"Be aware of those around you, and what they speak for they may speak negative or positive words. Be careful in the words you choose to speak and pick your words carefully as the sounds of words have a direct effect on the soul and cannot be taken back once spoken."
--- Dr. Edward F. Group, III, DC, ND, DACBN

Editorial

Happy Spring!  As we begin to Spring clean, re-organize and air out our homes and offices it is also the perfect time to "Spring clean" the most important area of the body---the digestive tract.  Keeping the digestive tract clean helps to keeps the immune system healthy and also aids in the prevention of illness and disease.  For complete instructions go to:  How to perform a Liver/Gallbladder/Intestinal/Parasite Cleanse and let us know if you should have any questions or if we can help you with product selection.

We have added a few new products to our GHC health store

• Fibro-Balance - a unique formula designed by Dr. Edward Group to address the symptoms of Fibromyalgia and help the body naturally repair itself.
• Tibetan Goji Berries - it is said in Tibet that eating Goji berries in the morning will make you happy the entire day - with such a practice, eventually you can't stop smiling.
• Fresh Mouth - our new formula designed to target more serious oral conditions such as Periodontal disease, Gingivitis, and Tooth decay, while at the same time dealing with the risk factors for heart disease and stroke.

As usual the March issue of Alternative Health and Healing is filled with current articles that will inform and educate you about health and wellness. A couple of "must reads" are How Ads for Pharmaceuticals and Dangerous Foods Have Infiltrated Health Publications and Dr. Group's article entitled Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia.  Not 'Where's the Beef', but What's in the Beef will definitely cause you to pause the next time you take a bite out of that Big Mac!

Enjoy the "newness" of the season and make it a point to take a daily walk in the warm sunshine.  As always, we appreciate your loyalty and encourage you to pass the newsletter on to family and friends.

Take Care & Be Well

Alternative Health & Healing Editors
www.ghchealth.com

GHC Specials - 8th Anniversary Sale

	Free Shipping for Orders $50 or More 1 Free Oxy-Powder™ code: 8thannf4o Enter code at checkout to receive your discount. *Must Purchase 3 bottles of Oxy-Powder™ AND Free 90ct Slimirex™ NO CODE NEEDED No coupon code needed to receive your discount. *Must Purchase 1 180ct bottle of Slimirex™
These specials may not be applied to any orders completed after 04/09/06 or retroactively to any orders made prior to the start of the sale. Only one offer valid per order.

The Lowdown on Sweet?

By MELANIE WARNER

WHEN Dr. Morando Soffritti, a cancer researcher in Bologna, Italy, saw the results of his team's seven-year study on aspartame, he knew he was about to be injected into a bitter controversy over this sweetener, one of the most contentiously debated substances ever added to foods and beverages.

Aspartame is sold under the brand names Nutra-Sweet and Equal and is found in such popular products as Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, Diet Snapple and Sugar Free Kool-Aid. Hundreds of millions of people consume it worldwide. And Dr. Soffritti's study concluded that aspartame may cause the dreaded "c" word: cancer.

The research found that the sweetener was associated with unusually high rates of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers in rats that had been given doses of it starting at what would be equivalent to four to five 20-ounce bottles of diet soda a day for a 150-pound person. The study, which involved 1,900 laboratory rats and cost $1 million, was conducted at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, a nonprofit organization that studies cancer-causing substances; Dr. Soffritti is its scientific director.

The findings, first released last July, prompted a flurry of criticism from the Calorie Control Council, a trade group for makers of artificial sweeteners that has spent the last 25 years trying to quell fears about aspartame. It said Dr. Soffritti's study flew in the face of four earlier cancer studies that aspartame's creator, G. D. Searle & Company, had underwritten and used to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to approve it for human consumption. "Aspartame has been safely consumed for more than a quarter of a century and is one of the most thoroughly studied food additives," read one news release from the council.

At the same time, Dr. Soffritti's findings have energized a vociferous group of researchers, health advocates and others who say they are convinced that aspartame is a toxin associated with a variety of health troubles, including headaches, dizziness, blindness and seizures.

DR. SOFFRITTI, who oversees 180 scientists and researchers in 30 countries who collaborate on toxin research, says that since last July, he has been contacted by some of these critics, including a member of Parliament in Britain and a number of conspiracy theorists, some of whom say they have suffered from "aspartame poisoning" and filled Web pages with cloak-and-dagger speculation about why the F.D.A. approved aspartame for sale a quarter-century ago.

No regulatory agency has yet acted on Dr. Soffritti's findings, although Roger Williams, a member of Parliament, called for a ban on aspartame in Britain last December. Last month, the European Food Safety Authority, an advisory body for the European Commission, began to review 900 pages of data from Dr. Soffritti; the goal is to finish by May. A commission spokesman, Philip Tod, said it was too early to know what the next steps would be if the scientists reviewing the data concurred with Dr. Soffritti's findings.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration says it has also taken note of the study, which is available online (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/8711/abstract.html) and is scheduled to be published next month in a medical journal financed by the National Institutes of Health. F.D.A. officials say that they, too, intend to conduct a thorough review.

But both the F.D.A. and the European Commission have cautioned that there is no need for people to avoid aspartame. "We don't see any concerns at this stage," said George H. Pauli, associate director for science policy in the F.D.A.'s Office of Food Additive Safety. "We've gone through a humongous amount of data on aspartame over the years."

Putting restrictions on aspartame would come at a significant cost. Food companies and consumers around the world bought about $570 million worth of it last year. New regulatory action on aspartame would also jeopardize the billions of dollars worth of products sold with it. Already, in the United States, many companies are opting to use sucralose, or Splenda, in their new low-calorie products, in part because it is less controversial.

Lance Collins, chief executive of Fuze Beverage in Englewood Cliffs, N.J., said that safety concerns about aspartame were a "major contributing factor" in his decision to use sucralose in his tea and juice drinks. Sucralose, however, is made by under a patent by just one company, Tate & Lyle of London, and is in desperately short supply.

Dr. Soffritti, who has spent 28 years doing research on potential carcinogens, said he was trying to steer clear of the growing political maelstrom. But he added that he was concerned about the large numbers of people who use aspartame, particularly children and pregnant women. "If something is a carcinogen in animals," he said, "then it should not be added to food, especially if there are so many people that are going to be consuming it."

Lyn Nabors, executive vice president of the Calorie Control Council, said Dr. Soffritti's study was not valid because the rats used in it had been allowed to live longer than the two-year standard established by the United States government's National Toxicology Program. "It's difficult to determine if the cancers you find are due to something else," Ms. Nabors said. "Just as in humans, the rat's body slows down later in life, and the aging process causes all kinds of things."

But John R. Bucher, deputy director of environmental toxicology at the National Toxicology Program, the government's agency for research on toxic chemicals, called the design of the Ramazzini study "impressive" and "thorough," and said that he did not think the fact that rats were allowed to live until their natural deaths had skewed the results.

Dr. Jose Russo, director of the breast cancer and environmental research center at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, says that lifetime studies are "ideal" but that they are not done often, partly because they are more expensive than limited-time tests. Dr. Russo, however, criticized the Ramazzini study for not allowing outside pathologists to analyze all of the tissue samples where cancerous tumors were found. "People need to see every tumor," he said.

Dr. Bucher of the National Toxicology Program said pathologists at the program, with which Ramazzini collaborates, looked at 70 tumor slides. But with the study producing over 9,000 tumor-containing slides, James Swenberg, professor of environmental science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says that this falls short of standard practice.

While Dr. Soffritti's methods have drawn some criticism, the Ramazzini cancer lab, which is financed by private bank foundations, governments and 17,000 individual members, has earned considerable credibility since it was founded in 1971 for its pioneering research on chemicals. It was the first research body to do studies showing that vinyl chloride and the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or M.T.B.E., are carcinogenic, research that eventually encouraged the United States to strictly regulate vinyl chloride and that led 21 states to ban M.T.B.E.

Dr. Soffritti said he was inspired to look at aspartame because of what he calls "inadequacies" in the cancer studies done by Searle in the 1970's. He said that those studies did not involve large-enough numbers of rats and did not allow them to live long enough to develop cancer.

The Ramazzini study was conducted with 1,900 rats, as opposed to the 280 to 688 rodents used in Searle's studies, and the rats lived for up to three years instead of being sacrificed after two, which is the human equivalent of age 53. "Cancer is a disease of the third part of life," Dr. Soffritti said. "You have 75 percent of cancer diagnoses for people who are 55 years old or older. So if you truncate the experiments at 110 weeks and the rats are supposed to survive until 150 to 160 weeks, it means you avoid the development of cancer at the time when cancer would be starting to arise."

Others have also challenged Searle's studies. Documents from the F.D.A. and records from the Federal Register indicate that, in the years before the F.D.A. approved aspartame, the agency had serious concerns about the accuracy and credibility of Searle's aspartame studies. From 1977 to 1985 - during much of the approval process - Searle was headed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, who is now the secretary of defense; Searle was acquired by Monsanto in 1985. Monsanto later spun Searle's assets out into two companies: Merisant, which owns the brands Equal and Canderel, and NutraSweet, which is owned by J. W. Childs Equity Partners, an investment firm in Boston.

A 1976 report from an F.D.A. task force, for example, found that Searle's studies on aspartame and several of the company's pharmaceutical drugs were "poorly conceived, carelessly executed, or inaccurately analyzed or reported." It cited what it called a lack of training by the scientists analyzing tissue samples, a "substantial" loss of information because of tissue decomposition and inadequate monitoring of feeding doses.

In response to the report, the F.D.A. asked the Justice Department to open a grand jury investigation into whether two of Searle's aspartame studies had been falsified or were incomplete. In a 33-page letter in 1977, Richard A. Merrill, the F.D.A.'s chief counsel at the time, recommended to Samuel K. Skinner, then the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, that a grand jury investigate the company, which was based in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, for "concealing material facts and making false statements in reports of animal studies conducted to establish the safety of the drug Aldactone and the food additive aspartame."

A grand jury was never convened, however. Shortly after the letter was sent, Mr. Skinner left the Justice Department to join Sidley & Austin, a law firm that represented Searle. After 12 years at that firm, now Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, Mr. Skinner was appointed to be President George H. W. Bush's transportation secretary; later he became his chief of staff. In 1978, a year and half after Mr. Skinner left the United States attorney's office in Chicago, his deputy, William F. Conlon, also left to work at Sidley & Austin.

Mr. Skinner, now a lawyer at Greenberg Traurig LLP, said that as soon as he began looking for a new job and interviewing with Sidley & Austin, he recused himself from the Searle investigation. Mr. Conlon, who is still at Sidley & Austin, did not return phone calls.

Over the next few years, Searle's petition for aspartame approval led to much disagreement within the F.D.A. The commissioner at the time, Alexander M. Schmidt, convened a three-member public board of inquiry, which concluded that one of Searle's studies on rats showed an increase in brain tumors from aspartame. The board members - all of them scientists at universities - voted to withhold approval of aspartame until more studies were done.

But yet another F.D.A. review, this one of Searle's tumor tissue slides - paid for by Searle and conducted by an academic group that is now defunct - concluded that Searle's studies had demonstrated that aspartame was safe. In 1981, a new F.D.A. commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, concurred with this assessment and granted approval to aspartame shortly after President Ronald Reagan appointed him to run the agency.

And in a move that fueled the conspiracy theories, Mr. Hayes left the F.D.A. a little more than a year after approving aspartame and took a job as a consultant to Burson-Marsteller, which at the time was Searle's public relations agency. Mr. Hayes did not return calls seeking comment.

Ms. Nabors of the Calorie Control Council said that suggestions or innuendoes that Searle was trying to influence government officials with lucrative job offers were baseless. Artificial sweeteners are unfairly targeted for suspicion, she said, citing the government's decision to ban the sweetener cyclamate in 1969 after studies showed that it caused cancer in animals. "Cyclamate was banned, saccharin was required to have a warning label for a while, and there's all these conspiracy theories on aspartame," she said.

She added that there were more than 100 published scientific studies showing no adverse effects from aspartame, and said that in 2002, the European Commission reviewed many of these studies and reaffirmed the sweetener's safety. The bulk of the studies investigated neurological effects; none were animal cancer studies, which are lengthy and expensive.

In any case, critics say that most of these studies were financed either directly or indirectly by manufacturers of aspartame, and that the results of aspartame studies tend to depend on who paid for them. In an analysis of 166 articles published in medical journals from 1980 to 1985, Dr. Ralph G. Walton, a professor of psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine found that all 74 studies that were financed by the industry attested to sweetener's safety.

Of the 92 independently funded articles, 84 identified adverse health effects. "Whenever you have studies that were not funded by the industry, some sort of problem is identified," said Dr. Walton, adding that he has not looked at studies performed since 1985. "It's far too much for it to be a coincidence."

Dr. Walton, who, like some other psychiatrists, has studied aspartame from a neurological perspective, said he had also seen problems from the sweetener firsthand. At Safe Harbor Behavioral Health, a mental health facility in Erie, Pa., where he is clinical director, Dr. Walton said he had observed that for many people with mood disorders, such as depression or bipolar disorder, aspartame exacerbates the condition. "For people with panic disorders, for instance, we've seen that when we eliminate aspartame, it's much easier to control their illness," he said. "The number of panic attacks goes down."

Dr. Walton and others say that this is probably attributable to aspartame's phenyalanine component. (Aspartame is made up of two amino acids, phenyalanine and aspartic acid.) He said that an excess of phenyalanine could upset the body's balance of neurotransmitters, causing a range of neurological symptoms.

Defenders of aspartame often point out that phenyalanine is naturally present in many protein-intensive foods. But Dr. William M. Pardridge, a professor of endocrinology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, says that when it comes from food, phenyalanine is absorbed into the brain more slowly.

"If your blood phenyalanine level was increased five times, in my view there would be a safety concern," Dr. Pardridge said. "The question is whether aspartame use could ever increase levels that much, and the answer is yes. We've known that for 20 years."

Dr. Soffritti said he had not studied the effects of phenyalanine. He theorized that the tumors in his study were related to the methanol, or wood alcohol, that is produced as the body metabolizes aspartame. When the body breaks down methanol, the result is formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. "I know that when I treat animals with methanol, you end up with lymphomas and leukemias," he said.

BUT Dr. Kenneth E. McMartin, a methanol expert and professor of pharmacology, toxicology and neuroscience at the Louisiana State University Medical Center, said he believed that it was unlikely that someone could consume enough aspartame to let harmful levels of formaldehyde build up in the body.

Dr. Soffritti said he thought that more research and open debate were needed on whether aspartame was a carcinogen. "It is very important to have scientists who are independent and not funded by industry looking at this," he said.

Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group, said he did not think that Dr. Soffritti's study could be considered definitive, but that it should prompt an "urgent re-examination.

"For a chemical that is used by hundreds of millions of people around the world, it should be absolutely safe," Mr. Jacobson said. "There shouldn't be a cloud of doubt."

Conflicting media messages: How Ads for Pharmaceuticals and Dangerous Foods Have Infiltrated Health Publications

by Alexis Black

A February 2006 issue of Prevention magazine features a young, fit, happy looking couple on its cover, surrounded by headlines like, "How to be (and stay) happy" and "18 best foods to fight disease." Taken at face value, the approximately 4.5 by 6.5-inch, full color booklet appears to be a publication dedicated to exactly what its title implies: "Preventing" disease and health problems. It's when you crack open the cover that the magazine begins to contradict itself.

Sure, there is some valuable content on the 216 pages that follow -- such as an article on using peppermint as a natural way to ease irritable bowel syndrome and a Q & A with Dr. Andrew Weil about preventing osteoporosis naturally -- but all this is interspersed with materials that have little to do with a truly healthy lifestyle, namely a lot of advertisements for prescription drugs.

Of course, this is how prescription drugs have come to be viewed in many Americans' minds -- as part of a healthy lifestyle. People think if they are treating their health ailments with drugs, they are taking responsibility for their health, when, in fact, the opposite is usually true. In reality, they are only masking the symptoms of whatever health problems they are experiencing, while neglecting to fix the real problem, which is usually related to diet or lifestyle.

But most people don't see this. They don't think of prescription drugs as a sign of health weakness, but rather as a means of taking care of themselves. For that reason, it probably comes as no surprise to find a whopping 33 pages of ads for pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter drugs in something called Prevention magazine. For those who know better, or who take the time to think about it, there is great irony in this.

Prescription drugs have no ability whatsoever to prevent disease; they are given to patients who already have the symptoms of disease and are simply looking to cover them up. So what are advertisements for drugs like Plavix, Nexium, Crestor and Vitorin -- accompanied by several pages of fine print -- doing in a magazine like this? It probably has a lot to do with how ubiquitous prescription drug ads have become in all avenues of the popular press these days.

It's true that, in modern medicine, the prevention of disease has taken a back seat to the treatment of disease, as conventional medical doctors focus more and more on treating the symptoms of illness rather than determining its root cause. This is reflected in the popular media by the huge numbers of direct-to-consumer drug ads aimed at convincing patients themselves to ask their doctors about this drug or that drug.

With the big bucks in the pharmaceutical advertising business, and the dependence of most media outlets on advertisers to keep them financially afloat, it's no wonder we see these ads almost everywhere. But Prevention magazine?

Clearly, there is something wrong with this picture. It's not just drugs that stand out as being unusual here. Prevention magazine contains ads for instant rice, white bread, condensed soup, cow's milk and sugary granola bars, all of which contain unhealthy ingredients and arguably contribute to chronic disease. In most cases, these are products labeled with nutritious-sounding claims like "heart healthy" or "all natural," making them appear appropriate for a magazine that is supposed to be about disease prevention. However, more often than not, these are just buzzwords designed to appeal to a mildly health conscious consumer. A quick glance at the product's actual ingredients, in most cases, shows they are not all they are cracked up to be.

While there are some advertisements in Prevention magazine for truly healthy foods -- like California almonds, for example -- they are few and far between. That's because most of the healthiest foods available, like fruits, vegetables and other natural foods, are never the ones that get a lot of attention. Heavily advertised foods are usually processed, sugary, generally unhealthy foods manufactured by extraordinarily wealthy companies.

What kind of mixed messages are we sending in this world when we present a publication called Prevention magazine filled with ads promoting prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs for the treatment of chronic diseases and other health woes? It is no wonder so many Americans are devastatingly confused about their health when they are facing these kinds of contradictions every day.

Pharmaceutical companies and junk food manufacturers have become overwhelmingly powerful forces in our modern world -- too powerful. They have even infiltrated Prevention magazine, which, taken without the ads, might actually be a valuable resource for individuals seeking health advice.

So, what can you do when faced with these sorts of contradictions? Most importantly, you must educate yourself and learn not to take things at face value. Just because something says it is "heart healthy" doesn't necessarily mean it is good for you, and just because something is called Prevention magazine doesn't necessarily mean it can be trusted as a guide to preventing diseases. Be wise. Think independently. Recognize the difference between disease prevention and disease treatment, and take your health into your own hands.

Vaccines the Subject of New Congressional Investigation

by Jon Brodkin

Congress has asked for a new investigation into a potential link between mercury-containing vaccines and autism, as some lawmakers claim the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has inadequately researched the topic.

"If the federal government is going to have a study whose results will be broadly accepted, such a study cannot be led by the CDC," Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and seven other members of Congress wrote in a letter to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

A budget appropriation approved by Congress urges the NIEHS to examine the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a CDC database that follows 7 million immunized children from 1990 to the present.

Some lawmakers believe a new review of this database may show a link between autism and thimerosal -- a vaccine preservative containing mercury.

A local parent who said he believes his two autistic children were harmed by vaccines applauded Congress for requesting a new investigation. The parent, Jared Hansen of Framingham, said he thinks the CDC is reluctant to expose dangers of thimerosal because the agency is responsible for ensuring public acceptance of its vaccination program.

"They've proven far more willing to overstate the risks of disease and understate the danger of vaccination," Hansen said. "No one in their right mind can say that giving mercury intravenously is a smart thing to do."

Autism rates soared during the 1990s when thimerosal was most heavily used in childhood vaccines. Levels of mercury injected into infants were 120 times greater than federal safety limits for oral ingestion of mercury, congressmen wrote to the NIEHS.

Government officials asked manufacturers in 1999 to remove the mercury-based preservative from vaccines, but it is still used in flu and tetanus shots.

CDC's research on the Vaccine Safety Datalink is flawed, Lieberman and his colleagues wrote, because it "was based on data collected prior to the removal of thimerosal and failed to explicitly compare the outcome of children who received thimerosal-containing vaccines with those who did not."

The CDC refused to comment on the criticism of its research.

But Dr. Marie McCormick, a Harvard professor who chaired an Institute of Medicine committee in 2004, said the group ran several analyses of the CDC data and found no link between thimerosal and autism.

"Nothing you could do changed the results," McCormick said. "The results of the...study have been replicated in England. They found no association between thimerosal and other neurodevelopmental disorders."

In the letter to NIEHS, members of Congress criticized the IOM for relying heavily on European data, even though American children were exposed to mercury at levels 75 percent greater than in Europe.

The letter was not signed by any Massachusetts congressmen. But U.S. Rep. Martin Meehan, D-5th, said he agrees with its content and would have signed on had he been aware it was being written.

"Mercury is known as a brain poison and in the 1990s a greater number of children were being exposed to mercury (in vaccines)," Meehan said. "I think this is a serious public health concern and we need more research."

A spokeswoman for the NIEHS could not be reached for comment.

Scientists Warn Parents on Pesticides and Plastics

Polly Curtis, health correspondent - Guardian

• Study suggests increased cancer risk in young
• Families 'should consider switch to organic diets'

Parents were warned on March 21, 2006 by researchers that levels of pesticides previously thought to be harmless could cause cancers in babies and young children.

Liverpool University scientists argue that low levels of chemicals from pesticides and plastics could affect the development of babies before they are born and increase their likelihood of developing cancer later in life.

The organochlorines also accumulate in breast milk, raising the possibility that babies are vulnerable while breastfeeding, Professor Vyvyan Howard and John Newby say.

The research will prove controversial as the link between low levels of pollutants and cancers has been disputed in the past. Cancer Research UK urged people to be cautious about the paper, which involved a systematic review of all the evidence to date, and called for further thorough investigation.

But the researchers claim the evidence suggested the link was "feasible" and enough for parents to consider switching to organic diets to avoid contamination. The authorities should revisit regulations on acceptable levels of chemicals, they argue.

Writing in the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, they say that research indicates that the dangers of pesticides for children have been underestimated. "We're talking about chemicals which could potentially cause cancer in children at parts per billion and parts per trillion levels, rather than parts per million and thousands," Professor Howard, who is on the government's advisory committee on pesticides, told the Guardian. "Preventative measures for these types of cancer have focused on educating the public about the danger of tobacco smoke, improving diet and promoting physical activity. We should now, however, be focusing on trying to reduce exposure to problematic chemicals."

He stressed that the benefits of breastfeeding still far outweigh any risk and parents should not be put off breastfeeding as a result of their analysis. The paper examines the evidence that some pesticides and plastics, which people are exposed to through food, air and water, can affect hormone production, leading to hormone-dependent malignancies, such as breast, testicular and prostate cancers.

It concludes that while population studies had not conclusively proved a link between lower levels of the potentially carcinogenic chemicals and people of any age, some animal studies have indicated the link.

There was further evidence that some people might be genetically predisposed to being vulnerable to the chemicals.

"It seems to be the most vulnerable members of society: the developing foetus, the developing child and adolescent and the genetically predisposed, who are at risk of developing cancer following involuntary exposure to environmental contaminants," the study says. "This may be an appropriate time for governments to adopt the precautionary principle until substances to which members of society are involuntarily exposed are proved safe from long-term, low-level effects on human health."

Professor John Toy, Cancer Research UK medical director, said: "People should not be alarmed by this study - it is a review of previously reported research and does not present new findings. The authors suggest that it is feasible that certain chemicals could be a factor in causing cancer but do not find compelling scientific evidence to prove a link."

Jamie Page, chairman of the Cancer Prevention and Education Society, which supported the research, said: "This research is very important and suggests that there are links between chemicals and cancer. It is our opinion that if progress is to be made in the fight against cancer, far more attention and effort must be made to reduce human exposure to harmful chemicals."

Peter Melchett, of the Soil Association, said the study echoed research conducted around the world. "Other research shows that children with organic diets have a big reduction in pesticide levels. If you want to avoid pesticides, eat organic."

FAQ Health concerns

What are organochlorines?

An umbrella term for a group of chemicals contained in pesticides and some plastics which are present in the environment and can accumulate in the body when contaminated food is eaten. They are believed to affect hormone production, which has raised concerns about links to hormone-related cancers, such as breast, prostate and testicular cancers.

How can you avoid them?

By eating organic food, according to the Soil Association. Although today's research says they can accumulate in breast milk, potentially putting babies at risk, the scientists stress that the benefits of breastfeeding still far outweigh any dangers. Washing fruit and vegetables thoroughly, and peeling them when you can might cut down on ingestion. However, Cancer Research UK, an authority on cancer research, stressed that people should not be alarmed by the research, which is based on existing research rather than new findings.

How are they regulated?

A government committee sets limits for the levels of pesticides which can be present in food. The researchers behind today's research are arguing that these need to be revisited because of evidence of a "feasible" link between lower levels and cancers in children.

Not 'Where's the Beef', but What's in the Beef

by LEXANDER LANE - Star-Ledger

Chicken manure, scraps from restaurant plates, melted animal fat, bovine blood products -- it's what's for dinner.

All are approved ingredients for cattle feed.

Antibiotics and hormones also are standard fare on the feedlots that dominate this country's $90 billion beef industry.

This diet, a mounting body of evidence suggests, is good for neither cows nor people, yielding meat high in unhealthy fat. Hence the latest must-have in the natural foods movement: grass-fed cattle.

A fledgling farming sector specializing in it has taken root in New Jersey, where farmers are always looking for a way to compete with the agricultural giants where the price of land isn't so expensive.

Three farmers in the state are raising significant quantities of grass-fed beef, with two of them launching operations in the past five years. As many as a few dozen smaller operations also have sprung up, said Jill Koehler, a federal grazing specialist assigned to New Jersey.

Last week on the Cherry Grove Farm in Lawrenceville, Kelly Harding looked as contented as his couple dozen cows as he watched them gnaw lazily on hay, depositing their own special fertilizer now and then on a pasture that should serve them well when the weather warms.

Harding, 40, is no hippie. He was raised on conventional farming in Maryland and got into the grass-fed business four years ago for economic reasons.

"It was just amazing to me," he said, gazing out on the pasture in denim overalls. "I didn't have to buy anything to feed my cattle."

WHAT A COW NEEDS

Feedlots provide the growth spurts on which today's beef industry depends.

Generally, small ranchers raise calves for a few months, until they're 700 pounds or so, and then send them for a six-month stay at a "concentrated animal feeding operation."

"We provide the cows with everything they could possibly need," said Gary Teague, who owns a feedlot in Fort Morgan, Colo., named Teague Diversified. "It's impossible to do that out on a large range."

Teague said his 16,000 resident cattle fatten up primarily on alfalfa hay, corn, and vitamin and mineral supplements.

But federal regulations also permit a variety of other ingredients, including melted animal fat of all kinds, chicken feathers and manure, and blood products from other cows. Heaping helpings of a medication called Rumensin trick the bovine stomachs into handling this protein-rich diet.

With thousands of cattle congregated in close quarters, cattlemen use government-approved antibiotics such as tetracycline to fight disease, according to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Growth hormones and steroids help the cows along.

By the time they head for the slaughterhouse, they've about doubled in weight, Teague said.

"We have been able to produce a product the consumer likes," he said. "They like the flavor; they like the tenderness; they like the juiciness. At the same time, they like the convenience and the price."

But a backlash is gaining steam, fueled by growing evidence that grass-fed beef is healthier.

After reviewing 25 studies on the subject, the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded last week that grain-fed beef is fattier, while beef and milk from grass-fed cattle contain higher levels of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid, which is believed to protect against cancer. The group said the levels were relatively small, but may be beneficial.

Other health concerns about conventional beef abound. A cow on an Alabama farm tested positive last week for mad cow disease, which is believed to be caused by cow cannibalism, a practice now banned with the exception of blood products. It was the third cow in the country to test positive for the disease.

Advocates for grass-fed beef support the practice also for environmental reasons. Concentrated animal feeding operations, which grew in number nationally by 51 percent to 15,500 from 1982 to 1997, can produce as much waste per day as a mid-size city.

On a pasture, much of that waste gets used.

"Pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers are completely unnecessary in our system," said Mary Jo Forbord, a fourth-generation Minnesota farmer who raises grass-fed beef.

Grass-fed livestock operations also preserve a pastoral landscape, said Karen Anderson of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey, which has been promoting the practice. Anderson said she is delighted to see dozens of smaller operators experimenting with grass feeding.

Mark Faille is not.

"Bandwagon jumpers," he calls them. "Glory seekers."

UNWELCOME COMPETITION

Faille, 42, raises 120 animals on 200 acres at New Jersey's largest grass-fed beef operation, Simply Grazin' in Montgomery Township.

The smaller startups elbowing into the business crowd him out of the state's only available slaughterhouse, Bringhurst Meats in Berlin, Faille said as he rode across the rolling hills of his farm in a pickup truck last week.

That aside, Faille said the notion of grass-fed beef saving New Jersey's agricultural sector is a pipe dream. He said the only reason he is able to survive is that the wealthy landowner from whom he rents agreed to build him a farm office, pay the taxes on the home he is building and fund other improvements.

"I'm a dying breed. I'm extinct," said Faille, a former air-conditioning contractor who got into grass feeding four years ago. "I'm only here because someone made me a museum to live in."

A major problem is land, Faille said. Pasture grazing "consumes acres and acres and acres, and you can't find that here," he said. "Things have to change in order for it to become a mainstream farming avenue."

Also, it takes him twice as long as a conventional rancher to raise a slaughter-ready animal.

There are bright spots, such as a healthy demand, Faille allowed. Terra Momo, a company that operates Princeton's Mediterra restaurant and other Central Jersey eateries, buys half of what Faille produces, with retail customers taking the rest. He said the meat is about 30 percent more expensive than what one would find at a good butcher, with ground beef going for $7 a pound and T-bones for $12.25.

Torrey Reade, the state's third major producer of grass-fed beef, was decidedly more optimistic about the sector than Faille.

Reade, whose beef, like Faille's, is organic, said she supplements her cattle's diet with a "modest amount of grain."

"What we have found is that our meat isn't as good if we don't feed a little bit of grain," said Reade, who keeps three dozen cattle or so. "It gets our animals through the winter looking halfway decent, so they hit spring without any health problems."

Reade, a former investment manager, has been grazing about three dozen animals at the 126-acre Neptune Farm in Lower Alloways Creek since 1992. Her primary customer is the White Dog Cafe, an upscale restaurant in Philadelphia.

She also sells to retail customers, who pay about $270 for a sixth of a cow, which is about 80 pounds after butchery. They may get organ meats -- and a lot of brisket -- along with their tenderloin. Nevertheless, Reade said she sells out and has a waiting list.

It provides her a modest living. The pay is nothing like her old job. But neither is the environment.

"The margin is not as fat as I like," Reade said. "But it's a nice way to live."

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia

by Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, ND, DACBN

Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome are two disorders that share a number of symptoms and are thus commonly confused with one another.  Fibromyalgia is a syndrome characterized by chronic pain.  Many people who suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome also report pain as one of their symptoms. Similarly, patients who are diagnosed with fibromyalgia often list fatigue as a common symptom.  These two conditions are defined interchangeably in medical literature. In fact, some researchers have even suggested that fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome are variations of the same pain and fatigue illness.  The diagnosis of either condition may depend on whether your health care provider is more familiar with the symptoms of fibromyalgia, as outlined by the American College of Rheumatology, or those for chronic fatigue syndrome, which were developed by the Center for Disease control and Prevention.  Read on to learn more about these two similar conditions and the deciding factors that distinguish one disorder from the other.

What is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome?

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a condition characterized primarily by prolonged, persistent, all encompassing fatigue that cannot be relieved or alleviated.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a diagnosis for chronic fatigue syndrome requires that the level of exhaustion is severe enough to cause at least a 50 percent decrease in the patient's ability to participate in ordinary activities. Like most autoimmune disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome occurs more frequently in women than in men.  It usually develops between the ages of thirty and fifty. In most cases lack of energy and exercise in chronic fatigue patients can lead to unexpected weight gain, if this is a problem, a good resource is www.weightlossobesity.com

Many of the symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome are similar to those associated with the flu, such as muscle aches, headache, and fatigue. However, with this disorder, these symptoms never actually seem to go away. The most notable symptom of chronic fatigue syndrome is a new onset of exhaustion that persists for at least six months and cannot be relieved or alleviated.  Other symptoms include forgetfulness, joint pain, low-grade fever, lymph node tenderness, muscle weakness and sore throat.  At present, chronic fatigue syndrome is treated with a combination of medications to alleviate each of the different symptoms.  A well-balanced diet and exercise are also recommended, however many patients who suffer from this condition find it difficult to prepare meals or exercise.

What Is Fibromyalgia Syndrome?

Sometimes called fibrositis, fibromyalgia syndrome is a condition characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain and fatigue.  People with fibromyalgia also generally experience stiffness in their joints and pain in at least eleven of the eighteen tender points on the body.  These tender points are located on parts of the body such as the neck, back, buttocks, shoulders and hips.  As with chronic fatigue syndrome, more women than men are afflicted with the condition, and it usually develops sometime in adulthood. Malabsorption of nutrients is common in fibromyalgia patients. Use a product called Oxy-Powder to keep the intestines and colon clean. More information is available at  www.colon-cleanse-constipation.com . Other symptoms of fibromyalgia include diminished cognitive ability, fatigue, sleep disorders, and depression. For more help with stress and depression associated with fibromyalgia go to www.stress-anxiety-depression.org

Fibromyalgia is usually treated with a combination of dietary changes, exercises, and over the counter pain remedies. A powerful topical pain formula to help relieve the joint stiffness and pain is available at www.nopaine.com

What's The Difference?

Research shows that between 50 percent and 70 percent of people with fibromyalgia also display the symptoms of chronic fatigue.  The reverse is also true. Because the symptoms are so similar, the difference between one diagnosis and another often rests in the specialty and education of the diagnosing physician.

Despite their similarities, there are a few documented differences between fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. Although the exact cause of either condition is unknown, fibromyalgia is often linked to a previous injury or physical trauma, whereas chronic fatigue syndrome usually begins with the flu or other viral infection. In addition, the severity of symptoms is different in these two conditions. Patients who suffer from fibromyalgia may experience exhaustion, but this is different from the incurable, all-encompassing fatigue of chronic fatigue syndrome. Similarly, patients with chronic fatigue syndrome may experience widespread pain but not the tender point pain characteristic of fibromyalgia.  Researchers have also found that people with fibromyalgia may have a chemical imbalance that disrupts the body's ability to transmit and respond to pain signals.

Until researchers are able to untangle the exact fundamental biological, neurological and psychological differences between these two syndromes, their diagnosis and treatment methods may continue to be intermingled.

Diagnosing Yourself

If you think you may be suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia, it is important for you to be evaluated by a health care professional. Your doctor will take a close look at your medical history as well as your symptoms to help you determine which syndrome is at the root of your symptoms.  Be sure to discuss with your doctor any concerns you may have about your condition and the possible treatment methods you could use to work towards recovery.

Dr. Group's new product Fibro Balance™ is now available at www.fibrobalance.com.

Outsourcing Food Safety

by y Luise Light - Crusador - April 2006

Survival in the 21st century is going to mean eating and drinking very carefully and taking nothing for granted.

Once the envy of the world, our national food safety standards are in tatters from decades of corporate attacks and maneuvering to shred them. The latest attempt by global food corporations and their government minions to dismantle U.S. food safety protections is a bill (H.R. 4167, "The National Uniformity for Food Act") now before Congress.

Undoing Food Safety Protections

Twelve different federal agencies have jurisdiction over food safety, with the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA carrying most of the burden. But it's the states that are most pro-active and, many would say, most progressive in protecting consumers against food hazards. The new bill, HR 4167, pre-empts all state food safety regulations that differ from those of the federal government, even in areas in which the federal government has failed to act. Currently, four out of every five food safety regulations in the United States are written at the state level and there is no chance that the FDA has the manpower or even the will to take over that burden. It is estimated that more than150 regulations across 50 states are likely to be killed if the bill passes. States would be allowed to petition for some exemptions, but there is little chance of success as both the federal government and the food industry want to minimize rather than expand government's role in domestic food safety in order to grease the skids for lower global standards, as shown by their recent efforts to harmonize food trade rules under Codex Alimentarius.

Global is the New Local

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) in Rome is one of the international standard-setting bodies recognized by both NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the designated body for setting global food standards. Originally developed under a UN charter to help Third World countries develop their own food standards in order to improve their abilities to participate in global trade, Codex has now been taken over by the world's biggest agribusiness, chemical and food corporations. Their participation, invited by their governments, is to promote "harmonization" of global trade rules in ways that favor their own brands and products.

Expanding Executive Powers

The irony of this attempt to harmonize and centralize U.S. food safety rules is that it has been the state health departments, historically, who have pioneered food safety rules for this country and the world. They have been the first to spot problems and develop solutions for emerging public health and food safety threats. They are the closest to ground zero when people get sick and are the first to investigate, find the source of the problem, and act to contain the damage before it blossoms into a full-scale epidemic. The federal government has been notoriously slow to act in dealing with emerging hazards of all kinds, from E. coli to Mad Cow disease, even though delays usually mean exposing countless numbers of people to dangers of which they are unaware.
That has been the case in hundreds of regional, food poisoning outbreaks caused by emerging pathogens in common foods such as hamburger, chicken, sausage, cheese, ice cream, fresh Basil, alfalfa sprouts, baby lettuces, fruit juices, strawberries, and raspberries. Today, we see the fruits of our bifurcated food safety system in the tangled web of regulations governing Mad Cow disease. The federal role in safeguarding consumers from this always fatal illness has had a "now you see it, now you don't" quality because federal leaders and meat industry executives tend to run for cover rather than deal directly with this "hot potato" issue.

"Tragically, we have upset the subtle ecological balance of the food chain, and we have only begun to pay the price," says Nichols Fox, author of a book ("Spoiled") about why our food is making us sicker and what we can do about it. Fox argues that knowledge is power but most Americans don't know how their food is produced, processed, and distributed so they have no way of protecting themselves from hidden dangers when the FDA has failed to act. That often has been the case when new threats emerge. It is true today for the carcinogenic food additive acrylamide, which I've written about in these pages in the past, The World Health Organization has urged food companies to remove acrylamide from their products, with little effect in the U.S. where it is not on the FDA's radar screen.

States Fix Federal Shortcomings

Under HR 4167, the federal government's failure to warn consumers about acrylamide would mean that the food industry is under no obligation to inform consumers about the dangers of consuming acrylamide-containing foods, labeling acrylamide content, or removing the carcinogen from their food products. The state of California is pursuing an anti-acrylamide lawsuit that would have to be dropped were HR 4167 to be passed by the Congress; the state would be barred from pursuing the issue further.

This is just one example of how the "National Uniformity for Food Act," would deconstruct some of the most important consumer health protections and gift-wrap an early Christmas present for the food industry. Other examples of food safety rules that would be killed by passage of the bill include Alaska's requirement that food shoppers must be told that salmon is farm-raised; Minnesota's rule that candy labels must say if alcohol is an ingredient, and Michigan's rule that bulk foods made with sulfites must carry warning labels for allergy sufferers.
     Many states publish warnings and require special labels to alert consumers to newly detected hazards of local/regional concern. A recent review of public health warnings issued by the state of California serves as an example. In the months of January and February 2006, the California state health department issued reports on the dangers of contaminants at a chrome plating plant, pathogens in certain brands of fruit juice and infant teething rings, and contamination in a brand of infant formulas. Under HR 4167, they would all go away.

California has been a leader in setting rigorous environmental and food safety enforcement standards. According to Bill Lockyer, the California attorney-general, HR 4167 will "Drag our public health protection laws down to the lowest common denominator."

One of the most damaging affects of the pending law would be to write off California's Proposition 65, one of the strictest food safety laws in the country, a 20-year old statute that requires food companies to place warning labels on food products containing chemicals that are known to cause cancer or harm reproductive systems. It has been critically important in removing lead from imported products such as candy and alerting consumers about the mercury content of fish. But it has been a continuing source of conflict between state and federal regulators. HR 4167 will end those conflicts.

Preserving the Right to Protect Citizens

The Food Uniformity Law (HR 4167) was written by food lobbyists who were asked, at the beginning of the G. W. Bush Administration to identify the laws and regulations they would most like to see eliminated. In the age of global trade, getting rid of strict food safety standards is seen as removing barriers to trade that disadvantage American corporations. The more our food products conform to those of Bangladesh, Bhopal and Baghdad, the more effectively they will compete in global markets, free traders believe. If this idea wasn't so tragic for American (and global) consumers, this outsourcing of food safety standards would sound like a theme from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

We appear to be returning to another era like that of the robber barons and oligarchs of the nineteenth century, the splendid Age of Long Ago when commercial injuries to the health and wallets of people went largely unnoticed and unpunished. That time of deadly mayhem on the streets of our cities was the inspiration for the original Pure Food and Drug Act enacted by Congress in 1906. Now, exactly 100 years later, federal oversight of food safety is a demoralized patchwork of laws and rules that can't cope with emerging pathogens, synthetic additives, and environmental hazards-those that are known, and those that have never been studied -and will never be under this bill. But don't take my word for it.

Defending the Consumer's Right to Know

Consumers Union (CU), the non-profit, independent publisher of Consumer Reports, is strongly opposed to HR 4167. The organization is on record stating, "This bill would eliminate critical state laws that protect consumer health while leaving in place an inadequate federal system based on the lowest common denominator of protection. HR 4167 is uniformly bad for consumers. We urge you to oppose this bill." The outcry from CU and members of the Organic Consumers Association scored a temporary reprieve for the bill, with little fanfare, scheduled to be voted on by the House of Representatives on March 2, 2006 but postponed for a week after members received over 50,000 calls and messages in a single day as soon as it became known that HR 4167 was up for a vote.

The bill is opposed by dozens of environmental, consumer and public health groups, including the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the Association of Food and Drug Officials, the National Conference of State Legislators and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture. The bill will be brought up for a vote as soon as the ruckus about it dies down. Two hundred and twenty six (226) members of the House have signed on as sponsors of the bill and fat-cat lobbyists are salivating at the prospect of operating in a world with 80 percent fewer food regulations. If this power-grab by the food industry becomes law, it marks the end of meaningful food safety regulations in this country and consumers' freedom of choice. Tell your US senators to say no when HR 4167 comes back, so it doesn't come back to haunt us and them.

(This article will appear in The Health Crusador, in April, 2006)

Facts on Food Poisoning:

1. 76 million illnesses annually in the U.S. are caused by contaminated food.
2. 325,000 hospitalizations occur each year as the result of complications of eating contaminated food.
3. Nine thousand people in the U.S. die each year from food poisoning.
4. People most at-risk are pregnant women, children, those with compromised immune systems, and the elderly.
5. Common causes of food poisoning are: microbial contamination, pesticides, heavy metals, and chemical contaminants and pollutants.
6. Food-borne diseases commonly affect the gastrointestinal, neurological, and respiratory systems.

Fast Facts About Food Safety

1. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 80 percent of food-borne illnesses come from meals eaten or made outside of the home. The rest come from groceries brought into the home.
2. An outbreak is defined as more than 2 people becoming sick after eating or drinking a common food, dish or beverage.
3. An estimated 273 billion meals are served commercially each year. Most are considered safe although most contain untested food additives and ingredients that have long-term implications for health.
4. Symptoms of food-related illnesses are any or all of these: GI inflammation, nausea, vomiting, cramps, gassiness, diarrhea, fever, vertigo, and flu-like aches and pains. "Stomach flu" is almost all due to illness caused by consuming contaminated or infected foods and drinks.
5. Severity of symptoms varies with the virulence of the pathogen or poison, the amount consumed, individual susceptibility and health. Severe cases should be treated by an MD on an emergency basis. Mild cases are resolved in short periods of time.
6. Don't take any OTC medications including those for diarrhea until you see your physician. They can make illnesses worse.
7. Be sure to hydrate yourself as soon as you can keep fluids down.

It's Time to Talk About the Trouble With Tampons

Somewhere in one of the endless alternate universes that physicists say may exist, we're sure it's the guys who have the periods. Each month, when their "manstrual cycle" comes, we're equally certain they sit around swilling bad beer, sympathizing with the linebacker who missed the game thanks to cramps, and boasting about their flow rates and just how maxi their "manses" are. We're also sure in this alternate universe that they've fixed the trouble with tampons, since, you know... the president of the tampon company uses 'em, too. Unfortunately, here in our own dimension, tampons still have some serious shortcomings. The good news is that all the knowledge you need to protect yourself is right here.

Tampons are big business in the U.S. Used by roughly 73 million American women, each year consumers spend $2 billion on tampons. Over the course of her lifetime, the average woman will use between 5,000 and 9,000 tampons and spend, according to Tambrands, the makers of Tampax tampons, $2,137. Women on estrogen replacement therapy will use many thousands more.

With all these women placing all these tampons within one of the most porous and highly absorbent mucous membranes their bodies contain, you'd think they would be among the safest products on the planet. Unfortunately, you'd be wrong.

In fact, conventional tampons hide a number of hazards within their brilliant white fibers, and though these fibers would seem on their apparently unsullied surface to offer a promise of purity and health, they're ironically where all the trouble starts.

Though you won't find this information on product labels, tampon makers use two kinds of material in their products: cotton and/or viscose rayon. According to a 2001 article in E magazine, Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers of the OB, Carefree, and Stayfree brands, and Kimberly Clark, maker of Kotex, use a cotton/rayon blend in their products. Playtex uses rayon alone, and Proctor and Gamble's Tampax brand uses both cotton/rayon blends and rayon alone.

1. Ill-Gotten Cotton

The use of cotton in tampons is a concern because manufacturers of mainstream brands refuse to use organic fibers. Instead, they rely on supplies of conventional cotton, one of the most chemically intensive crops in the world.

According to recent figures, some 84 million pounds of pesticides are sprayed on the 14.4 million acres of conventional cotton grown each year in the U.S., the world's second largest cotton producer. Globally, cotton growers account for approximately 25% of the world's total insecticide use and 10% of all insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, defoliants, and growth regulators combined. These chemicals are some of the most toxic used in agriculture. Here in the U.S., 25 % of all pesticides used are sprayed on cotton, and the EPA has variously declared seven of the top 15 of these chemicals to be "possible," "likely," "probable," or "known" human carcinogens. A third of a pound of these pesticides is used to grow the amount of cotton found in just one tee shirt.

Through its unsustainable use of conventional cotton, the tampon industry contributes to the pollution these poisons create and the serious health problems they cause. Simply put, because their raw materials are sourced from conventional crops, tampons are responsible for polluting the environment with dangerous toxins. This, in turn, has a negative impact on the health of their users and everyone else living in a world contaminated by pesticides.

The good news is that it's doubtful that the pesticides applied to cotton crops survive the harvest and manufacturing processes, and so are generally unlikely to remain on any fibers found in finished tampons. However, a search of available literature was unable to identify any research that could either confirm or deny this point. Until such time as reliable peer-reviewed studies are able to verify that tampons are free of pesticide residues, a properly precautionary approach to their use dictates that we assume that this possibility exists.

2. The Shocking Word on Rayon

Knowing the problems surrounding conventional cotton, does that mean that viscose rayon is a better choice? In a word, no. There are two basic issues with tampons that contain rayon, a cellulose fiber obtained from wood pulp.

First, rayon contributes to the risk of toxic shock syndrome (TSS). Many readers may remember the frightening epidemic of this deadly condition in the early 1980s. The cause was the introduction of a number of synthetic fibers used to increase absorbency in a new breed of tampon, including polyester, carboxymethylcellulose, polyacrylate rayon, and viscose rayon. Alarmed by reports of otherwise healthy young women suddenly succumbing to a catastrophic onslaught of life-threatening symptoms after using these new tampons, medical researchers looked into the matter and discovered that the new fibers created ideal conditions for a bacteria called Staphylococcus aureus to produce increased amounts of the toxin that causes TSS. The tampons absorbed more liquid, which left behind concentrated amounts of the proteins that the bacteria needed to produce their poison.

Panicked manufacturers quickly pulled three of these fibers from their products, but continued to use viscose rayon. A 1994 study conducted by researchers at New York University Medical Center found that while viscose rayon amplifies the production of TSS toxins to a lesser degree than carboxymethylcellulose, polyacrylate rayon or polyester and so presents less of a threat of TSS, it nonetheless still poses a greater risk when compared to 100% cotton tampons, which researchers found to have little or no enhanced risk of TSS and have therefore declared the safest choice.

TSS is a risk no matter what kind of tampon, however, and any tampon user should learn the TSS warning signs.

3. A Dose of Dioxin

In addition to increasing the risk of TSS, rayon has another significant disadvantage. It's bleached with chlorine, and chlorine bleaching of wood pulp creates chlorinated hydrocarbons, a hazardous family of inadvertent byproducts that includes dioxins, some of the most toxic substances known. Dioxins have been linked to cancer, hormonal disruption, immune system dysfunction, diabetes, and most alarmingly where tampons are concerned, developmental disorders like birth defects and reproductive problems like endometriosis. Of further concern is the fact that dioxins exhibit toxic effects at exposure levels hundreds of thousands of times lower than most other chemicals. When it comes to dioxins, it takes very little to do a great deal of harm, and leading toxicologists have declared exposure to these chemicals to be unsafe at any level.

In 1992, the congressional subcommittee that oversees the Food and Drug Administrations discovered a series of memos that detailed the discovery of traces of dioxins in tampons, which resulted from the rayon bleaching process. According to the memos, the FDA categorized the odds that dioxins could be found in any given tampon as "quite high." While the agency publicly declared that the risks presented by dioxins in tampons were small compared to the risks from waste incinerators, fatty foods and other sources, the internal memos went on to declare that "the most effective risk-management strategy would be to assure that tampons... contain no dioxin.'' Even more revealing was a line that the agency had stricken from its final report concerning dioxins and medical devices. (The FDA regulates tampons as a medical device.) The statement said, "it appears that the most significant risks [of dioxin exposure from medical devices] may occur in tampon products."

It's telling that the FDA currently requires tampon manufacturers to monitor the dioxin levels in their products. Equally telling is the fact that manufacturers aren't telling us what those levels are. In fact, it's difficult, if not impossible, to locate any government or manufacturer data on dioxins in tampons. Private tests conducted on 10 Playtex brand tampons and reported in the Roseville California Press Tribune in 1998, however, revealed an average of between .6 to .7 picograms of dioxin in each tested tampon. (A picogram is a trillionth of a gram, which is equivalent to one drop of detergent in the amount of dishwater required to fill a train of tank cars 6 miles long. For most substances, such levels in tampons would be fairly easily to dismiss. However, because dioxins can cause toxic effects at levels hundreds of thousands of times lower than most other chemical compounds, it's a finding of some concern.)

In response to these worries, the tampon industry has switched to a rayon bleaching process called elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching. This method replaces elemental chlorine gas with chlorine dioxide, a chemical consisting of two oxygen atoms bound to a chlorine atom. Chlorine dioxide is far less reactive with organic materials. With no pure chlorine involved, its substitution should theoretically result in a virtually dioxin free end result. However, studies show that this is not the case for two reasons: First, commercial manufacturing of chlorine dioxide does not produce a pure product. Most, if not all, batches of this chemical are contaminated with a certain amount of elemental chlorine. Two, in real world conditions, chemical reactions that take place during the bleaching process free elemental chlorine atoms from some of the chlorine dioxide molecules, which further increases the bleach bath's burden of elemental chlorine. It's for this reason that the Worldwatch Institute has referred to ECF bleaching as a "low-tar cigarette" strategy. It lowers the amount of dioxins created, but does not eliminate this contamination completely.

4. Pulling the Plug on Conventional Tampons

In addition to dioxin-contaminated rayon and pesticide-soaked cotton, tampons contain any number of other ingredients with which healthy women shouldn't get intimate. These include absorbency enhancers, unnecessary synthetic deodorants, and artificial fragrances. Clearly, calling conventional tampons a form of feminine protection is a bit of a misnomer. That's why women's health advocates recommend using 100% organic cotton tampons free of additives instead. This safer alternative keeps dioxins and other unsavory things away.

In addition, we urge all our readers to ask their congressional delegations to support HR 3411, the Robin Danielson Act, which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Caroline Maloney (D-NY) in July of 2005. Currently stuck in committee, this bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a program of research regarding the risks posed by the presence of dioxin, synthetic fibers, and other additives in feminine hygiene products, and mandate a program to collect and analyze data on toxic shock syndrome.

For more information on this legislation visit http://www.house.gov/maloney/issues/tamponsum.html.

Call to Action...
Attention Retailers, Activists and Concerned Citizens

On April 8th, there will be a global protest against GMOs. The event is called the Joint International GMO Opposition Day.

Here in the United States, we are asking you to participate in two important events:

1) National Call-In Day, Thursday, April 6th - For More Information: National Call-In Day, Thursday, April 6th
Call your members of Congress asking for...
a) Support of mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods
b) Adequate safety testing of genetically engineered foods
c) Congressional hearings into why the USDA is allowing the contamination of organic crops from genetically engineered crops

2) National Write-In Day, Saturday, April 8th - For More Information: National Write-In Day, Saturday, April 8th
Send letters to your member of Congress...
Ask your House Representatives and two Senators to support the "Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act." Letters are available on The Campaign's web site. We are asking retailers to put up letter-writing stations in their stores on April 8th to draw attention for the need to pass mandatory labeling legislation.

Editor-In-Chief: Dr. Edward F Group III, DC, ND, DACBN
Executive / Managing Editor: Dr. Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP

Published monthly by:
Global Healing Center, Inc.
2040 North Loop West Suite 108
Houston TX 77018
713.476.0016   |   800.476.0016
www.ghchealth.com

Questions or Comments? staff@ghchealth.com

Check out our websites for more advice and information on improving your health at www.ghchealth.com, www.oxypowder.com, or www.colon-cleanse-constipation.com.

Required disclaimer: Any statements in this newsletter have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Our products are not intended to diagnose, cure, treat, or prevent any disease.

"There is tremendous power not only in the words that we speak to others, but also the words that we 'speak' to ourselves. Repeat the following affirmations to yourself daily: I love and thank you GOD right NOW and every second of every day for everything you do for me; God gives me abundance to BLESS, TEACH and LOVE other people NOW and every second of every day; I forgive myself and others right NOW for any negative thoughts, wrongdoings or actions; I am living In Perfect Health - My cells are filled with God's Light, Sound and Blessings right NOW and every second of every day."
--Dr. Edward F. Group, III, DC, ND, DACBN

Past Issues

Missed Previous Issues of Alternative Health & Healing?
Read Archives Below:

Resource Centers

GHC Products