http://www.naturalnews.com/027286_HFCS_food_honey.html
Mike Adams
Natural News
Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:00 EDT
If it kills honey bees, could it damage the brains of children?
If you know anything about the food supply, you know that honey bees are a crucial part of the food production chain. In the United States, they pollinate roughly one-third of all the crops we eat, and without them, we'd be facing a disastrous collapse in viable food production.
That's why, when honey bees started to disappear a few years ago, scientists scrambled to find the root cause of the phenomenon, which has since been dubbed "Colony Collapse Disorder."
The name is a bit of a misnomer, though. It's not really a "disorder." It's more of a poisoning. Or at least that's what we may be learning from new research that's just been published in the ACS' Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
It's been difficult, of course, trying to determine the cause of colony collapse disorder. Some of the suggested theories for explaining the phenomenon included chemical contamination from pesticides, genetic contamination from genetically modified crops, changes in the Earth's magnetic field, climate change and air pollution. In an attempt to nail down some scientific answers, researchers from the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Tucson, Arizona joined with other researchers in New Orleans and the University of Wisconsin to check out another possible culprit: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
HFCS, as you may already know, is a processed, liquid sweetener used in disturbingly large amounts throughout the global food supply. You can find it in not just sodas, but pizza sauce, salad dressings and even whole wheat bread. It's in breakfast cereals, food bars, peanut butter, ketchup and a thousand other products.
There are two reasons why you find HFCS in so many food products:
1) It's sweet.
2) It's cheap.
It is for these same two reasons that high-fructose corn syrup is fed to honey bees. It provides them the sugar calories to stay active without resulting in a huge cost for the beekeeper. That's why HFCS has been used for decades as a food source for honey bees.
But this very food source may, in fact, be poisoning the bees.
HFCS forms hydroxymethylfurfural
What these USDA researchers discovered is that when HFCS is heated, it forms hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), a chemical that can kill honey bees. The production of HMF during cooking rose in parallel to the temperatures to which HFCS was exposed.
To put it plainly, when you cook HFCS, it becomes contaminated with HMF. And according to the research, levels of HMF "jumped dramatically" when temperatures rose above 120 degrees Fahrenheit (which isn't very hot, by the way).
This is similar to the way in which browning or frying carbohydrates produces acrylamides, a cancer-causing chemical that's also ubiquitous in the food supply.
The upshot is that HMF could be part of the reason why honey bees are dying off. Feeding a chemical contaminant to your bees, after all, doesn't sound like a good way to support their long-term health. But if HFCS has been fed to honey bees for decades, why the sudden collapse of bee populations in just the last few years?
We don't know the answers to that yet, but HMF is likely only part of the picture. It could be that honey bees are already stressed from pesticides, GM crops and other environmental sources. With their chemical burdens already maxed out, one additional dietary stressor might have just pushed them over the edge. There's a limit, of course, to how much chemical stress any biological organism can tolerate, and honey bees appear to have been pushed one chemical too far.
Perhaps hydroxymethylfurfural will one day be known as "the chemical that killed the honey bees."
You can read a bit more about this chemical on Wikipedia.
Could HMF harm humans, too?
Beyond the issue of honey bees, this research on HFCS and HMF raises some potentially serious questions about the use of the ingredient in the human food supply:
Is HMF toxic to humans?
If it kills honey bees, could it damage the brains of children? Could it disrupt normal neurological function in the human body? And if so, might this help explain why so much research links HFCS to diabetes and obesity?
The researchers from this particular study stated that "...the data from this study are important for human health as well." They also went on to state two very important facts you need to be aware of:
Fact #1) HMF has been linked to DNA damage in humans.
Fact #2) When HMF breaks down in the human body, it breaks down into substances that may be even more harmful than the HMF itself. (Similar to the way in which aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde, formic acid and other potentially harmful chemicals.)
These are bombshell revelations about the potential dangers of high-fructose corn syrup. There's no such thing as "raw" or "cold-pressed" HFCS. It's all subjected to high temperatures during processing, meaning that all HFCS may be generating some level of the HMF contaminant before it's even put into foods.
And then, once it's added to manufactured food items, it's often cooked again! This second cooking could theoretically generate even more HMF, further contaminating the food with potentially dangerous chemicals.
Perhaps when you eat HFCS, you're consuming a chemical that "scrambles" health intracellular communication, causing physiological disruptions that, if allowed to continue for long enough, are expressed as diseases like "diabetes" or "obesity." We don't know this for sure, but it's a question that clearly needs to be asked... especially given the tremendous quantities of HFCS currently consumed in the diets of mainstream consumers.
How to protect yourself
There are two ways to protect yourself from all this:
1) Don't eat (or drink) high-fructose corn syrup! This is seemingly the easiest way to avoid the potential danger here, but it does require a level of vigilance with the reading of food labels. HFCS is found in many products you would never suspect, so you've got to watch for it carefully.
2) Don't eat cooked, processed foods! Work more raw foods into your diet and greatly reduce your consumption of factory foods.
And finally, don't believe the spin of the HFCS industry. Those lobbying groups will always insist HFCS is perfectly safe, regardless of what research concludes otherwise. They act a lot like Big Tobacco, in my opinion, criticizing good research while promoting a product that can contribute to the decline of health among those who consume it.
The sooner we get HFCS out of the diet of both humans and honey bees, the better off we'll all be in the long run. In my view, eating raw, dehydrated cane juice crystals is far better for you than eating cooked, contaminated HFCS.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Blueberries Improve Memory, Slow Aging and Much More
http://www.NaturalNews.com/z028192_blueberries_memory.html
February 18 2010
by Luella May, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Blueberries are one of the richest sources of antioxidants, the natural substances that fight damage caused by free radicals. In addition to helping prevent memory loss, these versatile and delicious berries have been shown to be effective in fighting chronic degenerative diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, muscular degeneration, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
The flavonoids contained in blueberries are thought to be responsible for these effects. Although it is not clear as to how flavonoids affect the brain, it has been shown that they are absorbed in the blood stream, crossing the blood/brain barrier. This enables them to influence regions involving memory and motor function. The researchers explained that it is thought to enhance neural connections, thereby improving cellular communication and stimulating neural regeneration.
Blueberries have been shown to be instrumental in protecting the brain from free radicals, radiation, inflammation, and excitotoxicity. Additionally, blueberries may reverse decline in cognitive and motor function. In addition to its anti-aging properties, blueberries are also high in Vitamin C and Vitamin E.
A recent study at the University of Cincinnati found that drinking a couple of cups of blueberry juice each day may give aging memories a boost. The study was led by Robert Krikorian, PhD and Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, and was published in the American Chemical Society's Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. In the study, people in their 70's with age-related memory problems were tested for learning and memory. One group of volunteers drank 16 to 20 ounces of a commercial blueberry juice every day for two months while the control group drank a non-juice beverage.
At the end of the study, the group of volunteers who drank blueberry juice showed significant improvements on tests for learning and memory compared to the control group. The study scientists concluded that the preliminary findings were encouraging and that "consistent supplementation with blueberries might offer an approach to forestall or mitigate neurodegeneration."
Previous animal studies had indicated that blueberries may help aging memories, but until the recent study, there had been little actual testing of blueberries' effect on people. The study also indicated that blueberries are linked to lessening depression symptoms and lowering glucose levels.
Another plus is that blueberries contain a compound called pterostilbene which may be effective in lowering cholesterol. A test conducted by Dr. Agnes M. Rimando, a research chemist for the Federal Department of Agriculture in Oxford, Mississippi, found that pterostilbene activates a cell receptor that participates in lowering cholesterol and other blood fats.
An additional study published in The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry and performed by researchers from Florida State University and Oklahoma State University found that blueberries can even be instrumental in preventing osteoporosis. This study showed that nutrients in blueberries may be responsible for preventing bones from weakening after menopause. In this study, ovaries were removed from rats in order to simulate menopause. While the control group showed bone loss, the group given blueberries retained their bone mass.
Ongoing research at Rutgers University in New Jersey has isolated other compounds called proanthocyanidins which promote urinary tract health by preventing bacteria from attaching to the urinary tract walls.
Scientists recommend consuming the whole fruit rather than just drinking the juice or taking blueberry extract capsules. The reason for this is that it is not known what part of the blueberry contains all its nutrients and antioxidants.
February 18 2010
by Luella May, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Blueberries are one of the richest sources of antioxidants, the natural substances that fight damage caused by free radicals. In addition to helping prevent memory loss, these versatile and delicious berries have been shown to be effective in fighting chronic degenerative diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, muscular degeneration, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
The flavonoids contained in blueberries are thought to be responsible for these effects. Although it is not clear as to how flavonoids affect the brain, it has been shown that they are absorbed in the blood stream, crossing the blood/brain barrier. This enables them to influence regions involving memory and motor function. The researchers explained that it is thought to enhance neural connections, thereby improving cellular communication and stimulating neural regeneration.
Blueberries have been shown to be instrumental in protecting the brain from free radicals, radiation, inflammation, and excitotoxicity. Additionally, blueberries may reverse decline in cognitive and motor function. In addition to its anti-aging properties, blueberries are also high in Vitamin C and Vitamin E.
A recent study at the University of Cincinnati found that drinking a couple of cups of blueberry juice each day may give aging memories a boost. The study was led by Robert Krikorian, PhD and Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, and was published in the American Chemical Society's Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. In the study, people in their 70's with age-related memory problems were tested for learning and memory. One group of volunteers drank 16 to 20 ounces of a commercial blueberry juice every day for two months while the control group drank a non-juice beverage.
At the end of the study, the group of volunteers who drank blueberry juice showed significant improvements on tests for learning and memory compared to the control group. The study scientists concluded that the preliminary findings were encouraging and that "consistent supplementation with blueberries might offer an approach to forestall or mitigate neurodegeneration."
Previous animal studies had indicated that blueberries may help aging memories, but until the recent study, there had been little actual testing of blueberries' effect on people. The study also indicated that blueberries are linked to lessening depression symptoms and lowering glucose levels.
Another plus is that blueberries contain a compound called pterostilbene which may be effective in lowering cholesterol. A test conducted by Dr. Agnes M. Rimando, a research chemist for the Federal Department of Agriculture in Oxford, Mississippi, found that pterostilbene activates a cell receptor that participates in lowering cholesterol and other blood fats.
An additional study published in The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry and performed by researchers from Florida State University and Oklahoma State University found that blueberries can even be instrumental in preventing osteoporosis. This study showed that nutrients in blueberries may be responsible for preventing bones from weakening after menopause. In this study, ovaries were removed from rats in order to simulate menopause. While the control group showed bone loss, the group given blueberries retained their bone mass.
Ongoing research at Rutgers University in New Jersey has isolated other compounds called proanthocyanidins which promote urinary tract health by preventing bacteria from attaching to the urinary tract walls.
Scientists recommend consuming the whole fruit rather than just drinking the juice or taking blueberry extract capsules. The reason for this is that it is not known what part of the blueberry contains all its nutrients and antioxidants.
Anti-Aging Pill: Super Gene Discovery Leads to Fruitless Attempts to Mimic Nature
http://www.NaturalNews.com/z028169_anti-aging_discovery.html
February 16 2010
by Marek Doyle, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Scientists continued their obsession with pill-based cures today as they announced a breakthrough in their ambitions to 'revolutionise.' They discovered three so-called `super-genes` that are linked to increased longevity and reduced risk of senility though their effect on insulin signaling. Whilst many will consider the research to simply document the importance of insulin sensitivity in aging, the researchers clearly feel that reducing dietary sugar is too radical. Instead, they hope to produce a drug to mimic the genetic benefits and aim to have the product ready for testing within three years.
Dr Nir Barzilai, the lead scientist, was upbeat about the discovery: "The advantage of finding a gene that involves longevity is we can develop a drug that will imitate what this gene is doing. If we can imitate that, then long life can be terrific."
Moral issues aside, the scientist`s enthusiasm is understandable, given the potential meaning of his work. However, upon analysis, the impact of this research seems very unlikely to change society in any meaningful way, even if a drug makes it to testing stage. The scientists went on to explain that they have identified three genes known to be present in Ashkenazi Jews residing in New York. Carriers of these genes have a 1 in 500 chance of making it to 100 - which is significantly higher than the odds of non-carriers making it a century, currently 1 in 10,000 - and they have a reduced propensity for developing high cholesterol, diabetes. The incidence rate of senility amongst carriers is also less. Whilst the newspaper reports were keen to point out the increased health seen in the Ashkenazi Jews studied, there was no discussion of the increased rates of specific diseases amongst this ethnic group.
Based on the research currently available, the increased longevity and resistance to chronic disease can be explained fully by the gene conferring improved insulin sensitivity upon the carrier. Impaired insulin signaling has been shown to increase systemic inflammation, cause mismanagement of lipids, and increase risk of cancer and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer`s.
Despite this potentially simple explanation and the resources likely to be invested in coming years into developing some sort of drug to mimic the gene, there currently are no plans to compare the biomarkers observed with a low sugar diet against those found in Ashkenazi Jews. Neither is there likely to be any research done on the relationship of these super-genes to the increased incidence of inherited disease amongst the Ashkenazi populations; conditions include Gaucher disease and cystic fibrosis. This selective study fits the Big Pharma research model, whereby the results of a team of keen scientists trigger massive spending on a complex, expensive and ultimately fruitless quest to mimic nature.
True to form, the charities were equally selective in their optimistic view of the news. On the discovery of the so-called supergene, Professor Judith Phillips said: "It`s a huge opportunity because the ageing population is growing anyway." The president of the British Society of Gerontology said the discovery would change how people look at growing old: "They would be a huge resource because people would be able to work longer and they would have to healthier life, and it would revolutionise the way we look at older people. And it would reduce costs in terms of care."
With these benefits in the offing, the multi-million pound costs to develop a drug suddenly seem less daunting to the pharmaceutical companies considering investment. Whether or not it comes to fruition is another question altogether, as is the logic in spending millions on developing a pill that can only mimic what sugar restriction has done for millennia.
February 16 2010
by Marek Doyle, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Scientists continued their obsession with pill-based cures today as they announced a breakthrough in their ambitions to 'revolutionise.' They discovered three so-called `super-genes` that are linked to increased longevity and reduced risk of senility though their effect on insulin signaling. Whilst many will consider the research to simply document the importance of insulin sensitivity in aging, the researchers clearly feel that reducing dietary sugar is too radical. Instead, they hope to produce a drug to mimic the genetic benefits and aim to have the product ready for testing within three years.
Dr Nir Barzilai, the lead scientist, was upbeat about the discovery: "The advantage of finding a gene that involves longevity is we can develop a drug that will imitate what this gene is doing. If we can imitate that, then long life can be terrific."
Moral issues aside, the scientist`s enthusiasm is understandable, given the potential meaning of his work. However, upon analysis, the impact of this research seems very unlikely to change society in any meaningful way, even if a drug makes it to testing stage. The scientists went on to explain that they have identified three genes known to be present in Ashkenazi Jews residing in New York. Carriers of these genes have a 1 in 500 chance of making it to 100 - which is significantly higher than the odds of non-carriers making it a century, currently 1 in 10,000 - and they have a reduced propensity for developing high cholesterol, diabetes. The incidence rate of senility amongst carriers is also less. Whilst the newspaper reports were keen to point out the increased health seen in the Ashkenazi Jews studied, there was no discussion of the increased rates of specific diseases amongst this ethnic group.
Based on the research currently available, the increased longevity and resistance to chronic disease can be explained fully by the gene conferring improved insulin sensitivity upon the carrier. Impaired insulin signaling has been shown to increase systemic inflammation, cause mismanagement of lipids, and increase risk of cancer and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer`s.
Despite this potentially simple explanation and the resources likely to be invested in coming years into developing some sort of drug to mimic the gene, there currently are no plans to compare the biomarkers observed with a low sugar diet against those found in Ashkenazi Jews. Neither is there likely to be any research done on the relationship of these super-genes to the increased incidence of inherited disease amongst the Ashkenazi populations; conditions include Gaucher disease and cystic fibrosis. This selective study fits the Big Pharma research model, whereby the results of a team of keen scientists trigger massive spending on a complex, expensive and ultimately fruitless quest to mimic nature.
True to form, the charities were equally selective in their optimistic view of the news. On the discovery of the so-called supergene, Professor Judith Phillips said: "It`s a huge opportunity because the ageing population is growing anyway." The president of the British Society of Gerontology said the discovery would change how people look at growing old: "They would be a huge resource because people would be able to work longer and they would have to healthier life, and it would revolutionise the way we look at older people. And it would reduce costs in terms of care."
With these benefits in the offing, the multi-million pound costs to develop a drug suddenly seem less daunting to the pharmaceutical companies considering investment. Whether or not it comes to fruition is another question altogether, as is the logic in spending millions on developing a pill that can only mimic what sugar restriction has done for millennia.
Beet Juice Boosts Athletic Performance by up to 16 Percent
http://www.NaturalNews.com/z028189_beet_juice_athletic_performance.html
February 18 2010
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Regular consumption of beet juice may boost athletic performance, increasing endurance while lowering blood pressure and reducing fatigue, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Exeter and published in the Journal of Applied Physiology.
On two separate occasions, the researchers had the same group of eight men between the ages of 19 and 38 drink 500 milliliters of an unknown beverage for six consecutive days, then perform a series of standardized tests on an exercise bicycle. On one occasion, the beverage was 500 milliliters of organic beetroot juice; on the other, it was a placebo of blackcurrant cordial.
The researchers found that men who drank the beetroot juice were able to cycle for 16 percent longer (92 seconds) than those who drank the placebo. This, in turn, would allow a cyclist to cover a set distance 2 percent faster. Participants also had a lower resting blood pressure after drinking beetroot juice than they did after drinking the placebo.
The beetroot juice apparently caused the body to burn oxygen more slowly, thus staving off tiredness longer.
"We were amazed by the effects of beetroot juice on oxygen uptake, because these effects cannot be achieved by any other known means, including training," said researcher Andy Jones. "I am sure professional and amateur athletes will be interested in the results of this research.
Jones noted that the research might also lead to benefits for people who have diseases related to lack of physical activity, such as metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease and respiratory diseases.
"I am also keen to explore the relevance of the findings to those people who suffer from poor fitness and may be able to use dietary supplements to help them go about their daily lives," he said.
The researchers do not know why beets cause the observe effect, but they believe that the nitrates in the vegetables might slow the body's oxygen uptake.
"Certainly, a diet high in nitrate-rich fruits and vegetables is good for your heart health and this study provides further evidence of this," Jones said.
Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk.
February 18 2010
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Regular consumption of beet juice may boost athletic performance, increasing endurance while lowering blood pressure and reducing fatigue, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Exeter and published in the Journal of Applied Physiology.
On two separate occasions, the researchers had the same group of eight men between the ages of 19 and 38 drink 500 milliliters of an unknown beverage for six consecutive days, then perform a series of standardized tests on an exercise bicycle. On one occasion, the beverage was 500 milliliters of organic beetroot juice; on the other, it was a placebo of blackcurrant cordial.
The researchers found that men who drank the beetroot juice were able to cycle for 16 percent longer (92 seconds) than those who drank the placebo. This, in turn, would allow a cyclist to cover a set distance 2 percent faster. Participants also had a lower resting blood pressure after drinking beetroot juice than they did after drinking the placebo.
The beetroot juice apparently caused the body to burn oxygen more slowly, thus staving off tiredness longer.
"We were amazed by the effects of beetroot juice on oxygen uptake, because these effects cannot be achieved by any other known means, including training," said researcher Andy Jones. "I am sure professional and amateur athletes will be interested in the results of this research.
Jones noted that the research might also lead to benefits for people who have diseases related to lack of physical activity, such as metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease and respiratory diseases.
"I am also keen to explore the relevance of the findings to those people who suffer from poor fitness and may be able to use dietary supplements to help them go about their daily lives," he said.
The researchers do not know why beets cause the observe effect, but they believe that the nitrates in the vegetables might slow the body's oxygen uptake.
"Certainly, a diet high in nitrate-rich fruits and vegetables is good for your heart health and this study provides further evidence of this," Jones said.
Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk.
Activists Want Makers to Come Clean on Cleansers
The corporate killers for the status quo have to make sure they poison us while they make a profit on it...
http://www.commondreams.org/print/52524
February 5, 2010 by Associated Press
Activists Want Makers to Come Clean on Cleansers
by Jennifer Peltz
NEW YORK - It's the mystery under the kitchen sink.
Exactly what's in floor cleaner? What's stain remover made of? And what effects, if any, might they have on human health or the environment?
Environmental advocates want to know, and they asked a court Thursday to use a 1971 New York state law to force such manufacturers as Procter & Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive to reveal just what makes up such household staples as Ajax, Ivory soap and Tide.
The cleanser industry - which recently ramped up voluntary efforts to unveil product ingredients - says that the legal case is unwarranted, and that fears about health risks are misinformed.
But groups including the American Lung Association and the Sierra Club want the public to know more.
Members "want access to the information so they can determine the kind of chemicals that they are introducing into their homes and whether there are any risks associated with them," Keri Powell, an attorney for the environmental firm Earthjustice, told a state judge at a hearing Thursday.
A victory in the New York case would require companies to report their contents only to the state. But the advocates hope it will fuel nationwide reform of regulations on chemicals in cleaners and other products.
The case comes amid growing concerns about potential toxins lurking in consumer goods, from the heavy metal cadmium in jewelry to the chemical bisphenol A in baby bottles. While lawyers argued the cleaning-products case in New York, a Senate subcommittee in Washington held a hearing to examine current science on the public's exposure to toxic chemicals.
Some studies have linked cleaning product components to asthma, antibiotic resistance, hormone changes and other health problems. The industry's major trade group, the Soap and Detergent Association, assails the research as flawed, says the products are safe if used correctly and notes that cleaning can itself help stop the spread of disease.
Federal environmental laws don't require most household cleaning products to list their ingredients, though there are congressional proposals to change that. The Consumer Product Safety Commission requires hazard warning labels on some cleansers, and the National Institutes of Health offer some health and safety information for hundreds of cleaning products, drawn from data gathered for industrial use.
Cleanser industry groups unveiled their own ingredient-listing initiative last month, offering information on participating manufacturers' Web sites. New York-based Colgate-Palmolive Co., Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble Co. and several other industry heavyweights are participating.
"We think we've done it in a meaningful way that provides more information than ever before," Soap and Detergent Association spokesman Brian Sansoni said.
Environmental advocates welcome the disclosures but say they are too selective and vague - some components can be listed simply as "fragrance" or "dye," for instance.
"We must be careful about exposures for all household chemicals," said Joseph A. Gardella Jr., a Sierra Club member from Buffalo.
The activists say only regulation can insure full disclosure, and they hope the New York law can serve as a model.
The law and subsequent regulations authorized the state Department of Environmental Conservation to make manufacturers detail household cleaning products' ingredients, as well as any company-led research on the products' health and environmental effects.
The DEC, and the companies fighting the lawsuit, say the law allows but doesn't require the agency to collect the data. The companies have said in legal papers they would make the disclosures if required but haven't been officially asked.
"The DEC has never enforced these regulations," John J. Kuster, a lawyer for New York-based Colgate-Palmolive, told the judge Thursday.
The companies - also including Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Procter & Gamble and Reckitt-Benckiser Inc. - asked a state Supreme Court judge to dismiss the case. There's no definite timeframe for a ruling.
Reckitt-Benckiser, a British company with its U.S. headquarters in Parsippany, N.J., makes products including Lysol and Woolite. Princeton, N.J.-based Church & Dwight makes Arm & Hammer cleaners, among other items.
Some other companies have sent ingredient lists to the DEC since Earthjustice and other organizations began asking in 2008.
Seventh Generation, which prides itself on its environmental bona fides, already listed ingredients on most of its cleaning products' packages. But the Burlington, Vt.-based company said it released more detailed information to the New York environmental agency, including the percentage of various ingredients within cleaners.
"We thought it was the right thing to do," said Dave Rapaport, Seventh Generation's senior director of corporate consciousness.
The DEC is looking at ways to publicize such information for consumers who want it, spokeswoman Maureen Wren said.
© 2010 Associated Press
http://www.commondreams.org/print/52524
February 5, 2010 by Associated Press
Activists Want Makers to Come Clean on Cleansers
by Jennifer Peltz
NEW YORK - It's the mystery under the kitchen sink.
Exactly what's in floor cleaner? What's stain remover made of? And what effects, if any, might they have on human health or the environment?
Environmental advocates want to know, and they asked a court Thursday to use a 1971 New York state law to force such manufacturers as Procter & Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive to reveal just what makes up such household staples as Ajax, Ivory soap and Tide.
The cleanser industry - which recently ramped up voluntary efforts to unveil product ingredients - says that the legal case is unwarranted, and that fears about health risks are misinformed.
But groups including the American Lung Association and the Sierra Club want the public to know more.
Members "want access to the information so they can determine the kind of chemicals that they are introducing into their homes and whether there are any risks associated with them," Keri Powell, an attorney for the environmental firm Earthjustice, told a state judge at a hearing Thursday.
A victory in the New York case would require companies to report their contents only to the state. But the advocates hope it will fuel nationwide reform of regulations on chemicals in cleaners and other products.
The case comes amid growing concerns about potential toxins lurking in consumer goods, from the heavy metal cadmium in jewelry to the chemical bisphenol A in baby bottles. While lawyers argued the cleaning-products case in New York, a Senate subcommittee in Washington held a hearing to examine current science on the public's exposure to toxic chemicals.
Some studies have linked cleaning product components to asthma, antibiotic resistance, hormone changes and other health problems. The industry's major trade group, the Soap and Detergent Association, assails the research as flawed, says the products are safe if used correctly and notes that cleaning can itself help stop the spread of disease.
Federal environmental laws don't require most household cleaning products to list their ingredients, though there are congressional proposals to change that. The Consumer Product Safety Commission requires hazard warning labels on some cleansers, and the National Institutes of Health offer some health and safety information for hundreds of cleaning products, drawn from data gathered for industrial use.
Cleanser industry groups unveiled their own ingredient-listing initiative last month, offering information on participating manufacturers' Web sites. New York-based Colgate-Palmolive Co., Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble Co. and several other industry heavyweights are participating.
"We think we've done it in a meaningful way that provides more information than ever before," Soap and Detergent Association spokesman Brian Sansoni said.
Environmental advocates welcome the disclosures but say they are too selective and vague - some components can be listed simply as "fragrance" or "dye," for instance.
"We must be careful about exposures for all household chemicals," said Joseph A. Gardella Jr., a Sierra Club member from Buffalo.
The activists say only regulation can insure full disclosure, and they hope the New York law can serve as a model.
The law and subsequent regulations authorized the state Department of Environmental Conservation to make manufacturers detail household cleaning products' ingredients, as well as any company-led research on the products' health and environmental effects.
The DEC, and the companies fighting the lawsuit, say the law allows but doesn't require the agency to collect the data. The companies have said in legal papers they would make the disclosures if required but haven't been officially asked.
"The DEC has never enforced these regulations," John J. Kuster, a lawyer for New York-based Colgate-Palmolive, told the judge Thursday.
The companies - also including Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Procter & Gamble and Reckitt-Benckiser Inc. - asked a state Supreme Court judge to dismiss the case. There's no definite timeframe for a ruling.
Reckitt-Benckiser, a British company with its U.S. headquarters in Parsippany, N.J., makes products including Lysol and Woolite. Princeton, N.J.-based Church & Dwight makes Arm & Hammer cleaners, among other items.
Some other companies have sent ingredient lists to the DEC since Earthjustice and other organizations began asking in 2008.
Seventh Generation, which prides itself on its environmental bona fides, already listed ingredients on most of its cleaning products' packages. But the Burlington, Vt.-based company said it released more detailed information to the New York environmental agency, including the percentage of various ingredients within cleaners.
"We thought it was the right thing to do," said Dave Rapaport, Seventh Generation's senior director of corporate consciousness.
The DEC is looking at ways to publicize such information for consumers who want it, spokeswoman Maureen Wren said.
© 2010 Associated Press
Aspartame Has Been Renamed 'AminoSweet'
http://www.rense.com/general89/aminosweet.htm
Beware - Aspartame Has Been Renamed 'AminoSweet'
And is now being marketed as a 'natural' sweetener!
By Ethan Huff
Citizen Journalist
2-13-10
In response to growing awareness about the dangers of artificial sweeteners, what does the manufacturer of one of the world's most notable artificial sweeteners do? Why, rename it and begin marketing it as natural, of course. This is precisely the strategy of Ajinomoto, maker of aspartame, which hopes to pull the wool over the eyes of the public with its rebranded version of aspartame, called "AminoSweet".
Over 25 years ago, aspartame was first introduced into the European food supply. Today, it is an everyday component of most diet beverages, sugar-free desserts, and chewing gums in countries worldwide. But the tides have been turning as the general public is waking up to the truth about artificial sweeteners like aspartame and the harm they cause to health. The latest aspartame marketing scheme is a desperate effort to indoctrinate the public into accepting the chemical sweetener as natural and safe, despite evidence to the contrary.
Aspartame was an accidental discovery by James Schlatter, a chemist who had been trying to produce an anti-ulcer pharmaceutical drug for G.D. Searle & Company back in 1965. Upon mixing aspartic acid and phenylalanine, two naturally-occurring amino acids, he discovered that the new compound had a sweet taste. The company merely changed its FDA approval application from drug to food additive and, voila, aspartame was born.
G.D. Searle & Company first patented aspartame in 1970. An internal memo released in the same year urged company executives to work on getting the FDA into the "habit of saying yes" and of encouraging a "subconscious spirit of participation" in getting the chemical approved.
G.D. Searle & Company submitted its first petition to the FDA in 1973 and fought for years to gain FDA approval, submitting its own safety studies that many believed were inadequate and deceptive. Despite numerous objections, including one from its own scientists, the company was able to convince the FDA to approve aspartame for commercial use in a few products in 1974, igniting a blaze of controversy.
In 1976, then FDA Commissioner Alexander Schmidt wrote a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy expressing concern over the "questionable integrity of the basic safety data submitted for aspartame safety". FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill believed that a grand jury should investigate G.D. Searle & Company for lying about the safety of aspartame in its reports and for concealing evidence proving the chemical is unsafe for consumption.
Despite the myriad of evidence gained over the years showing that aspartame is a dangerous toxin, it has remained on the global market with the exception of a few countries that have banned it. In fact, it continued to gain approval for use in new types of food despite evidence showing that it causes neurological brain damage, cancerous tumors, and endocrine disruption, among other things.
The details of aspartame's history are lengthy, but the point remains that the carcinogen was illegitimately approved as a food additive through heavy-handed prodding by a powerful corporation with its own interests in mind. Practically all drugs and food additives are approved by the FDA not because science shows they are safe but because companies essentially lobby the FDA with monetary payoffs and complete the agency's multi-million dollar approval process.
Changing aspartame's name to something that is "appealing and memorable", in Ajinomoto's own words, may hoodwink some but hopefully most will reject this clever marketing tactic as nothing more than a desperate attempt to preserve the company's multi-billion dollar cash cow. Do not be deceived.
Sources
Ajinomoto brands aspartame 'AminoSweet' - http://www.foodbev.com/news/ajinomoto-brands-aspartame-aminosweet
Aspartame History Highlights - Janet Starr Hull http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/0908/aspartame_history.html
FDA's approval of aspartame under scrutiny - The Globe and Mail (Canada) http://www.wnho.net/fdas_approval_of_aspartame_under_scrutiny.pdf
An Overdue Ban On A Dangerous Sweetener - Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein/an-overdue-ban-on-a-dange_b_250249.html
Beware - Aspartame Has Been Renamed 'AminoSweet'
And is now being marketed as a 'natural' sweetener!
By Ethan Huff
Citizen Journalist
2-13-10
In response to growing awareness about the dangers of artificial sweeteners, what does the manufacturer of one of the world's most notable artificial sweeteners do? Why, rename it and begin marketing it as natural, of course. This is precisely the strategy of Ajinomoto, maker of aspartame, which hopes to pull the wool over the eyes of the public with its rebranded version of aspartame, called "AminoSweet".
Over 25 years ago, aspartame was first introduced into the European food supply. Today, it is an everyday component of most diet beverages, sugar-free desserts, and chewing gums in countries worldwide. But the tides have been turning as the general public is waking up to the truth about artificial sweeteners like aspartame and the harm they cause to health. The latest aspartame marketing scheme is a desperate effort to indoctrinate the public into accepting the chemical sweetener as natural and safe, despite evidence to the contrary.
Aspartame was an accidental discovery by James Schlatter, a chemist who had been trying to produce an anti-ulcer pharmaceutical drug for G.D. Searle & Company back in 1965. Upon mixing aspartic acid and phenylalanine, two naturally-occurring amino acids, he discovered that the new compound had a sweet taste. The company merely changed its FDA approval application from drug to food additive and, voila, aspartame was born.
G.D. Searle & Company first patented aspartame in 1970. An internal memo released in the same year urged company executives to work on getting the FDA into the "habit of saying yes" and of encouraging a "subconscious spirit of participation" in getting the chemical approved.
G.D. Searle & Company submitted its first petition to the FDA in 1973 and fought for years to gain FDA approval, submitting its own safety studies that many believed were inadequate and deceptive. Despite numerous objections, including one from its own scientists, the company was able to convince the FDA to approve aspartame for commercial use in a few products in 1974, igniting a blaze of controversy.
In 1976, then FDA Commissioner Alexander Schmidt wrote a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy expressing concern over the "questionable integrity of the basic safety data submitted for aspartame safety". FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill believed that a grand jury should investigate G.D. Searle & Company for lying about the safety of aspartame in its reports and for concealing evidence proving the chemical is unsafe for consumption.
Despite the myriad of evidence gained over the years showing that aspartame is a dangerous toxin, it has remained on the global market with the exception of a few countries that have banned it. In fact, it continued to gain approval for use in new types of food despite evidence showing that it causes neurological brain damage, cancerous tumors, and endocrine disruption, among other things.
The details of aspartame's history are lengthy, but the point remains that the carcinogen was illegitimately approved as a food additive through heavy-handed prodding by a powerful corporation with its own interests in mind. Practically all drugs and food additives are approved by the FDA not because science shows they are safe but because companies essentially lobby the FDA with monetary payoffs and complete the agency's multi-million dollar approval process.
Changing aspartame's name to something that is "appealing and memorable", in Ajinomoto's own words, may hoodwink some but hopefully most will reject this clever marketing tactic as nothing more than a desperate attempt to preserve the company's multi-billion dollar cash cow. Do not be deceived.
Sources
Ajinomoto brands aspartame 'AminoSweet' - http://www.foodbev.com/news/ajinomoto-brands-aspartame-aminosweet
Aspartame History Highlights - Janet Starr Hull http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/0908/aspartame_history.html
FDA's approval of aspartame under scrutiny - The Globe and Mail (Canada) http://www.wnho.net/fdas_approval_of_aspartame_under_scrutiny.pdf
An Overdue Ban On A Dangerous Sweetener - Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein/an-overdue-ban-on-a-dange_b_250249.html
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Stop Using 'Natural' Deodorants Until You Read This
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/02/16/aluminum-lurks-in-crystal-deodorants.aspx
Stop Using 'Natural' Deodorants Until You Read This
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
February 16 2010 |
Some of the most popular natural deodorants are the "crystal" deodorant stones and sprays. But most people don't know that these crystal deodorant products contain aluminum.
The crystal deodorant stones are made from alum. The most widely used form of alum used in the personal care industry is potassium alum. The full chemical name of potassium alum is potassium aluminum sulfate.
The reason that most people try to avoid aluminum in deodorant is because of its possible link to Alzheimer's disease. There is some strong evidence of a link -- for instance, in 1988 a truck driver accidentally dumped 20 tons of aluminum sulfate in to a town's drinking water.
Now, over 20 years later, they are finding a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s in the people of this town.
Incidentally, the article linked below notes that, “many doctors such as popular web guru and natural health expert Dr. Mercola suggest avoiding aluminum as much as possible.”
Sources:
Bubble and Bee January 21, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Let’s get this straight. Even though aluminum is widely distributed in the earth’s crust, it is NOT needed in ANY amounts in your body. All evidence to date points to aluminum as a poison that serves no beneficial role in your body and should be avoided.
Aluminum is widely recognized as a neurotoxin, which has been found in increased concentrations in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease.
Unfortunately, if you use antiperspirants or some deodorants, you are most likely exposing yourself to aluminum.
Aluminum salts can account for 25 percent of the volume of some antiperspirants.
A review of the common sources of aluminum exposure for humans found that antiperspirant use can significantly increase the amount of aluminum absorbed by your body. According to the review, after a single underarm application of antiperspirant, about .012 percent of the aluminum may be absorbed.
Multiply this by one or more times a day for a lifetime and you can have a massive exposure to aluminum -- a poison that is not meant to be in your body.
Antiperspirants work by clogging, closing, or blocking the pores that release sweat under your arms -- with the active ingredient being aluminum. Not only does this block one of your body’s routes for detoxification (releasing toxins via your underarm sweat), but it raises concerns about where these heavy metals are going once you roll them (or spray them) on.
In some cases, it is clear that they may be wreaking havoc directly on your brain. In 1988, for instance, a truck driver accidentally poured 20 tons of aluminum sulphate into a tank containing drinking water.
Some 20,000 people in the village of Camelford were exposed to the chemical for several weeks, and then went on to develop a rare form of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, along with showing the presence of high levels of aluminum in their tissues.
Deodorants and Antiperspirants Linked to Cancer
Alzheimer’s disease is not the only reason to ditch your aluminum-containing antiperspirant and deodorant, as this heavy metal has also been linked to cancer.
A 2006 study found that aluminum salts can mimic the hormone estrogen, and chemicals that imitate that hormone are known to increase breast cancer risk. Animal studies have also found that aluminum can cause cancer.
Given that antiperspirants are used on your armpits, the aluminum salt concentration is highest near your breast tissue. Further, when women shave under their arms it can result in a higher aluminum-salt absorption rate due to the damaged skin.
In a 2007 study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, researchers tested breast samples from 17 breast-cancer patients who had undergone mastectomies. The women who used antiperspirants had deposits of aluminum in their outer breast tissue. Concentrations of aluminum were higher in the tissue closest to the underarm than in the central breast.
Aluminum is not normally found in the human body, so this study was a pretty clear sign that the metal was being absorbed from antiperspirant sprays and roll-ons.
It’s worth mentioning that deodorants are not the same thing as antiperspirants. Deodorants may actually be less problematic than antiperspirants, as they work by neutralizing the smell of your sweat and by antiseptic action against bacteria, but do not prevent sweating.
However, many deodorants also contain aluminum, along with chemicals called parabens, which have also been linked to breast cancer. So, you’re clearly better off avoiding both antiperspirants and deodorants.
Supposedly “Safe” Crystal Alum Antiperspirants
“Crystal” deodorant stones are a popular natural deodorant alternative, often used by health-conscious shoppers looking to avoid the aluminum and other chemicals common in most antiperspirants and deodorants.
However, if you’re looking to avoid aluminum, crystal deodorants may not be your best choice.
While many claim to be aluminum-free, they are referring to aluminum chlorohydrate, aluminum chloride, aluminum hydroxybromide or aluminum zirconium.
These types of aluminum are widely used in antiperspirants and deodorants. The aluminum is taken into sweat ducts in the top layer of your skin where they act as a plug, stopping the flow of sweat to your skin’s surface.
There is evidence, however, that this aluminum is absorbed into your body where it may cause serious damage.
The aluminum in crystal deodorant stones is a different type of compound known as an alum, the most common form being potassium alum, also known as potassium aluminum sulfate.
Potassium Alum or Ammonium Alum are natural mineral salts made up of molecules that are too large to be absorbed by your skin. They form a protective layer on your skin that inhibits the growth of odor-causing bacteria. These deodorants are recommended by many cancer treatment centers.
But while this may be a better alternative to most antiperspirants and deodorants on the market, it is not completely aluminum-free.
I’ll share with you my top tips for staying odor-free naturally shortly, but first I want to explain why I stopped using any antiperspirants or deodorants over 25 years ago … and suggest you also do the same.
Final Recommendation:
Please note that this recommendation is for antiperspirants only, not deodorants. Many confuse the two. Nearly all antiperspirants use aluminum or alum-based salts to achieve their sweat reduction effect.
It is an absolute no brainer for you and your family to avoid all conventional aluminum-based antiperspirants. The evidence is very clear that these are absorbed and will contribute to aluminum in your body.
Regarding purportedly safe “alum” based antiperspirants found in most health food stores, the companies that produce these claim that the mineral salts are too large to be absorbed and thus provide no danger. However, we have been unable to uncover any solid evidence that supports this claim so it would seem prudent to avoid using them.
While these crystals are probably better than using a conventional antiperspirant, they are clearly not aluminum-free and it still poses a possible Alzheimer's risk and contributes to background toxicity in your body.
It would seem best to exercise the precautionary principle at this time and avoid these crystal-based alum antiperspirants.
Personally, I have not used antiperspirants for over 30 years, once I realized that they were actually causing the stains in the underarm area of my shirts and that wasn’t due to my own sweat. That was a major clue to me to avoid them.
All I do is use simple soap and water and that seems to work well enough that my friends and relatives do not tell me I have any offensive body odor. I typically will wash under my arms in the morning and after I workout.
This approach has served me well for over three decades, however if you find you need a more aggressive approach, then try a pinch of baking soda mixed into water as an effective all-day deodorant.
Additionally, there are many non-aluminum or alum-based alternatives in your local health food store that would likely serve your needs, but I would encourage you to at least TRY going without before making your mind up.
Remember you will need to check the label not only for “aluminum” but also for potassium alum or potash alum, as the full chemical name of potassium alum is potassium aluminum sulfate.
Stop Using 'Natural' Deodorants Until You Read This
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
February 16 2010 |
Some of the most popular natural deodorants are the "crystal" deodorant stones and sprays. But most people don't know that these crystal deodorant products contain aluminum.
The crystal deodorant stones are made from alum. The most widely used form of alum used in the personal care industry is potassium alum. The full chemical name of potassium alum is potassium aluminum sulfate.
The reason that most people try to avoid aluminum in deodorant is because of its possible link to Alzheimer's disease. There is some strong evidence of a link -- for instance, in 1988 a truck driver accidentally dumped 20 tons of aluminum sulfate in to a town's drinking water.
Now, over 20 years later, they are finding a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s in the people of this town.
Incidentally, the article linked below notes that, “many doctors such as popular web guru and natural health expert Dr. Mercola suggest avoiding aluminum as much as possible.”
Sources:
Bubble and Bee January 21, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Let’s get this straight. Even though aluminum is widely distributed in the earth’s crust, it is NOT needed in ANY amounts in your body. All evidence to date points to aluminum as a poison that serves no beneficial role in your body and should be avoided.
Aluminum is widely recognized as a neurotoxin, which has been found in increased concentrations in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease.
Unfortunately, if you use antiperspirants or some deodorants, you are most likely exposing yourself to aluminum.
Aluminum salts can account for 25 percent of the volume of some antiperspirants.
A review of the common sources of aluminum exposure for humans found that antiperspirant use can significantly increase the amount of aluminum absorbed by your body. According to the review, after a single underarm application of antiperspirant, about .012 percent of the aluminum may be absorbed.
Multiply this by one or more times a day for a lifetime and you can have a massive exposure to aluminum -- a poison that is not meant to be in your body.
Antiperspirants work by clogging, closing, or blocking the pores that release sweat under your arms -- with the active ingredient being aluminum. Not only does this block one of your body’s routes for detoxification (releasing toxins via your underarm sweat), but it raises concerns about where these heavy metals are going once you roll them (or spray them) on.
In some cases, it is clear that they may be wreaking havoc directly on your brain. In 1988, for instance, a truck driver accidentally poured 20 tons of aluminum sulphate into a tank containing drinking water.
Some 20,000 people in the village of Camelford were exposed to the chemical for several weeks, and then went on to develop a rare form of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, along with showing the presence of high levels of aluminum in their tissues.
Deodorants and Antiperspirants Linked to Cancer
Alzheimer’s disease is not the only reason to ditch your aluminum-containing antiperspirant and deodorant, as this heavy metal has also been linked to cancer.
A 2006 study found that aluminum salts can mimic the hormone estrogen, and chemicals that imitate that hormone are known to increase breast cancer risk. Animal studies have also found that aluminum can cause cancer.
Given that antiperspirants are used on your armpits, the aluminum salt concentration is highest near your breast tissue. Further, when women shave under their arms it can result in a higher aluminum-salt absorption rate due to the damaged skin.
In a 2007 study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, researchers tested breast samples from 17 breast-cancer patients who had undergone mastectomies. The women who used antiperspirants had deposits of aluminum in their outer breast tissue. Concentrations of aluminum were higher in the tissue closest to the underarm than in the central breast.
Aluminum is not normally found in the human body, so this study was a pretty clear sign that the metal was being absorbed from antiperspirant sprays and roll-ons.
It’s worth mentioning that deodorants are not the same thing as antiperspirants. Deodorants may actually be less problematic than antiperspirants, as they work by neutralizing the smell of your sweat and by antiseptic action against bacteria, but do not prevent sweating.
However, many deodorants also contain aluminum, along with chemicals called parabens, which have also been linked to breast cancer. So, you’re clearly better off avoiding both antiperspirants and deodorants.
Supposedly “Safe” Crystal Alum Antiperspirants
“Crystal” deodorant stones are a popular natural deodorant alternative, often used by health-conscious shoppers looking to avoid the aluminum and other chemicals common in most antiperspirants and deodorants.
However, if you’re looking to avoid aluminum, crystal deodorants may not be your best choice.
While many claim to be aluminum-free, they are referring to aluminum chlorohydrate, aluminum chloride, aluminum hydroxybromide or aluminum zirconium.
These types of aluminum are widely used in antiperspirants and deodorants. The aluminum is taken into sweat ducts in the top layer of your skin where they act as a plug, stopping the flow of sweat to your skin’s surface.
There is evidence, however, that this aluminum is absorbed into your body where it may cause serious damage.
The aluminum in crystal deodorant stones is a different type of compound known as an alum, the most common form being potassium alum, also known as potassium aluminum sulfate.
Potassium Alum or Ammonium Alum are natural mineral salts made up of molecules that are too large to be absorbed by your skin. They form a protective layer on your skin that inhibits the growth of odor-causing bacteria. These deodorants are recommended by many cancer treatment centers.
But while this may be a better alternative to most antiperspirants and deodorants on the market, it is not completely aluminum-free.
I’ll share with you my top tips for staying odor-free naturally shortly, but first I want to explain why I stopped using any antiperspirants or deodorants over 25 years ago … and suggest you also do the same.
Final Recommendation:
Please note that this recommendation is for antiperspirants only, not deodorants. Many confuse the two. Nearly all antiperspirants use aluminum or alum-based salts to achieve their sweat reduction effect.
It is an absolute no brainer for you and your family to avoid all conventional aluminum-based antiperspirants. The evidence is very clear that these are absorbed and will contribute to aluminum in your body.
Regarding purportedly safe “alum” based antiperspirants found in most health food stores, the companies that produce these claim that the mineral salts are too large to be absorbed and thus provide no danger. However, we have been unable to uncover any solid evidence that supports this claim so it would seem prudent to avoid using them.
While these crystals are probably better than using a conventional antiperspirant, they are clearly not aluminum-free and it still poses a possible Alzheimer's risk and contributes to background toxicity in your body.
It would seem best to exercise the precautionary principle at this time and avoid these crystal-based alum antiperspirants.
Personally, I have not used antiperspirants for over 30 years, once I realized that they were actually causing the stains in the underarm area of my shirts and that wasn’t due to my own sweat. That was a major clue to me to avoid them.
All I do is use simple soap and water and that seems to work well enough that my friends and relatives do not tell me I have any offensive body odor. I typically will wash under my arms in the morning and after I workout.
This approach has served me well for over three decades, however if you find you need a more aggressive approach, then try a pinch of baking soda mixed into water as an effective all-day deodorant.
Additionally, there are many non-aluminum or alum-based alternatives in your local health food store that would likely serve your needs, but I would encourage you to at least TRY going without before making your mind up.
Remember you will need to check the label not only for “aluminum” but also for potassium alum or potash alum, as the full chemical name of potassium alum is potassium aluminum sulfate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
