ＯＮＥグループニュース
「記事を読む」をクリックして記事の内容をご覧下さい。
このＵＲＬを使い、ＲＳＳフィードにより配信することもできます。（英語のみ）:- http://rss.onegrp.com/OGnotices.xml
Senator Acts on Toxic Baby Products Report
Senator Acts on Toxic Baby Products Report
Source: The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
Date: June 3, 2009
Web: www.safecosmetics.org
In April, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.- USA), a mother and lawmaker, responded to the Campaign's "No More Toxic Tub" report by introducing the Safe Baby Products Act, which directs the Food and Drug Administration to investigate and regulate hazardous contaminants in personal care products for kids.
Sen. Gillibrand's bill is a good step forward. It would give parents the right to know what's in the bath products they use on their kids, and would give the FDA the authority to keep some dangerous chemicals out of children's bath products.
The next step: all-ages safety. We have our sights set on a total overhaul of cosmetics laws, which would allow the FDA to fully assess and ensure the safety of ingredients in all personal care products before they hit store shelves. 記事を読むHazardous pesticides
Hazardous pesticides - CHOICE investigation reveals many chemicals freely available in Australia are no longer registered in Europe because of safety concerns.
Source: CHOICE Online
Date: April 2009
Full Link
In brief
* Synthetic pyrethroids have long been hailed a safer option to organophosphate pesticides, but several studies show they can adversely affect the health of future generations.
* The Australian regulator’s permissive, wait-and-see approach to pesticide regulation is out of step with global best practice.
Cockroach baits, termite and ant treatments, household surface sprays, flea shampoos and head lice treatments are just some of the products we regularly use in our battle against household pests – but many contain ingredients that could seriously affect our health and that of our children.
The downside of keeping your home pest-free is that chemical residues can linger in the air and soil, and on floors, carpets and indoor surfaces, where we can breathe them in or absorb them through the skin. Some chemicals can have immediate and acute poisoning effects, while others can accumulate and remain in our bodies for years, adding to our chemical load every time we give the kitchen surface a spray or the ant nest a dusting.
CHOICE found many chemicals no longer registered in the European Union (EU) or soon to be removed – either because they were deemed to pose a risk or insufficient information was provided to permit their use – are widely used in household insecticides in Australia. See below.
Chemical Class / family Approved for use in EU? Registered for use in Australia? Examples of household products containing chemical as active ingredient
Chlorpyrifos Organophosphate No Yes Cockroach baits, ant killer
Malathion/maldison Organophosphate No Yes Insect killer
Allethrin Synthetic pyrethroid No Yes Mosquito zappers and coils
Bioallethrin Synthetic pyrethroid No Yes Insect surface sprays
Bioresmethrin Synthetic pyrethroid No Yes Insect surface sprays
Permethrin Synthetic pyrethroid No (A) Yes - marked for review Fly/mosquito surface sprays, flea killers, pet shampoos and flea collars
Fenoxycarb Carbamate No Yes Flea and cockroach bombs
Pyriproxyfen Pyridine No Yes Cat flea collar
A) Insect products are no longer on the market; veterinary products will be removed by October 2009.
CHOICE verdict
Even if the scientific evidence is not yet comprehensive, enough information is available to make us question our assumption that there are “safe” exposure levels of toxic chemicals. Rather than managing hazardous chemicals merely by restricting where and how they’re applied, CHOICE believes Australian regulators should broaden their focus and investigate a chemical’s endocrine disruption potential when assessing its toxicity.
We urge the Australian government to apply the precautionary principle to all chemicals and place the burden of proof on manufacturers and importers that a chemical is safe, rather than simply giving them the benefit of the doubt.
It must be safe... right?
Simply because a pesticide is available for sale doesn’t automatically mean it’s safe. “Numerous now-banned pesticides were once thought to be safe to use, but have since been implicated in many cases of cancer and other health issues,” says environmentalist and author Tanya Ha in the CHOICE book The Australian Green Consumer Guide.
However, currently registered pesticides still include substances known or suspected to cause cancer, neurological and reproductive problems, whether individually or as combination of compounds. For example, the pesticide endosulfan is banned in more than 50 countries but still permitted for use in Australia on various fruits and vegetables.
The products pictured below all contain chemicals that are no longer registered in the EU, and while we cannot state with certainty the reason why, even the fact there’s insufficient data for that chemical should surely be reason enough to avoid it. Some Australian insecticides contain suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), a particularly nasty group of compounds, see Endocrine-disrupting chemicals, below. The problem in Australia is that our regulatory authorities regularly fail to adopt the precautionary principle when it comes to approving chemicals for use here.
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) disrupt the network of glands and organs in the human body that secrete hormones which regulate growth, metabolism, reproduction and physiological functions. EDCs can mimic or block a hormone, which is of particular concern for unborn babies as their development depends on availablility of certain hormones at certain times.
EDCs have been linked to health problems ranging from acute childhood leukaemia and other cancers to neurobehavioural effects, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as effects on the reproductive and immune systems.
Speaking at the 2007 Consumers International World Congress in Sydney, Dr Michael Hansen, a US ecologist and expert on pesticides, named 57 pesticides of concern as endocrine disruptors, including allethrin, permethrin, bioallethrin, chlorpyrifos and malathion. “New studies show adverse effects at very low levels of exposure,” he said.
Conclusions of studies
* Various types of insecticide exposure (during pregnancy and early childhood) may be a risk factor for childhood acute leukaemia. Insecticidal shampoo treatment for head lice was also associated with childhood acute leukaemia.
* Detectable levels of chlorpyrifos were present in about two-thirds of blood samples taken from mothers and newborns at delivery in households where this organophosphate pesticide was used during pregnancy. At age three, highly exposed children scored lower on psychomotor and mental development indices; previous experimental work had shown links between chlorpyrifos exposure and neurocognitive developments in rats.
* Residential use of pyrethroid pesticides represents the most important risk factor for children’s exposure to pyrethroid insecticides.
* Ingestion of permethrin in house dust contributes to children’s exposure to this pyrethroid.
Deregistered there, permitted here
The EU is widely recognised as the world leader in chemical regulation, employing a systematic approach to reappraising chemicals to ensure public health. For this investigation, CHOICE collaborated with Jo Immig, environmental scientist, author and coordinator of the National Toxics Network, who waded through pages of lists of chemicals to find which are no longer registered in the EU. “The EU information is almost impenetrable,” she says, “as if it were deliberately obscured so ordinary people can’t make sense of it easily.”
The European Union has no list as such of deregistered products, only a “non-inclusion” list, buried in annexes and very difficult to find. For the purposes of this investigation, we focused only on chemicals the EU has not approved for use in biocidal products. This includes pest control products such as insecticides.
Combing through this list, it is not easy to find out whether a chemical has been deregistered due to its potential effects on human health or the environment, as the list also includes chemicals for which no complete dossier is available. This is probably to avoid creating a list of banned products.
Europe leads the way
In 2006 the newly created REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals) legislation created a single system for both new and existing chemicals, replacing 40 pieces of legislation that existed within the EU member countries. This system requires chemical manufacturers and importers to submit to the regulator a registration dossier that includes technical and safety data for each substance, new or existing (unless it’s specifically exempted).
“No data, no market” is a key principle of the European legislation, which means if a manufacturer or importer opts not to provide all the required toxicological assessments for a certain substance, it will no longer be included on the list of registered chemicals.
Australia lags behind
Australia’s approach to chemical regulation is very different from Europe’s and involves a multitude of authorities at various levels of government. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is responsible for regulating pesticides. On its website, APVMA assures consumers that new products are subject to “a rigorous scientific assessment” process before they are registered.
Older, registered chemicals undergo a review, but only if new information suggests there’s a risk. And the review process can drag on for years. For example, oganophosphates diazinon, chlorpyrifos and malathion/maldison have been under review for 10 years or more, despite suspicions about their safety.
Permethrin has just made it onto the list of chemicals for review in household chemicals, which could take years. Meanwhile, veterinary products and insect repellents containing permethrin will no longer be permitted in the EU from October this year. Befenthrin and bioresmethrin were reviewed by APVMA and a decision made to continue to allow their use in Australia. Neither are registered in Europe.
Questioned about the slowness of its review process, APVMA told us it had, as an interim measure, “significantly dealt with concerns” that led to the review of chlorpyrifos and malathion/maldison. In 2000, the concentration and package size of chlorpyrifos-containing products was restricted for household use, and the concerns that led to the review of malathion/maldison (toxicity of its breakdown products) had been “substantially addressed” and the number of registered products reduced. Neither review, however, has been finalised and products containing these chemicals, such as cockroach baits and insect killers, are still on the shelves. Why not err on the safe side and ban these chemicals altogether in products for household use?
Experts CHOICE contacted agree our regulatory approach needs to change. “Current regulatory practices give chemical manufacturers the benefit of the doubt,” says Dr Alison Bleaney, a Tasmanian GP and environmental campaigner. “Substances can be removed from the market only if their health impacts can be demonstrated with scientific certainty. This burden of proof needs to be shifted as products should not be on the market until they can be proven to be safe.”
Dr Liz Hanna from the Public Health Association Australia agrees: “When several high quality methodology studies indicate there are health hazards, and chemicals have consequently been withdrawn in other countries, we can’t understand why Australia is so slow in responding.”
Classes of chemicals
Organophosphates
Organophosphates inhibit an enzyme, cholinesterase, required for normal nerve function in their target pests. They are more toxic than pyrethrins, pyrethroids and carbamates. Organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos and malathion/maldison are used in domestic pest control products in Australia. Chlorpyrifos has been banned in the US for domestic use since 2000, after authorities found unacceptable risks to children’s neurological and behavioural development. In 2007, under its Biocidal Products Directive, the EU decided to remove from the market pest control products containing chlopyrifos.
Pyrethrins
Pyrethrins and their synthetic derivatives, pyrethroids, also interfere with the nerve function of their target pests. Because of their low toxicity to humans and other mammals, synthetic pyrethroids such as allethrin, bioresmethrin and permethrin have long been hailed as safer alternatives to organophosphate pesticides. However, recent studies have highlighted problems with their long-term safety and endocrine disruptive effects.
Carbamates
Carbamate pesticides also work by inhibiting cholinesterase. Various carbamates are used in domestic pest control. In Australia, fenoxycarb is commonly found in ant killer and roach bombs. However, in the EU, insecticides containing fenoxycarb have not been approved for use in such products since September 2006.
Which is the least hazardous to humans?
At the very top of any label, the signal heading with a hazard warning indicates how poisonous a product is.
* No signal heading indicates the lowest hazard.
* CAUTION means it’s a low hazard with some potential for causing harm.
* POISON is the strongest warning, implying it’s a moderate hazard with a strong potential for causing harm.
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) recently added a section to its website designed to assist consumers to choose a product that’s right for them.
Children the most vulnerable
The most common way people are exposed to pesticides is most likely ingestion from residues on fruit and vegetables – but exposure from household pesticide use is increasingly coming under the spotlight and may well have a greater effect, especially on the most vulnerable in the community: the very young and unborn children.
As environmental scientist Jo Immig points out in Working Together to Clear the Air, indoor air pollution is among the top five environmental risks to public health, and in particular one of the major threats to children’s health.
There are many reasons why young children are most at risk from exposure to hazardous chemicals, not just because they’re closer to the ground or because they tend to put things in their mouths. Children have a lifetime of exposure still in front of them and for some it can start long before birth, as some chemicals that can accumulate in our bodies are passed on to the next generation via the placenta or breast milk.
A baby’s skin and gastrointestinal tract is also more permeable, allowing easier absorption of chemicals in breast milk and water. And in proportion to their body weight, children take in more air, food and water – all potentially contaminated with chemical residues – than adults.
Pesticides are not the only problem
Phthalates are chemicals added to certain plastics to make them more pliable; they’re in a large range of household products ranging from tablecloths, floor tiles and furniture upholstery to rainwear, baby pants and toys. Studies have shown that phthalates can accumulate in the body and, in a pregnant or breastfeeding woman, even very small quantities can adversely affect the gender development of her offspring.
Herbicides are also risky. Glyphosate, the active chemical in Roundup, has been implicated as a potential endocrine disruptor in concentrations 100 times lower than those used in agriculture. However, it’s highly promoted for use in the garden; our quarantine laws even require imported flowers to be dipped in a glyphosate herbicide.
記事を読むDoctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food
Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food
Source: Spilling the Beans - Institute For Responsible Technology
Author: Jeffery M. Smith
On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.
Pregnant women and babies at great risk
Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]
The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]
When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]
Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]
In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.
Food designed to produce toxin
GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]
GMOs provoke immune reactions
AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.
According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]
GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.
Animals dying in large numbers
In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.
In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]
Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]
In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]
Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us
The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.
When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.
Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied
Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.
Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases
AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]
Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]
Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.
This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.
If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]
To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”
Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.
If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe. 記事を読むSetting the (organic) Standard - from experience over two decades
Setting the (organic) Standard - from experience over two decades
Source: The Organic Advantage
www.bfa.com.au
Date: 16 May 2009
Dr. Andrew Monk, convenor of the Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA) Standards Advisory Group, says a new standard for organic being developed with Standards Australia will not change the answer to the consumer question - ''how can I trust organic?''
''The only solution for the consumer will remain the same: look for a 'certified organic' logo to be absolutely certain a product is organic.''
A certification logo currently must accompany the word 'organic' on a product for the claim to be verified.
Dr. Monk says a new standard will not change this in the absence of legislation - ''which is not likely to occur in Australia in the coming years.''
He says the certified organic industry already has clear standards and exacting certification requirements for organic products - ''in clear distinction to many other food product claims in the marketplace.''
''Unlike claims such as ''green,'' ''sustainable'' and ''natural'' the certified organic industry relies on recognised standards and most importantly independent auditing and certification to back those claims.''
The Australian Certified Organic 'Bud' logo, which is the certification mark for products complying with the BFA's Australian Organic Standard (AOS) and is Australia's best recognised organic certification mark (1), is now prominent on certified organic products in supermarkets, independent retail stores, and other markets.
Dr. Monk says better shelf exposure means consumers are becoming more aware of what the 'certified' in certified organic means.
''Certified organic companies are answerable to strict regulation. They are subject to annual audits and unannounced inspections, as well as market product sampling.''
He says under the current certification system, the Australian organic industry has developed internationally recognised organic standards, and that action is taken against products not complying with certification requirements - including a benchmark case where an operator was fined for fraudulently claiming his eggs were certified organic.
He says retailers, including supermarkets, are also becoming more vigilant about the status of their certified organic products.
''The irony is that while supermarkets are an easy target when it comes to the expectation for rigour in organic integrity, the majors lead the marketplace, along with certified independent retailers.
''In actual fact it is locally marketed produce such as at farmers markets, which is often more of a concern to the organic industry because clear labelling and certification is less commonly displayed.''
But he says local farmers markets and produce will remain an integral part of the organic industry, and continue to grow at a very healthy rate.
''Consumers nonetheless need to look for those certification marks for assurance of true organic. To help address labelling issues , BFA introduced an addition to the AOS for Farmers Markets last year, which outlines a code of practice for local organic markets and sellers.''
He says BFA has developed the AOS to include sections for organic aquaculture, organic fairtrade, agricultural inputs allowed in organic systems and organic cosmetics to a level which has been internationally acknowledged.
''These are practical standards, developed in line with what the consumer expects from an organic product - accounting for matters such as animal welfare, environmental sustainability, food safety, and responsible farming systems.''
He says the Australian organic industry is on its way to establishing realistic requirements for domestic producers, rather than being forced to adopt what are in some cases ''very inappropriate'' European specific standards.
''It is necessarily a work in progress to ensure issues raised by both producers and consumers in Australia are continuously noted and addressed.
''The BFA will continue to articulate clearly a comprehensive and broad-reaching review of organic standards, as it has done for the past 20 years, with a 2009 updated edition of the AOS now in the final stages of preparation''.
The new edition AOS 2009 is due for release in the final quarter of this calendar year.
(1) Data from: 'Green Tracker' research conducted by the Mobium Group Pty Ltd March 2009 記事を読むAUSTRALIA: Federal Budget 2009: green stimulus welcome
Source: ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation)
Date: 12 May 2009
Full Article: http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2256&eid=14601
The Australian Conservation Foundation has commended the Federal Government for strong funding for solar and public transport and urged it reinstate funding for environmental research.
Green economic stimulus – sustainable transport & solar power
ACF executive director Don Henry said: “We commend the Budget for taking two big steps towards a clean energy and clean transport future.
“The $1.46 billion of new money over six years for solar and $4.6 billion for urban public transport will be good for the planet, good for cities and good for jobs.
“This is a historic level of Commonwealth investment in solar energy and public transport and we warmly welcome it. The money for solar gives a good kick start to this crucial industry of the future.
“In contrast, the $2 billion of new funds over nine years for carbon capture and storage research is public money not well spent. The companies that make huge profits from mining and burning coal should fund the research into technologies that may – or may not – help reduce Australia’s carbon emissions in ten, fifteen or twenty years.
“Strong green stimulus at a time of economic downturn is crucial for creating the low-carbon economy jobs of the future.”
Reform of subsidies that drive pollution
“Unfortunately the Government has passed up yet another chance to cut the subsidies that promote pollution. The fringe benefits tax concession on company cars has been a dead weight on the economy and the environment for far too long and we urge the tax review to deal with this absurd subsidy.”
Environmental research
“The axing of Land & Water Australia, for a saving of around $16 million, will compromise critical research on managing our land and water resources sustainably. We urge the Government to maintain funding for these important areas of research.”
記事を読むSpecial 'Swine Flu Defense' Conference Call with Probiotic Expert Czerral
Fight the threat of Swine Flu: Eminent probiotics expert Czerrell tells how
Special 'Swine Flu Defense' Conference Call with Probiotic Expert Czerral
Friday 8 May 2009 (AEST) US Telephone number + 1 712 775 7100 Pin: 218471 #
Australia Friday 8 May 11am - 12pm (AEST - Brisbane)
New Zealand Friday 8 May 1pm - 2pm
United States Thursday 7 May 6pm - 7pm (LA - PDT Time)
Hong Kong Friday 8 May 9am - 10am
United Kingdom Friday 8 May 2am-3am (UK - BST Time)
* Did you know that 85% of your body’s immunity lies in your gut?
* Did you also know that probiotic superfoods can boost your immune system to give it extra oomph in the battle against Influenza A - of which swine flu is a variant?
With over 25 years in research and development in probiotics and the microcosmic world of bacteria and cellular nutrition. Czerral, the creator of probiotic super food In-Liven, is a voice you need to listen to.
This one-time-only Conference Call is your chance to invite family, friends, customers and team members to learn how they can build up their bodies defences against the Swine Flu pandemic and other dangerous viruses with the use of natural, certified organic probiotics. There will also be a FAQ session at the conclusion of the call. 記事を読むParents Take Baby Personal Care Manufacturers to Court
Parents Take Baby Personal Care Manufacturers to Court
Date: 24 March 2009
Source: OrganicMonitor
Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble and Kimberley Clark are among a number of leading baby personal care manufacturers being taken to court over allegedly cancer-causing ingredients.
The class-action law suit was filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (HBSS) on March 19 in the District Court of Chicago on behalf of ‘parents or other consumers who purchased any of an extensive list of products’, on the provision the court certifies the action.
The action is being filed as a result of a study conducted by the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics (CSC), which tested a series of baby personal care products for the carcinogens formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane.
According to the study 82 percent of products contained at least 54 parts per million of formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane – a level the body describes as ‘high’.
“Parents are frightened by these findings, and rightly so," said Steve Berman, attorney representing the plaintiffs and managing partner of Seattle-based HBSS.
"I can't imagine any parent covering their infant with a baby lotion that lists 'formaldehyde' on the label along with 'natural fragrance.'"
However, key figures in the industry believe that the study findings are misleading and have been misinterpreted.
Two weeks ago the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) described the study findings and the resulting publicity as a cynical attempt to prey upon concerned parents.
It argues that CSC has falsely attempted to position the report as ‘scientifically noteworthy’ and new.
It counters the study findings by pointing out that 1,4 dioxane is not an ingredient in cosmetics products but a by-product created from the manufacture of certain detergent and solvent ingredients.
PCPC also quoted the FDA as stating that 1,4 dioxane levels found in their monitoring of personal care products and cosmetics ‘do not present a hazard to consumers.’
On the subject of formaldehyde, the PCPC says it is not added to cosmetics but rather released in very small doses by the formaldehyde-releasing preservatives that are used.
On top of that, the US FDA and the Cosmetic Ingredients Review Expert Panel concluded that formaldehyde in cosmetics and personal care products is safe and should not exceed 2,000ppm when measured as free formaldehyde, which matches the European legislation on the chemical.
CSC’s test of 28 products, which were chosen to be likely candidates for containing the chemical, showed 23 to contain between 54 and 610 ppm of formaldehyde.
The HBSS suit calls for medical monitoring of children and any one exposed to the products in question in an effort to ascertain the risks of exposures to the mentioned carcinogens. 記事を読むNatural Beauty Summit Hones in on Major Beauty Issues
The fourth edition of the Natural Beauty Summit focuses on three of the major issues in the beauty industry. For the first time, the hot topics of natural & organic cosmetic standards, sustainability, and the use of food ingredients will be covered by a single event. Held in New York, May 7-8th, the summit will bring together leading figures in the beauty industry to debate and discuss the implications of these issues.
With a plethora of natural & organic cosmetic standards introduced over the last 18 months, the summit opens with an update on eco-labels and standards. Taking a global perspective, the summit will put the major international certification agencies for natural & organic cosmetic standards on a single platform for the first time.
An update and implementation status will be given on the major standards in North America - NSF, OASIS and NPA - in which exact details of these standards and adoption rates will be given. Harald Dittmar, Managing Director of BDIH, will give precise details of the finalised Cosmos standard, which aims to unify the leading natural & organic standards in Europe. This will be proceeded by an update of the NaTrue standard and Latin American initiatives.
The eco-labels session will also give pointers on how the divisions caused by the various standards & certification schemes can be overcome. Katherine DiMatteo, President of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM) will describe how similar divisions existed in the organic food industry, and how successful resolution led to a widely accepted single industry standard.
Sustainability is the focus of the second session. The summit will have papers from companies at the cutting edge of sustainability initiatives in the beauty industry. Mike Indursky, Chief Marketing & Strategic Officer of Burt’s Bees, will explain why business ethics and sustainability remain important during a global economic downturn. The Brazilian company Natura, one of the world’s few carbon neutral cosmetic companies, will illustrate how it has met its environmental challenges. Other facets of sustainability like ethical sourcing, biodiversity, ecological packaging and ethical retailing will also be covered in this session.
The Natural Beauty Summit devotes an entire day to the growing use of food ingredients in personal care applications. With product developers and formulators increasingly turning to the kitchen table for cosmetic ingredients, sessions three and four look at the major developments in this emerging area.
To round off the Natural Beauty Summit, the first-ever workshop on applying food ingredients in cosmetic applications will take place on May 9th. Judi Beerling, Technical Research Manager of Organic Monitor, will highlight the major food ingredients used in cosmetic products, their potential benefits, and how to overcome the major technical & formulation hurdles.
Co-organized by Organic Monitor and Beyond Beauty Paris, Natural Beauty Summit is a series of international conferences that focus on natural cosmetics and sustainability. The aim of Natural Beauty Summit is to create a forum to learn and discuss the key challenges the cosmetics industry faces in the areas of natural & organic products and sustainability.
www.naturalbeautysummit.com 記事を読むNew Toxic Chemical in Cosmetics: D4 and D5 Siloxanes
New Toxic Chemical in Cosmetics: D4 and D5 Siloxanes
Date: April 6th, 2009
Source: NaturalNew.com
Full Article Click Here
The Canadian government has declared two common cosmetics ingredients to be toxic, making it the first government to voice concern over the chemicals D4 and D5.
Studies have found that D4 and D5, members of the siloxane family, resist degradation and accumulate within the bodies of animals -- qualifying them as persistent organic pollutants. Studies have linked them to reproductive damage in animals, including tumors of the uterus. Little research has been conducted on the chemicals' effects on humans, but they have been widely used in consumer products nonetheless.
The siloxanes are found in a variety of cosmetics, including lipsticks, lotions and hair care products. An Environmental Working Group survey of 41,000 different personal care products has found D4 and D5 in one out of every seven of the 41,000 different personal care products it has analyzed. D4 and D5 are also used in plastics (including the nipples of baby bottles), cookware and home cleaning products.
The Canadian government's primary concern is over D4 and D5's effects on wildlife because most studies have been conducted on animals, and the chemicals have been found to travel easily through the air over vast distances. However, persistent organic pollutants that pose threats to animals are often found to damage human health as well.
Canada has also announced that it will prioritize setting safe exposure levels for D4 and D5 under the federal Chemical Management Plan, with the possibility of placing a complete ban on the chemicals.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in contrast, has no plans to assess the safety of or exposure limits for D4 and D5.
"[The] move by Canada is not only important for the health of its citizens, it helps underscore the need for real reforms within the EPA's failed programs to regulate toxins in the U.S.," said Jane Houlihan of the Environmental Working Group. "Congress and President Obama need to overhaul broken toxics laws, and establish a policy that forces the chemical companies to first prove their products are safe before being used."
More details check out www.ewg.org
記事を読むReducing greenhouse emissions could cut global disease burden by 25% says WHO
Reducing greenhouse emissions could cut global disease burden by 25% says WHO
Date: 6 April 2009
Source: GreenPages.com.au
Full Article click here
Curbing global greenhouse gas emissions could help reduce global disease by as much as 25 per cent, says The World Health Organisation at a recent preliminary climate change conference in Copenhagen. Speaking at Climate Change Global Risks, Challenges, and Decisions, WHO has been looking to increase awareness of the co-benefits for health brought by reductions in greenhouse gases in all sectors, such as transport, housing, energy, and agriculture, and at all levels.
"Health had no say in the policies that led to the financial crisis or made climate change inevitable. But the health sector will bear the brunt of the consequences," says Dr Margaret Chan, Executive Director of WHO. For example, short term fluctuation in weather can cause acute health effects, especially to individuals in less developed areas. Meanwhile, torrential climate conditions that cause flooding and other natural disasters can also result in poorer health conditions.
Meanwhile, Dr Martin Cope from the CSIRO addressed the GREENHOSE 2009 conference with similar revlations. "We have modelled climate and ozone pollution for Sydney for a 2050-2060 climate change scenario and found that the number of hospital admissions due to ozone pollution is predicted to increase by up to three times the current rate," he said.
The WHO already estimates that climate change may be causing over 150,000 premature deaths worldwide each year.WHO representatives called for greater global awareness of the health benefits from the reductions in greenhouse gases. Health policy makers must factor climate change into their activities to cut the burden of global disease. 記事を読むFirst National Pilot Study Finds Human Medications and Personal Care Products in Fish Caught in Several U.S. Waterways
First National Pilot Study Finds Human Medications and Personal Care Products in Fish Caught in Several U.S. Waterways
Date: 25 March 2009
Source: Baylor University
Click here for Full Article
Baylor University researchers, working with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, have detected low-level residues of several human medications and personal care products in fish collected from effluent-dominated rivers, including the residue of one pharmaceutical in wild fish that has not been previously reported.
These findings are part of the first EPA pilot study designed to look for the occurrence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in fish from our nation's waterways.
"While this study found the residue of several pharmaceuticals and personal care products in fish tissue, it also demonstrated for the first time that fish from several different locations across the country are exposed to multiple PPCPs in effluent-dominated waterways," said Dr. Bryan Brooks, associate professor of environmental sciences at Baylor and an aquatic toxicology expert on PPCPs who is a Baylor co-lead investigator on the study.
The study's methodology is presented today at the spring 2009 National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in Salt Lake City by Dr. Kevin Chambliss, a Baylor co-lead investigator with Brooks. The study's results also are scheduled to be published on-line in a special edition of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. The special issue will be dedicated to PPCPs found in the environment.
The study was funded by a contract from the EPA with Tetra Tech, a leading provider of consulting, engineering and technical services. The Baylor University team, led by Chambliss and Brooks, was contracted by Tetra Tech to use their innovative PPCP detection methodologies in fish tissue to conduct the pilot study.
Many aquatic systems throughout the United States routinely receive effluent discharges from wastewater treatment plants. Sometimes, the flow of streams and rivers can become dominated by these effluents. Although there are federal standards for treated wastewater, no guidelines or federal testing standards exist for pharmaceuticals or most personal care products in wastewater because their effects in surface waters are not well understood. EPA undertook this pilot study as a part of an overall strategy to better understand the occurrence of PPCPs in surface waters, sediment and fish tissue.
The study involved collection of fish from five effluent-dominated rivers in various parts of the country. The sampling locations included discharge areas of wastewater treatment plants in Chicago, Dallas, Orlando, Fla., Phoenix, and West Chester, Pa., near Philadelphia. The Gila River Wilderness Area in New Mexico provided a suitable reference site for the study, because it is isolated from human sources of pollution.
The Baylor researchers tested fish fillets and liver tissue for 24 different human medications. The researchers also tested fish fillets for 12 chemicals found in personal care products. The study results revealed that:
• The residue of seven pharmaceuticals and two personal care products was present in fish at all five effluent-dominated river sites. In many cases, multiple compounds were found in the same fish.
• For the first time, gemfibrozil, used to treat high cholesterol and triglyceride levels, was found in wild fish livers.
• No pharmaceutical compounds or personal care product chemicals were detected in any fish collected at the reference stream in New Mexico.
• Diphenhydramine, an over-the-counter antihistamine also commonly used as a sedative in non-prescription sleep aids and motion sickness; diltiazem, a drug for high blood pressure; carbamazepine, a treatment for epilepsy and bipolar disorder; norfluoxetine, the active metabolite of the antidepressant fluoxetine; and sertraline, an antidepressant, also were detected in this study, confirming results of previous projects by the Baylor researchers.
• Galaxolide and tonalide, both fragrances used in soap and other personal care products, were found in fish fillet tissue from all five effluent-dominated river sites. The concentrations in the fish tissue for these fragrances were the highest of all compounds tested.
"We found the highest concentrations and frequencies of compounds in the fish livers but considering that the liver is the primary site of metabolism for xenobiotics in fish, as in humans, this result is logical." said Chambliss, associate professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Baylor.
While the impact these compounds have on fish is not yet fully understood, it is documented in the scientific literature that antidepressant accumulation in fish may cause certain behavioral changes, which impact aggression, mating and other behaviors necessary for fish survival.
Based on the pilot study findings, EPA is expanding its investigation of PPCPs in fish under its National Rivers and Streams Assessment. Fish collection began in 2008 and is continuing in 2009.
記事を読むFive U.S. Rivers Tainted with Pharmaceutical and Chemical Residues
Five U.S. Rivers Tainted with Pharmaceutical and Chemical Residues
Date: 5 April 2009
Source: NaturalNews.com
Click here for full article
Fish from 5 effluent-heavy rivers in various parts of the U.S. have been found to be tainted with residues from human medications and common chemicals, according to the results of a study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Baylor University. The study's findings were presented on March 25 at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in Salt Lake City, and are part of a federal strategy to address the effects of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) on the environment and wildlife.
"While this study found the residue of several pharmaceuticals and personal care products in fish tissue, it also demonstrated for the first time that fish from several different locations across the country are exposed to multiple PPCPs in effluent-dominated waterways," said Dr. Bryan Brooks, associate professor of environmental sciences at Baylor, one of the lead investigators on the study.
The fish collected for the study were retrieved from discharge areas of wastewater treatment plants in Chicago, Dallas, Orlando, Fla., Phoenix, and West Chester, near Philadelphia. The Gila River Wilderness Area in New Mexico was used as a reference site for the study because it is does not contain pollution from human sources.
36 different medications and chemicals were tested - 24 different human medications and 12 common chemicals - on fish fillets and liver tissue. Residue from seven pharmaceuticals and two personal care products was detected in fish from all five rivers, and in many cases, multiple residual doses were found in the same fish. Significantly, the cholesterol drug gemfibrozil (Lopid) was for the first time detected in wild fish.
Other substances that tested positive in the study included diphenhydramine (a common antihistamine and sedative), diltiazem (Cardizem, a blood pressure medication), carbamazepine (Tegretolan, an epilepsy and bipolar drug), norfluoxetine (an active ingredient in Prozac), the antidepressant sertraline (Zoloft), and two odor-enhancing ingredients in soap and hygiene products.
In contrast to the 5 rivers where the drug and chemical residues were found, no residues were detected in any of the fish collected at the reference location in New Mexico.
"We found the highest concentrations and frequencies of compounds in the fish livers but considering that the liver is the primary site of metabolism for xenobiotics in fish, as in humans, this result is logical," explained Dr. Kevin Chambliss, a Baylor co-lead investigator with Brooks.
In addition to the Salt Lake City presentation, the findings are set to be published in a special on-line edition of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry dedicated to PPCPs found in the environment.
The results echo earlier tests done by the Chicago Tribune and scientific researchers in 2008. In those studies, small amounts of pharmaceuticals were found in the drinking water of Chicago and dozens of other cities. Chambliss noted that the far-reaching effects, if any, are unknown. "We just don't know what it means yet ecologically, but this shows there's a need to know more."
The results are part of a pilot study funded by a contract from the EPA with Tetra Tech, a leading provider of consulting, engineering and technical services. According to their website, Tetra Tech provides "scientific, consulting, engineering, and project management services for water resources, groundwater, watershed management, mining, geotechnical, environmental management, and information technology projects."
Fish collection for the study began in 2008 and continues in 2009.
Sources:
http://health.msn.com/medications/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100235362
http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=57434
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-fish-drugs-26-mar26,0,1093702.story
http://www.tetratech.com/portal/site/TetraTech/menuitem.0bf157e9b2e0b73aea87c5a46a1010a0/?vgnextoid=22795cf5fed62110VgnVCM100000a601010aRCRD 記事を読むClean - Activists take cleaning product makers to court (if they don’t come clean!)
Clean - Activists take cleaning product makers to court (if they don’t come clean!)
Date: 31 March 2009
Source: Green Pages
Click here for more details
Do you know what is inside your air freshener or bathroom cleaner? I doubt it. That's because cleaning products, unlike food or personal care products, are not required to disclose a complete list of ingredients. But that could be about to change.
In New York USA, Proctor and Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive are among several manufacturers being sued for refusing to disclose the chemical ingredients in their products and the health risks they pose. "People deserve to know whether the products they use to wash their dishes and clean their homes could be harmful" says New York lawyer, Keri Powell, nonprofit public interest law firm Earthjustice.
The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a coalition of state and national groups: Sierra Club, Women's Voices for the Earth, New York Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Advocates of New York, Riverkeeper, and American Lung Association in New York.
The group is basing their case on an old forgotten 1976 New York state law which requires household and commercial cleaner companies selling their products in New York to file semi-annual reports with the state listing the chemicals contained in their products and describing any company research on these chemicals' health and environmental effects.
Prior to the lawsuit, all manufacturers were contacted and asked to comply. Those that responded include: SC Johnson, Method and Seventh Generation. SCJohnson have launched a website in response at www.WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com. *
However the USA Soaps and Detergents Association (SDA) are angry about the action, saying that they have already unveiled plans for voluntary disclosure program due to start in Jan 2009. The program states: "ingredients present at concentrations greater than one percent will be listed in descending order by predominance. Ingredients present at concentrations of less than one percent will be listed without regard to the order of predominance."
So is there any chance we could see similar moves in Australia? That's a question I'm going to put to our own detergent industry body, PACIA. As anyone who has followed my work will know, I would like nothing more than to see full disclosure made compulsory. Our SASI Clean list of ‘chemicals of concern' found in cleaning products, is frustratingly redundant unless we can determine which products they are actually in.
Australia does not have a law like New York's, but many manufacturers are clearly pushing the legal envelope. According to the NOHSC**, ‘there should be full disclosure of ingredients determined to be hazardous.' Cleaning product labels that contain CAUTION or POISON warnings do so if they contain hazardous substances, yet many do not disclose the ingredients names on the label or MSDS.
Manufacturers hide behind their commercial confidentiality clauses, but that doesn't wash with me. If the food and personal care industry can reveal their ingredients and survive, so can cleaning product makers. What don't they want us to know? Meanwhile, as they say in Europe, No data? No market! Let's vote with our wallets and only buy cleaning products that tell us what is in them.
Stay clean,
Bridget
Reference Documents
www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-fi-toxics18-2009feb18,0,6836599.story
www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/cleaning-products-disclosure-petition.pdf
http://www.sasiclean.com.au/product_guide.html
www.cleaning101.com/about/11-24-08.cfm
www.womenandenvironment.org/campaignsandprograms/SafeCleaning/HazardsReport.pdf
www.precaution.org/lib/08/ht080626.htm#Healthy_Cleaners_in_a_Changing_World
*Note: The USA SCJohnson operates as a separate company to the Australian company Johnson and Johnson, and we are unclear as to whether the ingredients on this website relate to the same name products sold in Australia.
**National Occupational Health and Safety Council: www.ascc.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/9A5FFEC7-940E-478A-BB34-07C8A1C9D597/0/LabellingCOPNOHSC_2012_1994.pdf
Bridget Gardner is the founding Principle of Fresh Green Clean P/L, Australia's only dedicated Green Clean training and consulting company.Her cleaning column appears on the GreenRazor on a monthly basis. Email your questions and concerns to info@freshgreenclean.com.au, and let Bridget give you the latest advice on eco-friendly clean or visit her website www.freshgreenclean.com.au for more information.
Take a look at our MiEnviron Range of Household Cleaning Agents - all ingredients are listed & what's more they are pure, eco-friendly. 記事を読むGreen shopping list - eggs, bread - oh and a carton of water
Green shopping list - eggs, bread - oh and a carton of water
Date: 31 March 2009
Source: Green Pages
Click here for full article
"Boxed water is better" - the boxed water project is hoping that customers will consider a more sustainable alternative to bottles.
Our global consumption of bottled water is up 54 per cent in the past five years with studies placing our annual use at 154 billion litres. In Australia, we're drinking 550 million litres a year says CHOICE magazine and that requires 2.7 million tonnes of plastic to make the bottles. And even with increased recycling rates, around 35 per cent in Australia, our consumption rate greatly outpaces it.
A number of intiatives have been put forth to help address this growing concern. The Bottled Water Alliance in Australia, headed by Planet Ark founder, Jon Dee, launched a number of filtered water stations at Manly beach to help curb bottled water use. Six water bubblers were installed at Manly Corso and Manly beachfront, with eight more scheduled to be put in this year.
"Australia needs to do something about the lack of good quality water bubblers in public spaces," says Dee. Further, Dee claims that "bottled water is an environmental menace and it also hits consumers in the hip pocket", especially in these times of economic frugality. A standard litre of bottled water in Australia costs up to $4, a 2500 per cent mark up from tap water.
Meanwhile, in the US, a company is looking into a "boxed water" alternative. These stylish and simple packages are made from recyclable paper and can be flat packed for more efficient transport. The paper is sourced from sustainable plantation forest and the company says they donate 20 per cent of their profits back to environmental causes. Aqua2Go is another company which supplies water in popper cartons which can also be recycled.
These companies are currently only distributing in the US and certainly any manufacturing and resource requirements are greater than those that come from tap.
Read more about the Bottled Water Alliance
Find out more about Boxed Water and Aqua2go. 記事を読むEczema cases rise 40 per cent in four years
Eczema cases rise 40 per cent in four years
Date: 23 March 2009
Source: Telegraph.co.uk
Click here for full article
Cases of the painful skin condition eczema have risen more than 40 per cent in just four years, partly because of the modern obsession with using soap and detergents, experts have warned.
Researchers said that the complaint, in which the skin becomes inflamed and starts to shed, was now one of the most common chronic condition in England.
Often excruciatingly painful in its own right, the condition has also been linked to other illnesses such as asthma.
An estimated 5.8 million people in England suffered from eczema in 2005, a 42 per cent increase on 2001, according to the study, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
The researchers, led by Professor Aziz Sheikh from the University of Edinburgh, said that they expected the number of sufferers to continue to rise.
Environmental factors, including the "frequency of bathing and use of soaps and detergents", may have contributed to the rise, along with better awareness and diagnosis.
The study found that in 2005 almost one in nine people had, at some point in their lives, suffered from eczema.
Most commonly affected were children between the ages of five and nine.
With the rise in cases also came an increase in prescriptions to combat the disease, the study found, rising by 57 per cent to an estimated 13.7 million by 2005.
Prof Sheikh, chairman of the allergy and respiratory research group at the University of Edinburgh, said: "What's quite striking is the very high proportion of people who are getting eczema, it's an incredibly common disorder.
"Eczema is now one of the most chronic conditions to effect the English population.
"Why eczema is important is increasingly we think eczema is a herald condition for individuals to go on to develop other allergic conditions, such as asthma and allergic rhinitis."
Many children grow out of the disease, but some will continue to suffer for the rest of their lives.
Margaret Cox, chief executive of the National Eczema Society, said that the rise could have levelled off, but agreed that the modern obsession with cleanliness could have led to the increase.
"Water use dries up the skin and soaps and detergents decrease the skin," she said.
"We are using quite a lot of these products from an early age."
The study looked at the GP records of more than nine million patients.
BLOB
Parents who cut foods from their children's diets to fight eczema could be doing more harm than good, experts have warned.
Scientists believe that many young sufferers could be affected by food related allergies.
But researchers at the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care said that eliminating certain foods from diets was helpful only when a child has a child had a proven allergy.
記事を読むGlobal Natural Cosmetic Sales Approaching US $7 Billion
Global Natural Cosmetic Sales Approaching US $7 Billion
Date: March 2009
Source: Organic Monitor
Global sales of natural & organic cosmetics are soaring with revenues projected to approach US $7 billion this year. New research by Organic Monitor finds that North America and Europe are the two engines of growth, comprising the bulk of the US $1 billion sales increase.
The major drivers of market growth are the mainstreaming of natural & organic cosmetics, inward investment and growing consumer demand for green products. Distribution of natural and organic cosmetics is increasing in supermarkets, drugstores, and pharmacies across North America and Western Europe. Investment is coming in from large cosmetic manufacturers, retailers, private and financial investors.
Europe has seen most retailer investment with a number of leading mass market retailers launching natural & organic cosmetics in the last year. The leading British supermarkets are marketing natural & organic cosmetics under their private labels. However, most retail investment has been in Germany where even discounters have launched certified natural cosmetics.
Investment is also coming from large cosmetic companies who are either acquiring dedicated natural & organic cosmetic companies or launching certified products. L’Oreal is eyeing further acquisitions since buying Sanoflore and The Body Shop in 2006. Origins Natural Resources, part of Estee Lauder, has launched a certified organic cosmetics line under the Origins Organics banner.
New Product Development (NPD) has become a key feature of the natural cosmetics market. By adopting private standards like Ecocert and Soil Association, cosmetic manufacturers are forced to innovate through product formulations. Companies are experimenting with natural preservatives, surfactants and colourants as they move away from synthetic chemicals.
The major challenge the industry faces is lack of regulation, with many pseudo-natural products competing with legitimate natural and organic cosmetic products. Differences in natural ingredient compositions and the variation in private standards could dampen consumer confidence in natural & organic products. 記事を読むFrench Health Bureau Warns Against Mislabelling of Organic Cosmetics
French Health Bureau Warns Against Mislabelling of Organic Cosmetics
Date: 11th March 2009
Source Wanglong Group
The French Agency for the Medical Safety of Health Products (AFSSAPS) and the General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) recently published results of a joint market survey targeting “preservative free” and certified organic cosmetics.
Nation-wide survey
The survey was conducted last year over 30 product samples corresponding to 28 different products gathered from the whole French territory by AFSSAPS and DGCCRF inspectors.
22 out of the 28 products were certified organic or natural products (Ecocert, Visagro, ICEA-AIAB, BDIH), while 6 were only labelled as “natural / organic product”. Furthermore, 12 products claimed to be preservative free and 16 claimed to be paraben free and / or phenoxyethanol free. The later were using other preservatives such as benzoic or sorbic acid, benzoic alcohol and dehydroacetic acid.
Good microbial quality
Eventually, despite a restrictive use of preservatives, the Agency deems the microbial quality of tested products is “satisfactory”. Nevertheless, batches of a product contaminated with pseudomonas putida bacteria have been withdrawn from the market. Another product was notified a lack of microbial protection that could lead to a contamination during its foreseeable period of use.
Traces of preservatives
The most surprising results came from the chemical analysis of the products. Indeed, tests revealed that 6 products claiming to be “paraben and / or phenoxyethanol free” contained traces of methylparaben at a concentration varying from 0.01 to 0.04%. Another product, claiming to be preservative free contained traces of benzoic or sorbic acid salts.
However, according to the Agency “concentrations detected are 20 to 60 times lower than the maximum limits permitted by the regulation.” Actually, the presence of these traces could result from their use in the raw materials, in particular in ingredients from botanical origin. Concerned companies would not have deliberately misled consumers buy would have failed to correctly control their supply chain.
Misleading labelling
In parallel, the DGCCRF has warned manufacturers that highlighting the absence of a specific preservative in the product’s formula, while the product would contain other types of anti-bacterial agents could be considered as misleading for the consumer. “Providing consumers with information that is voluntarily incomplete, might be considered as misleading about the actual product’s formula,” states the control body in a release.
記事を読むA look at the Link between Cosmetics and Breast Carcinogens – Part 1
A look at the Link between Cosmetics and Breast Carcinogens – Part 1
Date: Feb 16, 2009
Source: SpecialChem
Author: Nick Morante
Click here for full article
This information is taken from a number of sources and has been compiled over a number of years so it will be divided into 2 parts. As a cosmetics formulator I find it interesting but very suspect. But according to FDA statistics, almost 90% of the more than 15,000 ingredients used in personal care products have not been evaluated for safety by the Food and Drug Administration, the Industry-appointed Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel, or anyone else. What this means is that only 10% of the well over 15,000 chemical ingredients used by the cosmetics industry are tested for safety, and it is alleged that many products may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and other toxic chemicals. The FDA has no authority to regulate the personal care products consumers use every day. There are groups such as the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics that try to oversee this. In fact, according to Deep Skin, the world's largest online cosmetic safety database, one of every 100 products on the market contains ingredients certified by government authorities as known or probable human carcinogens, including shampoos, lotions, make-up foundations, and lipsticks and balms. But if you look at the list, you will find that almost every cosmetic ingredient may cause potential harm (if you look close enough). Much of it is overly exaggerated.
At the same time that these alleged untested chemicals have been steadily introduced into our environment, breast cancer incidence has dramatically risen. Is this coincidence? In recent years, a growing amount of evidence has surfaced and has linked pollutants and man-made chemicals in our environment to the increasing risk of breast cancer and other diseases. But the link to cosmetics still needs to be proven.
In the United States major loopholes in federal laws allow the cosmetics industry to put unlimited amounts of chemicals that have been linked to cancer and reproductive harm into personal care products. Again, this may be a possible exaggeration. The FDA does not approve, review or certify (except color additives) what goes into cosmetics before they are marketed, cannot compel companies to provide health effects data and cannot recall personal care products. They can, however, issue warning letters that would allow companies to voluntarily withdraw their products from the market if deemed hazardous. On the reverse side, it is a fact that many of the major companies, once they hear of an ingredient that can pose potential harm to the consumer, voluntarily remove any suspect ingredient before they even go to market because the concern for consumer welfare is of the utmost importance.
So where can some known and suspected carcinogens and reproductive toxins be found along with some safeguards?
* Acrylamide - a known carcinogen, mutagen and male reproductive toxin - Found in nature in many food products, it is regularly used in manufacturing hair products, hand and body lotions, and sunscreen products, and used as a water soluble film former. But there are so many other equally effective safe film formers.
* Dibutyl Phthalate - a reproductive toxin used in perfumes, hair spray and deodorant - impairs fertility and causes developmental toxicity in male offspring. It has also been used in Nail Polish but in many cases has been reformulated out and replaced with other safer ingredients.
* Ethylene Oxide - a known breast carcinogen - is commonly used to manufacture popular brands of shampoo. EtO, as it is commonly referred to, is a main constituent in many emulsifiers - the higher the ethoxylation, the more solubility in water. High levels are known to cause irritation so use levels are usually low and controlled. The gas is known to kill bacteria and used in a process to treat contaminated products.
* Lead Acetate - a known carcinogen and reproductive toxin due to its Lead content - it can still be found in Original Grecian Formula 16 and used as a color additive (21 CFR Part 73.2396 for scalp only). It can be replaced with other harmless fillers using other black organic dyes.
* Parabens - Very recently there have also been questions and issues as to whether Parabens (or Hydroxybenzoate Esters shown below where R = methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, etc.) also fall into this category of alleged breast carcinogen. Parabens are very common and effective preservatives that at one time could be found as the major preservatives in almost every type of cosmetic product. There are now suitable and effective replacements for Parabens that are seeing more use in cosmetics.
In Part 2 of this Article we will look at how the FDA controls ingredients that are used in cosmetics and personal care products.
記事を読むPrompted by Economic Downturn, Going Green is Going Strong
Prompted by Economic Downturn, Going Green is Going Strong
Source: CSRwire
Date: January 22 2009.
Click here for Full Article
As the forecast for the economy remains gray, a new report sheds light on how consumers find the silver lining by living responsibly.
(CSRwire) BELLEVUE, WA. - January 22, 2009 - While consumers report reeling in their spending habits to offset the effects of a weakened economy, many are still putting money towards purchases that give them hope for the future according to a new report, Sustainability: The Rise of Consumer Responsibility, by leading consumer behavior specialists The Hartman Group. More than three-fourths of consumers consider environment and social aspects at times in making purchase decisions and one-third are willing to pay more for that benefit.
"During these tough economic times, sustainable products create that 'sweet spot' that make consumers more optimistic about the choices they are making," said Alison Worthington, Hartman Group Managing Director of Sustainability. "In many ways, the term sustainability has become synonymous with responsibility for consumers or just "doing the right thing"."
Fielded at the onset of the current economic downturn, Sustainability: The Rise of Consumer Responsibility offers insight into the negative outlook consumers have for the economy and the positive outcome they feel will result by making sustainable purchase decisions.
According to the report, 88 percent of consumers define themselves as participating in sustainable behaviors. A nearly equal number of consumers believe their purchase decisions (37 percent) matter as much as their votes (45 percent). Yet, less than 25 percent of consumers can name a sustainable product. "This represents a significant opportunity for companies to get their message out," Worthington said.
As consumers continue to adapt to today's economic climate, they are broadening their expectation of sustainability beyond the cliches of "green" and "environment" to include a deeper understanding of topics relating to individual as well as corporate responsibility that is reinforced by their purchase decisions.
"Many consumers feel economically empowered by their sustainable practices and with every swipe of the debit card they are increasingly selective about which companies and products they will back. Often, sustainability is the tie breaker vote in a consumer's decision," said Laurie Demeritt, President and COO, The Hartman Group.
About the Report
Sustainability: The Rise of Consumer Responsibility is the definitive roadmap plotting consumer behavior and purchases in the new culture of sustainability and adjusting to new economic realities. The report examines consumers' evolutions, adoptions and aspirations in the environmental and social values marketplace and offers insight into key product categories tied to economic, environmental and social responsibility objectives and long-term sustainability strategic planning. Information about how to obtain the full report is available at www.hartman-group.com/sustainability.
About The Hartman Group, Inc.
The Hartman Group, Inc. is one of the most influential, respected and trusted providers of consumer insight and understanding in the U.S. The Hartman Group is a full-service market research and strategic consultancy specializing in understanding consumer lifestyle behavior and how that behavior leads to purchase. For the past 20 years, companies have relied on The Hartman Group to produce highly successful outcomes across a range of challenging research objectives in health and wellness, sustainability, branding, retailing and many more business arenas. 記事を読むMouthwash 'can cause oral cancer'
Mouthwash 'can cause oral cancer'
Source: Telegraph.co.uk
Date: 12 Jan 2009
Click here for full article
Some mouthwashes can contribute to oral cancer and should only be available on prescription, researchers have claimed.
They claimed there was now "sufficient evidence" that mouthwashes containing alcohol contribute to an increased risk of the disease that they should be taken off supermarket shelves and labelled with health warnings.
In a review of the latest studies, the scientists found evidence that the ethanol in mouthwash was allowing cancer-causing substances to permeate the lining of the mouth more easily and therefore cause harm.
Professor Michael McCulloch, chairman of the Australian Dental Association's therapeutics committee and associate professor of oral medicine at Melbourne University, said the alcohol in mouthwashes "increases the permeability of the mucosa" to carcinogens like nicotine.
He added that a toxic breakdown product of alcohol called acetaldehyde that may accumulate in the oral cavity when swished around the mouth is also a carcinogen.
Prof McCullough said: "We see people with oral cancer who have no other risk factors than the use of alcohol-containing mouthwash, so what we've done in this study is review all the evidence that's out there.
"We believe there should be warnings. If it was a facial cream that had the effect of reducing acne but had a four-to-five-fold increased risk of skin cancer, no one would be recommending it."
Some mouthwash can contain as much as 26 per cent alcohol.
The findings, published in the Dental Journal of Australia, said the most popular mouthwashes contained higher concentrations of alcohol than drinks such as wine or beer.
Prof McCullough said: "If you have a glass of wine, you tend to swallow it. With mouthwash you have a higher level of alcohol and spend longer swishing it around your mouth. The alcohol present in your mouth is turned into acetaldehyde."
He said regular alcohol consumption was a cancer risk - but usually did not involve swishing it around the mouth.
Eating while drinking increased salivation which lowered the risks, he said.
Oral cancer is a mutilating disease that afflicts thousands of people each year and kills half of them within five years of being diagnosed.
Smoking and alcohol consumption are well-established risk factors, but the use of mouthwash containing alcohol is more controversial.
Prof McCullough and co-author Dr Camile Farah, director of research at the University of Queensland's School of Dentistry, recommended mouthwash be restricted to "short-term" medical use or replaced by alcohol-free versions.
Dr Neil Hewson, of the Australian Dental Association, said: "It hasn't actually been established there is a direct relationship between mouthwashes with alcohol and oral cancer."
He said if people floss their teeth, brush properly and have a good diet they should not need mouthwash at all.
Check out our Freshening MOUTH WASH - certified organic alcohol-free all natural mouthwash (under Oral Care in the shopping cart) 記事を読むMake Up Danger for Pregnant Women
Make Up Danger for Pregnant Women
Source: HealthyPages.co.uk
Date: 03 Dec 2008
Click here for full article
France is intending to label cosmetics according to their safety for pregnant women. The alarm was raised be Roselyne Bachelot, the French health minister, saying that health authorities in France want to label cosmetics as being fit or not for pregnant women.
This intention comes after a study was published by the Imperial College London, revealing that pregnant women who experienced higher than normal hairspray exposure had double the likelihood of giving birth to babies with hypospadias, which is a reproductive development condition. The report suggested that the affect was due to hormone disruption caused by chemicals in the hairspray.
The British government want the EU to address the issue in a complete fashion rather than as an isolated agenda, for which reason they want to see it added to the European Cosmetics Directive.
"BERR does not think this is something which is suitable for individual countries to take forward unilaterally and hope that the French raise this during the current negotiations on the revision of the cosmetics directive, where a discussion can take place among experts on cosmetic products," said the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform spokesman.
Leader of the study from the Imperial College study, Professor Paul Elliott, said "Labels enable people to make informed choices. In the vulnerable period of pregnancy, it makes sense for people to reduce their exposure to harmful chemicals," and that "It is part of a broader discussion about minimising chemical exposure in early pregnancy."
"Women who are planning to conceive or who are in the first three months of pregnancy should look at what they are using," said the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Professor Steve Field. He also added that "The cosmetics industry needs to look at this and clearly label their products. Anything like this raises concerns, but I don't think people should panic." 記事を読むFast food diet linked to Alzheimer’s
Fast food diet linked to Alzheimer’s
Source: Nutraingredients-usa.com
Aurtor: Sarah Hills
Date: 1 Dec 2008
Read Article
A diet rich in fat, sugar and cholesterol could lead to similar changes in substances in the brain which are also seen in the development of Alzheimer’s, according to a new study.
Mice that were fed for nine months on the diet, which represents the nutritional content of most fast food, developed abnormalities in the brain similar to those observed in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients, said the study published in a doctoral thesis from the Swedish medical university Karolinska Institutet (KI).
The research offers some indication of the role that diet could play in prevention of the disease which currently affects an estimated 5.2m Americans.
Researcher Susanne Akterin, a postgraduate at KI Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, told FoodNavigator-USA.com: “Several studies have been published during the last years linking diet with the development with Alzheimer's disease and dementia and especially too much cholesterol have been found to be particularly bad.
"This is probably because the brain is an organ that is especially rich in cholesterol and where cholesterol has many functions, and therefore is tightly regulated.
"When you eat too much cholesterol this regulation will be disturbed, leading to many negative effects.
"All kinds of food that contain a lot of fat, sugar and cholesterol is likely to have the same bad consequences.
"Considering the lack of effective medication for this dreadful disease, to prevent the disease from developing in the first place would be desirable."
Akterin said the most common risk factor in Alzheimer’s disease is a variant of a certain gene that governs the production of apolipoprotein E, which transport cholesterol. The gene variant is called apoE4 and is found in 15-20 percent of the population.
The research team studied mice that had been genetically modified to mimic the effects of apoE4 in humans for her doctoral thesis.
They noted an increase in phosphate groups attached to tau, a substance that forms the neurofibrillary tangles observed in Alzheimer’s patients, which prevent the cells from functioning normally and eventually leads to their death.
They also saw indications that cholesterol in food reduced levels of another brain substance, Arc, a protein involved in memory storage.
Akterin said: "We now suspect that a high intake of fat and cholesterol in combination with genetic factors, such as apoE4, can adversely affect several brain substances, which can be a contributory factor in the development of Alzheimer’s.
"All in all, the results give some indication of how Alzheimer’s can be prevented, but more research in this field needs to be done before proper advice can be passed on to the general public."
Previous research has shown that a phenomenon known as oxidative stress in the brain and a relatively low intake of dietary antioxidants can also increase the risk of Alzheimer’s.
Thesis: "From cholesterol to oxidative stress in Alzheimer’s disease: A wide perspective on a multifactorial disease"
Author: Susanne Akterin, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, KI Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Karolinska Institutet.
Click here to read more on Thesis
記事を読むBlackcurrant compounds target Alzheimer’s progression & Blueberries may reduce Alzheimer risk
Blackcurrant compounds target Alzheimer’s progression
Source: Nutraingredients-usa.com
Author: Stephen Daniells
Date 17 Nov 2008
Read Article
Armed with a ₤60 million war chest from the Scottish government, researchers in Aberdeen are aiming to slow the progress of Alzheimer’ with bioactive compounds from blackcurrants.
The blackcurrant study, along with research into breads to help control diabetes and a tomato extract that may reduce heart disease, highlight how Scottish scientists are working to develop healthy food and drink choices to improve the Scots diet.
The research is being carried out by scientists from the University of Aberdeen's Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, Macaulay Institute, Moredun Research Institute, Scottish Agricultural College and the Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI).
The list of research topics include the best ways to manage weight, identifying bio-active compounds in blackcurrants that may slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease, reducing the risk of food-borne illnesses such a E. coli O157, and the improvement of Scottish soil to improve crop yields.
Richard Lochhead, cabinet secretary for rural affairs and the environment, said: "Scottish science is making a significant input to our developing national food and drink policy, which aims to boost the industry and support healthier and more environmentally sustainable choices.
"This high-calibre research is helping our primary producers to maintain and enhance the quality of our food and drink, whilst creating new opportunities for processors. This will help support our vital food and drink industry during this difficult time, to help achieve sustainable economic growth of the sector to reach £10 billion by 2017.
"Our cross-cutting food and drink policy aims to join up government working on every part of the food chain from farm gate to plate. The fascinating work outlined today highlights the valuable contribution made by our world-class scientific researchers."
Updating the policy makers
The research projects were disclosed during a recent special briefing for ministers of the Scottish parliament on some of the work being carried out at Scotland's environmental, agricultural and biological research institutes.
The Scottish Government is providing funding to the tune of approximately £60 million (€70.8 million) per year.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Blueberries may reduce Alzheimer risk
Source: Nutraingredients-usa.com
Author: Stephen Daniells
Date 27 June 2008
Read Article
Eating a diet rich in blueberries may reduce the severity of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's or cognitive disorders relating to ageing, if results from an animal study can be translated into humans.
"The current findings would suggest that a diet enriched in blueberry might attenuate degenerative processes due to oxidative or inflammatory stressors similar to the effectiveness of pharmacological strategies related to this hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease," wrote lead author Kara Duffy in the journal Neurobiology of Aging.
Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia and currently affects over 13 million people worldwide. The direct and indirect cost of Alzheimer care is over $100bn (€ 81bn) in the US alone. The direct cost of Alzheimer care in the UK was estimated at £15bn (€ 22bn).
This is not the first time that blueberries have been linked to protection from Alzheimer's, with sales of the fruit reported to be booming, going from £10.3m (€14.9m) in 2003 to almost £40m (€58m) in 2005, according to UK supplier BerryWorld.
The researchers, from the National Institute on Aging (National Institutes of Health), Tufts University, and Louisiana State University System, randomly assigned Young male Fischer-344 rats a diet containing blueberry extract (two per cent) or a control diet for at least eight weeks. After this the rats were then randomly assigned to receive either a phosphate buffered saline or kainic acid to replicate the neuronal loss experienced by people suffering a neurodegenerative disease.
Behavioural studies were then performed and brain functioning was studied to determine any differences in neuronal loss.
The researchers reported that the rats that were fed a blueberry supplemented diet had enhanced behavioural performance as measured using performance in a 14-unit T-maze. Duffy and co-workers also report that the blueberry-fed animals experienced significantly less brain cell loss, and had more viable brain cells following oxidative stress.
"The present findings indicate that rats exhibited impaired performance in maze learning following intra-hippocampal injection of kainic acid and that a blueberry enriched diet provided significant protection against these decrements in performance," wrote Duffy.
"Additionally… [we] documented clear evidence that the blueberry-enriched diet reduced neuronal loss resulting from the excitotoxic effects of kainic acid."
Although the mechanism of Alzheimers is not clear, more support is gathering for the build-up of plaque from beta-amyloid deposits. The deposits are associated with an increase in brain cell damage and death from oxidative stress.
Previous studies have suggested that it is against the oxidative stress that the polyphenols appear to offer protection, although Duffy and co-workers indicate that the benefits of the blueberry extracts may go beyond that of antioxidant.
"[Combining our findings] with additional research… suggests that at least part of the efficacy of the blueberry supplementation may be to enhance neuronal signaling in areas of the brain affected by kainic acid. This would allow more effective intra- and inter-area communication and ultimately facilitate both cognitive and motor function," wrote the authors.
While further research is required in the area, these results suggest that the wonder fruits rich in antioxidants, such as blueberries, could play a role in the prevention and possible treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders.
Source: Neurobiology of Aging (Elsevier)
Published on-line ahead of print, doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2007.04.002
"A blueberry-enriched diet provides cellular protection against oxidative stress and reduces a kainate-induced learning impairment in rats"
Authors: K.B. Duffy, E.L. Spangler, B.D. Devan, Z. Guo, J.L. Bowker, A.M. Janas, A. Hagepanos, R.K. Minor, R. DeCabo, P.R. Mouton, B. Shukitt-Hale, J.A. Joseph, D.K. Ingram
Remember Berry Radical contains 9 kilos of blueberries
記事を読むObama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"
Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"
Author: Jeffrey Smith
Date; November 30th 2008
Source: The Huffington Post
View Articlie
Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations--where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.
Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:
"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"
When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."
By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.
* The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
* We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
* George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
* Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.
Food Safety Lies
Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.
Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Stephen Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.
"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."
Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs
Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.
At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.
Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.
Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.
Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk
Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.
As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.
But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.
Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.
Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.
Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"
For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."
One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.
Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.
Change, Truth, Hope
I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.
- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."
On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."
There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.
President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.
(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)
Please sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful. 記事を読むPesticides Studies
Study Links Pesticides to Brain Damage
A recent study in the Journal of Environmental Health concluded that many pesticides registered for use in the EU may damage the human brain, and urged the EU to tighten pesticide restrictions. "Because many [pesticides] are by design toxic to the brain of insects, it is very likely that they are also toxic to human brains," Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Southern Denmark told Reuters. Laboratory studies conducted by Grandjean suggest that pesticides commonly used in the EU can cause neuro-developmental toxicity and concluded that the developing brains of young children are far more at risk from chemical exposure. Organophosphates, carbamates, and pyrethroids were listed amongst the potentially damaging chemicals. More than 25 percent of fruits, vegetables and cereals contain detectable residues of at least two pesticides, and according to a recent PAN Europe study, nearly 5% of fruits, vegetables and cereals were found to contain dangerous levels of pesticides and more than 10% of the foods sampled contained four different pesticide residues. Source: PANUPS
Pesticides Contaminate EU Foods
"Almost half of fruits, vegetables and cereals are now contaminated with pesticides," according to PAN Europe. The shocking discovery is based on an official study that is set to be released in November. Five of the pesticides most commonly found in food are known to be "carcinogenic, mutagenic, or disruptive to the hormonal system." PAN Europe Coordinator Elliott Cannel notes "these are the worst pesticide results we've ever seen. A record proportion of fruits and vegetables are contaminated, while 23 pesticides were detected at levels high enough to present an acute risk to public health -- according to the EU's own risk calculations." This represents a 20% increase in pesticide contamination of EU foods over the past five years. Nearly 5% of fruits, vegetables and cereals were found to contain dangerous levels of pesticides and more than 10% of the foods sampled contained four different pesticide residues. The study found 354 pesticide residues including maneb, procymidone, iprodione, carbendazim, deltamethrin and imidacloprid, the pesticide implicated in the mass die-off of European bees. The findings come as the European Parliament is preparing to vote on new EU-wide restrictions on pesticide regulations. Source: PANUPS
OP Pesticides in Pregnant Women and Olive Oil
A National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences study has found "high levels of organophosphorous (OP) pesticides and some suspected endocrine disrupting compounds, including bisphenol A and phthalates, in pregnant women and their offspring" in the Netherlands. Researchers analyzed urine samples from 100 pregnant women and found "relatively high levels of OPs and some phthalates." Tests detected "a specific metabolite of the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos." Meanwhile, InformaWorld reports that a team of Greek researchers that examined 167 samples of Greek virgin olive oil found 30.5% contained "detectable residues… of organophosphorus pesticides" including dimethoate, fenthion, and fenthion sulfoxide. Although dimethoate residues were detected "above the maximum residue limit," the team's report, published in Food Additives & Contaminants, concludes, "there is neither acute nor chronic risk for the Greek population through olive oil consumption."
Source: PANUPS
Pesticides and Depression
A report in the September 9 edition of Environmental Health Perspectives provides evidence that "both acute high-intensity and cumulative pesticide exposure may contribute to depression in pesticide applicators." Researchers from the University of Iowa evaluated "diagnosed depression and pesticide exposure" among privately employed pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina between 1993 and 1997 The study included 17,051 pesticide applicators who reported no significant episodes of depression and another 534 pesticide applicators who self-reported a physician-diagnosed depression. Lifetime pesticide exposures were ranked as "low" (less than 226 days), "intermediate" (between 226-752 days) and "high" (more than 752 days) along with "high-pesticide exposure events" and actual "physician-diagnosed pesticide poisoning." After adjusting for "state, age, education, marital status, doctor visits, alcohol use, smoking, solvent exposure" and other factors, the researchers reported that "pesticide poisoning was more strongly associated with depression." The researchers concluded "both acute high-intensity and cumulative positive exposure may contribute to depression in pesticide applicators. Our study is unique in reporting that depression is also associated with chronic pesticide exposure in the absence of a physician-diagnosed poisoning."
Source: PANUPS
Source: Organic Federation of Australia - OFA Organic Update November 2008
Date: 28 November 2008 記事を読むConsumers Buying Organic Products
61% of Consumers Buy Organic Products
A survey conducted by Newspoll has revealed that 61% Australian grocery buyers buy some organic products.
The Newspoll was commissioned by the Organic Federation of Australia and was conducted nationally among main grocery buyers.
A previous survey, conducted in 2003 by the University of Central Queensland, showed that 43% of consumers purchased organic products. This is a 50% increase in buyers in 5 years and confirms the other data that 'organic' is the fastest growing food category in the world.
The organic industry is emerging from a small niche to a significant part of the Australian food industry. A recent report showed that it is worth over $600 million. When we add flow on industries such as the compost industry that is worth over $400 million it is easy to see that the organic industry is worth over a billion dollars to the Australian economy.
72% of Consumers want one Organic Symbol
72% of organic food buyers say they would prefer to have one, new certification symbol used by all organisations, compared with only 14% who prefer to continue with different certification symbols.
The research conducted by Newspoll found that changing to one, new certification symbol is generally viewed as easier, clearer and less confusing. Having one symbol is also viewed as being easier to recognise and remember, and as having a clearer and stronger meaning. Some also saw it as providing confirmation of uniformity in certification procedures by certification organisations.
Regular organic food buyers were asked to rate the current system of having eight different certification symbols on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is 'very confusing and hard to identify organic foods' and 10 is 'very clear and simple to identify organic foods'.
Their average rating was only 3.1 out of 10, which shows that the current system is seen as confusing.
The research showed very poor awareness of most of the certification symbols and that the words "Certified Organic" were important in guiding consumer awareness about genuine organic products.
The experience from around the world shows that having one symbol to identify organic products generates a huge increase in sales.
Source: Organic Federation of Australia - OFA Organic Update November 2008
Date: 28 November 2008
記事を読むBarack Obama 'encourages organic' as sustainable alternative
Barack Obama 'encourages organic' as sustainable alternative
Source: The Organic Advantage. ed110
Date: 13 November 2008
click here for full details
Recognising the benefits of an environmentally sustainable food production system, newly elected US leader Barack Obama has outlined the need to “encourage organic and sustainable agriculture” in his Rural Plan.
To support the continued growth of sustainable alternative agriculture, the plan included Barack Obama’s intention to increasing funding for the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -
“to help farmers afford the costs of compliance with national organic certification standards.”
The plan also stated Obama would aim to reform the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Risk Management Agency’s crop insurance rates so that they did not penalize organic farmers.
The Rural Plan also covered the market potential for organic.
‘Organic food is the fastest growing sector of the American food marketplace and demand for sustainable, locally grown, grass-finished and heritage foods is growing quickly,’ it stated, adding that the new President will also help farmers realise improving their bottom line is connected with increasing environmental benefits.
The Plan suggested looking at alternative inputs, all round.
“By using more wind and solar in power production systems and sharing energy with other users; by using new irrigation practices to conserve energy and water; by using no till and other agricultural practices that reduce energy input and keep the health of our soil sustainable.”
It reported Obama will also be likely to encourage the use of methane digesters that are being used to produce power from animal wastes, and has a strong interest in the next generation of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol (produced from a naturally occurring carbohydrate polymer commonly found in plant cell walls).
Cellulosic ethanol is chemically identical to ethanol from other sources like corn and sugar but is available in a great diversity of biomass including waste from urban, agriculture and forestry sources.
Currently, in Australia the potential of some similar ideas is being investigated.
A report by RIRDC looking at second generation lignocellulosics (including cellulosic ethanol) stated their development in Australia could be a potential solution the limited supply of ‘first generation’ biofuels, derived mostly from commodity crops.
“In a scenario where all the Australian domestic crops of sugar, molasses, wheat and coarse grains were converted into ethanol using first generation technologies, and all biodiesel inputs were used to make biodiesel, we would still not replace all of Australia’s transport fuel requirements (by a long margin for diesel),” it stated.
“However the development of second generation biofuels that utilise non-food plant materials, such as sugar cane bagasse, native grasses, native perennials, forestry waste, farm forestry, wheat straw, newsprint and cotton trash… could help reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, as well as providing unique opportunities for new agricultural industries.
Such industries may be aligned with sustainable production systems similar to organic in principle.
The report stated opportunities could occur “particularly in less productive agricultural lands where woody shrubs and perennial grasses can grow with few inputs."
It stated low-input high diversity mixtures of grassland perennials for production of biofuels could have many positives in comparison to corn or soybean, with mixed grasslands producing 238 % more bioenergy from cellulosics than mono-cultured crops like corn after ten years, with less inputs.
“These mixed grasslands can be grown productively on degraded lands and therefore would not
require further land clearing nor compete with viable farming land to make a substantial impact.”
How does Australia measure up?
The Australian Government is also on the same track as Obama’s, expressing specific support for organic in their 2007 national platform.
“Labour will support the ongoing development of organic farming and sustainable agricultural
practices,” it stated, as well as outlining their support for “the further development of the increasingly important role being played by farmers in the development and production of alternative fuels, including biofuels produced on farms” (visit http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/2007_national_platform.pdf) .
Dr. Andrew Monk, BFA Standards Chair, says while the Government’s sentiments toward organic were strongly applauded, action was now needed.
“While the recognition of the benefits of organic in the context of sustainable agriculture is welcome, the BFA now looks forward to this being meaningfully translated,” he says.
“Agricultural R&D and policy that actively supports the uptake of more biologically orientated and organic agriculture options is the next step.
He says these outcomes would do more for the Australian organic industry than subsidies for organic certification as outlined in Barack Obama’s plans.
“The Australian culture is not one of subsidising agriculture – the fundamentally important challenge for Australia is to see a transition from organic support to actions that will enable organic farmers to flourish.
“Currently there remains an agricultural environment still orientated towards non-biological approaches, and the first step is the beginning of a journey of culture change - that is unlikely to happen overnight.” 記事を読むSafety Fears Over Nanoparticles in Cosmetics
Safety Fears Over Nanoparticles in Cosmetics
Source: Organic Monitor - Natural Cosmetics Newsfeed Nov 08
Date: 8 November 2008
Cosmetics containing tiny "nano" particles are being used widely despite unresolved issues surrounding their safety, a consumer watchdog warns.
Many skin care products, including sunscreens and wrinkle creams, contain this technology to make them easier to apply and invisible on the skin. But experts are concerned about their possible long-term effects on the body, Which? reports.
Which? wants more safety checks and tighter regulation of their use. It says, at the moment, consumers cannot tell which products use nanomaterials as many fail to mention it.
Nanocosmetics
Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating atoms and molecules on the nanoscale - 80,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. The cosmetics industry is using it to create new materials with novel properties.
On the flip-side, that might mean unexpected risks. Which? wrote to 67 cosmetics companies, including all of the main brands as well as smaller ones, asking them about their use of nanotechnology, what benefits they thought it brought and how they ensured product safety.
Seventeen firms responded, and of these, eight were willing to provide information about how they used nanotechnology. Most of the eight, which included The Body Shop, Boots, Nivea, Avon, L'Oréal, Unilever, Korres and The Green People, used nanotechnology for the UV filters in their sunscreens.
Which? also found evidence of other cosmetics companies offering nanocosmetics online.
Skin penetration
These products included nano emulsions - preparations containing oil and water droplets reduced to nano size - used to preserve active ingredients, such as vitamins and anti-oxidants, and for their lightness and transparency. Another example was a type of nanomaterial called "fullerenes" used in anti-aging cream products.
Scientists have raised particular concerns about potential toxicity of fullerenes if they were able to penetrate the skin. There is also a concern that the nanomaterials in sunscreens might be able to breach sunburned skin.
The Which? report says all nanocosmetic products should have an independent safety assessment. The precautionary principle should be applied to products where there are potential risks but where it is not currently possible to assess their safety so that consumers are not put at risk, it says.
Sue Davies of Which? said: "We're not saying the use of nanotechnology in cosmetics is a bad thing, far from it. Many of its applications could lead to exciting and revolutionary developments in a wide range of products, but until all the necessary safety tests are carried out, the simple fact is we just don't know enough.
"The government must introduce a compulsory reporting scheme for manufactured nanomaterials so we are all aware - and only those that are independently assessed as safe should be allowed to be used in cosmetics."
Regulation
In September 2006, the government launched a voluntary reporting scheme for all engineered nanomaterials to find out what was, or could be, on the market, to guide the development of regulations. This has had a limited response - 12 responses in two years - and is now under review.
A spokeswoman for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association said: "The industry is working with government to provide more information on the safety of these products. The safety assessment of cosmetic products is a legal requirement and that assessment is robust and takes into consideration the particle size of ingredients."
Professor Dame Ann Dowling, chairman of the Royal Society working group on nanotechnologies, said: "The Royal Society has been calling, for the last four years, for companies to make public the safety testing methods they have been using on their nanoproducts. We are disappointed at continuing lack of transparency in this area.
"More research does need to be done on the effects of manufactured nanoparticles on human health and the environment. This is important so that regulation can be built on a proper understanding of any risks."
A European Commission spokeswoman said: "We are working towards improving our ability to assess the safety of all consumer products using nanomaterials including cosmetics.
"The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identifed Health Risks (SCENIHR) is currently preparing an update of its 2006 opinion on the risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. This update will be available in January 2009."
Boots said it did not consider its current use of materials was of concern to health. The Body Shop said its products helped to protect human skin.
Organic Monitor Comment
The lack of research on nanoparticles led Soil Association to prohibit nanoparticles in certified organic cosmetics earlier this year. Other certification agencies are following suit. However, the issue remains a contentious one, as demonstrated at the Natural Beauty Summit last month where Soil Association, Croda and FEBEA were involved in a debate on the role of nanoparticles in the cosmetics industry.
Source: BBC News 記事を読むBerries and Brightly Colored Fruits Top the Antioxidant Chart
Berries and Brightly Colored Fruits Top the Antioxidant Chart
Source: The Scoop - The Organic Centre Newsletter October 2008
A team of Cornell University scientists subjected 25 fruits to a series of tests of antioxidant content and cellular activity. Wild and domesticated blueberries, blackberries, cranberries, strawberries, and pomegranates topped the various lists in varying orders. All brightly colored fruits scored very well in all measures used in the study.
Across all fruits in the diet, apples were found to provide 33% of total phenolics, reflecting very high consumption and moderate phenolics content. Oranges provided 12%, grapes 12.8%, and strawberries, 9.8%.
In urging increased consumption of nutrient-dense, brightly colored fruits and vegetables, the team cited the latest report from the USDA's Economic Research Service on fruit and vegetable intakes. The ERS reports that Americans are still lagging in terms of fruit and vegetable intake. On average in 2005, we consumed 0.9 cups of fruit per day, instead of the 2.0 cups (four servings) recommending in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. And we consumed 1.7 cups of vegetables, instead of the recommended 2.5 cups (five servings), based on a 2,000 calorie diet.
The authors conclude (cautiously) that –
"Antioxidant activity provided by fruits may be important in the prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases."
Source: Kelly L. Wolfe et al., "Cellular Antioxidant Activity of Common Fruits," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol. 56, No. 18, pages 8419-8426.
Editor's Note: In the Center's second State of Science Review (SSR) on antioxidants, we analyzed differences in the antioxidant activity of organic and conventional foods, concluding that organic food contains, on average, 30% more antioxidants per gram or per serving.
The antioxidant SSR contains a Table 2 (see page 14-15) that ranks over 65 common foods by antioxidant activity per calorie consumed. In assessing the ability of a food to promote human health, the metric "total antioxidant activity per calorie consumed" is as close as one can come to the miles-per-gallon rating of car energy efficiency.
This widely used Table in our antioxidant SSR is especially valuable for people looking to increase antioxidant intake while consuming fewer calories. 記事を読むAdolescent exposures to cosmetic chemicals of concern
Adolescent exposures to cosmetic chemicals of concern
Author: Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D., Staff Scientist,
Date: September 2008
Source: Environmental Working Group - full article
The 20 teens we tested had an average of 13 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals in their bodies.
Laboratory tests reveal adolescent girls across America are contaminated with chemicals commonly used in cosmetics and body care products. Environmental Working Group (EWG) detected 16 chemicals from 4 chemical families - phthalates, triclosan, parabens, and musks - in blood and urine samples from 20 teen girls aged 14-19. Studies link these chemicals to potential health effects including cancer and hormone disruption. These tests feature first-ever exposure data for parabens in teens, and indicate that young women are widely exposed to this common class of cosmetic preservatives, with 2 parabens, methylparaben and propylparaben, detected in every single girl tested.
In Alex (Washington DC): 12 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals. "It's frightening to learn about the many different kinds of toxic chemicals that can be found in my body. At the same time I would much rather be knowledgeable about my body's chemical makeup than uninformed; in this case, ignorance is NOT bliss."
This work represents the first focused look at teen exposures to chemicals of concern in cosmetics, exposures that occur during a period of accelerated development. Adolescence encompasses maturation of the reproductive, immune, blood, and adrenal hormone systems, rapid bone growth associated with the adolescent "growth spurt," shifts in metabolism, and key changes to brain structure and function. Alterations in an array of sex hormones, present in the body at levels as low as one part per billion (ppb), or even one part per trillion (ppt), guide this transformation to adulthood. Emerging research suggests that teens may be particularly sensitive to exposures to trace levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals like the ones targeted in this study, given the cascade of closely interrelated hormonal signals orchestrating the transformation from childhood to adulthood.
Study teens use more personal care products daily than an average adult woman
Teens = 17 products
Adults = 12 products
Source: EWG product use surveys.
During this window of vulnerability to toxic assault, adolescent girls typically experiment with an increasing number and variety of body care products. Teen study participants used an average of nearly 17 personal care products each day, while the average adult woman uses just 12 products daily. Thus, teens may unknowingly expose themselves to higher levels of cosmetic ingredients linked to potential health effects at a time when their bodies are more susceptible to chemical damage.
Cosmetics and other personal care products are an alarming example of government and industry failures to protect public health. Federal health statutes do not require companies to test products or ingredients for safety before they are sold. As a result, nearly all personal care products contain ingredients that have not been assessed for safety by any accountable agency, and that are not required to meet standards of safety. To protect the health of teens and all Americans, we recommend action:
* The federal government must set comprehensive safety standards for cosmetics and other personal care products.
* Teens should make healthy choices for themselves by reducing the number of products they use, and by using our Shopper’s Guide to Safe Cosmetics to select safer products.
* Companies must reformulate products to protect consumers from exposure to potentially toxic chemicals, untested ingredients, and noxious impurities.
記事を読むChemicals Endangering Our Kids
Chemicals endangering our kids
Friday 10th October 2008
A Current Affair - Channel 9
Click here to view the video aired on A Current Affair
We all fuss over the beauty of a new born baby’s delicate skin, but is it under siege from a barrage of chemical cocktail thanks to the everyday toiletries we use?
Public health researcher, Dr Sarah Lantz, says she has grave concerns about everyday chemicals we find on our supermarket shelves and how they could be affecting our children. So concerned in fact, she has just released a book on the topic: Chemical Free Kids - Raising Healthy Children in a Toxic World, which you can find at www.chemicalfreeparenting.com.
"We've got a world which is filled with chemicals and in lots of ways we're subjecting little bodies to a range of different toxins," Dr Lantz told ACA.
"There is more and more research showing a link between chemicals and behavioural problems. There is also a link to a range of diseases with the potentially cancerous materials that show up in different products."
According to Dr Lantz's research, our entire modern environment is toxic and we are all suffering the consequences with increasing numbers of children being diagnosed with asthma and behavioural problems including attention deficit disorder - even autism.
"There's a whole range of chronic problems the whole population is experiencing - and at a younger age these days,"she says.
Paediatric dermatologist, Dr. Gayle Fischer, at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney suggests parents keep products on children to a minimum.
"I would really just recommend a mild soap and water, if your child has normal skin. The main complaint in little children is often that they're a little dry, in which case, just select an unperfumed moisturiser that's greasy enough to make your child's skin feel normal," she says.
But Dr Fischer says we shouldn't be too concerned about the chemicals in our toiletries.
"Even though there are a lot of people worried about toxins and chemicals in the environment, the fact is that we are living to a ripe old age. And a lot of that has to do with modern hygiene and sanitation,"she says.
Not everyone is convinced.
Mother of three, Narelle Chenery, was very concerned about the chemicals in supposedly natural skin care products. So, she made her own totally natural products with Miessence Certified Organics - www.mionegroup.com
"These products are something I started in my kitchen ten years ago and now we're a multimillion dollar company selling certified organic products around the world, it's very exciting,"says Narelle.
Now her adult skin care range is sold in over 60 countries and she's just launched a baby range.
And this young mum from the Gold Coast has done something else quite remarkable. She has the first fully organically certified range of baby skin care products in the world.
"The ingredients that go into our products, being certified organic, are actually edible. You can eat them, so that's utmost proof of safety.’ she says.
Whilst Narelle's business has been fully certified as organic, there are many out there who promote their products as natural or organic, but consumers beware!
"In theory a skin product that's organic should be entirely plant derived, have no petroleum products and no preservatives," says Dr Lanz.
"But if you actually turn around the label, turn around the bottle and have a look at it - it contains a host of other really kind of toxic ingredients and a lot of chemicals."
So here are Dr Sarah Lantz's tips on how to help keep your kids, chemical free.
# BE A CONSCIOUS CONSUMER
Really get clear on what are good chemicals and what are bad chemicals. Beware of certain chemicals: Phthalates, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Cocomide DEA
# BE WARY OF CERTAIN CHEMICALS
Anything that's got a number next to it is something that we should be really critical of or looking at.
# BEWARE OF PRODUCTS THAT SAY THEY ARE NATURAL OR ORGANIC
Always look out of the certification logo.
# GO FRAGRANCE FREE
Babies just do not need fragrances or chemicals on their skins at all.
# REDUCE YOUR CHILD'S EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS
Reducing it means look at what they're playing with, what they're eating, what are you putting on their bodies.
# AND HAVE A BASIC CLEANING ROUTINE
I would say with kids keep it as simple as possible. For a lot of the time just use water. For a normal healthy child the message is, don't do anything special, keep it really simple and enjoy your time with your baby. 記事を読むFrench health agency promises to clean up baby cosmetics
French health agency promises to clean up baby cosmetics
Date: 8 October 2008
Source: Cosmetics Design.com
Full Article
The French health agency (AFSSAPS) has promised to tighten controls on baby cosmetics following a high profile campaign that labeled the products “toxic cocktails”.
To protect public health and restore confidence in baby cosmetics, the AFSSAPS will increase inspections and controls to ensure that the products on the market comply with existing regulations.
The health agency will also put the ingredients and products brought into question under the microscope to determine whether they pose risks to human health.
These measures were decided upon in reaction to the sustainable health charity raising the alarm over a number of chemicals in baby cosmetics including parabens, EDTA, BHA and bisphenol A.
Supporting the campaign, Professor Dominique Belpomme, who is president of the cancer research charity ARTAC, told the press that the accumulative cocktail effect of the baby products was unknown.
She said the current situation is absolutely unacceptable from the point of view of public health.
Put under particular scrutiny by the C2DS were the baby cosmetic products distributed in French maternity wards, the evaluation of which the AFSSAPS has now vowed to make a priority.
In addition to the other initiatives the AFSSAPS has put in place the organization announced the creation of a working group to evaluate the safety assessment methods used by manufacturers of baby cosmetics.
Meanwhile the Fédération des Entreprises de la Beauté (FEBEA) defended the industry and sought to reassure consumers that baby products are safe.
The French trade association said all cosmetics are thoroughly tested and that under the EU Cosmetics Directive products aimed at children under three must undergo a specific evaluation process.
Check out our Mother&Baby Range - products good enough to eat! 記事を読むChemicals Found in Cosmetics Linked to Future Infertility
Chemicals Found in Cosmetics Linked to Future Infertility
Date: 30 September 2008
Source: NaturalNews.com
Full Article
NaturalNews) The first three months of pregnancy have a significant impact on a baby boy's future fertility. Chemicals found in cosmetics could create infertility problems later in life. Researchers at Edinburgh University have shown that exposure to chemicals in the first 12 weeks in the womb can affect sperm production in manhood. Many of these products are routinely used by a majority of women.
Although the evidence is not conclusive, it is a step in the right direction to show women how vital it is to only use natural, healthy products. The skin is the largest organ in the body, and anything that is put on it gets absorbed and ends up in the blood stream, ultimately coming into contact with unborn babies.
Future Disease, Including Cancer
Some chemicals used in cosmetics can block hormones. In the study, male hormones in rats were blocked for a period of time when they were in the womb. These rats went on to suffer from infertility.
The scientists also concluded that these chemicals may also increase the risk of baby boys developing other reproductive conditions in later life, including testicular cancer. They urged women who were intending to become pregnant to avoid putting these harmful cosmetic products on their skin.
Prof. Sharpe, who led the study says, "There are lots of compounds in perfumes that we know in higher concentrations have the potential to have biological effects, so it is just being ultra safe to say that by avoiding using them your baby isn't at risk.
"If you are planning to become pregnant you should change your lifestyle. Those lifestyle things don't necessarily mean that you are going to cause terrible harm to your baby, but by avoiding them you are going to have a positive effect.
"We would recommend you avoid exposure to chemicals that are present in cosmetics, anything that you put on your body that might then get through your body into your developing baby.
"It is not because we have evidence that these chemicals categorically cause harm to babies, it is only based on experimental studies on animals that suggest it is a possibility."
Just Pregnant Women?
If these products disrupt the hormonal balance in baby boys, then doesn't it stand to reason that they could potentially have a harmful effect on all of us? Do you want to take the chance?
Most people who are into natural health have already concluded that natural, organic or wild products are best. Nature provides everything we need, and putting toxic chemicals on our skin is not going to ultimately make it softer, smoother or younger. These toxins must be processed in the liver, which is the organ that most influences our skin.
The best choice is for every person to choose natural cosmetic products, not just women who are becoming pregnant. It is such an easy way to become less toxic and improve wellbeing.
The problem is that the study also showed that chemicals in household fabrics and plastics can cause the same problem.
Check out our Mother&Baby range of products for an alternative to your current products - the choice is yours! 記事を読むBerries Provide a Cocktail of Cancer Preventing Compounds
Berries Provide a Cocktail of Cancer Preventing Compounds
Date: 30 September 2008
Source: NaturalNews.com
Full Article
(NaturalNews) Black raspberries provide a powerful mix of cancer-inhibiting compounds. New research at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center was conducted to test the effect of black raspberries on the genetic activity of rats provoked to develop cancer of the esophagus.
The researchers split the rats into two groups. One group was fed a normal diet while the other was fed a diet with 5 percent freeze-dried black raspberries. After two weeks, half of the rats in each group were injected with a chemical carcinogen that induces esophageal cancer.
After a week of carcinogen application, the rats' health was examined. Judging by appearance, the esophageal tissue of the rats that ate black raspberries was more normal and healthy compared to the other rats. In an earlier study, the berry-fed rats had a 60 percent reduction in tumors.
On the genetic level, the findings were astonishing. The researchers were able to measure the activity levels of the 41,000 genes in each of the rats. In the rats without the preventative benefits of the berries, the activity levels of 2,261 genes changed by at least 50 percent. Predictably, those genes are responsible for such things as cell proliferation, inflammation, and cell destruction: actions that are common during cancer development. Amazingly, one fifth (462) of those carcinogen-effected-genes were expressed at normal levels in the rats fed black raspberries.
Black raspberries, in addition to other berries, have multiple mechanisms of prevention. The result is a beneficial effect throughout an animal's genome due to the collection of vitamins, minerals, phytosterols and phenols in the berries.
"This suggests to us that a mixture of preventative agents, which berries provide, may more effectively prevent cancer than a single agent that targets only one or a few genes," said Gary D. Stoner, a professor of pathology, human nutrition and medicine at the University.
A similar companion study tested a single chemoprevention compound in the rats with the same ailment. Of the stated 462 genes, 53 were kept at normal activity levels by this agent alone.
Concerning this, Stoner said, "What's emerging from studies in cancer chemoprevention is that using single compounds alone is not enough." He went on to say that berries are not enough either: they only partially prevent tumors. He recommended finding other foods to combine with berries.
Other foods to consider are mushrooms, grapes, cruciferous vegetables, flax, and many more.
Check out our Berry Radical - with over 7,000 ORAC unit in just one serving!!! 記事を読むChoosing Products That Promote Beauty and Well Being
Choosing Products That Promote Beauty and Well Being
Dat:e 7 Cctober 2008
Source: Natural News.com
Full Article
(NaturalNews) Millions of Americans are adversely affected each year by a silent from of chemical warfare that's taking place every day within the comforts of our own homes. While we worry about the chemical weaponry of terrorists and lead-contaminated imported toys, we are literally poisoning our immune systems with thousands of toxic chemicals that are known carcinogens, hormone disrupters, and cancer-causing agents.
It starts with your morning routine. If you are a man, you will probably use shampoo, soap, toothpaste, mouthwash, deodorant, hair gel or styling products, shaving cream, and aftershave or cologne. A typical day for a woman starts much the same, with the added possibilities of shower gel, body and face cream, lotion, moisturizer, make-up, hair spray, perfume, and nail polish. By the time you have made it to the door, you have swallowed, inhaled and absorbed through your skin hundreds of toxic chemicals, some of which have been proven to be deadly to laboratory animals and many of which are known to be carcinogens.
If you are suffering from dry flaky skin, persistent skin irritations, rashes, sinus problems, allergies, asthma, respiratory ailments and other health problems that never seem to get cured, it may be time for you to examine the negative effects your personal care products are having on your health. It's great to exercise and watch what you eat, but you must also watch what you put on your body and even what you use to clean your house if you want to achieve optimal health.
Any substance you put on your skin, or inhale will enter your bloodstream just as surely as if you had swallowed it. Once these chemicals enter your bloodstream, they are perceived by your immune system as foreign and not recognizable, and they are perceived by your liver as toxins. When your immune system and liver are dealing with toxic chemical overload they aren't available to do the jobs they were intended to do. That's why people who insist on putting toxic chemicals into their bodies suffer from frequent bacterial and viral infections, other mysterious maladies, and even cancer.
Have you ever taken a close look at the ingredients in your personal care products? Whatever you are seeing probably includes water. Is there anything else on that label that you recognize as a naturally occurring substance you might actually want to put inside your body? If it doesn't occur in nature, it shouldn't be inside of you, because you are a natural being.
How does the label on your soap look like?
No matter what the advertisements try to make you think, fragrance does not come from flowers or anything else natural. More than 4,000 chemicals are used in fragrances, many of which are waste products from the petroleum industry. Several of them are known to cause cancer, birth defects, infertility, and brain and central nervous system damage including Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's.
Since so many products are now scented, the number of people who are made ill by fragrances is steadily increasing. Babies and children are especially vulnerable along with those recovering from illness or disease. Chemical fragrances are everywhere: laundry detergent, fabric softeners, dish washing liquids, suntan products, sunscreen, incense, lotions, moisturizers, lip balms, almost every personal care product, and more. It's even found in many products labeled as unscented because it is contained within a compound when that compound is added to the product.
Exposure to scented products can cause the persistent symptoms that mystify people, such as chronic aches and pains, headaches, allergies, swollen glands and lymph tenderness, heart palpitations, memory, fatigue, asthma, nausea, and neural-motor functioning including dizziness, and fainting. Exposure in children and even adults can cause learning and behavioral problems, attention deficit and hyperactivity in addition to any of the other symptoms. Continued exposure to chemical fragrances along with other toxic chemicals can cause development of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Disease. When you have this disease, the slightest whiff of a toxic chemical makes you so ill you cannot function. Your ability to interact with the rest of the world is seriously compromised.
It's tempting to say to your self that these products must be alright or the 'government' wouldn't let them be sold, but this isn't true. The personal care products industry is not supervised. The FDA does not require manufacturers to register their products or to file safety data on the ingredients they use in them. They are free to put in as many toxic chemicals as they want. The only thing that stops them is reaction from the public. A few years ago, magazines came with scented strips advertising the latest perfumes. So many people were sickened and complained that the strips were discontinued. If enough people refuse to buy toxic products, manufacturers would stop making them.
Products you use while taking a shower are particularly dangerous since you are using them at a time when your pores are opened by hot water, allowing quick and easy access to your bloodstream. A look at the ingredients in your shampoo may be shocking. There are more than 100 toxic chemicals traditionally used in shampoo, and most brands contain 20 to 30 of them in addition to chemical fragrance and dyes.
Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is a dominant ingredient in almost all shampoos. In addition to its toxic effects on your immune and detoxification systems, SLS has been shown to corrode the hair follicles and impede hair growth. It has been blamed for premature hair loss. The Material Safety Data Sheet provided by the U.S. government says exposure to SLS can lead to burning, coughing, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache, nausea and vomiting. The American College of Toxicology says that SLS stays in the body for up to five days and maintains residual levels in the heart, liver, lungs and brain.
While there are many natural alternative substances available that will clean and beautify you far better than these toxic concoctions, the large corporations that produce personal care products won't use them because it would cost too much money and interfere with their profits. They even try to disguise their cheap chemicals with tiny amounts of natural ingredients that are prominently featured on the front of the bottle. This is done to deceive you into buying what you think is an item that promotes health. But turn the bottle over and you will see a mind boggling list of toxic ingredients.
If you have decided that you don't want to pay your hard earned money to a corporation that strives to deceive you and tell you lies, you will find that discovering how to replace your toxic products with products that promote good health is a very difficult task. No matter what it says on the label, there are virtually No products in any of the discount stores, traditional supermarkets, or drugstores that are not filled with health compromising chemicals.
Some supermarkets featuring organic or health sections carry Burt's Bees products. These are certainly far preferable to those produced by the large corporations, but Burt's Bees has recently been bought out by Clorox Corporation, so its quality may soon be compromised. For now, some of Burt's Bees products are safe, and some contain toxic ingredients such as fragrance, endocrine system disrupting glucose oxidase, and borax (the active ingredient in most ant poisons).
You will have a better chance of finding products that promote health at a health food market. But even there, you can't just walk in and buy what appeals to you on sight. Many products marketed as 'natural' contain high levels of toxic ingredients. Whole Foods Market publishes a list of ingredients not allowed in the foods they sell, but many of these ingredients are contained in their personal care items. Apparently it is alright with them if the toxins enter you body through your skin instead of your mouth.
When you try to replace your personal care products with ones that promote health, you will find that almost every item you pick lists ingredients that sounds like chemicals. The only way to be sure of what you are buying is to research these ingredients. Here is a website where you can easily research many of these ingredients using their search box: (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/) Check out Miessence product ratings.
Kiss My Face makes that luscious olive oil soap without scent or in several scents created from chemicals. Many of their other products contain an array of toxic ingredients.
Jason's is good for toothpaste, making several flavors without fluoride or significant toxic chemicals. But again, much of their line contains objectionable ingredients.
Cosmetics made entirely from minerals are gaining in popularity as witnessed by the astounding growth in Bare Essential shops. Mineral cosmetics provide the affects of traditional cosmetics and don't contain toxic chemicals. There are several other companies that sell cosmetics made from minerals. Their products are available at health food stores and online.
It's not easy to make the change from disease promoting personal care products to those promoting health. It seems to require some trial and error, a lot of time to do research, patience, and a commitment to paying higher prices for the products you use. But once the change is made and these products become as familiar to you as the ones you used to buy, it will be easy from that point on. You will realize that you have made a significant investment in your future health and freedom from disease, and you will feel proud of yourself. You will know that it's all a matter of priorities.
After you have found products in every category that you really like and seen how good you feel using them, you probably won't even consider returning to the old brands. You will feel good about spending your money on products made by a company who knows its future rests in producing products that keep you healthy, rather that a corporation that sees you only as someone to be exploited. And you may realize that looking your best can be achieved only with the vibrant glow of good health shining from your insides out. 記事を読むCalifornia passes green chemistry legislation
California passes green chemistry legislation
Source: Cosmetics Design
Date: 1 October 2008
Full Article
Arnold Schwarzenegger has put his signature to green chemistry legislation in California that promises to remove politics from the evaluation of disputed chemicals.
State governor Schwarzenegger has signed two bills into law that aim to establish a science-based process for tackling potentially toxic chemicals and therefore prevent lobby groups and political interests from determining the content of consumer goods.
New system and powers
A.B. 1879 gives the California Department of Toxic Substances Control authority, for the first time, to regulate chemicals in consumer products.
Under the legislation, the department will have the authority to identify, evaluate and even ban potentially harmful chemicals.
To exercise these new powers in the best interests of consumers, state regulators will have to develop a science-based program to identify chemicals of concern, evaluate them and analyze alternatives.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control has until January 1, 2011 to put this process in place and it will also have to establish a Green Ribbon Science Panel for advisory purposes.
Online information resource
The other bill signed into law by Schwarzenegger was S.B. 509 which requires the establishment of an online Toxic Information Clearinghouse.
This will provide consumers and businesses with information about the toxicity and hazards of chemicals used in everyday life.
Signing the bills in Los Angeles this week Schwarzenegger said: “With these two bills, we will stop looking at toxics as an inevitable byproduct of industrial production.
“Instead they will be something that can be removed from every product in the design stage - protecting people's health and our environment.”
Criticism of the legislation
However the legislation is not without its critics. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) claims it is watered down and devoid of substance.
“We hope we're wrong,” said EWG president Richard Wiles. “But these bills do not establish a human health safety standard or public health goal for chemicals of concern or their prospective substitutes. In fact, they are completely devoid of any tangible commitment to protect the health of the people of California.
“They provide a statutory shield for chemical companies who want to delay health protections and preserve the status quo while bureaucrats ponder the problem.”
記事を読むPollution can make you fat, study claims
Pollution can make you fat, study claims
Date: Sunday, 7 September 2008
Source: The Independent UK
Full Story
Children exposed to pesticide in womb twice as likely to be overweight, refuting idea of sole personal responsibility. Geoffrey Lean reports
Pollution can make children fat, startling new research shows. A groundbreaking Spanish study indicates that exposure to a range of common chemicals before birth sets up a baby to grow up stout, thus helping to drive the worldwide obesity epidemic.
The results of the study, just published – the first to link chemical contamination in the womb with one of the developing world's greatest and fastest-growing health crises – carry huge potential implications for public policy around the globe. They undermine recent strictures from the Conservative leader, David Cameron, that blame solely the obese for their own condition.
A quarter of all British adults and a fifth of children are obese – four times as many as 30 years ago. And so are at least 300 million people worldwide. The main explanation is that they are consuming more calories than they burn. But there is growing evidence that diet and lack of exercise, though critical, cannot alone explain the rapid growth of the epidemic.
It has long been known that genetics give people different metabolisms, making some gain weight more easily than others. But the new study by scientists at Barcelona's Municipal Institute of Medical Research suggests that pollution may similarly predispose people to get fat.
The research, published in the current issue of the journal Acta Paediatrica, measured levels of hexachlorobenzene (HCB), a pesticide, in the umbilical cords of 403 children born on the Spanish island of Menorca, from before birth. It found that those with the highest levels were twice as likely to be obese when they reached the age of six and a half.
HCB, which was mainly used to treat seeds, has been banned internationally since the children were born, but its persistence ensures that it remains in the environment and gets into food.
The importance of the study is not so much in identifying one chemical, as in showing what is likely to be happening as a result of contact with many of them. Its authors call for exposures to similar pesticides to be "minimised".
Experiments have shown that many chemicals fed to pregnant animals cause their offspring to grow up obese. These include organotins, long employed in antifouling paints on ships and now widely found in fish; bisphenol A (BPA), used in baby bottles and to line cans of food, among countless other applications; and phthalates, found in cosmetics, shampoos, plastics to wrap food, and in a host of other everyday products.
These pollutants – dubbed "obesogens" as a result of these findings – are so ubiquitous that almost everyone now has them in their bodies. Ninety-five per cent of Americans excrete BPA in their urine; 90 per cent of babies have been found to be exposed to phthalates in the womb; and every umbilical cord analysed in the new Spanish study was found to contain organchlorine pesticides such as HCB.
Two American studies have implicated phthalates in obesity in adult men, but the new research is much more conclusive, and is the first to show the effects of exposure in the womb, where humans are most vulnerable.
Dr Pete Myers, one of the world's leading experts on obesogens, told The Independent on Sunday last night: "This is very important. It is the first good study of the effects on the foetus. Its conclusions are not surprising, given what we know from the animal experiments, but it firmly links such chemicals to the biggest challenge facing public health today."
No one knows how HCB causes obesity. The Spanish scientists speculate that it may have made the mothers diabetic, which would increase the chances of their children becoming obese (see graphic, above).
Dr Myers, who is chief scientist at the US-based Environmental Health Sciences, which helps to increase public understanding of emerging scientific links, says this is "plausible", but adds that the animal experiments point elsewhere. These have shown that obesogens "switch genes on and off" in the womb, causing stem cells to be turned into fat cells. The children then grow up with a much greater disposition to store and accumulate fat.
Whatever the explanation, the research goes some way to undermining David Cameron's assertion in a speech this summer that obesity is purely a matter of "personal responsibility", a view echoed by his health spokesman, Andrew Lansley 10 days ago. The Tory leader said that the obese are "people who eat too much and take too little exercise".
Dr Myers calls that "wishful ideological thinking which does not accord with biological reality", adding: "We need to discover ways to reduce exposures to these chemicals so that changing diet and lifestyle has a chance to work."
Factors that may pile on the pounds
Why is the world getting so fat? Everyone agrees that people gain weight by taking in more calories in their food than they burn off through everyday activities and exercise. But many scientists are coming to believe that changes in diet and exercise do not sufficiently explain the rapid growth of the epidemic. As 'The Independent on Sunday' reported last week, there has been no reduction in physical activity in Britain since 1980, while obesity rates have quadrupled.
The genetic make-up of a population does not change rapidly enough to provide an explanation. So the hunt is on for other factors that might show why more people are gaining weight more easily.
Life before birth. Both overweight and underweight babies are more likely to grow up fat. So are those born to smokers. Evidence suggests pollution is also predisposing the unborn to obesity. The introduction and increase in the use of such chemicals coincides with the epidemic taking off.
Age of mothers. The chances of becoming obese increase with maternal age. And the average age of first giving birth has gone up by 2.6 years in Britain since 1970.
Less sleep. Both children and adults are more likely to get fat if they get too little sleep, partly because they become hungrier. Average daily sleep has fallen from nine to seven hours over recent decades.
Temperature. People burn up more calories when they are cold. Central heating has ensured that they spend most of their time in comfortable temperatures.
Prescription drugs. Some drugs – including anti-psychotics, antidepressants and treatments for diabetes – cause people to gain weight.
Stopping smoking. Though mothers who smoke may make their children fat, they – and all smokers – are themselves less likely to put on weight. As the habit has decreased, obesity has soared. 記事を読むResearch into wound healing provides animal testing alternatives
Research into wound healing provides animal testing alternatives
Source: Cosmetics Design Europe (full article)
Date: 25 Aug 2008
A human skin equivalent from researchers in Queensland may help the Australian cosmetics industry keep up with Europe’s imminent ban on animal testing.
Scientists from the University of Queensland’s Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI) are showcasing their alternative to animal testing at the ‘Show Some Skin’ event held today at the Institute.
Although developed as part of the IHBI’s work into wound healing, the model can also be used to test cosmetics and their ingredients replacing laboratory tests using rats or pigs, one of the Institute’s senior researchers Professor Zoe Upton explained.
"Most people would go to rats and mice for lab testing, but when it comes to testing new wound therapies, or products and cosmetics that go on human skin, pig skin is our closest alternative and is most often used.
"However, this is expensive, the test numbers are limited and of course there are ethical problems to consider, so using a human skin equivalent will reduce this use and possibly give more accurate results," she said.
Skin cells from surgery patients
IHBI’s human skin equivalent uses skin cells from human patients undergoing surgery.
The skin cells are then isolated and processed in the laboratory so that they begin to grow healthily again. Once this occurs they can be brought back together and a human skin equivalent can be reconstructed, explained Upton.
"We deconstruct the skin and its cells and then reconstruct them - we cannot use the skin cut-offs themselves, as they are dying and we need to get the cells back to a state where they are growing healthily again," she said.
The model, which was a finalist in this year’s Museum of Australia’s Eureka Prize for ‘Research that contributes to animal protection’, comes at a particularly important time for the cosmetics industry.
European ban on animal testing
European regulation that bans the testing of cosmetics ingredients on animals will come into force from 2009.
Companies who do not comply with this legislation will not be able to export their products into Europe - losing access to one of the industry’s most significant markets. 記事を読むWomen warned not to wear perfume during pregnancy
Women warned not to wear perfume during pregnancy
Date: 31 August 2008
Source: Scotland on Sunday (full article)
By Kate Foster
PREGNANT women have been advised to avoid using perfumes or scented body creams after research suggested the products can cause unborn boys to suffer infertility or cancer in later life.
Research on rats carried out by Professor Richard Sharpe has found that the reproductive system of male foetuses can be damaged as early as at eight weeks' gestation by chemicals including those found in many cosmetics.
The damage can result in in fertility or testicular cancer "both growing medical problems across the world" said Sharpe, principal investigator at the Medical Research Council's Human Sciences Unit.
Sharpe, who will unveil his findings at a major conference on fertility in Edinburgh this week, has discovered a "time window" at 8 to 12 weeks' gestation - before some women even know they are pregnant - during which certain hormones in the foetus are activated and the male reproductive system is established.
Sharpe has found that future problems with male fertility including undescended testicles, low sperm count and the risk of testicular cancer could be determined at this time if these hormones, such as testosterone, do not work properly.
Experiments on rats have confirmed that if the hormones are blocked the animals suffered fertility problems.
Sharpe told Scotland on Sunday: "We have found the male programming window, which occurs far earlier in foetal development than was previously thought, before the reproductive organs fully develop. This is when the androgens such as testosterone in the foetus are at their most active.
"If the male foetus does not receive enough androgens it may not realise its full reproductive potential, including the size of the penis and testes, undescended testes or the sperm count. The chances are, something will be wrong with the reproductive system. It may be one thing or several things.
"Women could stop using body creams and perfumes. Although we do not have conclusive evidence that they do harm, there are components about which there are question marks; for example it could be certain combinations of chemicals. If you are thinking about how a baby might be exposed, that's one way, and it's something positive you can do. It might have no consequence, but it's something positive women can do for their baby."
Sharpe will reveal his findings this week at the Simpson Symposium in Edinburgh, a gathering of fertility experts organised by Edinburgh University.
Up to 8% of boys are thought to be born with undescended testicles, which is the most common birth defect in boys and is linked to infertility. The condition is also a risk factor for developing testicular cancer later in life.
Sperm quality and number have declined in the last 30 years. About one in seven couples in the UK will have difficulty conceiving at some time. About one third of cases are due to problems in the man.
Testicular cancer is also increasing worldwide by between 1% and 6% a year. The annual number of new cases of testicular cancer in the UK grew from 850 in 1975 to 1,889 in 2004.
However, campaigners urged women not to panic over the suggestion until further studies are conducted.
Susan Seenan, spokeswoman for the charity Infertility Network UK, said: "A lot of women will not even know they are pregnant at this stage, or how far along they are. I would be very concerned about alarming women until these tests have been done on humans. We welcome any new research in infertility but we would like to see a lot more research in this area before the findings on animals can be said for humans."
REMEMBER: Miessence Products have no toxins, no synthetic chemicals and no parabens. 記事を読むAustralian Organic Industry Worth Around 600 Million Dollars
Australian Organic Industry Worth Around 600 Million Dollars
Source: OFA - Organic Federation of Australia - August 2008 Newsletter
Date: August 2008.
The Australian Organic Market Report 2008 shows that the industry is worth almost $600 million with around 30% growth per annum for some sectors since the OFA initiated report in 2004. 2007 farm gate values were estimated to be in excess of $231 m Australian dollars – an 80 % increase on 2004. Major retailers now carry in excess of 500 different organic lines in fresh and grocery categories.
OFA members Dr Paul Kristiansen from the University of New England and Alasdair Smithson of Organic Knowledge conducted the research for Biological Farmers of Australia.
The number of certified organic operators has increased by an annual 5 % average net over the last 5 years. This is in contrast to ABARE figures on all farms in Australia that show a decline in the numbers.
Over 40 % of consumers now buy organic food, which should be compared to research data showing that 86% of consumers oppose GMOs.
Australia still has largest amount of certified organic farmland in the world, 11,988,044 hectares, the majority of which is used for sustainable rangelands grazing.
NASAA certifies around half of this making it the biggest certifier in the world for land area.
The report is available at: www.bfa.com.au 記事を読むClear Evidence of the Health-Promoting Benefits of Vitamins and Antioxidants
Clear Evidence of the Health-Promoting Benefits of Vitamins and Antioxidants
Date: August 2008
Source: The Scoop (http://www.organic-center.org/)
Between 25 and 40 million people in Bangladesh rely on water contaminated with natural sources of arsenic, increasing the prevalence of skin lesions and a range of cancers.
A U.S. team of researchers has found that individuals in Bangladesh consuming diets rich in vitamins and antioxidants enjoy up to a 68% reduction in risk of skin lesions triggered by exposure to arsenic in drinking water.
Source: Lydia B. Zablotska et al., "Protective Effects of B Vitamins and Antioxidants on the Risk of Arsenic-Related Skin Lesions in Bangladesh," Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 116, No. 8,
The Scoop's Editor's Note:-
The Center is often asked whether there is any solid evidence that shows that consuming a diet rich in vitamins and antioxidants actually improves health. Despite hundreds of studies that suggest they do promote health, skeptics remain. Studies like this one in Bangladesh answer this question in another way - by focusing on the impact of diet in a population with a clear cut, easy to measure health problem. In many cases, this sort of study produces solid evidence of a protective effect of some drug or intervention in the face of a recognized health problem.
But does this study in Bangladesh have any relevance to environmental risks and diet-health connections in the U.S.? Very few Americans are drinking arsenic-contaminated water, so no, there is little direct relevance. Still these findings are significant, because they show the great potential in promoting health and preventing disease from attainable increases in vitamin and antioxidant intakes.
While few of us suffer from arsenic in our drinking water, the American public is far less healthy than should be the case, given our wealth, health care system, and access to abundant, high quality foods. While calories are consumed in excess by most American, vitamins and antioxidants are not. Indeed, the average American ingests only about one-third the antioxidants needed on a daily basis to maximize the chances of healthy development and graceful aging.
Consuming organic fruits and vegetables will likely increase average daily vitamin and antioxidant intakes by at least a third, in contrast to eating the same conventional fruits and vegetables. Couple choosing organic with new determination to seek out brightly colored or dark, antioxidant-rich foods, picked ripe and consumed fresh, and a person can easily more than triple daily antioxidant intakes and by doing so, go a long way toward preserving good health, even in the face of the bugs, stresses, contaminants, and strains of modern life. Maybe not arsenic, but surely something else. 記事を読むMoisturizer use linked to skin cancer
Moisturizer use linked to skin cancer
Date: 18 August 2008
Author: Guy Montague-Jones
Source: CosmeticsDesign (click here for full story)
Scientists have linked a batch of commonly used moisturizing creams to skin cancer in mice but remain guarded about the implications for human use.
Researchers at Rutgers University, New Jersey, applied four widely used moisturizers to mice every day for several months and then exposed the animals to UVB radiation.
In a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology they found the number of non-melanoma tumors was significantly higher in the mice treated with cream than the control group.
Different products, different results
Significant differences were also observed between the moisturizers.
Dermabase by Paddock Laboratories, Dermovan by Healthpoint, Eucerin Original Moisturizing Cream by Beiersdorf and Vanicream by Pharmaceutical Specialties were all put under the microscope.
Tumor rates increased 95 percent with Dermovan and only 24 percent with Eucerin leading the scientists to conclude that certain ingredients were responsible for the higher risk levels.
They prepared a custom blend without several suspect ingredients such as sodium lauryl sulfate and found that cancer rates were significantly lower.
Doubts about relevence to humans
Leading study author Allan Conney said further studies were needed to determine whether the conclusions could be extended to apply to humans exposed to sunlight.
Rodent skin is far more sensitive than human skin and for the purposes of the experiment strong UVB light rather than natural sunlight was used to test the effect of moisturizer use.
"Tumorigenic Effect of Some Commonly Used Moisturizing Creams when Applied Topically to UVB-Pretreated High-Risk Mice."
記事を読むBFA introduces the first Australian organic market data available for four years
BFA introduces the first Australian organic market data available for four years
Date: Thursday 14 August 2008
Source: The Organic Advantage - Edition 105 (click here for full story)
BFA has released the first local Australian organic industry data for four years, with figures unveiling an optimistic outlook for an energetic sector in years ahead.
The report found the value returned to organic producers at farm-gate has increased by 80% since 2004, despite tough climatic conditions and drought. On the other side of the fence, the industry’s retail value broke through the $0.5B for the first time to reach a figure of approximately $623 million.
Other key report findings include:
* Australia retains the largest amount of certified organic land area in the world (approx. 11.8 million ha), most of which is found in vast grazing regions in South West QLD
* Organic farmers on average are younger than non-organic
* Horticulture remains a mainstay of the industry, accounting for two thirds of total organic farmers, and representing up to half of the total organic farmgate value in Australia.
* The organic vegetable, herb and nursery production sector is the highest valued in the industry overall, followed by organic fruit & wine, and organic beef sectors
* The industry has witnessed an increase in strategic market alliances and market groups
* The organic industry is consolidating and the average size of organic farms has increased – there is a trend towards professional farming at a larger scale (though t still well under non-organic farm enterprise levels for most sectors).
* Major supermarkets now stock more than 500 organic products in various category lines
* 40% of consumers now buy organic food on occasion
* Woman are the primary purchasers of organic food
* Fresh fruit and vegetables remain the most common point of entry for newcomers purchasing organic food
The Organic Market Report 2008 was commissioned by BFA and independently researched by The University of New England’s Organic Research Centre.
Doug Haas, BFA Group Chair says the report will allow everyone from governments to organic businesses to banks to glean a better understanding, and make an assessment of, the current market status of organic in Australia.
" Long anticipated, it has been some four years now since industry has enjoyed a document of this kind. The report will identify potential growth areas for investment, report on areas of significance and map future development going forward.
" Moving forward, these documents will continue to be used as yardsticks for measuring industry’s growth. The BFA will continue to commission similar independent surveys and research documents with the support of industry well into the future” he says.
Support for the report from the Federal government and six state governments (NSW, Tas, WA, SA, Vic and Qld), as well as from major report sponsor Westpac Agribusiness is evidence of the increasingly recognised value of the organic sector by major agricultural players in years to come.
Barry Ruddy, Westpac National Manager, Agribusiness Banking says Westpac is committed to managing its impact on the environment and supporting initiatives with high environmental benefit.
"Westpac Agribusiness is a strong supporter of research into organic and sustainable farming systems and industries, given the importance of contributing to a sustainable and viable future for Australian farming" he said.
"We also recognise the substantial emerging opportunities of organic and sustainable farming for agribusinesses across Australia. Sustainable practices are an important part of the way Westpac does business, and we're keen to help businesses manage the risks and capitalise on these new products and market."
Dr. Andrew Monk, BFA Director and Standards Chair, says the Australian organic industry has come of age in the past five years and is in a strong position to move forwards.
While most agriculture has suffered in recent years from drought and floods, many sectors of the organic industry have recovered to be able to consolidate and expand.
Such rapid growth is likely to be attributed to a combination of consumer driven interest in purchasing organic products in line with trends overseas, as well as possibly the naturally more resilient nature of organically well-managed soils, enabling faster recovery following extreme dry or wet weather periods alike.
Dr Monk says it is intended the research will be commissioned every two years from 2008 with underwriting support from BFA and matching support from industry and governments. 記事を読むWhy Scented Products (Fakegrances) Are Not Safe
Why Scented Products (Fakegrances) Are Not Safe
Date: Monday, August 11, 2008
By: Virginia Hopkins
Source: Natural News (click here for full article)
If all fake fragrances (I call them fakegrances) were banned tomorrow, the world would be a dramatically healthier place by the following day. That’s not going to happen, but the more people who refuse to use them in any form, the faster they’ll disperse (so to speak). But watch out, those who manufacture products containing fakegrances are sneaky. The word 'unscented' usually means that fragrances have been used to cover up fragrances. To actually avoid fragrances you have to look for the words 'fragrance free' on the label.
By fake fragrances I mean that they're not found in nature. Oh sure, they may smell like a rose, or mint, or apple, but what goes into creating that aroma has nothing to do with the flower or fruit. Virtually all perfumes, scented laundry soaps and fabric softeners, so-called air fresheners (they should be called air poisoners) and many cleaning products are scented with fakegrances. Even dry cleaners are getting into the act, handing back clothes that are clean, pressed and exuding fragrance.
Perfumes are All Fake
Well, almost all. Unless they’re pure essential oils, they’re made from a nasty brew of dozens if not hundreds of chemicals which are, of course, a secret. For example, the benzene family of chemicals tends to have a sweetish aroma that is very popular among perfumers. The benzenes are petroleum-based, so they’re cheap, easy to come by, and, by the way, a known cause of leukemia. It was one thing when a woman spritzed some benzene on her wrist before a romantic evening, but it’s quite another when it’s everywhere from clothes to cars to the restroom in the dentist’s office.
Or how about those phthalates, plastics that can interfere with the normal sexual development of a fetus or infant. Phthalates have recently been banned from toys in California which is great, but how about clothes and bed sheets? Apparently phthalates make perfumes stick around longer so they’re in just about everything scented.
Asthmatics Should Look for Fakegrances as Causes
I don’t want to downplay those good old-fashioned allergens such as ragweed and cats, but according to the Environmental Working Group, "Fragrance formulas are considered to be among the top five known allergens and can trigger asthma attacks." Are doctors giving this information to their asthmatic patients? Not very often.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that many processed foods contain fakegrances. Take for example diacetyl, a chemical that gives microwave popcorn its buttery flavor and aroma, and also causes serious lung disease when heated and inhaled frequently. Diacetyl is being phased out of microwave popcorn, but not before many popcorn factory workers were permanently disabled by it. Now it might take a lot of microwave popcorn fumes to knock down an adult, but how about a child with asthma?
For optimal health, it’s important to avoid fakegrances, and it’s also important to speak up if they’re in a public area. You’ll be amazed at how many other people will suddenly admit they hate fakegrances when you speak up. If someone in your workplace is using heavy perfume, or there’s a so-called air freshener in the restroom, do something about it. You have a right to breathe clean air.
How about products that claim to be "natural scented"? Sorry about that, but 'naturally scented' means absolutely nothing. It probably smells like something in nature such as apple or rose or jasmine, but it’s likely made from the same old nasty chemical brew, complete with carcinogens, xenohormones and allergens. The only way to be sure that a scented product is for real is to read the label. If it says, 'pure essential oils' or 'lavender oil' for example, it’s the genuine article.
記事を読むBabies absorb chemicals from shampoo
BABIES ASBORB CHEMICALS FROM SHAMPOO
Date: Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Source: Catalyst (click here for full story)
Parents are advised to limit their baby's exposure to shampoo, lotions and powder after a new study found chemicals from babycare products in their urine
Baby lotion, powder and shampoo can lead to higher concentrations in an infant's body of phthalates, chemicals linked to allergies and altered reproductive development, a US study shows.
The study conducted at the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute found that babies treated with common babycare products such as lotion, shampoo, and powder were more likely to have phthalates in their urine than other babies.
But more research is needed to determine if exposing very young children to phthalates is linked with reproductive or other problems, says the study published online in the journal Pediatrics.
Phthalates are chemicals commonly found in personal care and other household products, including plastic children's toys, lubricants and chemical stabilisers in cosmetics and personal care products.
Animal studies of phthalates have found that they can harm reproductive system development, and studies in humans have found that prenatal exposure or exposure through breast milk can alter hormone concentrations, the study says.
Researchers measured the levels of nine different phthalates in urine samples collected from 163 infants, aged 2 months to 28 months.
The team also asked the babies' mothers to fill out questionnaires on their use of babycare products in the previous 24 hours.
The scientists found that at least one phthalate in every baby's urine sample, and that using baby powder, lotion and shampoo were strongly associated with higher phthalate levels in the urine.
Pthalates present included monethyl, monomethyl and monoisobutyl phthalates.
This association was strongest in young infants under 8 months old who the report says may be more vulnerable to developmental and reproductive toxic effects.
Troubling
Lead author Dr Sheela Sathyanarayana, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington medical school, describes the findings as "troubling".
"Babies may be more at risk than children or adults because their reproductive, endocrine and immune systems are still developing," she says.
She adds that phthalate exposure in early childhood has been associated with altered hormone concentrations as well as increased allergies, runny nose and eczema.
"If parents want to decrease exposures for their children, they can try to use lotions, shampoo, and baby powder sparingly unless otherwise indicated for a medical reason," Sathyanarayana suggests.
In 2006, the European Union banned the use of six phthalate softeners in PVC toys designed to be placed in the mouth by children younger than three.
Remember: Miessence Mother & Baby Range is free from fragrance, allergens and semi-naturals. There is no toxins, no synthetic chemicals & no parabens.
記事を読むSuperior Nutrient Content Reported in Organic Blueberries
Superior Nutrient Content Reported in Organic Blueberries
Date: July 2008
Source: The Scope - The Organic Centre Newsletter
http://www.organic-center.org/news_archive/thescoop_july08.htm
The Bluecrop variety of highbush blueberries were grown on five organic and conventional farms in New Jersey. The farms shared comparable soils and weather conditions, and the berries were harvested in precisely the same way. The scientists carrying out the study are based at the USDA's Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, and at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The team found consistent and significant differences in nutrient content. The organic blueberries contained 46 ORAC units, a measure of total antioxidant capacity, while the conventional berries contained 31 ORAC units.
Accordingly, the organic berries had over 50% more total antioxidant activity. They also contained about 50% higher levels of total anthocyanins, the natural plant phytochemicals that give blueberries their dark color.
The organic blueberries also had 67% more total phenolics. The authors' concluding sentence reads:
"Blueberries produced from organic culture contained significantly higher amounts of phytonutrients than those produced from conventional culture."
Source: S.H. Wang et al., "Fruit Quality, Antioxidant Capacity, and Flavonoid Content of Organically and Conventionally Grown Blueberries," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, published on web July 1, 2008.
Remember..... Nutritionists recommend we consume around 5000 ORAC units per day.
One serving of Berry Radical contains over 7000 ORAC units.
1 Box of 30 sachets contains 217,200 ORAC units.
Click here to read more about Berry Radical 記事を読むThe Federal government releases Green Paper
Title: The Federal government releases Green Paper
Date: July 2008
Source: Department of Climate Change
Website: www.climatechange.gov.au
The Federal Government has released its proposed scheme to address the future of carbon emissions in Australia. Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, launched the Green Paper on 16 July at the National Press Club in Canberra.
"Placing a limit and a price on pollution will change the things we produce, the way we produce them and the things we buy," Wong said.
"In this Green Paper the Government has sought to strike the right balance on the basis of economically responsible policy in the national interest."
The Green Paper proposes an emissions trading scheme that will incorporate the majority of industrial sectors, including forestry. The emissions trading scheme will set a pollution cap for the nation and will then sell permits on auction. Set to begin in 2010 and some of the intended heavier hit industries, such as aluminium and cement manufacturers, will receive a majority of their permits for free.
The plan targets companies that emit more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, which includes about 1000 businesses internationally. At present, these businesses account for about 75 per cent of total emissions in the nation.
To ease the anticipated strain on the economy, the plan also includes a "cent for cent" reduction of the fuel excise tax to help mitigate the imminent rise of petrol prices. This goes against the recommendations of Prof. Ross Garnaut in his draft Climate Change report released on 4 July.
Click here for a Summary
Click here to read more from the Department of Climate Change 記事を読むKid-Safe Chemicals Act
Title: Kid-Safe Chemicals Act
Author: By Katie Bird
Date: May, 2008
Source: Environmental Working Group
Website: www.ewg.org/kidsafe
"Please don't tell me a pre-polluted baby is just fine."
--Julie Deardorf, Chicago Tribune, 2005
Why We Need The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act
The nation's toxic chemical regulatory law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, is in drastic need of reform. Passed in 1976 and never amended since, TSCA is widely regarded as the weakest of all major environmental laws on the books today.
When passed, the Act declared safe some 62,000 chemicals already on the market, even though there were little or no data to support this policy. Since that time another 20,000 chemicals have been put into commerce in the United States, also with little or no data to support their safety.
The human race is now polluted with hundreds of industrial chemicals with little or no understanding of the consequences. Babies are born pre-polluted with as many as 300 industrial chemicals in their bodies when they enter the world. Testing by Environmental Working Group has identified 455 chemicals in people, and again, no one has any idea if these exposures are safe.
We are at a tipping point, where the pollution in people is increasingly associated with a range of serious diseases and conditions from childhood cancer, to autism, ADHD, learning deficits, infertility, and birth defects. Yet even as our knowledge about the link between chemical exposure and human disease grows, the government has almost no authority to protect people from even the most hazardous chemicals on the market.
The Campaign: Pass the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act (KSCA)
This pollution of people is the direct result of a law that does not require chemicals to be proven safe to get on the market, or stay on the market. Under the current toothless law, EPA does not have the authority to demand the information it needs to evaluate a chemical's risk, and neither manufacturers nor the EPA are required to prove a chemical's safety as a condition of use.
The Kid-Safe Chemical Act will change all this through a fundamental overhaul of our nation's chemical regulatory law. Specifically, the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act:
* requires that industrial chemicals be safe for infants, kids and other vulnerable groups;
* requires that new chemicals be safety tested before they are sold;
* requires chemical manufacturers to test and prove that the 62,000 chemicals already on the market that have never been tested are safe in order for them to remain in commerce;
* requires EPA to review "priority" chemicals, those which are found in people, on an expedited schedule;
* requires regular biomonitoring to determine what chemicals are in people and in what amounts;
* requires regular updates of health and safety data and provides EPA with clear authority to request additional information and tests;
* provides incentives for manufacturers to further reduce health hazards;
* requires EPA to promote safer alternatives and alternatives to animal testing;
* protects state and local rights; and
* requires that this information be publicly available.
Through the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act we can give our children a safer and healthier future. 記事を読むCalifornia files lawsuit against mislabelled cosmetics
Title: California files lawsuit against mislabelled cosmetics
Author: By Katie Bird
Date: June 11, 2008
Source: Cosmetic Design
Website: http://cosmeticsdesign.com/news/ng.asp?id=85853
The Attorney General of California has filed a lawsuit against a number of natural personal care companies whose products allegedly contain levels of a carcinogenic compound.
Avalon Natural products, which manufactures Alba, Un-petroleum and Avalon Organics brands, has been accused of failing to warn consumers that its products contain 1,4-Dioxane.
Consumers not warned about compound
Under the state's Proposition 65 consumer products should not expose consumers to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without giving clear and reasonable warning.
The Attorney General of California has accused Avalon Natural, along with the Whole Foods Market California, Beaumont Products and Nutribiotic of failing to give clear and reasonable warning of the presence of 1,4-Dioxane in their products.
According to the Organic Consumers Association the lawsuit is a reaction to a study released by the association back in March, in addition to the state's own testing.
The OCA's campaign highlighted a number of 'fake' natural and organic brands that were found to contain the offending compound which is a by product of ethylene oxide, often used as a surfactant.
"The OCA's 1,4-dioxane study elevated the issue of fake 'natural' and 'organic' brands that utilize petrochemicals in their formulas in March, and now we are seeing labelling enforcement on a scale we have never seen before," said OCA national director Ronnie Cummins.
Although the OCA is unaware of the particular products that have prompted the lawsuit it stated that all the named companies have sold products that tested close to or in excess of 20 parts per million for 1,4-Dioxane in the OCA study.
In July 2007 the FDA released a comment stating that 1,4-dioxane does not pose a hazard to consumers at levels seen it has seen in the monitoring of cosmetics products.
No one at the FDA was available for comment regarding the Californian lawsuit.
Misleading organic branding
This is not the first time the state of California has seen a lawsuit filed over mislabelling cosmetics products.
Earlier this spring Dr Bronner's Magic Soaps filed a lawsuit in the superior court of California against a number of leading organic and natural brands and two certification bodies regarding the 'mislabelling' of products as organic, but contained conventional petrochemical or agricultural ingredients.
"We have been deeply disappointed and frustrated by companies in the 'natural' personal care space who have been screwing over organic consumers, engaging in misleading organic branding and label call-outs on products that were not natural in the first place, let alone organic," said president of Dr Bronner's Magic Soaps David Bronner.
The company and the Organic Consumer Association (OCA) had previously warned the brands that if they did not drop organic claims or reformulate their products they would face litigation.
However this approach failed to achieve the desired affect, according to the OCA.
"The pressure of imminent litigation outlines in cease and desist letters sent by OCA and Dr Bronner's in March prompted some serious discussion with some of the offending companies, but ultimately failed to resolve the core issues," said executive director Ronnie Cummins. 記事を読むGlobal Organic Growth - an update by Dr Ajay Shah
Title: Global Organic Growth - an update
Author: By Ajay Shah
Date: May 12, 2008
Source: BFA Organic Advantage Newsletter
Website: http://news.bfa.com.au/listmanager/display.php?List=1&N=15
Demand for organic foods continues to grow, reflecting accelerating rates of new product activity. Organic remains the fastest growing sector of the food industry. There were over 2,900 global organic food and drink launches recorded in the Innova Database (www.innovadatabase.com) in the first ten months of 2007, up from just over 2,600 in the January to October 2006 period. This was up in turn was up from 1,919 in the first 10 months of 2005.
The global market for organic foods is valued at about US$40bn a year, more than double the 2000 total.
The market is currently still highly geographically concentrated, however, with North America and Western Europe accounting for over 90% of global market value.
The UK has one of the largest markets in Europe, thanks to a series of nightmarish food scares, although estimates of its size vary from just over GB £1bn to nearly £2bn, depending on the definition and extent of coverage of alternative retail channels.
Fresh produce traditionally dominated the market, but has now been overtaken by dairy products, where sales of organic lines now stand at about £300m a year.
Sales in organic food in the UK increased by over 30% in 2005 to almost £1.6bn, an average weekly gain of £7m according to the UK Soil Association (British Certifying Body). For comparison, the current annual growth of all UK food and drink sales is around 3%. The UK may have one of the largest markets in Europe, but it trails well behind the US in terms of sheer size.
US sales of organic foods are expected to reach US$20bn in 2007, equivalent to over 3% of total retail food sales.
Fresh produce accounts for a leading share of the market, with about one quarter of the total value, but processed foods are demonstrating a better growth rate, reflecting the rising demand for convenience organic alternatives to standard lines. Organic dairy lines are less significant in terms of their market share than in Europe, with about 10% of the market.
In both countries, the market is being extended via the addition of organic products to standard brand lines of food and through the launch of specialist organic brands both by mainstream and specialist food companies. This has been critical to the overall expansion of organics.
The largest increases in organic food production have been in Asia, Africa and Latin America. All three regions have reported triple digit growth figures in organic farmland since 2000. Japan and Singapore are emerging markets projected to show rapid growth rates.
The Australian organic food industry has experienced strong growth as the number of certified organic operators increased 200% between the period 2000 to 2003 from 850 to 2,500.
Produce is not all sold on the Australian market, but approximately 40% is destined for export. Demand for organic food has grown over the past 5 years but is unable to mirror the growth of the UK, where food safety incidents have driven the desire for more naturally produced products. Australia’s clean and green image will stymie the growth of the organic sector at home.
The prospects for organic food and drink are looking very bright globally and are expected to increase in retail sales value by 50% over the next 5 years. The key factors that need to be considered are the ethical or health impulses of consumers that drive this growth, which will determine the feasibility of the market’s long term future.
References:
1. Innova Database
2. Hilliam, M (2007)
Organic Growth Continues,
The World of Food Ingredients, December, pp11-12
Dr Ajay Shah is the Director of AAS Food Technology Pty Ltd.
Email: ajay@aasfood.com
Web: www.aasfood.com 記事を読むThe changing face of organic cosmetics
Title: The changing face of organic cosmetics
Date: April 22, 2008
Source: BFA Organic Advantage Newsletter
Website: http://news.bfa.com.au/listmanager/display.php?List=1&N=11
The market for organic cosmetics is growing and industry commentators predict "2008 will be a defining year for the natural cosmetics industry."
According to a recent report from Organic Monitor, this is the year widespread adoption of natural & organic standards will begin, clearing the currently blurred lines between legitimate natural / organic products and pseudo products.
Regulatory activity is intensifying in the EU and leading European certification agencies will unveil a new European standard in June 2008, after working on the harmonisation of private standards for over a year. Standards implementation is due by the end of the year leading to uniform regulation of certified natural & organic cosmetic products for the first time.
Organic cosmetic growth in the U.S is strong and Austrade predicts retail sales of natural and organic skincare, hair care and cosmetics in the US will reach around $7.9 billion by 2009.
The growth of separate private standards in the US is reportedly of some concern, with a number of representative groups developing their own regulatory guides for release this year.
The impact of natural & organic standards on the cosmetics industry will be debated at the upcoming Natural Beauty Summit America (New York, May 15-17).
Improvements to the regulation of cosmetics in Australia in the past year include the addition of a distinct cosmetic standard to the Australian Organic Standard (AOS).
"The AOS now includes a well regulated and precise set of requirements for cosmetics, compared to previous strongly food based standards," says BFA cosmetic sub-committee chair Akiko Nicholls.
"Meeting these new requirements does present a greater challenge to cosmetics manufacturers, but there are Australian Certified Organic clients who have overcome those challenges and (in doing so) are delivering products at a high standard actively sought by consumers."
Eliza McGivern, marketing manager of Australia’s Sydney Essential Oil Co. says the business, which specialises in trade sales of personal care and cosmetic ingredients, is experiencing growth. But she adds there are obstacles to overcome before cosmetics can enjoy the rapid climb experienced by the organic food sector.
"Growth of organic cosmetic products has been weak in comparison to organic food, as the manufacturing standard has only recently been made specific to cosmetics."
"Nevertheless, demand for the product is increasing and manufacturers are investing in more R&D to make compliant product that also meets the aesthetic demands of the consumer," she says.
Ms. McGivern says other challenges in the cosmetic sector include:
* Ingredient availability and cost - "availability depends on the season and seasonal
price rises can occur on top of products already at a premium"
* Product development - "organic (natural) ingredients perform uniquely and cannot
simply be substituted for conventional cosmetic chemical ingredients, so extensive
R&D is necessary"
* Marketing claims - "Products touted as ‘contains organic' are not truly compliant
organic products. Those who do pursue and achieve fully compliant certified status
can find themselves competing on an unlevel playing field in the marketplace and we
do see evidence of this"
Ms. Nicholls says preservatives and emulsifiers have presented particular problems in cosmetics regulation.
"We have formed the BFA Cosmetics Sub-committee which allows us to assess ingredient proposals and issues on a case by case basis. Our organic cosmetic standard is still developing and we welcome industry feedback," she says.
Ms. McGivern says the approval of several emulsifiers and preservatives will open up sector opportunities.
"Production of organic cosmetic products will increase and a full assortment of personal care products will be available at the highest certification level," she predicts.
International cosmetic opportunity has organics covered
Austrade have reported substantial opportunities for the export of all natural, organic and high end luxury cosmetic products to key markets.
These markets include Spain - where specialty cosmetics retail sales have risen 13 per cent since 1998 - and France, where there is reportedly an increasing trend for ‘cosmebio’ (organic cosmetic labels). Environmental concerns are of prime importance to cosmetic and toiletries manufacturing companies in France with a key focus on recycling, biodegradable products and packaging, and replacement of harmful ingredients.
Some opportunities are reported in the Phillipines (one of Asia's fastest growing markets for cosmetic and wellness products). Austrade says Filipinos are starting to appreciate organic and all natural products - however, say heavy introductory marketing such as educational seminars and free samples are required.
In the U.S, growth in retail sales of natural and organic skincare, hair care and cosmetics is expected to be strong (retail sales predicted around $7.9 billion by 2009).
Health warnings, environmental concerns, ethical buying concerns, therapy awareness and organic attitudes have all contributed to growth in popularity.
What other trends are there in cosmetics?
According to Austrade, niche category lines are faring well. Organic could be marketed in combination with the following trends:
- Increasing popularity of men’s lifestyle products
- Rising sales of anti-ageing products to baby boomers
- Increasing popularity of distinct youth products
- Ultra niche products including those containing botanical extracts, plant acids, enzymes,
herbs, vitamins, proteins, and food ingredients.
- Cosmeceuticals - one of the strongest trends in the cosmetics market, also subject to
confusion and ambiguity in regulation and labelling. Cosmeceuticals are 'functional
products', aiming to combine personal care with some of the benefits of medical or over-
the-counter/ drug products. Some cosmeceuticals are naturally derived and some are
synthetic. 記事を読むGovernment sued after approving 4 pesticides
Title: Government sued after approving 4 pesticides
Date: April 8, 2008
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/08/BA6P101C4R.DTL
Environmental and farmworker advocates have sued the Bush administration for allowing the continued use of four pesticides, saying the government brushed aside its own findings that the chemicals are dangerous to workers, children and wildlife.
The suit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's decision in 2006 to reauthorize the four pesticides sprayed on fruit and vegetable fields in California.
A 1996 federal law required the EPA to reassess the safety of all pesticides used on foods and decide by 2006 whether to approve their use. Patti Goldman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the agency found that four substances posed risks to human health but concluded their cost savings to growers outweighed the dangers.
"These four pesticides put thousands of farmworkers and their families at risk of serious illness every year," said Goldman, of the nonprofit firm Earthjustice.
EPA spokesman Tim Lyons said the agency would review the lawsuit and respond in court. Lyons declined to comment on the EPA's decision to approve the pesticides, but said, "Our mission is to protect the environment and human health."
California officials have classified one of the pesticides, ethoprop, as a cancer-causing substance. The state requires manufacturers to disclose that risk on product labels but cannot ban the pesticide because of the EPA approval. The suit said the pesticide, used mainly on potatoes, sugarcane and tobacco, has been linked to fish kills and has also drifted from fields into rural communities.
Another substance, methidathion, was listed as an air contaminant by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation earlier this year because of potential health hazards. It is used on artichokes, oranges, almonds, peaches and olives, mostly in California.
The other two pesticides are methamidophos, used mostly on potatoes and cotton, and oxydemeton-methyl, used on broccoli, lettuce, cauliflower, corn, cabbage and Brussels sprouts. The suit said both have been associated with bird kills. Methamidophos has been banned or severely restricted in several countries, and oxydemeton-methyl is linked to birth defects, according to the suit.
"We're relying on EPA's findings that the risks were too high," said Goldman, the plaintiffs' lawyer.
She said federal law allows the agency to approve continued use of risky pesticides based on offsetting benefits, including cost savings. But Goldman said the EPA failed to address the particular danger each pesticide poses to children, or to take adequate account of the potential harms to birds and fish as well as farmworkers.
The suit seeks a court order requiring the agency to re-evaluate the pesticides. Plaintiffs include the United Farm Workers, the Teamsters, Pesticide Action Network North America, Beyond Pesticides and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
記事を読むVitamin pills 'increase risk of early death'
Title: Vitamin pills are no substitute for healthy diet
Date: April 16, 2008
Source: Telegraph.co.uk
Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/16/scivita116.xml
Popular vitamin supplements taken by millions of people in the hope of improving their health may do no good and could increase the risk of a premature death, researchers report today.
Vitamin pills are no substitute for healthy diet
Have your say: Do we rely on vitamins too much?
They warn healthy people who take antioxidant supplements, including vitamins A and E, to try to keep diseases such as cancer at bay that they are interfering with their natural body defences and may be increasing their risk of an early death by up to 16 per cent.
Researchers at Copenhagen University carried out a review of 67 studies on 230,000 healthy people and found "no convincing evidence" that any of the antioxidants helped to prolong life expectancy. But some "increased mortality".
About 12 million Britons supplement their diets with vitamins and the industry is worth £330 million. But little research has been done on the long-term health implications.
The Department of Health said yesterday that people should try to get the vitamins they need by eating a balanced diet and advised care in taking large doses of supplements.
A spokesman said: "There is a need to exercise caution in the use of high doses of purified supplements of vitamins, including antioxidant vitamins, and minerals. Their impact on long-term health may not have been fully established and they cannot be assumed to be without risk.
"Anyone concerned about their diet should speak to their doctor or dietitian."
Antioxidants, including vitamins A, E, C and beta-carotene and selenium, are said to mop up compounds, called free radicals, which cause disease. It is this action that researchers believe may cause problems with the defence system.
The Danish research, released by the influential Cochrane Library, applied only to synthetic supplements and not to vitamins that occur naturally in vegetables and fruit.
It found that vitamin A supplements increased the risk of death in healthy people by 16 per cent. Taking beta-carotene was linked to a 7 per cent increased risk, while regular users of vitamin E supplements increased the risk of an early death by four per cent.
Although the review found no significant detrimental effect caused by vitamin C, it found no evidence that it helped ward off disease. Millions take it in the hope of avoiding a common cold.
Goran Bjelakovic, who led the review, said: "We could find no evidence to support taking antioxidant supplements to reduce the risk of dying earlier in healthy people or patients with various diseases.
"If anything, people in trial groups given the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E showed increased rates of mortality."
But Patrick Holford, a nutritionist who has formulated supplements for the company Biocare, said: "Antioxidants are not meant to be magic bullets and should not be expected to undo a lifetime of unhealthy habits.
"When used properly, in combination with a healthy diet full of fruit and vegetables, getting plenty of exercise and not smoking, antioxidant supplements can play an important role in maintaining and promoting overall health."
A spokesman for the Health Supplements Information Service said: "People should get all the vitamins and minerals they need from their diet, but for the millions who are not able to do that, vitamins can be a useful supplement and they should not stop taking them."
However, Catherine Collins, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "This study is deeply worrying and shows that there should be more regulation for vitamins and minerals.
"The public can buy vitamins as easily as sweets. They should be treated in the same way as paracetamol with maximum limits on the dosage." 記事を読むOrganic farming mitigates climate change
Title: Organic farming mitigates climate change
Date: April 21, 2008
Source: Stock & Land
Website: http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/organic-farming-mitigates-climate-change/85276.aspx
A 30 year scientific trial shows that organic practices could counteract up to 40pc of global greenhouse gas output.
Organic Federation of Australia chairman, Andre Leu, claims the trial of organic and conventional farming practices has proved that organic practices "can be the single biggest way to mitigate climate change".
"Scientists at the Rodale Institute in the US have proved that organic farming practices can remove about 7000kg of carbon dioxide from the air each year and sequester it in a hectare of farmland," Mr Leu said.
According to Mr Leu, the scientists estimated that if all of America's 100 million hectares of cropland were converted to organic practices, it would be the equivalent of taking 217 million cars off the road.
This is nearly 88pc of all cars in the US and more than a third of all the cars in the world.
Dr Paul Hepperly, PhD, research director at The Rodale Institute and Fulbright Scholar stated: "We've shown that organic practices can do better than anyone thought at sequestering carbon, and could counteract up to 40pc of global greenhouse gas output."
Mr Leu said it was important to note that the research that the amount of CO2 sequestered was based on what had already been achieved through current organic farming practices.
"This is not a theoretical estimate as in some of the tree plantation models or unproven like the millions of dollars being spent clean coal or mechanical geo sequestration trials," he said.
"This is being achieved now by organic farmers in the US, Australia and around the world."
記事を読むDalai Lama highlights individual's role in preserving the environment during Peter M. Wege Lecture on Sustainability
Title: Dalai Lama highlights individual's role in preserving the environment during Peter M. Wege Lecture on Sustainability
Date: April 20, 2008
Source: The Ann Arbor News
Website: http://blog.mlive.com/michigan/2008/04/dalai_lama_highlights_individu.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have a responsibility to take care of the environment. It is our only home." - The Dalai Lama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He takes showers rather than baths, and he turns out the lights when he leaves the room.
Those are small examples of how each of us can contribute to preserving the Earth's environment, the Dalai Lama said Sunday during a lecture on the environment at Crisler Arena in Ann Arbor.
As he delivered the annual Peter M. Wege Lecture on Sustainability, the Dalai Lama admitted he never uses the world "sustainability," but likened taking care of the planet to taking care of your own home. "We have a responsibility to take care of the environment," he said. "It is our only home."
The Wege lecture, sponsored by the University of Michigan, ended a remarkable of weekend of pageantry and talks by the Dalai Lama. Earlier Sunday morning, he conducted his final lecture on "Engaging Wisdom and Compassion," after giving two other teaching sessions on that topic Saturday. Crowds of about 8,000 attended each of Sunday's sessions, officials said, which was similar to the Saturday sessions.
Outside Crisler during the talks, about 600-700 protesters, mostly Chinese college students, continued a second day of peaceful demonstrations. It was a much larger demonstration than the approximately 100 students who demonstrated Saturday, with the line stretching from Crisler along Stadium Boulevard in front of Michigan Stadium.
Although there were some animated discussions among demonstrators and passersby, there were no arrests or citations issued to any demonstrators, said Diane Brown, spokesperson for U-M's Department of Public Safety. The big crowd the dispersed around 4:15 shortly after the second talk ended.
In introducing the Dalai Lama for the lecture on the environment, U-M President Mary Sue Coleman mentioned the founding of Earth Day at the university in 1970, cited the fragility of the environment and said that the Buddhist leader is "uniquely positioned to spread this message."
As he did all weekend, the Dalai Lama mixed self-deprecating humor with anecdotes and insight, conveying his environmental message in a personal, friendly style.
Smiling, he said the notion that he has a specific healing power is "absolute nonsense."
He spoke English throughout the two-hour Wege lecture and question-and-answer session, though he frequently paused briefly to clarify points or phrases with his longtime interpreter Thupten Jinpa. "I'm getting older. My English is also getting older," he said.
He noted that such things as showering and turning out the lights become habits as one builds a way of life that contributes to our ecology. How we treat the environment can depend on how we treat others on a planet with six billion people, the Dalai Lama said.
"We are a social animal," he said. "Our survival is based on community."
Such survival can hinge on personal compassion, which creates inner peace and lessens fear, The Dalai Lama said.
Many of our problems are self-created, yet we are a heavily interdependent world, nation to nation and continent to continent. "Therefore, the concept of war is outdated," The Dalai Lama said.
Later, in response to a question on whether sustainability differed for rich and poor countries, the Dalai Lama bemoaned the gap between rich and poor, saying it can lead for frustration, anger and violence. "Both sides have a responsibility to reduce this gap," he said.
He said that religious leaders have the potential to help shift peoples' awareness of such issues as global warming. He noted that the Buddha was born under a tree, achieved enlightenment under a tree and died under a big tree 2,500 years ago. "I consider him one of the ancient ecologists," the Dalai Lama said.
The free Wege Lecture, sponsored by the U-M School of Natural Resources and Environment, honors Peter Wege, former vice-chairman of the board at Steelcase in Grand Rapids and a champion of sustainability.
The China protesters outside Crisler carried signs with various messages urging the public to be informed about the issues facing Tibet and China as the 2008 summer Olympics in Beijing approach. The conflict between native Tibetans and the ruling Chinese has become more violent in recent months, with the Chinese government blaming the Dalai Lama for the inciting the escalation. In Ann Arbor Friday, he repeated his recent statements that he hopes for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Some of the demonstrators' signs on Sunday called the Dalai Lama a liar, and overhead a plane pulled a banner that read: "Dalai Please Stop Attacking Olympic Flame."
Jing Chao of Rochester Hills said she came to show both her respect for the Tibetans and her love for her native country, China. "I personally pay my respect to the Dalai Lama, but we have to see not just what he says, but what he's done," she said.
Ling Cheng, an MBA student at U-M's Ross School of Business, came with several classmates to support the Olympics and peace. "We want to demonstrate our passion and our love for our country and our pride," she said.
Windsor resident Jian Wen said the Dalai Lama verbally supports the Beijing Olympics, but secretly orders people to destroy the torch.
Sunday morning's lecture by the Dalai Lama offered a continuation of Buddhist lessons from Saturday, but was more listener-friendly, particularly to the non-Buddhist. After a full day Saturday discussing Buddhism's Four Noble Truths mostly in his native Tibetan tongue, the Dalai Lama alternated between English and Tibetan.
He answered a few written questions and discussed some passages from the writings of Arya Nagarjuna, sometimes referred to as the "second Buddha."
The teachings were satisfying to Tom Notebaert, of Roseville, who heard the Dalai Lama when he last appeared in Ann Arbor in 1994.
"I always like to listen to what he has to say," said Notebaert, a Buddhist for about 40 years. "You always learn something new because you forget unless you read it all the time."
The Dalai Lama spoke on emptiness, the awakening mind, karma, happiness and inner strength.
"Read often, and think," he said, encouraging the crowd to take seriously the study of spiritual matters. "Then weeks, months, years ... Some improvement is bound to take place."
And that, he said, will lead to inner strength, enthusiasm and determination.
But earlier he reminded the people that head knowledge isn't everything. He recalled his mother was a very kind woman who was greater than some of the philosophers. They may have been learned persons who believed strongly in Buddhism, but he said his mother's loving kindness was better.
Referring to Nagarjuna's text, the Dalai Lama explained that excessive cherishing of one's self-interest results in bad things in the next world, but that one must cherish others as one cherishes one's own body.
He stressed the importance of altruism and friendship, noting that we are social animals and it is a pity to remain lonely. Neither money, power, nor physical strength bring about happiness in the same way friends do, he said.
At the conclusion of his morning talk, it was announced that ticket sales for the three teaching sessions had raised $561,735, and there were another $20,000 in donations. Expenses so far totaled $529,603. The Dalai Lama then presented Jewel Heart with a check for $10,000.
"It's a tremendous honor," said Jonathan Rose, co-chair of the Garrison Institute, which helped sponsor the weekend. "It's a reflection of His Holiness' respect for Gelek Rimpoche's work."
Rimpoche is the founder of Jewel Heart, the Ann Arbor Tibetan Buddhist Center mostly responsible for bringing the Dalai Lama to town. 記事を読むInspired by the Mediterranean: "Blue" is the new wave of green
Title: Inspired by the Mediterranean: "Blue" is the new wave of green
Date: April 2008
Source: Green Pages
Website:http://www.thegreenpages.com.au/index.asp?page_id=548&C=2
Jeans are considered the classic wardrobe staple with women's jeans sales in the US alone being $7.6 billion in 2005. And internationally, eco jeans, made from organic cotton, are on the rise and denim makers are keen to marry sustainability with fashion. Levi's, Just Jeans, and Nudie Jeans are among some of the popular brands that boast an organic range.
Meanwhile, the Turkish-based Mavi Jeans will introduce its organic denim collection in Australia for Summer 08. Mavi, which means 'blue', is known for its high quality, perfect-fitting, fashion forward lifestyle-oriented jeans.
For this collection, Mavi uses premium Aegean cotton that is 100% organic, Mediterranean natural in pure indigo blue hues. Organic peace stretch denim, organic authentic denim and organic share stretch denim jeans are detailed with natural color hand stitching at back pockets with a hand-stitched, hand-crafted blue eye motif. Labels are printed on natural canvas with a batik-effect and selvedges are green with green thread details. Available for women and, the styles are aged and brushed, in soft, supple comfortable shapes with silhouettes that are sexy and inspired.
The Unities Nation Environment Programme, also launched its youth campaign in France with a television spot on eco-tips for post-consumer denim care.
Visit Mavi online at www.mavi.com. or call 02 9699 2118 in Australia.
記事を読むCongress to Chemical Industry: You’re Under Investigation
Title: Energy and Commerce Committee launches probe into chemical industry corruption of science and public health protections at EPA
Date: 2 April 2008
Source: Environmental Working Group
Website: http://www.ewg.org/node/26261
WASHINGTON - The powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee today launched a landmark investigation into the chemical industry lobby group, The American Chemistry Council (ACC). In a letter to ACC President Jack Gerard, Reps. John Dingell and Bart Stupak - the committee chair and its investigations chair demanded that the industry come clean about the degree to which it has been able to corrupt science at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Said Stupak in a statement accompanying the letter to the ACC, "Americans rely on sound science to ensure the safety of everyday products. If that science has been compromised by industry, then the health and safety of the public is in danger."
"EWG has collected thousands of internal chemical industry documents showing that for decades the chemical industry has worked to corrupt the scientific process and deceive the American public about the health risks of their products, even as they knowingly polluted the bodies of every person in the country with toxic chemicals," said Richard Wiles, Executive Director of EWG. "This is a landmark investigation. For the first time the public will find out exactly how the chemical industry uses their influence to corrupt government science at the expense of public health" Wiles added.
For more information go to http://www.ewg.org/node/26261
記事を読むCDC: Americans Carry Body Burden of Toxic Sunscreen Chemical
Title: CDC: Americans Carry Body Burden of Toxic Sunscreen Chemical
Date: 25 March 2008
Source: Environmental Working Group
Website: http://www.ewg.org/node/26212
A new study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reveals that 97% of Americans are contaminated with a widely-used sunscreen ingredient called oxybenzone that has been linked to allergies, hormone disruption, and cell damage. A companion study published just one day earlier revealed that this chemical is linked to low birth weight in baby girls whose mothers are exposed during pregnancy. Oxybenzone is also a penetration enhancer, a chemical that helps other chemicals penetrate the skin.
Although oxybenzone is most common in sunscreen, companies also use the chemical in at least 567 other personal care products.
Environmental Working Group identified nearly 600 sunscreens sold in the U.S. that contain oxybenzone, including products by Hawaiian Tropic, Coppertone, and Banana Boat (see the full list of 588 sunscreens here) as well as 172 facial moisturizers, 111 lip balms, and 81 different types of lipstick.
The Food and Drug Administration has failed miserably in its duty to protect the public from toxic chemicals like oxybenzone in personal care products. At the request of industry lobbyists, including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who represented the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association, the agency has delayed final sunscreen safety standards for nearly 30 years. FDA issued a new draft of the standards last October under pressure from EWG, but continues to delay finalizing them at the behest of the regulated industry.
EWG research shows that 84% of 910 name-brand sunscreen products offer inadequate protection from the sun, or contain ingredients, like oxybenzone, with significant safety concerns.
The last safety review for oxybenzone was done in the 1970s, and does not reflect a wealth of information developed since that time indicating increased toxicity concerns and widespread human exposure. A recent review in the European Union found that sufficient data were not available to assess if oxybenzone in sunscreen was safe for consumers.
Environmental Working Group again calls on FDA to review the safety of oxybenzone, given this new data on widespread contamination of the U.S. population, and to finalize its sunscreen safety standards so that consumers can be certain that sunscreen products they purchase are safe and effective.
Check out the products that contain oxybenzone at http://www.ewg.org/node/26212 and at http://skindeep.ewg.org/browse.php?containing=704372 記事を読む$110b direct selling industry eyes ME
Title: $110b direct selling industry eyes ME
Date:11 March 2008
Source: Khaleej Times Online - News - BUSINESS
DUBAI - The Dh404-billion ($110 billion) global industry of multilevel marketing, or direct selling, will pry open the Middle East market through an exhibition in Dubai, which now allows people to work part-time.
"With part-time work now becoming legal in Dubai, direct selling can give many people the opportunity to earn extra income, especially women and students," said the Direct Selling Educational Institute (DSEI), in Dubai.
In a statement, DSEI said the Direct Selling Exhibition and Conference would be held on May 18-19 at Dubai's Jumeirah Beach Hotel, with Benjamin Tan, founder of the Direct Selling Association of Singapore, as one of the speakers.
It also said that DSEI was formed under the patronage of Professor Charles King, of DSEI in North America, and in tune with efforts of the Dubai government to legislate the industry.
Poorya Montaseri, founding director of DSEI, said the institute is tasked to "promote the industry, establish professionalism among direct sellers and create a regulatory framework for government approval".
Direct selling is the person-to-person sale of a consumer product or service away from a fixed retail location. This has become a major part of many economies, with annual sales in the US reaching Dh112 billion ($30.5 billion) and Dh82.3 billion ($22.4 billion) in Japan. 記事を読むNew Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Planted-Based Organic Foods
Title: New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Planted-Based Organic Foods
Date: March 2008
Source: State of Science Review
A new report from the Organic Centre provides strong evidence that organic foods are definitely more nutrient dense for the most important of 11 nutrients and often by a considerable margin. Across the 11 nutrients, organic foods contained on average 25% higher concentrations of nutrients.
The report points out that more than 40 new studies have been published since 2001.
The dramatic increase in high-quality studies in recent years has changed what the body of science shows on the nutrition of organic foods. Until a few years ago, scientists could say "We simply don't know" when asked if organic foods are, in general, more nutritious. Nutritionists and scientists who use that answer now are not current with the literature.
The confidence placed in the conclusions reached in the Organic Center's new report will be strengthened by important new studies soon to be published including the Center-funded strawberry fruit quality project carried out by a team at Washington State University.
Click Here to Read the Full Article 記事を読むCanadian Government Funds Organic Agriculture
Title: Canadian Government Funds Organic Agriculture
Date: March 2008
Source: Organic Federation of Australia
The Canadian government has given $1.3 million to the Organic Federation of Canada and Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada. The government is keen to see the $1 billion industry continue its rapid expansion. $711,000 of the funding will be used by the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada to increase research and development into organic systems.
Canada is currently in the process implementing a regulatory system for the organic sector that will protect the integrity of organic products sold there.
記事を読むThe Link Between Organic and Health: New Research Makes the Case for Organic Even Stronger
Title: The Link Between Organic and Health: New Research Makes the Case for Organic Even Stronger
Date: March 2008
Source: Organic Processor Magazine
The Organic Center provides an overview of important new scientific discoveries in 2007 that help trace the roots of food quality and safety.
Obi-Wan Kenobi triggers a sense of foreboding when he warns Luke Skywalker that he senses "...a great disturbance in ‘The Force’. Many people feel the same sense of apprehension about the American food supply. As a result, consumers are restless, and the food industry is scrambling.
Looking back on the last year alone, it’s easy to see why. From E.coli outbreaks to melamine in pet food—several watershed events triggered or reinforced today’s deepening concerns about food. Most stories portrayed government food safety agencies as a day late and dollar short and too complacent and listless.
With increased incidence of diet-related diseases along with widely read books such as Michael Pollan’s 'Omnivore’s Dilemma' and 'What to Eat' by
Marion Nestle, as well as movies like 'Super Size Me', consumers are becoming more educated about what they eat. All this has also planted a promising seed the notion that consumers can change the food system and their quality of life if they change what food they buy.
Consumer anxiety has increased demand for better information on food quality and safety at the same time science is delivering deeper insights into why and how conventional systems and technologies are eroding both. But today’s science is proving that if we can change the way we grow and process food through using organic methods, we can reestablish the true value of food as a form of nourishment and health promotion creating a pathway to higher quality foods and thus higher quality living.
Click Here to read Article 記事を読むInkJet-Printed, Flexible, Organic Solar Cells?
Title: InkJet-Printed, Flexible, Organic Solar Cells?
Date: March 5, 2008
Source: Wired Science
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/inkjet-printed.html
Yesterday, Konarka announced that they have demonstrated organic (made of carbon/plastic/oil based products versus silicon/inorganic products) solar cells that can be manufactured using highly efficient ink-jet printing. These solar cells do not require the clean room processes that silicon cells do and could make it easier to incorporate solar power into many useful applications.
Sounds like a green victory, but CNET reported that the organic cells are so lightweight and flexible Konarka suggested "putting its plastic on soft drink bottles in stores for advertising." While I appreciate that Konarka needs to generate a lot of "market" to turn a profit for the considerable amount invested in them, I don't think that adding plastic solar cells and screens on the outside of disposable soft drink bottle is consistent with the sustainable promise of the company and their technology.
Creating solar power collecting windows on the other hand (a previously announced Konarka product plan), now that sounds like a good idea...
Although only 5% efficient now compared to the 15-20% efficiency of traditional silicon solar cells, organic solar cells are more flexible and easier to print in colors, transparent or even in camouflage. Konarka is already developing portable, electricity generating buildings for the military.
Although not commercially available yet, Konarka is at work with a number of commercial partners and likely to be available later this year. 記事を読むOlympic Village embodies Green Olympics
Title: Olympic Village embodies Green Olympics
Date: March 5, 2008
Source: China View
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/05/content_7724269.htm
BEIJING, March 5 (Xinhua) -- The Olympic Village for the Beijing Olympic Games is energy-saving and environmentally friendly, said the organizers here on Wednesday.
Liu Rong from the Beijing Guoao Investment Development Co. Ltd which was entrusted to build the Olympic Village and the National Indoor Stadium, said the 66-hektare village in north Beijing materialized the three Beijing Olympics concepts of Green Olympics, People's Olympics and Hi-tech Olympics.
"We have been pursuing the harmony between the structures and the environment," Liu said.
She said the Village, playing home to 16,000 athletes and officials during the Olympic Games and 7,000 during the Paralympics, will be operated partly through solar energy to reduce the use of electricity.
"Our resources-recycling system will make use of the waste water and solar energy to run the air-conditioners and provide hot water for the 16,000 athletes and officials during the Games time and 2,000 residents after the Games," said Liu. The Olympic Village will be modified to become residential area in 2009.
"Through the system, five million kWh of electricity will be saved each year," she said.
Domestic wastewater and rainwater are also useful in the Village.
"We set up pipes to collect rainwater and recycle domestic wastewater as supplies for places like the lake and irrigation," she said.
The Olympic Village will formally open on July 27, less than two weeks before the Aug. 8-24 Olympic Games and continue to serve the Paralympics until Sept. 20. 記事を読むAGL wins rights to build SA wind farm
Title: AGL wins rights to build SA wind farm
Date: March 5, 2008
Source: Money - Ninemsn
http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=387581
AGL Energy Ltd (AGL) says it has acquired rights to build a third wind farm in South Australia.
The new farm will be at Mount Bryan (Hallett 3), approximately 200km north of Adelaide.
Hallett 3 is expected to have a capacity of up to 90 megawatts and will be located around 15km from two other farms currently being built by AGL, the 95 megawatt Brown Hill (Hallett 1) wind farm and the 71 megawatt Hallett Hill farm (Hallett 2).
The proposed Hallett 3 wind farm is expected to comprise around 30 turbines, receiving an average wind speed of eight to nine metres/second - well above speeds at the other two sites nearby.
AGL managing director, Michael Fraser, said providing the Hallett 3 wind farm goes ahead, AGL could be operating approximately 164 wind turbines in South Australia with a combined capacity of more than 345 megawatts by 2010.
"When fully operational we anticipate that it will generate enough renewable energy to power approximately 43,000 average Australian households and avoid up to 265,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year," Mr Fraser said. 記事を読むHydrogen fuel plant to use heat from solar power station
Title: Hydrogen fuel plant to use heat from solar power station
Date: February 22, 2008
Source: The Age www.theage.com.au/news
A MELBOURNE company is developing the world's first commercial plant using solar energy to make hydrogen gas a clean fuel that can run cars or generate electricity, without producing greenhouse gases.
The $60 million project, based on an Australian breakthrough, aims to achieve science's elusive quest to convert solar energy into a fuel that can be stored and used when needed.
The developer, Solar Systems, of Hawthorn, is also building the $450 million Mildura solar power station due to start generating electricity in 2010. The solar hydrogen project will be attached to the power station or to a smaller demonstration power plant being built at Bridgewater, near Bendigo.
The project is possible because of technology developed by one of the company founders, John Lasich. In 1991 he discovered a new technique to perform electrolysis, the most common way of producing hydrogen gas, by passing an electric current through water.
He says this technology is now commercially feasible because it can be wed to a solar electricity plant, taking excess heat.
Mr Lasich says the project, which has backing from federal and state governments and private investors, will initially be a demonstration plant built over seven years, which will produce the equivalent of about one megawatt of power a day, when fully commissioned.
Storing power generated by clean means such as solar or wind is regarded as the Holy Grail of renewable energy.
Electrolysis is used to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen, but present technology is quite inefficient, even using solar power. At room temperature every 100 watts of electricity produces just 60 watts of hydrogen.
Mr Lasich's technique heats the water to 1000 degrees Celsius, a temperature at which the process delivers 140 watts worth of hydrogen for every 100 watts of electricity.
The plant will work by filtering off infra-red rays from sunlight hitting the cells of the solar power station.
The hydrogen would be stored and used to produce power after dark, by converting it directly to electricity through a fuel cell or reverse electrolysis, or using it to power a generator.
Several car makers have touted hydrogen as an alternative fuel to power engines. But supply problems with hydrogen have been a deterrent. Most hydrogen gas now produced is a byproduct of petroleum.
Mr Lasich believes that hydrogen fuel can be produced for a similar price to petrol.
"If it is used in a car specially designed to run on it, its higher flame temperature means it is about 30 per cent more efficient than petrol," he says.
"This technology is a byproduct of our solar power station, we have developed it as something we can roll off the end once we get the power station up and running.
"We think that once we demonstrate it on a commercial scale, in the current climate there will be global demand." 記事を読むSony steps up green drive
Title: Sony steps up green drive
Source: www.itnews.com.au
Date: 22 Feb 2008
Sony has unveiled its long-term environmental commitment, joining 11 other international companies at the Climate Savers Summit in Tokyo to outline various green initiatives.
The organisations have signed the Tokyo Declaration aimed at tackling global warming and enacting industry-wide change.
Sony has vowed to promote a low-carbon lifestyle to consumers, and to make its carbon footprint more transparent by highlighting related reduction activities.
The company's 'Product, Process, Planet' initiative aims to highlight the measures Sony has taken to reduce the environmental impact of its products in the manufacturing process and through consumer use.
Serge Foucher, executive vice president at Sony Europe, said: "This marks the first time that Sony is addressing consumers directly across various channels to enhance the communication of meaningful environmental information.
"This should ultimately help the consumer to make the right decision when it comes to their own contribution to sustainability through their purchase."
Around 66 per cent of Sony's sales are generated by consumer electronics, and the energy efficiency of these products plays a crucial role in reducing its carbon footprint.
Sony is investing in research and development to further improve the environmental performance of its products and help minimise this impact.
The company claims to have reduced the power consumption of its LCD TVs, and is looking for further reductions through the development of OLED TV panels.
Sony has also announced a commitment to increase its use of renewable energy by 2010 and to quadruple its overall volume of renewable energy used worldwide.
The firm claims to be the biggest single-company purchaser of renewable energy in Japan, and aims to save the equivalent of 30,000 tons of CO2 in Europe by 2010.
In joining the Climate Savers Programme in 2006, Sony committed to a seven per cent absolute reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 compared to 2000 levels. 記事を読むHybrid Taxis hit the streets!
Title: Hybrid Taxis hit the streets!
Source: Green Pages Australia & Department of Premier and Cabinet
Date: 12 February 2008
Melbourne’s taxi fleet is set to go green with Premier John Brumby announcing a special one-off trial of 50 environmentally friendly hybrid taxis.
At the Toyota City in Nagoya, Japan, Mr Brumby said 50 of the 100 peak-cabs taxi licences that are granted annually in Melbourne would be made available this year for hybrid cars.
'Peak cabs' are currently licensed to operate between 3pm and 7am everyday - travelling an average 100,000 km every year, Mr Brumby said.
Each of these new 'green' taxis would emit almost two tonnes less CO2 and save on average around $5,000 worth of fuel every year.
The green taxi licences will be offered at a special rate of $1136 - instead of the $6136 per annum fee currently paid.
Mr Brumby said the Government would also introduce a new green passenger hire car fleet of hybrid vehicles in metropolitan Melbourne.
Hire car operators who choose to take up this environmentally friendly licence will be supported with a discounted one-off green licence fee of $40,000 instead of the existing $60,500 which currently applies to hire cars.
With the introduction of the new fleet people using luxury hire cars will now be able to request environmentally superior vehicles. This would mean people hiring a luxury car would have the option of cars such as a Toyota Prius or a Lexus.
People who use taxis or chauffer services to travel around cities are increasingly looking for environmentally friendly options as a way of off-setting their travel, Mr Brumby said.
With the completion of Victoria’s new 6 star Convention Centre in 2009 business visitors to our city will be able to travel to and from an environmentally built conference site in an environmentally friendly car.
At the moment Melbourne has no green cabs or hire cars and this initiative would see us compete with other states and countries which are currently trialling environmentally friendly transport options.
There are obvious benefits to the whole community and the environment if vehicles use less fuel and produce fewer greenhouse gases and this initiative will tell us if hybrid vehicles can operate viably as taxis and hire cars.
Other cities, including New York, London and more recently Sydney and Perth have already adapted similar measures in their taxi fleets with success. New York claims that its entire fleet will be green by 2012. Melbourne's fleet of 50 hybrids stands to be the largest green fleet in Australia as of date. 記事を読むCHOICE: We love our strawberries. But are there hidden dangers?
Title: We love our strawberries. But are there hidden dangers?
Date: February 2008
Source: CHOICE Magazine
We love our strawberries. They look beautiful and good ones taste delicious. But are there hidden dangers? CHOICE's latest test results suggest we should be concerned about poor pesticide practices in Australia.
In brief
* Almost all the conventionally grown strawberries in our test contained pesticide residues.
* While these chemicals are generally thought to be safe at the very low levels found, some experts are concerned that over the long term they're increasing our risk of cancer and other health problems.
Strawberries are unfortunately more likely to be contaminated with pesticides than other fresh fruit, as growers use pesticides to protect their strawberries from insect pests and fungal diseases. Without pesticides, strawberries would be more expensive because yields would be lower and there would be greater losses from them going bad before they get to the shops. (This is one reason why organic fruit costs more.) But pesticides can be applied too enthusiastically.
The last time independent test results were published in Australia (in 2003), strawberries stood out as the fruit with the highest levels of pesticide residues, though still within acceptable limits. They've been flagged in the US as of 'high concern' for pesticide contamination. When last tested in the UK, 67% of strawberries contained pesticide residues. In France a recent survey found pesticide residues above the legal limit in 20% of strawberries.
For the CHOICE test, we bought strawberries from Coles and Woolworths, as well as from several independent fruit shops, organic food specialists and organic food markets in Sydney.
Our experts assessed each punnet for the quality of the berries — taking into account ripeness and rot. Finally, a lab tested the strawberries from each grower (31 growers in total) for pesticide residues.
Why the concern?
If you're a farmer or you’ve used pesticides in your garden you’ll know from the labels that they’re dangerous chemicals that need to be used carefully.
Our national food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), has set maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides permitted in specific foods. MRLs are so small as to be measured in parts per million and they include a substantial safety margin.
Despite this, some experts argue that there’s still an element of risk even at these low levels, and especially when we’re exposed to a daily 'cocktail' of several different pesticides. Evidence is growing that pesticides could be increasing our risk of some cancers, Parkinson’s disease, and impaired cognitive development in children.
And washing doesn’t necessarily remove the pesticides from strawberries. Some pesticides are systemic (which means they penetrate right through the fruit). Others are formulated to resist being washed off by rain.
About our test
How we tested
We bought strawberries from Coles and Woolworths supermarkets and independent Sydney suburban fruit shops (three of each). We also bought some from organic food specialists and from small organic food markets (again located in different Sydney suburbs). For comparison, and to increase the number of individual growers sampled, we also bought strawberries from the Sydney Markets at Flemington.
When an outlet had strawberries produced by more than one grower we bought five punnets of each. We always chose the best-looking strawberries on offer, like any other customer would.
An expert examined each sample of strawberries and estimated the percentages of:
* Premium berries (with no obvious blemishes).
* Berries with no obvious rot.
* Completely ripe berries (100% red, with no white areas).
We then tested the strawberries from each grower for pesticide residues. Altogether we tested strawberries from 31 growers in all states (except Tasmania and South Australia) 27 of them conventional growers and four certified organic growers, who shouldn’t be using pesticides.
What we found
The test method was able to detect any of 150 different pesticides. We found the following in one or more samples:
* Boscalid
* Captan
* Carbaryl
* Chlorpyrifos
* Dimethoate
* Endosulfan-beta
* Iprodione
* Pirimicarb
* Pyrimethanil
Some of the results were particularly disturbing.
* Three of the strawberry samples contained pesticide residues at levels that exceed the maximum residue limit (MRL), or pesticides that the regulations don’t allow on strawberries.
* Another two were under the Australian limit for captan, but contained more of this fungicide than is permitted under more stringent EU regulations.
* Seventeen of the conventionally grown strawberries had residues of more than one pesticide.
* Four of these came with a cocktail of no less than four different chemicals, though all below the MRL.
* One of the four organic samples contained the fungicide pyrimethanil. However, the level was less than 1% of the MRL, so it may have been from residual environmental contamination, or sprays blown across from an adjoining property.
MRLs are very conservative. It’s highly unlikely that a few strawberries with pesticides above the MRL will do you any harm, but we know very little about the pesticide levels in other fruit and vegetables, and long-term overexposure could be of concern.
CHOICE verdict
More independent testing is needed. Right now the only independent testing for pesticide residues in food is done by some state governments, and even then the number and types of products tested are limited and some states do no testing at all.
The fresh fruit and vegetable industry has its own internal national testing program called FreshTest but the results aren’t made public.
Our results highlight the need for truly independent, comprehensive and regular testing on a national basis, as is done in the UK. CHOICE welcomes the recent decision by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) that it will be including pesticide residues in its next Australian Total Diet Survey in 2008. This is a step in the right direction, but no substitute for regular and comprehensive testing.
Children are at greater risk of pesticides than adults, because of their smaller body size. If you want to minimise your family’s exposure to pesticides, organic is the way to go. Independent testing has consistently found much lower levels of pesticide residues in organic than in conventionally grown produce.
Where to buy
If you still fancy strawberries after all that talk of pesticides, where will you find the sweetest and tastiest ones? All too often strawberries look wonderful in the shop but turn out to be bullet-hard and tasteless when you get them home, with a percentage of them usually inedible because of rot or other blemishes.
This is why we also put our strawberries to the test for edibility, checking them for blemishes, rot and ripeness.
* On average, the strawberries from independent fruit shops had the fewest blemishes, with 70% blemish-free vs 55% from the big supermarkets. The fruit from organic specialists had the least rot: only 0.7% had significant rot compared with 3% of the supermarket fruit.
* The ripest strawberries came from small suburban organic food market, with on average 80% completely ripe. This compared with only 56% from independent fruit shops and 78% for the two big supermarkets.
What to consider
There are several factors to consider when buying strawberries:
Strawberries taste best when they’re fully ripe
Unlike some fruit, such as bananas, strawberries don’t develop their full flavour unless they’re allowed to fully ripen on the vine. But often they’re transported over long distances and wouldn’t survive two or three days jolting in a truck unless they were picked under-ripe.
So under-ripe, flavourless fruit is the price we pay for having strawberries from interstate when there are no local ones available.
Shopping in Sydney, we found strawberries from NSW, Queensland, Victoria and WA. On average the fruit from WA stood out as being the least ripe. The strawberries from NSW growers were the ripest.
If you want flavour and sweetness, look for fully ripe fruit. There’s a trade-off, though, as ripe fruit is more likely to have blemishes. But you can cut any blemishes off a small price to pay for tasty strawberries.
Strawberries taste best when they’re fresh
Strawberries start to lose flavour as soon as they’re picked, so the longer it takes to get them from the farm to your plate, the poorer the flavour. And the flavour deteriorates faster than the strawberries themselves. They can still look perfectly OK a week after harvesting, but they don’t have much flavour left.
A punnet of strawberries usually has a sticker showing the grower’s name and the district where the strawberries were grown. You can improve your chances of getting tasty strawberries by avoiding fruit that’s travelled a long distance. Don’t necessarily expect strawberries at your local produce market to have been locally grown. You might strike it lucky, but there’s no guarantee.
At the three markets where we bought strawberries, only one stallholder had local fruit that he’d grown himself. At another Sydney market we only found strawberries grown in WA.
Some varieties taste better than others
It may not be obvious when you buy them, but strawberries come in different varieties (just as apples can be Golden Delicious, Fuji, Pink Lady, Granny Smith, and so on) and some varieties have a better flavour than others.
Breeding programs have recently been producing some really tasty new varieties of strawberry, but as far as the consumer’s concerned the effort’s been wasted. None of the strawberries we bought had the variety stated on the label or displayed in the store. When we asked sales staff at each of the 15 outlets where we bought strawberries, only one could tell us the variety (the market stallholder who’d grown them himself).
Occasionally you might see the variety on the small label stuck to the punnet, and there’s a space for marking the variety printed on the cardboard trays in which the punnets of strawberries are supplied to shops. But on most of the trays we saw at the Sydney Markets the grower hadn’t bothered to mark the appropriate square.
Varieties to look for:
* Rubygem from Queensland
* Camarosa (a variety originally from California)
* Millewa from Victoria 記事を読むAGRIBUSINESS NEWS: Australian organic exports to climb on the back of cloned meat
Title: AGRIBUSINESS NEWS: Australian organic exports to climb on the back of cloned meat
Date: January 23, 2008
Source: BFA Press Release
Australian organic meat exporters say their business could be bolstered by the US Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision to approve the consumption of food from cloned animals and their offspring.
The decision has re-ignited a focus on organic sales of organic beef and dairy products from Australia could be boosted as consumers in the United States search for an alternative source of protein and dairy products, says Ms Dalene Brook, Business Development Manager of OBE Beef, Australia’s largest organic beef co-operative.
Australia has the largest area of certified organic land in the world (approximately 11.8million hectares certified to international standards) due to vast areas of rangelands certified for organic cattle and fat land production.
Australia has some of the highest standards of food safety and traceability in the world protecting its primary industry environment. Australia’s clean and green reputation is highly regarded and a valuable asset for exporters in markets worldwide, says Ms. Brook.
In south-west Queensland, OBE runs 70,000 certified organic cattle on 7 million certified organic hectares of land, and is well positioned to accommodate overseas markets seeking high-grade beef produced to organic standards. They are among a number of successful livestock industry groups.
Certified organic is one of the few regulatory systems already in place to guarantee accountability of source in livestock, amid rising consumer concerns that any cloned meat introduced on market will not be labelled accordingly (meat from cloned animals would be identical to a natural source and impossible to identify).
Spokesperson for Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), Damon Whittock says that MLA will closely monitor the attitudes of consumers and export markets but that cloned meat was not likely to enter the Australian food chain in the near future.
Cloned cattle do exist in Australia (there are less than 100), but they are incredibly expensive to produce and used for research purposes. They do not enter the food chain.
Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) will make the decisions on the safety of cloned beef and consumer attitudes will ultimately determine whether it will be accepted and hence made commercially viable, he said.
BFA spokesperson and Standards Committee Chair, Dr. Andrew Monk says cloned meat concerns are the latest in a series of proposed food modification techniques that stringent standards for certified organic production offer an alternative to. Reproductive hormones and cloning are prohibited under the Australian Organic Standard.
In a world of food increasingly tampered with in competition for the greatest slice of the agri-food market, certified organic is becoming a haven for those in search of naturally produced food,” he says.
With no planned requirement that labels identify cloned animal foods, and with the exemption of labeling of many GM foods, as well as products utilizing nanotechnology, organic logos such as the Australian Certified Organic Bud will hold even greater importance for consumers who care about where their food comes from, and how it is produced.
Dr. Monk says BFA does not reject the progressive benefits of technology but takes a precautionary approach in the interests of human health and safety, while being unrepentantly focused on 記事を読むOur tests show supermarket apples are up to 10 months old
Title: Our tests show supermarket apples are up to 10 months old
Date: January 20, 2008
Source: The Sun-Herald
Sales of organic and free range chickens have soared following a controversial Jamie Oliver television programme which showed disturbing scenes of chickens being slaughtered using battery-farming methods.
Despite the advertising that pushes fresh fruit and vegetables, independent testing shows apples have been stored for months before sale, Maxine Frith reports.
APPLES on sale in supermarkets are up to 10 months old, an investigation by The Sun-Herald has revealed.
Woolworths, which advertises itself as "the fresh food people", was the worst culprit, with the oldest products on sale.
The Sun-Herald bought samples of Granny Smiths from Woolworths, Coles and the Norton Street Grocer in Bondi Junction after learning that, within the industry, some products are nicknamed "birthday apples" because they are up to a year old by the time they hit the shelves.
All the samples were Australian-grown.
The apples are kept in cold storage under controlled conditions from the time they are picked.
But scientists said that quality and freshness was being affected because they were being kept for longer in order to satisfy consumer demand for year-round products.
Our apples were sent for testing at the independent Sydney Postharvest Laboratory, which conducts research for the fruit and vegetable industry.
Analysis showed the Woolworths samples were about 10 months old while the Norton Street and Coles products had spent 9 months in storage since being harvested.
The apples were also tested for firmness and levels of ethylene, a natural plant hormone that stimulates fruit to ripen but can also cause it to go off.
Stephen Morris, the principal research scientist who conducted the tests, said that Norton Street apples were of the best quality and Woolworths the worst.
Woolworths' apples had 75 times the ethylene levels of the fruit from Norton Street.
Dr Morris said: "Apples can be kept for six months and they will still be of very good quality.
"After nine months the quality is going to start to be affected and at 10 and 11 months you are not going to get such a good apple.
"If you want to eat fresh fruit now, don't buy apples, buy mangoes."
Dr Morris said that any apples on sale at the moment would be at least eight months old.
Woolworths chief executive Michael Luscombe said: "Apples have a very short growing and harvest season and it has always been the case that they are picked and kept in cold storage.
"The cold storage helps to slow the ripening process but of course it can't keep an apple as fresh as if it came straight off the tree so it will affect the quality.
"Customers want apples all year round. We have a big commitment to Australian farmers and 97 per cent of all our produce is from Australian producers.
"The only options other than cold storage would be to not have apples all year round or to buy from the northern hemisphere where the quality might not be as good.
"I accept that consumers might not be aware of the fact that the apples on sale are not fresh off the tree.
"It might be something that we need to do in terms of customer education, perhaps using our television adverts when we have staff members talking about what is in season to explain when they will have come from cold storage."
A spokesman for Coles said: "The technology for storing apples is now very sophisticated." 記事を読むOrganic chickens fly after Jamie Oliver's fowl deed
Title: Organic chickens fly after Jamie Oliver's fowl deed
Source: James Hall - The Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk
Date: 22 January 2008
Sales of organic and free range chickens have soared following a controversial Jamie Oliver television programme which showed disturbing scenes of chickens being slaughtered using battery-farming methods.
Waitrose, the supermarket, saw sales of organic chickens rise by 31pc in the second week of January, the week the programme aired, while free range chickens from its Select Farm range rose by 24pc. Overall poultry sales at the chain rose by 7pc over the week in question, the highest weekly sales figure of the year outside of Christmas or Easter.
Asda and J Sainsbury also reported increases in sales. "Sales of organic chickens have gone up but so have Basics, our value line," said a Sainsbury's spokeswoman.
A source close to one large supermarket said that sales of free range and organic poultry had risen eightfold since the programme aired.
The TV show, Jamie's Fowl Dinners, featured scenes showing battery-farmed chickens being slaughtered. The show attracted controversy for its content and for comments that Oliver reportedly made criticising Sainsbury's, whose ad campaign he fronts, for not sending a representative to a televised debate. Oliver later wrote an open letter to Sainsbury's staff apologising for his outburst.
Growth in sales has not been restricted to big chains. Steve Merritt, founder of S&J Organics, a Welsh company which sells organic chickens direct to customers, said that orders had risen by between 40pc and 50pc in the last week. "We have had a lot of people ringing up with orders; there has been a lot of interest. It just goes to show what a difference a television programme can make," said Mr Merritt. He added that many customers were increasingly concerned about "food miles" and were buying local.
Waitrose sold out of free range chicken thighs last week, demonstrating that people were opting for cheaper joints but upgrading to higher levels of animal welfare. 記事を読むIs the difference between organic and non-organic irrelevant?
25/10/07
Title:Is the difference between organic and non-organic irrelevant?
From: The BFA Newsletter on the 25th October 2007 (http://news.bfa.com.au/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/archive/advantage/20071024162514/ )
Recently in a mainstream newspaper a professor of human nutrition lent herself to an article which quite emphatically stated that 'organic (food) is no better.'
Following up with the professor and with the intention of knowing which research had led her to this conclusion, BFA Nutritionist Shane Heaton was posed with a second statement from the professor:
Even if there were a difference, the difference is irrelevant. Fruit and vegetables provide an excess of vitamins and minerals and we should be encouraging everyone to eat more of them - we don't need to get them from more alternate sources that are hard to find and more expensive to purchase.
This question is one worthy of further consideration. Shane Heaton writes "As a fellow nutritionist of course I agree we need everyone to eat more fruit & veg, but it appears we advocate very different strategies on how to achieve that..." he writes.
"Everyone interested in nutrition and public health agrees that encouraging greater consumption of fruit and vegetables is the simplest and most effective way to improving peoples health. Some believe that encouraging greater consumption of organic food works against this ideal, and therefore organics should not be promoted. It's assumed that if people buy organic instead of non-organic food, they'll buy a lesser quantity because of the higher price. I strongly believe this is a false assumption.
"The average household can easily afford the premium for organic food if they buy less junk food (fizzy drinks, crisps, cakes, biscuits, icecream, chocolate, sweets, etc.). Or fewer cigarettes. Or less alcohol. How do I know this? Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that that average household spends more on junk food than on fruit and veg each week. More on take-away, and more on alcohol than fruit and veg. The cigarette market is 6 times the size of the organic food market.
"So let me make an assumption. With a household food and drink budget, most people will tend to buy the essentials first fruit, vegetables, cereals, some ready meals, bread, milk, meat, etc. and then use whats left to buy luxuries junk food, alcohol, cigarettes, take-aways and the like.
"The key factor here is whether or not consumers consider organic food to be essential or a luxury. As people learn more about differences in nutrient content, pesticide residues, animal welfare, food safety, environmental impact, etc., many do come to believe that organic food and farming are essential for the health of ourselves and that of the environment. If people switch from conventional to organic on the essentials, it's entirely likely they will then spend less on junk-food, alcohol, cigarettes and take-aways, and indeed, research has confirmed that organic consumers have different consumption patterns from non-organic consumers along these lines.
"So if my assumption is correct, switching to organic food would not only mean consumers receive more nutrients and fewer toxins in their now largely organic diet, theyd also potentially consume less alcohol, fewer cigarettes and less fat and sugar-laden junk food. The benefits to their health, that of their families, and public health in general, could be enormous.
"They'd also avoid the considerable uncertainties regarding the health implications of multiple pesticide residues, GMOs, anti-biotic resistance, nitrates and artificial food additives. Those who argue there is no compelling scientific evidence of definite harm from these issues must also concede that there is so much we do not know, that there is equally no evidence that they are safe. Consumers pursuing wellness know better than to wait for scientific consensus on such issues, and often make a personal choice instead to follow the precautionary principle.
"Another important point in this question of how best to improve peoples fruit and veg intake is the issue of taste. A common experience of organic consumers is that organic produce tastes better. Kids especially notice the difference, and I've heard numerous reports from parents who's kids start actually enjoying fruits and vegetables when they make the switch to organic. Where they previously struggled to get their children to eat much fruit or any vegetables at all, all of a sudden they start asking for more! And they feel great about giving them to their kids, knowing they're not doused in who knows how many pesticides.
So which is the better strategy to encourage greater fruit and veg consumption? I'm convinced the organic argument. It's good for you, tastes great, doesn't pollute the planet, didn't risk the farmers health when growing it, and won't slowly poison your family.It is likely to be a far more effective strategy than Go on, it's good for you. Don't worry about the pesticides - it's cheap!!.
"The environmental and biodiversity benefits of organic farming are well documented and generally accepted. Buying organic food supports organic farming and thus benefits the environment. Do those who advocate increasing consumption of non-organic fruit and vegetables really think it's wise to pursue wellness with no regard to our environment? Can you be truly well while supporting practices that pollute the environment and reduce biodiversity?
"So the bottom line is that if people go organic they receive more nutrients, fewer toxins, and probably decrease their consumption of health-robbers like cigarettes and junk-food. Whether or not to go organic is a question of priorities. If pursuing optimum health and wellbeing is a priority for you and your family, then it's a very good idea. If your priorities currently lie elsewhere, that's fine. It's your journey. But your choices leave a toxic legacy for future generations, and as a father of two, I'd really rather you didn't.
"Cheap is expensive, and organic food isn't a luxury , it's how food is meant to be." 記事を読むIs your make-up killing you? By Natasha Courtnay-Smith
Title: Organic farming mitigates climate change
Date: April 21, 2008
Source: Stock & Land
Website: http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/organic-farming-mitigates-climate-change/85276.aspx
A 30 year scientific trial shows that organic practices could counteract up to 40pc of global greenhouse gas output.
Organic Federation of Australia chairman, Andre Leu, claims the trial of organic and conventional farming practices has proved that organic practices "can be the single biggest way to mitigate climate change".
"Scientists at the Rodale Institute in the US have proved that organic farming practices can remove about 7000kg of carbon dioxide from the air each year and sequester it in a hectare of farmland," Mr Leu said.
According to Mr Leu, the scientists estimated that if all of America's 100 million hectares of cropland were converted to organic practices, it would be the equivalent of taking 217 million cars off the road.
This is nearly 88pc of all cars in the US and more than a third of all the cars in the world.
Dr Paul Hepperly, PhD, research director at The Rodale Institute and Fulbright Scholar stated: "We've shown that organic practices can do better than anyone thought at sequestering carbon, and could counteract up to 40pc of global greenhouse gas output."
Mr Leu said it was important to note that the research that the amount of CO2 sequestered was based on what had already been achieved through current organic farming practices.
"This is not a theoretical estimate as in some of the tree plantation models or unproven like the millions of dollars being spent clean coal or mechanical geo sequestration trials," he said.
"This is being achieved now by organic farmers in the US, Australia and around the world."
記事を読む