Restaurant Sushi May Have More Mercury Than Store-Bought Fare

Restaurant Sushi May Have More Mercury Than Store-Bought Fare
Toxin concentrations higher in certain tuna species versus others, study finds

(HealthDay News) -- The tuna sushi that you order in restaurants may have higher concentrations of mercury than the sushi you buy at your local supermarket, a new study finds.

Supermarkets tend to sell sushi made from yellowfin tuna, which contains less mercury than other tuna species, researchers report.

"We found that mercury levels are linked to specific species," Jacob Lowenstein, a graduate student working with the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, said in a news release from the museum. "So far, the U.S. does not require restaurants and merchants to clarify what species they are selling or trading, but species names and clearer labeling would allow consumers to exercise greater control over the level of mercury they [consume]," he added.

For their study, the researchers combined two efforts: DNA barcoding performed at the museum to identify specific species; and a mercury content analysis from experts at Rutgers University. The report was published online April 21 in Biology Letters.

"People who eat fish frequently have a particular need to know which species may be high in contaminants," said Michael Gochfeld, professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey. "Some agencies have been afraid that any mention of contaminants will discourage people from eating any fish."

The team sampled sushi from 54 restaurants and 15 supermarkets in New York, New Jersey and Colorado, and tested them for relative mercury content. Through DNA barcoding, 100 samples were identified as either bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna or three different bluefin tuna species.

The team reported that all species tested exceeded or approached mercury concentrations permissible by the United States, the European Union, Japan and Canada, plus those set by the World Health Organization.

Higher mercury levels were found in bigeye tuna and bluefin akami, which is a lean, dark red tuna, than in bluefin toro, a fatty tuna, and yellowfin tuna akami, the researchers said. Mercury tends to accumulate in muscle rather than fat, so mercury content is usually -- but not always -- higher in leaner fish. Yellowfin tuna, for example, is lean, but may accumulate less mercury because it is smaller and harvested earlier than other species, they said.

The seafood industry took a critical view of the report.

"This is a study that tests mercury levels in fish, but stops short of any work exploring what -- if anything -- those levels mean for health," said Gavin Gibbons, director of media relations at the National Fisheries Institute, in an institute statement issued Wednesday.

He added that research has shown that "eating fish as a whole food -- omega-3s, selenium, lean protein, traces of mercury and all -- is a boost to heart and brain health."

In addition, Gibbons said, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's mercury limit for seafood includes a 1,000 percent safety factor, "and approaching that limit or even slightly exceeding it does not equal health risk," he said.

More information

To learn more about mercury in seafood, see the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.


SOURCES: American Museum of Natural History, news release, April 21, 2010; statement, National Fisheries Institute, April 21, 2010

Another Reason to Quit Sugary Soft Drinks – Cholesterol

---

Another Reason to Quit Sugary Soft Drinks – Cholesterol

Posted: 05 May 2010 04:38 AM PDT

AS if there aren’t enough reasons to spend our calories elsewhere, a new study shows that

People who eat and drink high amounts of added sugars have lower blood levels of so-called good cholesterol and higher levels of harmful triglycerides than those with diets lower in such sweeteners

“We looked specifically at sugars that are added during the processing and preparation of foods,” said the paper’s lead author, Jean A. Welsh, a graduate researcher at Emory University in Atlanta. “Soft drinks are the most commonly consumed example and provide 30 percent of added sugar in the United States.” read more from the NY Times…

Here are a three more reasons to say no to soft drinks:

1. A 12 oz drink per a day, over the course of a year, will add 18 pounds to your weight, compared to water consumption!
2. Soft drinks diminish the taste of food.
3. Tooth decay.

What to do at the supermarket:

Save time and money, not to mention improving your health – skip the beverage aisle…

Lawsuits and Proposition 65

March 15, 2010
Dear Healthcare Provider,

Recently, a lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court cited a number of suppliers of fish oil supplements for selling products contaminated with high levels of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds. The levels identified were above the safety limits established by California’s Proposition 65. Prop 65 established a safety limit of total PCBs at 0.09 ppm (90 ppb or 0.09 ug/kg). In fact, the
lawsuit stated that some products contained as much as 70 times the amount of PCBs as other products!

Biotics Research Corporation takes painstaking measures to ensure all the products we produce are of the highest quality and are safe and effective. This includes our products containing fish oils. Biotics Research was not named in this or any other Prop 65 lawsuit. We are pleased to inform you that our fish oil products not only comply with the Prop 65 standards for PCBs, but also comply with the much more stringent European safety standards for fish oil products.

Interestingly, this recent lawsuit comes on the heels of other similar lawsuits and reports relating to the quality, or lack thereof, of dietary supplement products. One suit filed in Alameda County Superior Court in California sited 74 manufacturers and suppliers for selling products containing excessive levels of lead, a toxic heavy metal (see Santa Cruz Sentinel Staff Report posted 4/22/09).
Just last month, an investigative article published in the Archives of Internal Medicine (Feb 10, 2010) reported on selenium toxicity associated with a dietary supplement. It involved a liquid multiple with vitamins, minerals, amino acids, 58 “trace elements” and other ingredients supplied by a chiropractor to his patients. The report stated that the product contained 200 times the amount of selenium stated
on the label. It is interesting to note that some of the companies named in the lawsuits have independent GMP certifications from various organizations.
The above mentioned incidences support Biotics Research’s philosophy and use of our own stringent Quality Control policies and procedures; many of which far exceed the regulatory requirements, not because of some legislation such as Prop 65 or the newly enacted GMPs, but because it has always been the right thing to do. It is part of our corporate fabric and has been since our inception more than three decades ago. Simply stated, it is part of who we are. We have state of the art laboratory
facilities and well trained, highly skilled QC and QA personnel working together with our production department to ensure our products are of the highest quality possible, are safe and effective, and meet the needs of our Health Care Professional customers and their clientele.
Biotics Research Corporation: Bringing you “The Best of Science and Nature.” Visit us online at www.bioticsresearch.com
Sincerely,
Daryl DeLuca
Vice President, Biotics Research Corporation

We’re Loaded with Toxins: Analyzing the Toxic Body Burden of Americans

Autism Society of America
7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 300
Bethesda, MD 20814-3067
Web: www.autism-society.org Phone: 800.328.8476

©2006 Autism Society of America
We’re Loaded with Toxins: Analyzing the Toxic Body Burden of Americans
By Judy Chinitz Gorman
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit organization, has taken on a huge project:
analyzing the toxic “body burden” of Americans. What they have found is the stuff of which nightmares are made. The researchers tested for 525 toxins (analyzing subgroups of toxins in several different studies) and found 455 different toxins in their research subjects. On average, participants’ bodies contained 60 toxins that could be detrimental to the stomach or intestines, 57 that could affect the health
of the reproductive system, and 52 that could affect the brain and nervous system. To obtain this information the EWG tested the blood, urine, breast milk and umbilical cord blood of 72 randomly selected subjects. The toxins found in these subjects’ bodies ranged from polybrominated diphenyl ethers, which are flame retardants found in furniture foam, computers and TVs (known to adversely affect brain development and the thyroid), to the heavy metals such as methylmercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium (which are particularly dangerous to infants, fetuses and children, and are known to cause cancer, a range of chronic illnesses and even death).
Perhaps most frightening of all is that 256 toxins known to cause birth defects and developmental delays were found, an average of 51 of these toxins per person. We know that fetuses and children can be critically damaged even by low levels of exposures to many of the toxins found.
The EWG also conducted a study in 2005 to assess the “body burden” of newborns. They tested umbilical cord blood from 10 randomly selected infants and found that an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants had crossed the placenta. The list includes substances such as mercury, pesticides and perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), which are the active ingredients or breakdown products of Teflon, Scotchgard and other fabric and carpet protectors, and food wrap coatings. All of these are
linked to birth defects and developmental issues, as well as to cancer.
“Yes, this can seem very depressing and, yes, it is alarming. But the good news is that at least now science is moving in the right direction,” says Lauren Sucher, EWG’s director of public affairs. “Twenty years ago we didn’t even know that chemicals could cross the placenta. Now we know differently. Now we can collect this kind of information so that hopefully soon we can make the best use of it.”
The EWG is a small group of only 20 people, yet its voice is disproportionately loud. “We share this information with the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention],” says Sucher. “Every two years they put out the ‘National Exposure Report,’ which lays out what chemicals they found in the blood of Americans. Their sample sizes are much larger than ours, but while their data is a mile wide and an inch deep, ours is an inch wide and a mile deep. We complement each other.”
EWG’s Web site notes, “Our research brings to light unsettling facts that you have a right to know.”
There is plenty to be unsettled about, according to Sucher. For example, only 11 percent of the chemicals used in make-up, shampoo, soap and shower gel -- products used every day by millions of people -- have been screened for safety.
Sucher says a key reason for the lax regulation of chemicals is that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governs the industry’s use of chemicals, is 30 years old and outdated. On August 2, 2006, the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) presented its report to the Senate on the effectiveness of the TSCA to protect Americans. In this report, “Actions Are Needed to Improve the
Effectiveness of EPA’s [Environmental Protection Agency] Chemical Review Program,” the GAO states that “Chemicals play an important role in everyday life, but some may be harmful to human health and the environment . . . some chemicals, such as lead and mercury, are highly toxic at certain doses and need to be regulated because of health and safety concerns.”
The GAO found that the EPA exerted its authority to require testing for fewer than 200 of the approximately 62,000 chemicals currently used in commerce, because the task was too costly and time consuming.
Additionally, since the TSCA was enacted, the EPA has banned or limited the production of only five individual chemicals or groups of chemicals.
The study also stated that the EPA’s reviews of the safety of new chemicals “provide only limited assurance that health and environmental risks are identified because TSCA does not require companies to test chemicals before they notify EPA of their intent to manufacture the chemicals.”
A Senate bill addressing this issue, S.1391, has been proposed by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and James Jeffords (I-VT). The EWG believes this bill would update and strengthen the TSCA. “Right now our governmental policy is one of first allowing the use of chemicals and worrying about their safety later. This bill will reverse that,” says Sucher.
According to Sucher, the bill would place the burden of proof of a chemical’s safety back on the manufacturer. It would also considerably reduce the parameters of what is considered confidential and allow the public much greater access to information. For the first time ever, chemical substances will have to meet a safety standard, described in the bill as “a reasonable certainty of no harm,” she notes.
Such legislation, the EWG believes, could potentially play a significant role in preventing neurological and developmental disorders such as autism. In a 2004 report entitled “Overloaded?” the EWG notes that the work of Jill James and colleagues (see separate article in this issue) reveals that exposure to toxins may be particularly deleterious to children who are at risk of developing autism. James and colleagues found that many autistic children have a metabolic impairment that reduces their ability to rid their bodies of heavy metals and other toxins. The findings of James’ research team, the EWG says, “potentially identify a subgroup of people with dramatically increased risk of harm from industrial chemicals, and provide important new evidence that policies designed to protect the average person, or even the average child, from chemical exposure, are insufficient to fully protect the public health.”
Other nonprofit groups, including the Washington Toxics Coalition, the Alaska Community Against Toxics and Commonweal, also have tested for “body burdens” of toxins, and all have found similar results. Communities are beginning to use this information to leverage change with public awareness campaigns and legislative initiatives. The state of California, for example, recently passed a bill that
mandates a state-based biomonitoring program for toxic exposures.
Information about the Environmental Working Group is available online at www.ewg.org. An online copy of the report “Overloaded?” is available at www.ewg.org/reports/autism/execsumm.php.
Judy Chinitz Gorman, is the parent of two sons, one of whom has autism. She holds a master’s in special education and is currently pursuing another in nutrition.

10 Facts about Fluoride

10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | December 2006

---

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

---

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."

---

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.

---

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).

---

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.

---

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)

---

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)

---

8) Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.

---

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)

---

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

---

References

To access the references, click here

Tests Find More Than 200 Chemicals in Newborn Umbilical Cord Blood

Study commissioned by environmental group finds high levels of chemicals in U.S. minority infants

By Sara Goodman

TOXIC INHERITANCE: Babies are born with a slew of potentially dangerous chemicals.
ISTOCKPHOTO/RAPIDEYE

More to Explore

• Sidebar
  Vote for Scientific American at the Earth Journalism Awards

U.S. minority infants are born carrying hundreds of chemicals in their bodies, according to a report released today by an environmental group.

The Environmental Working Group's study commissioned five laboratories to examine the umbilical cord blood of 10 babies of African-American, Hispanic and Asian heritage and found more than 200 chemicals in each newborn.

"We know the developing fetus is one of the most vulnerable populations, if not the most vulnerable, to environmental exposure," said Anila Jacobs, EWG senior scientist. "Their organ systems aren't mature and their detox methods are not in place, so cord blood gives us a good picture of exposure during this most vulnerable time of life."

Of particular concern to Jacobs: 21 newly detected contaminants, including the controversial plastics additive bisphenol A, or BPA, which mimics estrogen and has been shown to cause developmental problems and precancerous growth in animals. Last month, researchers reported that male Chinese factory workers exposed to high levels of the chemical experienced erectile dysfunction and other sexual problems.

"BPA is a really important finding because people are really aware about its potential toxicity," Jacobs told reporters. "This is the first study to find BPA in umbilical cord blood, and it correlates with national data on it."

Jacobs said the study focused on minority children to show that chemical exposure is ubiquitous, building on 2005 research on cord blood from 10 anonymous babies. That study found a similar body burden among the babies. This is the first study to look at chemicals in minority newborns.

"Minority groups may have increased exposure to certain chemicals, but here we didn't focus on those chemicals," Jacobs said. "The sample size is too small to see major differences, but we want to increase awareness about chemical exposures."

Leo Trasande, co-director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said the findings, while preliminary, show that minority communities are often disproportionately affected by chemical exposure. Trasande was not involved in the EWG study.

"Presently, minority communities suffer from a host of chronic disorders, and disproportionate chemical exposures may contribute significantly to the origins of the disparities that exist," Trasande said.

Both he and Jacobs said the findings add momentum for the call to revamp the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, the law regulating the more than 80,000 chemicals on its database. They released the report on the same day that a Senate panel is scheduled to discuss the government's strategy for managing the tens of thousands of chemicals in the marketplace with an eye toward overhauling TSCA.

TSCA does not require most chemicals to be tested for safety before they are approved for widespread use. Because of this, Trasande said, less than half of the 3,000 high-production volume chemicals on the marketplace have toxicity data, and less than one-fifth have toxicity testing data on the effects on developing organs.

Dangerous Additives to Your Food

Do you know which seven dangerous food ingredients to watch out for in your groceries? These are the "deadly seven," as I call them, and they can directly promote heart disease, migraines, obesity, outrageous food cravings, osteoporosis, diabetes and even birth defects.

The top three most dangerous ingredients I've found in my research are:

1) Sodium nitrite -- causes cancer, found in processed meats like hot dogs, bacon, sausage. Used to make meats appear red (a color fixer chemical).

2) Hydrogenated oils -- causes heart disease, nutritional deficiencies, general deterioration of cellular health, and much more. Found in cookies, crackers, margarine and many "manufactured" foods. Used to make oils stay in the food, extending shelf life. Sometimes also called "plastic fat."

3) Excitotoxins -- aspartame, monosodium glutamate and others (see below). These neurotoxic chemical additives directly harm nerve cells, over-exciting them to the point of cell death, according to Dr. Russell Blaylock. They're found in diet soda, canned soup, salad dressing, breakfast sausage and even many manufactured vegetarian foods. They're used to add flavor to over-processed, boring foods that have had the life cooked out of them.

Did you know, for example, that:

• Feeding children hot dogs increases their risk of brain cancer by 300%?

• Strawberry yogurt, fruit punch and other red-looking grocery products are often colored with dead, ground-up cochineal beetles? The ingredient is called "carmine," and it's made from insects. It's listed right on the label of many of your favorite foods.

• Food companies now "hide" MSG in safe-sounding ingredients like yeast extract or torula yeast?

• Many Florida oranges are actually dipped in an artificial orange dye in order to make them more visually appealing? It's the same dye that's been banned for use in foods because of cancer risk.

• Girl Scout cookies are still made with hydrogenated oils that contain trans fatty acids?

• Many so-called "healthy" or vegetarian foods also contain the very same offending ingredients as conventional groceries?

• Eating just one serving of processed meats each day increases your risk of pancreatic cancer by 67%?

• One artificial color additive causes behavioral disorders in children? And that 80% of children diagnosed with ADHD can be outright cured of the condition in two weeks by avoiding certain ingredients?

• The #1 ingredient in Slim Fast meal replacement shake (powder form) is sugar?

• Some guacamole dips don't even contain avocado? Instead, they're made with hydrogenated soybean oil and artificial colors.

Everything I'm sharing here is absolutely true. It's all quite shocking, yes, but this is information you need to know if you want to feed yourself -- and your family -- foods that actually promote health instead of disease.

The truth about metabolic disruptors

Nearly all modern diseases are caused by what I call "metabolic disruptors." These are common ingredients, such as white flour and sugar, that prevent your body from healing. Unfortunately, metabolic disruptors are used in almost all commercially prepared foods, which means most products on your grocer's shelves contribute to poor health. But if you know what to look for, you can fill your cart with foods that will help you live a longer more vibrant life.

Back to the "hidden" ingredients

So how do food companies manage to hide excitotoxins and taste additives to their foods? It's easy: They just keep changing the words to confuse consumers. Once customers learned to avoid MSG / monosodium glutamate, the food companies started using yeast extract.

And now, many companies have switched to "torula yeast," which accomplishes the same thing. Other hidden sources of MSG include:

• Autolyzed vegetable protein
• Hydrolyzed vegetable protein

• Calcium caseinate

• Sodium caseinate

• Textured protein

The ingredients "stacking" trick

Food companies also use the ingredients stacking trick to intentionally leave you with the wrong impression about what's really in their food products.

For example, one company makes a nutrition bar that's absolutely loaded with sugar, but they way they've arranged the ingredients prevents sugar from appearing as the #1 ingredient. Instead, the first ingredient is rice. But looking down the label, you'll find all the following forms of sugar, all in the same nutrition bar:

• Sugar
• Sucrose
• High-fructose corn syrup
• Corn syrup solids
• Dextrose

Add all these up, and the #1 component in the bar is, indeed, sugar (or sugary substances). But the manufacturer has used ingredients stacking to make you think the top ingredient is actually rice.

It's a clever, dishonest technique used by food companies to lie with food labels.

Remember, the longer the ingredients label, the less healthy the food. Read those ingredients lists before buying foods, and if you discover chemical names that you can't pronounce, don't buy the food!

Mercury Amalgam Toxicity and Removal

Amalgam Removal Does Lower
the Body Burden of Mercury
Australian Risk Assessment of Mercury
Exposure from Dental Amalgam Published August 2000
Prepared by Chem Affairs Pty Ltd PO Box 890 Lane Cove NSW 1595
Published August 2000
This risk assessment was commissioned by the National Health & Medical Research
Council of Australia (NHMRC), as part of a series of recommendations put forward by a
working party which was set up in 1998 to assess the literature about the dangers of
mercury from dental amalgam. NH&MRC have not yet endorsed this document. Although
most of the report claims safety for amalgam on the bases of a supposed "Normal Mercury
Level" in the body it is important to know that there has never been a level of mercury
exposure which is considered safe. The “Normal” levels suggested in this report are far above
the levels set by both the USEPA and the ATSDR.
In point 8 of the Executive Summary the following is stated:
"Amalgam removal has been shown to be effective in reducing mercury levels to the
levels of those in people without amalgam fillings. Chelation treatment has also reduced
levels in the short-term….in one case report, amalgam removal has reduced a very
high urine mercury level to a normal level. This change was accompanied by a decline
in symptoms………."
~~~~~
Potential Biological Consequences of Mercury Released from Dental Amalgam. A
State of the Art Document?
The Australian and other dental associations in the world have consistently claimed that
removing amalgam for the sake of health improvements is unethical as there is no
relationship between mercury from dental amalgam and disease. They still hold this
position. Much of their claims of late are based on a report called "Potential Biological
Consequences of Mercury Released from Dental Amalgam. A State of the Art
Document. [MFR-panel (Swedish Medical Research Council)]A State of the Art Conference
in Stockholm 9-10 April 1992”.
The dental associations come to the following conclusions, which are responded to by Prof.
Murray Vimy, one of the leaders of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and
Toxicology. Note Prof Vimy's credentials - Murray J. Vimy BA, DMD, FAGD, FIAOMT
Clinical Associate Professor Department of Medicine
Dental Association Comments:
"- Mercury released from dental amalgam does not, according to available data, contribute
to systemic disease or systemic toxicological effects.
No significant effects on the immune system have been demonstrated with the amounts of
mercury which may be released from dental amalgam fillings.
- Allergic reactions to mercury from amalgam have been demonstrated, but are extremely
rare.
• In very few individuals local reactions such as lichenoid reactions of the mucosa,
may occur adjacent to amalgam restorations as well as adjacent to dental
restorations made of other materials.
• There are no data supporting that mercury released from dental amalgam give rise
to teratological effects.
• The possible environmental consequences of mercury from handling dental
amalgam can be controlled by proper waste management, including the installation
of efficient amalgam separators in dental offices.
• Available data do not justify discontinuing the use of silver-containing dental
amalgam fillings or recommending their replacement."
In the panel: Bergman B (chairman), Bostrom H, Larsson K S, Li5e H
Professor Vimy’s Response:
In An open letter to Sekreterare Tore Scherstén Medicinska Forskningsrådet Swedish
Medical Research Council Box 6713 S-113 85 Stockholm, Sweden December 15, 1992
Re: Potential Biological Consequences of Mercury Released from Dental Amalgam. A
Swedish state of the Art Conference,
April 9, 1992.
Dear Secretary Scherstén:
By now you must have felt the pressure of a number of groups who have criticized your
"conference". In fairness to you, it is apparent that trust was misplaced in an organizing
committee, which had no intention of convening an objective academic scientific forum.
Rather, these individuals had a predetermined agenda, as demonstrated by their public
positions on the issue of amalgam safety taken on many occasions prior to this meeting.
Drs. Larsson, Löe and Bergman are all on the record as defenders of the status quo. Dr.
Bergman's objectivity is tainted by his wife's involvement in the issue; while Dr. Larsson is
on the record as a strong supporter of amalgam. Indeed it was incredible to see this person
act as both presenter and "judge", especially since he has no scientific experimental track
record of his own to demonstrate his expertise in this area. Finally, Dr. Löe, politically,
administratively and economically affiliated with the American dental establishment, is
apparently more concerned with preventing litigation in the U.S.A. than he is with
determining scientific truth. His opening biased remarks made it obvious why he was chosen
as moderator. Dr. Boström was red herring - a physician "yes"-man with absolutely no
research expertise in this area.
The conference presenters showed a general lack of expertise. Most have poor research
records and many had not published research papers on either mercury or dental amalgam.
This is easily determined by reviewing the bibliographies to their written presentations.
They have few if any research papers of their own to cite! The penultimate example was Dr.
Petr Skrabanek, a self anointed "quack catcher". This individual, who has no scientific
expertise of amalgam, is one of a growing group of self appointed watch-dog "experts". In
North America, we have an organization called the National Council Against Health Fraud
which purports to be expert in everything. Dr. Skrabanek's mere presence at the meeting
totally discredited the scientific purpose of the conference. Sweden, a country of many
noted scientists, was better represented by the quality of the expertise in the audience
than by the quality of many conference speakers.
Finally, I understand that my invitation to present a paper at this conference was extended
reluctantly by the organizing committee, and only after political pressure for a more
balanced meeting. If you review the list of speakers chosen it will be obvious that the
intention of the organizers was to "white wash" the conclusions. The conclusions of the
conference were drawn by the organizing committee and do not represent a consensus view
of all the participants or the audience. Since the results were apparently prordained, as I
have just described, they are not credible.
I have enclosed for your information a reprint of a recent medical scientific forum on the
same issue (Goering et. al., 1992). As you can see, there is now international scientific
concurrence on a number of points related to the amalgam mercury issue and its potential
effects on human health; a concurrence which is in marked contrast to the "massaged"
conclusions of the Swedish Medical Research Council's biased organizing committee.
Respectfully yours, [signed Murray J. Vimy BA, DMD, FAGD, FIAOMT Clinical Associate
Professor Department of Medicine (also Private Practice of Dental Medicine)]
A vast wealth of published research exists which clearly demonstrates that removing the
source of the mercury poisoning – the amalgam fillings – will in fact lower the body burden
of mercury. Here is a small taste of this literature:
References
1. Idiosyncrasy to metallic mercury,
with special reference to amalgam
fillings in the Teeth. Bass M HJ Pediat
23:215-218 (1943)
2. Thrombocytopenia in two children
after placement of amalgam fillings in
primary teeth. Berglund F, Elinder G
Program, Sammanfattningar, Svenska
Läkarsällskapets Riksstämma 27-29
nov 1991
3. Mercury allergy resulting from
amalgam restorations. Engelman M A J
Amer Dent Assoc 66:122-123 (1963 )
4. Chronic illness in association with
dental amalgam: Report of two cases.
Godfrey M E J Adv Med 3:247-255
(1990)
5. Amalgam-related chronic ulceration
of oral mucosa. Jolly M, Moule A J,
Freeman S Br Dent J 160:434- 437
(1986)
6. Exercise-induced anaphylaxis:
improvement after removal of
amalgam in dental caries. Katsununa
T, Iikura Y, Nagakura T, Saitoh H,
Akimoto K, Akasawa A, Kindaichi S Ann
Allergy 64:472-475 (1990)
7. A Case of High Mercury exposure
from Dental Amalgam. Langworth S,
Strömberg R European Journal of Oral
Sciences. Jun 1996; 104(3):320-321.
ISSN: 0909- 8836
8. Urticaria following a dental silver
filling - case report. Markow H New
York State J Med 43:1648-1652 (1943)
9. Three cases of linear lichen planus
cused by dental metal compounds. :
Sasaki G, Yokozeki H, Katayama I,
Nishioka K: J Dermatol 1996 Dec
23:12 890-2
10. Generalized allergic reaction from
silver amalgam fillings Strassburg M,
Schubel R : Dtsche Zahnarztliche Zeit
22:3-9 (1967)
11. A case of hypersensitivity to
mercury released from amalgam
fillings. Witek E Source: Czas Stomat
22:311-315,
12. Allergic reaction to mercury after
dental treatment. Wright F A C New
Zealand Dent J 67:25l-252 (1971)
13. Description of persons with
symptoms presumed to be caused by
electricity or visual display units--oral
aspects. Bergdahl J, Anneroth G,
Stenman E Scand J Dent Res. 1994
Feb; 102(1): 41-5
14. Long-term mercury excretion in
urine after removal of amalgam fillings
Begerow J, Zander D, Freier I,
Dunemann L Int Arch Occup Environ
Health 1994 66:3 209-12
15. Effect of Replacement of Dental
Amalgam on Oral Lichenoid Reactions.
Bratel J, Hakeberg M, Jontell M:
Journal of Dentistry. Jan-Mar 1996;
24(1- 2):41-45
16. Mercury sensitization in amalgam
fillings. Assessment from a
dermatologic viewpoint Brehler R,
Panzer B, Forck G, Bertram H P Dtsch
Med Wochenschr 1993 Apr 2 118:13
451-6
17. Healing of Lichenoid Reactions
Following Removal of Amalgam - a
Clinical Follow-up Henriksson E,
Mattsson U, Håkansson J:. J Clin
Periodont 22(4):287-294 (1995)
18. The Relevance and Effect of
Amalgam Replacement in Subjects with
Oral Lichenoid Reactions Ibbotson S H,
Speight E L, Macleod R I, Smart E R,
Lawrence C M British Journal of
Dermatology. Mar 1996; 134 (3):420-
423. ISSN: 0007-0963
19. Resolution of oral lichenoid lesions
after replacement of amalgam
restorations in patients allergic to
mercury compounds.: Laine J, Kalimo
K, Forssell H, Happonen R P Br J
Dermatol 126(1):10-15
20. Symptoms before and after proper
amalgam removal in relation to serumglobulin
reaction to metals.
Lichtenberg H Journal of
Orthomolecular Medicine Vol 11 No.4.
pp 195-203 1996.
21. Effects of Removing Amalgam
Fillings from Patients with Diseases
Affecting the Immune SystemLindqvist
B, Mörnstad H Medical Science
Research. May 1996; 24(5):355-356
22. Allergy and corrosion of dental
materials in patients with oral lichen
planus. Lundström I M C Int J Oral
Surg 13:16-24 (1984)
23. Amalgam Associated Oral Lichenoid
Reactions: Clinical and Histologic
Changes After Removal of Amalgam
Fillings. Östman P O, Anneroth G,
Skoglund A Oral Surgery Oral Medicine
Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and
Endodontics. Apr 1996; 81 (4):459-
465.
24. Resolution of lichen planus
following removal of amalgam
restorations in patients with proven
allergy to mercury salts: a pilot study.
Smart E R, Macleod R I, Lawrence C M
Br Dent J 178(3):108-112 (1995)
25. The contribution of dental amalgam
to mercury in blood. Snapp K R, Boyer
D B, Peterson L C, Svare C W J Dent
Res. 1989 May; 68(5):780-5
26. Removal of Dental Mercury: Often
an Effective Treatment for the Very
Sensitive Patient Zamm A F J
Orthomolecular Med 5(53):138-142
(1990)
27. Elimination of symptoms by
removal of dental amalgam from
mercury poisoned patients, as
compared with a control group of
average patients. Lichtenberg H J J
Orthomol Med 8:145-148 (1993)
28. Mercury, selenium, and glutathione
peroxidase before and after amalgam
removal in man. Molin M, Bergman B,
Marklund S L, Schütz A, Skerfving Acta
Odontol Scand. 1990 Jun; 48(3): 189-
202
29. The relationship between mercury
from dental amalgam and oral cavity
health. Siblerud R LAnn Dent 49(2):6-
10 (1990)
30. A comparison of mental health of
multiple sclerosis patients with
silver/mercury dental fillings and those
with fillings removed. Siblerud R L
Psychol Rep. 1992 Jun; 70(3 Pt 2):
1139-51
31. Evidence that mercury from silver
dental fillings may be an etiological
factor in multiple sclerosis. Siblerud R
L, Kienholz E Sci Total Environ. 1994
Mar 15; 142(3): 191-205
32. Mercury-Specific Lymphocytes: An
Indication of Mercury Allergy in Man.
Stejskal V, Forsbeck M, Cederbrant K
E, Asteman O J of Clin Immun, Vol. 16,
No.1, 1996, pp. 31-40.

What's in YOUR Vaccine?

Remember: Thimerosal contains mercury.

VACCINE INGREDIENTS
The questions: "What is in the flu shot and what is in the vaccinations they are giving my child?", are being raised by those that are taking responsibility for their health and that of their loved ones. This brings hope that, one day soon, parents will have the truth and be able to make more logical decisions in the future. ~ Vickie Barker

a representative sample
Vaccine	Manufacturer	Microbes	Antibiotics	Chemicals / Heavy Metals	Animal ByProducts
Acel-Immune DTaP diphtheria - tetanus - pertussis	Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556	diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed		formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)	gelatin
Act HIB Haemophilus influenza Type B	Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463	Haemophilus influenza Type B, polyribosylribitol phosphate		ammonium sulfate, formalin, and sucrose
Attenuvax measles	Merck & Co., Inc. 800-672-6372	measles live virus	neomycin	sorbitol	hydrolized gelatin, chick embryo
Biavax rubella	Merck & Co., Inc. 800-672-6372	rubella live virus	neomycin	sorbitol	hydrolized gelatin, human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
BioThrax anthrax adsorbed	BioPort Corporation 517.327.1500	nonencapsulated strain of Bacillus anthracis		aluminum hydroxide, benzethonium chloride, and formaldehyde
DPT diphtheria - tetanus - pertussis	GlaxoSmithKline X 5231 800.366.8900	diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed		formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, and thimerosal	washed sheep RBCs
Dryvax smallpox (not licensed d/t expiration)	Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556	live vaccinia virus, with "some microbial contaminants," according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense	polymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate	glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar	vesicle fluid from calf skins
Engerix-B recombinant hepatitis B	GlaxoSmithKline X 5231 800.366.8900	genetic sequence of the hepatitis B virus that codes for the surface antigen (HbSAg), cloned into GMO yeast		aluminum hydroxide, and thimerosal
Fluvirin	Medeva Pharmaceuticals 888.MEDEVA 716.274.5300	influenza virus	neomycin, polymyxin	beta-propiolactone	chick embryonic fluid
FluShield	Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556	trivalent influenza virus, types A&B	gentamicin sulphate	formadehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)	chick embryonic fluid
Havrix hepatitis A	GlaxoSmithKline X 5231 800.366.8900	hepatitis A virus		formalin, aluminum hydroxide, 2-phenoxyethanol, and polysorbate 20	residual MRC5 proteins -human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
HiB Titer Haemophilus influenza Type B	Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556	Haemophilus influenza Type B, polyribosylribitol phosphate, yeast		ammonium sulfate, thimerosal, and chemically defined yeast-based medium
Imovax	Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463	rabies virus adsorbed	neomycin sulfate	phenol red indicator	human albumin, human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
IPOL	Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463	3 types of polio viruses	neomycin, streptomycin, and polymyxin B	formaldehyde, and 2-phenoxyethenol	continuous line of monkey kidney cells
JE-VAX Japanese encephalitis	Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE	Nakayama-NIH strain of Japanese encephalitis virus, inactivated		formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (Tween-80), and thimerosal	mouse serum proteins, and gelatin
LYMErix lyme	GlaxoSmithKline 888-825-5249	recombinant protein (OspA) from the outer surface of the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi	kanamycin	aluminum hydroxide, 2-phenoxyethenol, phosphate buffered saline
MMR measles - mumps - rubella	Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372	measles, mumps, rubella live virus	neomycin	sorbitol	hydrolized gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
M-R-Vax measles - rubella	Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372	measles, rubella live virus	neomycin	sorbitol	hydrolized gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
Menomune meningococcal	Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463	freeze-dried polysaccharide antigens from Neisseria meningitidis bacteria		thimerosal	lactose
Meruvax I mumps	Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372	mumps live virus	neomycin	sorbitol	hydrolized gelatin
NYVAC (new smallpox batch, not licensed)	Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE	highly attenuated vaccinia virus	polymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate	glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar	vesicle fluid from calf skins
Orimune oral polio	Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556	3 types of polio viruses, attenuated	neomycin, streptomycin	sorbitol	monkey kidney cells and calf serum
Pneumovax Streptococcus pneumoniae	Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372	capsular polysaccharides from polyvalent (23 types) pneumococcal bacteria		phenol
Prevnar Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine	Wyeth Lederle 800.934.5556	saccharides from capsular Streptococcus pneumoniae antigens (7 serotypes) individually conjugated to diphtheria CRM 197 protein		aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, soy protein, yeast
ProQuad measles, mumps, rubella and varicella	Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372	live measles (Enders' attenuated Edmonston), mumps (Jeryl LynnTM), rubella (Wistar RA 27/3), and varicella (oka/Merck) strains of viruses	neomycin	monosodium L-glutamate (MSG), potassium chloride, potassium phosphate monobasic, potassium phosphate dibasic, sodium bicarbonate, sodium phosphate dibasic, sorbitol, and sucrose	human albumin, human diploid cells, residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and proteins, bovine serum, hydrolized gelatin, and chicken embryo
RabAvert rabies	Chiron Behring GmbH & Company 510.655.8729	fixed-virus strain Flury LEP	neomycin, chlortetracycline, and amphotericin B	potassium glutamate, and sucrose	human albumin, bovine gelatin and serum "from source countries known to be free of bovine spongioform encephalopathy," and chicken protein
Rabies Vaccine Adsorbed	GlaxoSmithKline X 5231 800.366.8900	rabies virus adsorbed		beta-propiolactone, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, and phenol red	rhesus monkey fetal lung cells
Recombivax recombinant hepatitis B	Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372	genetic sequence of the hepatitis B virus that codes for the surface antigen (HbSAg), cloned into GMO yeast		aluminum hydroxide, and thimerosal
RotaShield oral tetravalent rotavirus (recalled)	Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556	1 rhesus monkey rotavirus, 3 rhesus-human reassortant live viruses	neomycin sulfate, amphotericin B	potassium monophosphate, potassium diphosphate, sucrose, and monosodium glutamate (MSG)	rhesus monkey fetal diploid cells, and bovine fetal serum
smallpox (not licensed due to expiration) 40-yr old stuff "found" in Swiftwater, PA freezer	Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE	live vaccinia virus, with "some microbial contaminants," according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense	polymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate	glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar	vesicle fluid from calf skins
smallpox (new, not licensed)	Acambis, Inc. 617.494.1339 in partnership with Baxter BioScience	highly attenuated vaccinia virus	polymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate	glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar	vesicle fluid from calf skins
TheraCys BCG (intravesicle -not licensed in US for tuberculosis)	Aventis Pasteur USA USA 800.VACCINE	live attenuated strain of Mycobacterium bovis		monosodium glutamate (MSG), and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)
Tripedia diphtheria - tetanus - pertussis	Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE	Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Clostridium tetani toxoids and acellular Bordetella pertussis adsorbed		aluminum potassium sulfate, formaldehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)	gelatin, bovine extract US sourced
Typhim Vi typhoid	Aventis Pasteur USA SA 800.VACCINE	cell surface Vi polysaccharide from Salmonella typhi Ty2 strain		aspartame, phenol, and polydimethylsiloxane (silicone)
Varivax chickenpox	Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372	varicella live virus	neomycin	phosphate, sucrose, and monosodium glutamate (MSG)	processed gelatin, fetal bovine serum, guinea pig embryo cells, albumin from human blood, and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue
YF-VAX yellow fever	Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE	17D strain of yellow fever virus		sorbitol	chick embryo, and gelatin

10 Weird and Gross Ingredients in Processed Food

(OrganicJar) Everyone now knows that processed and fast foods are not the bastions of nutrition, but that shouldn’t make these ingredients found inside them any less revolting. This list sends a clear message: when a packaged food contains more than five ingredients and includes some that are difficult to pronounce, stay away. Make a b-line straight to the organics aisle.

1. Fertilizers – in your bread

   

   While chemical fertilizers inevitably make it into our produce in trace amounts, you would not expect it to be a common food additive. However, ammonium sulfate can be found inside many brands of bread, including Subway’s. The chemical provides nitrogen for the yeast, creating a more consistent product.

2. Beaver Anal Glands – in your candy

   The anal glands of a beaver, conveniently euphemized as castoreum, are a common ingredient in perfumes and colognes but are also sometimes used to — believe it or not — enhance the flavor of raspberry candies and sweets.

.
.
.
.
.

3. Beef Fat – in your snacks

   While this may not bother the most ardent omnivore, others are shocked to discover that their favorite childhood treats contain straight-up beef fat. The ingredient comes included a list of other oils that may or may not be used, so it is always a gamble!

.
.

4. Crushed Bugs – as red food coloring

   After killing thousands at a time, the dried insects are boiled to produce a liquid solution that can be turned to a dye using a variety of treatments. Some people worry that the coloring — often called carmine or carminic acid — could be listed as a “natural color,” disguising the fact that there are bugs in the product.

.

5. Beetle Juice – the hard candy coating

   You know that shiny coating on candies like Skittles? Or the sprinkles on cupcakes and ice cream sundaes? Well, they get that glaze from the secretions of the female lac beetle. The substance is also known as shellac and commonly used as a wood varnish.

.
.

6. Sheep Secretions – in your bubble gum

   The oils inside sheep’s wool are collected to create the goopy substance called lanolin. From there, it ends up in chewing gum (sometimes under the guise of “gum base”), but also is used to create vitamin D3 supplements.

.


7. Human Hair and Duck Feathers – in your bread

   What’s in your morning bagel? If you get it from Noah’s Bagels, it contains either human hair or duck feathers, and it’s your guess as to which. The substance, called L-cysteine or cystine, is used as a dough conditioner to produce a specific consistency. While artificial cysteine is available, it is cost prohibitive and mostly used to create kosher and halal products.

.
.
.

8. Coal Tar – in red colored candy

   Coal tar is listed as number 199 on the United Nations list of “dangerous goods,” but that doesn’t stop people from using it in food. The coloring Allura Red AC is derived from coal tar and is commonly found in red-colored candies, sodas and other sweets.

.
.
.
.
.

9. Calf Stomach – in your cheese

   In the UK, all cheeses are labeled as either suitable or not suitable for vegetarians because in Britain — and everywhere else — many cheeses are made using rennet, which is the fourth stomach of a young cow. In the United States and most other countries, people are left to guess about the stomach-content of their cheese.

.
.
.
.

10. Sand – in your chili

    Sand is hidden in Wendy’s chili as a name you might remember from high school chemistry class: silicon dioxide. Apparently they use sand as an “anti-caking agent,” perhaps to make sure the chili can last for days and days over a heater.

.

Let Us Know If You Were Shocked By This, We Were!

Source: wikipedia.org webecoist.com

More bad news about your tap water

Need more reasons to stay away from tap water? Try this on for size: It may contain artificial sweeteners.

That fact alone is bad enough -- but how they get there is enough to make you swear off water for good.

You see, people eat and drink foods loaded with this garbage. And as the saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out.

Sewage treatment plants are supposed to clean up that waste, but a new kind of water analysis shows that artificial sweeteners like aspartame can remain. And if you happen to live downstream from the plant, then you could end up drinking the stuff straight from your tap.

Aspartame is bad enough on its own, but an artificial sweetener that's made its way through someone else's body before entering yours -- well, I don't think I need to add anything to that.

But whether you're funneling it straight from a Diet Coke can, or whether it's in the form of poorly filtered tap water, aspartame is bad news. This artificial sweetener has been linked to cancer and neurological disease and is responsible for more FDA complaints than any other additive.

Forget regulating it. The only acceptable solution is an outright ban.

Now, this analysis was carried out in Germany, but don't assume for a moment that it's the only place with this problem -- or that artificial sweeteners are the only dangerous substances in the water supply.

There are plenty of other pollutants -- the difference is that much of the other stuff is actually put there on purpose. I've been telling you for years about the contaminants and pollutants that Big Government's mad scientists intentionally dump into U.S. water supply -- things like fluoride and chlorine.

The fluoride they dump into the supply is an industrial-grade waste product, but you never hear them talk about that. What you DO hear are the idiots telling people they need to swallow glass after glass of this stuff.

My favorite is the "eight glasses a day". I can't say the same about aspartame, fluoride, or chlorine in the unfiltered tap water.

And yet most people just go on assuming their water is safe to drink -- when it reality, you shouldn't even be showering in it. Get a shower filter because it will absorb through your skin..

Most people, that is, except for those of you who've been listening to me. Count yourself among the lucky few -- and then go warn your neighbors.