Cancer Kills and So Do Chemicals

Written by Nancy Chuda, founder of Healthy Child Healthy World. as originally seen on Huffington Post

Prevention through education is worth more than cure

In 1991, two months after we lost our only child, Colette, age 5, to a cancer, we later proved could have been prevented, Al Meyerhoff and Lawrie Mott, both senior attorney and senior scientist with the San Francisco office of the the Natural Resources Defense Council, published a startling article entitled, ‘What Would the World Be to Us, If the Children Were No More.

Longfellow’s cautionary note and their research soon became the enigmatic flame which fueled a major grassroots effort to stop pollution at its core. This movement spurned thousands if not hundreds of thousands of parents to awaken to the larger issue of human rights and the violations of corporations who are blatantly committing environmental child abuse.

Two decades ago, the rescue remedies for proving invisible dangers in a child’s fragile world fell short and added fuel to the perpetrators who ignored the hazards and went on committing even more crimes by releasing more chemicals without any restrictions.

Science was emerging and proved that children were more vulnerable to toxins in the environment but industry with their powerful corporate gut and gateway to the powers that be were able to slide a slippery deck of cards, load all the bases, and cavort with those who wanted bigger and bigger bucks.

Abusive, corrosive and mindless thinking led vested interests to eventually sway state and federal government into a war not against the real perpetrator, cancer, but chemicals themselves. And today as we reawaken to statistics found in 1991 in Meyerhoff and Mott’s article, we are faced with even more abuse from toxicity.

Over 80,000 chemicals continue to leave their pervasive trails in our air water and food supplies.

In 2010, New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof warned readers that “some cancers are becoming more common, particularly in children. We don’t know why that is,” he continued, “but the proliferation of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products is widely suspected as a factor.” Kristof drew his support for this statement from the President’s Cancer Panel, which he called “the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream.”

When this article was published and the findings of the two-member panel and their conclusions were released it provoked a tremendous backlash from the American Cancer Society.

Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, professor of pediatrics at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and chairman of the school’s department of preventive medicine contributed to the hearings having summarized his findings.

“While mortality from childhood cancer has gone sharply down, incidence rates are increasing. There has been a 55% increase from 1975 to 2005 in the incidence of leukemia in 0 to 14-year-olds and an 81% increase for acute lymphocytic leukemia — the most common type of leukemia. …The explanation for this increase may be due in part to better diagnostics, but this alone does not account for the continued inexorable rise. Serious consideration must be given to the possibility that environmental factors are involved.”

Twenty two years have passed since my husband and I founded Healthy Child Healthy World in our daughter’s memory. We knew from the day we lost her that finding cures for pediatric cancers would take vast amounts of money, billions of dollars of research, all vested in a hope for survival.

But in the end we decided that prevention through education was the cure. Giving parents tools to prevent exposure to dangerous chemicals in home and school environments would safeguard their children and help to preserve their sanity as parents.

Chemicals know no boundaries. Unleashed into the environment they are the silent killers of today’s children and the genetic mutations they cause are the killers of generations to come.

Humankind must acknowledge that the only hope we have for true survival as a species is the instinctive need is to help, support and protect our children.

If we continue to permit hazardous substances that pose invisible dangers to ourselves and our families that negligence and failure to respond goes beyond, in my opinion, an unwitting form of child abuse… it will lead to the extinction of innocent lives and the loss of joyous memories never to be shared and cherished. Worse the intoxication of corporate greed for the benefit of so few, so few who live to witness that power and wealth just like chemicals have no boundaries but claim it’s victims one at a time.

LuxEcoLiving Editor’s Notes:

You can read more about Nancy’s journey in her manuscript, The Flower That Shattered The Stone.

Top 10 Chemicals Most Likely to Cause Autism and Learning Disabilities

Emily’s Story: A Food Allergy Angel

Written by Paul and Catrina Vonder Meulen and introduced by Robyn O’Brien

Six years ago, I was contacted by a father who had just lost his 13 year old daughter, Emily, to an allergic reaction.

In the weeks, months and years that have followed since this he first reached out, I have looked into the eyes of too many parents who have lost children.  And as I learn about each extraordinary child, their remarkable families and their unconditional love, it powers the work that we do at AllergyKids beyond anything imaginable.

It has been six years since Emily died.  And her story is a testimony of love and courage that has inspired countless others.  Her favorite saying was “Live, Laugh, Love.” And so we wanted to take this opportunity to once again share her story, as it originally first appeared on the AllergyKids site six years ago, in the hopes that families everywhere can learn how to protect the health of children with asthma and allergies from cross-reactivity and cross-contamination.

As shared by Emily’s parents

Emily’s Story and Our Message

When Emily was about two years old, Paul gave her a peanut butter cracker, almost immediately she started to fuss and rub at her eyes and start to develop hives. He gave her Benadryl and the allergic reaction calmed down. It was only after Emily’s death and subsequent research that Paul realized that this was when Emily’s immune system started building antibodies to fight off nuts.

After this initial exposure to nuts, Emily’s body developed its own protective warning system. If she came in contact with a food that had been exposed to nuts, she would have a tingling sensation on the back of her tongue, she would immediately spit the food out and then to protect itself, her body would vomit trying to expel whatever the offending allergen was. It was that reaction that made us comfortable with this allergy. She knew what she could and couldn’t eat. If kids brought snacks into school and they couldn’t tell her if it had nuts in it or not, she wouldn’t eat it. If they said it was free of nuts, she would still test it by putting it to her lips and touching it with her tongue. If she didn’t have a reaction, she knew it was safe.

I think you really want to know more of what happened that day, but I needed to let you know why I was so unprepared for what happened on April 13th. Elena (10), Emily and I had gone shopping that day for a graduation dress at a mall here in Cincinnati. After buying her dress (which she wore out of the store) we stopped to have lunch at about 2:50 at the mall’s food court. We decided to have a sandwich at a place that we had eaten before (we considered it a “safe food” restaurant) because Emily, in fact, had eaten this very same sandwich many times before with no problems. Their website even shows that it is peanut-free except for two of their cookies. After having lunch, we walked through a new t-shirt shop where Emily fell, tripping over her shoes, and landing on her bottom. She laughed and got right back up. We continued shopping, going to a store where we were going to get Emily’s ears pierced. While we were in this shop, Emily mentioned that she was afraid she might have messed her underwear when she fell and wanted to check it out. She came back about 5 minutes later, did two puffs of her inhaler, telling me that she felt hot and did her face look red. I told her no, but maybe we should leave. She said that her new dress felt tight and that she wanted to change her clothes. I said fine. She took her clothes and went to the bathroom. Elena and I stayed at the shop looking at “girly” stuff.

A few minutes later, I got a phone call from a girl in the bathroom asking if I have a daughter Emily and that she was having trouble breathing. Elena and I rushed to the bathroom where we found Emily gasping for air. She tried to do her inhaler again, but I could tell from looking at her that this was not good. The whites of her eyes were completely red and her normally pink cheeks were white. I immediately called 911. Emily had enough air to ask two questions. Emily became disoriented and wandered into the hallway. I had her lay down and she passed out. A woman passing by and I started performing CPR while Elena was on the phone with 911. The woman that was helping me said that Emily was O.K., and another woman said she felt air coming out of her nose. To me, Emily was not O.K., she was blue. Then I heard the strangest sound come out her mouth. People later tell me it was her death-breath. 911 had not shown up yet. Emily was taken to the hospital where they continued CPR. I arrived maybe 10 minutes later where the doctors told me they could not get her heart to start. They had finally got the breathing tube in the right spot, but they had given her all the medicine they are allowed to jumpstart her heart plus more, with no success. They were telling me my daughter was dead. It was 4:20. I believe Emily passed away in the bathroom hallway at the mall, which would have been around 3:45.

To answer your questions:

Did she have an Epi Pen with her? If so… Was it administered immediately?

NO, I did not have an Epi-pen with me. Unfortunately, if I did have an Epi-pen with me, I don’t know if I would have known to use it. I thought Emily was having an asthma attack because of her fall. I didn’t know that what was happening to her was associated with food. She didn’t have the tingling on her tongue, she didn’t vomit, it was a safe food (so we thought).

What did she have to eat at the Deli?

Emily had the Sweet Onion Chicken-Teriyaki Wrap. We knew it contained soy sauce. This particular deli did not make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. We still don’t know where the trace amount of peanut came from. Unfortunately, the coroner and the investigator can’t prove anything at this moment, but because her reaction was so rapid and violent, the coroner has no other option but to point to the last meal Emily ate. Somehow a trace amount of peanut cross contaminated the sandwich she had eaten. We are still waiting for lab results – until then the findings are inconclusive.

How quick was her reaction?

We ordered around 2:50 and were done eating about 3:10. My best guess is that around 3:20 is when she started feeling hot and went to change her clothes. I called 911 at 3:26 and I believe she was gone around 3:40. The doctor’s pronounced her dead at 4:20.

Did she have any close calls before her death from reactions to something she had eaten?

NO, she did not have any close calls before this incident. Paul and I were in a comfort zone counting on Emily’s internal alarm system and the fact that she knew what she could and couldn’t eat, while we were blind to the fact that she was still very much in danger. Please understand, Emily was terrified of the Epi-pen and was diligent about asking questions about food preparation and ingredients. She did not want to be stuck with the Epi-pen. That’s what makes this all the harder to understand, Emily was her own advocate.

Your child is at a wonderful age, you can still control what they eat, you are watchful to make sure they don’t put the wrong thing in their mouth, you are their advocate. During this age, you can learn what the symptoms of anaphylactic shock are, you can develop a plan in case of an emergency, and go over and over what the plan is with friends and family so, God forbid, that emergency comes, you don’t think, you react.

As your child gets older, and they become more independent and responsible, don’t relax! According to FAAN, children between the ages of 10 and 19 are at a much higher risk of fatality. It defies logic, because you think now your child is at an age where they know and understand the dangers of their allergies and they will not take a chance. But what you don’t know or think you know is what can take their life so quickly. It is almost as if every time you eat prepared food, your child has a gun pointed at their heart. We don’t want to scare parents, but we want you to be scared, so that you stay vigilant in protecting your child.

I know this may sound irresponsible but please read it for what it is, learning lessons. As a learning lesson, my family would eat shelled peanuts on the couch. When they were done, Emily and I would go into the living room and vacuum the couch and the carpets. I wanted her to understand that she has to protect herself and that she can’t count on others to be as diligent as she had to be. Another time, we were taking a flight to San Diego. At the time, they still served peanuts on the plane. I had Emily wipe down the fold-down tray and arm rests in case the person who sat there before her ate peanuts and the residue remained on the surface.

The most bizarre part of this past 14 years is that I don’t think I understood that Emily could die. I thought she would get hives, swelling, asthma attacks, or really sick, but never in all of my thoughts did I ever think of death. Why didn’t that ever cross my mind? Did I not want to think that was a possibility? I now look at a lifetime of guilt, wondering how I could have done more. Please don’t ever feel you are being too protective when it comes to the health of your child and if someone tells you to relax, tell them Emily’s Story.

Learn more about Emily as the Vonder Meulens share “What We Wish We Knew“, including the potential risk that soy may pose for those with peanut allergy and how anaphylaxis can look like asthma by clicking on What We Wish We Knew as seen on www.foodallergyangel.com

Double Standards? Serving Up Food Dyes, UK Style

Written by Robyn O’Brien

Right now there is a lot of discussion around the science of food dyes. Do artificial colors contribute to hyperactivity in kids? Are food dyes responsible for ADHD? Is it the government’s job to take these dyes out of our kids’ foods or is it ours?

And on the heels of a holiday weekend, loaded with bright colors, little yellow Peeps and eggs dyed the color of the rainbow, it just might be a good time to take a hard and honest look at some of the answers.

The fact of the matter is that you are going to get a different answer depending on who you ask. So some important questions to ask when reviewing the scientific literature include: Who has funded the research? Is there a financial incentive involved to protect the status quo? And are doctors that are speaking out on this issue in any way affiliated as spokespersons for either the food or pharmaceutical companies that stand to benefit from the continued use of these food dyes in foods?

Since there are usually extensive financial ties between doctors and food and pharmaceutical corporations, it is often helpful to turn to the consumer marketplace and food companies themselves for answers because money talks.

And interestingly, Kraft, Coca Cola and Wal-Mart have already removed these artificial food colors and dyes from the products that they distribute in other countries. They’ve reformulated their product lines in other countries and no longer include these food dyes, and they did it in response to consumer demand and an extraordinary study called the Southampton Study.

The Southampton Study was unusual in that it not only tested an overall number of six dyes (three of them are used in the US (Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) and the other three are used in the UK) but also the combination of two ingredients: tartrazine (yellow #5) and sodium benzoate. The study’s designers knew that a child very rarely has occasion to ingest just a synthetic color or just a preservative; rather, a child who is gobbling up multicolored candies is probably taking in several colors and at least one preservative.

What’s amazing is that in the U.K., the federal food safety agency actually funded the Southampton Study that led to even U.S. corporations eliminating synthetic colors and sodium benzoate from their U.K. products.

And in response, a whole host of companies, including the U.K. branches of Wal-Mart, Kraft, Coca Cola and the Mars candy company (who make M&Ms), have voluntarily removed artificial colors, the preservative sodium benzoate, and even aspartame from their products. Particularly those marketed to kids.

When I first learned about this in the spring of 2007, I was stunned. Our American companies had removed these harmful ingredients from their products overseas—but not here?  But then I realized that we aren’t asking our corporations to reinvent the wheel, we are simply asking for them to place the same products on our grocery store shelves that they are selling overseas.

Because Kraft, Coca Cola and Wal-mart are living proof that is possible for giant corporations to make and sell kid-friendly, family-friendly, and healthy processed foods so that we can give our kids some special treats—like the U.K. versions of Starburst and Skittles, for example —without necessarily exposing them to a chemical cocktail that might also give them brain tumors, or leukemia, or the symptoms of ADHD, as the Center for Science in the Public Interest recently highlighted in their report “Rainbow of Risks”.

And it is inspiring (once you get over the initial shock) to see how far the companies have gone and how quickly they acted to remove these dyes from kids’ foods in other countries.

Asda, for example, the U.K. branch of Wal-Mart acted just one week “after details were leaked to the UK press of a study by researchers at Southampton University. . . ” They didn’t even wait for the study to be published—that’s how concerned they were about public opinion.

In an article published by the Food and Drink Federation, a Web site that monitors food issues in Europe, Jess Halliday reported that “Asda [U.K. Wal-Mart] has pledged to remove any artificial colours or flavours from its 9,000 own label products, as well as aspartame, hydrogenated fat, and flavour enhancers such as monosodium glutamate.”

Wow. The Southampton study didn’t even mention those last three items. Why was the U.K. Wal-Mart rushing to make such healthy choices, when the U.S. Wal-Mart still offered the same old stuff? Wal-Mart had even been slapped by a lawsuit from the Ajinomoto, the company that now makes aspartame, which claimed that U.K. Wal-Mart’s publicizing of its aspartame-free products was a kind of defamation—all while U.S. Wal-Mart continued to use the sweetener.

Can you imagine how grateful parents in the UK must be when they read this? “[U.K. Wal-Mart] will also meet the Food Standards Agency’s salt-reduction targets–two years ahead of the 2010 deadline,” the article continued.

Isn’t that amazing? Over in the U.K., our American companies rushed to meet government standards two whole years before they even go into effect. It begs the question, why?

According to Asda/U.K. Wal-Mart food trading director Darren Blackhurt, “We know that our customers, particularly those that are mums and dads, are becoming more and more concerned about what’s in the food they buy.” Indeed, the article continues, “consumer awareness of nutrition and food quality in the UK has soared in the last few years. . . ” Accordingly, U.K. Wal-Mart was planning to spend 30 million pounds, or about $50 million, to reformulate its product line, adding that, “in the main, taste will be unaffected.”

Pretty stunning, right? Clearly learning about this remarkable decision is sure to leave a few American parents a little hyperactive. And if you look at the decision a little more closely, you will discover that Asda/Wal-Mart was far from the only British company to respond to the Southampton Study in such a dramatic way. According to the Food and Drink Federation in the U.K., several companies—whether British-based or British division of American corporations—had started offering their customers color- and additive-free processed foods.

“We are aware of the recent publication from the University of Southampton on selected artificial colours, and we will continue to follow the guidance of regulators on this issue.”—Coca- Cola Great Britain. And in fact, on May 27, 2008, the story broke that Coca Cola was removing sodium benzoate from its products—but only in the U.K.

“Kraft Foods UK has no products aimed at children that contain the ingredients highlighted in the FSA [Southampton] study. . . . [W]ith our recent Lunchables reformulation in the UK, we reduced fat and salt, as well as removed artificial colours and flavours. Without compromising quality, taste and food safety, we will continue to see where we can make changes and still meet consumer expectations.”—Kraft Foods UK

“We know that artificial colours are of concern to consumers, which is why, in 2006, Mars began a programme to remove them from our products. . . in November 2007, Starburst Chews became free from all artificial colours. . . . in December 2007, Skittles were made free from all the artificial colours highlighted in a landmark study by Southampton University. . . We have already removed four colours mentioned in the Southampton study from Peanut and Choco M&M’s, and are in the process of removing the final one so they too will be free from these artificials during 2008.”—Mars UK

“Nestlé UK does not manufacture children’s products that contain any of the additives investigated by the FSA [Southampton] research. . . . and from September 2007, the UK’s favourite kids’ chocolate brand—Milky Bar—is to be made with all natural ingredients.”—Nestlé UK

“We are committed to replacing all artificial colours in our sweets. We note the Southampton University findings, but we had begun this process already because we are continually listening to our customers.” —UK Cadbury Chocolate division

Every time I read over those quotes, I find them absolutely stunning. Why are companies that operate in the U.K.—including our very own U.S. companies—so eager to take out the artificial colors there and so completely reluctant to do so here? Why are they willing to spend the money to reformulate their products there while refusing even to consider such a change-over here?

Maybe the answer can be found in a BBC report on Asda/U.K. Wal-Mart, “Explaining its decision to halt the use of artificial colours and flavours, Asda said it was acting because ‘mums and dads are becoming more and more concerned about what’s in the food they buy.’” An Asda/U.K. Wal-Mart press release elaborates: “Reformulation was hard work, but it was a labour of love.” Well, why can’t they perform that same labor of love over here? Is it too much to ask for what they have overseas?

After all, we’re not asking them to reinvent the wheel—they’ve already removed these ingredients from their products elsewhere. So why can’t our children get the same protection? Why can’t they serve up the same products to us?

Today it is estimated that 50% of Hispanic and African-American children will develop diabetes, that 1 in 88 children is being diagnosed with autism, and that 1 in 4 children has asthma. The Journal of Pediatrics reported that from 2002-2005, there was a 103% increase in diabetes medication for children, a 47% increase in asthma medication, a 41% increase in ADHD medication and a 15% increase in high cholesterol medicine.

And while the science may be disputed, depending on who is funding the study, as to whether commonly used food dyes such as Yellow 5, Red 40 and 6 others made from petroleum pose a “rainbow of risks” that include hyperactivity in children, cancer (in animal studies), and allergic reactions, because of the problem of hyperactivity, the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to ban the use of these dyes given that the British government and European Unionhave taken actions that are virtually ending their use of dyes throughout Europe.

Is it too much to ask for the same value to be placed on the lives of the American kids in their cost-benefit analyses that has been placed on the lives of kids in the UK?

As a proud American, it seems to me that our duty as citizens is pretty clear. We have to get this information out there so that our government and our corporations listen to us, the way that governments and corporations in Europe, Australia, the U.K., Japan, and other developed countries listen to their citizens.

Because while our children may only represent 30% of our population, they are 100% of our future.

Perhaps it’s time that we value them like our country depends on it.

Five Sneaky Food Fixes

Healthy Substitutions to Satisfy Cravings
Written by Nina Kate on Thu, 04/05/2012 as originally seen on 15% Challenge

Yes, you can eat white bread without busting your diet. You can also sip sweet beverages and enjoy other once-sinful goodies without abandon, as long as you make smart choices. These savvy food substitutes bolster weight loss while promoting lower cholesterol and blood sugar levels, and will satisfy cravings that can sabotage even the best-laid meal plans.

1. The other white bread: Sourdough starter contains the probiotic lactobacillus. While most of the healthy bacteria are destroyed during baking, the microorganisms do begin to process sugars and starches in the dough. One study published in the “Journal of Cereal Science” found that both white and wheat sourdough breads caused less of a blood sugar spike than non-sourdoughs. Even the white sourdough triggered a lower glycemic response than regular wheat bread. This means that using sourdough instead of traditional bread can stave of hunger pangs later on, and leave you less susceptible to diabetes and heart disease.

2. Safer soda: If you’re hooked on sugary soft drinks, you may be jeopardizing your weight and your health. And don’t be fooled by diet versions; a recent University of Minnesota study showed that consuming just one calorie-free soft drink a day resulted in a 34-percent-higher risk of metabolic syndrome, symptomized by excess belly fat as well as high cholesterol and blood sugar.

The solution? Flavor plain sparkling water with a spritz of fresh lemon or lime juice, both of which are high in vitamin C. If you need added sweetness, mix in stevia instead of sugar. Stevia is all natural and has a glycemic index of zero, meaning it’s carb-free.

3. Have your cake and eat it too: Zero-calorie sparkling water is for more than just drinking: it can slash fat and calories from your home-baked dessert. Use club soda instead of the milk, eggs, oil and other ingredients on the instructions of your (preferably organic) boxed cake mix. Use one 12-ounce can of seltzer or club soda for each package of mix, any flavor. Diet expert and author Lisa Lillien, better known as “The Hungry Girl,” swears that your taste buds won’t notice the difference while you knock up to 100 calories off of every mouth-watering slice of chocolate cake.

4. Creamy sandwich spread: Forgo the fatty mayo, and smooth some freshly-sliced avocado onto your breads for a healthier lunchtime delight. Mayonnaise is loaded with cholesterol, while avocados have none. Avocados are also rich in fiber and healthy unsaturated fats, to help you feel fuller longer. The velvety green fruits also contain plenty of vitamin C, folate, vitamin B6 and vitamin K to help your skin glow.

Lightly press avocado slices into the top or bottom slice of bread to keep them from sliding out while you munch.

5. Fake your bacon: If, like many Americans, you have a love affair with bacon, you may not like to think about the fact that each greasy slice is more than 50 percent fat, with almost no nutrients. Seitan, on the other hand, is low fat, has no cholesterol, and is a better source of iron than bacon. Seitan is a meatless protein made from whole wheat, and it can be found in the tofu section of health food stores. It comes in many flavors, including bacon. You can also use plain seitan, and rub it with a light marinade of canola oil, liquid smoke and a touch of maple syrup before cooking to emulate bacon flavor.