Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Pampers nappies contain carcinogens linked to cancers

French study claims Pampers nappies contain carcinogens linked to cancers of the skin, lungs, bladder, liver and stomach


(NaturalNews) Millions of parents use them to keep their babies fresh and clean between changes. But disposable diapers, which often contain added chemicals designed to protect babies' sensitive areas from rashes and skin irritation, may be increasing their risk of cancer in the process.

New research from the French health association ASEF, has identified a number of carcinogenic substances in the popular

Pampers brand of nappies that it says are a serious cancer risk. One of these substances is petrolatum, a petroleum-derived lubricant that, while moisturizing, has been linked to causing cancer.

Depending on how this petrolatum was derived, it may also contain other 
toxic chemical byproducts like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. These cancer-causing substances are the same ones that generate when meat is cooked at high temperatures, creating that all-too-common "char."

These and other carcinogenic substances are associated with cancers of the skin, lungs, bladder, liver, stomach and more. And because they're essentially in contact with children's bottoms all day long, the risk is much higher than many parents realize – as much as "23 and a half hours a day," to quote the words of Ludivine Ferrer, head of ASEF, speaking to the French paper Le Parisien.

"While it's legal to have tiny traces, this is just too much from a moral perspective," he added, noting that the long-term effects of exposure to these chemicals are well-known to include 
cancer. If they were immediately discernible, he says, "the producers would have changed their manufacturing methods a long time ago."

Lawsuits target Pampers diapers for damaging chemicals not listed as ingredients

Many people aren't aware of this, but diaper manufacturers aren't even obligated by U.S. law to disclose every single ingredient used in disposable diapers. It's a legal loophole that allows companies like Pampers to get away with just listing "petrolatum" as an ingredient when, in all reality, there are potentially dozens of other substances also present.

This makes the cancer risk even more problematic, as it becomes increasingly more difficult to assess just how 
many chemicals a child is exposed to via his private areas coming into direct contact with plastics and other materials drenched in these chemicals.

A study published by Andersen Laboratories back in 1999, which was published in the journal Archives of Environmental Health, exposed the fact that diaper emissions are both strong and persistent. Rosalind Anderson, the study's lead author, cited several chemicals "with documented respiratory toxicity," which resulted in test mice developing asthma-like symptoms.

Among these chemicals are ethyl benzene, an endocrine-disrupting, neuro-damaging, respiratory toxin, as well as styrene, a carcinogenic 
chemical known to cause cancer. There's also isopropylene, a known neurotoxin that research shows is damaging to the liver and kidneys, and may also lead to the formation of cancer – not to mention the laundry list of plastics, adhesives, lubricants and other ingredients commonly used in disposable diapers.

At least two lawsuits have been filed against Procter & Gamble, owner of Pampers, over the chemical irritants used in several of the company's diaper products. Many parents and consumer advocacy groups have called on the company to stop using these chemicals and bring back the old versions of 
diapers that didn't contain them, but to no avail.

"The diaper business is a self-regulating industry, meaning it's up to the diaper companies to ensure they're compliant with safety regulations," wrote Anna Sharratt for CBC News. "Research on the issue is scant. Apart from the countless websites set up by eco-conscious groups or purveyors of organic diapers, very little scientific literature exists on the chemicals diaper manufacturers use."


Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Pepsi admits its soda contains cancer-causing ingredients

Pepsi admits its soda contains cancer-causing ingredients

(NaturalNews) When the Center for Environmental Health released test results showing that Pepsi intentionally covered up the presence of high levels of 4-Mel in its popular soft drinks in 2013, the company denied both the presence of this chemical in its beverages and the fact that it was dangerous. 4-Mel, which is short for 4-Methylimidazole, is a compound that is formed in the manufacturing of caramel coloring, and is a known carcinogen.

Since then, the drinks maker has fought against complying with California state requirements to place a cancer warning label on the beverages that contain the ingredient, which include not only Pepsi, but also Diet Pepsi and Pepsi One.

Now, a settlement in a class action lawsuit against Pepsi has gained preliminary approval from a federal judge in California. As part of the proposed settlement, Pepsi has agreed to ensure its caramel coloring's 4-Mel levels do not exceed 100 parts per billion in products that are being shipped for sale within the U.S. They will also be required to test the soda using specific protocols.

The soft drink giant also agreed to these measures in a different lawsuit that was settled in a California state court last year. The new settlement, however, expands the reach of these measures from California to the entire country.

Pepsi failed to warn consumers that its drinks contain known carcinogens

The lawsuit accused Pepsi of failing to warn people that its beverages contain 4-Mel, which California has officially recognized as a cancer-causing chemical.

A 2014 Consumer Reports test showed that the 4-Mel in Pepsi exceeded the permitted level of 29 micrograms per bottle or can, which would mean that they were in violation of common law and consumer protection statutes in the state of California.

In particular, this violates California's Proposition 65, which has been in place since 1985, and requires manufacturers to provide consumers with clear warnings when their products will expose them to toxic or cancer-causing chemicals.

The state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment set the cutoff at 29 micrograms because that level creates a risk of cancer of one in 100,000.

Citing a 2013 Mintel and Leatherhead Food Research report, Consumer Reports said that caramel coloring is the world's most widely used food coloring. At the time, Pepsi tried to say that because Prop 65 refers to exposure per day rather than exposure per can, and that the average amount of diet soda that its drinkers consume daily is less than a can, there was no need to place a warning on it. Consumer Reports disagreed, however.

"No matter how much consumers drink they don't expect their beverages to have a potential carcinogen in them. And we don't think 4-MeI should be in foods at all. Our tests of Coke samples show that it is possible to get to much lower levels," toxicologist Dr. Urvashi Rangan said.

Is drinking soda really worth risking cancer and obesity?

It simply does not make sense for people to expose themselves unnecessarily to an ingredient that merely serves to color their food, and consumers have the right to be aware of what they are putting in their bodies. The popularity of books like Food Forensics serves to illustrate the growing desire by Americans to know what ingredients their food products contain.

The cancer-causing caramel coloring in Pepsi is not the only reason consumers should steer clear of it. Soft drinks are also believed to be behind the nation's obesity epidemic. A UCLA study found that adults who consumed one sugary drink such as a soda every day had a 27 percent higher likelihood of being classified as overweight than those who did not drink such beverages. Moreover, drinking just one soda each day adds up to a total of 39 pounds of sugar each year! That means that regular soda drinkers can cut their risk of obesity and cancer in one fell swoop simply by giving up the habit for good.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Vaccines Been Tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup

How Long Have Vaccines Been Tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup? (Video)

Image: How Long Have Vaccines Been Tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup? (Video)
How long have vaccines been tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup?

Vaccines Been Tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup

How Long Have Vaccines Been Tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup? (Video)

Image: How Long Have Vaccines Been Tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup? (Video)
How long have vaccines been tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup?

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Vaccines Been Tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup

How Long Have Vaccines Been Tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup? (Video)

Image: How Long Have Vaccines Been Tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup? (Video)
How long have vaccines been tainted with Monsanto’s Roundup?

Saturday, November 26, 2016

7 ways you accidentally ingest toxins when dining out

The top seven ways you accidentally ingest toxins when dining out
Toxic dining
(NaturalNews) What's the best part of dining out? You don't have to prepare anything, you don't have to clean anything up, and it usually tastes great, especially if you order your favorite dish off the menu.

What's the worst part of dining out? Most of the food is prepared using ingredients that are processed and contain disease-fueling chemicals, synthetic preservatives and artificial additives. Even the water contains

Learn more:

toxic sodium fluoride. The meat, eggs and dairy products usually contain antibiotics and growth hormones that were given to the animals. Anything fried is cooked in cheap hydrogenated oils that contain industrial toxins you'll never even read about. You never get an ingredients list, either, when you eat at a restaurant, unless it's some healthy place that is proud to advertise vegetarian, vegan and organic options. Nobody is saying you should never eat out again, and nobody wants to prepare and clean up every meal they consume, but there's a price to pay for being careless, and it goes way beyond the tab and the tip at the restaurant. "Waiter ... check please!"

Even the prepared food and salad bars can be dangerous to your health

Exchanging those fat- and sugar-loaded main entrees for some soup and salad at the restaurant? Things could be getting even worse for you. What do you think is in all those salad dressings, besides toxic soy and canola oils? Do you think that the lettuce, cucumber and tomato weren't sprayed with cancer-causing pesticides? Besides Chipotle, there aren't too many restaurants that aren't corporate run franchises and chains serving up genetically modified foods as the majority of the menu choices. Even "fine dining" restaurants fail to offer much in the way of organic. You may see "grass fed" options or "low calorie" options, but those are few and far between.

Big question: How often do you eat out? Once a day? Twice? Three times? Some people eat every meal out, and the only food they eat at home that's hot comes out of their microwave oven, which also causes cancer. In fact, many foods that are reheated at restaurants are microwaved ("nuked"). Wondering where that acid reflux came from? Why do you constantly suffer from heartburn and indigestion? Got food allergies? You can't read the ingredients off the products when you dine out because there isn't even a label, so what now? Maybe it's time to shop local, buy organic, Google some natural recipes and stop eating out so often. Want some help?

Here are the top seven ways you accidentally ingest toxins when dining out

1. Don't drink their water, as it's almost always tap water. Nearly all tap water in the USA is highly contaminated with sodium fluoride, other people's medications, lead and other heavy metal toxins. Cheap filters don't change a thing either.

2. Don't use the salt, since it's almost always irradiated, iodized table salt. If all restaurants simply offered sea salt, that problem would be solved.

3. Expect that the soup is a collection of leftovers with meat stock made from CAFO animals. Confined animal feeding operations are nightmares where animals suffer from disease, and the meat is often contaminated with E. coli or salmonella. That's why most meat is processed with ammonia and/or bleach to kill the "24-hour virus" and the deadly bacteria.

4. Most bread (including from the bread basket, appetizers and sandwiches) at restaurants is loaded with GMO fillers, gluten that contains glyphosate and dough conditioners that contain chemicals.

5. If the meat is not organic, it contains artificial hormones and antibiotics. Restaurants make a fortune from buying cheap meat and selling it to you at inflated prices. From steak and chicken to fish and pork, most of these animals are abused and drugged to the point that those drugs are directly transferred into your bloodstream when you consume them.

6. Nearly every dessert is loaded with genetically modified, cancer-causing corn syrup as the sweetener.

7. Fried foods are nearly all cooked with hydrogenated oils such as soybean, canola or some other genetically modified crop oil.

Knowledge is power – if you put it to use!

Yes, knowledge is power, if you choose to do something about it once you have it. Restaurants may provide you with convenient, tasty food and good service, but what's the true price you pay beyond the bill and gratuity? Could the most expensive part of dining out be the health bills you incur days, weeks, months and years later? There is a cumulative effect from consuming toxins day in and day out – they call it cancer, diabetes, heart disease and dementia. These diseases are all preventable. Advice? Dine out in moderation, never eat fast food, and let your fingers do the shopping ahead of time. Check the internet for restaurant menus, ingredients, organic options, non-GMO foods and local "farm-to-table" options.

Just because you choose to dine out doesn't mean the poisons need to "rush in." Be the smartest consumer you know and stay "in the know." It's always your choice. Eat food with integrity!

Learn more:

Send Zakir Naik back or get him to S. Arabia where he has citizenship

Why empower a demagogue like Zakir Naik? By   Dennis Ignatius   - August 13, 2019 8:00 AM Whatever else you may say about ...