(NaturalNews) Evidence continues to emerge that artificial colors cause hyperactivity in children, but the FDA remains resistant to taking action. The
agency will hold public hearings on the issue from March 30-31.
Artificial colors made from coal tar or petroleum were first developed in the 1850s, and nearly 200 were being used in consumer products by the time the
U.S. government began regulating these additives in the 1960s. After safety testing, only nine colors remained cleared for use. Yet as early as the 1970s,
researchers were raising concerns that the colors might cause hyperactivity. In 2004, a groundbreaking study in The Lancet provided such strong
evidence for this link that the British Food Standards Agency recommended that parents reduce or eliminate artificial colors from their children's' diets.
The European Parliament has since voted to ban the colorings from foods intended for small children and infants, and requires a warning label on all other
products containing them. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has called on the FDA to follow suit, or even ban the colors outright.
"What's the benefit? To make junk food even more appealing to children than it already is?" CSPI Executive Director Michael Jacobson said.
Artificial colors are largely used to restore color to foods rendered pale and unappealing-looking by industrial processing, or to make them brighter or
give them specific colors for marketing purposes.
"I don't think the dyes are good for anything," said Stanford University pediatrics professor Alan Greene, a signatory of the CSPI petition. "The only
benefit is to trick you into eating the food or to make it look healthier than it is."
Michael Pollen echoes this sentiment in his book In Defense of Food.
"One of the problems with the products of food Science is that, as Joan Gussow has pointed out, they lie to your body," he writes. "Their artificial colors and flavors and synthetic sweeteners and novel fats confound the senses
we rely on to assess new foods and prepare our bodies to deal with them. Foods that lie leave us with little choice but to eat by the numbers, consulting
labels rather than our senses."
Although natural food colors exist, they are nearly always more expensive than the coal- and
petroleum-based colors.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-...
(NaturalNews) "Should the FDA be so permissive with chemicals in food, suspect or not, that amount to little more than marketing?" asks The Daily Green (
). This question is particularly pertinent considering that colorings have not always proven to be harmless.
Citrus Red 2, Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2 and Green 3, --which include some of the most commonly used artificial food coloring s--have
all been identified as being, or being contaminated with, potential cancer-causing chemicals, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
And Blue 1, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 are known to trigger reactions in those with allergies.
Until the twentieth century, food coloring could only be obtained from what people found in nature. Ancient Romans used saffron and other spices to put a
rich yellow color into various foods (
). Other frequently used natural colors included paprika, turmeric, beet extract, and petals of various flowers.
But many of the other frequently used natural colors were not only unappetizing, but downright dangerous (
). Bakers added chalk to whiten bread, for example, and sweets manufacturers loaded candy with vermilion (which contains mercury), red lead, white lead,
verdigris (which is a copper salt), blue vitriol (which contains copper) and Scheele's green (which contains both copper and arsenic).
The Science of
coloring evolved from there and technology created a new kind of dye derived from coal tar, a waste product of coal gas and coke. The synthetic dyes came
to be known at coal-tar colors and they are what we still use today.
By the beginning of the 20th century, some 695 of these had been synthesized, and over 80 were on the market. While they were generally a safer alternative
to metal salts and used in less quantity, they were still unregulated.
In 1938, responsibility for regulating and enforcing
was granted to the newly instituted Food and Drug Administration. At that point, there were 15 synthetic colors approved for use in foods, 6 of which are
still used today.
While manufacturers were no longer adding mercury or arsenic to their products, food-coloring dangers took center stage, yet again, in the 1950s after many
children became ill from eating Halloween candy containing the Orange 1 food coloring. The FDA banned the color after more rigorous testing suggested that
it was toxic (
).
Red 32 and Orange 2 were also delisted due to the same Halloween incident, according to the Harvard Law School paper, The Palette of Our Palates: A brief
history of food coloring and its regulation.
The controversy continued when, in 1976, the agency banned Red 2 because it was suspected to be carcinogenic, according to The New York Times (
).
Other colors have since been banned in the US including: Violet 1; Reds 2 and 4; Yellows 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Yellow
is undergoing testing, according to Encyclopedia Britannica (
).
The FDA decided to remove Red 2 from the provisional list in 1976, after Conflicting studies were published. Some studies showed the dye was safe and
others showed that it was not safe and, in fact, caused breast and intestinal tumors in rats and was toxic to gonads and embryos. The FDA de-listed it
stating that the color industry had not met its burden of proving the safety of Red 2.
Yellow 5 was the successor to Red 2 in popularity. The color, sometimes called Tartrazine, also had its own problems. It was one of the dyes singled out in
1977 by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen Health Research Group as unsafe. The group pointed to the de-listing of Red 2 and Red 4 a year earlier as evidence
that dyes we consider "safe" are often later shown to be toxic.
While the FDA said that Public Citizen was "overstating the issue and causing public alarm that is simply not warranted," they simultaneously admitted that
Yellow 5 caused severe allergic reactions in a small number of people.
The FDA suggested that problems associated with artificial coloring might be akin to a peanut allergy or intolerance to these substances and not to any
inherent toxic properties of the colorings themselves, said the New York Times.
This may not be accurate, according to a 2004 Southampton University study covered by the BBC. A team of researchers found that adding food colors to
children's diets increased hyperactivity rates in all young children, not just those who were allergic to food colorings or who had Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3742423.st...).
"I want this to address a fundamental issue which is 'Why do we have to have colored food?' said Professor John Warner, the study's author.
"It's absolutely imperative to have follow up studies because we are not now just talking about a population of children with a particular problem we are
saying there's a potential for this to be an effect on all children," he said. "And, if that really is the case, then food coloring should be removed."
Consumers can avoid synthetic food colorings by checking labels in grocery stores or by shopping at chains like Whole Foods Market and Trader Joe's, which
refuse to sell foods with artificial coloring.
Sources for this article include
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/21...
http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/health/pol...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3742423.st...
http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.o...
http://homecooking.about.com/od/foodhistory/...
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurobehavioral disorder diagnosed in children, and its prevalence is growing. Between 2003 and 2007, there was a 22% increase in ADHD prevalence in the United States - today, about 9.5% of school-age children have ADHD.1
ADHD is characterized by restlessness, difficulty focusing, poor impulse control, distractibility, and in some cases overactivity; plus these symptoms have significant negative consequences on the child’s academic performance, social skills, and relationships with family members, teachers, and peers. In addition, ADHD is often accompanied by learning disorders, discipline problems, anxiety, and/or depression.
ADHD is a complex disorder of the brain, believed to be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.Smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy, micronutrient deficiencies, excessive television watching early in life, and inadequate omega-3 fatty acid intake are a few of the environmental factors that increase risk.">Nutrition and ADHD
Poor nutrition is a significant concern for attentional problems and ADHD; there are a number of dietary factors that have been linked to ADHD risk in scientific studies:
References:
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Rate of Parent-Reported ADHD Increasing [http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/features/adhd-parent-reporting.html]
2. Kidd PM. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children: rationale for its integrative management. Altern Med Rev 2000;5:402-428.
3. Curatolo P, D'Agati E, Moavero R. The neurobiological basis of ADHD. Ital J Pediatr 2010;36:79.
4. Antshel KM, Hargrave TM, Simonescu M, et al. Advances in understanding and treating ADHD. BMC medicine 2011;9:72.
5. Christakis DA, Zimmerman FJ, DiGiuseppe DL, et al. Early television exposure and subsequent attentional problems in children. Pediatrics 2004;113:708-713.
6. Artificial food colouring and hyperactivity symptoms in children. Prescrire Int 2009;18:215.
7. Schnoll R, Burshteyn D, Cea-Aravena J. Nutrition in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity di sorder: a neglected but important aspect. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 2003;28:63-75.
8. Curtis LT, Patel K. Nutritional and environmental approaches to preventing and treating autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a review. J Altern Complement Med 2008;14:79-85.
9. Wiles NJ, Northstone K, Emmett P, et al. 'Junk food' diet and childhood behavioural problems: results from the ALSPAC cohort. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009;63:491-498.
10. Howard AL, Robinson M, Smith GJ, et al. ADHD is associated with a "Western" dietary pattern in adolescents. J Atten Disord 2011;15:403-411.
11. Schab DW, Trinh NH. Do artificial food colors promote hyperactivity in children with hyperactive syndromes? A meta-analysis of double-blind placebo-controlled trials. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2004;25:423-434.
12. McCann D, Barrett A, Cooper A, et al. Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, do uble-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:1560-1567.
13. Bouchard MF, Bellinger DC, Wright RO, et al. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and urinary metabolites of organophosphate pesticides. Pediatrics 2010;125:e1270-1277.
14. Antalis CJ, Stevens LJ, Campbell M, et al. Omega-3 fatty acid status in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2006;75:299-308.
15. Transler C, Eilander A, Mitchell S, et al. The impact of polyunsaturated fatty acids in reducing child attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders. J Atten Disord 2010;14:232-246.
(NaturalNews) Children who exhibit Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD) symptoms do not necessarily have ADD or ADHD. Those children have symptoms, but not necessarily the correct diagnosis. In addition, many children are placed on medications for ADD and ADHD symptoms. In fact, one report states that 1 in 10 children are diagnosed with ADHD and that 2.7 million children are medicated for the disorder. People need to be willing to look at the true causes of the symptoms, and it is beneficial to look at alternative solutions.
Children who are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD tend to be hyperactive, disengaged in school, disruptive at home and/or in school and fidgety, and they many times complete low quality school work. The tendency in the American society is to place children on medication to resolve the problem. Medications cover up the problem, just as an ibuprofen covers up aches and pains. The medication effects are temporary. Also, the child can acclimate to the medication so that it is no longer as effective at covering up the symptoms. Parents need to look at the true cause behind these symptoms.
One cause that is common is refined sugar. Refined Sugar becomes toxic to the body. For many children, it causes a toxic reaction in the brain and the body. The child can react to it by acting hyper, showing lack of focus, and by being argumentative. Unfortunately, refined Sugar is found in many processed foods. Sugar is also highly addictive.
Dr. Martin, with www.globalhealingcenter.com, stated that sugar is poison. He continued to state that "sugar is poison because of the way the body metabolizes it. The sugar interferes with the respiration of the cells. They cannot get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the body and is the beginning of degenerative disease." Excess sugar will interfere in the child's cognitive function and in his or her behavior in the classroom, at home, and with peers.
When one is searching for reasons for ADD or ADHD symptoms, boredom in the classroom is another key area on which to focus. Many times, children who are showing difficulty in focusing their attention are simply bored. The material may have no meaning for the child, and the child may feel no connection to the teacher teaching the material. It can become quite easy for the child to divert his or her attention elsewhere. If a child can play a video game, watch a movie, or otherwise engage in activities that the child enjoys, then he or she does not have ADHD or ADD.
Life Energy Flow Tai Yi can assist with uncovering the cause of ADD and ADHD symptoms. Tai Yi is an ancient form of Chinese hands-on energy work that can be described as similar to acupuncture or acupressure. Tai Yi works with the meridians of the mind, body, and emotions. Sugar is one of the reasons behind ADHD symptoms. If a person has formed an addiction to sugar, a treatment titled Sugar Dragon would benefit the person. Sugar Dragon can assist the person to release a sugar addiction and to understand why he or she carries the addiction.
There are over 4,000 treatments in Tai Yi, many of which assist in removing toxins absorbed from the environment. Releasing toxins can assist a child in feeling better. It can also assist in improving his or her ability to focus and engage productively in the classroom and at home. However, there is not a Tai Yi treatment for boredom.
http://www.lifeenergyflowtaiyi.com
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/refined-s...
http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/news/20101109/...
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/genetical...
About the author
Tami Urbanek is a medium/clairvoyant and also an advanced Life Energy Flow Tai Yi practitioner residing in Colorado. Tami earned three college degrees from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs: BA in Psychology, MA in Special Education, and MA in Public Administration.
Making new choices to create a new reality.
www.empowermentthroughhealing.org
More news on ADHD
(NaturalNews) The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently surveyed 73,000 children and found one in 10 has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD). This is a 22% increase since 2003. Research has shown that toxic and deficient lifestyle patterns are the chief contributing factor for
this disorder. Natural lifestyle solutions can prevent and reverse ADHD.
Many researchers consider chronic ADHD symptoms a sign of mild-moderate brain damage. When regions of the brain are chronically inflamed it signals the
primitive regions of the brain to be on overdrive. This inhibits frontal lobe function which is the region responsible for concentration and emotional
stability. The primitive regions on overdrive include the reticular activating system and limbic system. When this primitive brain is imbalanced it leads
to poor concentration and emotional outbursts.
ADHD is commonly caused by an inflammatory based diet and toxic food additives . These food additive chemicals are mild-moderately neurotoxic. They also
have a strong synergistic effect when combined with sugars such as fructose. A recent Lancet study concluded that food dyes along with the preservative
sodium benzoate (found in many soft drinks, fruit juices, & salad dressings) cause many children to become significantly more hyperactive and
distractible. This study also found that food additives and dyes can do as much damage to children's brains as lead in gasoline.
Digestive problems can also dramatically affect brain function and development. A common factor with
is a weak intestinal system and food allergies . Often times a Candida infection is present and producing brain damaging toxic metabolites. It is wise to
address the gut and allow it to heal by avoiding allergens and supplementing with high quality Probiotics.
The most common
allergens to avoid include all pasteurized dairy products and gluten containing grains such as wheat, barley, rye, oats, kamut, & spelt. Soy products,
some nuts, eggs, and heavy proteins are often not tolerated well. Other allergens include those of the nightshade family such as eggplant, tomatoes, &
potatoes.
An anti-inflammatory diet and lifestyle are critical for full recovery from this condition. Anti-inflammatory foods help to modulate the immune system and
give it a more accurate pair of eyes so as to not over-inflame when stimulated. To effectively de-inflame it is key to completely avoid man-made foods,
sugars, and food allergens as listed above. The long chain omega 3 fatty acids EPA and DHA are critical for
function.
Healthy movement patterns produce proprioception (movement information) which is a critical essential for healthy brain enhancing and neurodevelopmental
patterns. Boosting proprioceptive input through good posture and spinal function is critical for healthy brain development. Regular chiropractic care along
with spinal hygiene exercises are essential lifestyle factors for healthy neurological function.
Children, teenagers, & adults with ADHD symptoms do very well with a regular exercise program that incorporates core stability and functional balance
training. Many hyperactive kids are naturally drawn to activities such as rebounding and jumping on a trampoline as well as balance sports such as skating,
surfing and snowboarding. All of these dynamic balance based activities powerfully enhance proprioceptive input into the brain.
Other critical nutrients that are key for brain function include Vitamin D, Folic acid, Pyridoxine (B6), Vitamin B12, Zinc, CoQ10, and trace minerals.
Vitamin D levels should be between 60-100 ng/ml. Boost Vitamin D naturally with 20-60 minutes of healthy sunlight every day or 5,000-50,000 IU of
emulsified vitamin D3 daily to get the levels where they should be. A raw, whole-food multi-vitamin that supplies ample amounts of folic acid (400 mcg), B6
(4mg), B12(100 mcg), Zinc (15 mg), trace minerals, & CoQ10 (500 mcg) should be consumed daily.
Dr. David Jockers owns and operates Exodus Health Center in Kennesaw, Ga. He is a Maximized Living doctor. His expertise is in weight loss, customized
nutrition & exercise, & structural corrective chiropractic care. For more information go towww.exodushc.com To find a Maximized Living doctor near you go to www.maximizedliving.com
I have learned about green smoothies from Victoria’s books and learned how to prepare really delicious ones while participating in the Joy for Life retreat in April. Then I was visiting my family and was told that my six year old granddaughter had been taking Prilosec and similar drugs for her stomach aches for months, but nothing helped. I was horrified that a physician would prescribe such medication for a little child.
I immediately began making green smoothies for my little grand daughter and her five year old brother, which they loved! She would even get me out of bed in the mornings, asking for green smoothie. On the third day, her stomach-ache went away!!
This was six months ago and she's still off Prilosec and on green smoothies. Her stomach aches are completely gone. One time, my grandson was stung by bees. I applied some green smoothie on the red area, and it took the pain away immediately. I'm enclosing a picture I took of them. I bought them a toy blender that we put the smoothies in and she pretends she made them in that. Both my grandchildren love choosing produce for our green smoothies, and helping with the preparation.
I have two older granddaughters that drink green smoothies also, and a baby granddaughter who will be having fresh vegetables and fruits made in the blender instead of store-bought, when she is old enough for solid foods.
Gabriele A., California
To Subscribe to the Raw Family Newsletter, or to just read more click here
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
TVs should not be kept in your child’s bedroom, if for no other reason than to make sure you’re monitoring what they are watching. But whether in the bedroom or not, no child who is under 3 should be watching any TV at all.
Before the age of 3, children's brains go through rapid development and are being physically shaped in response to whatever they are exposed to. Exposing children to fast-moving images like television for sustained periods at this time can inhibit their ability to sustain attention, and hinder their development of social skills.
Allowing children under 3 to watch television has been found to impair their linguistic and social development, and also put them at risk of health problems including attention-deficit disorder, autism and obesity.
Research suggests that television can also cause irregular sleep patterns for infants and toddlers, and decrease their resting metabolic rate, which compounds the physiological problems that come with lack of exercise.
Yet, an astonishing 90 percent of American children under age 2 -- and as much as 40 percent of babies under 3 months old -- watch TV, videos and DVDs regularly. Based on a 2007 survey of families in two states, kids at 3 months watched less than an hour of TV daily, and that viewing time climbed as children reached the toddler stage to 90 minutes.
It’s the Medium That’s the Problem, Not the Message
Much of the TV debate focuses on advertising messages and violent or sexually explicit programming, and their impacts on young minds. And while these certainly can be damaging, it turns out that TV may be harmful no matter what your kids are watching.
Dr. Aric Sigman, a British psychologist, analyzed 35 different scientific studies on television and its effect on the viewer. He found the damage comes not from the TV programs themselves, but from the vast amount of time kids are spending watching television and computer screens. This activity produces an almost narcotic effect on your brain, actually numbing areas that would be stimulated by other activities, like reading.
Watching TV also disrupts the production of the hormone melatonin, according to Dr. Sigman, which could be playing a role in sleep disturbances and even causing early puberty in adolescents.
The 15 Side Effects of Watching TV
Through his research, Dr. Sigman has identified 15 negative effects that he believes can be blamed on watching television. They are:
1. Obesity
2. Trouble healing
3. Heart trouble
4. Decreased metabolism
5. Eyesight damage
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Decreased attention span
8. Hormone disturbances
9. Cancer
10. Early puberty
11. Autism
12. Sleep difficulties
13. Increased appetite
14. Limited brain growth
15. Diabetes
Watching TV also has a major impact on your brain chemistry. In fact, the longer you watch, the easier your brain slips into a receptive, passive mode, meaning that messages are streamed into your brain without any participation from you. This is an advertiser’s dream.
Meanwhile, violent images on TV stimulate your body’s “fight or flight” response to stress, but since you know that the threat is not real, you suppress it. This engages your brain in a constant mode of impulse and suppression, and when you turn off the TV, all of this built up impulse must be released. This is one reason why television has been blamed for behavioral disorders like ADHD.
On top of that, television is filled with rapid imagery that does not exist in the real world. And when you watch enough of it, it makes real life seem ordinary, which is very sad.
My Advice for Parents?
Get the TV out of your child’s bedroom, and strictly limit their watching time altogether. And, while you’re at it, get the TV out of your bedroom as well. I suspect you and your family will begin to experience the benefits of better sleep and more almost immediately.
http://articles.mercola.com:80/sites/articles/archive/2008/3/22/a-o...
No matter how physically active a child is, time spent in front of the computer or television screen is associated with psychological problems.
In other words, children can't make up for TV time by spending extra hours exercising. The findings also suggest that the way children spend their sedentary time, in addition to how much time they spend being sedentary in the first place, matters for their mental health. According to Live Science: "... [R]esearchers asked 1,013 British 10- and 11-year-olds how much time each day they spent in front of a computer or TV. The children also wore accelerometers around their waists for a week to track their physical activity and sedentary time ... The study found that ... more than two hours a day in front of a TV or computer was associated with more emotional and behavioral difficulties."
Sources:
by: S. L. Baker, features writer
(NaturalNews) Plopping toddlers in front of television sets for a few hours a day may seem as American as apple pie and baseball. But this all-too-common habit could have a dark side. According to a report in the November issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, the more TV three-year-old toddlers watch, the more they demonstrate aggressive behavior.
In order to investigate possible links between household television use and aggression in youngsters, Jennifer A. Manganello, Ph.D., of the University at Albany, State University of New York, and Catherine A. Taylor, Ph.D., of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in New Orleans, analyzed data from 3,128 mothers of children born from 1998 to 2000 in 20 large U.S. cities. They interviewed moms when their babies were born and again when the children were one and three -- specifically asking how long the toddlers watched TV and also how long TVs were typically turned on each day in the home. Then the researchers used a 15-item test to assess aggressive behavior when the children were three-years-old.
A majority of the mothers (65 percent) reported their three-year-olds watched more than two hours of television each day. In addition, the toddlers were also exposed to an extra 5.2 hours of household TV use per day. So how does this translate into any change in the children's behavior? After accounting for other factors that could influence behavior (such as parent, family, neighborhood and demographic characteristics), the research team found that both direct watching of TV by the children as well as household TV use were significantly associated with childhood aggression.
"One explanation that could link both child and household TV measures with aggression involves the parenting environment," the authors wrote in their study. They explained that homes with higher rates of TV use probably have fewer restrictions on exactly what youngsters are watching -- so kids are more likely to be exposed to unregulated television content. In addition, the more often televisions are turned on in a household may affect daily routines such as whether people eat in front of the TV, whether they talk less to one another and whether there is a decrease in time spent on activities other than television watching.
"Current American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations mainly suggest limitations for direct child exposure to TV and other media; however, our findings suggest that additional household TV use may also be an important predictor of negative childhood outcomes, such as early childhood aggression," the authors concluded. "Future research in this area should consider inclusion of both of these TV variables along with additional parent-child interaction assessments, observational assessments when possible, quality and/or content of TV programs and longitudinal analyses."
Bottom line: common sense as well as Science should make it abundantly clear that spending hours in front of television is unhealthy for young bodies and minds. For example, as NaturalNews reported earlier this year (http://www.naturalnews.com/025667.html), University of Minnesota researchers found that teens who watch more than five hours of TV each day are at high risk of becoming fast food junkies when they reach young adulthood. And a University of Pittsburg and Harvard Medical School study found that excessive TV time for teens raised their risk of depression as adults (http://www.naturalnews.com/025790_h...).
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
TV exposure linked to aggressive behavior in young children
Subscribe to this FREE email newsletter
(HealthNewsDigest.com) - Little Silver, NJ -- On May 25, the Best for Babes Foundation will launch a clever and provocative new ad campaign designed to change the public perception of breastfeeding and expose the "booby traps"--the myriad cultural and institutional barriers that keep moms from succeeding. The ad debuts with an exclusive in the June/July issue of Fit Pregnancy. The campaign has been endorsed by Dr. Joan Meek, Chair of the United States Breastfeeding Committee and celebrities Gabrielle Reece and Marilu Henner.
Best for Babes Co-Founders Bettina Forbes and Danielle Rigg were fueled to launch a new ad campaign by their deep dismay that the government's three-year, $40 million "Babies Were Born to Be Breastfed" awareness campaign was derailed in 2004 under the influence of industry lobbyists. The DHHS/Ad Council breastfeeding ads were diluted (the pro-bono ad agency quit in protest); formula advertising almost doubled to $50 million annually; and a valuable study showing the links between breastfeeding and lower rates of disease was suppressed. As a result, breastfeeding rates actually went down.
Forbes and Rigg, who want to spare moms the unnecessary struggles they faced, aim to shift the focus off the "breast vs. bottle" debate and current backlash against breastfeeding, and on to the real issue: women are being urged to breastfeed but set up to fail. The CDC recently found that only 40% of new moms achieve their personal breastfeeding goals, and only 12% reach the minimum six months of exclusive breastfeeding recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Forbes and Rigg invite the media and the public to dig deeper into the reasons why women are throwing in the towel within days or weeks, and stop blaming mothers. "All moms deserve better information, and to be coached, cheered on and celebrated, without pressure, judgment or guilt," says Forbes, who initially did not want to breastfeed. "We are too quick to judge women without respecting their circumstances or the obstacles they face." "All women should be allowed to make and carry out the best decision for themselves and their families without being sabotaged," says Rigg, "When we remove the barriers, more moms will be able to reap the lifetime benefits of what can be a uniquely empowering and rewarding experience."
The first ad in the campaign highlights both the personal and societal costs to not helping mothers succeed at breastfeeding. "Breastfeeding is a major cost-effective primary health prevention strategy that could save billions on health care expenses for families, employers, and society," notes Dr. Meek, who is also a pediatrician. Yet less than 3% of U.S. maternity centers are designated "Baby-Friendly Hospitals," following model practices proven to enhance breastfeeding success. "Physicians aren't always trained in lactation management or may not refer mothers to lactation specialists--who are frequently not covered by health insurance," adds Melissa Bartick, MD, Chair of the Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition, and a member of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. Employers can be another "booby trap" for nursing moms.
Frank About Women, the nation's leading marketing-to-women communications firm, donated the six-figure ad campaign because they were captivated by the Best for Babes Foundation's mainstream, positive vision and the opportunity to use their creative talents to empower women without making them feel guilty. "This was a chance to help millions of moms and contribute to an important cause we are all passionate about," noted Diane Ridgway-Cross, managing partner at Frank About Women. The campaign is being backed by a growing corporate alliance, including Earth Mama Angel Baby, My Brest Friend and Hotslings, as well as health non-profits and leading breastfeeding groups.
Best for Babes is working to elevate breastfeeding to be "the mother of all causes" on par with all the diseases it helps to protect against. Last year, the American Heart Association raised $640 million, while breastfeeding non-profits received only a tiny fraction in foundation, corporate and public funds. "Yet, a recent study shows that breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of heart disease, the #1 killer in women," notes Alison Stuebe, MD, lead author of the study and an Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. "We are ignoring 'the cure' literally right under our noses," say the Best for Babes founders. "Especially in this economy, we all need to be more strategic. Boosting breastfeeding continuation rates is an incredibly cost-effective way to improve public health, and positively impact education, the economy and the environment across the board," say Forbes and Rigg. "We hope the ad campaign provokes the kind of discussion needed to shift our national priorities, while providing a little levity, too.
The Best for Babes Foundation was established in 2007 to give breastfeeding a makeover by using mainstream marketing and branding to inspire, prepare and empower moms and reveal and remove the barriers that keep moms from achieving their personal breastfeeding goals, despite their best intentions. The Best for Babes Web site, www.bestforbabes.org, offers breastfeeding inspiration, help for moms who don't want to breastfeed, a ground-breaking checklist for expectant moms, important information about navigating the "booby traps," as well as opportunities to become involved.
For more information about the ad (attached) or Best for Babes:
The Best for Babes Foundation
P.O. Box 454
Little Silver, New Jersey 07739
Best for Babes Gets Bold
www.bestforbabes.org
Subscribe to our FREE Ezine and be eligible for Health News, discounted products/services and coupons related to your Health. We publish 24/7.
http://www.HealthNewsDigest.com
(NaturalNews) In the wake of breaking new evidence, the United States government is expressing concern over the safety of the controversial chemical bisphenol-A as Health Canada designates it a dangerous substance.
Bisphenol-A is a chemical used in the manufacture of common polycarbonate plastic products including baby and water bottles. Commonly referred to as BPA, the chemical has long drawn criticism from health advocates and environmentalists alike. BPA has a tendency to leach into food and liquid held in contaminated containers, and as a result it has been found in the body of almost 100% of young children in randomized populations.
A study done by the U.S. National Toxicology Program -- a division of the National Institutes of Health -- examined the biological effects of the substance in laboratory animals. The researchers found that BPA caused precancerous tumors, urinary tract issues, and early onset puberty in mice at low level exposure. This evidence lends itself to the argument that BPA is a contributing factor behind the progressively higher numbers of children experiencing early onset puberty, which has even been reported in children as young as three. The agency made the conservative announcement that this study provides evidence which, while limited, "cannot be dismissed."
Following the announcement, Health Canada has set the stage for a ban by designating BPA a ‘dangerous substance,’ while major U.S. retailers such as Wal-Mart are announcing that BPA-free baby bottles and other products will soon be on the shelves, citing consumer concern as their motivation.
"We're hoping this decision will force the FDA to recognize the toxicity of this chemical and make manufacturers set a safety standard that's protective of the most vulnerable populations," remarked Anila Jacobs of the Environmental Working Group. A U.S. ban does not seem imminent at this time, but Senator Chuck Schumer (D – NY) is expected to introduce such legislation to congress by the end of April. “There’s enough warning signs to show the need to act sooner than later,” the senator explained.
Industry trade group the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is holding to their previous position, stating that the study confirmed that current exposure is too low to cause problems, and that the story is simply being overblown by the media. This is hardly enough to curb the increasingly fiery calls from consumer groups and others who wish to see the potentially dangerous substance banned.
About the author
Adam Miller is a student of life who has dedicated literally thousands of hours of personal research on top of formal institutional training in Dietetics to learn the secrets of achieving vibrant health and extended lifespan. His passion and dedication is in bringing the best ideas for self-empowerment through nutrition and nutraceuticals as well as alternative therapies, technology, and information to the public through various means.
Bisphenol-A Under Scrutiny, Bans Considered
Although more than 200 research studies show that bisphenol A (BPA) is harmful to human health, the U.S. government has decided that it would rather side with the chemical industry than with children.
The Senate failed to vote on the passage of a bill that would have resulted in a ban on the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.
And in fact, the ban is no longer even in consideration. According to the Wall Street Journal:
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) was the primary backer of a controversial amendment banning the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, which has been linked to some cancers, in baby bottles and sippy cups.
On Wednesday, she withdrew the amendment from consideration."
Feinstein says she'll keep fighting to make the ban a reality.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) amendment to the latest food-safety bill would have banned the use of the toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) from baby bottles and sippy cups, required the FDA to finalize their safety assessment of the chemical by December 2012, and allowed states to ban the chemical entirely if they so choose.
Unfortunately, thanks to heavy pressure from the chemical industry, the amendment has been withdrawn from consideration.
That BPA should be taken out of all products intended for children is a no-brainer.
Of 115 published animal studies, 81 percent found significant effects from even low-level exposure to BPA. This toxic chemical, an endocrine disrupter, first caught researchers' attention after normal mice began to display uncommon genetic abnormalities.
The defects were linked to plastic cages and water bottles that had been cleaned with a harsh detergent, causing BPA to leach out of the plastic.
After determining how much BPA the mice had been exposed to, the researchers realized even an extremely small dose of 20 parts per billion daily, for just five to seven days, was enough to produce effects.
Some of the greatest concern surrounds early-life exposure to BPA, which can lead to chromosomal errors in the developing fetus, triggering spontaneous miscarriages and genetic damage. And being exposed to just 0.23 parts per billion of BPA is enough to disrupt the effect of estrogen in a baby's developing brain.
For this reason, women of childbearing age and those who are pregnant, along with infants and children, should be especially diligent at avoiding BPA.
BPA in baby bottles has already been banned in Canada and several U.S. states. Other measures are being considered in 30 U.S. states and municipalities -- but at a federal level, the government is treading water and choosing to protect the interests of the chemical industry in favor of public health.
The American Chemistry Council, a lobby group for the chemical industry that issued a statement in early 2010 denying the health hazards of BPA, clearly does not want to see this cash cow bite the dust ... nor be held accountable for health problems related to its use. They will pull out all the stops to keep this chemical in your food packaging, baby bottles, and more for as long as possible.
Despite all the research showing serious health effects at low-level exposure, the U.S. FDA has virtually no power to do anything about it because BPA was classified in 1963 as an indirect food additive and is listed among the 3,000 or so chemicals categorized as GRAS ("generally regarded as safe").
This outdated GRAS designation is what exempts BPA from more careful scrutiny and analysis.
According to the FDA's regulations, a substance granted GRAS status is not subject to FDA review. The Agency explains these limitations via an "update" on its website:
"Current BPA food contact uses were approved under food additive regulations issued more than 40 years ago. This regulatory structure limits the oversight and flexibility of the FDA.
Once a food additive is approved, any manufacturer of food or food packaging may use the food additive in accordance with the regulation. There is no requirement to notify the FDA of that use.
For example, today there exist hundreds of different formulations for BPA-containing epoxy linings, which have varying characteristics. As currently regulated, manufacturers are not required to disclose to FDA the existence or nature of these formulations.
Furthermore, if the FDA were to decide to revoke one or more approved uses, the FDA would need to undertake what could be a lengthy process of rulemaking to accomplish this goal."
In 2009, more than 6 billion pounds of BPA were made, representing nearly $7 billion in sales. It is one of the world's highest production-volume chemicals and is widely used in the production of:
- Plastic water bottles
- Plastic gallon milk bottles
- Plastic microwavable plates, ovenware, and utensils
- Baby toys, bottles, pacifiers, and sippy cups
- Canned foods and soda cans (most have plastic lining in the cans)
- Tooth sealants
The use of BPA is so pervasive that scientists have found that 95 percent of people tested have dangerous levels of BPA in their bodies.
Again, some of the biggest victims are your children, who may be exposed to the chemical while in utero, and are quite literally "fed" the chemical via plastic baby bottles, sippy cups and toys (which they often put in their mouths).
The cumulative effect of being exposed to minuscule amounts of BPA from cans, bottles, plates and all other sources over the years can eventually spell serious trouble for your health.
One recent study found the chemical can lead to heart disease, diabetes and liver problems in adults, and previous research has linked BPA to:
- Structural damage to your brain
- Hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, and impaired learning
- Increased fat formation and risk of obesity
- Altered immune function
- Early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development, disrupted reproductive cycles, and ovarian dysfunction
- Changes in gender-specific behavior, and abnormal sexua| behavior
- Stimulation of prostate cancer cells
- Increased prostate size, and decreased sperm production
- Diabetes
- Heart disease
- Liver damage
There has been enough negative press about BPA that the public has been demanding safer, BPA-free alternatives. As a result, as of late summer 2010 BPA bills were pending in five state legislatures, and earlier this year numerous positive steps have been made to get this toxin out of U.S. food containers:
- Vermont banned BPA in baby food, formula and bottles, and will restrict its use in metal food cans starting July 1, 2014
- New York state banned BPA in bottles, sippy cups, pacifiers and drinking straws beginning December 2010
- General Mills announced in April 2010 that it would use BPA-free cans for Muir Glen organic tomatoes starting with the next harvest
Certain manufacturers, including Philips Avent, Disney First Years, Gerber, Dr. Brown, Playtex and Evenflow, have also said they will stop making baby bottles that contain BPA, while several major retailers, including CVS, Kmart, Walmart, Toys R Us and Babies R Us are removing BPA-containing products from their stores.
So the good news is that there are plenty of resources available for you to find BPA-free alternatives for your family. Please support the companies that are removing this chemical from their products, and look for BPA-free labels on all baby bottles and children's toys you buy.
You can further reduce your family's exposure to this toxic chemical by following these 11 tips:
- Only use glass baby bottles and dishes for your baby.
- Get rid of your plastic dishes and cups, and replace them with glass alternatives.
- Give your baby natural fabric toys instead of plastic ones, and only BPA-free pacifiers and teethers.
- Store your food and beverages in glass -- NOT plastic -- containers. Glass is the safest and most inert way to store your water and food, and is far better than ANY plastic (even BPA-free varieties).
- IF you choose to use a microwave, don't microwave food in a plastic container.
- Use glass, ceramic, or stainless steel travel coffee mugs rather than plastic or Styrofoam coffee cups.
- Avoid using plastic wrap (and never microwave anything covered in it).
- If you opt to use plastic kitchenware, at least get rid of the older, scratched-up varieties, avoid putting them in the dishwasher, and don't wash them with harsh detergents, as these things can cause more BPA to leach into your food.
- Avoid using bottled water; filter your own using a high-quality filter instead.
- Before allowing a dental sealant to be applied to your, or your children's, teeth, ask your dentist to verify that it does not contain BPA.
- Avoid using canned foods (including soda cans) as the linings often contain BPA. If you do eat canned foods, choose only those that come in BPA-free cans.
(NaturalNews) BPA, also known as bisphenol-A, is a chemical compound often used in the production of a large variety of plastics. The widespread use of BPA
has come under public scrutiny due to known connection to a host of health problems, including heart complications, cancer, neurological issues, diabetes
and fertility and sexual issues.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027736_BPA_sexual...
The chemical can be found in water bottles, dental fillings, plastic containers, canned food linings http://www.naturalnews.com/025128_BPA_food_c... paper receipts,
CD/DVD packaging, and more. Numerous studies have found that BPA acts as an endocrine system disrupter, negatively affecting our bodies' hormone
production. Exposure is almost a certainty -a 2004 study by the CDC found BPA in 93% of the over 2000 urine samples tested.
So, it shouldn't surprise you that new information has surfaced linking BPA to breathing issues in babies. An article in Mail Online, discussed the results
of a recent study by Penn State College of Medicine. The results found that pregnant mothers with high levels of BPA in their blood during the 16th week of
pregnancy are "twice as likely to have infants with wheezing problems in the first six months of life." What is really scary is that 99% of all the mothers
in this study had various levels of bisphenol-A in their systems.
There is no question that the use of bisphenol-A use in food and drinking containers should be banned. Even though no country has yet to go that far,
Denmark http://www.wecf.eu/english/articles/2010/03/...
was the first country in the EU to ban the chemical in containers that target children under 3; and
the entire EU has banned it from use in the production of baby bottles. Northern America has been a bit slower on the uptake but Canada and some states in
the United States have begun taking steps to control the use of bisphenol- A in consumer products. Six baby bottle manufacturers removed the chemical from
their U.S. bottle production after widespread public outcry.
Of course, the plastics industry prefers to spend money to procure studies http://acronymrequired.com/2008/10/fda-bpa-g... that cast doubt on the
dangers of BPA, rather than implanting BPA safe alternatives. So again, consumers must take steps to
protect themselves. Expectant mothers and women planning to conceive should be diligent in avoidance of bisphenol-A contaminated products- it is imperative
for the well being of themselves and their infants.
Resources:
1. http://www.naturalnews.com/031651_BPA_chemic...
2.
rel="nofollow" href="/aa/?1093107" title="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1382525/Chemicals-food-packaging-linked-breathing-problems-babies.html?ito=feeds-newsxml"
target="_blank"
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13...
3. http://www.naturalnews.com/025804_BPA_Baby_B...
Are BPA alternatives potentially just as dangerous as Bisphenol-A?
(NaturalNews) The Atlantic recently posed the obvious but, as yet, unasked question: What is in the new BPA-free plastics that are now flooding
the market, and how do we know they are safe? (
http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011...
)
Bisphenol A, more commonly called BPA, is the toxic chemical that largely comprised polycarbonate plastics. BPA does eventually break down, but because
products containing it were--and still are--so ubiquitous, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention managed to find the chemical in more than 90
percent of Americans. But BPA is fast going out of fashion now that we have discovered even low level exposures could cause disrupted genetic signaling and
hormone activity that can lead to diabetes; obesity; impaired reproductive, developmental, neurological, immune, and cardiovascular system function; and
certain cancers.
As more evidence of BPA's toxic effects mounts, alternatives become in ever-increasing demand. Consumers now see many products labeled "BPA-free" and may
think that they are getting something safe, but is anyone monitoring and testing these alternatives?
The short answer is no. While the National Institutes of Health is supporting $30 million of research into the health effects of BPA, there is no
comparable research for the BPA-free alternatives. The EPA's Design for Environment is examining manufacturer-provided literature of alternative materials
but is not currently conducting or commissioning any safety testing of its own either.
Regulating the chemicals by relying primarily on information supplied by a material's manufacturer, leaves us with little safety information. For example,
one BPA-free alternative, Tritan copolyester, is made by the Eastman Chemical Company, which supplies Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for 23 different
compounds sold under the Tritan copolyester name. The MSDS sheets, however, list no toxicity data and notes that no studies have been done on the
compounds' effects on the environment. According to Eastman, sales of its product quadrupled between 2009 and 2010.
What this means is that, while we are using BPA-free plastics at an increasingly rapid rate, we know remarkably little about them. These materials could
well be BPA all over again or worse.
Glass, ceramics, and stainless steel are alternatives for some products that were formerly made with BPA-containing plastics, but plastic has advantages or
is necessary for some products. For those products, it is clear that we need a better system for ensuring safety.
Sources for this article include
http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011...
http://www.naturalnews.com/027476_BPA_health...
http://www.naturalnews.com/028567_BPA_oceans...
With escalating rates of childhood illness these days, it is more important than ever to be careful about what you feed your child, from day one. Babies
are already born at considerable risk due to the toxic load of their mothers. Some of this is from exposure to plastics and the contaminants present
therein, such as BPA (Bisphenol A). The
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has detected BPA in the urine of 95 percent of people tested.
And now there's evidence these toxins are being spread to babies even BEFORE they're born.
In 2009, the
Environmental Working Group (EWG) found an average of 287 toxins
, including BPA, mercury, fire retardants, and pesticides, in the umbilical cord blood of American infants. If your baby is exposed to numerous toxic
compounds in utero, it lengthens the period of exposure to carcinogens, thereby making your child more susceptible to cancer and other diseases later in
life.
This underscores the importance of minimizing your child's risk for exposure to toxic compounds in the foods you feed him.
Yet, so many well- intenioned moms unknowingly add to their baby's toxic load by feeding them contaminated, chemical-laden infant formulas (in
plastic bottles) during their first several months, then hit their tender little immune systems with cereal, which is the LAST thing they should be eating
because it's mostly grain, which turns into sugar.
Now, baby food manufacturers are compounding the problem by suggesting that busy moms feed their toddlers highly processed food sold in convenient plastic
tubs. As if that isn't enough, you microwave it first, further destroying and denaturing its nutritional value and promoting leaching of toxic
chemicals right out of the plastic and into your baby's meal.
When you look at what we, as a society, are sacrificing by feeding our children processed foods, together with the amount of sugar our youth are consuming from candy and juices, sodas
and further disabling their immune systems by bombarding them with 29 vaccines by the age of two—then letting them spend their days idly sitting in front
of televisions and computers—it's no wonder we have the unhealthiest children in generations.
Western children, as a whole, are showing this damage in the form of lowered IQs, mood and
behavioral problems, skyrocketing obesity rates, and multiple forms of chronic disease that are occurring at earlier ages.
Some baby foods are worse than junk foods
.
I am not a fan of cooking foods in the microwave for a number of reasons, which I've covered extensively in this past article. Microwaved food has been
associated with the following problems:
Causes your food to vibrate at very high frequencies, changing your food's chemical structure, structurally deforming its molecules and potentially
making nutrients unrecognizable and unusable by your body.
Creates the formation of free radicals and carcinogenic molecules.
May result in actual changes to cellular DNA.
May corrupt or destroy biophotons (light energy in living food).
Some microwave ovens leak microwave radiation into the surrounding environment.
If you want to make use of your microwave, use it to
clean your dishrags and sponges
, but not to prepare food for your family.
One of the greatest concerns about microwave ovens is what happens to plastics and the food they contain when you heat them in this way.
When you put "microwave safe" plastic into your microwave oven, you're not going to see it bubble or melt, or see sparks fly or smell toxic fumes. You
won't see or taste plastic particles in your food. As the microwave heats the plastic, the chemical bonds break silently and invisibly. If your plastic
is scratched or worn, the degradation is worse.
So, as long as you stick to "BPA-free" plastics, you're okay, right?
Not necessarily so, according to what researcher and BPA expert Frederic vom Saal of the University of Missouri has discovered during his decade of
research. Vom Saal states, "There is no such thing as microwavable plastic." His studies revealed leaching of BPA from all plastics tested.
BPA is a major ingredient in polycarbonate plastics, and those are often combined with other plastics, although it may not say so on the label.
Polycarbonates are used in the following products (this list is by no means comprehensive):
Canned food and soda can linings
Plastic milk jugs
Plastic wrap
"Microwave-safe" plastic dishware
Nalgene and other water bottles
Baby bottles and sippy cups
Toys and pacifiers
Vom Saal's studies showed that BPA is released when any BPA-containing plastic is exposed to heat, such as from dishwashers and hot food. For example,
in 2007, polycarbonate drinking bottles were shown to release BPA 55 times more rapidly when exposed to boiling water
. Some studies have also detected leaching at room temperature.
That BPA should be taken out of all products intended for babies or children is a no-brainer. The cumulative effect of being exposed to even minuscule
amounts of BPA from cans, bottles, plates and all other sources over the years can eventually spell serious trouble for your child. Research tells us
the chemical can raise your risk for a long list of serious health problems:
Heart disease | Liver problems | Diabetes |
Structural damage to your brain | Hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, and impaired learning | Increased fat formation and risk of obesity |
Altered immune function | Early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development, disrupted reproductive cycles, and ovarian dysfunction | Changes in gender-specific behavior, and abnormal sexual behavior |
Stimulation of prostate cancer cells | Increased prostate size, and decreased sperm production |
Of 115 published animal studies, 81 percent found significant effects from even low-level exposure to BPA. This endocrine disrupter first caught
researchers' attention after normal mice began to display uncommon genetic abnormalities. The defects were linked to plastic cages and water bottles
that had been cleaned with a harsh detergent, causing BPA to leach out of the plastic.
The more research comes in, the more we realize there is probably NO safe level of BPA. Some of the greatest concern surrounds
href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/01/11/new-evidence-linking-toxic-food-containers-to-breast-cancer-risks-in-the-womb.aspx"
>
early-life exposure to BPA
, which can lead to chromosomal errors in the developing fetus, triggering spontaneous miscarriages and genetic damage. Exposure to only 0.23 parts per
billion of BPA is enough to
disrupt the effect of estrogen
in your baby's developing brain.
Although sometimes the amount of BPA leaching out is incredibly small (40-60 parts per trillion, or ppt), several peer-reviewed studies found harm to
laboratory animals at levels even lower than that—as low as 25 ppt.
For some appreciation of scale, one part per trillion is like
one drop of water diluted into 20 Olympic-size swimming pools, or about three seconds out of every hundred thousand years! Experts on the biological
effects of BPA state there IS cause for concern, particularly in babies, given their developmental vulnerability and how even tiny amounts of BPA can trigger cell damage.
According to the Journal Sentinel:
"Studies have shown that at 25 and 250 parts per trillion, BPA can cause harm in laboratory animals, including precancerous changes in breast
tissue, reproductive abnormalities and changes in brain cell and neural growth. And beginning at 2 parts per trillion, scientists saw a trend
toward decreasing testicle weight in adult male rats. A 2007 Japanese study found similar levels in human breast milk."
Babies up to age 12 months or so can't metabolize BPA as efficiently as adults. No one gets more BPA per pound of body weight than newborns, as
illustrated by the following shocking example.
The Journal Sentinel calculated the following BPA exposure you
could expect from an average baby's food intake, based on CDC nutritional estimates (If your child is smaller, the levels would be even higher):
Age and Weight of Child | Food Intake | BPA Exposure from Formula/Bottles | BPA Exposure from Solid Foods/Packaging |
One-month-old boy, weighing 9 pounds, 7 ounces (average) | Liquid formula, 27.5 ounces (5.5 feedings at 5 ounces) | 450 ppt (214 ppt from formula, plus 236 ppt from polycarbonate bottle | N/A |
One-year-old body, weighing 24 pounds, 5 ounces (average) | Liquid formula, 24 ounces | 155 ppt (74 ppt from formula, plus 81 ppt from polycarbonate bottle) | Breakfast: Munchkin bowl filled with warm oatmeal and puree frozen strawberries warmed in a Rubbermaid container: 53 ppt |
Lunch: Gerber pasta and warmed Hawaiian Delight: 0.24ppt | |||
Dinner: Canned chili and applesauce, warmed in Munchkin bowls: 12 ppt | |||
TOTAL BPA FROM PACKAGING: 146 PPT |
So, a one-month-old baby on formula could be getting 450 parts per trillion BPA per day, which is 18 TIMES the level shown in
scientific studies to cause cellular damage. A toddler could be getting 300 ppt daily, which is still 12 times the minimum dose shown to cause damage.
More than 200 research studies now show that BPA is harmful to human health. Yet, every attempt to get the FDA to ban the toxic chemical from baby
bottles and sippy cups has failed, thanks to heavy pressure from the chemical industry. BPA in baby bottles has already been
banned in Canada
and in several U.S. states. The next time you see a label with the words "microwave safe," remember there was also a time when they claimed DDT was
safe.
You can reduce your family's exposure to this toxic chemical by following these simple tips:
Replace your plastic kitchenware and plastic food storage containers with glass, ceramic or stainless steel. If you opt to use plastic kitchenware,
at least get rid of the older, scratched-up varieties, avoid putting them in the dishwasher, and don't wash them with harsh detergents, as these
things can cause more BPA to leach into your food.
Only use glass baby bottles.
Avoid using plastic wrap (and never microwave anything covered in it).
Use glass, ceramic, or stainless steel travel mugs for hot beverages, rather than plastic or Styrofoam coffee cups.
Avoid using bottled water; instead, filter your own using a high-quality filter, then store it in glass drinking bottles.
Never microwave food in a plastic container. Work toward eliminating the use of your microwave altogether for anything except cleaning.
Purchase natural fabric toys instead of plastic ones, and if you're going to purchase teethers and pacifiers, looks for those that are BPA-free.
Avoid using canned foods (including soda pop), because the linings often contain BPA. If you choose to eat canned foods, choose only those that
come in BPA-free cans.
Before allowing a dental sealant to be applied to your children's teeth, ask your dentist to verify that it does not contain BPA.
Almost every childcare book offers the same advice about a baby's first solid meal—start them first on rice cereal mixed with breast milk or formula.
This has been the standard line for 60 years now.
But there is no scientific basis for this recommendation—none at all.
According to Stanford University pediatrician Alan Greene, other than breast milk or formula, rice is the number one source of calories for infants in
their first year of life—and this is a nutritional disaster. The notion originated in the 1950s when baby food companies launched an advertising blitz
trumpeting the benefits of white rice cereal.
White rice is a refined carbohydrate, one of the highly processed, nutritionally devoid foods that have been linked to increased rates of
heart disease
, insulin resistance,eye damage and cancer in adults, and are nutritionally
worthless for infants as well. Feeding infants cereal has been associated with an increased risk of type 1 diabetes and may prime your baby for a lifetime
of carb cravings for white bread, cookies and cakes.
According to Dr. Russell Blaylock, high Sugar content and starchy carbohydrates lead to excessive insulin release, which in turn leads to falling blood
sugar levels, or hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia causes the brain to secrete glutamate in levels that can cause agitation, depression, anger, anxiety, panic
attacks and an increase in suicide risk.
This glutamate is identical to the flavor-enhancing monosodium glutamate (MSG) and its chemical cousins, found in literally thousands of food products,
which further inflame the problem.
In addition to taking a physical toll on your child's health,
food dyes, preservatives , artificial sweeteners, and other chemical additives cause a multitude of behavioral and mood disturbances.
This is just one more reason to avoid feeding your toddler pre-packaged and highly processed "convenience foods"—including the new microwaveable ones.
It certainly isn't any form of grain-based infant cereal! When flour is refined to make cereal, the most nutritious part of the grain is removed, so
the flour essentially becomes a form of sugar. When you feed your baby a bowl of infant cereal, picture yourself dipping directly into your Sugar bowl
and feeding baby a spoon or two, because that's essentially what it amounts to.
So what's a better option?
Egg yolk.
According to the Weston A. Price Foundation, egg yolk should be your baby's first solid food, starting as early as 4 months, whether your baby is
breastfed or formula-fed.
Egg yolks from free-range hens contain the special long-chain fatty acids so critical for the optimal development of your child's brain and nervous
system. Although egg yolks are excellent, be aware that egg whites may cause an allergic reaction, so they're best avoided until your child is
at least one year old. If you want some simple recipes and guidelines about how to feed your toddler, refer to this article.
The best thing you can do for your child is to model good eating habits. Don't shoo your toddler out of the kitchen—instead, involve him in what goes
on in there. Use your kitchen as a classroom where you teach him the connection between food and health and happiness.
Some of the warmest childhood memories are from ordinary days and activities together with family members gathered in your kitchen.
Also, take your little ones out into the garden so they can see where REAL food comes from, rather than believing food comes in little plastic tubs
from the grocery store. Help them plant their own veggie pot and witness the miracle of transformation from seed to food. Consider Nutritional Typing
for your children. Nutritional typing is an important tool to let you know which types of
foods are best for your unique biochemistry, and it works for kids of all ages too.
Preparing meals from scratch requires a time commitment. Naturopath Colleen Huber authored an article several years ago that is full of great
tips that can help you streamline this process. For example, PLAN AHEAD—you are more likely to cave into ordering that pizza if you are tired from a
long day and have nothing ready in the fridge.
Another good strategy is "cooking big and freezing small," which makes for easy homemade weeknight dinners that are always readily on hand.
I've said this for many years, and it's worth repeating again—the secret to your health, and your children's health, is preparing real food from
organic whole ingredients, preferably local or raised in your own backyard, the way humans have done it for thousands of years.
Kids Spend an Astounding Amount of Time Watching TV or Using Computer
The Steep Price of Letting Your Child have a TV in Their Bedroom
Exercising More May Not Be Enough, Unless You Also Shut Off the TV...
Watching TV Changes Your Brain Chemistry
The 15 Potential Side Effects of Watching TV
How to Get Your Kids Moving