Unfortunately, potency issues and lead contamination are becoming frequent travelling companions, evidenced by recent findings from ConsumerLab.com about St. John's wort and its latest report on ginseng, one of the more popular herbal supplements used by Americans.

Out of 11 supplements tested by ConsumerLab.com, five failed to make the grade. Two brands exceeded safe exposure limits for lead in California (0.5 micrograms per day), ranging from three to six times. In one product, researchers also found traces of quintozene, a pesticide used, among other things, to treat seeds used in growing field crops and vegetables.

Three more supplements contained lesser amounts of ginsenosides, the active compounds in ginseng, ranging from 60-75 percent, including two products containing only American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.).

All the more reason, you should be scrutinizing the supplements you take, not only for the impact they have on your bank account, but their quality, safety and purity. Before you consider another supplement, please take a moment to review CNCA's Nutritional Supplement Quality -- The Facts, then talk to your doctor before selecting one.

ConsumerLab.com August 16, 2010 Subscription Required

Unfortunately, health experts will likely be debating the safety of sunscreens long after the FDA finally gets around to doing it. Case in point: A very public disagreement between the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and a trio of scientists over the safety of retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A, and an additive used, not only in sunscreens, but in dairy products and other processed foods.

The dispute stems from a recent analysis published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (no abstract link available), dismissing an advisory in the EWG's 2010 Sunscreen Guide that highlighted safety concerns about retinyl palmitate as a carcinogenic substance triggering cancer in humans.

The EWG feels the ongoing research by the FDA and the National Toxicology Program on animals has suggested retinyl palmitate may be carcinogenic when skin is exposed to sunlight. This, coupled with the fact that various forms of vitamin A can be found in 41 percent of the sunscreens in America, prompted the EWG to recommend avoiding retinyl palmitate.

Conversely, the scientists involved in the Journal report argue that retinyl palmitate isn't an active ingredient in sunscreens, and works in concert with other antioxidants "to alleviate the risk of free radical formation seen in these in vitro experiments." And, they were very skeptical that the results of an NTP study involving hairless and albino mice that developed tumors more quickly when coated with retinyl palmitate couldn't be easily linked to humans.

Interestingly, there's one thing, upon which, both groups agree: Limiting heavy exposure (look for the shade) and wearing protective clothing (hats, sunglasses and long-sleeve shirts and pants) -- but not sunscreens -- should be your primary strategy for protecting your skin from the sun.

Consulting Room August 10, 2010

Medscape August 13, 2010 Free Registration Required

Environmental Working Group August 11, 2010

Environmental Working Group August 2010

Whole Foods Market's announcement about taking their first steps toward limiting genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) from their stores in America sounds far more hopeless and unrealistic today than it did a year ago, based on a report from a group of ecologists at the recent 95th meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA) in Pittsburgh.

The gist: Despite assurances from the Agri-Business sector, scientists discovered GM yellow canola plants "growing in the middle of nowhere" North Dakota, in places far away from conventional and GM crops, that are resistant to herbicides made by Monsanto (glyphosate) and Bayer Crop Science (gluphosinate) and, in two cases, to both substances.

GM samples of the canola/rapeseed plant (Brassica napus) were found at almost half of the 288 sites scientists investigated along North Dakota roads. Of the roughly 140 sites and 406 plants collected in the state, 347 were genetically modified to resist either pesticide. And, two plant samples showed signs of stacked traits, meaning resistance to both pesticides.

Here's a sobering thought from a University of Arkansas scientist about the evolving genetic makeup of native plants, as told to Scientific American: This is a good model for the influence of agriculture on the evolution of native plants. We can imagine gene flow to native species. If we can imagine that happening, it probably happens.

Evidence for the establishment and persistence of genetically modified canola populations in the U.S (95th ESA Annual Meeting Abstract) August 6, 2010

Discover/80 Beats Blog August 6, 2010

Scientific American.com August 6, 2010

Nature News.com August 6, 2010

At the same time cancer rates keep dropping in America, medical experts are beginning to realize what they don't know about this second leading killer of Americans. But they're beginning to catch up, as evidenced by a recent joint report by a group of health agencies, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer and American Cancer Society, identifying 20 "new" causes of cancer, including one you wouldn't expect.

Some of these culprits should be very familiar to you -- formaldehyde, lead, chloroform and PCBs. Then, there's relative newbies, like atrazine and indium phosphide, a binary semiconductor made of indium and phosphorus used in the production of flat-screen TVs.

Probably, the most interesting cancer concern comes straight out of left field, isn't a chemical or substance at all, and it's not the RF energy emitted by mobile phones either.

Think shift work, changing 24/7 schedules that often plays havoc with a patient's circadian rhythms, often leaving them sleep-deprived and vulnerable to a slew of health problems.

International Agency for Research on Cancer Technical Publication No. 42 Free Full Text PDF

Environmental Health Perspectives July 13, 2010 Free PDF Supplement

ScienceDaily July 15, 2010

Chicago Tribune July 15, 2010

Call it another case of Murphy's Law, but just six months after the federal government announced a $30 million appropriation to study the health effects of Bisphenol A (BPA), a recent Environmental Working Group (EWG) report identified another very common source of this controversial, endocrine-disrupting chemical: The thermal paper used to print cash register receipts.

Lead researcher on the report and noted organic chemist, John C. Warner, fingered BPA several years ago, after assigning his University of Massachusetts students to retrieve, then analyze paper receipts generated by cash registers with the help of a mass spectrometer. Many bits of paper, but not all, contained BPA, and you couldn't tell with the naked eye which ones had it. Or not…

In this newest study, 40 percent of the 36 samples (they were collected from a wide range of American retail chains from Whole Foods to CVS, Walmart and McDonald's) contained levels of BPA ranging from 250-1,000 times more than the amounts measured in more well-known sources -- think baby bottles and canned foods. (Starbucks and Target were among a group of retailers who used BPA-free paper.)

The good news in this report is two-fold. For one, Appleton Papers, the leading American producer of thermal paper, eliminated BPA from its formulations in 2006. Most importantly, however, it isn't hard to get rid of BPA altogether. Some suggested tips from the EWG to avoid BPA exposure from paper receipts:

* If you need to save paper receipts, file them in separate envelopes.

* Keep your kids away from receipts.

* After handling paper receipts, wash your hands, but don't use alcohol-based cleaners that boost your body's absorption of BPA.

Receive Daily Health Updates from CNCA Subscribe to This Blog: RSS or Email

Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews July 28, 2010 Free Full Text Study

Environmental Working Group/Kid-Safe Chemicals July 27, 2010

Washington Post July 27, 2010

You may recall a recent study I posted in this space that should've eliminated any doubts about the health value of consuming organic foods in large quantities. Just because X food has an organic label -- thanks, in part, to the use of organic pesticides -- doesn't mean you should eat more of it than one formulated from conventional sources and grown with conventional pesticides.

The same analogy may also, unfortunately, be true about the environmental impact associated with using greater amounts of organic pesticides over conventional ones, according to a new study.

Scientists compared the environmental impact of six different pesticides, including two organic formulations, at five different sites over two years to control the spread of soybean aphids and observed how well each pesticide affected the health of flower bugs and ladybugs (both predators of aphids).

Out of all the pesticides tested, an organic, mineral oil solution had the greatest impact, necessitating higher amounts be sprayed on plants to smother aphids. Also, the "less harmful" mineral oil and fungal pesticides killed more of the natural predators that got rid of aphids. To do what's best for the environment, "It's important to look at every compound and make a selection based on the environmental impact quotient, rather than if it's simply natural or synthetic," scientists say.

PLoS One June 22, 2010 Free Full Text Study

ScienceDaily June 23, 2010

One of the running arguments my wife (Ms. CEO) and I have had over our near fortnight and a half of marital bliss haven't involved toilet seats (up), toilet paper (whatever) or hamburgers (medium well, no lettuce, no onions, add spinach, light mayo, extra pickles). On those life-changing subjects and many others that are far less important, we are in almost complete agreement. We do "have words," however, when it comes to turning lights and/or the LCD TV off, Energy Star ratings be damned.

For folks like me who walk from empty room to empty room in our homes (and elsewhere) turning off lights to the chagrin of our families, here's evidence from across the pond that we're not following in the footsteps of Don Quixote (all the time): A British scientist believes the figures government workers have used to determine how much the UK saves in carbon emissions by turning things off may underestimated, by as much as 60 percent from 2002-09.

The variance in accuracy stems from focusing solely on power stations fueled by fossil fuels (gas, oil and coal) with fluctuating demands while excluding wind and nuclear power stations with low carbon emission rates.

Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. "A small increase in the amount of electricity we use could mean a larger increase in emissions than we previously thought," scientists say.

Energy Policy June 22, 2010

Treehugger July 2, 2010

EurekAlert June 30, 2010

I bet your initial surprise about the source of a completely avoidable food safety hazard -- reusable grocery bags -- probably mirrored my own, until you thought about it for a second or two. Bacteria levels in grocery bags tested in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Tucson, Ariz., were high enough to cause a wide range of serious health problems -- including death -- according to researchers at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University.

Almost everyone who was interviewed for the study never considered sanitizing their reusable bags, although thorough washing kills virtually all of the nasties that can accumulate in them. In fact, various forms of coliform bacteria, which includes the very popular E.coli bacteria was found on half of the 84 bags sampled. Additionally, half of the bags tested were used more than once a week, mostly for transporting groceries.

And, it's not a great idea -- especially if you live in a warmer climate -- to pack your store-bought meats in the trunk of your car for very long either. After meat juices were added to reusable bags stored in a car trunk for two hours, the amount of bacteria exploded by a factor of 10 when the indoor temperature was 116 degrees.

All that said, the lead author of the report believes the findings of his study don't suggest that there's a looming outbreak of disease looming in our future, and some health experts believe the average healthy person won't be sickened by the crud growing in our reusable grocery bags either.

That "healthy" skepticism won't stop me from washing my reusable bags very soon, however.

UA News June 24, 2010 Free Full Text Study

NPR June 25, 2010

Every fish tested by the U.S. Geological Survey over a seven-year period contained some mercury, according to a study appearing last year in this space, and 25 percent of those samples had levels that exceeded EPA safety standards. So, which kind of fish -- saltwater or freshwater -- is more harmful to your health?

Duke University researchers report eating saltwater fish (shark, tuna and mackerel) may be a bigger health problem than freshwater species, although mercury accumulates in far greater concentrations in the latter. Why?

Methylmercury, the most harmful form of mercury and a potent neurotoxin, degrades to a much less toxic form in dissolved organic matter (plants and animals) in freshwater when exposed to sunlight. On the other hand, the sodium in seawater binds more tightly with methylmercury, so sunlight can't break it down as easily, scientists said.

Apart from the problems related to neurological disorders, kidney dysfunction and the like, here's one more incentive to limit your exposure to methylmercury: Cutting mercury pollution by 10 percent could trim America's annual health care costs by more than $800 million, not chump change by any stretch.

Receive Daily Health Updates from CNCA Subscribe to This Blog: RSS or Email

Nature Geoscience June 27, 2010

EurekAlert June 27, 2010

Environmental Science & Technology June 14, 2010 Free Full Text Study

Chemical & Engineering News June 24, 2010

It was only a matter of time before the words Gulf oil spill and cancer were mentioned, almost in the same sentence. Even as the Gulf of Mexico bleeds oil, however, some of the nation's best health experts, speaking at a recent Institutes of Health panel in New Orleans, weren't willing to go out on a limb to predict the long-term physical health effects of this disaster, much less cancer risks (apart from the propensity of mental health problems) any time soon.

That said, University of Rhode Island professor Dr. Bongsup Cho, who has studied the effect of environmental toxins on DNA mutations for nearly two decades at the behest of the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health, believes some of the very same cancer-causing components in overcooked meats, cigarette smoke and diesel fumes are also present in the gooey tar balls and muck washing up on beaches and marshes along the Gulf Coast.

Dr. Cho may be just as cautious as his peers at the federal level about predictions, but he isn't shy about discussing his concerns with the aforementioned tar balls that contain "non-volatile, benzene-like, heavily unsaturated hydrocarbons with high boiling points." One of the components of these tarballs: Benzo[a]pyrene, a five-ring, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that is mutagenic (meaning it can change the DNA of an organism) and carcinogenic. So, it should come as no surprise that scientists found damaged DNA in the blood of workers cleaning up after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill too.

Another concern: The orange sheen you've seen on news reports floating on top of the Gulf waters is "the result of a chemical reaction involving the sun, the crude oil and the oil dispersants," Dr. Cho says. Nobody knows what that color is made from or how toxic it may be, largely due to the 35-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act that "protects" an unknown amount of chemicals from public and private scrutiny.

The EPA has been attempting to unravel and reform the act, and it can't come soon enough to help us deal with this toxic mess in the Gulf.

Image source: EPA photo by Eric Vance

University of Rhode Island June 21, 2010

New Scientist June 28, 2010

Medscape June 28, 2010 Free Registration Required

Scientific American June 24, 2010

For all the arguing about what's better for your health -- organic vs. conventional foods -- calorie counts and fat content often seem to be left out of the discussion or ignored. Perhaps they shouldn't, according to a pair of studies about the health misperceptions people have about conventional and organic foods.

Nutritional labels tell us how much fat, salt, sugar and other components go into the making, for example, of the average Oreo cookie. The problem lies, however, when said cookie is labeled as an ORGANIC food. In one study, 114 students read nutrition labels for two sets of Oreos, describing them either as Oreo cookies or Oreo cookies made with organic flour and sugar, then were asked which kind had more or fewer calories in comparison to other brands and if said cookies should be eaten less often or more than others.

Even though I'd prefer to blame their responses on sleep deprivation than a lack of critical thinking skills, more students believed organic Oreos had fewer calories and could be consumed more often than the conventional kind. And, in a second survey about food choices, patients were more forgiving of a female, wanting to lose weight but skipping her after-dinner run, after eating an organic dessert over a generic one.

Organic foods, particularly whole foods, contain fewer pesticides and, generally, healthier ingredients. But those two variables alone don't make them any less fatty than conventional foods. When in doubt, portion sizes DO matter.

LiveScience June 17, 2010

The 375-year-young town of Concord, Mass., has been the launching pad for an interesting variety of things in U.S. history. For some folks keen to debate colonial history, the American Revolutionary War began there 235 years ago (the Battle of Lexington and Concord). For a time, Concord was dubbed the "biggest little place in America" by author Henry James for its literary pedigree, as it was home to 19th century heavyweights Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Nathaniel Hawthorne.

So, it was a huge surprise to many when Concord re-emerged as a ground zero destination, this time for the town's decision to ban the sale of bottled water, thanks to the determination of octogenarian Jean Hill who proposed a warrant article that was approved by some 300 residents during the final night of Concord's annual, four-day town meeting this past spring.

Hill became a true believer in the "war" against bottled water after being told by her grandson about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch some years ago.

Unfortunately, there's one huge caveat that may likely make the ban a moot point: Concord's Board of Selectmen aren't sure that the ban -- slated to take effect Jan. 1 -- is legally enforceable, because Hill's petitioner article wasn't written as a bylaw, nor did it include any penalties for noncompliance. At this writing, Concord selectmen are waiting for an opinion from the Massachusetts Attorney General, before moving forward.

Considering the many health problems (heart disease, cancer, diabetes) linked to bisphenol A (BPA) (a chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic water bottles that mimics the female hormone estrogen), however, Hill's efforts have already done a great deal to build awareness about the environmental impact of bottled water.

For more guidance on safe, healthy drinking water, you'll want to read our latest CNCA Newsletter, Healthy Drinking Water: The Facts You Need For Safe, Affordable Water.

New York Times June 22, 2010

The Concord Journal June 15, 2010

When you heard about the latest product recall from a big-box retailer -- this time, it's 12 million drinking glasses used to market the "final" Shrek film sold at McDonald's -- you probably weren't surprised, especially if you're a parent or grandparent. The culprit is a familiar one…

Trace amounts of cadmium, the 48th element of the Periodic Table and a known carcinogen, have been showing up lately, not only coating Shrek glasses, but in Chinese-made children's products that have found their way to the shelves of big-box retailers in America, according to the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC). One bit of good news: Cadmium levels measured in those Shrek glasses were much lower than those detected in some children's jewelry -- think trinkets promoting Hannah Montana's alter-ego Miley Cyrus and The Princess and the Frog movie.

In fact, much of this recent attention paid by the CPSC was likely triggered by an Associated Press investigation that discovered 12 percent of the children's pendants and bracelets scientists tested contained at least 10 percent cadmium. And, the most contaminated piece was composed of 91 percent cadmium by weight.

So, if cadmium is a carcinogen used primarily in the making of batteries, why is it being found in other places? Chinese manufacturers may be substituting harmful heavy metals like cadmium, barium and antimony in place of lead, to achieve specific pigments, according to CPSC.

More recently, we warned you about excessive amounts of lead and cadmium also showing up in the darndest places, like St. John's wort, just another reason for you to do your homework when it concerns taking a supplement.

Image source: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

The Christian Science Monitor June 10, 2010

Huffington Post June 4, 2010

New York Times June 9, 2010

You may not have seen this latest salvo in the ongoing debate over organic and conventional foods during the recent Memorial Day holiday, but it was pretty easy to miss.

Not a word was mentioned about the war of words between the warring factions in this study touting the nutritional value of milk produced by grass-fed cows, but all the signs were there. After comparing the health of some 3,600 Costa Rican patients -- half of whom had experienced a non-fatal heart attack, while the rest were healthy -- the top 20 percent who had the highest amounts of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in their bodies reduced their risk of a heart attack by 36 percent.

So, what does this have to do with the organic vs. conventional debate?

One of the best sources of CLA is milk produced by grass-fed cows. Previous studies have shown how these animals produce milk five times richer in CLA than those existing on conventional grains. What's more, cows largely graze on pastures -- rather than grains -- in this Central American country.

All the more reason, it may be very beneficial for your health to be on the lookout for cleaner, healthier food sources with the least amount of exposure to pesticides.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition May 12, 2010

EmpowHER May 31, 2010

Vancouver Sun May 28, 2010

Municipal water systems are tricky. It's next to impossible not to use them, and they can be risky, considering you may be showering with bacteria-laden water that harms folks with compromised immune systems. Unfortunately, the risk of illness may be more widespread for many children and adults using public swimming pools, according to a CDC report.

Based on a review of more than 120,000 routine public pool inspections conducted in 13 states two years ago, 12 percent of pools (some 13,500) were closed immediately due to serious health violations, of which most were related to faulty disinfectant (12,917) or pH levels (10,148). And, nearly 74,000 of those pool inspections identified at least one violation.

The variety of pool systems cited most often by the CDC for safety violations (those that were shut down or had disinfectant problems) may surprise you:

1. Child care facility pools: 17.2 percent

2. Hotel/motel pools: 15.3 percent

3. Kiddie/wading pools: 13.5 percent

4. Interactive fountains: 12.6 percent

5. Apartment/condo pools: 12.4 percent

Learn more about diseases that can harm your gut, skin, ears and respiratory system and how to avoid them by reviewing CDC data on recreational water illness.

Receive Daily Health Updates from CNCA Subscribe to Our Blog: RSS or Email

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 59, No. 19, pp. 582-587, May 21, 2010

healthfinder.gov May 20, 2010

CDC Online Newsroom May 20, 2010