Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds

The nightmarish toxicological profile of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) continues to emerge within the peer-reviewed research, this time revealing its role in supporting the growth of a pathogenic bacteria of great medical significance.

A concerning new study published in the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology titled, “Influence of glyphosate in planktonic and biofilm growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” indicates that the world’s most widely used herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) may be contributing to the enhanced growth of the pathogenic bacteria P. aeruginosa in our environment.

The Brazilian team responsible for the study expressed concern over the “virtual nonexistence” of research evaluating glyphosate herbicide-pathogenic microbiota interactions, and conducted a series of microbial experiments to fill this data gap.  They noted:

“Glyphosate is probably the herbicide most discharged into the environment. Due to its extensive use in the protection of crops, it is inevitable that it will reach surface and deep waters (Pournaras et al., 2007), especially after rainfalls.”

P. aeruginosa is commonly found in watercourses and reservoirs in both oxygen (aerobic) and non-oxygen preferring forms (anaerobic), and can be a source of waterborne infection.

The results of the new study indicate that when exposed to varying concentrations of both glyphosate (a common contaminant found in GM agricultural runoff) and oxygen, both the aerobic the anaerobic and biofilm forming strains of this bacteria can thrive:

“Aerobic planktonic growth was superior to anaerobic one. This points to the possibility of P. aeruginosa, although a facultative organism (Davies et al., 1989; Yoon et al., 2002), has its growth significantly favored by the presence of molecular oxygen. Continuous bacterial exposure to low concentrations of glyphosate leads to increased rates of aerobic growth, which is somehow in agreement with previously published findings (Fitzgibbon and Braymer, 1988). By the contrary, in conditions of inaccessibility of molecular oxygen, the bacterium started to grow better in a concentration-dependent manner. It is possible that this phenomenon results from the use of the molecule as a source of phosphorus, as previously reported for the genus Pseudomonas (Peñaloza-Vazquez et al., 1995; Moore et al., 1983; Talbot et al., 1984). Glyphosate could also serve as a carbon source, which would be processed by both aerobic and anaerobic metabolisms (Rueppel et al., 1977), with increased rates in presence of oxygen. To support such theory, it has been found that different bacterial genera may promote catalysis of glyphosate using C-P lyases (van Eerd et al., 2003). Once broken up this connection, Pseudomonas spp. can produce glycine (Kishore and Jacob, 1987), which can also enhance growth.”

The researchers also focused on the ability of glyphosate to support the growth of so-called biofilms, a closely adhering colony of bacteria embedded in a self-produced matrix of a “slimy” extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), revealing:

“Our results revealed that the xenobiotic tends to favor the formation of biofilms of P. aeruginosa, especially those anaerobic and that such increase seems to be concentration-dependent.”

This finding has significant medical implications, as P. aeruginosa biofilm colonies are far more virulent and exhibit the kind of antibiotic resistance found in serious infections in humans, such as skin infections and pulmonary complications associated with fatal conditions such as cystic fibrosis.[1]

The study concluded:

“The results from this study point to the fact that the indiscriminate use of agricultural formulations containing glyphosate may result in an increase in growth rates of planktonic and biofilm phenotypes of P. aeruginosa in watercourses or reservoirs.”

As Roundup – now a ubiquitous agrochemical contaminant found in our rain, air and water — continues to accumulate in larger amounts in the environment, concern grows that it may be upsetting the natural microbial balance upon which our own microbial health depends on.

Previously, we have looked at the way that Roundup herbicide is altering the microbial biodiversity of our environment by destroying soil microbes that have indispensable importance in the production of food. Research also now exists showing this agrochemical can shift the gut bacteria of animals towards pathogenic strains of bacteria, including the deadly botulism-associated Clostridium botulinum strain.  Also, a new study raises concern that as a water pollutant glyphosate may be contributing to the decline of the coral reefs, underscoring how profoundly this environmental contaminant may be affecting the future health of our planet as a whole.

As the public continues to rally behind the non-GMO movement, expending the bulk of its political efforts on labeling GMO-containing foods, it is important to also focus on the clear and present danger of Roundup herbicide, which a growing number of groups support banning entirely. When we understand the true extent of harm represented by this agrochemical (and which research now links to over 50 adverse health effects), then the argument that GM foods and non-GM (e.g. organic) foods are ‘substantial equivalent‘ is immediately disproved.  GM foods are universally contaminated with glyphosate and AMPA (a glyphosate metabolite) residue and owing to the fact that infinitesimal (parts-per-trillion) concentrations of glyphosate may have endocrine disrupting/carcinogenic properties present regulations on glyphosate are not protecting the public or environment at large from its known risks. (Learn more by reading: ‘EPA to the Public: Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’).

To get more involved follow the Global GMO Free Coalition.

---

References

[1] Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates Derived from Patients with Cystic Fibrosis under Aerobic, Anaerobic, and Biofilm Conditions J. Clin. Microbiol. October 2005 vol. 43 no. 10 5085-5090

© April 19, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025

By Alliance For Natural Health | 

Why? Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on our food.

For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.

At a [recent] conference, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.

A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy. Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity. The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating. A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.

Other toxic substances may also be autism-inducing. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys. Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism. Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism. Children whose mothers smoked were also twice as likely to have autism. Research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury can alter brain neuron functioning even before a child is born.

This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all. The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate. Let’s repeat that: they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world. “Cost concerns”? How absurd—unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto. You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.

In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn’t correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility.

Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is—and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube.

Monsanto claims that Roundup is harmless to humans. Bacteria, fungi, algae, parasites, and plants use a seven-step metabolic route known as the shikimate pathway for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids; glyphosate inhibits this pathway, causing the plant to die, which is why it’s so effective as an herbicide. Monsanto says humans don’t have this shikimate pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.

Dr. Seneff points out, however, that our gut bacteria do have this pathway, and that’s crucial because these bacteria supply our body with crucial amino acids. Roundup thus kills beneficial gut bacteria, allowing pathogens to grow; interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate; chelates (removes) important minerals like iron, cobalt and manganese; and much more.

Even worse, she notes, additional chemicals in Roundup are untested because they’re classified as“inert,” yet according to a 2014 study in BioMed Research International, these chemicals are capable of amplifying the toxic effects of Roundup hundreds of times over.

Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, at anywhere from 760 to 1,600 times the allowable limits in European drinking water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.

“In my view, the situation is almost beyond repair,” Dr. Seneff said after her presentation. “We need to do something drastic.”

Read the Full Article Here.

See Also:

Study: Reducing Herbicide Glyphosate in Diet Reduces Autism Symptoms

The post MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025 appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025

By Alliance For Natural Health | 

Why? Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on our food.

For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.

At a [recent] conference, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.

A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy. Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity. The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating. A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.

Other toxic substances may also be autism-inducing. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys. Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism. Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism. Children whose mothers smoked were also twice as likely to have autism. Research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury can alter brain neuron functioning even before a child is born.

This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all. The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate. Let’s repeat that: they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world. “Cost concerns”? How absurd—unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto. You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.

In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn’t correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility.

Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is—and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube.

Monsanto claims that Roundup is harmless to humans. Bacteria, fungi, algae, parasites, and plants use a seven-step metabolic route known as the shikimate pathway for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids; glyphosate inhibits this pathway, causing the plant to die, which is why it’s so effective as an herbicide. Monsanto says humans don’t have this shikimate pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.

Dr. Seneff points out, however, that our gut bacteria do have this pathway, and that’s crucial because these bacteria supply our body with crucial amino acids. Roundup thus kills beneficial gut bacteria, allowing pathogens to grow; interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate; chelates (removes) important minerals like iron, cobalt and manganese; and much more.

Even worse, she notes, additional chemicals in Roundup are untested because they’re classified as“inert,” yet according to a 2014 study in BioMed Research International, these chemicals are capable of amplifying the toxic effects of Roundup hundreds of times over.

Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, at anywhere from 760 to 1,600 times the allowable limits in European drinking water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.

“In my view, the situation is almost beyond repair,” Dr. Seneff said after her presentation. “We need to do something drastic.”

Read the Full Article Here.

See Also:

Study: Reducing Herbicide Glyphosate in Diet Reduces Autism Symptoms

The post MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025 appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Processed Meats And Red Meat Cause Cancer

(The Real Agenda) Cancer is not a disease and it is not a series of diseases, either. Contrary to what most people think, cancer is nothing else than the body’s expression of massive toxicity. This is why chemotherapy and radiation are not effective tools to treat or cure cancer. Neither chemotherapy nor radiation end toxicity. In fact, they increase it.

The origin of body toxicity usually stems from the liver’s incapacity to get rid of substances that enter the human body. Preventing cancer can be as easy as cleansing your body, more specifically, cleansing your liver.

When people do not carry out frequent cleansings of the liver as well as other organs and, in addition, consume food products that are loaded with chemicals, GMOs, estrogen mimickers, pesticides and herbicides, among others, that the body cannot excrete, these chemicals bioaccumulate to a point where they cause a chain reaction of cellular over multiplication and overgrowth. The result is the apparition of bulks of tissue that are better known as tumors.

Many of the ingredients that may cause cancer are found in processed foods and red meat. Red meat, although for a different reason, also promotes body toxicity which may or may not develop into disease such as cancer, but that may also manifest as fatigue, flu-like symptoms, stomach pain or cramps, and a host of other warnings.

So-called genetic predisposition, a supposed conditioned understood by many as a death sentence, may or may not be a trigger to develop cancer during a person’s lifetime. Just because relatives have suffered from cancer does not mean a person is destined to have the same outcome. As of today, genetic testing to detect alleged predisposition to cancer or other diseases is non-conclusive at best.

What has been scientifically proven up until today is that the ingredients contained in processed meats and frequent consumption of red meat do serve as preconditions to develop diseases such as cancer.

According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, thorough review of scientific literature does show enough proof that red meat is a probable trigger of colorectal cancer in humans.

In addition to colorectal cancer, literature also shows associations between consumption of red meat and pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

“The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%,” says the press release published by the WHO.

“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed. In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance,” explained Dr. Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Programme.

Meanwhile, says Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC, ”these findings further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat.” He emphasized that the results of the latest review of literature are important because they enable people to conduct risk assessments, which in turn may result in a clear path towards balancing the risks and benefits of eating red meat.

The most recent evaluation from the WHO also makes a clear distinction about what is considered red meat, so that people have a clear understanding about which meats they should avoid. “Red meat refers to all types of mammalian muscle meat, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.”

An important differentiation was also made about processed meats, which the report identifies as that which has been “transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation.”

According to the WHO, over 8 million people die every year from cancer. Cancer deaths account for about 13% of all deaths worldwide. IARC expects that cancer rates increase by 70% in the next 2 decades.

The post Processed Meats And Red Meat Cause Cancer appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Consumer Alert: BPA-Free Goods Still Contain Toxic Bisphenol

Breaking research indicates that manufacturers throughout the world who were using the toxic hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA), may have simply switched to an equally toxic analogue in the same bisphenol chemical class known as bisphenol S (BPS), to evade regulatory oversight and trick consumers with their misleading “BPA-FREE!” labels….

If you are already sensitive to the highly concerning issue of toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products, you’ve probably noticed these “BPA-Free” labels popping up everywhere.  Bisphenol A (BPA), of course, is a chemical capable of disrupting our hormones, and is especially problematic in pregnancy, infancy and childhood — times of greatest susceptibility to the adverse effects of environmental exposures.

Now that consumers are refusing to buy BPA-containing containers, manufacturers have had no choice but to oblige with seemingly bisphenol-free alternatives. Ironically, BPA is used to make Sippy Cups (and polycarbonate) shatterproof, and therefore “safer.” But, instead of manufacturers actually removing the danger in BPA-free labeled products, many are capitalizing on this marketing opportunity by removing only the perception of danger, opting to substitute BPA for equally toxic members of the bisphenol chemical class.

An Alphabetic Soup of Toxic Bisphenols In Consumer Goods

While BPA has received the most negative attention, often being labeled as “bisphenol” for short, the bisphenols are such a broad chemical class that they are identified pseudo-alphabetically, spanning letters A-Z:

1. Bisphenol A


2. Bisphenol AB


3. Bisphenol AF


4. Bisphenol B


5. Bisphenol BP


6. Bisphenol C


7. Bisphenol E


8. Bisphenol F


9. Bisphenol G


10. Bisphenol M


11. Bisphenol S


12. Bisphenol P


13. Bisphenol PH


14. Bisphenol TMC


15. Bisphenol Z

Bisphenol A has become the primary focus of consumer advocates for several reasons:

1) It is the most extensively research bisphenol, with at least 40 potential adverse health effects identified in the biomedical literature thus far.

2) Canada became the first country to officially declare BPA a “toxic substance” in September 2010[1]

3) It has the highest production volume and use in consumer goods, with 2.2 million tons consumed globally in 2009.

Primary routes of exposure include:

1. Plastics


2. PVC water lines


3. Canned Goods


4. Thermal Receipt Paper


5. All World Paper Currency


6. Dental Sealants

Despite industry spokespersons and industry-funded scientists claiming BPA does not possess estrogenic properties of any biological significance, it was first acknowledged and used as an artificial estrogen in the early 1930’s, where it was used both to fatten poultry and cattle, as well as a form of estrogen replacement therapy in women in the mid-1930’s.[2]  Only later, in the 1940’s, did Bayer and General Electric use BPA to harden polycarbonate plastics and make epoxy resin, the latter of which is still used to line nearly the entire world’s supply of food and beverage containers.  Only Japanese industries, which responded to consumer concern about the toxic effects of BPA between 1998-2003, voluntarily reduced BPA in favor of safer alternatives.

In the United States and abroad, in response to growing consumer concern over the safety of BPA, manufacturers have been rapidly substituting Bisphenol S (and possibly other bisphenol analogues) in its place.

How do we know this? After all, manufacturers are not required to list bisphenols explicitly on the labels of the consumer products within which they are used. Two new studies reveal that Bisphenol S (BPS) has become as dominant as BPA in manufacturing paper products we come into contact daily, as well as in terms of measurable human exposure….

New Research Proves Bisphenol A Is Secretly Being Replaced By Bisphenol S

First, a study published last week in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found BPS in thermal paper from stores in the US, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam, at concentrations similar to earlier reports of BPA. Concentrations were found as high as 22 mg per gram of paper — two orders of magnitude higher concentrations than are considered biologically significant. BPS was also found in 87 percent of the paper currency assayed from 21 countries, indicating it is being utilized on a  truly global scale.

The same week the same journal published another study titled, “Bisphenol S in Urine from the United States and Seven Asian Countries: Occurrence and Human Exposures,”[3] revealing for the first time that Bisphenol S concentrations in urine from the citizens of 8 countries were within the same concentration ranges as Bisphenol A levels reported by the same research group in the year before.[4]

Is Bisphenol S Safer Because We Know Less About It?

Despite the industry-wide move away from BPA towards BPS, they both exhibit similar estrogen-like properties.  A 2005 study performed by a Japanese research group found that BPS was only a slightly weaker estrogen than BPA.  But, as the Environmental Health News reported in 2010:

They [Japanese researchers] tested the effects on human cells and found that bisphenol S was slightly less potent than BPA, but not by much: bisphenol S was active at 1.1 micromolar concentration, BPA at 0.63 micromolar. One micromolar is roughly equivalent to a packet of sugar in 3,000 gallons of water.[5]

A growing body of additional research now indicates that Bisphenol S is both estrogenic and uterotrophic (increasing the weight of the uterus), with clearly carcinogenic potential.[6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

A 2012 study published in the journal Toxicology In Vitro discussed the industry-wide shift from using BPA in plastic baby bottles to BPS after the European Commission imposed a restriction on BPA use in 2011, as a  direct result of scientific concerns over its estrogenic properties. The researchers found that “By using two highly standardised transactivation assays, we could demonstrate that the estrogenic activity of Bisphenol A and Bisphenol S is of a comparable potency.”

The problem is that BPS is less well-known and researched than BPA for its potential adverse effects, and while regulators wait for manufacturers who promote their products with “BPA-Free!” stickers at the same moment that they infuse them with BPS to voluntarily reformulate, there is evidence now that BPS may actually have worse effects to environmental and human health, alike..

One of the main concerns is that BPS is significantly less biodegradable than BPA. According to a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health in 2009, BPS “… is not amenable to biodegradation and might be persistent and become an ecological burden.”[11]  Another study published in the journal Environmental Toxicology & Pharmacology in 2005 found that BPS is “…more heat-stable and photo-resistant than bisphenol A.”[12]

BPS’ relative inability to biodegrade indicates: 1) once it is absorbed into the human body, it may accumulate there for longer periods of time. 2) it is more likely to persist in the environment, making external exposures to it, and its many metabolites, much more likely than the faster degrading BPA. In other words, its potential to do harm will worsen along the axis of time, not lessen, which is a common argument made for the purported “safety” of BPA.

Are We A Population of Guinea Pigs Without The Precautionary Principle?

Recently, it was discovered that synthetic estrogens are leaching into our bodies from consumer products (e.g. parabens) and are now eclipsing natural human estrogens.  A paraben ester was found at 1 million times higher concentrations than natural estrogen levels in the breast tissue of mastectomy patients. After several generations of “better living through chemistry,” we are discovering that we have poisoned ourselves and our environment (can we really separate them any longer?) into profound and possibly irrevocable disfigurement.  What is needed now more than ever is a paradigm shift in how we regulate our exposure to chemicals, and the industries that produce them virtually unrestricted.

Perhaps we must begin asking ourselves: What would the chemical and drug industries do without the twin disciplines of toxicology and pharmacology? The former provides ample justification for continually exposing us to “an acceptable level of harm” from the chemicals it secretes, and the latter convinces us just how we can’t live without “therapeutic” chemicals, e.g. pharmaceuticals.

Until we demand the implementation of the precautionary principle in this country, and abroad, nothing will change … other than, increasingly, our very biological and genetic integrity, for the worse.

---

[1] Canada Gazette Part II. 13 October 2010;144(21):1806–18.

[2] Erler, C. & Novak, J. Bisphenol A Exposure: Human Risk and Health Policy. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2010. Volume 25:400-407. Accessed online March 1, 2012.

[3] Bisphenol S in Urine from the United States and Seven Asian Countries: Occurrence and Human Exposures. Environ Sci Technol. 2012 May 23. Epub 2012 May 23. PMID: 22620267

[4] Bisphenol S in Urine from the United States and Seven Asian Countries: Occurrence and Human Exposures. Environ Sci Technol. 2012 May 23. Epub 2012 May 23. PMID: 22620267

[5] Environmental Health News, Nov. 12, 2010 BPA: What’s the alternative?

[6] Weak estrogenic transcriptional activities of Bisphenol A and Bisphenol S. Toxicol In Vitro. 2012 Aug ;26(5):727-31. Epub 2012 Apr 5. PMID: 22507746

[7] Comparative study of the uterotrophic potency of 14 chemicals in a uterotrophic assay and their receptor-binding affinity. Toxicol Lett. 2004 Jan 15 ;146(2):111-20. PMID: 14643963

[8] Acute toxicity, mutagenicity, and estrogenicity of bisphenol-A and other bisphenols. Environ Toxicol. 2002 Feb ;17(1):80-6. PMID: 11847978

[9] Estrogenic activity of dental materials and bisphenol-A related chemicals in vitro. Dent Mater J. 2000 Sep ;19(3):245-62. PMID: 11218845

[10] Measurement of estrogenic activity of chemicals for the development of new dental polymers. Toxicol In Vitro. 2001 Aug-Oct;15(4-5):421-5. PMID: 11566573

[11] Biodegradation of bisphenol A, bisphenol F and bisphenol S in seawater. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009 Apr ;6(4):1472-84. Epub 2009 Apr 17. PMID: 19440529

[12] Estrogenic activity of alkylphenols, bisphenol S, and their chlorinated derivatives using a GFP expression system. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005 Jan ;19(1):121-30. PMID: 21783468

© April 13, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Consumer Alert: BPA-Free Goods Still Contain Toxic Bisphenol appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Many Food Products Contaminated with Acrylamide

A few days ago a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, Elihu Berle, put acrylamide on the mainstream map by forcing California coffee shops – including Starbucks – to add a health warning about the carcinogenic risks of this chemical present in the coffee.

Next Wednesday, April 11, comes into force a regulation of the European Commission that requires implementing a series of measures to limit as much as possible the presence of acrylamide in food: because it is not only in the coffee, it is in potato chips and baby jars.

Acrylamide is a substance that can be formed in many ways, but one that is very common: when food is cooked or processed at temperatures above 120 degrees.

It is then that food-reducing sugars – those that break down more easily, such as potato starch and cereals, fructose or honey-containing products – and proteins react with each other in the heat, and give rise to this element. The higher the temperature and the lower the degree of humidity, the more acrylamide is produced.

It happens in all foods, although those rich in starch are those that have higher levels when fried and roasted. This is what happens with coffee during its roasting process, regardless of whether it is roasted or natural. Hence, the regulation puts a special focus on fried potatoes, bread in all its formats, biscuits, cookies, coffee and substitutes.

Have we been exposed to a carcinogenic substance?

Before alarms are triggered, it is important to clarify that these measures are based on the precautionary principle because, as the regulation itself explains, “in between 10% and 15%” of foods that have excess acrylamide can be reduced by application of good practices “.

“There is no doubt that this substance is carcinogenic in laboratory mice, but no one has been able to prove that the acrylamide that comes to humans through food have an impact on cancer, ” says Dr. Ricardo Cubedo, an oncologist at the IOB Institute of Oncology.

The measure is based on the precautionary principle: although it has not been proven that acrylamide is carcinogenic in people, it is “likely”, and also in 10% of cases, “easy to reduce”, according to the European Commission

In fact, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers acrylamide as a probable carcinogen for humans, because, so far, it is not conclusive, after investigations carried out experiments in animals subjected to very high doses of acrylamide and whose results can be extrapolated to humans.

In addition, workers in industries that are exposed to higher levels of this substance – it may be by inhalation, in contact with the skin or through food – have not recorded a higher incidence of cancer than the rest of the population. The main source of exposure remains tobacco smoke.

The alarms jumped in 2002, when the Swedish Food Safety Agency revealed that acrylamide appeared not only in industrial processes, or in tobacco smoke, but also in food.

Since then, the World Health Organization and the rest of the international health institutions have begun to exercise caution.

“In 2007 and 2012, the European Agency for Food Safety (EFSA) established some guidelines to reduce their consumption through diet,” says Marhuenda.

According to this dietician-nutritionist, the levels of acrylamide in daily consumption are low enough to be considered dangerous.

“What EFSA does is what we commonly know as placing the plaster before making the wound, always proposing values as low as possible.”

Can I develop cancer if I eat a lot of chips?

“The minimum consumption stipulated for acrylamide to be related to the probability or the increased probability of cancer is 170 micrograms (0.17 milligrams) per kilo of body weight,” says Marhuenda. “In a person weighing 80 kilos, for example, that minimum dose would be 13,600 micrograms of acrylamide a day.” In addition, he points out, “not to reach this amount on a daily basis we will develop cancer directly, but there is an increase in risk.”

And we arrived? “It is complicated to consume that dose, to get an idea, the average coffee intake per person in Europe represents between 30% and 35% of the minimum amount of risk.”

A calculation: according to the levels of reference that from day 11 the manufacturers will have to comply as far as possible (see table below), so that a person of 80 kilos reaches that amount would have to eat something more than 27 kilos of chips a day.

On average, Spaniards are exposed to 0.53 micrograms of acrylamide per kilogram of body weight per day, according to a study that served as a doctoral thesis to the researcher at the University of Valencia Eva Molina Périz. According to Dr. Cubedo, “the half comes for the chips, one quarter for the coffee and the other quarter for the biscuits or the biscuits “.

In Spain, the bags of potatoes went beyond the limit

That despite the fact that in 2015, in Spain, almost one in five bags of these snacks exceeded the amounts of acrylamide recommended by the European Commission, as found in a study by the Institute of Science and Technology of Food and Nutrition (Ictan-CSIC) . Although it observed a positive evolution: an average of 1,484 micrograms per kilo of fried potato in 2004, 740 in 2009 and 630 micrograms in 2014.

The new European regulation does not establish maximum limits, but reference levels – for this product, 500 micrograms per kilo of potatoes – that must be met unless the manufacturer can justify its excess, for example, by the properties of the variety of potato used.

Kiss that potato chip goodbye

For years the food industry has been reducing the levels of acrylamide in its products, but as of Wednesday it won’t be with the typical small potato and toast that appears in some bags.

The regulation of the European Commission establishes among its measures that warnings must appear on the package. Messages on packagings for biscuits, bread slices and toasts will now be clearer.

In addition, bread, chips, puff pastry dough, pizzas and all those products that contain ingredients such as potato or starch will be accompanied by recommendations to cook them at home, reducing the risk.

Despite the new measures of the European Commission and the low exposure to acrylamide, it is advised to reduce or avoid the consumption of this substance: “Potato chips, snacks, cookies, some cereals, bread crunch, and others.

If we want to reduce the levels of acrylamide in the ingestion we must avoid cooking at high temperatures these particular foods, and, in general, we have to always cook in a non-aggressive way “.

The post Many Food Products Contaminated with Acrylamide appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

‘Gluten Brain’: Wheat Cuts Off Blood Flow To Frontal Cortex

 

As far back as 1954, reports of the full or partial resolution of schizophrenia following a gluten free diet began to surface in the medical literature. We covered this remarkable pattern of associations in a previous article titled, “60 Years of Research Links Gluten Grains to Schizophrenia.” While the explanation for this intriguing connection has remained focused on the disruption of the gut-brain axis and the presence in wheat of a wide range of pharmacologically active and mostly opioid receptor modulating polypeptides, a new and possibly more disturbing explanation is beginning to surface: wheat consumption cuts off blood flow to the brain.

Starting with a 1997 case study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine involving a 33-year-old patient, with pre-existing diagnosis of ‘schizophrenic’ disorder, who first came to medical attention for severe diarrhea and weight loss (classical symptoms of gluten intolerance), brain scan technology determined that cerebral hypoperfusion (decreased blood flow to the brain) was occurring within the patient’s frontal cortex.[i] A gluten free diet resulted not only in the normalization of intestinal damage and autoantibodies, but the return of blood flow to the frontal cortex, and the resolution of schizophrenic symptoms.

Then, in 2004, a follow up study was performed to verify if the 1997 case study was just a fluke, or perhaps a widespread effect of untreated celiac disease. Published in the American Journal of Medicine, researchers from the Institute of Internal Medicine, Catholic University, Rome, Italy, compared 15 untreated celiac patients without neurological or psychiatric disorders other than anxiety or depression, with 15 celiac patients who were on a gluten-free diet for almost 1 year, and 24 healthy volunteers of similar sex and age. All subjects underwent cerebral single photon emission computed tomography examination.

The results were remarkable, with dramatically increased incidence of impaired brain blood flow in untreated celiac patients, reported as follows:

“Of the 15 untreated celiac patients, 11 (73%) had at least one hypoperfused brain region, compared with only 1 (7%) of the 15 celiac patients on a gluten-free diet and none of the controls (P = 0.01). Cerebral perfusion was significantly lower (P <0.05) in untreated celiac patients, compared with healthy controls, in 7 of 26 brain regions. No significant differences in cerebral perfusion were found between celiac patients on a gluten-free diet and healthy controls.”

They concluded: “There is evidence of regional cerebral blood flow alteration in untreated celiac patients.”

Discussion

So, let’s take a closer look at what cerebral (brain) hypoperfusion means.

Hypoperfusion is simply decreased blood flow through an organ. Whether it is an internal organ like the kidney, a muscle or the brain, the organ will experience lower availability of oxygen (hypoxia) and nutrients, and will therefore function at a suboptimal level.  Cerebral hypoperfusion, therefore, is decreased blood flow to the brain – an organ with extremely high energy demands, and upon which our entire consciousness depends.

Dr. David Perlmutter, author of the #1 New York Times bestselling book Grain Brain, has made great strides in introducing the concept to the world that grains adversely affect brain health. We know that the carbohydrate content of grains alone contribute to disrupting insulin-mediated glucose homeostasis within neurons, ultimately contributing to their suboptimal functioning and in some cases demise, but the discovery that wheat in particular has blood flow disrupting properties to the frontal cortex of the grain, has profound implications.

For example, it is know that the frontal lobe house the ‘executive functions‘ of the brain, including:

• Recognizing future consequences resulting from current actions


• Choosing between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ actions


• Overriding and suppressing socially unacceptable responses


• Retaining longer term memories which are not task-based.


• Determine similarities and differences between things or events.

If wheat consumption, through some as of yet unknown mechanism, interferes with blood flow to the brain in susceptible individuals, and as a result disrupts the executive functions of the brain, abstaining from it should be considered a reasonable precautionary behavior, assuming we wish to retain these critical functions related to morality, cognizance, and social responsibility.

For additional research on the adverse health effects of wheat, read our article: Wheat: 200 Clinically Confirmed Reasons Not To Eat It.

Also, for more information on the brain-specific harmful effects of wheat, read the following articles or watch the video:

• The Grain That Damages The Human Brain, by Sayer Ji


• This Is Your Body (and Brain) on Gluten, by Dr. Kelly Brogan, MD


• Video: Gluten Brain: How Wheat Cuts off Blood Flow – GreenMedTV

---

[i] A De Santis, G Addolorato, A Romito, S Caputo, A Giordano, G Gambassi, C Taranto, R Manna, G Gasbarrini. Schizophrenic symptoms and SPECT abnormalities in a coeliac patient: regression after a gluten-free diet. J Intern Med. 1997 Nov ;242(5):421-3. PMID: 9408073

© April 11, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

 

The post ‘Gluten Brain’: Wheat Cuts Off Blood Flow To Frontal Cortex appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Drinking Roasted Coffee Increases Cancer Risk

(The Real Agenda News) Acrylamide, a by-product of roasted coffee, is the substance responsible for the increased risk of cancer for people who drink their cup of joe on a daily basis.

A Los Angeles court ruled that Starbucks and other coffee brands are expected to include a warning about carcinogenic substances in their products in California.

This decision resolves a lawsuit filed by a not-for-profit group in 2010 to toasters, distributors and coffee retailers, as they were violating a California law that forced companies to warn consumers of chemicals in their products that could cause cancer.

One such chemical is acrylamide, a by-product of roasted coffee that is present at high levels in prepared coffee. However, companies say that this compound is present at “very low” levels and should be exempt from the law because “is generated naturally from the process of roasting the grains to give them flavor.”

It was also argued that coffee is good for the body.

“Coffee has proven time and time again to be a healthy drink,” said William Murray, president and CEO of the National Coffee Association, in reaction to the ruling.

Thus, it considered that the demand “does not contribute to improving the public health”.

Judge Berle, however, ruled that the companies did not provide sufficient evidence to show that acrylamide in coffee poses no significant risk.

“The plaintiff proved that coffee consumption increases the risk of harm to fetuses, infants and adults, the defendants’ medical experts have not demonstrated with evidence that coffee consumption is beneficial to human health,” he said.

In establishments such as Starbucks, this warning appears on local posters, not on glasses directly, and warns of “certain chemicals labeled by California as causing cancer, are present in coffee, baked goods and other foods and beverages sold here “.

The post Drinking Roasted Coffee Increases Cancer Risk appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Must-See TEDx Talk. Syngenta Weedkiller

Everything changed for Dr. Tyrone Hayes when in 1998, the largest chemical company in the world asked him to use his expertise to try and understand if its top-selling product interfered with the hormones of frogs.

The company: Syngenta. The product: weedkiller atrazine.

Hayes, an American biologist and professor of Integrative Biology at University of California, Berkeley, discussed in his nearly 16-minute TEDxBerkeley talk the results of exposing African clawed frogs in his lab to atrazine. He presented an image up on the big screen of frog testes, showing a considerable difference between the controlled and exposed groups, and said:

“The controlled testes, if you look under the microscope, is full of sperm soldiers ready to go. The atrazine-treated testes, the testicular tubules are filled with cellular debris.”

Hayes explained how after exposure to atrazine, frogs that were genetic males became completely functioning reproductive females. In another frog species, he showed the gonads with “eggs that are bursting through the surface of the male’s testes.”

Yikes.

Read ‘Atrazine’s Dark Secrets Reemerge in Must-See TEDx Talk’

Watch the video

h/t: Organic Consumer’s Organization

The post Must-See TEDx Talk. Syngenta Weedkiller appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Why Do Airlines Force Us To Breath Toxic Air From Jet Engines? (VIDEO)

Most air travelers are oblivious to the fact that the airline industry forces them to breath in highly toxic jet engine air due to what is, from the perspective of the public health, imbecilic and ruthlessly neglectful aircraft design. 

When the issue of so-called aerotoxicity first came to my attention, I could hardly believe what I was learning: namely, that hundreds of thousands of passengers and crew each day are forced to breath in highly toxic chemicals, which the airline industry knows about but has done virtually nothing to mitigate or resolve since the inception of the practice almost six decades ago.

The facts speak for themselves, and today nearly every airplane designed and produced by the world’s airplane manufacturers forces everyone within them to breath in highly neurotoxic chemicals like tri-cresyl phosphates (TCPs) which are used to lubricate and maintain the jet engines. Were this seat belt safety design, it would be the equivalent of mandating passengers ride on the roof of cars without anything holding them down! 

Here are some of the known side effects of short term exposures to the fumes:

“Blurred or tunnel vision, disorientation, memory impairment, shaking and tremors, nausea/vomiting, paresthesias, loss of balance and vertigo, seizures, loss of consciousness, headache, lightheadedness, dizziness, confusion and feeling intoxicated, breathing difficulties (shortness of breath, tightness in chest, respiratory failure), increased heart rate and palpitations, nystagmus, irritation (eyes, nose and upper airways).” [Source]

Here are some of the known symptoms of long term low level exposure or residual symptoms from short term exposure to the fumes: 

“memory impairment, forgetfulness, lack of coordination, nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, respiratory problems, chest pain, severe headaches, dizziness and feeling intoxicated, weakness and fatigue (leading to chronic fatigue), exhaustion, increased heart rate and palpitations, numbness (fingers, lips, limbs), hot flashes, joint pain, muscle weakness and pain, salivation, irritation (eyes, nose and upper airways), skin itching and rashes, skin blisters (on uncovered body parts), signs of immunosupression, hair loss, chemical sensitivity leading to acquired or multiple chemical sensitivity.” [Source]

We’ve covered this topic before in greater depth. For instance, you can read, “Asbestos of the Sky” – The Aviation Industry’s Darkest Coverup, to learn more. You can also take a look at the full version of the timeline poster below which covers the issue going all the way back to 1936!

I’m writing about the topic again mainly because as a regular air traveler, I can not escape the clear harm that is being done to me and my fellow humankind, every time I fly. And it literally pains me not to do something about this profound health issue. I take protective supplements as often as I can before and after flying, but the reality is that until the root problem is addressed and the chemicals are removed from the air we breath, slapping band-aids on a problem will only go so far. As one prominent US lawyer once opined: “The only thing filtering this toxic soup out of the cabin are the lungs of the passenger and crew.” 

Consumers and Activists Making Waves

The good news is that, after decades of ignoring or actively covering up the issues, minor but significant reforms are taking place internally within the airline industry. For instance, back in 2009 Boeing introduced the 787 Dreamliner, which — finally! — takes its cabin air from outside the plane and NOT directly from the engines. This move lead to Airbus officially announcing in 2016 it would allow a “bleed free” filtering option on their A320 Neo.

More recently, in September of last year, the Australian airline EasyJet announced it was retrofitting their aircraft with filters, “…to stop toxic fumes entering its passenger cabins and cockpits in a move seen as the industry’s first acknowledgment of “aerotoxic syndrome,”” as reported by The Australian.  Even foreward thinking legislators are starting to take action.  In July of last year, Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal proposed new legislation (The Cabin Safety Act) to protect pilots, flight attendants, and passengers from this completely preventable public health problem.  While the bill appears stalled, it is part of a growing number of trends which indicate a critical mass of awareness is gathering, and this is putting pressure on the industry to reform.

Can you imagine the mass appeal among recently awoken health activated consumers for an airline alternative which would ensure that the planes provided clean air to their passengers?  Take notice. Speak up. Write about it online or via social media. Also, contacting your airlines directly will have a significant impact if enough of us do it.

If you are interested in learning more there are a number of citizens’ organizations who are doing their part in keeping the public educated on the topic. Here are just a few:

• www.aerotoxic.org 


• https://www.aerotoxicteam.com/


• AEROTOXIC SYNDROME | BLEEDFREE.EU

© April 8, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Why Do Airlines Force Us To Breath Toxic Air From Jet Engines? (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Why Colonic Hydrotherapy Is So Important

A healthy colon contributes to a large portion of our general wellbeing and colonic hydrotherapy has been used as a way to cleanse the colon for quite some time. A cleanse is ideal to improve the body’s natural detoxification process, as well as improve the general quality of life but nevertheless, some people still misunderstand the importance of colonic hydrotherapy and the general purpose of the treatment. Luckily, we’re here to explain the benefits of the therapy and how it could serve to improve you and your health!

They Improve Bowel Regularity

One of the biggest uses for colonic hydrotherapy is in order to improve the regularity of the bowels. Everyone will experience constipation in their lifetimes, and all will know how discomforting and inconvenient this is. With the use of colonic hydrotherapy though, the bowels are exercised and strengthened in order to promote more regular and complete bowel movements, eliminating the chances of developing constipation. Furthermore, this increased bowel regularity can have many health benefits for the long-term, as cleaner, stronger bowels will dramatically reduce the chances of developing bowel cancer in the future.

It Treats The Vast Amount Of People With IBS

Did you know that Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) affects approximately 15-20% of the entire adult population in the world? That’s a lot of people, billions in fact, but colonic hydrotherapy is able to provide these people with more relief from the uncomfortable symptoms they endure daily. Often, if you’re not having a bowel movement at least once every day, you’re considered a good candidate for colonic hydrotherapy, especially if you’re experiencing symptoms such as low energy, headaches and abdominal cramps. These people are able to receive professional advice from a doctor, and will thus have access to effective treatment to help them feel more themselves again.

They Remove Bacteria Effectively

Numerous studies have proven that regular bowel movements are important for removing bacteria from your body, making colonic hydrotherapy highly important if you’re lacking these frequent movements. Furthermore, a colonic hydrotherapy treatment can also work to eliminate any fatty acids from you better, which is generally better for your physical health. By allowing bacteria to linger within your body for too long, you can experience multiple different health issues, usually infections, which are rather painful and unpleasant to experience. Therefore, by using colonic hydrotherapy in order to remove this bacteria, you’ll be able to help numerous destroy numerous symptoms.

The Body Can Absorb Nutrients Better

Many of us try our hardest in order to follow a balanced diet to improve our physical wellbeing, however it’s no good putting in the effort if you’re preventing your body from absorbing these important nutrients. Colonic hydrotherapy can help the body to absorb nutrients much better, and when undergoing a colon cleanse using coffee, for example, the antioxidants and caffeine will travel via the haemorrhoidal vein through to the liver. As a result, they collaborate together to open up blood vessels, generally improving blood circulation, which helps to relax muscles and thus control bowel movements better, as well as increase bile production which is crucial for the digestion and excretion.

Undergoing colonic hydrotherapy is something that many feel embarrassed to talk about, however it’s imperative that, should you believe you need the therapy, you talk to someone about it. Perfect for a short-term cleanse, this treatment can help to prevent life-threatening diseases and illnesses in the future, so it’s never something that you should neglect.

The post Why Colonic Hydrotherapy Is So Important appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

These Bottled Water Brands Are LOADED with THOUSANDS of Plastic Particles: Is Your Favorite on the List?

Many people try to make a better choice by drinking bottled water instead of tap water since the municipal water from our faucets is loaded with all sorts of chemicals and pollutants. Unfortunately, bottled water may not be that much better.

It’s old news that some brands of bottled water are little more than tap water, but now there’s new research that tells us it gets even worse than that. Each bottle of water could be contaminated with hundreds -or even thousands – of plastic particles, which we ingest every time we take a sip.

A study was performed on 250 bottles of water purchased in 9 different countries at the State University of New York in Fredonia. The following brands were tested:

A few of the brands tested were:

• Aquafina


• Dasani


• Arrowhead


• Boxed Water


• Crystal Geyser


• Evian


• Nestle Pure Life


• Deer Park


• Eternal Water


• Trader Joe’s Mountain Spring


• San Pellegrino


• Aqua (Indonesia)


• Bisleri (India)


• Epura (Mexico)


• Gerolsteiner (Germany)


• Minalba (Brazil)


• Wahaha (China)


• Fiji


• Glaceau Smart


• Ice Mountain


• Icelandic Glacial


• Ozarka


• Penta


• Poland Spring


• Texas Spring Water


• True Zealand


• Zephyrhills

The results of the bottled water testing

93% of the water bottles had some contamination from plastic particles. The plastic particles were identified as 54% polypropylene, 16% nylon, 11% polystyrene 10% polyethylene, 6% polyester, and 3% other types of plastic.

One report said that the worst offenders in US brands were said to be Boxed Water, Fiji, Ozarka, Evian, Icelandic Glacial and Crystal Geyser.

An Australian news outlet posted the following chart with numbers on the highest and lowest counts of plastic in certain brands. Look at Nestle’s high.

LOWEST/HIGHEST NUMBER OF PARTICLES FOUND PER LITRE, PER BRAND:

Aquafina: Lowest – 2, Highest – 1295

Dasani: Lowest – 2, Highest -335

Evian: Lowest – 0, Highest – 5230

Nestle Pure Life: Lowest – 6, Highest – 10390

San Pellegrino: Lowest – 0, Highest – 74

Interestingly, some bottles from the same case included widely varying amounts of plastic.

Orb Media, who performed the test, said:

Some of the bottles we tested contained so many particles that we asked a former astrophysicist to use his experience counting stars in the heavens to help us tally these fluorescing constellations.

Sizes ranged from the width of a human hair down to the size of a red blood cell. Some bottles had thousands. A few effectively had no plastic at all.

One bottle had a concentration of more than 10,000 particles per liter. (source)

What are the effects on human health?

It’s actually the smaller particles that you have to be more worried about, according to this chart by Orb Media.

photo credit: Orb Media

While you may be drinking bottled water to avoid contamination such as that found in the water of Flint, Michigan, it looks like you may be consuming a completely different type of contaminant.

Although we don’t fully understand yet the health implications of consuming microplastic, [Abigail] Barrows says the preliminary results of this study are clear: “People are directly ingesting plastic particles when drinking most types of bottled water.” (source)

I seriously doubt that drinking plastic particles is good for you, considering all the concern that plastic could be a major contributing factor to the cancer boom in the first world. (Learn more about what’s in our water in my book, The Prepper’s Water Survival Guide.)

Bottling companies refuted the findings

The BBC contacted some of the bottling companies to ask them what they thought about the tests performed by Orb Media.

Nestle told us its own internal testing for microplastics began more than two years ago and had not detected any “above trace level”. A spokesman added that Prof Mason’s study missed key steps to avoid “false positives” but he invited Orb Media to compare methods.

Gerolsteiner also said it had been testing its water for microplastics for a number of years and that the results showed levels “significantly below the limits for particles” set for pharmaceutical companies. It said it could not understand how Prof Mason’s study reached its conclusions.

It also said its measures exceeded industry standards but added that microparticles are “everywhere” so “the possibility of them entering the product from ambient air or packaging materials during the bottling process can therefore not be completely ruled out”.

Coca-Cola said it had some of the most stringent quality standards in the industry and used a “multi-step filtration process”. But it too acknowledged that microplastics “appear to be ubiquitous and therefore may be found at minute levels even in highly treated products”.

Danone said it could not comment on the study because “the methodology used is unclear” but added that its own bottles had “food grade packaging”.

It pointed out that there are no regulations on microplastics or a scientific consensus on how to test for them, and it also highlighted a much smaller German study last year that found plastic particles in single use bottles but not above a statistically significant amount.

PepsiCo said Aquafina had “rigorous quality control measures sanitary manufacturing practices, filtration and other food safety mechanisms which yield a reliably safe product”.

It described the science of microplastics as “an emerging field, in its infancy, which requires further scientific analysis, peer-reviewed research and greater collaboration across many stakeholders”. (source)

Some articles noted that the plastic in the water was environmental, and not occurring at the factories, but isn’t the reason people buy bottled water to get the environmental contaminants filtered out?

How can you ensure your water is safe?

Your very best bet for safe water is water that you filter yourself using a high-quality device. Clearly, it’s impossible to trust the industry, which is probably of little surprise to most reading this website.

Sources for this article:

• https://orbmedia.org/stories/plus-plastic/


• https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/03/15/11/10/bottled-water-brands-contain-plastic-particles-research


• http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43388870


• http://malaysiandigest.com/world/728084-new-study-reveals-shocking-results-of-bottled-water-brands-with-highest-plastic-contamination.html

The post These Bottled Water Brands Are LOADED with THOUSANDS of Plastic Particles: Is Your Favorite on the List? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.