Best Articles on Breastfeeding, Increase Breast Milk, Alternative to Baby Formulas, Breastfeeding FAQ

Babies Being Poisoned in the Womb

Introduction

Babies in the womb are being exposed to a shocking cocktail of chemicals that can cause cancer in later life and have gender-bending qualities, research has revealed.

Tests on blood taken from the umbilical cords of nearly 30 new born babies and from more than 40 new mothers were analysed for chemicals ranging from artificial musks used in cosmetics and cleaning products to flame retardants and chemicals used to make plastics and coatings.

Most of the chemicals are found in everyday products such as cleaning fluids and sprays, tin can linings, perfumes and cosmetics and even baby bottles. Others include banned pesticides such as DDT that have lingered in the environment for decades.

Every single sample of mother or baby blood tested positive for an array of chemicals, many of which are suspected of being linked to health problems ranging from birth defects and genital abnormalities to certain types of cancer.

The report, A Present for Life: hazardous chemicals in cord blood, from WWF-UK and Greenpeace, says babies are being exposed to these chemicals at the most vulnerable point in their development.

It also calls for urgent action to be taken to control the production and sale of those chemicals that may damage the health of babies and adults alike.

All umbilical cords contained a minimum of five of the 35 chemicals tested for, some contained as many as 14. Two of the mothers tested had 17 of the 35 chemicals in their blood.

The report also highlights the possible effects of chemicals on children's brain development and intelligence.

It says proposed new EU legislation on chemicals called "REACH" gives Europe a crucial opportunity to take the necessary action to protect humans and the environment from the effects of harmful chemicals and to make producers responsible for the impacts of their products.

Helen Perivier, toxics campaigner for Greenpeace International said: "Babies feeding through the umbilical cord are exposed to toxic chemicals from products like vinyl plastics, cleaning products, electronics, cosmetics and perfumes.

"It is shocking that such chemicals are in the human body at any stage of our life, let alone at the very start, when the child is most vulnerable. Governments need to act and require industries to substitute these contaminating chemicals with safer alternatives."

Important NEWS - FDA calls industry's bluff on product safety

image of sample warning label

Important NEWS - FDA calls industry's bluff on product safety

Introduction

FDA calls industry's bluff on product safety. Acting on a petition filed June 14, 2004 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) [view document], on February 3, 2005 the Food and Drug Administration issued an unprecedented warning to the cosmetics industry [view document] stating that the Agency is serious about enforcing the law requiring companies to inform consumers that personal care products have not been safety tested.

Such an enforcement action could ultimately require companies to issue consumer warnings for the more than 99 percent of personal care products on the market that have not been publicly assessed for safety, as documented in a 2004 EWG assessment of ingredients in nearly 7,500 products (EWG 2004a).

The implications of this warning penetrate deep into an industry that has for years hidden behind the findings of their internally-funded safety panel, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, or CIR. Despite industry's control of the panel, the FDA regards the CIR's yearly series of ingredient safety reviews as a core component of the public health safety net, and calls CIR assessments an "important element in ensuring the safety of the cosmetic supply in the United States" (Brackett 2005).

In its near 30-year history, however, the industry's panel has reviewed just 11 percent of the 10,500 cosmetic ingredients cataloged by FDA (FDA 2000). The 89 percent of ingredients that remain unassessed are used in more than 99 percent of all products on the market (EWG 2004a).

By law, companies are required to post a warning label on products that have not been assessed for safety stating, "Warning: The safety of this product has not been determined." With its February 3rd letter, FDA is putting industry on notice that it is serious about enforcing consumer laws. At the top of the list are 356 products identified by EWG (EWG 2004b) as containing ingredients that the industry's safety panel attempted to review, but instead found lacked basic testing data. The panel could not substantiate the safety of these ingredients. Ultimately under threat of enforcement are the more than 99 percent of all products that contain one or more ingredients that have never been assessed for either data adequacy or basic safety by the industry's panel, the FDA, or any other publicly accountable institution.

Buyer beware. Surveys show that many consumers believe that companies are required to test personal care products for safety before they're sold. It's not the case. According to FDA, "...a cosmetic manufacturer may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without an approval from FDA" (FDA 1995).

While some companies make products that would be safe enough to eat, other companies choose to use known human carcinogens or developmental toxins like coal tar and lead acetate. In a competitive marketplace progressive companies with health as their top priority may lose market shares to companies willing to use cheaper commodity chemicals with ill-defined or even known risks. Some companies may assess the safety of their products rigorously and independently, but other companies may not assess at all. That's legal. This unequal footing comes from a safety net not just of a loose weave but full of gaping holes, leaving consumers at potential risk.

When risky chemicals are used in cosmetics, the stakes are high. These compounds are not trace contaminants. They are the base ingredients of the product, just as flour is an ingredient in bread. Many of these chemicals are found in percent levels in personal care products, nearly all easily penetrate the skin, and some are ingested directly after they are applied to lips or hands. And increasingly, companies are adding customized, futuristic "penetration enhancers" to drive ingredients even deeper into the skin, like Loreal's new nanoparticle technology — a miniscule, fluid-filled sack designed to burrow deep into the skin to deliver its "active ingredients." No safety testing required.

Scientists find common cosmetic ingredients in human tissues, like industrial plasticizers called phthalates in urine, preservatives called parabens in breast tumor tissue, and persistent fragrance components like musk xylene in human fat. Do the levels at which they are found pose risks? Those studies have not been done. They are not required.

Consumer health in the hands of industry. Grossly under-funded and encumbered by a cosmetic safety law that renders the Agency nearly impotent, FDA's cosmetic office has no standing cosmetic review safety committee, cannot require testing of products or ingredients, cannot require companies to report injuries or even deaths from the use of their products, and cannot force companies to recall harmful products (FDA 1995). Instead, the Agency sends a liaison to the industry's safety panel meetings to observe and comment.

Eighty percent of the industry panel's reviews are limited to advice to industry on ingredient levels that will minimize risk of skin rashes and other allergic reactions (EWG 2004a). And 89 percent of ingredients used in cosmetics have not even received a rash and allergy review from the industry panel, let alone a serious assessment of the ingredients' potential to cause cancer or harm the development of a baby in the womb.

When EWG cross-linked ingredient listings in 7,500 products with seven government or industry toxicity databases, we found that one-third of all products contain ingredients linked to cancer, 70 percent of products may be contaminated with harmful impurities, and more than half of all products contain "penetration enhancers" that drive ingredients deeper into the skin to the blood vessels below (EWG 2004a). For the vast majority of these products and ingredients, the exact health risks from consumer exposures are unknown.

Our 2004 survey of 2,300 people conducted with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics shows that on average people use nine products a day with 126 unique ingredients. These exposures may add up to health problems, but neither industry nor the FDA is doing the work to define and reduce the risks. The products are untested; the risks are unknown.

At industry's discretion are not only the range of ingredients used in products (only nine chemicals are banned from cosmetics), but also the full breadth of imaginable marketing claims, none of which are subject to review or required to be true. The word "organic" could just as easily — and just as legally — be printed on the label of a product made entirely of plants grown to strict USDA organic standards, or on the package of a mixture of industrial solvents and polymers derived from petrochemicals. Likewise, no legal definition exists for "dermatologist tested," "cruelty free," "fragrance free," or "hypoallergenic." The claims could have substantial scientific backing, or could mean nothing at all.

As of March 2, 2005, 68 progressive companies with health as a top priority have signed a pledge with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to produce products free of ingredients linked to cancer and birth defects (www.safecosmetics.org). The Campaign, a coalition of environmental and public health groups working in partnership with these companies, is taking action to help move companies voluntarily toward safety within the current vacuum of mandatory health protections. And now FDA is turning up the heat on the entire industry.

FDA turns up the heat. Although FDA cannot require companies to safety test their products, and cannot require that marketing claims be true, the Agency can require that companies print a warning on the label of products that have not been assessed for safety. And this is what the Agency has indicated they plan to do in their letter of February 3rd. The Agency also writes that it will develop definitive guidelines for industry on what must be done to substantiate the safety of a product, to absolve companies of the responsibility to print warnings. EWG has written to FDA applauding the Agency for the actions they have proposed in their February 3rd letter, and requesting that FDA convene a panel of independent experts, free of financial ties to the cosmetics industry, to develop this critical guidance that will define, for the first time, what is safe enough to be sold as a personal care product in the U.S.

It's time for the cosmetics industry to be honest with consumers about what is known and what remains unknown about the safety of the products Americans use every day. Americans deserve safe products. Short of that, consumers deserve, and the law requires, at least a warning label, to help people make informed decisions about the products they buy and use each day.

References

Brackett, Robert E. 2005. Letter to Mr. Edward Kavanaugh, President, Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association from Dr. Robert E. Brackett, Director, FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. February 3, 2005.

Environmental Working Group (EWG). 2004a. Skin Deep: A Safety Assessment of Ingredients in Personal Care Products. Available online at www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep.

Environmental Working Group (EWG). 2004b. Citizen Petition to Cease Unlawful Sale of Misbranded & Adulterated Cosmetics. Petition from EWG to the Food and Drug Administration. June 14, 2004. Available online at www.ewg.org/petition/petition.php.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 1995. FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Cosmetics and Colors. Fact Sheet. FDA Authority Over Cosmetics. February 3, 1995. Accessed March 2, 2005 at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2000. Center for Food Safety Applied Nutrition. Cosmetics Compliance Program. Domestic Cosmetics Program. Issued July 31, 2000. Accessed online March 1, 2005 at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/cp29001.html.

• View FDA's warning letter to cosmetics industry (PDF document)

EDUCATE YOURSELF, STOP THE INSANITY AND POISONING YOUR SKIN.

“We look good, we smell good, and we have just exposed ourselves to 200 different chemicals a day through personal products” US News & World Report

“ Not a single child today is born free of synthetic chemicals” Bill Moyers, “Trade Secrets”. PBS

“…more than 125 ingredients used in cosmetics are suspected of causing cancer…”
“…20 ingredients may cause adverse effects of the Nervous system…”

“…1/3 of the 2983 chemicals used in cosmetics have been reported as toxic substances…”

“… 20 cosmetic ingredients are suspected of causing birth defects…” Senator Edward Kennedy, Report to Congress

Making it Safe for our Children

Making it Safe for our Children

Parenting - The Light of the New Earth

By Dr Blair Barone

“If you can make the planet safe for them, they will come.” This was the only request regarding the Crystal children’s arrival on earth shared by the Group during a channeling with Steven Rother in 1996. As the mother to a Crystal Child and a child psychologist, I’ve pondered the children’s request for some time now. Wondering what does “make it safe” mean? What isn't safe on planet earth? And why is safety so necessary for them that they would make such a request? While others emphasize the crystal children’s need for the planet to be loving and not operating out of fear, that doesn’t necessarily explain the crystal children’s use of the word “safe”. While love and a lack of fear are also in dire need on the planet, I believe there is another concern here. My curiosity as a mother and a child psychologist has led me to come up with a theory as to what “safe” means and why these children need the planet to conform to this standard. I’d like to share this with you.

The Safe Planet
According to some standards, there has never been a better time in the history of “childhood” to be growing up than today. We have become a child-centric society. No longer are children just seen, now they are heard, too. Today’s children have hospitals, clinics, specialists, schools and professionals to serve their unique needs. Today’s children now have rights, laws, and government agencies devoted to protecting them from the abuse that was commonplace during the “spare the rod…” era. Today’s children now have food that is specifically fortified and enriched with vitamins and minerals to help them grow strong in many ways. Long gone are the wooden blocks and homemade toys of childhood past. Today we have toy blocks made out of heavy duty plastic that squeak, ring, sing, dance, recite the alphabet and are now made somewhere on the other side of the world. There are now EPA's, CDC's, AMA's and FDA's to protect our children from harm. And today’s medical technology is nothing short of miraculous.

So, if there has never been a better time in history to be a child than today, what is it that the Crystal children are trying to tell us in their message to “make it safe” for them?

The Unsafe Planet
There is another side to this rosy picture of childhood that has not been given enough attention in this day and age. A side in which a child’s mind, body and soul has been greatly compromised: childhood disease. In spite of how glamorized childhood has become in 2005, childhood disease is epidemic in our society today. Sad but true. Consider these concerning facts about childhood 2005 in the USA:

Over 12 million children under the age of 18, or 1 in 4 (or 17%) have 1 or more developmental disabilities.

Nationwide, the number of children classified with a learning disability and placed in special education programs increased 191% between 1977 and 1994

US News and World Report reported that the number of children in New York City classified with learning disabilities rose 55 percent between 1983 and 1996.

5 to 7 % of all school-aged children today are diagnosed with ADHD.

Office visits to the pediatrician concerning ADHD have increased 90% in the past six years.

The number of children taking the drug Ritalin for ADHD has doubled every four to seven years since 1971.

Autism has increased by nearly 300% in some parts of the USA in the last decade.

Nearly 40% of children under the age of 18 meet diagnostic criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder.

Nearly six million children (almost 10%) suffer from asthma, and rates have been rapidly increasing over the last several decades making this condition a public health crisis.

From 1980 to 1996 the prevalence of asthma increased 400% with children under five years of age experiencing the highest rate of increase.

Between 1985 and 1995 there was a 249% increase in gun-related murders committed by juveniles.

The National Center for Juvenile Justice anticipates that the number of youths arrested for violent crimes could more than double by the year 2010.

Between 1975 and 2000, the incidence of childhood cancer has escalated as much as 32% overall: acute lymphocytic leukemia, 57%; brain cancer 50%; kidney cancer, 48; and bone cancer, 29%.

The number one cause of death of children in the USA today is cancer, replacing every day “accidents”.

By now you’re probably asking yourself: “How could there be all these sick children? Where did all this disease come from?” And, of course, “why?” For a clue to the answer to these questions you need to look no further than below your feet – planet Earth. Each element of our planet’s beauty, from the soil, water and air, are wrinkled, pocked, and scarred. Mother Earth has holes in her ozone, global warming, toxic landfills, acid rain, L.A. smog, polluted lakes, rivers and oceans, extinct species, and her rainforests are vanishing.

With the development of modern technology that has made childhood what it is today, has come a cost. Over the past 50 years nearly 100,000 synthetic chemicals and over 4 million distinct chemical compounds have been developed and are now used in all products. As a result, there are now chemicals and toxins in the food our children eat, the air our children breathe, the water they drink, and the land where they play and make mud pies. Earth and man have become polluted.

Children are particularly vulnerable to the hazards of toxic chemicals. Their organs and systems are in the process of growing and developing. Because of the rate at which children’s organs develop, leaving some more vulnerable than others, the effects of exposure to toxins can vary dramatically depending on the exact timing of the exposure. For instance, small exposures that would have no noticeable effect at most stages of development can produce devastating and permanent damage if the exposure occurs during a “window of vulnerability,” when certain organs are developing more rapidly.

I’m sure many of you believe that the chemicals used in today’s products have met certain “safety” standards before making their way to market. This certainly seems like a logical policy to adhere to. However, under our current regulatory system, industrial chemicals need not be tested for toxicity before they are marketed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that there are over 4,000 industrial chemicals on the market that are neurotoxins (dangerous to the developing brain and nervous system). Research has repeatedly shown that pesticides cause neurological disorders; including hyper-activity in laboratory animals after a single exposure and that a child’s risk to leukemia increases four to seven times if pesticides are used in a home garden. But, in spite of these alarming findings, according to Consumer Report Magazine in February 1988, many of the fruits and vegetables that we eat in this country carry pesticide residue that exceeds the limits the EPA considers safe for children. In fact, the pesticide residue is so high that even one serving of fruits or vegetables can exceed safe daily limits for young children. While most pesticides are tested before being put on the market, they are not tested for their neurotoxicity to the nervous system. Unfortunately, our children’s exposure to these dangerous neurotoxins doesn’t stop at the dinner plate. In 1997 it was reported that nearly a billion pounds of known neurotoxins were released directly into the air and water. I imagine that this amount has doubled since then.

Similarly, research has long reported the hazards associated with the use of the toxin fluoride, including the development of ADHD. Many people are unaware that fluoride is a dangerous toxin, especially to children. Yet, fluoride continues to be added to our municipal waters, toothpaste, bottled water, processed foods, juices, and even children’s vitamins, in spite of the fact that research has never proved that ingesting fluoride prevents tooth decay.

Toxic levels of mercury are now at epidemic levels among children in our country. Nearly 700,000 children are born each year with blood-mercury levels considerably higher than is considered “safe.” Mercury has long been recognized as a serious neuro-toxin (affects the brain) and toxic levels are known to cause depression, erratic behavior, and mood swings. Yet government policies to reduce the leading source of mercury exposure in our environment have been disregarded. Instead of mercury emissions in the USA being reduced due to health concerns regarding our nation’s children, mercury emissions have been allowed to sharply increase for at least the next decade.

Unfortunately, there is little public awareness regarding how chemically toxic our world, homes, schools, and playgrounds have become. At the same time, there is even less awareness among health professionals regarding the relationship between exposure to chemicals, including neurotoxins, and the epidemic development of neurological, cognitive, behavioral, learning, medical, psychiatric and emotional problems in children.

As I study the information on the pervasiveness of how toxic our world has become, I can appreciate the crystal children’s request for a “safe” planet. The statistics on childhood disease and the hazardous “unsafe” neurotoxins in our world speak for themselves. They are a wake-up call to us all. Our planet is in danger of becoming a waste land. Millions of plant, marine and animal life have become extinct or are on the endangered species list. And regardless of whether we want to admit it or not, so are we.

I hope when you look at the picture I have painted here of the planet: the good, the bad and the ugly, the crystal children’s choice of the word “safe” has become more meaningful to you as well. These children have a special and scared mission at this time. And in order for them to come here and shine, certain conditions are necessary on this planet to sustain their lives so that they may fulfill their purpose. Just as a particular flower requires a certain alkalinity or acidity of the soil to grow, so too is the same true for these children and their light.

A healthy physical form is key to anchoring the crystal children’s highest vibration on this planet. A healthy body free of disease and damage to the nervous system will be able to hold and ground the crystalline energy in this dimension. Whereas a body that has disease and damage to the nervous system will not be able to do so and the children’s light will fragment across dimensions.

In the words of Gandhi, “Non-cooperation with evil is the most sacred task”, and I believe that this is true for those of us who are parents and caregivers to the new children of the earth. As parents and caregivers we hold the greatest potential to reduce our children’s exposure to hazardous chemicals and neurotoxins and the risk of detrimental consequences to their health. We can do this by keeping chemicals and neurotoxins of all varieties out of our children’s bodies and the environments in which they live, learn and play. It is our most sacred task as parents and caregiver to “make the planet safe” so that these children “will come” and fulfill their most sacred task, too.

Making it Safe for our Children was reprinted with permission of Dr. Blair barone.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Blair Barone has over 20 years of experience when it comes to understanding and helping children with various life challenges. Formerly a Senior Supervising Pediatric Clinical Psychologist at Boston Children's Hospital in Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics and an Associate in the Department of Medicine and the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, she has evaluated and treated thousands of children from around the country and the world with a range of developmental, behavioral, medical, neurological, and psychological issues. She has also been interviewed for numerous newspapers and televisions programs including CBS Up to the Minute and has lectured at numerous local, national and international professional conferences regarding her research and treatment approaches with children and adolescents.

Dr Blair Barone recommends safe Certified Organic products for children and adults alike. For more information on USDA Certified Organic skin care, personal care, household and organic cosmetics she recommends - Click Here

In addition to child advocacy, Dr. Barone is devoted to increasing compassionate awareness and humane education of animals. She uses her pet rabbit, Curtis, as a co-therapists in her therapeutic work with children. She has been involved in numerous state and national animal rights campaigns and has served on the Board of Directors to several humane societies.

Dr. Barone now lectures on topics related to holistic parenting and children's environmental health. She is in the process of writing a parenting book which details a model of child development based on the chakra system. A co-leader to the South Florida/Palm Beach Chapter of the Holistic Moms Network, and on the Advisory Panel's to various organizations including The Autism Autoimmunity Project (TAAP), Dr. Barone, a Reiki Master, is grateful to be the mother of her beloved Crystal son, Baron, who keeps her mindful of what she needs to share with other parents.

JOHNSON'S® Baby Shampoo

JOHNSON'S^® Baby Shampoo