(NaturalNews) There are plenty of good reasons to stop using plastic containers, ranging from health and environmental concerns, to simple practicality in the kitchen.Considering the facts, there's really no good reason to continue buying products packed or bottled in plastic...
Here are the top five facts regarding plastic versus glass:
Fact #1: The environmental impact of plastic is enormous – Enough plastic is discarded each year to circle the Earth four times, and the average American throws away nearly 200 pounds of plastic each year. Billions of pounds of plastic are polluting our oceans and threatening marine life, killing 1 million sea birds and 100,000 marine animals annually. Fifty percent of plastic containers are used once and then thrown away.
Fact #2: Plastics are a threat to human health – Chemicals leached from plastic containers enter our bodies and can lead to serious health issues. Many of the substances used to make plastic are carcinogens, while others cause hormonal imbalances, birth defects and developmental problems. Plastics often contain lead, cadmium and mercury, which can be absorbed by the food or drinks they are used to contain – and subsequently end up in our bodies.
Fact #3: Glass is better for the environment – Glass containers can be used many times and can be recycled to make new containers. Plastic containers are "down-cycled" instead. In other words, when you throw away a plastic bottle it will be turned into other products (if it manages to get recycled at all). Every time you buy a plastic water bottle, it is made from "new" plastic.
Fact #4: Glass is more practical in the kitchen – One of the best things about glass containers is that they can be used for storage, cooking and serving. The same glass food container can be used from the refrigerator to the oven to the dining table. Glass containers can be used over and over again, and can be repurposed for other uses. If you buy a glass bottle containing pasta sauce or juice, for instance, it can be washed and used for storing other foods once its contents are consumed.
Fact #5: Glass does not absorb smells or colors – Plastic containers not only leach dangerous chemicals into food, but they also absorb smells and can become discolored. Glass containers, on the other hand, do not have this problem. Glass containers are more aesthetically pleasing as well.
Kicking the plastic habit
Of course, it's nearly impossible to avoid all plastic packaging, but it's relatively easy to significantly reduce the amount of plastic bags, bottles and containers you buy or use.
Many products, such as bottled water for example, are available in glass containers as well as plastic. If you buy your food fresh from local sources – which you should do anyway – you can often avoid any packaging at all.
A number of foods are also available in bulk form, meaning that you can use your own recyclable containers to carry and store them. It's eas [...]
(NaturalNews) Like something out of a Hollywood B movie, 2-foot long pesticide-resistant "super rats" are now terrorizing urban communities in the UK.Reports of rats the size of toddlers have been in the news in several cities throughout Britain, and experts are confirming that... [...]
CDC Executive Resigns After Being Caught Colluding With Coca-Cola to Salvage Soda Market
By Dr. Mercola
I've often written about the collusion between industry and our regulatory agencies, and how industry-funded research tends to simply support and promote the industry agenda rather than shed truthful light on the benefits or risks of any given product.
Recent media reports have now revealed devastating evidence showing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) executive aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to influence World Health Organization (WHO) officials to relax recommendations on sugar limits.
In March 2015, WHO published a new sugar guideline that specifically targeted sugary beverages, calling them out as a primary cause for childhood obesity around the world, especially in developing nations, where the soda industry is now aggressively expanding its reach.
WHO's recommendation to limit soda consumption was a huge blow to an already beleaguered soda industry, struggling to maintain a declining market share amid mounting evidence identifying sweetened drinks as a primary contributor to the obesity and diabetes epidemics.
The damning email correspondence between Coca-Cola and the CDC was obtained by the nonprofit consumer education group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). According to PhillyVoice:
"The emails were between Barbara Bowman, Ph.D. director of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and Dr. Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola scientific and regulatory affairs leader and the founder of a food industry-funded group, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).
They allegedly show Bowman's multiple attempts to aid Malaspina's relationship with WHO leaders whose actions (think soda tax) were hurting the beverage industry.
According to the report, Bowman — whose job is to try to help prevent obesity, diabetes and other health problems — 'appeared happy to help the beverage industry cultivate political sway with the World Health Organization.'"
This kind of political maneuvering and back scratching is covered at length in Marion Nestle, Ph.D.'s book "Soda Politics." I interviewed Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, last year.
In response to the CDC-Coke scandal, she says:
"[T]he fact that a high-level U.S. health official is communicating in this way with a beverage industry leader appears improper," adding the emails "suggest that ILSI, Coca-Cola and researchers funded by Coca-Cola have an 'in' with a prominent CDC official.
The official appears to be interested in helping these groups organize opposition to 'eat less sugar' and 'disclose industry funding' recommendations.
The invitation to dinner suggests a cozy relationship ... This appearance of conflict of interest is precisely why policies for engagement with industry are needed for federal officials."
Nestle's book reveals the sod [...]
(NaturalNews) Americans – especially the Millennial generation – have been brainwashed by the political Left into believing that carbon dioxide is some "greenhouse gas" that is destroying the world, when in fact any rational scientist will tell you that CO2 is essential... [...]
(NaturalNews) No one has a choice. No one has a right to their own, individual conscience anymore. Your beliefs must fall in line with the government's demands. No one has a right to object to the organized murder of the most precious in our society.As little ones are carried... [...]
(NaturalNews) Pesticides are causing serious problems all over the world. Most pesticides and herbicides, once taken up by the body, go to war with the endocrine system, blocking the body's ability to regulate its own hormones. In India, these dangerous pesticides are beginning to... [...]
(NaturalNews) Simply put, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) attempt to regulate and control one's emotions by blocking synapses in the brain's chemistry, but modern scientists are still arrogant to believe that they can balance the brain's normal functions with drugs... [...]
Coenzyme Q10 Versus Ubiquinol
By Dr. Mercola
Coenzyme Q10 and ubiquinol are two vitally important supplements that many are still unaware of. Risa Schulman, Ph.D., is a biologist and functional food expert who has spent the last two decades researching these and other supplements.
"I kind of pulled together my love of human physiology, plant physiology and the environment into a lifelong career, looking at how compounds in plants and various natural products can help us to keep our bodies working optimally," she says.
"My mission is to dig into the science and separate the wheat from the chaff ... and then to get the word out to the public as to what the health benefits are, how they can be used, and what things are useful."
Ubiquinol is the reduced version of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10, aka ubiquinone). They're actually the same molecule, but when CoQ10 is reduced it takes on two electrons, which turns it into what we call ubiquinol.
In your body, this conversion occurs thousands of times every second inside your mitochondria — the "engine" of each cell in which energy is produced
"The reason it does this flipping back and forth between these two forms of the molecule is that this is part of the process that helps us to change our food into energy," Schulman explains.
"This is very important to healthy functioning, and obviously important for all muscles, in particular your heart muscle, which works hardest of all the muscles."
In addition to converting food into energy, ubiquinol also has a number of additional functions. For starters, ubiquinol is a lipid-soluble (fat-soluble) antioxidant, meaning it works in the lipid portions of your body, such as your cell membranes. It's one of the very few antioxidants that are fat-soluble.
"Vitamin E is one of the other ones that is very well known. But ubiquinol is actually more powerful than vitamin E, because vitamin E cannot completely lodge itself inside the membrane where all the oxidative activity is happening whereas ubiquinol can."
The second thing that sets ubiquinol apart from other antioxidants is that it can regenerate itself. Vitamin E, for example, cannot. In fact, vitamin E is regenerated by ubiquinol. Ubiquinol is also the only fat-soluble antioxidant that's actually generated within your body and doesn't have to be ingested from your food.
Why Ubiquinol Is a Better Choice for Many
Ubiquinol production ramps up from early childhood up until your mid- to late 20s. By the time you hit the age of 30, it begins to decline. Young people are able to use CoQ10 supplements quite well, but older people do better with ubiquinol as it's more readily absorbed.
According to Schulman, some people cannot convert CoQ10 to ubiquinol at all in their bodies, and they definitely need to use ubiquinol or they won't get any of the benefits.
"If someone takes a CoQ10 supplement, the body very quickly will convert it to ubiquinol, because that's the preferred form. It wil [...]
(NaturalNews) The serious issue of overmedicating kids could be about to take on a whole new dimension with the emergence of a new medication known as Adzenys. While kids are generally averse to taking medications, few will turn their noses up at a piece of candy. That is exactly what Adzenys is banking on with its underhanded and potentially dangerous new fruit-flavored amphetamine.
The drug recently hit the market, and psychiatrists are voicing concerns that it could serve as another gateway to ADHD drug abuse. Perhaps not surprisingly, the extended-release amphetamine gained FDA approval in January for patients as young as six years old.
Manufacturer Neos Therapeutics is launching on a shameless marketing campaign to get "ahead of back-to-school season", with CEO Vipin Garg bragging that they are launching at "full speed." Neos's 125 sales reps throughout the country claim doctors have been very receptive to the product.
ADHD meds widely abused
Around three fourths of children who have been diagnosed take some form of ADHD medication. However, the drugs are also being abused. Their stimulant properties make them popular choices for partying and enhancing performance. Some older students believe it helps them boost focus and snag better grades, despite studies that show the exact opposite.
Abuse of ADHD drugs is rampant in schools, with many students feeling increased pressure to get into top colleges and bring home the best grades. DEA figures reported in 2012 showed that 29 percent of teens reported having close friends who abuse ADHD drugs. Adderall and Ritalin are Class 2 controlled substances, placing them in the same category as morphine and cocaine. They stimulate the central nervous system and alter the brain chemicals that govern impulse control.
Placing the drug in such an appealing format is an invitation for abuse, with some psychiatrists believing that people will request it and then sell it on the black market.
Rising numbers of ADHD diagnoses and sales of meds
The ADHD pharmaceutical market is booming, with ADHD medication sales nearly tripling from 2006's $4.7 billion to last year's $12.7 billion. IBISWorld reports that this figure is expected to continue full steam ahead, reaching $17.5 billion by 2020. This is due in no small part to efforts by manufacturers to turn normal behavioral variances into diseases that must be treated with medication. One way they go about this is by offering self-assessment questionnaires that can make normal behaviors, like difficulty concentrating, seem like signs of a medical problem.
While Adderall and Ritalin might have been the top choices until now, this extended-release ADHD drug, which dissolves in the user's mouth, clearly hopes to give them a run for their money, particularly among parents who are desperate to find a way to get their kids to take their medicine. It is being sold in a blister pack, making it highly convenient and portable. Of course, [...]
(NaturalNews) A government agency that is supposed to be driven to act based on sound scientific evidence rather than political agenda? Does such an agency exist? If so, it isn't the Environmental Protection Agency.
For the paltry amount of $190 million (of taxpayer money) the EPA has been busy purchasing its so-called unbiased experts. Okay, so the agency hasn't simply placed wads of cash in brown paper sacks and given it to "independent" advisors. The process is much more subtle and official-looking: The money has come in the form of "grants" to these advisors, in order to ensure that the agency's desired political – er, scientific - goals are met through various "studies."
In what would be considered fraud, embezzlement and other forms of illegal activity and corruption if the private sector were doing the same thing, the EPA, in this sense, is behaving no differently than a criminal enterprise: Buying loyalty.
As noted by The Daily Caller:
A free market legal group is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for allegedly stacking a scientific advisory panel on air pollution with researchers who had received more than $190 million in grants from the agency.
'Plainly disregards the law'
The Energy and Environmental Legal Institute (EELI) is suing the agency on behalf of the Western States Trucking Association and Dr. James Enstrom, a former University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) disease transmission expert who was boycotted for testing EPA claims about particulate matter.
"The EPA has stacked the board, which is required by law to be autonomous and fair, with analysts who have gotten over $190 million in optional gifts from the EPA," said Steve Milloy, a lawyer with EELI, in an announcement.
"This plainly disregards the law and makes a joke of the thought of "autonomous" exploratory survey," he said.
The agency depends on a board of scientific advisors called the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to accept science claims regarding key clean air rules pushed by the EPA. In its case, the EELI is requesting that the court inhibit the EPA from assembling a panel tasked with looking into the science behind agency rules on fine particulate matter, or PM2.5.
EELI says that the EPA has stacked the board with scientists which essentially serves as a rubber stamp for all agency actions pertaining to PM2.5. The agency likewise is dependent upon assertions contained in PM2.5 for the greater part of health benefits in some of its biggest regulations regarding power plants.
The DC points out that 24 of the 26 members of the agency's PM2.5 panel have received or are currently receiving EPA grants. In sum, the board's members have received in excess of $190 million from the agency, according to figures provided by EELI.
'Considerable financial support'
Milloy said that is a violation of federal law, which requires that such scientific bodies be "independent."
EELI is not by itself in sh [...]
(NaturalNews) It's been a tough few weeks for Big Pharma, as three major studies have now completely disproved the effectiveness of its most profitable drugs. Last week, a huge study published in The Lancet admitted that the risks of antidepressants in children and teens far outweigh... [...]