We finally have a website that we control. It’s a fun site with coupons and money savers and new affiliate products that help us and our pets. There are articles of interest posted bi-monthly with a permanently placed article on 'Greedy Vets' and how to spot them, newsletter an 'Pet Pic' of the week.
Much of the content will have excerpts from the book: Better Choices, as does this blog. Where still working on it so forgive any editing problems for now.
To Your Health
Farmacy not pharmacy
Organic Jan
http://www.fleafreeorganically.com
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Our business purpose it find a way to stop poisoning pet and people. I have posted this article before but feel its importance merits a second posting.
-------------
Signs and Symptoms of Metal and Chemical Toxicity
Heavy metal poisoning and chemical toxicity lead to the accumulation of toxins in our tissues and organs causing nutritional deficiencies, hormonal imbalances and the breakdown of the immune system, the central nervous system, and the organs of the body. This breakdown of bodily organs and systems will encourage numerous diseases and disorders (listed above) to take hold in the body.
It is important to know some of the early signs and symptoms of environmental toxicity so that you can take action to reverse it. The following is a few of the many symptoms of heavy metal poisoning and chemical toxicity:
• Environmental allergies
• Food allergies
• Brain fog
• Coated tongue
• Extreme fatigue
• Frequent colds and flus
• Insomnia
• Loss of memory
• Metallic taste in mouth
• Muscle and joint pain
• Muscle twitching
• Night sweats
• Parasites
• Prone to mood swings
• Sensitive teeth
• Sensitive to smells
• Skin problems
• Sore or receding gums
"Heavy metal toxicity in humans has been associated with many health conditions, including heart disease, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Alzheimer's disease, immune system disorders, gastrointestinal disorders (including irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS), and autism.
Disorders Linked to Heavy Metal and Chemical Toxicity
The following is a list of the most common disorders found by independent research studies to be directly linked to toxic metals and chemicals:
• Attention Deficit Disorder
• Alzheimer's disease
• Asthma
• Arthritis
• Autism Spectrum disorders
• Auto-immune disorders
• Candidiasis
• Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
• Epilepsy
• Fibromyalgia
• Gulf War Syndrome
• Hypertension
• Insomnia
• Infertility
• Kidney disease
• Liver disease
• Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS)
• Multiple Scleroris
• Parkinson's disease
• Schizophrenia
• Thyroid disorders
In animals:
Pathologies produced by chronic Aluminum poisoning
This is the most important because it is the most prevalent found in all animal hair analysis I have tested. Aluminum has a predilection for the brain and nervous tissues therefore it touches every organ in the body via its nerve connections. This means it contributes to arthritis, kidney failure, Congestive Heart Disease, liver diseases, hypoglycemia as well as Diabetes Mellitus, Leaky Gut syndrome with resultant multiple allergies and skin diseases, endocrine dysfunctions (sterility, hypo and hyper thyroidism, deficiencies in pancreatic enzymes with the inability to digest food properly, Cushing's Syndrome, ovarian cysts), bone marrow depression with anemia, poor clotting ability, and weakened defenses against infection. These animals are more prone to succumbing to bacterial, viral and fungal diseases.
Other Heavy Metals and their pathologies
Mercury in toxic amounts (I'm talking more than .05 ppm in a man weighing approximately 180 pounds) prevents the body's cells from transporting glucose, thus reducing energy available to the body. It causes convulsions, anorexia, tremors, swollen gums and behavior problems in animals. Mercury is rapidly absorbed from coal fumes, contaminated seafood, paint, canvas and contaminated waters.
Lead is picked up by animals drinking from ceramic bowls, or from the water itself. Dogs that guard gas stations or come in contact with peeling paint or just live in the city all build up lead intoxication. Lead contaminates canned food from lead seams of the can. This lead intoxication causes widespread damage to the animal's nervous system, brain, heart, lungs and kidneys. Lead also displaces calcium.
Cadmium pollution is becoming more common due to its presence in drinking water, cigarette smoke, auto tires and processed meats. It produces pathologies of the lungs, liver kidneys and reproductive organs. It displaces zinc also producing poor healing and premature aging. My work in EAV has shown its predilection for the stomach with reduced hydrochloric acid being produced by the stomach thereby rendering abnormal digestion of proteins that can lead to "Leaky Gut" Syndrome and allergies
Arsenic poisonings are of two types: organic and inorganic. Inorganic arsenic is found in rodenticides, weed killers, ant baits and insecticides, dips for ticks and sometimes used to rid tapeworms in sheep. People and animals consume pesticides and weed killers sprayed on foodstuffs.
Organic forms are actually fed to pigs and poultry to improve production and in the case of swine to treat diarrhea. People and animals consume this meat!
An acute large dose of arsenic causes gastrointestinal damage with profuse watery diarrhea, bleeding and death. Chronic, smaller doses of arsenic causes a non- specific wasting disease- remember "Arsenic and Old Lace"? It is the quintessential choice of poisoners because it mimics so many chronic diseases that cannot be diagnosed except with hair analysis. These are documented facts.
Now under President Bush, our government standards increased the allowable arsenic content of drinking water!!! It boggles the mind. Meanwhile the public's health and animal health go down the toilet. Just watch the cost of Medicare, medical insurance, and every other medical and veterinary expense skyrocket in this country.
What Have We Learned?
Heavy metals are contaminating our food, water and health supplements for animals and man. Heavy metals produce pathologies relative to quantity and period of time consumed. The major source of consumption is due to pollution of our air, water and soils by agribusiness, industry and the public.
The governmental agencies are not protecting us; we have to protect ourselves. I strongly recommend to all people and pet owners: consume and feed to your animals only detoxed organically grown produce. If you can't find organic buy and detox every fruit, grain, meat and vegetable you bring home to make your home made meals for your family and pets. I have found even organic foods in this country are polluted with heavy metals.
I find rice grown in India (Basmati rice) at the foot of the Himalayan Mountains is very clean and healthy and is what I feed my family and animals.
Stop using everything that contains aluminum that can be leached by acid foods (meats, tomatoes, citrus drinks, all soda drinks, etc.) I don't use any aluminum period, in my household. EAV studies have shown to me that aluminum is toxic to all cells. It goes to the brain and nervous system, thereby touching every organ in the body including the immune system. There are research studies published by scientists in this country showing aluminum can get into the brain of animals showing damage similar to that which occurs in human beings with senile dementia. There is evidence that aluminum contributes to the development of Alzheimer's disease (AZD) by both directly poisoning the brain and causing clumping of the neuron connector structures and by injuring the blood brain barrier allowing toxic wastes to enter brain tissue. One particular kind of toxic waste is known to selectively attack the very parts of the brain that become damaged in the AZD type of senile dementia. In my veterinary practice, I have seen aluminum causing ovarian cysts, pancreatic cysts resulting in hyper insulin comas, tumors and cancer. Dowsing has shown me that aluminum lowers the nutritional energy of food and water thus depriving the body of its needed energy. Throw out your aluminum pots and pans and replace them with cast iron, stainless steel or Pyrex. Don't wrap or Bar-B-Q or bake anything in aluminum foil. Bake your own goodies using aluminum baking powder replacements or buy from companies like Ener-G Foods. * Foods can be wrapped with, guess what, wax paper, or put in plastic containers. Other sources of Aluminum intoxication:
• Beverages from aluminum cans- soda pop and beer being acid, leaches the aluminum from the cans into the solution that is consumed by people. One wonders if the increased violence in our youth may have some basis in aluminum toxicity of the brain and nervous system.
• Use of anti-perspirants
• Drinking water (many municipal water add aluminum in flocculation process)
• baking powder/soda (there are non metallics in health food stores)
• drying agents in salt and other dry products
• processed cheese (buy aged)
• bleached flour
• fluoridation of water increases leaching of aluminum from aluminum cookware
But the far greater pollution of aluminum comes from Acid Rain falling on clay soils. Acid Rain is made by water (rain) combining with air emissions from combustion of fossil fuels. Trucks, automobiles, and industry burn fossil fuels. These produce nitrates, sulfates, carbonates and chlorates. The hydrogen molecule in rain chemically combines with these to form nitric acid, sulfuric acid, carbolic acid and hydrochloric acid respectively. Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust. It is found in clay, (bentonite (Canadian Bentonite has minute amounts that flush out )and kaolin), and serpentine rock. They are composed of bound aluminum molecules. When acid rain falls on these type soils, it chemically releases the aluminum to be a free agent. If crops are grown in these locations (and almost every major agricultural areas in this country are downwind to industry air pollutants; and autos and trucks are everywhere), the roots of the crops take up the aluminum and incorporate it into the plant tissues. It is these vegetables, fruits, and grains we eat. Food- producing livestock eat the hay and grains grown here and also take in the aluminum in their tissues. Both man and animal eat the crops and the livestock. Aluminum concentrates as it goes up the food chain. Man and carnivores sit on top of the food chain. The free aluminum leaches through the soils and gets into the underground waters, polluting our drinking water, and the water that irrigates the livestock and crops. It's a vicious cycle that must be broken. We must stop using fossil fuels, and electricity generated by burning fossil fuels. We must look to alternative energy sources like wind, solar and hydroelectric power. We must make our government leaders stop squeezing every drop of fossil fuels out of this planet. We will be seeing a backlash of increased degenerative diseases in man and animals developing if we don't. There are many companies that are developing alternative energy, one I use is Green Mountain Energy* but there are others that may be registered with your state's Energy Commission. We can reduce auto emissions by fostering the development of electric cars, using our autos less by walking more, using bicycles (healthier for us) and combining several errand trips into one, and shopping in our homes via the internet.
References:
Mineral Tolerance of Domestic Animals, National Academy Of Sciences, 1980
Trace Elements, Hair Analysis and Nutrition, Passwater and Cranton, 1983, Keats Publishing Co. New Canaan, Ct.
Lancet (1:1028, 1987)
Lancet (2:849, 1988)
Special Report On Aluminum March 1989 Published by Alexander Grant, M.D. and Assoc. Inc., P.O. Box 1786, Indianapolis, IN 46206
Toxic Metal In Human Health And Disease 1989, Dr. Paul Eck and Dr. Larry Wilson, Eck Institute of Applied Nutrition and Bioenergetics, Ltd., 8650 N. 22nd Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85021
Green Mountain Energy Resources: 1-800-286-5856, Fax: (319) 399-2424 www.choosewisely.com
Ener- G Foods: 1-800-331-5222
Gloria Dodd, D.V.M. , graduate of the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine at Davis in 1960; private practitioner; pioneer in holistic veterinary medicine (the use of natural alternative therapies of acupuncture, chiropractic, natural nutrition, homeopathy, and magnetic field therapy); studied with medical naturopaths in Germany, South America and the U. S.; cofounder of the California Holistic Veterinary Medical Association 1981, member of CVMA since 1960, appointed Co-Chairperson for the Committee of Alternative Medicine on the Board of Governors CVMA ; international lecturer, teacher, and published in Prevention Magazine, California Veterinarian, American Journal of Acupuncture, Ultra Molecular Medicine and other journals. Nominated for OUTSTANDING WOMAN VETERINARIAN OF 1986 by the Association for Women Veterinarians. Visit her website at HolisticVetPetCare.com
-------------
Signs and Symptoms of Metal and Chemical Toxicity
Heavy metal poisoning and chemical toxicity lead to the accumulation of toxins in our tissues and organs causing nutritional deficiencies, hormonal imbalances and the breakdown of the immune system, the central nervous system, and the organs of the body. This breakdown of bodily organs and systems will encourage numerous diseases and disorders (listed above) to take hold in the body.
It is important to know some of the early signs and symptoms of environmental toxicity so that you can take action to reverse it. The following is a few of the many symptoms of heavy metal poisoning and chemical toxicity:
• Environmental allergies
• Food allergies
• Brain fog
• Coated tongue
• Extreme fatigue
• Frequent colds and flus
• Insomnia
• Loss of memory
• Metallic taste in mouth
• Muscle and joint pain
• Muscle twitching
• Night sweats
• Parasites
• Prone to mood swings
• Sensitive teeth
• Sensitive to smells
• Skin problems
• Sore or receding gums
"Heavy metal toxicity in humans has been associated with many health conditions, including heart disease, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Alzheimer's disease, immune system disorders, gastrointestinal disorders (including irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS), and autism.
Disorders Linked to Heavy Metal and Chemical Toxicity
The following is a list of the most common disorders found by independent research studies to be directly linked to toxic metals and chemicals:
• Attention Deficit Disorder
• Alzheimer's disease
• Asthma
• Arthritis
• Autism Spectrum disorders
• Auto-immune disorders
• Candidiasis
• Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
• Epilepsy
• Fibromyalgia
• Gulf War Syndrome
• Hypertension
• Insomnia
• Infertility
• Kidney disease
• Liver disease
• Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS)
• Multiple Scleroris
• Parkinson's disease
• Schizophrenia
• Thyroid disorders
In animals:
Pathologies produced by chronic Aluminum poisoning
This is the most important because it is the most prevalent found in all animal hair analysis I have tested. Aluminum has a predilection for the brain and nervous tissues therefore it touches every organ in the body via its nerve connections. This means it contributes to arthritis, kidney failure, Congestive Heart Disease, liver diseases, hypoglycemia as well as Diabetes Mellitus, Leaky Gut syndrome with resultant multiple allergies and skin diseases, endocrine dysfunctions (sterility, hypo and hyper thyroidism, deficiencies in pancreatic enzymes with the inability to digest food properly, Cushing's Syndrome, ovarian cysts), bone marrow depression with anemia, poor clotting ability, and weakened defenses against infection. These animals are more prone to succumbing to bacterial, viral and fungal diseases.
Other Heavy Metals and their pathologies
Mercury in toxic amounts (I'm talking more than .05 ppm in a man weighing approximately 180 pounds) prevents the body's cells from transporting glucose, thus reducing energy available to the body. It causes convulsions, anorexia, tremors, swollen gums and behavior problems in animals. Mercury is rapidly absorbed from coal fumes, contaminated seafood, paint, canvas and contaminated waters.
Lead is picked up by animals drinking from ceramic bowls, or from the water itself. Dogs that guard gas stations or come in contact with peeling paint or just live in the city all build up lead intoxication. Lead contaminates canned food from lead seams of the can. This lead intoxication causes widespread damage to the animal's nervous system, brain, heart, lungs and kidneys. Lead also displaces calcium.
Cadmium pollution is becoming more common due to its presence in drinking water, cigarette smoke, auto tires and processed meats. It produces pathologies of the lungs, liver kidneys and reproductive organs. It displaces zinc also producing poor healing and premature aging. My work in EAV has shown its predilection for the stomach with reduced hydrochloric acid being produced by the stomach thereby rendering abnormal digestion of proteins that can lead to "Leaky Gut" Syndrome and allergies
Arsenic poisonings are of two types: organic and inorganic. Inorganic arsenic is found in rodenticides, weed killers, ant baits and insecticides, dips for ticks and sometimes used to rid tapeworms in sheep. People and animals consume pesticides and weed killers sprayed on foodstuffs.
Organic forms are actually fed to pigs and poultry to improve production and in the case of swine to treat diarrhea. People and animals consume this meat!
An acute large dose of arsenic causes gastrointestinal damage with profuse watery diarrhea, bleeding and death. Chronic, smaller doses of arsenic causes a non- specific wasting disease- remember "Arsenic and Old Lace"? It is the quintessential choice of poisoners because it mimics so many chronic diseases that cannot be diagnosed except with hair analysis. These are documented facts.
Now under President Bush, our government standards increased the allowable arsenic content of drinking water!!! It boggles the mind. Meanwhile the public's health and animal health go down the toilet. Just watch the cost of Medicare, medical insurance, and every other medical and veterinary expense skyrocket in this country.
What Have We Learned?
Heavy metals are contaminating our food, water and health supplements for animals and man. Heavy metals produce pathologies relative to quantity and period of time consumed. The major source of consumption is due to pollution of our air, water and soils by agribusiness, industry and the public.
The governmental agencies are not protecting us; we have to protect ourselves. I strongly recommend to all people and pet owners: consume and feed to your animals only detoxed organically grown produce. If you can't find organic buy and detox every fruit, grain, meat and vegetable you bring home to make your home made meals for your family and pets. I have found even organic foods in this country are polluted with heavy metals.
I find rice grown in India (Basmati rice) at the foot of the Himalayan Mountains is very clean and healthy and is what I feed my family and animals.
Stop using everything that contains aluminum that can be leached by acid foods (meats, tomatoes, citrus drinks, all soda drinks, etc.) I don't use any aluminum period, in my household. EAV studies have shown to me that aluminum is toxic to all cells. It goes to the brain and nervous system, thereby touching every organ in the body including the immune system. There are research studies published by scientists in this country showing aluminum can get into the brain of animals showing damage similar to that which occurs in human beings with senile dementia. There is evidence that aluminum contributes to the development of Alzheimer's disease (AZD) by both directly poisoning the brain and causing clumping of the neuron connector structures and by injuring the blood brain barrier allowing toxic wastes to enter brain tissue. One particular kind of toxic waste is known to selectively attack the very parts of the brain that become damaged in the AZD type of senile dementia. In my veterinary practice, I have seen aluminum causing ovarian cysts, pancreatic cysts resulting in hyper insulin comas, tumors and cancer. Dowsing has shown me that aluminum lowers the nutritional energy of food and water thus depriving the body of its needed energy. Throw out your aluminum pots and pans and replace them with cast iron, stainless steel or Pyrex. Don't wrap or Bar-B-Q or bake anything in aluminum foil. Bake your own goodies using aluminum baking powder replacements or buy from companies like Ener-G Foods. * Foods can be wrapped with, guess what, wax paper, or put in plastic containers. Other sources of Aluminum intoxication:
• Beverages from aluminum cans- soda pop and beer being acid, leaches the aluminum from the cans into the solution that is consumed by people. One wonders if the increased violence in our youth may have some basis in aluminum toxicity of the brain and nervous system.
• Use of anti-perspirants
• Drinking water (many municipal water add aluminum in flocculation process)
• baking powder/soda (there are non metallics in health food stores)
• drying agents in salt and other dry products
• processed cheese (buy aged)
• bleached flour
• fluoridation of water increases leaching of aluminum from aluminum cookware
But the far greater pollution of aluminum comes from Acid Rain falling on clay soils. Acid Rain is made by water (rain) combining with air emissions from combustion of fossil fuels. Trucks, automobiles, and industry burn fossil fuels. These produce nitrates, sulfates, carbonates and chlorates. The hydrogen molecule in rain chemically combines with these to form nitric acid, sulfuric acid, carbolic acid and hydrochloric acid respectively. Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust. It is found in clay, (bentonite (Canadian Bentonite has minute amounts that flush out )and kaolin), and serpentine rock. They are composed of bound aluminum molecules. When acid rain falls on these type soils, it chemically releases the aluminum to be a free agent. If crops are grown in these locations (and almost every major agricultural areas in this country are downwind to industry air pollutants; and autos and trucks are everywhere), the roots of the crops take up the aluminum and incorporate it into the plant tissues. It is these vegetables, fruits, and grains we eat. Food- producing livestock eat the hay and grains grown here and also take in the aluminum in their tissues. Both man and animal eat the crops and the livestock. Aluminum concentrates as it goes up the food chain. Man and carnivores sit on top of the food chain. The free aluminum leaches through the soils and gets into the underground waters, polluting our drinking water, and the water that irrigates the livestock and crops. It's a vicious cycle that must be broken. We must stop using fossil fuels, and electricity generated by burning fossil fuels. We must look to alternative energy sources like wind, solar and hydroelectric power. We must make our government leaders stop squeezing every drop of fossil fuels out of this planet. We will be seeing a backlash of increased degenerative diseases in man and animals developing if we don't. There are many companies that are developing alternative energy, one I use is Green Mountain Energy* but there are others that may be registered with your state's Energy Commission. We can reduce auto emissions by fostering the development of electric cars, using our autos less by walking more, using bicycles (healthier for us) and combining several errand trips into one, and shopping in our homes via the internet.
References:
Mineral Tolerance of Domestic Animals, National Academy Of Sciences, 1980
Trace Elements, Hair Analysis and Nutrition, Passwater and Cranton, 1983, Keats Publishing Co. New Canaan, Ct.
Lancet (1:1028, 1987)
Lancet (2:849, 1988)
Special Report On Aluminum March 1989 Published by Alexander Grant, M.D. and Assoc. Inc., P.O. Box 1786, Indianapolis, IN 46206
Toxic Metal In Human Health And Disease 1989, Dr. Paul Eck and Dr. Larry Wilson, Eck Institute of Applied Nutrition and Bioenergetics, Ltd., 8650 N. 22nd Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85021
Green Mountain Energy Resources: 1-800-286-5856, Fax: (319) 399-2424 www.choosewisely.com
Ener- G Foods: 1-800-331-5222
Gloria Dodd, D.V.M. , graduate of the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine at Davis in 1960; private practitioner; pioneer in holistic veterinary medicine (the use of natural alternative therapies of acupuncture, chiropractic, natural nutrition, homeopathy, and magnetic field therapy); studied with medical naturopaths in Germany, South America and the U. S.; cofounder of the California Holistic Veterinary Medical Association 1981, member of CVMA since 1960, appointed Co-Chairperson for the Committee of Alternative Medicine on the Board of Governors CVMA ; international lecturer, teacher, and published in Prevention Magazine, California Veterinarian, American Journal of Acupuncture, Ultra Molecular Medicine and other journals. Nominated for OUTSTANDING WOMAN VETERINARIAN OF 1986 by the Association for Women Veterinarians. Visit her website at HolisticVetPetCare.com
Saturday, January 28, 2012
New Website...finally!
We welcome suggestions on our website, marketing...anything. I do my best to promote, marketing and graphics but I'm no expert so if any of you have any ideas, referrals or suggestions they are welcome. The new site address is the same as the old (http://www.fleafreeorganically.com) just a lot prettier and I'm in control!. Much like our product. The longer you use it, the more ways you use it, the more you are in control instead of the chemical companies. Try it on chrome and you'll see what I mean.
Organic Jan
Organic Jan
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Texas Bulldog Owner Wins Verdict Against Hartz Mountain Pet Products
Texas Bulldog Owner Wins Verdict Against Hartz Mountain Pet Products
'Diesel' died less than 40 hours after flea and tick drops were applied
By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com
Read more:http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/03/hartz_mountain_court.html#ixzz0hzkS7T9P
A 72-year-old dog owner has won what may be a landmark decision against the country’s leading maker of pet care products and fueled the ongoing debate over the safety of topical flea and tick treatments.
A Texas jury awarded Frank Bowers $4,440.75 in the small claims court action he filed against Hartz Mountain Corporation.In this David-versus-Goliath court battle -- believed to be the first small claims court action of its kind --- Bowers alleged that Hartz Ultra Guard Pro Flea and Tick Drops caused the death of his beloved Olde English Bulldog, Diesel.
The six-member jury deliberated less than 30 minutes before reaching a unanimous decision in favor of Bowers, who was widely considered the underdog in the case.
"When the bailiff walked in the courtroom and said we have a unanimous decision, I nearly passed out," said Bowers, who represented himself in the court action. “The jury said ‘we find Mr. Bowers’ integrity outweighed what was presented by (Hartz) attorney. He lost an animal of value and all costs he’s out are awarded to him.’"
“I just literally went numb,” Bowers added. “I caught up with three jurors in the hallway after the hearing. All I said to them was: ‘thank you, thank you, thank you.’ And they just said: ‘we did our job.’”
Hartz told ConsumerAffairs.com that it believed the case was "without merit," but did not appeal because of the time and cost involved.
Sense of justice
For Bowers, the jury’s decision brings closure and a sense of justice to an emotional issue that started at 8:30pm on August 7, 2008. On that warm summer night in Texas, Bowers applied Hartz Ultra Guard Pro Flea and Tick Drops to the 14-month-old, 68-pound, Diesel.
“I nipped off the top of the tube and put it on his back,” Bowers recalled. “I precisely used it as directed – nothing more, nothing less than directed.” By early the next morning Diesel had become gravelly ill.
“I went to my garage to work and I smelled this odor from excretion,” Bowers said. “Diesel was laying on the floor. He was shaking and having spasms of some kind. And he was passing a horrible odor of diarrhea.” Bowers called his daughter, who told him to immediately take the ailing dog to the vet.
Diesel’s health continued its rapid decline during the ride to his vet’s office, Bowers said.
“He continued to have bowel movements on the way. When we got to the vet’s office, he couldn’t walk. They got one of those stainless steel tables and took him back to an exam room.”
The veterinarian asked Bowers a battery of questions about Diesel, including one that caught him off guard.
“The vet asked me if I’d put any flea treatment on him,” Bowers said. “And I said: ‘yes, last night.’ I told him what it was and went back to the store to get a tube to show him.”
The vet, he said, took one look at the Hartz Ultra Guard Pro Flea and Tick Drops and shook his head. “He said: ‘Oh, my God. He’s going to have kidney failure.’”
By 4 o’clock the next morning, Diesel’s kidneys had shut down.
“He was in total renal failure,” Bowers said. “The vet wanted permission to euthanize him. I said you know what’s best and I don’t want any animal to suffer. “I picked Diesel up around 7am and took him out in the country and buried him on my daughter’s 10 acres.”
This painful chapter in Bowers' life happened in less than 35 hours – from the night he applied the flea and tick drops to the morning of Diesel’s death.
He wanted answers
Bowers wanted answers. He wanted to know why Diesel’s health deteriorated so quickly.
The plain-spoken Texan went straight to the source. He called Hartz.
“But they did not care to discuss this with me,” Bowers said of the company’s customer service representatives. “They insinuated that I did something wrong. “At that point, I said my dog is dead and I need you pay. It’s about $4,000.”
Hartz balked at his suggestion, Bowers said.
“They said we won’t pay that, sir. It’s a risk you take when you use our products. I asked for this person’s supervisor, but she hung up on me.”
Bowers then sent the company a letter about Diesel’s death.
“I got no response,” he said. “This irritated me. They acted like I didn’t exist.
“About two months later, someone (from Hartz) called me and told me it was my fault (that Diesel died) or neglect that caused the death and they were not responsible.”
Bowers contacted a few attorneys to see if they’d take his case. “But none wished to be bothering Hartz as there was not enough money,” he said. The determined pet owner, however, didn’t give up or back down.
He took matters into his own hands and represented himself in court, specifically Small Claims Court, Precinct 3, in Travis County, Texas. Consumers in the Lone Star State can seek damages of up to $10,000 in their small claims court proceedings. Texas also allows jury trials in small claims court actions.
“I filed papers in small claims court,” said Bowers, who lives in Austin, Texas. “But the court called me a while later and said I needed to re-file my case because Hartz did not respond.”
Bowers filed his case again on July 28, 2009. “And this time, Hartz did respond to the court,” he said. “The court sent the company a registered and non-registered letter about my case. An attorney contacted the court and said she represented Hartz.”
The court wanted Bowers and Hartz to resolve the case through mediation. But that process wasn’t too productive, Bowers said.
“I looked at the girl (Hartz’ attorney) square in the eyes and said: ‘do you have a check for this amount -- $4,400?’ She said no. I said ‘then this mediation is over. At this time, there is nothing to negotiate.’”
Bowers and Hartz’ attorney then went back and talked to the judge.
“The judge said we’ll have to reschedule for another appearance,” Bowers said. “But I told the judge that I wanted a trial by jury. She said that’s your privilege. The attorney (for Hartz) didn’t like it. She wanted to settle this between her and I.
“Here I am -- 72-year-olds old. I have a high school education. I don’t have a law degree. But I still wanted a trial by jury. The judge asked me if I thought I could get a jury verdict in my favor and I said I wouldn't be here if I didn’t.”
Day in court
Bowers' day in court finally arrived on January 12, 2010.
Before the trial, each side had a chance to question a pool of potential jurors.
“I chose not to ask them any questions,” Bowers said. “But Hartz’ attorney kicked a few potential jurors off because they had pets. She also asked the jurors if they’d had any problems in the past with pet medications. She didn’t want any pet owners or people who had problems with pet medications on the jury. There were also no vets on the jury.”
In the end, a jury of three men and three women heard the case.
“The trial took less than two hours,” Bowers said. “I wasn’t able to tell the jury everything I wanted to.”
The judge, for example, wouldn’t allow Bowers to enter into evidence any of his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents about the adverse reactions dogs and cats have experienced from topical flea and tick products. The vets he wanted to call as witnesses also couldn’t make it to court that day.
“I had no witnesses,” Bowers said. “I was riding the brass rail by myself.” And he was up against Hartz’ savvy attorney, who he learned had taken a special course on flea and tick products to prepare her for the case.
“Hartz had all kinds of statements about flea and tick products and they had everything notarized so it could be entered into evidence,” Bowers said. “I didn’t know I needed to do that (get documents notarized). Hartz had statements from their vets, too.”
During the trial, Hartz also cross-examined Bowers about Diesel’s death. He’s glad they did.
“That’s when I got in the information that they wouldn’t let me enter,” Bowers said. “I entered it by blurting it from the witness box. The attorney asked me a question like ‘how did I know it was Hartz that killed my animal?’ And I said Hartz has killed many other animals.
“The attorney was screaming to get me to shut up and I just kept talking,” Bowers added. “The judge then told me to shut up. At that point, I looked at the judge and said ‘I’m sorry.’ And then I looked at the jury and smiled.”
Used as directed?
Hartz’ attorney also suggested that Bowers didn’t apply the flea and tick drops as directed.
“They screamed that over and over,” Bowers said. “But I precisely used it as directed.”
Hartz and other makers of fleas and tick products often cite the misuse of these treatments for adverse reactions. Pet owners, they say, may put a flea and tick product intended for a dog on a cat. Or they may apply too much flea and tick product on their pets.
Last summer, the ASPCA’s Animal Poison Control Center also studied its data on topical flea and tick products. That study revealed the likelihood of severe adverse reactions was significantly less when dogs and cats were treated according to directions.
“From the data we have collected, the adverse reactions tend to be mild, like skin sensations and stomach upset,” the ASPCA’s Dr. Steven Hansen said after the organization released its study. “We don’t have very many cases of true neurological issues when these products are properly used.”
Bowers, however, repeatedly told ConsumerAffairs.com that he used the Hartz flea and ticks drops as directed when he applied them to Diesel. He also told us the court didn’t give him the chance to cross-examine any of Hartz’ witnesses during the trial. “I wasn’t asked to,” he said. “I asked the judge why I could ask any questions and she said ‘that’s procedure.’”
The jury, however, wasn’t swayed by the witnesses or documents Hartz used in its defense.
After deliberating for less than 30 minutes, the jurors ruled in Bowers favor.
“I didn’t know what to think when I heard that,” he said, adding the $4,440 he won covers the cost of Diesel and the dog’s vet bills. “I was dumbfounded.”
Bowers is convinced the jury sided with him because of one issue that surfaced during the trial: whether the chemical Phenothrin, which is in Hartz Ultra Guard Flea and Tick Drops, is the same or similar to the chemical Permethrin. Bowers said he argued that, according to his “carnal knowledge,” those two are the same chemical compound.
“I kid you not, that is the thing that saved my case,” he said.
Hartz vehemently disputes that contention, saying those are completely different ingredients.
“The trade name for Phenothrin is Sumithrin,” the company’s spokeswoman, Anne Isenhower, told ConsumerAffairs.com. “Permethrin is a completely different ingredient that Hartz does not use in any of our on-animal products in the United States.”
Hartz also downplayed Bowers’ allegations and the jury’s decision. “This case was without merit and the allegations weren’t supported by evidence (presented in the trial),” said Isenhower, senior vice president, with GolinHarris, Hartz’ public relations firm. Hartz, however, did not appeal the jury’s decision because of the time and cost involved to pursue such action, Isenhower said.
Asked if Bowers’ case marked the first time a consumer has successfully sued Hartz over one of its topical flea and tick products, Isenhower said: “Yes, we believe so. We are not aware of any verdict against Hartz flea & tick drops.”
She had an identical comment when asked if Bowers’ case was the first small claims court victory against Hartz. “Yes, we believe so. We are not aware of any verdict against Hartz flea & tick drops.”
Safety defended
In spite of the jury’s decision, Isenhower defended the safety of Hartz flea and tick products.
“We’ve conducted extensive analysis of the adverse event reporting on our products as well as all topic treatments in the market,” she said. “Although Hartz is the leader in flea and tick retail sales, we are less than three percent of all adverse effects reported to the EPA in 2008 for topical dog flea and tick treatments.”
The safety of topical or “spot-on” flea and tick products has come under“intensified” scrutinyby the EPA for the past 11 months.
The agency started that probe last April, saying it had received more than 44,000 reports of adverse reactions associated with spot-on flea and tick products.
“Adverse reactions reported range from mild effects such as skin irritation to more serious effects such as seizures and, in some cases, the death of the pet,” the EPA said.
Data delayed
The agency told ConsumerAffairs.com that it planned to release its findings last fall. The EPA, however, has since delayed that release date.
“Due to the large amount of data and the complex technical issues associated with the review of the data, our report is not ready for public release,” the agency’s spokesman, Dale Kemery, told us in December 2009. "We anticipate publicly releasing the document in early 2010.”
The EPA will post its findings about topical flea and tick products, and any regulatory action it may take, on itsWeb site.
In the meantime, animal experts recommend pet owners consult their veterinarians about which flea and tick product to use on their dogs or cats.
Beware
Back in Texas, Bowers warns pet owners to be “earthly” aware of any topical flea and tick products they put on their animals.
“I think I’ll utilize just plain soap and water,” he said. “I use Head and Shoulders shampoo on my dogs now. I bathe them every time I see them scratching. “We used to get Myrtle Bush when I was a child growing up in Louisiana,” he added. “It was a natural killer of fleas.”
Bowers is also keenly aware that his legal victory could have ripple effects in courtrooms across the country. He suspects his case may serve as a rallying call for other pet owners who’ve seen their dogs or cats suffer burns, blisters, seizures, neurological problems, or even die after using topical flea and tick products.
His case, he said, may open the floodgates for similar lawsuits nationwide.
“I think this case will make pet owners wonder why they have not gone forward with their cases in small claims court,” Bowers said. “And if they do, my advice to them if get a trial by jury; I would never accept a non-jury trial.”
The amount of money consumers can recover in small claims court varies by state. And some states do not allow trials by jury in small claims court. ConsumerAffairs.com has a comprehensivesmall claims court guide.
Read more:http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/03/hartz_mountain_court.html#ixzz0hzkJNJnL
Flea Free Organically | Organic Jan's Newsletter
http://www.fleafreeorganically.com
Subscribe to: Organic Jan's Blog: http://fleafreeorganically.blogspot.com
760-595-8458
• Prevents heartworm and intestinal parasites with regular use
• Removes toxins and heavy metals from the body
• Hairballs reduction
• Better elimination
• Cleaner colon, vein, and arteries
• Reduces Blood Pressure and Cholesterol by reducing Plaque
• Reduces/eliminate joint pain in humans and animals (I know this for a fact because I take a T. Daily
• Improves coat, energy and overall health as opposed to using toxins to just kill fleas and another to kill worms
• Reduces cat box and feces odor
'Diesel' died less than 40 hours after flea and tick drops were applied
By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com
Read more:http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/03/hartz_mountain_court.html#ixzz0hzkS7T9P
A 72-year-old dog owner has won what may be a landmark decision against the country’s leading maker of pet care products and fueled the ongoing debate over the safety of topical flea and tick treatments.
A Texas jury awarded Frank Bowers $4,440.75 in the small claims court action he filed against Hartz Mountain Corporation.In this David-versus-Goliath court battle -- believed to be the first small claims court action of its kind --- Bowers alleged that Hartz Ultra Guard Pro Flea and Tick Drops caused the death of his beloved Olde English Bulldog, Diesel.
The six-member jury deliberated less than 30 minutes before reaching a unanimous decision in favor of Bowers, who was widely considered the underdog in the case.
"When the bailiff walked in the courtroom and said we have a unanimous decision, I nearly passed out," said Bowers, who represented himself in the court action. “The jury said ‘we find Mr. Bowers’ integrity outweighed what was presented by (Hartz) attorney. He lost an animal of value and all costs he’s out are awarded to him.’"
“I just literally went numb,” Bowers added. “I caught up with three jurors in the hallway after the hearing. All I said to them was: ‘thank you, thank you, thank you.’ And they just said: ‘we did our job.’”
Hartz told ConsumerAffairs.com that it believed the case was "without merit," but did not appeal because of the time and cost involved.
Sense of justice
For Bowers, the jury’s decision brings closure and a sense of justice to an emotional issue that started at 8:30pm on August 7, 2008. On that warm summer night in Texas, Bowers applied Hartz Ultra Guard Pro Flea and Tick Drops to the 14-month-old, 68-pound, Diesel.
“I nipped off the top of the tube and put it on his back,” Bowers recalled. “I precisely used it as directed – nothing more, nothing less than directed.” By early the next morning Diesel had become gravelly ill.
“I went to my garage to work and I smelled this odor from excretion,” Bowers said. “Diesel was laying on the floor. He was shaking and having spasms of some kind. And he was passing a horrible odor of diarrhea.” Bowers called his daughter, who told him to immediately take the ailing dog to the vet.
Diesel’s health continued its rapid decline during the ride to his vet’s office, Bowers said.
“He continued to have bowel movements on the way. When we got to the vet’s office, he couldn’t walk. They got one of those stainless steel tables and took him back to an exam room.”
The veterinarian asked Bowers a battery of questions about Diesel, including one that caught him off guard.
“The vet asked me if I’d put any flea treatment on him,” Bowers said. “And I said: ‘yes, last night.’ I told him what it was and went back to the store to get a tube to show him.”
The vet, he said, took one look at the Hartz Ultra Guard Pro Flea and Tick Drops and shook his head. “He said: ‘Oh, my God. He’s going to have kidney failure.’”
By 4 o’clock the next morning, Diesel’s kidneys had shut down.
“He was in total renal failure,” Bowers said. “The vet wanted permission to euthanize him. I said you know what’s best and I don’t want any animal to suffer. “I picked Diesel up around 7am and took him out in the country and buried him on my daughter’s 10 acres.”
This painful chapter in Bowers' life happened in less than 35 hours – from the night he applied the flea and tick drops to the morning of Diesel’s death.
He wanted answers
Bowers wanted answers. He wanted to know why Diesel’s health deteriorated so quickly.
The plain-spoken Texan went straight to the source. He called Hartz.
“But they did not care to discuss this with me,” Bowers said of the company’s customer service representatives. “They insinuated that I did something wrong. “At that point, I said my dog is dead and I need you pay. It’s about $4,000.”
Hartz balked at his suggestion, Bowers said.
“They said we won’t pay that, sir. It’s a risk you take when you use our products. I asked for this person’s supervisor, but she hung up on me.”
Bowers then sent the company a letter about Diesel’s death.
“I got no response,” he said. “This irritated me. They acted like I didn’t exist.
“About two months later, someone (from Hartz) called me and told me it was my fault (that Diesel died) or neglect that caused the death and they were not responsible.”
Bowers contacted a few attorneys to see if they’d take his case. “But none wished to be bothering Hartz as there was not enough money,” he said. The determined pet owner, however, didn’t give up or back down.
He took matters into his own hands and represented himself in court, specifically Small Claims Court, Precinct 3, in Travis County, Texas. Consumers in the Lone Star State can seek damages of up to $10,000 in their small claims court proceedings. Texas also allows jury trials in small claims court actions.
“I filed papers in small claims court,” said Bowers, who lives in Austin, Texas. “But the court called me a while later and said I needed to re-file my case because Hartz did not respond.”
Bowers filed his case again on July 28, 2009. “And this time, Hartz did respond to the court,” he said. “The court sent the company a registered and non-registered letter about my case. An attorney contacted the court and said she represented Hartz.”
The court wanted Bowers and Hartz to resolve the case through mediation. But that process wasn’t too productive, Bowers said.
“I looked at the girl (Hartz’ attorney) square in the eyes and said: ‘do you have a check for this amount -- $4,400?’ She said no. I said ‘then this mediation is over. At this time, there is nothing to negotiate.’”
Bowers and Hartz’ attorney then went back and talked to the judge.
“The judge said we’ll have to reschedule for another appearance,” Bowers said. “But I told the judge that I wanted a trial by jury. She said that’s your privilege. The attorney (for Hartz) didn’t like it. She wanted to settle this between her and I.
“Here I am -- 72-year-olds old. I have a high school education. I don’t have a law degree. But I still wanted a trial by jury. The judge asked me if I thought I could get a jury verdict in my favor and I said I wouldn't be here if I didn’t.”
Day in court
Bowers' day in court finally arrived on January 12, 2010.
Before the trial, each side had a chance to question a pool of potential jurors.
“I chose not to ask them any questions,” Bowers said. “But Hartz’ attorney kicked a few potential jurors off because they had pets. She also asked the jurors if they’d had any problems in the past with pet medications. She didn’t want any pet owners or people who had problems with pet medications on the jury. There were also no vets on the jury.”
In the end, a jury of three men and three women heard the case.
“The trial took less than two hours,” Bowers said. “I wasn’t able to tell the jury everything I wanted to.”
The judge, for example, wouldn’t allow Bowers to enter into evidence any of his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents about the adverse reactions dogs and cats have experienced from topical flea and tick products. The vets he wanted to call as witnesses also couldn’t make it to court that day.
“I had no witnesses,” Bowers said. “I was riding the brass rail by myself.” And he was up against Hartz’ savvy attorney, who he learned had taken a special course on flea and tick products to prepare her for the case.
“Hartz had all kinds of statements about flea and tick products and they had everything notarized so it could be entered into evidence,” Bowers said. “I didn’t know I needed to do that (get documents notarized). Hartz had statements from their vets, too.”
During the trial, Hartz also cross-examined Bowers about Diesel’s death. He’s glad they did.
“That’s when I got in the information that they wouldn’t let me enter,” Bowers said. “I entered it by blurting it from the witness box. The attorney asked me a question like ‘how did I know it was Hartz that killed my animal?’ And I said Hartz has killed many other animals.
“The attorney was screaming to get me to shut up and I just kept talking,” Bowers added. “The judge then told me to shut up. At that point, I looked at the judge and said ‘I’m sorry.’ And then I looked at the jury and smiled.”
Used as directed?
Hartz’ attorney also suggested that Bowers didn’t apply the flea and tick drops as directed.
“They screamed that over and over,” Bowers said. “But I precisely used it as directed.”
Hartz and other makers of fleas and tick products often cite the misuse of these treatments for adverse reactions. Pet owners, they say, may put a flea and tick product intended for a dog on a cat. Or they may apply too much flea and tick product on their pets.
Last summer, the ASPCA’s Animal Poison Control Center also studied its data on topical flea and tick products. That study revealed the likelihood of severe adverse reactions was significantly less when dogs and cats were treated according to directions.
“From the data we have collected, the adverse reactions tend to be mild, like skin sensations and stomach upset,” the ASPCA’s Dr. Steven Hansen said after the organization released its study. “We don’t have very many cases of true neurological issues when these products are properly used.”
Bowers, however, repeatedly told ConsumerAffairs.com that he used the Hartz flea and ticks drops as directed when he applied them to Diesel. He also told us the court didn’t give him the chance to cross-examine any of Hartz’ witnesses during the trial. “I wasn’t asked to,” he said. “I asked the judge why I could ask any questions and she said ‘that’s procedure.’”
The jury, however, wasn’t swayed by the witnesses or documents Hartz used in its defense.
After deliberating for less than 30 minutes, the jurors ruled in Bowers favor.
“I didn’t know what to think when I heard that,” he said, adding the $4,440 he won covers the cost of Diesel and the dog’s vet bills. “I was dumbfounded.”
Bowers is convinced the jury sided with him because of one issue that surfaced during the trial: whether the chemical Phenothrin, which is in Hartz Ultra Guard Flea and Tick Drops, is the same or similar to the chemical Permethrin. Bowers said he argued that, according to his “carnal knowledge,” those two are the same chemical compound.
“I kid you not, that is the thing that saved my case,” he said.
Hartz vehemently disputes that contention, saying those are completely different ingredients.
“The trade name for Phenothrin is Sumithrin,” the company’s spokeswoman, Anne Isenhower, told ConsumerAffairs.com. “Permethrin is a completely different ingredient that Hartz does not use in any of our on-animal products in the United States.”
Hartz also downplayed Bowers’ allegations and the jury’s decision. “This case was without merit and the allegations weren’t supported by evidence (presented in the trial),” said Isenhower, senior vice president, with GolinHarris, Hartz’ public relations firm. Hartz, however, did not appeal the jury’s decision because of the time and cost involved to pursue such action, Isenhower said.
Asked if Bowers’ case marked the first time a consumer has successfully sued Hartz over one of its topical flea and tick products, Isenhower said: “Yes, we believe so. We are not aware of any verdict against Hartz flea & tick drops.”
She had an identical comment when asked if Bowers’ case was the first small claims court victory against Hartz. “Yes, we believe so. We are not aware of any verdict against Hartz flea & tick drops.”
Safety defended
In spite of the jury’s decision, Isenhower defended the safety of Hartz flea and tick products.
“We’ve conducted extensive analysis of the adverse event reporting on our products as well as all topic treatments in the market,” she said. “Although Hartz is the leader in flea and tick retail sales, we are less than three percent of all adverse effects reported to the EPA in 2008 for topical dog flea and tick treatments.”
The safety of topical or “spot-on” flea and tick products has come under“intensified” scrutinyby the EPA for the past 11 months.
The agency started that probe last April, saying it had received more than 44,000 reports of adverse reactions associated with spot-on flea and tick products.
“Adverse reactions reported range from mild effects such as skin irritation to more serious effects such as seizures and, in some cases, the death of the pet,” the EPA said.
Data delayed
The agency told ConsumerAffairs.com that it planned to release its findings last fall. The EPA, however, has since delayed that release date.
“Due to the large amount of data and the complex technical issues associated with the review of the data, our report is not ready for public release,” the agency’s spokesman, Dale Kemery, told us in December 2009. "We anticipate publicly releasing the document in early 2010.”
The EPA will post its findings about topical flea and tick products, and any regulatory action it may take, on itsWeb site.
In the meantime, animal experts recommend pet owners consult their veterinarians about which flea and tick product to use on their dogs or cats.
Beware
Back in Texas, Bowers warns pet owners to be “earthly” aware of any topical flea and tick products they put on their animals.
“I think I’ll utilize just plain soap and water,” he said. “I use Head and Shoulders shampoo on my dogs now. I bathe them every time I see them scratching. “We used to get Myrtle Bush when I was a child growing up in Louisiana,” he added. “It was a natural killer of fleas.”
Bowers is also keenly aware that his legal victory could have ripple effects in courtrooms across the country. He suspects his case may serve as a rallying call for other pet owners who’ve seen their dogs or cats suffer burns, blisters, seizures, neurological problems, or even die after using topical flea and tick products.
His case, he said, may open the floodgates for similar lawsuits nationwide.
“I think this case will make pet owners wonder why they have not gone forward with their cases in small claims court,” Bowers said. “And if they do, my advice to them if get a trial by jury; I would never accept a non-jury trial.”
The amount of money consumers can recover in small claims court varies by state. And some states do not allow trials by jury in small claims court. ConsumerAffairs.com has a comprehensivesmall claims court guide.
Read more:http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/03/hartz_mountain_court.html#ixzz0hzkJNJnL
Flea Free Organically | Organic Jan's Newsletter
http://www.fleafreeorganically.com
Subscribe to: Organic Jan's Blog: http://fleafreeorganically.blogspot.com
760-595-8458
• Prevents heartworm and intestinal parasites with regular use
• Removes toxins and heavy metals from the body
• Hairballs reduction
• Better elimination
• Cleaner colon, vein, and arteries
• Reduces Blood Pressure and Cholesterol by reducing Plaque
• Reduces/eliminate joint pain in humans and animals (I know this for a fact because I take a T. Daily
• Improves coat, energy and overall health as opposed to using toxins to just kill fleas and another to kill worms
• Reduces cat box and feces odor
Sunday, December 25, 2011
The Drug Companies' Newest Profit Weapon to Steal Your Money
The Drug Companies' Newest Profit Weapon to Steal Your Money
Story at-a-glance
• The Australian newspaper has reportedly accepted an undisclosed amount of sponsorship money from the drug industry for a series of health policy articles
• The drug industry spends nearly twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, and part of this promotion includes hefty advertising dollars that allow the industry to dictate editorial policy
• The drug industry also uses their marketing and lobbying dollars to influence and control medical science, published journal articles, and government policy
• Drug companies are the BIGGEST political lobby, and political lobbying is one of the primary reasons why the drug companies are controlling nearly every facet of the health industry
By Dr. Mercola
The drug industry spends nearly twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, and historically one of their key targets has been physicians.
There are drug reps whose sole responsibility is to "educate" physicians about new drugs, a practice that includes lavish gifts, dinners and trips as persuasive perks.
In fact, about $282 million was paid to doctors by drug companies in 2009, which, coupled with their potent brainwashing techniques, allows the industry to heavily influence physicians' prescribing habits.
While physician-directed marketing continues to be a common practice, the public is no longer entirely in the dark about it.
In fact, some doctors are rethinking the relationship and questioning whether it's really in their best interest, and the best interest of their patients, to accept "educational" material and gifts from drug makers.
Over the past few years the drug industry has been riddled with negative publicity highlighting their concerning ties with not only physicians but also medical schools and medical journals; so, it's not surprising that they would refocus their attention on the purveyors of such publicity, namely journalists and the media.
Drug Industry is Infiltrating Supposedly "Independent" Media Outlets
If you don't like the bad press you're getting, why not buy out the media so you can have a say in what gets printed? This is the obvious next step for the drug industry, whose marketing budget (numbering in the billions) knows no bounds.
As journalist Ray Moynihan recently reported in the British Medical Journal:
"Just as many doctors contemplate an end to their dance with drug company marketers, a fresh new crew is stepping lively onto the floor: journalists and media organizations looking for easy ways to fund their reporting, travel, and education.
The BMJ reported … that the Murdoch empire's flagship newspaper in Australia has accepted an undisclosed amount of sponsorship money from the drug industry for a series of articles on health policy—and that the idea arose from a meeting between advertising agents.
Defending the deal, the Australian's editor said that independence and integrity were maintained; but as others pointed out, this new form of financial closeness between journalists and the companies they scrutinise raises real concerns."
This is really not surprising considering that that media mogul Rupert Murdoch's son, James Murdoch, is a member of drug giant GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) corporate responsibility committee (a position he entered in May 2009). His job? To review "external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group's business and reputation" -- a position he's well suited for …
James Murdoch, as you may know, is the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation Europe and Asia, and chairman of BSkyB.
I can only imagine the extent to which drug makers can benefit from having a media mogul on their payroll, as well as "sponsoring" media content on health policy. Clearly they've thought this one through, and it makes perfect sense when you consider the clout they need to keep the media quiet about their various wrongdoing ...
I think it's safe to say that if strings need to be pulled, they will be pulled—hard.
Drug industry influence is not restricted to Murdoch's newspaper empire, but their ties are worth noting as they have been at the center of intense media and legal scrutiny before regarding allegedly fabricating lies against a respected British doctor, Andrew Wakefield (against whom, ironically, the British Medical Journal also launched an unjustified vicious attack).
Is Big Pharma Dictating Editorial Policy at Your Favorite Newspaper or TV Station?
If you still believe that most media outlets provide unbiased, impartial information, it's time for a wake-up call, as most are heavily controlled by corporate interests, including drug companies. As retired neurosurgeon Russell L. Blaylock, MD put it:
" … We no longer have investigative journalists, we have a corporate controlled media. It is no secret that most media outlets are desperate for money, especially in this economy.
The lifeblood of all media is advertising. An independent analysis appearing in a peer reviewed open access journal published by the Public Library of Science estimated that pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. spent $57.5 billion on promotion in 2004, almost twice as much as they spend on research and development.
Virtually every TV news network, magazine and newspaper is filled with very expensive pharmaceutical ads. These media outlets cannot afford to lose this money and this allows the pharmaceutical companies to set editorial policy. Stories criticizing vaccines are as rare as hen's teeth. With billions to use for influence, one witnesses resulting bias in academia and government regulatory agencies as well."
Case in point, even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which also has worrisome ties to the drug industry, spends $1.7 million for a Hollywood liaison as part of their Entertainment Education Program, which makes sure that when your favorite TV shows feature a health topic, that information is "accurate," or shall we say "CDC-approved."
Have you ever wondered why you will rarely ever see a TV show that features a plot line including a vaccine injury or adverse drug reaction, even though they are incredibly common in real life? Now you know why.
When you begin to peek beneath the surface at the funding sources behind most media outlets, the picture becomes clearer as to why there is a pattern of censorship in the mainstream press when it comes to revealing the truth about the drug industry. This even applies to the scientific evidence documenting drug and vaccine risks.
Massive Conflict of Interest in Drug Industry Documented
Download the Interview Transcript
Total Video Length: 1:02:23
In the video above, Dr. Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD -- an associate professor of medicine and associate professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California at San Diego -- shares shocking information about the dark underbelly of medical science to help you understand how, and why, the "scientific method" has become so manipulated and willfully distorted by the drug industry.
For starters, in order for scientific studies to happen, someone has to pay for them. The top funder for any drug trial is the pharmaceutical company that makes it, since the manufacturer is most invested in "proving" how spectacular its drug is.
Dr. Golomb uses the case of statins as an example, stating that all of the major statin studies have been funded exclusively by the drug industry. The second-highest funder of drug studies is the National Institute of Health (NIH), which is not the group of neutral government experts you may have assumed them to be. In fact, NIH accepts a great deal of money from Big Pharma and is deeply enmeshed with the industry.
Further, drug companies publish only a fraction of the studies they fund -- the ones that promote their drugs. Often those favorable studies are submitted multiple times, in a way that the reader doesn't realize it's the same study, obscured by different author lists and different details. If a study does not have findings that are favorable to its product, it is unlikely it will ever make it into a journal for publication.
But, when a scientific study has findings that cast doubt on the efficacy of a drug, oftentimes the negative findings are morphed into positive ones through statistical and semantic manipulation.
The editorials that follow from a study, submitted by so-called unbiased experts and then published in reputable journals, are also often done by non-neutral parties who have a financial tie to the drug maker. Not to mention that many of the articles that appear in medical journals purportedly written by well-known academics are actually written by unacknowledged ghostwriters on Big Pharma payroll.
Medical journals are generally considered by medical practitioners to be a source of reliable information. But medical journals are also businesses. In 2003, drug companies spent $448 million dollars on advertising in medical journals. It has been calculated that the return on investment on medical journal ads is between $2.22 and $6.86 for every dollar spent, with larger and older brands at the higher end.
Long-term returns may be even higher when you consider that one ad viewed by a physician could result in hundreds or even thousands of drug purchases, based on the prescriptions he or she writes.
At least certain medical journals are attempting to regain their unbiased reputations; in 2011 the journal Emergency Medicine Australasia announced it would no longer accept pharmaceutical advertisements, citing growing evidence that the drug industry "distorts research findings and engages in dubious and unethical publishing practices."
A BMJ news piece reported:
"George Jelinek, a former editor of the journal [Emergency Medicine Australasia], and Anthony Brown, editor in chief, wrote, "Marketing of drugs by the pharmaceutical industry, whose prime aim is to bias readers towards prescribing a particular product, is fundamentally at odds with the mission of medical journals."
How Lobbyists Have Taken Over and Stolen Your Government
In the CBS News video above, crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff explains how he influenced Congress for years, and how this kind of corruption still continues. He spent $1 million dollars a year on concert and sporting event tickets alone, and even had two full-time members of his staff devoted to booking tickets!
If vacations, private jets, fancy dinners and other perks weren't enough to sway Congress, Abramoff's group would offer members of Congress a job when they leave Capitol Hill, at double or triple the salary. As Abramoff says in the video, once they accepted that offer that was it:
" … We own them … everything that we want, they're gonna do."
Drug companies, of course, are the BIGGEST political lobby, and political lobbying is one of the primary reasons why the drug companies are controlling nearly the entire health industry. Lobbyists, by definition, "conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation." This is Big Business doing what it does best: using its power and money to strong-arm the legislative process.
The pharmaceutical industry spent $1.5 billion lobbying Congress in the last decade, and in so doing has manipulated the government's involvement with medicine and secondarily reinforced our dependence on them, through government policies.
All the More Reason to Take Control of Your Health …
Drug companies are willing to do just about anything to make you, and your physician, think their drugs are great -- including buying off Congress, the media, and even corrupting studies in medical journals so they show only favorable results. If that doesn't work, they will try to get their products mandated so you have no choice but to use them or face legal action.
It isn't always easy to fight back against this system, but know that the drug companies are not going to protect you or give you optimal health. You are the only one that can protect yourself and your family, and the chief way to do this is by taking control of your health.
Until real systemic change takes place, your best health strategy is quite simply to employ and maintain a naturally healthy lifestyle that will optimize your body's innate healing abilities and minimize your need for the drug companies' latest concoctions. We are, however, working hard to change the system and help protect your health freedoms from corrupt influences like the drug industry; you can learn more about our newest initiative toward this end, Health Liberty, now.
Source: BMJ 2011; 343: bmj.d6978
Related Links:
How Corrupted Drug Companies Deceive and Manipulate Your Doctor
How Drug Companies Bribe Doctors to Suck You Into Their Web…
Ugly Story Proves the Media is Lying to You About Vaccines
Story at-a-glance
• The Australian newspaper has reportedly accepted an undisclosed amount of sponsorship money from the drug industry for a series of health policy articles
• The drug industry spends nearly twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, and part of this promotion includes hefty advertising dollars that allow the industry to dictate editorial policy
• The drug industry also uses their marketing and lobbying dollars to influence and control medical science, published journal articles, and government policy
• Drug companies are the BIGGEST political lobby, and political lobbying is one of the primary reasons why the drug companies are controlling nearly every facet of the health industry
By Dr. Mercola
The drug industry spends nearly twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, and historically one of their key targets has been physicians.
There are drug reps whose sole responsibility is to "educate" physicians about new drugs, a practice that includes lavish gifts, dinners and trips as persuasive perks.
In fact, about $282 million was paid to doctors by drug companies in 2009, which, coupled with their potent brainwashing techniques, allows the industry to heavily influence physicians' prescribing habits.
While physician-directed marketing continues to be a common practice, the public is no longer entirely in the dark about it.
In fact, some doctors are rethinking the relationship and questioning whether it's really in their best interest, and the best interest of their patients, to accept "educational" material and gifts from drug makers.
Over the past few years the drug industry has been riddled with negative publicity highlighting their concerning ties with not only physicians but also medical schools and medical journals; so, it's not surprising that they would refocus their attention on the purveyors of such publicity, namely journalists and the media.
Drug Industry is Infiltrating Supposedly "Independent" Media Outlets
If you don't like the bad press you're getting, why not buy out the media so you can have a say in what gets printed? This is the obvious next step for the drug industry, whose marketing budget (numbering in the billions) knows no bounds.
As journalist Ray Moynihan recently reported in the British Medical Journal:
"Just as many doctors contemplate an end to their dance with drug company marketers, a fresh new crew is stepping lively onto the floor: journalists and media organizations looking for easy ways to fund their reporting, travel, and education.
The BMJ reported … that the Murdoch empire's flagship newspaper in Australia has accepted an undisclosed amount of sponsorship money from the drug industry for a series of articles on health policy—and that the idea arose from a meeting between advertising agents.
Defending the deal, the Australian's editor said that independence and integrity were maintained; but as others pointed out, this new form of financial closeness between journalists and the companies they scrutinise raises real concerns."
This is really not surprising considering that that media mogul Rupert Murdoch's son, James Murdoch, is a member of drug giant GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) corporate responsibility committee (a position he entered in May 2009). His job? To review "external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group's business and reputation" -- a position he's well suited for …
James Murdoch, as you may know, is the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation Europe and Asia, and chairman of BSkyB.
I can only imagine the extent to which drug makers can benefit from having a media mogul on their payroll, as well as "sponsoring" media content on health policy. Clearly they've thought this one through, and it makes perfect sense when you consider the clout they need to keep the media quiet about their various wrongdoing ...
I think it's safe to say that if strings need to be pulled, they will be pulled—hard.
Drug industry influence is not restricted to Murdoch's newspaper empire, but their ties are worth noting as they have been at the center of intense media and legal scrutiny before regarding allegedly fabricating lies against a respected British doctor, Andrew Wakefield (against whom, ironically, the British Medical Journal also launched an unjustified vicious attack).
Is Big Pharma Dictating Editorial Policy at Your Favorite Newspaper or TV Station?
If you still believe that most media outlets provide unbiased, impartial information, it's time for a wake-up call, as most are heavily controlled by corporate interests, including drug companies. As retired neurosurgeon Russell L. Blaylock, MD put it:
" … We no longer have investigative journalists, we have a corporate controlled media. It is no secret that most media outlets are desperate for money, especially in this economy.
The lifeblood of all media is advertising. An independent analysis appearing in a peer reviewed open access journal published by the Public Library of Science estimated that pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. spent $57.5 billion on promotion in 2004, almost twice as much as they spend on research and development.
Virtually every TV news network, magazine and newspaper is filled with very expensive pharmaceutical ads. These media outlets cannot afford to lose this money and this allows the pharmaceutical companies to set editorial policy. Stories criticizing vaccines are as rare as hen's teeth. With billions to use for influence, one witnesses resulting bias in academia and government regulatory agencies as well."
Case in point, even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which also has worrisome ties to the drug industry, spends $1.7 million for a Hollywood liaison as part of their Entertainment Education Program, which makes sure that when your favorite TV shows feature a health topic, that information is "accurate," or shall we say "CDC-approved."
Have you ever wondered why you will rarely ever see a TV show that features a plot line including a vaccine injury or adverse drug reaction, even though they are incredibly common in real life? Now you know why.
When you begin to peek beneath the surface at the funding sources behind most media outlets, the picture becomes clearer as to why there is a pattern of censorship in the mainstream press when it comes to revealing the truth about the drug industry. This even applies to the scientific evidence documenting drug and vaccine risks.
Massive Conflict of Interest in Drug Industry Documented
Download the Interview Transcript
Total Video Length: 1:02:23
In the video above, Dr. Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD -- an associate professor of medicine and associate professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California at San Diego -- shares shocking information about the dark underbelly of medical science to help you understand how, and why, the "scientific method" has become so manipulated and willfully distorted by the drug industry.
For starters, in order for scientific studies to happen, someone has to pay for them. The top funder for any drug trial is the pharmaceutical company that makes it, since the manufacturer is most invested in "proving" how spectacular its drug is.
Dr. Golomb uses the case of statins as an example, stating that all of the major statin studies have been funded exclusively by the drug industry. The second-highest funder of drug studies is the National Institute of Health (NIH), which is not the group of neutral government experts you may have assumed them to be. In fact, NIH accepts a great deal of money from Big Pharma and is deeply enmeshed with the industry.
Further, drug companies publish only a fraction of the studies they fund -- the ones that promote their drugs. Often those favorable studies are submitted multiple times, in a way that the reader doesn't realize it's the same study, obscured by different author lists and different details. If a study does not have findings that are favorable to its product, it is unlikely it will ever make it into a journal for publication.
But, when a scientific study has findings that cast doubt on the efficacy of a drug, oftentimes the negative findings are morphed into positive ones through statistical and semantic manipulation.
The editorials that follow from a study, submitted by so-called unbiased experts and then published in reputable journals, are also often done by non-neutral parties who have a financial tie to the drug maker. Not to mention that many of the articles that appear in medical journals purportedly written by well-known academics are actually written by unacknowledged ghostwriters on Big Pharma payroll.
Medical journals are generally considered by medical practitioners to be a source of reliable information. But medical journals are also businesses. In 2003, drug companies spent $448 million dollars on advertising in medical journals. It has been calculated that the return on investment on medical journal ads is between $2.22 and $6.86 for every dollar spent, with larger and older brands at the higher end.
Long-term returns may be even higher when you consider that one ad viewed by a physician could result in hundreds or even thousands of drug purchases, based on the prescriptions he or she writes.
At least certain medical journals are attempting to regain their unbiased reputations; in 2011 the journal Emergency Medicine Australasia announced it would no longer accept pharmaceutical advertisements, citing growing evidence that the drug industry "distorts research findings and engages in dubious and unethical publishing practices."
A BMJ news piece reported:
"George Jelinek, a former editor of the journal [Emergency Medicine Australasia], and Anthony Brown, editor in chief, wrote, "Marketing of drugs by the pharmaceutical industry, whose prime aim is to bias readers towards prescribing a particular product, is fundamentally at odds with the mission of medical journals."
How Lobbyists Have Taken Over and Stolen Your Government
In the CBS News video above, crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff explains how he influenced Congress for years, and how this kind of corruption still continues. He spent $1 million dollars a year on concert and sporting event tickets alone, and even had two full-time members of his staff devoted to booking tickets!
If vacations, private jets, fancy dinners and other perks weren't enough to sway Congress, Abramoff's group would offer members of Congress a job when they leave Capitol Hill, at double or triple the salary. As Abramoff says in the video, once they accepted that offer that was it:
" … We own them … everything that we want, they're gonna do."
Drug companies, of course, are the BIGGEST political lobby, and political lobbying is one of the primary reasons why the drug companies are controlling nearly the entire health industry. Lobbyists, by definition, "conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation." This is Big Business doing what it does best: using its power and money to strong-arm the legislative process.
The pharmaceutical industry spent $1.5 billion lobbying Congress in the last decade, and in so doing has manipulated the government's involvement with medicine and secondarily reinforced our dependence on them, through government policies.
All the More Reason to Take Control of Your Health …
Drug companies are willing to do just about anything to make you, and your physician, think their drugs are great -- including buying off Congress, the media, and even corrupting studies in medical journals so they show only favorable results. If that doesn't work, they will try to get their products mandated so you have no choice but to use them or face legal action.
It isn't always easy to fight back against this system, but know that the drug companies are not going to protect you or give you optimal health. You are the only one that can protect yourself and your family, and the chief way to do this is by taking control of your health.
Until real systemic change takes place, your best health strategy is quite simply to employ and maintain a naturally healthy lifestyle that will optimize your body's innate healing abilities and minimize your need for the drug companies' latest concoctions. We are, however, working hard to change the system and help protect your health freedoms from corrupt influences like the drug industry; you can learn more about our newest initiative toward this end, Health Liberty, now.
Source: BMJ 2011; 343: bmj.d6978
Related Links:
How Corrupted Drug Companies Deceive and Manipulate Your Doctor
How Drug Companies Bribe Doctors to Suck You Into Their Web…
Ugly Story Proves the Media is Lying to You About Vaccines
Are You Poisoning Your Household With this Chore? (Detergents)
I've posted articles on Detergents before and do so again here for two reasons. One, this is a particularly good one and, two, the number of time this article was view indicate that people are catching on in a big way.
Are You Poisoning Your Household With this Chore?
Story at-a-glance
• Laundry detergents typically contain hazardous ingredients, including: sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)/sodium laureth sulfate (SLES); 1,4-dioxane; NPE (nonylphenol ethoxylate), and phosphates
• The typical American home contains 3-10 gallons of toxic household cleaning materials that can cause respiratory problems, eye irritation, endocrine system disruption, and cancer
• The dangers of SLS alone have been documented in 16,000 studies
• 1,4-dioxane, aka dioxane, is a byproduct rather than ingredient and is therefore not listed on any label. However, it's been found to be toxic to your brain,central nervous system, kidneys, liver and respiratory system, and 2/3rds of laundry detergents contain it
By Dr. Mercola
When most people think of pollution, they think of the outdoors—garbage-choked streams or industrial waste.
But you probably spend a large portion of your time indoors—as much as 80 to 90 percent of your life.
You work, study, eat, drink and sleep in enclosed environments where air circulation may be restricted.
The typical American home contains 3-10 GALLONS of toxic materials—everything from glass and bathroom cleaners to garden pesticides and fertilizers.
Health effects of ingredients in common household products include:
• Respiratory problems
• Eye irritation
• Cancer
• Disruption of the endocrine system
As a result of cleaners and other toxic household products, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that the air inside the typical home is 2-5 times more polluted than the air immediately outside—and in extreme cases, 100 times more contaminated.
Did you know that cleaning products are responsible for nearly 10 percent of all toxic exposures reported to U.S. Poison Control Centers?
In one New York medical center, reports of burns, rashes, dizziness and scratchy throats among hospital employees plummeted after the staff switched over to less toxic cleaning products. The number of missed work days due to cleaning product injuries declined from 54 in 2004 to zero in 2009.
Contributors to indoor pollution include the products you use every day in your home, which can come in contact with your skin and lungs. Household products have been found to contain very powerful and often toxic chemicals that you unknowingly expose yourself to in the course of an ordinary day. One of the most common household products is laundry detergent.
Getting Down on Dirty Detergents
The average family washes approximately 80 pounds of laundry per week—or 35 billion loads of laundry per year! This means that 17.5 billion cups of laundry detergent are being used every year in the U.S. alone. Not only can you come in contact with caustic chemicals via your clothing, from having been laundered in them, but you can breathe them into your lungs once they become airborne in the process of doing your laundry.
The detergent you're using may contain a cocktail of potent cancer-causing chemicals, some of which the manufacturer doesn't even have to list on the label. This loophole reduces the odds that you'll ever discover what's in there.
Four of the worst offenders are:
1. Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)/sodium laureth sulfate (SLES)
2. 1,4-dioxane
3. NPE (nonylphenol ethoxylate)
4. Phosphates
Not only are these chemicals potentially damaging to your health, but they are also contaminating waterways and harming the environment.
According to an article in the Journal of Oleo Science, a laundry detergent concentration of only 2 ppm can cause fish to absorb DOUBLE the amount of chemicals they would ordinarily absorb. The accumulation of these compounds—phosphates and toxic surfactants—in the environment through wastewaters has had a terrible impact on aquatic wildlife. First, let's take a look at the surfactants, SLS and SES.
Any discussion of SLS/SLES must include a discussion of 1,4 dioxane because the manufacturing process of SLS/SLES results in its being contaminated with 1,4 dioxane—a known carcinogen.
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS), Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES), and Ammonium Laurel Sulfate (ALS)
Sodium lauryl sulfate is a surfactant, detergent and emulsifier used in thousands of industrial cleaners and cosmetic products. It is present in nearly all shampoos, scalp treatments, hair color and bleaching agents, toothpastes, body washes and cleansers, make-up foundations, liquid hand soaps, and laundry detergents.
Although SLS originates from coconuts, the chemical is anything but natural.
SLS is mixed with sulfur trioxide or chlorosulfuric acid and then neutralized with aqueous sodium hydroxide (lye). SLS is the sodium salt of lauryl sulfate and is classified by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Cosmetics Database as a "denaturant, surfactant cleansing agent, emulsifier and foamer," rated "moderate hazard."
Similar to sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is sodium laureth sulfate (short for sodium lauryl ether sulfate, or SLES), a yellow detergent with higher foaming ability. SLES is considered to be slightly less irritating than SLS. SLS goes by other names, including:
• Sodium dodecyl sulfate
• Sulfuric acid, monododecyl ester, sodium salt
• Sodium salt sulfuric acid
• Monododecyl ester sodium salt sulfuric acid
• A13-00356
• Akyposal SDS
• Aquarex ME
• Aquarex methyl
Ammonium lauryl sulfate (ALS) is another variation commonly put into cosmetics and cleansers to make them foam. ALS is similar to SLS, showing similar risks.
Sixteen Thousand Studies Document the Hazards of SLS
According to the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Reviews, research studies on SLS have shown links to:
• Irritation of the skin and eyes
• Organ toxicity
• Developmental/reproductive toxicity
• Neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, ecotoxicology, and biochemical or cellular changes
• Possible mutations and cancer
If you visit the SLS page on EWG's website, you will see a very long list of health concerns and associated research studies. In fact, you will also see mention of nearly 16,000 studies in the PubMed science library (as well as their link to that list) about the toxicity of this chemical.
A number of studies report SLS being damaging to oral mucosa and skin. This is not at all surprising since SLS is actually used as a skin irritant during studies where medical treatments for skin irritation require first using an intentionally irritating agent. A study appearing in Exogenous Dermatology confirmed SLS to be a very "corrosive irritant" to the skin—irritation which persisted in research subjects for 3 weeks. SLS exerts its damage by stripping your skin of protective oils and moisture.
SLS has also been linked to nitrosamines. Nitrosamines are potent carcinogens that cause your body to absorb nitrates, also known to be carcinogenic. For more information about SLS/SLES, please refer to my earlier article.
Two-Thirds of Laundry Detergents Contain 1,4 Dioxane
David Steinman, an environmental health consumer advocate with the Green Patriot Working Group (GPWG) and former representative at the National Academy of Sciences, has been on a mission since 2007 to organize product testing for the petrochemical 1,4-dioxane in your personal care and household cleaning products. He forged a partnership between his organization and the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to get the dirt on dioxane-laden products.
In 2008, the focus was personal care products, and 2010 has brought the spotlight to laundry detergents. In 2008, the findings were shocking.
Many popular brands of shampoos, body washes, lotions, and even baby products—as well as many "natural" and "organic" brands—were found to contain 1,4-dioxane.
Levels of contamination were so high that many companies have come under legal attack for poisoning consumers. Unfortunately, this phase of testing proved no lesser threat. About two-thirds of the laundry detergents tested contained 1,4-dioxane. Results suggest it's time for these companies to clean up their acts.
It is reassuring, however, that all brands with the USDA organic certification were found to be dioxane-free.
At a press conference in Anaheim, California, on March 12, 2010, Steinman shared the test results from 20 laundry detergents—13 conventional brands and 7 "natural" brands. As you would expect, the natural brands fared better.
The Organic Consumers Association and Green Patriot Working Group have put together a handy printable guide for Personal Care and Cleaning Products that includes everything from dish soap to hand soap to deodorant, and everything in between.
Why You Should be Concerned About 1,4-Dioxane
Don't confuse 1,4-dioxane with dioxin— they are completely different compounds. Dioxin is not manufactured commercially but is a byproduct of combustion. For example forest fires and the burning of garbage, produces a family of 17 different compounds of varying toxicities. Dioxane (also called 1,4-dioxane) is a byproduct of an industrial process used to make cleaning ingredients, and this is what can contaminate your personal care and cleaning products.
How does 1,4-dioxane get into your products? It's not added intentionally. As I mentioned earlier, it is a by-product of SLS, which is an extremely common ingredient in detergents.
According to the "1,4-Dioxane Product Safety Watch" website, dioxane is a byproduct of ethoxylation, "a cheap shortcut process companies use to provide mildness to harsh cleaning ingredients." Ethoxylation involves combining low-sudsing ingredients with ethylene oxide (which is a known human carcinogen) to produce softer detergents that produce more suds. The result is diethylene oxide, or 1,4-dioxane, or simply dioxane.
Since it is a byproduct rather than ingredient, it doesn't have to be listed on product labels. But you really DON'T want to have your skin coming into contact with this stuff, byproduct or not. 1,4-dioxane is considered by the State of California to cause cancer and has been found to be potentially toxic to your brain and central nervous system, kidneys, liver and respiratory system, according to the CDC. According to the Organic Consumers Association's 1,4-Dioxane Facts Sheet:
• The cumulative effects of 1,4-dioxane exposure, even at very low levels (a few parts per billion) resulted in laboratory animals developing cancer.
• 1,4-dioxane is readily absorbed through the lungs, skin and gastrointestinal tract of mammals.
• The U.S. federal regulation systems consider dioxane's potency to be equivalent to or greater than many pesticides considered dangerous to humans.
• Cosmetics (and detergents, presumably) contaminated with 1,4-dioxane may also have traces of other contaminants, including formaldehyde, nitrosamines, and phthalates.
• There are many inexpensive and effective alternatives to ethoxylation in the manufacturing of your personal care and cleaning products.
The National Institute of Health (NIH) substance profile sheet confirms that 1,4-dioxane is "reasonably expected to be a human carcinogen" based on the research to date, and even trace amounts bring cause for concern.
Dioxane is a Major Groundwater Contaminant
Dioxane is an increasing threat to waterways across the country and is of growing concern to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Dioxane has fouled the water in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and in several towns in Orange County, California. But it is likely present in many other places that do not routinely test for it. Since it has only recently been identified as a health hazard, it hasn't been tested for. So no one really knows just how prevalent it is. Water filters can't remove it—and it isn't biodegradable.
When you use a laundry detergent contaminated with dioxane, it goes everywhere. It never breaks down. According to a quotation Steinman uses from the March 2008 issue of Chemosphere:
"As a groundwater contaminant, 1,4-dioxane is of considerable concern because of its toxicity, refractory nature to degradation, and rapid migration within an aquifer."
What we do know is, when it's tested for, it often shows up—and that fact is of great concern. To be proactive about your own health, you have to learn how to read labels. To avoid 1,4 dioxane, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) recommends avoiding products with indications of ethoxylation.
Look for the following suffixes in the ingredient list:
• "Myreth," "oleth," "laureth," "ceteareth," any other "eth"
• "PEG"
• "Polyethylene," "polyethylene glycol," or "polyoxyethylene"
• "Oxynol"
Remember, sodium laureth sulfate (as well as sodium laurel sulfate) are often contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. But there is more bad news. SLS and SLES are not the only surfactants warranting concern.
NPE (Nonylphenol Ethoxylate)—the "Gender Bender"
Like SLS and SLES, NPE is an inexpensive nonionic surfactant frequently used in laundry detergents. NPE is an endocrine disruptor and estrogen mimicker that can potentially cause hormonal problems, or even cancer. When you absorb NPE, your body can't tell the difference between NPE and estrogen.
Organisms exposed to NPE show kidney and liver damage, decreased testicular growth and sperm count, disrupted growth and metabolism, and increased mortality.
When rainbow trout are exposed to NPEs, they become part male and part female! According to the Sierra Club, who recently petitioned the EPA to regulate NPE, roughly 270 million pounds of NPE are used in the United States each year—and the majority of this ends up being rinsed down your drain. A U.S. Geological Survey study found metabolites of NPEs in more than 61 percent of tested streams in the U.S. (reported by Sierra Club).
According to a Sierra Club paper, researchers now believe that:
"NPE pollution is likely to be at least partly responsible for a variety of odd gender bending phenomenon now being seen in aquatic species. And while human effects remain unknown, scientists believe it may be affecting people, too."
NPEs have been banned already in Canada and Europe. Even Wal-Mart has listed NPEs as one of three chemicals they're asking suppliers to phase out.
Even the most sophisticated water treatment plants are unable to remove NPEs and their toxic metabolites. In fact, according to the Sierra Club report, sewage processing can make NPE metabolites more toxic, more estrogenic, and more persistent than NPE itself.
Look for evidence of NPE on your laundry detergent label—or declaration that it's not in there. Some detergents contain NPE alternatives such as alcohol ethoxylate, which the Sierra Club suggests is less toxic and can break down naturally. Another enormous threat to your water supply is phosphates.
Phosphates and the Choking of Aquatic Life
Phosphates are the main cleaning ingredient in many detergents and household cleaners because they break down dirt particles and remove stains by softening the water and allowing suds to form, which enhances the cleaning power of the detergent. Some dishwasher tabs are more than 30 percent phosphates!
However, there are human health problems as well as major environmental hazards associated with phosphates. Phosphate residues on items that have been cleaned with phosphate-containing detergents have been known to cause nausea, diarrhea and skin irritations.
The largest concern with phosphates, however, is the environmental hazards they are creating.
Phosphates are difficult to remove from wastewater and often end up in rivers and lakes, where they increase algae growth, choking off waterways and suffocating salmon and other aquatic life, literally starving them of oxygen. Phosphates act like a "fertilizer" in waterways. When the overabundant algae die, they release toxins that deplete the waterways of oxygen. Phosphates remain active even after wastewater treatment.
Phosphate Wars and Water Spots
Detergents are available with or without phosphates—so you have a choice! As of March of 2008, twenty-five states had issued phosphate detergent bans, and the list continues to grow. Fifteen new states joined the cause in July of 2010. These new laws ARE making a difference. In Spokane, officials reported a 10.7 percent decrease in phosphate coming from the city's sewage treatment plant, which discharges into the Spokane River, after their phosphate limit was put into effect.
You always know you're making a difference when some serious pushback begins to occur. The transition to phosphate free products is no exception, in terms of bumps in the road.
Some folks report the performance of phosphate-free cleaning products just isn't up to snuff, particularly with respect to dishwasher tabs. Many people have complained the greener cleaners just don't do as good a job as the original (but more toxic) cleaners. One representative from Cascade said the conversion to low-phosphate has been "complex, with three or four ingredients needed to match what the phosphates accomplished alone."
The phosphate war has even sparked a team of angry rebel dish detergent smugglers who, in vehement protest to the phosphate ban in Spokane, drove all the way to Idaho to buy phosphate-based detergents as a means of "sticking it to the environmentalists."
But seriously, how clean do you REALLY need to be? Are water spots on your glassware worth fouling the precious water filling them?
Get over the water spots. If they bother you, wipe them off with a towel. New products can butt heads with our old cultural concepts of cleanliness. As I see it, we all need to start making some concessions for the good of our planet and our health. Besides the chemicals I've already mentioned, are there other agents lurking in your laundry soap, for which you should be on the lookout? Unfortunately, yes.
Pretty Scary Laundry List
Besides surfactants and phosphates, the average detergent has a long list of other chemical ingredients—and most are not good for you or the Earth. Anything in those products can potentially be absorbed through your skin or breathed in through your nose, as well as passed down the drain to our waterways.
Typical chemicals include:
• Linear alkyl sodium sulfonates (LAS), a.k.a. anionic surfactants
• Petroleum distillates (a.k.a. naphthas), which have been linked to cancer
• Phenols, which can cause toxicity throughout the entire body
• Optical brighteners, which cause bacterial mutations and allergic reactions, and can be toxic to fish
• Sodium hypochlorite (bleach)
• EDTA (ethylene-diamino-tetra-acetate)
• Artificial fragrances, which have been linked to various toxic effects on fish and animals, as well as allergic reactions in humans
And polysorbate 60 and polysorbate 80 are also often contaminated with 1,4 dioxane, according to Dr. Samuel Epstein. Over time, these toxins can build up in your body and cause a number of unknown, unpredictable effects.
Tips for Greener Laundering
Hopefully, public awareness about dioxane and surfactants will, in time, result in bans similar to those now being implemented for phosphates. The wheels of progress are slow, but at least they are turning.
In the meantime, there are some relatively painless steps you can take to decrease your exposure and shrink your ecological footprint (some of the tips below were incorporated from Planet Green's How to Go Green Laundry page):
• Become a label reader. Look especially for "Does not contain..." because manufacturers are not yet required by law to list what is in the product. However, green companies will proudly display what is NOT in the product if they want to sell their product to environmentally conscious people like you.
Look for "phosphate free," "no bleach," "SLE free" and "NPE free." Look for "biodegradable" detergents since those often do not contain the harmful ingredients listed above. Look for plant- and animal-based ingredients, instead of petroleum-based.
• Buy concentrated detergents. These have reduced packaging and a smaller carbon footprint (requiring less space and fuel for shipping).
• Become a Soap Nut! Soap nuts are the dried fruit of the Chinese Soapberry tree (Sapindus mukorrosi). People have been using these natural soap-releasing berries for thousands of years, and they've recently caught on in the U.S.
• Wear it more than once. Too often, we just toss our clothing into the hamper after wearing it, out of habit, without regard to whether or not it's really dirty. Washing less often also extends the life of your clothes.
• Wash and rinse in cold water. You will save a bundle on electricity (one estimate is $100 per year) just by doing this, because 90 percent of the energy required for washing lies in heating the water.
• Wash only full loads of laundry. It's more energy efficient.
• Hang it out to dry. Put up a clothesline! Become part of the Right to Dry movement.
• Try making your own detergent. Here's one formula costing pennies per load.
• Ditch the dry cleaning. Traditional dry cleaning is a very un-green and toxic process using harsh, carcinogenic chemicals, such as perchloroethylene (aka "perc"), which has been linked with a variety of cancers and other problems. Many "dry clean only" products can be safely hand washed. For those that can't, try to find a greener dry cleaner in your area.
We have a new website and will post articles that have been posted in the blog there as well.
Remember: Farmacy not Pharmacy
Organic Jan
Are You Poisoning Your Household With this Chore?
Story at-a-glance
• Laundry detergents typically contain hazardous ingredients, including: sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)/sodium laureth sulfate (SLES); 1,4-dioxane; NPE (nonylphenol ethoxylate), and phosphates
• The typical American home contains 3-10 gallons of toxic household cleaning materials that can cause respiratory problems, eye irritation, endocrine system disruption, and cancer
• The dangers of SLS alone have been documented in 16,000 studies
• 1,4-dioxane, aka dioxane, is a byproduct rather than ingredient and is therefore not listed on any label. However, it's been found to be toxic to your brain,central nervous system, kidneys, liver and respiratory system, and 2/3rds of laundry detergents contain it
By Dr. Mercola
When most people think of pollution, they think of the outdoors—garbage-choked streams or industrial waste.
But you probably spend a large portion of your time indoors—as much as 80 to 90 percent of your life.
You work, study, eat, drink and sleep in enclosed environments where air circulation may be restricted.
The typical American home contains 3-10 GALLONS of toxic materials—everything from glass and bathroom cleaners to garden pesticides and fertilizers.
Health effects of ingredients in common household products include:
• Respiratory problems
• Eye irritation
• Cancer
• Disruption of the endocrine system
As a result of cleaners and other toxic household products, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that the air inside the typical home is 2-5 times more polluted than the air immediately outside—and in extreme cases, 100 times more contaminated.
Did you know that cleaning products are responsible for nearly 10 percent of all toxic exposures reported to U.S. Poison Control Centers?
In one New York medical center, reports of burns, rashes, dizziness and scratchy throats among hospital employees plummeted after the staff switched over to less toxic cleaning products. The number of missed work days due to cleaning product injuries declined from 54 in 2004 to zero in 2009.
Contributors to indoor pollution include the products you use every day in your home, which can come in contact with your skin and lungs. Household products have been found to contain very powerful and often toxic chemicals that you unknowingly expose yourself to in the course of an ordinary day. One of the most common household products is laundry detergent.
Getting Down on Dirty Detergents
The average family washes approximately 80 pounds of laundry per week—or 35 billion loads of laundry per year! This means that 17.5 billion cups of laundry detergent are being used every year in the U.S. alone. Not only can you come in contact with caustic chemicals via your clothing, from having been laundered in them, but you can breathe them into your lungs once they become airborne in the process of doing your laundry.
The detergent you're using may contain a cocktail of potent cancer-causing chemicals, some of which the manufacturer doesn't even have to list on the label. This loophole reduces the odds that you'll ever discover what's in there.
Four of the worst offenders are:
1. Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)/sodium laureth sulfate (SLES)
2. 1,4-dioxane
3. NPE (nonylphenol ethoxylate)
4. Phosphates
Not only are these chemicals potentially damaging to your health, but they are also contaminating waterways and harming the environment.
According to an article in the Journal of Oleo Science, a laundry detergent concentration of only 2 ppm can cause fish to absorb DOUBLE the amount of chemicals they would ordinarily absorb. The accumulation of these compounds—phosphates and toxic surfactants—in the environment through wastewaters has had a terrible impact on aquatic wildlife. First, let's take a look at the surfactants, SLS and SES.
Any discussion of SLS/SLES must include a discussion of 1,4 dioxane because the manufacturing process of SLS/SLES results in its being contaminated with 1,4 dioxane—a known carcinogen.
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS), Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES), and Ammonium Laurel Sulfate (ALS)
Sodium lauryl sulfate is a surfactant, detergent and emulsifier used in thousands of industrial cleaners and cosmetic products. It is present in nearly all shampoos, scalp treatments, hair color and bleaching agents, toothpastes, body washes and cleansers, make-up foundations, liquid hand soaps, and laundry detergents.
Although SLS originates from coconuts, the chemical is anything but natural.
SLS is mixed with sulfur trioxide or chlorosulfuric acid and then neutralized with aqueous sodium hydroxide (lye). SLS is the sodium salt of lauryl sulfate and is classified by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Cosmetics Database as a "denaturant, surfactant cleansing agent, emulsifier and foamer," rated "moderate hazard."
Similar to sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is sodium laureth sulfate (short for sodium lauryl ether sulfate, or SLES), a yellow detergent with higher foaming ability. SLES is considered to be slightly less irritating than SLS. SLS goes by other names, including:
• Sodium dodecyl sulfate
• Sulfuric acid, monododecyl ester, sodium salt
• Sodium salt sulfuric acid
• Monododecyl ester sodium salt sulfuric acid
• A13-00356
• Akyposal SDS
• Aquarex ME
• Aquarex methyl
Ammonium lauryl sulfate (ALS) is another variation commonly put into cosmetics and cleansers to make them foam. ALS is similar to SLS, showing similar risks.
Sixteen Thousand Studies Document the Hazards of SLS
According to the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Reviews, research studies on SLS have shown links to:
• Irritation of the skin and eyes
• Organ toxicity
• Developmental/reproductive toxicity
• Neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, ecotoxicology, and biochemical or cellular changes
• Possible mutations and cancer
If you visit the SLS page on EWG's website, you will see a very long list of health concerns and associated research studies. In fact, you will also see mention of nearly 16,000 studies in the PubMed science library (as well as their link to that list) about the toxicity of this chemical.
A number of studies report SLS being damaging to oral mucosa and skin. This is not at all surprising since SLS is actually used as a skin irritant during studies where medical treatments for skin irritation require first using an intentionally irritating agent. A study appearing in Exogenous Dermatology confirmed SLS to be a very "corrosive irritant" to the skin—irritation which persisted in research subjects for 3 weeks. SLS exerts its damage by stripping your skin of protective oils and moisture.
SLS has also been linked to nitrosamines. Nitrosamines are potent carcinogens that cause your body to absorb nitrates, also known to be carcinogenic. For more information about SLS/SLES, please refer to my earlier article.
Two-Thirds of Laundry Detergents Contain 1,4 Dioxane
David Steinman, an environmental health consumer advocate with the Green Patriot Working Group (GPWG) and former representative at the National Academy of Sciences, has been on a mission since 2007 to organize product testing for the petrochemical 1,4-dioxane in your personal care and household cleaning products. He forged a partnership between his organization and the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to get the dirt on dioxane-laden products.
In 2008, the focus was personal care products, and 2010 has brought the spotlight to laundry detergents. In 2008, the findings were shocking.
Many popular brands of shampoos, body washes, lotions, and even baby products—as well as many "natural" and "organic" brands—were found to contain 1,4-dioxane.
Levels of contamination were so high that many companies have come under legal attack for poisoning consumers. Unfortunately, this phase of testing proved no lesser threat. About two-thirds of the laundry detergents tested contained 1,4-dioxane. Results suggest it's time for these companies to clean up their acts.
It is reassuring, however, that all brands with the USDA organic certification were found to be dioxane-free.
At a press conference in Anaheim, California, on March 12, 2010, Steinman shared the test results from 20 laundry detergents—13 conventional brands and 7 "natural" brands. As you would expect, the natural brands fared better.
The Organic Consumers Association and Green Patriot Working Group have put together a handy printable guide for Personal Care and Cleaning Products that includes everything from dish soap to hand soap to deodorant, and everything in between.
Why You Should be Concerned About 1,4-Dioxane
Don't confuse 1,4-dioxane with dioxin— they are completely different compounds. Dioxin is not manufactured commercially but is a byproduct of combustion. For example forest fires and the burning of garbage, produces a family of 17 different compounds of varying toxicities. Dioxane (also called 1,4-dioxane) is a byproduct of an industrial process used to make cleaning ingredients, and this is what can contaminate your personal care and cleaning products.
How does 1,4-dioxane get into your products? It's not added intentionally. As I mentioned earlier, it is a by-product of SLS, which is an extremely common ingredient in detergents.
According to the "1,4-Dioxane Product Safety Watch" website, dioxane is a byproduct of ethoxylation, "a cheap shortcut process companies use to provide mildness to harsh cleaning ingredients." Ethoxylation involves combining low-sudsing ingredients with ethylene oxide (which is a known human carcinogen) to produce softer detergents that produce more suds. The result is diethylene oxide, or 1,4-dioxane, or simply dioxane.
Since it is a byproduct rather than ingredient, it doesn't have to be listed on product labels. But you really DON'T want to have your skin coming into contact with this stuff, byproduct or not. 1,4-dioxane is considered by the State of California to cause cancer and has been found to be potentially toxic to your brain and central nervous system, kidneys, liver and respiratory system, according to the CDC. According to the Organic Consumers Association's 1,4-Dioxane Facts Sheet:
• The cumulative effects of 1,4-dioxane exposure, even at very low levels (a few parts per billion) resulted in laboratory animals developing cancer.
• 1,4-dioxane is readily absorbed through the lungs, skin and gastrointestinal tract of mammals.
• The U.S. federal regulation systems consider dioxane's potency to be equivalent to or greater than many pesticides considered dangerous to humans.
• Cosmetics (and detergents, presumably) contaminated with 1,4-dioxane may also have traces of other contaminants, including formaldehyde, nitrosamines, and phthalates.
• There are many inexpensive and effective alternatives to ethoxylation in the manufacturing of your personal care and cleaning products.
The National Institute of Health (NIH) substance profile sheet confirms that 1,4-dioxane is "reasonably expected to be a human carcinogen" based on the research to date, and even trace amounts bring cause for concern.
Dioxane is a Major Groundwater Contaminant
Dioxane is an increasing threat to waterways across the country and is of growing concern to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Dioxane has fouled the water in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and in several towns in Orange County, California. But it is likely present in many other places that do not routinely test for it. Since it has only recently been identified as a health hazard, it hasn't been tested for. So no one really knows just how prevalent it is. Water filters can't remove it—and it isn't biodegradable.
When you use a laundry detergent contaminated with dioxane, it goes everywhere. It never breaks down. According to a quotation Steinman uses from the March 2008 issue of Chemosphere:
"As a groundwater contaminant, 1,4-dioxane is of considerable concern because of its toxicity, refractory nature to degradation, and rapid migration within an aquifer."
What we do know is, when it's tested for, it often shows up—and that fact is of great concern. To be proactive about your own health, you have to learn how to read labels. To avoid 1,4 dioxane, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) recommends avoiding products with indications of ethoxylation.
Look for the following suffixes in the ingredient list:
• "Myreth," "oleth," "laureth," "ceteareth," any other "eth"
• "PEG"
• "Polyethylene," "polyethylene glycol," or "polyoxyethylene"
• "Oxynol"
Remember, sodium laureth sulfate (as well as sodium laurel sulfate) are often contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. But there is more bad news. SLS and SLES are not the only surfactants warranting concern.
NPE (Nonylphenol Ethoxylate)—the "Gender Bender"
Like SLS and SLES, NPE is an inexpensive nonionic surfactant frequently used in laundry detergents. NPE is an endocrine disruptor and estrogen mimicker that can potentially cause hormonal problems, or even cancer. When you absorb NPE, your body can't tell the difference between NPE and estrogen.
Organisms exposed to NPE show kidney and liver damage, decreased testicular growth and sperm count, disrupted growth and metabolism, and increased mortality.
When rainbow trout are exposed to NPEs, they become part male and part female! According to the Sierra Club, who recently petitioned the EPA to regulate NPE, roughly 270 million pounds of NPE are used in the United States each year—and the majority of this ends up being rinsed down your drain. A U.S. Geological Survey study found metabolites of NPEs in more than 61 percent of tested streams in the U.S. (reported by Sierra Club).
According to a Sierra Club paper, researchers now believe that:
"NPE pollution is likely to be at least partly responsible for a variety of odd gender bending phenomenon now being seen in aquatic species. And while human effects remain unknown, scientists believe it may be affecting people, too."
NPEs have been banned already in Canada and Europe. Even Wal-Mart has listed NPEs as one of three chemicals they're asking suppliers to phase out.
Even the most sophisticated water treatment plants are unable to remove NPEs and their toxic metabolites. In fact, according to the Sierra Club report, sewage processing can make NPE metabolites more toxic, more estrogenic, and more persistent than NPE itself.
Look for evidence of NPE on your laundry detergent label—or declaration that it's not in there. Some detergents contain NPE alternatives such as alcohol ethoxylate, which the Sierra Club suggests is less toxic and can break down naturally. Another enormous threat to your water supply is phosphates.
Phosphates and the Choking of Aquatic Life
Phosphates are the main cleaning ingredient in many detergents and household cleaners because they break down dirt particles and remove stains by softening the water and allowing suds to form, which enhances the cleaning power of the detergent. Some dishwasher tabs are more than 30 percent phosphates!
However, there are human health problems as well as major environmental hazards associated with phosphates. Phosphate residues on items that have been cleaned with phosphate-containing detergents have been known to cause nausea, diarrhea and skin irritations.
The largest concern with phosphates, however, is the environmental hazards they are creating.
Phosphates are difficult to remove from wastewater and often end up in rivers and lakes, where they increase algae growth, choking off waterways and suffocating salmon and other aquatic life, literally starving them of oxygen. Phosphates act like a "fertilizer" in waterways. When the overabundant algae die, they release toxins that deplete the waterways of oxygen. Phosphates remain active even after wastewater treatment.
Phosphate Wars and Water Spots
Detergents are available with or without phosphates—so you have a choice! As of March of 2008, twenty-five states had issued phosphate detergent bans, and the list continues to grow. Fifteen new states joined the cause in July of 2010. These new laws ARE making a difference. In Spokane, officials reported a 10.7 percent decrease in phosphate coming from the city's sewage treatment plant, which discharges into the Spokane River, after their phosphate limit was put into effect.
You always know you're making a difference when some serious pushback begins to occur. The transition to phosphate free products is no exception, in terms of bumps in the road.
Some folks report the performance of phosphate-free cleaning products just isn't up to snuff, particularly with respect to dishwasher tabs. Many people have complained the greener cleaners just don't do as good a job as the original (but more toxic) cleaners. One representative from Cascade said the conversion to low-phosphate has been "complex, with three or four ingredients needed to match what the phosphates accomplished alone."
The phosphate war has even sparked a team of angry rebel dish detergent smugglers who, in vehement protest to the phosphate ban in Spokane, drove all the way to Idaho to buy phosphate-based detergents as a means of "sticking it to the environmentalists."
But seriously, how clean do you REALLY need to be? Are water spots on your glassware worth fouling the precious water filling them?
Get over the water spots. If they bother you, wipe them off with a towel. New products can butt heads with our old cultural concepts of cleanliness. As I see it, we all need to start making some concessions for the good of our planet and our health. Besides the chemicals I've already mentioned, are there other agents lurking in your laundry soap, for which you should be on the lookout? Unfortunately, yes.
Pretty Scary Laundry List
Besides surfactants and phosphates, the average detergent has a long list of other chemical ingredients—and most are not good for you or the Earth. Anything in those products can potentially be absorbed through your skin or breathed in through your nose, as well as passed down the drain to our waterways.
Typical chemicals include:
• Linear alkyl sodium sulfonates (LAS), a.k.a. anionic surfactants
• Petroleum distillates (a.k.a. naphthas), which have been linked to cancer
• Phenols, which can cause toxicity throughout the entire body
• Optical brighteners, which cause bacterial mutations and allergic reactions, and can be toxic to fish
• Sodium hypochlorite (bleach)
• EDTA (ethylene-diamino-tetra-acetate)
• Artificial fragrances, which have been linked to various toxic effects on fish and animals, as well as allergic reactions in humans
And polysorbate 60 and polysorbate 80 are also often contaminated with 1,4 dioxane, according to Dr. Samuel Epstein. Over time, these toxins can build up in your body and cause a number of unknown, unpredictable effects.
Tips for Greener Laundering
Hopefully, public awareness about dioxane and surfactants will, in time, result in bans similar to those now being implemented for phosphates. The wheels of progress are slow, but at least they are turning.
In the meantime, there are some relatively painless steps you can take to decrease your exposure and shrink your ecological footprint (some of the tips below were incorporated from Planet Green's How to Go Green Laundry page):
• Become a label reader. Look especially for "Does not contain..." because manufacturers are not yet required by law to list what is in the product. However, green companies will proudly display what is NOT in the product if they want to sell their product to environmentally conscious people like you.
Look for "phosphate free," "no bleach," "SLE free" and "NPE free." Look for "biodegradable" detergents since those often do not contain the harmful ingredients listed above. Look for plant- and animal-based ingredients, instead of petroleum-based.
• Buy concentrated detergents. These have reduced packaging and a smaller carbon footprint (requiring less space and fuel for shipping).
• Become a Soap Nut! Soap nuts are the dried fruit of the Chinese Soapberry tree (Sapindus mukorrosi). People have been using these natural soap-releasing berries for thousands of years, and they've recently caught on in the U.S.
• Wear it more than once. Too often, we just toss our clothing into the hamper after wearing it, out of habit, without regard to whether or not it's really dirty. Washing less often also extends the life of your clothes.
• Wash and rinse in cold water. You will save a bundle on electricity (one estimate is $100 per year) just by doing this, because 90 percent of the energy required for washing lies in heating the water.
• Wash only full loads of laundry. It's more energy efficient.
• Hang it out to dry. Put up a clothesline! Become part of the Right to Dry movement.
• Try making your own detergent. Here's one formula costing pennies per load.
• Ditch the dry cleaning. Traditional dry cleaning is a very un-green and toxic process using harsh, carcinogenic chemicals, such as perchloroethylene (aka "perc"), which has been linked with a variety of cancers and other problems. Many "dry clean only" products can be safely hand washed. For those that can't, try to find a greener dry cleaner in your area.
We have a new website and will post articles that have been posted in the blog there as well.
Remember: Farmacy not Pharmacy
Organic Jan
Sunday, December 18, 2011
New Website and New Product......Mutter Butter! for Dogs...
Visit Our New Site and read more about Mutter Butter and New Research
Mutter Butter:www.fleafreeorganically.net
Helps control worms, heavy metal toxicity, even protects against heart-worm.
70% you your pet's immune system is in their gut. Now with just a daily treat your pet will be happy and healthy for a lifetime.
Other Benefits for a daily treat
• Better food uptake
• Better Bowel function
• Reduces odor
• Increased immune system
• Prevents heart worm and intestinal parasites with regular use
• Removes toxins and heavy metals from the body
• Hairballs reduction
• Better elimination
• Cleaner colon, veins, and arteries
• Reduces Blood Pressure and Cholesterol by reducing Plaque
• Reduces joint pain
• Improves coat, energy and overall health
Please see attached for labels front and back
Mutter Butter:www.fleafreeorganically.net
Helps control worms, heavy metal toxicity, even protects against heart-worm.
70% you your pet's immune system is in their gut. Now with just a daily treat your pet will be happy and healthy for a lifetime.
Other Benefits for a daily treat
• Better food uptake
• Better Bowel function
• Reduces odor
• Increased immune system
• Prevents heart worm and intestinal parasites with regular use
• Removes toxins and heavy metals from the body
• Hairballs reduction
• Better elimination
• Cleaner colon, veins, and arteries
• Reduces Blood Pressure and Cholesterol by reducing Plaque
• Reduces joint pain
• Improves coat, energy and overall health
Please see attached for labels front and back
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
