in drinking water has been linked with human bladder cancers and miscarriages.

The reaction of phenols such as triclosan with free chlorine is well known, but Vikesland's research is important because "it ties the use of a household product [to] increased exposure to a disinfection byproduct," says David Sedlak, a professor in the civil and environmental engineering department at the University of California, Berkeley. "This research is important for demonstrating that the chlorination of triclosan can occur under environmentally relevant conditions," says Kristopher McNeill of the University of Minnesota's department of chemistry. "The fact that you can chlorinate triclosan [under] pretty mild conditions is troubling," he adds.

Since writing the paper, Vikesland's team has conducted follow-up research under conditions that more closely mimic those found during home dishwashing. The new experiments used EPA's maximum allowable residual disinfectant concentration of 4 milligrams per liter in tap water and were conducted at 40 C, which fits well with the cleaning recommendations of the Soap and Detergent Association. (The association's website says that dishwater temperatures of less than 33 C, even with sufficient detergent, are likely to leave a greasy film, while the hottest water most people's hands can tolerate is about 43 C.) 

Under these conditions, triclosan reacts with free chlorine to generate more than 50 parts per billion (ppb) of chloroform in the dishwater. When combined with the other trihalomethanes in the water, the additional chloroform could easily ratchet up the concentration of total trihalomethanes to 80 ppb, which is EPA's maximum allowable amount, or higher, Vikesland says. 

"Since chloroform and other trihalomethanes and disinfection byproducts are already likely to be present in the tap water, and since chloroform, the other THMs, and many other [disinfection byproducts] are highly volatile, there is a very real likelihood that washing dishes with triclosan-containing liquid could cause additional and troubling significant exposure to these volatiles through inhalation and potentially through dermal absorbtion," says Erik D. Olson, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental group. Olson calls the research "significant." 

Water treatment plants are working hard to keep the levels of trihalomethanes in tap water below 80 ppb, Vikesland says, noting that the admissible level has recently decreased from 100 ppb. If there is any bromide in the water, the level of trihalomethanes produced during dishwashing is likely to shoot up even higher, he says. 

The research makes clear that it is always wise to wear gloves when dishwashing, says Doris Day, M.D., an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University Medical Center. In light of previous studies showing that the levels of trihalomethanes in people's blood increase when they shower, the research raises questions about exposures to chloroform when antimicrobial soaps are used. At this point, however, no one knows what risk they may pose. 

Vikesland's research also shows that triclosan's reaction with free chlorine produces a number of chlorinated triclosan intermediates, including 2,4 dichlorophenol. In the presence of sunlight, these chlorinated intermediates could be producing dioxins, say McNeill and his colleague, William Arnold of the University of Minnesota's department of civil engineering. The two have recently demonstrated that sunlight readily converts triclosan in river water to produce dioxins (Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2005, 24, 517ñ525). But the more highly chlorinated dioxins that could be generated photochemically from chlorinated triclosan intermediates could be far more toxic, says McNeill. 

It is unlikely that such dioxins would be generated during dishwashing even near a window on a sunny day because the glass would screen out most of the ultraviolet light necessary to produce the dioxin. But the research suggests that dioxins could be forming near swimming pools in some situations. "There's triclosan in hand soaps and moisturizers. [If] someone who has triclosan-containing moisturizer [on jumps] into the pool Ö they're a potential source for chloroform [and chlorinated dioxin] formation," Vikesland says. The same is true for a child using an antimicrobial soap before getting into the pool, McNeill and Arnold agree. "You could produce a dioxin on the surface of your skin [that] gets absorbed through the skin," Sedlak adds. 

McNeill and Arnold say that the research also calls for more detailed studies of whether chlorinated triclosans are being released from wastewater treatment plants. Because triclosan is widely found in the environment, chlorinated triclosan could be a source of toxic dioxins in the environment, says Arnold. Research has already shown that the presence of triclosan can affect algae populations (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 162Añ164A). 

Copyright © 2005 American Chemical Society

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Our Best Wishes for Your Naturally Healthy New Year

"Medicine doesn't get to the root of the trouble. It only conceals it. The result is a more highly poisoned condition which may become chronic disease. All drugs are harmful to the system. They are contrary to nature.

Mark my words.

There is no way to health except the natural way."

("M" to Bond 007, in Thunderball.)

FLUORIDE: Protecting the Public From Harmful Dentist Dogma

No need for me to say more. You can use our search function to locate other articles we have posted on the hazards of fluoride.

The Basics of Regulatory Toxicology: Protecting the Public from Harmful substances By Paul Connett

A note to readers Some readers may find this bulletin a little daunting but please don’t be put off. Take it step by step. If you do you will know more about this subject than most of the proponents of fluoridation. We need you to be better armed than they are so please struggle if necessary to get on top of this. I am happy to answer any questions you may have on this topic (write to
Many promoters know little about toxicology So many of the statements and arguments coming from proponents of fluoridation betray their lack of knowledge of basic toxicological principles especially as it is applied in the regulatory field. It is one thing when such poorly informed positions emanate from lay persons but quite another when it comes from pediatricians or people at the very top of large organizations promoting fluoridation. Here is one shocking example. The appalling toxicological ignorance of the American Dental Association (ADA) was demonstrated when it dismissed the relevance of the landmark review by National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) on the very day it was published in 2006. The same ignorance was displayed by the CDC Oral Health Division six days later. Both organizations argued that the NRC (2006) was not relevant to water fluoridation because the panel (they claimed) only looked at harm in communities with fluoride levels between 2 and 4 ppm. There are four major problems with this position: a) The NRC panel looked at several studies in which harm was found at less than 2 ppm b) Chapter 2 of the NRC (2006) review consisted of an exposure analysis that concluded that certain subsets of the US population (including bottle-fed babies) drinking water at 1 ppm were exceeding the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) safe reference dose for fluoride (0.06 mg/kg/day). c) Neither the ADA or the CDC Oral Health Division appears to realize that there is a difference between concentration and dose. When comparing two populations and considering whether a certain concentration is safe or not one must first calculate the dose involved. This depends on how much water is consumed. As far as a harmful dose is concerned there will be an overlap between the doses ingested by individuals when comparing two communities – one drinking water at 1 ppm fluoride and one drinking water at 4 ppm – and even more so when comparing 1 ppm and 2 ppm. This overlap will occur even before we consider individuals exposed to other sources of fluoride. It is the total daily dose that is the critical calculation as far as harm is concerned. So both the ADA and CDC are incorrect when they imply there is a margin of safety simply because harm has been found at a higher concentration (in the studies cited by the NRC) and not necessarily at the 1 ppm used in water fluoridation. Concentration is not an appropriate basis for comparison as far as toxicity or safety is concerned. d) They also ignored the need to use a safety factor when extrapolating from small studies to estimate a safe dose needed to protect everyone in a large population.
I will now go into more detail on these issues below.
The difference between concentration and dose.
Concentration is measured in milligrams (mg) of fluoride per liter (1 mg/liter = 1 part per million or ppm). This can be controlled at the water works. Dose is measured in mg/day and this cannot be controlled as it depends on how much someone drinks – and some drink a lot – and how much fluoride they are getting from other sources. It is the total dose that has the potential to harm someone. The concentration (mg/liter) offers no guarantee of safety. It is actually worse than that, which brings us to part b) above.
The difference between dose and dosage. The same dose (mg/day) can have different affects on different people. There are two reasons for this: 1) because in a large population there is a large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance (more about that later) and 2) because the same dose can have a very different affect on people of different body weights. This is especially relevant when comparing the impacts of the same dose on adults and infants. That is why toxicologists use a different measure called dosage. In this they take account of body weight by dividing the dose in mg/day by the adult’s average body weight of 70 kg. Thus supposing it was determined that 7 mg/day was safe for an adult (for some health end point), then the safe dosage (sometimes referred to as a safe reference dose) which can be applied to anyone of any weight including an infant, would be 0.1 mg/kg body weight per day. 7mg/day divided by 70 kg = 0.1 mg/kg/day Going from safe dosage to safe dose for a particular body weight From a safe dosage we can work out a safe dose for any age range by multiplying the safe dosage by the average bodyweight for that age range. Thus for a 7 kg infant the safe dose for this hypothetical situation would be 0.7 mg/day and for a 20 kg child it would be 2 mg/day.
The EPA’s Iris Reference Dose (Dosage) Going back to the real world. The (EPA) determined a safe reference dosage (for the end point of moderate dental fluorosis) of 0.06 mg/kg/day (the so-called IRIS reference dose). Using this Iris reference dose we can determine the safe dose for a bottle-fed infant – at least for dental fluorosis. Assuming an average bodyweight of 7 kg, the safe dose would be 7 kg x 0.06 mg/kg/day = 0.42 mg/day. A 7 kg infant drinking 800 ml of formula per day made up with fluoridated water at 1 ppm, would receive 0.8 liters x 1 mg/liter/ day = 0.8 mg/day. In other words a bottle-fed baby consuming water at 1 ppm fluoride would get about twice the safe dose based upon the EPA’s IRIS safe reference dose.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s safe reference dosage for bone ATSDR’s reference dosage for the end point of bone damage was set at 0.05 mg/kg/day. A 70 kg adult would exceed this safe reference dosage if they ingested more than 3.5 mg/day (0.05 mg/kg/day x 70 kg = 3.5 mg/day). Such an adult could exceed this safe reference dosage by i) drinking 3.5 liters of water at 1 ppm (3.5 L x 1 mg/Liter/day = 3.5 mg/day) ii) drinking 2.5 liters of water at 1 ppm and getting 1 mg/day from other sources. iii) drinking 1.5 liters of water at 1 ppm and getting 2 mg/day from other sources. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (DHHS) report from 1991 estimated that the range of exposure of the American adult was 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day from all sources.
The large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance In any large population we can anticipate a very large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance. Like other human traits such sensitivity follows a normal distribution curve (the famous bell-shaped curve). The average person will have an average response but at the two tails – we will have people who are very sensitive at one end and very resistant at the other. Typically we assume some people are going to be 10 times more sensitive than others. This is then used to generate a safety factor of 10 (sometimes referred to as the intra-species safety factor). Thus if we find harm in a small human study and wish to determine the level that would protect everyone in a large population from that harm this is what we do. We take the dose, which has been found to cause no harm (the so-called no observable adverse effect level or NOAEL) and divide that dose by 10 to give a safe dose for the most sensitive individual in the population. Frequently we don’t have a NOAEL and so we have to use a LOAEL (the lowest observable adverse effect level) and divide that by 100. Sometimes this process is corrupted and it is the LOAEL not the NOAEL that is divided by 10.
Margin of Safety Analysis Applying these calculations in a real world situation is called a Margin of Safety Analysis and shockingly it is very seldom considered by people who promote fluoridation. They simply use the very crude and highly misleading approach of comparing the concentration used in the study group with the concentration of the fluoride in the water of the fluoridated population as discussed above.
An example of a Margin of Safety analysis using an IQ study Here I will attempt a real world calculation for lowered IQ. I will use the study by Xiang et al. 2003 who reported a threshold for lowering of IQ at 1.9 ppm of fluoride in the water. Our first task is to estimate the dose range this represents for the children in the study – which of course, will depend on how much water they drink and how much they get from other sources. We believe very few of these rural Chinese children use fluoridated toothpaste and thus their daily dose comes largely from the water. • If they drank 2 liters of water per day at 1.9 mg/liter their daily dose would be (2 L x 1.9 mg/L ) = 3.8 mg/day. • If they drank 1 liter of water per day their daily dose would be 1.9 mg/day • If they drank 0.5 liters of water per day their daily dose would be approx 1 mg/day. In other words a reasonable estimate of the range of dose leading to a lowered IQ was approximately 1- 4 mg/day. If we treat this as a NOAEL the safe range of doses of fluoride to protect the most sensitive child in a large population would be 0.1 to 0.4 mg/day (1-4 mg/day divided by 10). In other words we wouldn’t want a child in a large population drinking more than 400 ml (0.4 L) of water (0.4 liters/day x 1 mg/liter = 0. 4 mg/day). If the Xiang’s et al. study is valid a responsible regulatory authority would not allow water fluoridation. Little wonder then that fluoridation promoters are doing everything they can to criticize the methodology of the Xiang et al. study and the methodology of all the other 36 studies (out of 43) that have found a lowering of IQ associated with drinking naturally occurring fluoridated water ranging from 0.9 to 11.5 ppm. Fourteen of the studies, ten of which were part of the 27 studies reviewed in the meta analysis carried out by the Harvard team (Choi et al., 2012), found a lowering of IQ at or lower than 3 ppm. Using the same calculation as above the lowering of IQ was associated with a range of fluoride from 1.5 – 6 mg/day in these fourteen studies. Thus dividing by the safety margin of 10 a dose estimated to be safe for the most sensitive child in a large population would range from 0.15 to 0.6 mg/day. Even if we take the highest (i.e. least conservative) estimate, such a dose would be exceeded by a child drinking about two large glasses of 1 ppm fluoridated water per day (it could be worse than that because I am using these doses as NOAELs and not LOAELs).
US EPA Office of Water is Not Doing its job. Using a large amount of taxpayers’ money the US EPA paid the NRC to do the review of their safe drinking water standards discussed above. When the NRC panel released its report in March 2006 it concluded that the EPA’s current safe drinking water standard of 4 ppm (both the MCL and the MCLG are set at 4 ppm) were not protective of health. The panel recommended that the EPA Office of Water perform a new risk assessment and determine a new safe MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal).
The difference between an MCL and an MCLG The MCL (or maximum contaminant level) for the contaminant in question is a federally enforceable standard and for fluoride it was set at 4 ppm in 1986 by the EPA Office of Water. The MCLG (or maximum contaminant level goal) is a goal based upon the best science as far as determining harm is concerned with a margin of safety analysis applied sufficient “to protect the most vulnerable from known and reasonably anticipated health effects.” As the name suggests this is not a standard but an ideal goal. Incredibly this was also set at 4 ppm for fluoride in 1986. What frequently happens for naturally occurring contaminants (e.g. arsenic) is that the economic costs of removing the contaminant to the desired goal (i.e. MCLG) is prohibitively expensive and so a compromise is set between the ideal goal and what can be achieved economically. It is this compromise level, which is the MCL. For arsenic - because it is a known human carcinogen - the MCLG is set at 0. The MCL is set at 10 parts per billion (ppb).
The EPA has not determined a new MCLG after 7 years It is extremely disturbing that after nearly 7 years the EPA’s Office of Water has not completed the needed risk assessment to determine a new MCLG. Had the EPA used any one of several end points finding harm in the NRC (2006) review (but particularly the IQ studies) and performed an appropriate margin of safety analysis as discussed above a new MCLG would have to be set well below 1 ppm and thus end water fluoridation immediately. However, it may be that the EPA’s Office of Water is not anxious to remove the rug from under the program that the DHHS (or its preceding agencies) have championed for over 68 years.
Going from a safe reference dose to an MCLG for fluoride Once one has determined a safe dose sufficient to protect for the full range of sensitivity in a large population the following steps are needed to determine a safe drinking water standard or in this case the MCLG (the maximum contaminant level goal). We will use another real world example. As explained above using the 14 IQ studies that found a lowering of IQ at 3 ppm or lower a conservative safe dose would be 0.6 mg/day (actually more conservatively it would be 0.15 mg/day). Now we would have to subtract from this the dose ingested from other fluoride sources. For many children this would be well over 0.6 mg/day (from swallowing toothpaste and food sources). Thus the regulatory agency would have to conclude that given current exposures to fluoride no extra fluoride could be condoned. Thus the MCLG would have to be set at ZERO ppm (like arsenic and lead) – and that dear readers would be the end, finito, morte for water fluoridation!* This looks like a clear example of bad politics keeping fluoridation afloat. If you can follow the above arguments you will understand this and be in a better position to argue the case. Given a fair hearing, an application of honest and standard risk assessment procedures and an open-minded judge fluoridation would be over. It is a matter of simple arithmetic and scientific integrity. There’s the rub. Between that arithmetic and this result are powerful political forces who – for reasons I for one cannot fathom - feel the need to keep this practice alive at any cost. That cost today probably includes the lowering of the IQ of our children. The shift in IQ maybe small, but as Philippe Grandjean (one of the authors of the Harvard meta-analysis by Choi et al, 2012) in his new book (Only Once Chance) explains, a small shift in IQ in the whole population is incredibly serious. For example, a negative shift of 5 IQ points would halve the number of geniuses in our society and double the number of mentally handicapped.
How you can help protect our children We urge you to support FAN’s mission to educate as many citizens, decision-makers and media persons about fluoridation’s dangers – as well as the political forces that are keeping those dangers hidden from the public - as possible. We need education not fluoridation. Please help us end this unacceptable practice immediately.
*Completing the MCLG calculation Had the number after subtraction of other sources of fluoride from the safe dose yielded a number greater than zero then a MCLG would be determined on the basis of an estimate of how much water people drink per day. Typically the EPA assumes that the average person drinks 2 liters of water per day. However, this assumption does not protect a higher-than-average water drinker. Thus at this point the EPA would have to determine what percentage of the population it wishes to protect. In the 1986 derivation of the MCLG the EPA derived a safe dose of 8mg/day. Then ignoring other sources of fluoride, they assumed an average water consumption was 2 liters per day and thus declared that 4 mg/liter was a safe level. i.e. if someone drank two liters of water at 4 ppm per day they would get 8 mg/day, 2 L/day x 4mg/L = 8 mg / day.
For more information on Margin of Safety calculations and risk assessment procedures please see chapter 20 in The Case Against Fluoride, by Connett, Beck and Micklem (Chelsea Green, 2010)