carcinogens Archives - Amazing Health Advances

How House Dust is Secretly Sabotaging Your Health and Waistline

The AHA! Team — Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:30:52 +0000

Rebecca Jacobs via NaturalHealth365 – Strange as it seems, being an indifferent housekeeper could be right up there on the list of risk factors that promote health problems and obesity. Recent studies suggest that endocrine-disrupting chemicals lurking in ordinary household dust may disturb metabolic health and trigger the accumulation of body fat, especially in children. Read on to discover the truth about how chemical residues in household dust can contribute to weight gain and serious health problems. House dust attracts, holds, and redistributes contaminants “House dust” is composed of a blend of shed skin cells, hair, bacteria, dust mites, and a sprinkling of dead insects’ body parts. This environmental mix also includes particles of pollen and soil, fibers from clothing, and microscopic specks of plastic and dye. As unwholesome as this mixture is, the real danger of house dust may be its content of pollutants and carcinogenic compounds, all of which can function as endocrine disruptors. No matter how vigorously one cleans, dust can become entrenched in carpets and accumulate in crevices, leading over the years to a harmful buildup – even in the tidiest of homes. Even more troubling is that dust in place for many years can hold residues of banned substances, such as DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). Warning: Household debris contains dangerous phthalates from flame retardants and plasticizers According to an article in Chemical and Engineering News, phthalates are the most common harmful contaminants found in dust, with DEHP (Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) – a phthalate plasticizer found in plastic food containers, cosmetics, and vinyl flooring – topping the list. According to recent studies, DEHP can disrupt hormone function and reduce sperm motility in men. Dust is also a major source of human exposure to PBDEs, or polybrominated diphenyl ether. Found in flame retardants and fabric protectants, PBDEs are known endocrine disruptors. Although PBDEs have been banned, they still exist in the environment – and in household dust. And now, for a shocking fact: According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit environmental agency, the concentrations in house dust of some phthalates and flame retardants actually exceed soil-screening health risk thresholds set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Toxic compounds in dust can be inhaled, absorbed through the skin, or ingested through the mouth – as can occur when eating with dusty hands. Exposure to household contaminants can trigger weight gain In a study conducted by researchers at Duke University and published in Environmental Science and Technology, precursor fat cells – or adipocytes – were exposed to household dust containing endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The result? The team found that extracts from seven of the eleven house dust samples caused precursor adipocytes to mature and accumulate more fat – while nine of the samples caused the cells to proliferate and increase in number. The team found that the flame retardant TBPDP (2,4,6-Tribromophenyl-2,3-dibromopropyl ether), the plasticizer DBP (Dibutyl Phthalate), and the pesticide pyraclostrobin had the greatest effects on fat accumulation. Lead author Dr. Heather Stapleton remarked that the findings raised concerns for human health, especially because the dust’s fat-producing tendency occurred at concentrations below the EPA-estimated child exposure levels. Disturbingly, as little as 3 micrograms of dust triggered fat-producing effects – well below the 50 milligrams of house dust that children could be consuming daily. Certain pollutants are linked to leukemia, researchers say Some compounds found in dust, including PBDEs, PCBs, and PAHs – or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons – are suspected leukemia risk factors. According to the Environmental Working Group, PBDEs, in particular, have been linked in animal studies to thyroid hormone disruption, learning and memory impairment, hearing deficits, decreased sperm count, and even cancer. Todd P. Whitehead, an environmental scientist at the University of California, studied dust in California homes as part of his work with the California Childhood Leukemia Study. The research showed that homes of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL, tended to have higher levels of PAHs, PBDEs, and PCBs. Whitehead called the findings the “strongest type of evidence” to suggest that these compounds are risk factors for childhood leukemia. In addition, Professor Marsha Wills-Karp of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health reports accumulating evidence that exposure to contaminants in dust might lead to diseases such as obesity, asthma, and autism. How can I reduce the exposure to unwanted pollution in my home? Natural health experts recommend frequent hand washing and using a vacuum with a high-efficiency particulate air filter to reduce exposure to and ingestion of dust. Avoid using feather dusters, which only redistribute dust, and clean with a damp rag. Whenever possible or practical, opt for wood or tile floors over carpets. Experts report that normal vacuuming only removes about 10 percent of entrapped dust from carpets. Other actions you can take include changing bedding once a week, removing all clutter from floors, and storing closet contents in garment bags or boxes. Finally, you may want to consider opening up the window (as often as possible) and using a good quality air purifier, at least in the bedroom. Sources for this article include: NIH.gov ACS.org ACS.org Express.co.uk EWG.org To read the original article click here.

The post How House Dust is Secretly Sabotaging Your Health and Waistline appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

How to Eat to Reduce Cancer Risk

AHA Publisher — Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:00:30 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – What does the best available balance of evidence say right now about what to eat and what to avoid to reduce your risk of cancer? In 1982, a landmark report on diet, nutrition, and cancer was released by the National Academy of Sciences. It was “the first major, institutional, science-based report on this topic.” The report started out saying that “scientists must be especially careful in their choice of words whenever they are not totally confident about their conclusions.” For example, by that time, it had become “absolutely clear” that cigarettes were killing people. “If the population been persuaded to stop smoking when the association with lung cancer was first reported, these cancer deaths would not be occurring.” If you wait for absolute certainty, millions of people could die in the meantime, which is why, sometimes, you have to invoke the precautionary principle. For example, “emphasizing fruits and vegetables to reduce the risk of several common forms of cancer.” We’re not completely sure, but there’s good evidence—and what’s the downside? “There are no disadvantages for healthy people eating more fruits and vegetables,” as I discuss in my video The Best Advice on Diet and Cancer. The 1982 National Academy of Sciences report continued: “The public is now asking about the causes of cancers that are not associated with smoking. What are these causes, and how can these cancers be avoided? Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to make firm scientific pronouncements about the association between diet and cancer. We are in an interim stage of knowledge similar to that for cigarettes 20 years ago. Therefore, in the judgment of the committee, it is now the time to offer some interim guidelines on diet and cancer.” The committee raised concern about processed meats, for example, and, 30 years later, that concern was confirmed. Processed meat was officially declared “carcinogenic to humans.” Maybe if we had listened back in the early 1980s when the red flag first started waving, then we would have been spared Lunchables, about which a CEO of Philip Morris said: “One article said something like, ‘If you take Lunchables apart, the most healthy item in it is the napkin.’” The findings of this landmark 1982 diet and cancer report “generated a striking level of disbelief from the cancer community and outright hostility from people whose livelihood depended on foods in question and the food industry whose products were being questioned.” In fact, one of the authors of the report was “accused of ‘killing more people than those being saved,’” and there were formally organized petitions to expel the researchers from their professional societies. Indeed, “clearly a very sensitive nerve was touched.” The American Meat Science Association and other members of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology criticized the report and released “Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer: A Critique” in 1982. They agreed that perhaps lives would be saved, but argued that the recommended “reductions in meat consumption would sharply reduce incomes to the livestock and meat processing industries….The fruit and vegetable industries would clearly benefit from the expanded demand for their products if consumers were to implement the guidelines. However, fruits and vegetables account for less than 15 percent of cash receipts for U.S. agriculture.” Most of the money is in “cattle, hogs, poultry products, feed grains, and oil crops.” This reminds me of the tobacco industry memo where Philip Morris spoke of the tobacco industry going bankrupt. Maybe it’s not the meat that’s causing cancer, the industry critique continued, but all the marijuana people are smoking these days. “How then can one argue that such an abundant diet causes cancer? Or is this only some jealous attack on the goodness of our diet, like that of the Reverend Jonathan Edwards in Puritan times who condemned bear baiting, not because of the pain for the bear but because of the pleasure of the spectators.” You can’t tell us to cut down on meat, they argued, “one of mankind’s few remaining pleasures is that of the table.” The day the National Academy of Sciences’ landmark report was published was “The Day That Food Was Declared a Poison” according to Thomas Jukes, the guy who discovered you could speed up the growth of chickens by feeding them antibiotics. How dare the National Academy of Sciences recommend people eat fruits, vegetables, and whole grains daily, which were said to contain “as yet unidentified compounds that may protect us against certain cancers. How can one select foods that contain unidentified compounds?…This is not a scientific recommendation; it sounds like ‘health food store’ literature.” My favorite critique, though, told us to think about the human breast. How can animal fat be bad for us if breast-feeding women create so much of it? Women are animals, and their mammary glands make fat for breast milk. Therefore, we shouldn’t have to cut down on burgers. Huh? Enough of that. What does the latest science tell us about nutrition and cancer? I’ve just talked about eating more fruits and vegetables. What are the other five recommendations that invoke the precautionary principle? Consumption of soy products may not only reduce the risk of getting breast cancer, but also increase chances of surviving it. In terms of dietary guidance suggestions on foods to cut down on, where evidence is sufficiently compelling, recommendations included “limiting or avoiding dairy products to reduce the risk of prostate cancer; limiting or avoiding alcohol to reduce the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx [throat], larynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, and breast; avoiding red and processed meat to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon and rectum; [and] avoiding grilled, fried, and broiled meats to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas.” In this context, the researchers are talking about all meat, including poultry and fish. Look, we all have to make dietary decisions every day and “cannot wait for the evolution of scientific consensus.” Until we know more, all we can do to protect ourselves and our families is “act on the best available evidence” we have right now. The level of evidence required to make decisions depends on the level of risk. If we’re talking about a new drug, for example, given the fact that medications kill more than a hundred thousand Americans a year—which is Why Prevention Is Worth a Ton of Cure—you want to be darn sure that the benefits outweigh the risks before you prescribe or take a drug. But what level of evidence do you need to eat broccoli? Do you need randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials? (How would you even design a placebo vegetable?) Even if all of the evidence suggesting how powerful broccoli is turned out to be some crazy cruciferous conspiracy, what’s the worst that could have happened? It’s healthy anyway! That’s the beauty of safe, simple, and side effect–free solutions provided by the lifestyle medicine approach. They can only help. I have so many more videos on diet and cancer for you. How Not to Die from Cancer may be a good place to start before you check out some more in related videos. Key Takeaways Waiting for absolute scientific certainty may result in avoidable disease and even death. For example, had no-smoking efforts taken off when the association between smoking and lung cancer was first reported, instead of waiting for the link to be “absolutely clear,” lives could have been saved. The National Academy of Sciences released a landmark report on diet, nutrition, and cancer in 1982, which included interim guidance. Concerns were raised about processed meats, which were confirmed three decades later. Processed meat has been officially declared “carcinogenic to humans.” The 1982 report’s findings “generated a striking level of disbelief from the cancer community and outright hostility from people whose livelihood depended on foods in question and the food industry whose products were being questioned.” Invoking the precautionary principle, the latest science tells us to eat more fruits and vegetables, consume soy products to reduce breast cancer risk and increase chances of survival, and encourages “limiting or avoiding dairy products to reduce the risk of prostate cancer; limiting or avoiding alcohol to reduce the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, and breast; avoiding red and processed meat to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon and rectum; [and] avoiding grilled, fried, and broiled meats to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas.” In this context, the researchers are talking about all meat, including poultry and fish. We don’t have to wait, nor should we wait, for scientific consensus. We can and should “act on the best available evidence” we have right now. The beauty of safe, simple, and side effect–free solutions provided by the lifestyle medicine approach is that they can only help. To read the original article click here.

The post How to Eat to Reduce Cancer Risk appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Cosmetics WARNING: New Study Finds Forever Chemicals in Over Half of 231 Samples

AHA Publisher — Mon, 28 Jun 2021 07:00:11 +0000

Damon Hines via NaturalHealth365 – Makeup can be a toxic swamp of carcinogens, irritants, allergens, silicones, parabens, and endocrine disrupters. The U.S. Congress hasn’t enacted any personal care laws since the 1930s, leaving America’s multi-billion beauty industry to regulate itself. A survey conducted by the Environmental Working Group found that the average woman uses 12 products a day, averaging 168 total ingredients. How many of those ingredients have been linked to cancer, birth defects, liver disease, thyroid disease, decreased immunity, hormone disruption, and a range of other serious health problems? A recent study published in Environmental Science & Technology found signs of forever chemicals (PFAS) in over half of the 231 samples of products tested, including lipstick, eyeliner, mascara, foundation, concealer, lip balm, blush, nail polish, and more. Some of the highest PFAS levels were found in waterproof mascara (82% of brands tested), foundations (63%), and liquid lipstick (62%). Here Is the Ugly Truth About Ingredients Used in Beauty Products This isn’t the first time the beauty industry’s ugly ingredients have been exposed. Its evils are as long as the makeup aisle at Macy’s. For example, hair care company Wen settled a $26 million class-action case because its products were making people’s hair fall out. In 2020, filmmaker Phyliss Ellis released “Toxic Beauty,” a documentary that digs beneath the skin of the beauty industry with a thesis that argues that modern skin-care products are the new cigarettes. And as of February 2021, Johnson & Johnson has faced 27,168 talcum powder lawsuits, with victims complaining of ovarian cancer and mesotheliomas, a type of cancer occurring in the tissue layer covering internal organs. The company has paid out billions in damages to plaintiffs across the country. In other words, pretty hurts. Pay Attention! Wearing Lipstick Can Lead to the Ingestion of Several Pounds of the Product Throughout Your Life While researchers for the new study claimed to be surprised by the high number of cosmetic products that contain toxic forever chemicals, what’s even more shocking is the fact that Big Beauty companies don’t list PFAS on their labels when they use the chemicals, making them all but impossible to avoid for even the most cautious and green-minded consumer. According to Tom Bruton, a senior scientist with Green Science Policy Institute and one of the study’s authors, “regulatory agencies often allow companies to claim PFAS as a trade secret.” If the idea of accidentally ingesting several pounds of lipstick isn’t bad enough, to think that the product might be packed with PFAS is enough to make you quit skin-care products altogether. If Reading Labels Won’t Keep You Safe, What Will? “Not all things from nature are safe, and not all synthetics are bad,” says sustainability expert and chemist Dr. Richard Blackburn. And that makes an eco guide to clean beauty that much more difficult to navigate. However, there are certain keywords to look for when reading cosmetic labels. Researchers found that products advertised as “wear-resistant,” “long-lasting,” and “waterproof” often contain fluorine, which is a strong indicator of PFAS. One company worth mentioning is Dr. Hauschka. Of course, local farmers markets will often feature smaller companies that create wonderful (safe) products to use. But, whatever brand you choose … always avoid the toxic ingredients. Your health is worth the effort. Sources for this article include: TheGuardian.com Vogue.com Childrenshealthdefense.org This article has been modified. To read the original article click here. For more articles from NaturalHealth365 click here.

The post Cosmetics WARNING: New Study Finds Forever Chemicals in Over Half of 231 Samples appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Sunscreen WARNING: Cancer-Causing Chemical Found in 78 Popular Sunscreen Products

AHA Publisher — Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:00:00 +0000

Damon Hines via NaturalHealth365 – Skin cancer affects more than 3 million people each year. Sunscreen is designed to protect us from skin cancer, but how safe are the popular brands we apply to our skin every summer? Here’s something to think about as the warm weather arrives: Sunscreens were first regulated by the FDA in the 1970s, long before current American guidelines for evaluating drugs were put into place. It should come as no surprise then that sunscreens didn’t undergo rigorous testing. However, what is shocking is that many of the sunscreens on the market today are more harmful than beneficial, and some even contain a cancer-causing chemical. According to a recent report by Valisure, an independent team of scientists that test the chemical composition of healthcare and medication products, benzene, a known cancer-causing chemical, was found in 78 sunscreen and after-sun products tested. In fact, “27% of samples tested by Valisure contained detectable benzene and some batches contained up to three times the conditionally restricted FDA concentration limit.” High Levels of Benzene Linked to Blood Type Cancers Benzene is a colorless or slightly yellow flammable liquid that’s naturally found in the environment. It’s often used as a solvent in manufacturing plastics and other products and is commonly found in gels, sprays, and lotions. While benzene is allowed in products like sunscreen up to a certain level, high concentrations of the toxic liquid are dangerous and can increase the risk of blood cancers like leukemia. But why is benzene, a toxic carcinogen, even allowed in these products on a small level? According to David Light, founder, and CEO of Valisure, “Benzene is one of the most studied and concerning human carcinogens known to science. Its association with forming blood cancers in humans has been shown in numerous studies at trace levels of parts per million and below.” Valisure’s report isn’t the first time the potential health risks of sunscreen have made headlines. Over the years, studies have linked the chemicals in sunscreen to everything from hormone disruption to bioaccumulation in organs and tissue to severe allergic reactions. In addition, there have been concerns that sunscreen prevents the body from making vitamin D. While most experts have concluded that sunscreens are unlikely to affect the vitamin D status of healthy individuals, the debate is reignited every summer. In other words, the real biological effect of sunscreen in your blood is as bad as a cloudy day at the beach. All the BURNING Questions About Sunscreen Safety Answered Valisure is currently urging the FDA to recall the sunscreen products that contain high levels of benzene. A full list of the sunscreen products can be found here, on page 12 of the citizen petition Valisure wrote to the FDA on May 24, 2021. As for which sunscreens are the safest, you can check out the Environmental Working Group (EWG) website and download the EWG’s Guide to Sunscreen. Here you will find a list of brands that contain safer ingredients, making it easy to choose a product that is the best fit for you. What’s the bottom line? If you plan to spend time in the sun this summer, make sure the sunscreen you apply is benzene-free and double-check the expiration date. Better yet, engage in a combination of sun protection methods: hat, umbrella, plenty of breaks, and time in the shade, along with benzene-free sunscreen. Sources for this article include: LiveScience.com BBC.com EWG.org To read the original article click here. For more articles from NaturalHealth365 click here.

The post Sunscreen WARNING: Cancer-Causing Chemical Found in 78 Popular Sunscreen Products appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Do Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors?

AHA Publisher — Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:00:34 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – What does the world’s leading authority on carcinogens have to say about mobile phones? Do cell phones cause cancer? That’s a question billions of people would like to have answered and one I address in my video Cell Phone Brain Tumor Risk?. That’s why we have the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the recognized authority on determining what is and is not carcinogenic. There are five categories: Group 1 carcinogens are agents that we know with the highest level of certainty do cause cancer in human beings, Group 2A probably cause cancer, Group 2B possibly cause cancer, we’re not sure about agents categorized as Group 3, and Group 4 agents probably don’t cause cancer. In May 2011, 30 scientists from 14 countries met at the IARC to assess the carcinogenicity of the radiation emitted from cell phones and concluded that, given the limited amount of available evidence, cell phones are “‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 2B).” So they’re not classified as a Group 1 carcinogen that’s known definitively to be cancer-causing, like plutonium, or processed meat, or as probable carcinogen, like DDT, Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide, or some regular meat, but they are classified as a possible carcinogen, ranked similarly as preserved vegetables like kimchi. Now, this classification was made more than five years ago. Evidence continues to mount, and the latest two 2017 systematic reviews found a 33 percent increase in odds of brain tumors with long-term use and showed 46 percent higher odds for tumors on the phone side of your head—and the reviews included the industry-funded studies that have been accused of being biased and flawed, and underestimating the risk, as opposed to independent studies free from “financial conditioning.” How’s that for a euphemism? Given this, some scientists are pushing to have the IARC reclassify cell phones as probable carcinogens or even bump them all the way up into Group 1, at least for brain cancer and acoustic neuroma, a type of inner ear tumor. But the IARC classification for cell phones currently remains at possible carcinogen. What does that mean? What do we do with that information? Well, given the uncertainty, we could follow “the precautionary principle” and use simple personal measures to reduce our exposure, like not putting the phone directly up to our head all the time. Indeed, the “main concern about cell phones is that they are usually held close to the head,” which is considered particularly important for children. There’s no evidence of finger cancer, though, so you can keep texting away. Other potential personal recommendations include waiting a moment before putting your cell phone to your ear, if you don’t have a headset, because “when the cell phone establishes a connection, the emission is high.” And don’t fall for those anti-radiation gizmos, those “so-called protection covers,” as they may make things worse by forcing the phone to boost the signal. Not all agree, however, with this precautionary approach. Employees at two cell phone industry trade organizations emphasize “there are many aspects of human activity that are not ‘totally without adverse health effects,’—for example, transport (including aviation) and hot showers,” so they suggest we should just accept the risk as being worth it. Wait. Hot showers? As in we might scald ourselves or something? In any case, they further suggest that we shouldn’t put forth any recommendations because “such judgment should be made by parents on a personal basis for their own children,” and, if we do put out guidelines or something, people might get nervous and we all know “anxiety itself can have deleterious health consequences.” So, basically, the cell phone industry cares so much about your health that it doesn’t want you worrying your pretty little head. Nevertheless, all of this is openly discussed in the risk analysis literature. “From a public health perspective, it might be reasonable to provide cell phone users with voluntary precautionary recommendations for their cell phone handling in order to enable them to make informed decisions”—but what if the public can’t handle the truth? We don’t want to freak people out. There’s still “scientific uncertainty” and we don’t want to “foster inappropriate fears.” For example, brain cancer is rare to begin with. You only have about a 1 in 15,000 chance a year of getting a brain tumor, so even if cell phones double your risk, that would only take you up to a 1 in 7,500 chance. You may be more likely to get killed by a cell phone in the hands of a distracted driver than by cancer. So, whether health authorities want to inform the general public about precautionary possibilities really remains more of a political decision. To read the original article click here. For more articles from Dr. Greger click here.

The post Do Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors? appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Serious Health Risks Linked to Processed Meats

AHA Publisher — Wed, 09 Dec 2020 08:00:22 +0000

Edit Lang via NaturalHealth365 – Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence linking processed meat with an increased risk of cancer and mortality, Americans seem to have trouble kicking the habit. Lunchmeat, sausage, hot dogs, ham and bacon, are the most popular types of processed meat Americans have enjoyed for decades. However – new research, including a total of 120,852 participants – confirms the alarming relationship between processed meat consumption and increased cardiovascular, respiratory, and overall mortality. Researchers found that substituting processed meat with other protein sources lowered mortality risks. A Deadly Love Affair Without Concern Over Processed Meat Risks It is hard to imagine a baseball game or a picnic without hot dogs or some other meat. Kids and adults alike have a long-standing emotional attachment to these foods. Processed meats have been a fundamental part of the all-American food culture. Eating processed meat, however, does come with serious risks to our health. Colorectal cancer, diabetes, obesity are only some of the associated negative health effects. Let’s face it; Americans eat more than enough processed meat to cause major health risks. According to a Harvard research study, increasing processed red meat intake by just half a serving a day can raise the risk of mortality over the next eight years by 13 percent. WHO Classifies Processed Meats as Group 1 Carcinogens, Same as Smoking A review study examining 800 epidemiological studies worldwide concluded that eating hot dogs and other processed meats every day increases the risk of colorectal cancer. Study authors also found that the risk increased with the amount of processed meat consumed. As a result of these findings, in 2015, the World Health Organization classified processed meats as a Group 1 carcinogen. Without a doubt, a Group 1 classification warrants the need to inform the public about the health risks associated with their decades-long eating habits. Yet, most people are still unaware that processed meats pose a danger to their health. Everyone should know that these foods are now listed alongside other cancer-causing activities such as smoking and asbestos exposure in the Group 1 category. WARNING: Nitrites Are the Probable Cause of Harm Caused by Lunch Meats While scientists are still unclear about what makes processed meat so cancer-causing, many have pointed at heme compounds, nitrosamine, and the formation of free radicals. Meats containing nitrites and nitrates seem to be the most troubling. Most commercial lunch meats contain nitrites. The meat industry uses sodium nitrite as a preservative and colorant to give the meat an appetizing pink or red shade. The problem with sodium nitrite is that it can form nitrosamines, molecules that cause cancer under certain conditions. Nitrosamines are highly cancer-causing compounds that increase your risk of stomach, pancreatic, and colon cancers. Cancer, however, is not the only risk scientists associated with nitrites. Studies found that nitrate-cured meats could negatively impact mental health and cause mania, especially in people who already have bipolar disorder. Reduce Your Cancer Risk by Avoiding Processed Meats While eliminating your cancer risk is not possible, you can reduce it by avoiding processed meats. The American Institute of Cancer Research recommends eating as little processed meat as possible. Remember, there is no safe amount of processed meat, so it is best to avoid it altogether. If processed meat products have been part of your diet for a long time, you may find it hard to completely cut them out. Consider these tips to reduce the amount you eat. Read labels carefully, and look for words such as nitrite or nitrate. Do not purchase meats that have been chemically treated with these compounds Be mindful that even uncured meats can contain nitrates If you find it hard to remove processed meats from your diet, at least reduce portion sizes and the number of times you eat them per week Center your diet around whole, plant-based foods, and experiment with meatless days. Sources for this article: NaturalHealthResearch.org, Jandonline.org, NaturalHealth365.com, BMJ.com To read the original article click here. For more articles from NaturalHealth365 click here.

The post Serious Health Risks Linked to Processed Meats appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Smart Skin Care: How to Find Beauty Products Without Toxic Chemicals

AHA Publisher — Wed, 30 Sep 2020 07:00:21 +0000

Damon Hines via NaturalHealth365 – In Toxic Beauty, an award-wining documentary film by Phyllis Ellis, skin care products are called the “new cigarettes,” and a Swiss chemist for one of the biggest designer brands in the world admits that the cosmetic industry is destroying women’s cells. But it’s not just cells the personal care industry is destroying… Of the tens of thousands of chemicals available for use in the cosmetic industry most aren’t reviewed by a government agency before going to market. In fact, the industry’s ugliest ingredients – carcinogenic heavy metals, parabens and phthalates, irritants, and allergens – have been linked to a number of health issues, including breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Recent lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson by over 15,000 women claim the company’s talc-based baby powder is to blame for ovarian cancer. Trace amounts of asbestos, a well-known cancer causer, has been found in concealer as well as the sparkly makeup marketed to kids at Claire’s. And TEDx has identified more than 200 possible endocrine-disrupting chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products. So how do consumers find beauty products that don’t contain toxic chemicals? The Environmental Working Group recently launched a new label (EWG Verified) that certifies cosmetic products that meet stringent ingredient and transparency requirements. WARNING About Skin Toxins Found Inside Soaps, Serums and Concealers Toxic makeup is nothing new. Egyptian queens wore black eye makeup that was made of lead, and the Victorians were obsessed with a stylized, pale complexion that could only be achieved with cosmetic products containing mercury, arsenic, and ammonia. Nor is one product or formulation to blame. It’s when consumers use several personal care products per day, and then reapply those products everyday as part of a beauty routine, that the toxicity exposure adds up. According to The Guardian, American women use an average of 12 products a day, or 200 chemicals. Yet, others – like a survey conducted by a beauty retailer in 2016 – found that some women averaged 16 products a day on their faces alone! Customer Mistrust and Skeptical About Conventional Makeup What is “natural beauty” or “clean beauty?” In the beauty industry, “all natural” claims are as confusing to most consumers as the food industry’s organic certifications. Today, the cosmetic and personal care industry has over 400 eco-labels, and the varying degree of credibility can be difficult to understand or decipher. The manipulative power of marketing can be just as toxic as the products it promotes. This is where the EWG Verified label comes in. “The program is an extension of the group’s work with the Skin Deep database, which for more than a decade has given tens of millions of visitors information on the chemical contents and relative safety of their favorite cosmetics and shampoos.” In other words, EWV Verified is designed to work as an official label, a green seal of approval that will help consumers make smart and informed choices about the beauty products they buy. The dangers of toxic beauty products cut more than skin deep, and this precautionary approach is the balm that the industry has long needed. Sources for this article include: TheGuardian, EWG.org To read the original article click here. For more articles from NaturalHealth365 click here.

The post Smart Skin Care: How to Find Beauty Products Without Toxic Chemicals appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Unhealthy “Beauty” Products: The Reason You Need to Get Rid of Fragrances

AHA Publisher — Wed, 13 May 2020 07:00:38 +0000

Rhonda Cowan via NaturalHealth365 – Health and beauty products including shampoos, conditioners, makeup, and, most of all, fragrances of any kind are loaded with thousands of toxic chemicals, and America has banned only 9 of these from public use, even though 40 other countries have banned some 1,300 or more chemicals from their products. Why? Indeed, fragrances contain some of the most dangerous toxins to human health – and why use them, really, when there are healthy alternatives we can use to scent our homes and the air about us that do not endanger our health or the health of the planet? Why Would Flammable Ingredients and Formaldehyde Be Inside “Beauty” Products? Fragrances, whether found in perfumes, dish detergent, or air fresheners, typically contain some of the most dangerous and flammable ingredients known to mankind. Some of the big baddies in terms of chemicals are propane, butane, 1, 4-di-chloro-benzene (1,4-DCB), a proven carcinogen, benzene (a known cause of leukemia), formaldehyde (a well-known cause of respiratory cancers in humans), plus too many other chemicals that are not disclosed to the public or researched for their toxic effects on humans. One of the most shocking ingredients in air fresheners and “plug-ins” is naphthalene, a dangerous chemical found chiefly in mothballs and banned from the EU back in 2009. Naphthalene is known to cause aplastic anemia, hemolytic anemia, retinal hemorrhage, cataracts, and is strongly linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Synthetic “fragrances” are some of the worst inventions on the planet. They are linked to a long list of frightening health risks, including its neurotoxicity – which can trigger respiratory illnesses of all kinds, including asthma. They are also known hormone disrupting agents that can cause a long list of hormone-based cancers, from breast to prostate cancer. How can this be legal? Supposedly, the United States requires full disclosure of fragrance ingredients if they are used in cosmetics. Really? Well, because fragrance formulas are classified as “trade secrets,” individual components within the fragrance do not have to be disclosed. So either way, we are subjected to an onslaught of harmful chemicals no matter what kind of fragrance product we are using. Keep in mind, those air “fresheners” are completely unregulated. So, What Are Some of the More Dangerous Chemicals in Fragrance? The biggest offenders in fragrance today are: Phthalates: Fragrances contain harmful chemical called phthalates that act as preservatives, helping perfumes and colognes stay on the shelves longer. These phthalates cause numerous deadly health problems including endocrine disruption, decreased sperm motility, respiratory problems, birth defects, low birth weight, premature birth, miscarriage, and damaging children’s IQ in the womb. Parabens: Parabens like phthalates are preservatives that prevent molds in cosmetics. They have a long list of negative health impacts, but most of all, they’re highly estrogenic, meaning they can cause estrogen-based cancers including breast, prostate, and endometrial cancer. Styrenes: Styrene is used to make a wide variety of products, including fragrance. Styrene is also in cigarette smoke and auto exhaust. It is a known carcinogen. Synthetic Musks: Synthetic musks, including nitro-musks and polycyclic musks have been linked to cancer and harm to the nervous and reproductive systems. Healthy Alternatives to Dangerous Synthetic Chemicals in Fragrance The good news is that it’s easy to scent your home naturally. It’s called natural aromatherapy. For natural aromatherapy, you’ll need some 100% pure essential oils like lavender pure essential oil, lemon, orange, or grapefruit essential oil, eucalyptus pure essential oil, or rose pure essential oil – these are just some of the delicious scents you can buy at a low cost. These wonderful scents not only make your home smell great, they also improve human health with plant compounds like antioxidants and other constituents that can benefit health in a long list of ways from helping to ease harmful stress levels to helping to detoxify the home of viruses and bacteria. Think tea tree oil. You can use these pure essential oils in a environmentally safe (meaning, no plastic!) diffuser, dab them on light bulbs, or you can blend them with water and spray them about your home as a natural air freshener. You can also try spraying the fresh scents of lemon and water or pure lavender and rose oil onto fans and then let those scents go about the room. Another great trick is boiling homemade potpourri on the stove, which means basically some orange peel and cinnamon steeped in water. Bottom line: we don’t need the chemicals when we have such a great alternatives. To read the original article click here.

The post Unhealthy “Beauty” Products: The Reason You Need to Get Rid of Fragrances appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Home Cleaning Products Bombshell: Exposure Equivalent to Smoking 20 Cigarettes a Day, Study Says

AHA Publisher — Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:00:35 +0000

Leah Zerbe, MS, NASM-CPT, NASM-CES via Dr. Axe – The study linking cleaner use to cigarette lung damage should certainly give you pause. Like many Americans, I grew up in the age of oversanitation in a house full of home cleaning products. My mom regularly scrubbed down our kitchen counter with household bleach. The sink was so shiny that it sparkled, and our floors were spotless. She didn’t do this to hurt us; she thought it was keeping us safe. Years later, many of the clients I met in my practice had the same “kill-all-germs” standard for their homes. After all, it’s what they thought would best protect their families. In reality, there are lots of reasons to forgo store-bought home cleaning products. The latest example? Regular, long-term exposure to spray cleaners increases a woman’s risk of lung damage similar to that of smoking a pack of 20 cigarettes a day. Home Cleaning Products Study: The Main Takeaways The study, published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, investigated home cleaning products, including sprays and other cleaners. Although the study didn’t look at products’ impacts on lung cancer risk, it did aim to find out how cleaners damage the lungs and impair function. In the first-of-its-kind study on home cleaning products, Norwegian researchers turned up some important findings. Here are the key takeaways: (1) The study looked at 6,000 women over a 20-year span. It investigated the long-term impact of cleaners on respiratory health, including lung function decline and airway obstruction. Scientists looked at both people cleaning at home and people who cleaned as a profession. The study looked at forced expiratory volume in one second, which is how much air you can blow out of your lungs in a second. They also looked at forced vital capacity. That’s how much air you can blow out of your lungs after taking a big, deep breath. Although both of these breathing factors declines naturally with age starting in the mid-20s, the study found regularly using cleaning chemicals accelerated lung decline. Cleaning as little as once a week from home over 20-years initiated significant lung damage. People cleaning professionally for a job experienced lung damage on par with smoking 20 cigarettes daily for 10 to 20 years. The researchers hypothesize that cleaning products’ irritating ingredients cause damage through different avenues, including: Triggering immune system dysfunction Setting off inflammation in mucous membranes Damage to the airways on the cell, structural and tissue level Environmental Working Group’s science review of the study provides some recommendations: (2) Save money and your lungs by simply using fewer cleaning products. Store-bought cleaner manufacturers aren’t required to disclose all ingredients, so there’s no way of really knowing what’s in a specific mixture…and how it’ll affect your health in the short- and long-term. Avoid spray cleaners when possible. If you must use them, spray onto a cloth first to reduce the number of tiny droplets you breathe in. Use microfiber cloths or microfiber cloths and water to do your dusting. The Dark Side of Home Cleaning Products The study linking cleaner use to cigarette lung damage should certainly give you pause. But there are dozens and dozens of other peer-reviewed, published studies outlining how harmful cleaning products impact our bodies. Perhaps the scariest part? Cleaner manufacturers don’t have to disclose all of the ingredients in products. And we just don’t know what health effects stem from the way all of these questionable ingredients mix with each other. Here’s what we do know. Let’s take a look at some of the ways toxic cleaning products can damage your body. Immune System Dysfunction One animal study published in Science in 2012 demonstrated the harm that can result from living in a too-sterile environment. Researchers observed two groups of mice: the first group was bred with “germ-free” immune systems that lacked gut bacteria; the second group was given normal, healthy exposure to good and bad bacteria. When they were tested, the germ-free mice had much higher levels of inflammation in the colon and lung regions compared to the mice with normal germ exposure (who had healthy immune responses). The germ-free mice had also developed symptoms similar to ulcerative colitis and asthma. But the good news is, once the germ-free mice were exposed to normal amounts of bacteria two weeks after birth, their immune system response balanced out, and the animals healed from their inflammatory conditions. (3) Lung-Penetrating Air Pollution Did you know cleaning your home with household cleaners available in most stores can actually create hazardous air conditions inside of your home? A 2006 study published in the journal Indoor Air found home cleaning products often contain high levels of volatile organic compounds, also known as VOCs. The study authors noted that these cleaners often harbor glycol ethers, which are regulated toxic air contaminants. Terpenes are other problematic chemicals lurking in cleaners. These can easily react with formaldehyde and ultrafine particles in the air to create lung-damaging ozone. (4) Limonene and linalool are two synthetic fragrance terpene chemicals often used in citrus-scented products. (5) Snotty Kids A Chinese study of nearly 2300 students from 21 different schools found that frequently using cleaning products in the home increased the likelihood of kids having rhinitis, an inflammation of the nose lining, by 29 to 97 percent. The researchers calculated kids’ “total chemical burden” by adding up the total time of exposure to 14 different home cleaning products. The rhinitis symptoms were worse as total chemical burden increased. (6) Asthma It’s well known that people who clean to make a living face an increased risk of developing asthma. But did you know using cleaning sprays at home is also linked to new cases of asthma? A 2010 review study published in the Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology found strong evidence linking not only professional cleaners but also homemakers and healthcare professionals, to work-exacerbated and new-onset asthma. The study author noted that the following products may be particularly relevant to asthma symptoms: Spray cleaners Chlorine bleach Other disinfectants So what’s triggering these lung ailments? Researchers believe it could be a sensitization effect and/or the irritating features of the ingredients. (7) Add in the dangers of synthetic scents often used in cleaners, and it’s easy to see how home cleaning products can lead to chest tightness, wheezing and other respiratory ailments. (8) Dermatitis If you’re looking for natural rash home remedies, it could be as simple as switching up your cleaning routine. Unfortunately, contact dermatitis-triggering ingredients are common in cleaners and laundry products. Preservatives like methylisothiazolinone are among the worst offenders. And be careful: This one is often found in cleaning and laundry products marketed as “natural.” (9, 10) Poisonous Gases & Beyond It’s not just the cleaning products themselves, but how we often mix them that leads to potentially disastrous health threats. The dangers of bleach range beyond its own initial respiratory threats. One of the biggest dangers? It doesn’t play well with other popular cleaning chemicals. One common mistake is mixing chlorine bleach with a cleaner containing ammonia. (Glass and floor cleaners often contain ammonia.) This creates chloramine gas. In fact, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia warns that just a few whiffs of this chemical mixture can set off 24 hours of symptoms, including: (11) Eye, nose, throat and airway irritation Teary eyes Runny nose Sore throat Coughing Chest congestion Mixing chlorine bleach with an acid-based cleaner also creates chlorine gas, another irritant, but with more serious and longer-lasting effects than chloramine. This is why I suggest you never mix store-bought cleaning products. Think about it. Even mixing white vinegar with bleach could create this hazardous gas, along with acids found in drain openers, oven cleaners and toilet bowl cleaners. More Toxic Mixtures The American Lung Association warns that even natural fragrances like citrus can react and create hazardous indoor air quality conditions. If levels of ozone are high inside of the house, cleaning ingredients, particularly natural and synthetic forms of citrus, can react to create formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen. Toxic microparticles are also created, which can lodge into your lungs. According to the American Lung Association, ozone can worsen asthma and other lung diseases while fine particles cannot only make asthma worse but also increase heart attack and stroke risk. (12) How to Find & Create Safer Cleaner Products Since our chemical regulations are outdated and don’t properly protect us from toxic cleaning products, how can we find safer solutions? Here are the top recommendations: Most people don’t need industrial disinfectants for home cleaning. Use ingredients like white vinegar, baking soda and castile soap for cleaning purposes. When you do need a more potent cleaner, use germ-killing essential oils, including a thieves oil blend. (Make sure they are safe to use around children and pets.) When in doubt, choose unscented products. If you do use essential oils, avoid use on days with high ozone. And don’t use air filters in your home that create ozone. Avoid antibacterial soap, including the active ingredient triclosan and ingredients used to replace triclosan. Don’t always trust “green” or “natural” cleaners. A 2015 study found many contained carcinogens, toxic fragrances and VOCs similarly to regular store-bought cleaners. (13, 14) Look at EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning to see how your cleaners rank and to find safer alternatives. Final Thoughts on Home Cleaning Products & Health Threats In 2018, Norwegian researchers released a first-of-its-kind study linking long-term exposure to cleaning products to significant lung damage. Cleaning the home as little as just once a week triggered lung decline. People who cleaned more regularly (such as people who clean for a living) experienced lung damage on par with smoking 20 cigarettes a day for 10 to 20 years. The damage was measured by declining levels of exhalation breath and a weaker one-second expulsion of air from the lungs. The damage is believed to occur to the immune system, to the actual airway tract and due to chronic, low-level inflammation triggered by the cleaning products. Dozens of other studies link common home cleaning products to asthma, immune system dysfunction, autoimmune diseases, cancer and other ills. Dust with a microfiber cloth and water and utilize other natural cleaners like castile soap, white vinegar and baking soda. Most households don’t require harsh disinfects to kill all germs. That can actually damage our health in many cases, in my opinion. Certain essential oils possess antibacterial and antiviral properties if you do need a more potent natural cleaner. Just be sure you choose oils that are safe to use around kids and pets. And make sure they don’t interact poorly with certain medical conditions. If you are going to purchase store-bought cleaners, check EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaners to check out safety scores and choose a better product. To read the original article click here. For more articles from Dr. Axe click here.

The post Home Cleaning Products Bombshell: Exposure Equivalent to Smoking 20 Cigarettes a Day, Study Says appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.