|
|
|
|
CFK News, 12.1.08 An encouraging indicator of what the election of Barack Obama may mean when it comes to protecting our kids from environmental poisons was contained in a front-page story in the Nov. 17 edition of The Washington Post. According to the story by Post reporter Carol D. Leonnig, Obama wrote a series of letters to federal employees just prior to the election detailing his plans to beef up federal agencies and toughen regulations intended to protect workers and the environment that have been downsized by the Bush administration. As part of that reform plan, “(h)e even expressed a desire to protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s library system, which the Bush administration tried to eliminate,” the article noted. The closing of those EPA libraries, as was noted in a section of Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel called “The Great Library Lockout,” caused a great deal of consternation among staffers, as well as independent researchers, who were faced with the prospect of having to depend on the chemical industry for information about pesticides and other toxic substances. Their protests eventually galvanized Congress into ordering the libraries reopened, but they were never restored to anything like their original form – and a “library overseer” was installed by the administration to handle requests for information. The story went on to note how “Obama lamented to EPA staffers that Americans' health and the planet have been ‘jeopardized outright’ because of ‘inadequate funding’ and ‘the failed leadership of the past eight years, despite the strong and ongoing commitment of the career individuals throughout this agency.’” If Obama is serious about that commitment, it could perhaps signify that that the EPA will revive its efforts to evaluate the toxicity of pesticides under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The agency’s failure to deliver on its mandate to do so by the August 2006 deadline was the object of a massive protest by some 9,000 EPA staffers. The new administration, of course will be faced with myriad problems when it takes office. But none could be more important than matters that directly impact the health and safety of our kids – something that it wouldn’t hurt for parents to weigh in on as the government changes course in favor of more enlightened and consumer-friendly policies.
Flu shots: prudent precaution or unnecessary health risk? CFK News, 11.21.08 It’s that time of year again – the time when people of all ages are being warned to get flu vaccinations or face the possibility of falling ill and perhaps even developing life-threatening complications. Only this year, the hype has been considerably amplified via the airing of a series of TV spots from the American Lung Association (ALA), “The Faces of Influenza” and an even scarier web site entitled “Families Fighting Flu” that features a number of cases of children who died over the past few years after developing influenza or from flu-related illnesses. (The sponsors of the latter, it should be noted, include vaccine manufacturers, while an ALA spokesperson acknowledged the group maintains a “corporate partnership” with vaccine maker Sanofi Pasteur.) And whereas flu shots were previously urged for children from six months to five years old, that recommendation has now been extended all the way up to age 18 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But just how effective are such shots in preventing flu? And might your child become ill from the immunizations themselves? The answer to the first question is one the CDC admits is based on a guesstimate, since it doesn’t know for sure whether the strains of flu targeted by the vaccine in any given season will prove to be the prevalent ones. Last year’s vaccine, for example, was not a very good match, having been only about 54 percent effective, according to CDC spokesman Curtis Allen. But then, it’s never 100 percent effective, even under the best of circumstances,” he added. As for the second question, the answer is yes, with the CDC having logged thousands of adverse reaction reports, and many more probably having gone unreported. “Typically, about 10 to 25 percent of such reports are serious,” meaning they can be life-threatening and are likely to involve hospitalization, Allen explained. The CDC itself maintains an adverse reaction chart at its web site, on which some the deaths of 26 vaccine recipients have been reported following the shots, five of whom were toddlers from six months to two years old (another involved a baby under six months, to whom a flu vaccination would not normally be administered). While not all such reports are necessarily related to the shots, Allen acknowledged that “there are going to be individuals for whom the vaccine will not be satisfactory,” such as those with allergies to eggs. “You have to weigh the risks versus the benefits,” he contended. “For the majority of people, this is a safe vaccine that can protect against serious illness and potentially deadly complications.” One risk -- or so vaccination opponents claim – is that posed by the ingredient thimerosal, a preservative containing mercury, a toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage in children. While the CDC has consistently maintained that the amount of mercury in the shots is far too small to have any such effect, it does advise those for whom mercury may be a concern to request either a single-dose without thimerosal or the mercury-free flu mist” nasal spray. But the critics point out that even the shots without mercury have a number of other toxic ingredients, such as aluminum and formaldehyde. –“chemicals that can also damage the brain,” according to Tedd Koren, D.C., who heads the Foundation for Health Choice. As for the flu mist, it contains a weakened live virus (as opposed to a killed As for the benefits outweighing any risks, opponents such as Koren and Dr. Joseph Mercola, the proprietor of a popular alternative health web site, remain unconvinced that the shots really have much, if anything, in the way of proven benefits to offer. In fact, one anti-vaccination site operated by the Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute claims that the death rate from influenza in young children actually started skyrocketing after they first began receiving flu shots in 2003. Mercola, for his part, contends that drug companies have managed to “convince and really manipulate the public-health community” that the annual recurrence of flu represents a public-health crisis, which he maintains has been vastly overstated. Rather than vaccinations, Mercola recommends vitamin D supplements be taken during the winter months to compensate for the lack of sun exposure, which he believes makes people more susceptible to illness. So, should you or shouldn’t you have your kids get a flu vaccination (and perhaps get one yourself)? If you’re still debating the issue, here are links to four web sites on the subject for your consideration – the two mentioned above promoting flu shots, and two more opposed to them: http://thinktwice.com/flu_show.htm http://www,familiesfightingflu.org http://www.facesofinfluenza.org/
Yes, high fructose corn syrup does have ‘issues’ CFK News, 10.1.08 So perhaps it’s not so surprising that its safety is now being hyped by the folks who profit from its pervasiveness – represented by a trade group, the Corn Refiners Association – in a “Sweet Surprise” ad campaign aimed at reassuring consumers that it’s perfectly natural (“made from corn”), has the same calories as those other two sweeteners, and is “fine in moderation.” Actually, it’s not – even if the two characters in the commercials who start out cautioning their friends about it end up drawing a blank when it comes to providing any reasons why they shouldn’t be consuming it. For one thing, HFCS, according to research done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, can cause the depletion of the essential trace mineral chromium, which helps the body to metabolize insulin, fats and carbohydrates. For another, while regular fructose does not tend to produce a high insulin response, HFCS does, and thus is considered to have a very high glycemic index, meaning it raises blood sugar very quickly. As a result, some health experts are of the opinion that there may be a direct link between the widespread substitution of the less expensive corn derivative for sugar in soft drinks and other commodities and the dramatic increase we’ve seen in diabetes and obesity. Research conducted at Rutgers University, in fact, has found what were described as “astonishingly high levels” of compounds called reactive carbonyls in 11 different kinds of soft drinks containing HFCS. Such compounds, which are elevated in the blood of diabetics and are believed to cause tissue damage, according to a 2007 report at sciencedaily.com, are, however, not present in table sugar, the fructose and glucose components of which are “bound” and considered chemically stable (unlike those in HFCS). There’s also the fact that both the type of corn and the enzymes used to produce HFCS are genetically altered – and genetically modified organisms, or GMOS, are believed by many researchers to be a trigger for allergies, based on the limited independent testing that’s been done on them. (As is pointed out in “Chemical-Free Kids: The Organic Sequel,” an industry insider hired by the FDA was allowed to institute a policy toward GMOs that did not require them to be tested for safety.) Another study done on rats showed that while high amounts of glucose had no effect on them, similar intakes of fructose caused male rats to develop multiple health problems -- especially if they deficient in nutrients such as copper -- which prevented them from reaching adulthood and caused female rats to be unable to produce live offspring. 1 No doubt, the Corn Refiners Association’s answer to such concerns would be that HFCS is “fine in moderation” as is duly noted by the characters in those commercials. And, indeed, if like sugar and honey, we were buying it straight off the supermarket shelf, it might perhaps be possible to actually use it in moderate amounts. Unfortunately, however, HFCS is now so widely used by food processors that there’s no real practical way of controlling the amount we consume, unless we make scrupulous attempts to avoid products containing it. Perhaps the best way of doing so is to switch to organic processed foods, which, according to Dr. Charles Benbrook, chief scientists for The Organic Center, are unlikely to contain HFCS, even though there is an organic variety of imported HFCS (containing no GMOs) that is approved for use in such foods. As Benbrook puts it, “(HFCS) can be found in the organic marketplace, but you’d have to look hard.” But, yes, there are legitimate “issues” attached to the use of high fructose corn syrup – even if those nice people in the television spots can’t quite seem to remembers what they are. 1. Forristal, Linda, “The Murky World of High Fructose Corn Syrup.,” http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html EPA ban on residues of neurotoxic pesticide in food CFK News, 9.25.08 Score one for our side. In the time since “Chemical-Free kids: the Organic Sequel” went to press, a significant victory has been racked up in the ongoing struggle by environmentalists and children’s health advocates to get the most toxic chemical agents out of our food supply. Apparently, the hazards of the pesticide carbofuran were too much even for today’s industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency to stomach. At the end of July, the EPA announced that residues of the chemical would no longer be allowed in food sold on the U.S. market, either domestic or imported. In announcing the ban, EPA officials particularly cited the risk they felt the neurotoxic chemical posed to “small children who are more sensitive.” In fact, Steven Bradbury, director of the EPA's special review and re-registration division, noted that a scientific assessment had determined that carbofuran exceeded the agency's safety standard for one-and two-year-olds by 200 percent, As The Washington Post reported, “a million pounds of carbofuran are applied each year in the United States, affecting less than 1 percent of the nation's farmed acres, according to the EPA, but it is used more heavily in developing countries on crops including rice, bananas, coffee and sugar cane.” The economic effects of the EPA’s decision could thus cause growers in many countries that export such items to rethink their use of the chemical. In addition to the health risks it poses to toddlers, carbofuran has also been identified as a danger to farm workers and wildlife, having killed millions of wild birds, including golden and bald eagles, red-tailed hawks and migratory songbirds, according to environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council. The EPA itself estimated that exposure to the chemical with a week of application on alfalfa would kill 84 percent of a flock of mallard ducks, and was also a threat to honey bees. The decision, however, still faces a possible legal hurdle in the form of a lawsuit filed in federal court by the chemical’s U.S. manufacturer, FMC Corporation, reportedly the first company in 20 years to challenge cancellation of a pesticide registration.
Mainstream medicine having second thoughts CFK News, 8.31.08 The mainstream medical community, which up to now has adamantly defended the safety and effectiveness of childhood inoculations, appears to be having serious second thoughts about one that we’ve been told every young girl needs. An article and accompanying editorial in the Aug. 21 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine have called into question some of the basic assumptions about the cervical cancer protection supposedly offered by the much-hyped vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), Merck’s Gardisal. (To read the editorial, “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination — Reasons for Caution,” visit http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/8/86 ) The vaccine, which received FDA approval in 2006, has been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and heavily promoted in a TV ad campaign. Even some politicians have gotten into the act, such as such as the governor of Texas who unsuccessfully tried to make it mandatory for all 11- or 12-year-old girls in the state’s public schools. In addition to the doubts that have been raised by the nation’s leading medical journal, reports of adverse reactions to the immunizations, including seizures and convulsions (along with allegations that they may have resulted in more than a dozen deaths) have begun to cause serious concerns about its safety. An FDA/CDC evaluation, however, has dismissed such reports by noting that "given the large number of doses distributed, it is expected that, by chance alone, serious adverse events and some deaths will be reported in this large population during the time period following vaccinations." MSG now considered a prime suspect CFK News, 8.31.08 According to recent media reports, the obesity epidemic has now reached the stage where even toddlers as young as two have begun tipping the scales. One possible explanation for this freakish phenomenon: the prevalence of the flavor enhancer monosodium glutamate (MSG) in so many of our processed foods. A recent study of 750 rural, middle-aged Chinese men and women performed by the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and published in the journal Obesity found that those who used the most MSG were more than three times more likely to be overweight than non-users. Participants in the study were chosen because all ate very little commercially processed food, effectively eliminating that as a factor. but many regularly used MSG as a flavor enhancer. "Animal studies have indicated for years that MSG might be associated with weight gain. Ours is the first study to show a link between MSG use and weight in humans," noted Ka He, M.D., assistant professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the UNC School of Public Health. “We found that prevalence of overweight was significantly higher in MSG users than in non-users. We saw this risk even when we controlled for physical activity, total calorie intake and other possible explanations for the difference in body mass. The positive associations between MSG intake and overweight were consistent with data from animal studies." Even before these findings, of course, there were a number of good reasons why an MSG-free diet was advisable – especially for kids. Besides being associated with a variety of ill effects and adverse reactions, the additive was considered by experts like prominent neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock to be an “excitotoxin” that was capable of causing brain cells to die from overstimulation, especially in the very young whose blood-brain barriers weren’t fully developed. Now it appears that this ubiquitous additive may be a prime suspect in what is rapidly becoming society’s ‘biggest” health problem. |
Chemical-Free kids Copyright 2008 |
