Eco-Nature Care™

By Katie Bird , 22-Jul-2010

Related topics: Products & Markets

A bill that proposes to significantly tighten up the FDA regulations of cosmetics and personal care products was introduced into the House of Representatives this week.

Backed by Representatives Jan Schakowsky, Ed Markey, and Tammy Baldwin, the bill has the support of the consumer group the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

According to the Campaign, the bill will ‘overhaul the law that allows chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, or other illnesses in the products we use on our bodies every day’.

“Harmful chemicals have no place in the products we put on our bodies or on our children’s bodies,” said Representative Schakowsky.

“Our cosmetics laws are woefully out of date—manufacturers aren’t even required to disclose all their ingredients on labels, leaving Americans unknowingly exposed to harmful mystery ingredients. This bill will finally protect those consumers,” she added.

Ingredients database from FDA

The proposed bill would see cosmetics companies providing significantly more information to the FDA than is currently required, including details of the ingredients, safety data assessments and full company and product details.

In addition, the bill calls on the FDA to set up a database for cosmetics ingredients classing them into three categories – prohibited ingredients, restricted ingredients and ingredients that are safe without limits.

Not based on credible science

However, the Act has been criticized by the industry trade association Personal Care Products Council.

While the Council supports the drive to increase FDA involvement in cosmetics regulation, it says the Safe Cosmetics Act 2010 is ‘not based on credible and established scientific principles’.

In addition, it raises concerns about the burden enforcing the act would place on FDA.

“…[it] would put an enormous if not impossible burden on FDA, and would create a mammoth new regulatory structure for cosmetics, parts of which would far exceed that of any other FDA-regulated product category including food or drugs. The measures the bill would mandate are likely unachievable even with the addition of hundreds of additional FDA scientists and millions more in funding and would not make a meaningful contribution to product safety,” CEO of the Council, Lezlee Westine said.
WEBSITE ANNOUNCEMENT
Want to join our CosmeticsDesign.com team?

WRBM Inc is currently looking for a passionate US based Digital Advertising Sales Executive, to develop our position as the leading provider of B2B news in the US cosmetics industry. To request a copy of the job description… Click here

Council urges more FDA involvement

Just last week the Council proposed its own ideas of how cosmetics regulation could be improved with greater involvement from FDA, and urges Congress to consider these proposals as well as speed up the passage of the FDA Globalization Act of 2009, which also stands to enhance FDA regulations of cosmetics manufacturers.

PCPC suggests that manufacturers systematically submit product ingredient reports to FDA, with lists of all ingredients used in each product, as well as registering all manufacturing facilities.

In addition, the trade association is proposing that manufacturers report any serious, unexpected adverse effects experienced by consumers to the regulatory body.

It also proposes to change how the safety profiles of ingredients are investigated and who is involved in this process.

At present it is the Cosmetics Ingredients Review (CIR) Expert Panel (an independent panel of experts) that reviews cosmetics ingredients for safety; however, PCPC is proposing that FDA reviews all the CIR safety assessments, including those already completed. If the findings of the CIR Expert Panel are deemed to be lacking FDA will have to determine under what conditions the ingredient can be used.

Over the last 18 months we have tried our best to manufacturer and market the best ” green “products possible from what is inside the bottle to what the bottle is made of. We have tried our best to use green chemistry to leave out the Nasty Ingredients and to avoid using some the BS like we were “organic” like many do. We were the first in North America to talk about Allergens in our products….basically be honest and transparent about the fact that  even natural ingredients  are allergens….sometimes no good deed goes unpunished and our labeling while fact based was longer than most. We priced our products competitively compared to other brands even though our 100% recyclable packaging has costs 8 X more expensive than petroleum based plastics….and at the end
of the day we have build a loyal following thanks to you. Unfortunately our sales are below the requirements of many retailers and we will be only available on the web shortly.
I have learned in this process what success is, and frankly having the opportunity to follow your dream is the real success. To all of you that honor us with your loyalty thank you….while we are not commercially successful as traditional products I know we are adding value by bringing truth in labeling, having honest discussions on what is Organic and what is not, Allergens in Personal Care and what foot print your package leaves on the environment….what ever happens next is not important except for an honest debate on what is really in your personal care, what is really in the fragrance and what happens to your bottle when you are done using the product….to me that will be success if we can help in that process.

WebMD Feature from “Marie Claire” Magazine
By Fiorella Valdesolo

Sensitive skin? It can probably be traced back to one of these nine culprit ingredients.

“I would say that at least 50 percent of women think they have sensitive skin,” says dermatologist Dr. David Bank. “They have a hard time finding products that won’t cause a reaction.” That reaction, called contact dermatitis, falls into two categories: allergic and irritant. Allergic indicates that the immune system is displeased, while irritant reactions stop at the surface. It’s something Lynne Greene, Clinique’s global president, became all too familiar with on a recent trip to Asia. “I went to Singapore, which is one climate; Japan, which is another; and finally Shanghai, which has a lot of pollution,” she says. “By the time I boarded the plane home, my skin was tremendously red and reactive.” But while the detrimental effects of environmental aggressors may be beyond our control, what we put on our skin can be monitored, says Greene. And a number of reactions, both allergic and irritant, can be traced back to one of these culprit ingredients:
PHTHALATES
A plasticizing ingredient commonly listed as DBP or di-n-butyl phthalate, it is used most often in the beauty world to give nail polishes increased pliability. Considered to be a potential carcinogen and possible cause of birth defects, allergic rashes and eczema, they are already banned in Europe. When shopping for lacquers, look for phthalate-free formulas. Neither Zoya nor Spa Ritual has ever used the ingredient in its lines, while Essie, OPI, and Sally Hansen altered their formulations in recent years to get rid of it.
SHEA BUTTER
It may seem completely harmless, but anyone with a nut allergy could find themselves with a heightened sensitivity to it. “I have seen reactions among those with nut allergies to both shea and cocoa butter,” says Dr. Ellen Marmur, author of the new book Simple Skin Beauty. “Even organic or natural ingredients can cause allergic reactions.”
TRICLOSAN
Flu season and the ongoing swine flu epidemic have made hand-washing a frequent ritual, and in some cases, it’s the soap that causes the itchy rashes creeping up on palms and fingertips. If your hands are inflamed, steer clear of any soaps or sanitizers with this antibacterial agent.
BALSAM OF PERU
Fragrance is the number-one cause of allergic contact dermatitis, and Balsam of Peru, a resin that is actually a conglomeration of scents, is often responsible. Because of its phototoxic ingredients, when the skin is exposed to sunlight, brown or reddish streaks called berloque dermatitis may occur wherever the scented product or perfume was applied—dermatologists report many incidents of berloque behind the ears. The key is to look for products that are totally fragrance-free — which is not the same as unscented. “Unscented means that a product can contain a masking fragrance to camouflage its pungent, unpleasant odor,” says Bank. “Fragrance-free means truly no fragrances.”
FORMALDEHYDE
While most beauty products won’t include this ultra-common makeup, skin, and haircare preservative on the ingredient list, many will have a formaldehyde-releasing agent like imidazolidinyl urea or quaternium 15, which can be equally reactive. Therefore, those who experience an allergy or irritation to formaldehyde actually have a list of names to be on the lookout for. Nowadays, two of the most frequent places where contact may occur are the nail and hair salon. “The most common cause of eyelid dermatitis is the formaldehyde in nail polish,” says dermatologist Dr. Marsha Gordon. “After you polish your nails, there is a day or two when the finish is not rock hard, and that’s when formaldehyde may be released. Your hands may not show redness because that skin is tough, but when you touch your eyes while washing or moisturizing, you can end up with dermatitis there.”
PARABENS
They are the darlings of preservatives among mass manufacturers since they’re cheap and stable. It can be downright difficult to find products that don’t contain parabens like methyl, propyl, and benzyl hydroxybenzoate. Those who experience redness or a rash can avoid them entirely by seeking out lines such as Aubrey Organics, Burt’s Bees, Dr. Hauschka, and Weleda, whose formulations are all paraben-free.
ACIDS
While the majority of acids — azelaic, alpha hydroxy, benzoic, lactic, sorbic — are tolerable in modest doses, cinnamic can pose a problem. A tartar-fighting agent in toothpaste, it can be the reason for itchy eruptions on the lips and around the mouth. Look for toothpaste without cinnamic acid (like Tom’s of Maine), or if you’re attached to a brand that has it, dermatologist Dr. Dennis Gross recommends applying Vaseline around the mouth and chin before brushing to form a barrier.
PPD
Paraphenylenediamine (PPD) is found in most permanent hair dyes. Those who are allergic will likely develop a rash not on the scalp but around the hairline on the forehead and neck and behind the ears. According to Gross, allergy to PPD seems to increase with age. Avoid contact by requesting PPD-free dyes or opting for henna and color rinses that don’t contain the irritant.
RETINOIDS
Most dermatologists will concur that despite a laundry list of antiaging and acne-fighting benefits, retinoids are also a classic irritant. “They make your skin more sensitive to the sun in the summer and more prone to dryness in the winter,” says Gross. “What really matters is the net concentration that you apply to your skin. Using something weaker more often is better than something stronger that can only be tolerated a few times per week.” Marmur also has a little retinoid magic trick: “If you want your antiaging without the red, raw skin, put on your retinoids for 15 minutes at night, then wash it off with a mild cleanser. I call it ’short-contact antiaging.’”

San Jose Mercury News
By Jane Palmer – May 24th, 2010

Tom Willey is so concerned about food safety he is willing to bet the farm on it.

Literally.

Willey and his wife, Densesse, own an organic farm just outside of Madera in the central San Joaquin Valley, where they grow lettuce, carrots, cabbage and nearly 50 other hand-harvested vegetables. They supply 800 local families and West Coast retailers with a year-round supply of fresh produce.

But in the last three years, a dark cloud has gathered over Willey’s farm. He and other organic farmers say stricter food-safety regulations, developed after a cluster of outbreaks of bacterial contamination in spinach and lettuce in 2006, threaten the principles upon which their farms are based.

While Willey already adheres to the voluntary food-safety regulations deemed necessary by the organic farm community, he feels that many of the rules — which include cutting bare buffer zones around crops, using poison to kill rodents and washing produce with chlorinated water — run contrary to growing healthy and safe food.

“Healthy produce cannot be grown in sterile environments,” Willey said. “That’s both ignorant and dangerous.”

Moreover, opponents of the regulations say that the new measures are threatening the livelihood of small-scale and organic farms. Willey, who refuses to adhere to regulations he believes are ultimately harmful, runs the risk of not being able to sell his crops. Other small farms that do comply face burdensome costs.

But supporters of the regulations, part of the California Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, argue that all farms should comply in the interests of food safety.

“For the smaller growers, I don’t think it is reasonable to throw up their hands and say it doesn’t apply to us, or we are not the problem or we can never be the problem,” said Trevor Suslow, a food-safety expert and plant pathologist at UC Davis whose research helped form the basis of the regulations.

The incentive for the California agreement was a virulent outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in spinach grown in San Benito County in 2006. It resulted in the hospitalization of more than 200 people in the U.S. and Canada, and the death of three. The pathogen also claimed another victim: the leafy greens industry.

“Spinach was off the menu nationwide,” said Paul Simonds, spokesman for the Western Growers Association. The outbreak cost the industry $100 million in lost sales as customer confidence in all leafy greens plummeted.

Scrambling to regain its market, major growers instituted the California marketing agreement. Farms such as Lakeside Organic Gardens in Watsonville and Filice Farms in the Central Valley agreed to abide by specified safety regulations and inspections by the California Department of Agriculture.

“My family eats this product, my employees eat this product, so I want to make sure that it is 100 percent safe,” said Kay Filice, owner of Filice Farms in Hollister.

While participation is voluntary, growers representing 95 percent of the market product have signed the agreement. As the major processors of leafy green produce, such as Dole and Fresh Express, will buy only from signatories, many farmers felt they had little choice but to sign.

“I have complied because if I don’t comply, then I won’t have anybody to sell to,” Filice said.

And now, major processors across the U.S. have proposed to take these rules nationwide, creating a National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement.

“If you have one little outbreak in a product grown in another state, it affects the entire industry,” Simonds said. “We don’t want to take that chance.”

If the marketing agreement were to go national this year under the Department of Agriculture, it would have similar provisions to a food-safety bill now being considered in the U.S. Senate. Brought forward by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the bill addresses food safety across the board — not solely for leafy greens.

Although the impact of the California marketing agreement on food safety is still in question, the impact on small-scale and organic farmers is indisputable.

“The financial costs are gigantic,” said Roger Medina, food-safety manager at Lakeside Organic Farms. One significant added cost, he said, is the labor-intensive process of implementing the regulations.

“It is documentation, documentation, documentation,” Medina said. “The documentation has gone from make sure you have a plan, to make sure you document every sneeze, every cigarette butt you find out there.”

But this is not the only cost that farmers have to bear. According to the Small Farm Center, a Santa Cruz institute that researches the needs of small and moderate scale farms, farmers are losing up to 2 percent of their farmable acreage because they’re required to have a buffer between crops and the surrounding environment. The center also reported that it cost about $11 per acre for some of those farmers to remove the surrounding vegetation, and about $17 per acre to put up fences to keep out wildlife.

One analysis of the leafy green growers in California estimates that each farm now spends an average of $18,000 per year following the agreement, said Charlotte Vallaeys of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group based in Wisconsin.

While big growers can absorb these expenses, she said, they will be an enormous burden for the smaller farmer.

“It is the farmer, not the consumer, who is bearing the cost of food-safety regulations,” said April England-Mackay of Martin Jefferson and Sons in Marina. “You are still paying a dollar for a head of lettuce this year, as you were six years ago before we ever implemented the extra requirements.”

That’s because leafy green processors, rather than the growers, dictate the market cost of produce. But these same processors leave the cost of meeting the regulations at the farmer’s doorstep.

Opponents to the agreement also question whether it adequately addresses food safety.

To solve food-safety problems, you need to get to the source, Vallaeys said. “There is nothing inherently dangerous about leafy greens,” she said. “They don’t come up with E. coli popping out of their leaves.”

The real culprit is industrial cattle feedlots that are fountains of dangerous pathogens, Vallaeys said. Not addressing animal agriculture as a source of contamination is a serious flaw in the current agreement, she said.

State investigators concluded that the 2006 E. coli outbreak was probably caused by wild boars traipsing through a field of spinach. But opponents of the agreement, such as Jo Ann Baumgartner, director of the Wild Farm Alliance and the Cornucopia Institute, argue that the real source of contamination was never found. She said the infection could easily have come from nearly cattle farms, which were also found to be contaminated with E. coli.

Moreover, Baumgartner says that creating bare buffers around crops to remove animal habitation is detrimental to food-safety goals.

“Farmers are forced to choose between buyer’s demands and stewardship practices that can improve food safety,” Baumgartner said.

UC Davis researchers have shown the vegetation surrounding fields can remove as much as 99 percent of E. coli from surface water, she said.

Suslow, who was instrumental in designing the regulations in the state’s marketing agreement, now believes refinements should be made to support sustainable farming practices.

Regulations, he said, should be tailored to both the size and the nature of the operation. “Everybody needs to be doing something, but everybody doesn’t need to be doing the same thing,” Suslow said.

Concerned about the disproportionate pressure put on smaller and organic farms, he said: “We must try to be advocates not just for sustainable agriculture but for agricultural sustainability.”

Indeed, Willey of Madera has already paid dearly for his idealism. He has lost his Canadian accounts as the nation’s government prohibits imports of leafy produce from farmers who have not signed on to the marketing agreement. The cost, 5 percent of his income, is not borne easily in today’s economy.

His greater fear is, however, is that a national marketing pact will prevent him from selling his produce in America.

“The organic farming community is kind of in the wings at the moment,” Willey said. “We are shivering in our boots, wondering what is going to happen.”

Red state, blue state all I hear is the debate and all the hate. We
are being divided by political banners, buttons and slogans with no
end in sight. It’s as if we are looking for a fight?Wherever I go, I
hear the debate, too little, too much and very few think just enough.
So few are content I can count on one hand those who are satisfied
with the status quo. Goldie locks has nothing on the current state,
with her pourage being too hot or was it too cold? She wasn’t happy on
the sleeping conditions, the beds at the three bears house were either
too hard or too soft, I really don’t remember anymore it was so long
ago I read the story. My dad use to say whenever people disagreed
“that is why there are 31 flavors of ice cream because we all can’t
agree.” Maybe consensus would breed conformity and that would
eliminate political polling and at minimum cable news networks. I for
one, dislike the discourse and hope we can find a straighter course
that brings us closer to making our world a cleaner, greener and safer
planet.

The attached is a great story of one persons efforts to live a life without plastic.

The average store has 42,300 items in them and the average size of the stores are 45,000 Square Feet. I still can not find many stores that really have options to reduce packaging. Everywhere I walk I see Plastic bottles, Plastic Wrappers on Cheese and other dairy items….While a few companies like
are dipping their toes into  the ” green solutions” pool…..most manufacturers and retailers seem to be on the sidelines.   On my trips to Europe,  I continue to be impressed with less prepackaging on consumer goods.  At the same time hats off to retailers like Sprouts, Henry’s and Sunflower for trying to lead with bulk products.

For the last 40 years the natural foods industry has focused on ingredients.  This has been a noble effort and today we are seeing the benefits of healthier foods with no trans fats and artificial ingredients. All said and done very few have spent time on packaging…..while plastic bags have become the poster child of the eco-friendly story…..we need to see what can be done to reduce transportation of foods….( average product travels 1,500 miles to get to your table) so think local when you can. With summer fast approaching the farmers markets are opening with vast offerings of their local bounty. This week I have eaten so strawberries and the taste has been outstanding…today I am going to have some fresh local lettuce….

Secondly, its time to say no to packaging. Even Wal-Mart is showing how less cardboard in packaging is good for everyone….next stop we need to talk about plastic….Its time to push back and ask

for some alternatives.  As we are watching the events transpire in the gulf….we need to look at every possible way to reduce our dependence on oil….and while cars are the biggest issue….what about packaging. A plastic bottle here, a plastic yogurt cup there all make a landfill fill up really fast. While some are trying to recycle plastics the reality is the life of a recycled plastic product has a end game of the landfill. Downcycling is what ultimately happens when something is recycled into another object only to be land filled. Keep in my only 10 % of plastic is recycled….the rest ….the rest is a waste of our resources.

‘Secret Chemicals’ May Be Harmful, Group Says; Industry Official Says Products Are Safe
By Kathleen Doheny
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

May 12, 2010 — That fragrance you wear, perhaps named after a celebrity, may make you feel sexy and irresistible, but chances are the label isn’t telling you everything that’s in it, according to a new report.

And that could spell trouble, says Jane Houlihan, co-author of the new report, issued by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in partnership with the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Some chemicals found in fragrances may be hazardous to your health, she says, yet makers of popular colognes, perfumes, and body sprays often don’t disclose all the ingredients found in their products.

”The fragrance mixture itself can be comprised of dozens, even hundreds, of individual chemicals, and those don’t have to be listed on the label,” says Houlihan, senior vice president for research for EWG.

The report, “Not So Sexy: The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance,” includes test results on 17 fragranced products. On average, Houlihan says, the researchers found 14 “secret” chemicals not listed on the label, and she says some of them have been linked to allergic reactions or hormone disruption.

Not surprisingly, industry officials took strong exception to the new report. The new findings, according to John Bailey, PhD, chief scientist for the Personal Care Products Council, is ”another example of a group releasing information without providing all of the information that’s relevant. There may be a bit of selective science going on here.”
Inside the Fragrance Report

Houlihan and colleagues selected various popular fragrances, including colognes and body sprays marketed to both men and women, to see what fragrance chemicals they included. “We started with these 17 products,” Houlihan says, “sent them off to the lab to see what other chemicals are in these products.”

The list of products sent to an independent laboratory to be analyzed included:

* American Eagle Seventy Seven
* Chanel Coco Mademoiselle
* Britney Spears Curious
* Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio
* Old Spice After Hours Body Spray
* Quicksilver
* Calvin Klein Eternity for Men
* Bath & Body Works Japanese Cherry Blossom
* Calvin Klein Eternity (for women)
* Halle by Halle Berry
* Hannah Montana Secret Celebrity
* Victoria’s Secret Dream Angels Heavenly
* Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce
* Jennifer Lopez J. Lo Glow
* AXE Body Spray For Men-Shock
* Clinique Happy Perfume Spray
* Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue

The tests revealed that 38 ‘’secret” chemicals were in the 17 name-brand products, with an average of 14 chemicals per product. American Eagle Seventy Seven had the most unlisted ingredients, with 24; Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue had the least, with seven.

When they looked closer, Houlihan and colleagues found an average of 10 chemicals linked with allergic reactions such as headaches, wheezing, or asthma. The researchers found 12 different chemicals they describe as potentially hormone-disrupting, such as benzyl benzoate, diethyl phthalate, and tonalide.

Of the 91 ingredients found, the researchers report, only 19 have been reviewed by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, which is industry-funded, and only 27 have been assessed by the International Fragrance Association and the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, which have developed voluntary standards for chemicals used in fragrance products.

According to the report, the fragrance industry has 3,100 stock chemical ingredients to choose from.

As you may know, genetically modified crops weren’t released until 1996, starting with GM soy, corn and cotton. Modified canola came about a year later.

Please remember humans have MUCH longer life spans than rats and that GMO foods were only introduced in 1996. This is LESS than one generation.

So we’re still nowhere near seeing the full effects of these potential ramifications in humans, as we’re only about 15 years into it. But if the effects are anything like the effects on numerous types of animals, we could be looking at sterility on a grand scale as our great-grandchildren grow up and begin to try to procreate…

The fact that the US is completely unwilling to implement the precautionary principle with regards to GM foods is incomprehensible in light of the findings we already have from animal studies.

Additionally, some 800 genetically engineered food applications have been submitted to the USDA, but not one single environmental impact statement has been prepared. So not only are human health ramifications ignored, but the entire eco system is being jeopardized.

Rampant Conflicts of Interest Put You and Your Family at Great Risk

Unfortunately, it’s clear that the US government is not in a position to make reasonable and responsible decisions related to GMOs at this point, when you consider the fact that the Obama administration has placed former Monsanto attorney and Vice President, Michael Taylor, in charge of US food safety, and serious conflicts of interest even reign supreme within the US Supreme Court!

That’s right. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is also a former Monsanto attorney, but refuses to acknowledge any conflict of interest as he’s hearing Monsanto’s third appeal for deregulation of genetically modified alfalfa seeds.

After corn, soy and wheat, alfalfa is the most widely grown crop in the US, so allowing GM alfalfa to be deregulated could spell disaster in several ways. It’s easily cross-pollinated by bees and wind, and it’s a perennial, meaning GM alfalfa could live on for years, spreading their genetically modified traits far and wide for a long period of time.

It remains to be seen how Justice Thomas rules in this case…

But in addition to conflicts of interest, we’re also dealing with government agencies that refuse to acknowledge the science produced by their own scientists.

Closely tied to the production of GM crops is the use of the herbicide Roundup, which contains glyphosate. Monsanto’s Roundup is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and contrary to the popular belief propagated by industry, pesticide use has significantly increased – DOUBLED since 2005 — rather than decreased with the use of GM crops.

As it turns out, this is a serious problem for more reasons than one. Not only are GM food crops saturated with more pesticides than ever before, which naturally ends up in your body when you eat them, but glyphosate may also be killing the soil itself.

This startling conclusion comes straight from one of the USDA’s own scientists, Dr. Kremer. However, his employer has opted to more or less ignore his findings, which, according to this article in Grist, include evidence that glyphosate causes:

* damage to beneficial microbes in the soil increasing the likelihood of infection of a crop by soil pathogens
* interference with nutrient uptake by the plant
* reduced efficiency of symbiotic nitrogen fixation
* overall lower-than-expected plant productivity

More Evidence of Reproductive Problems from Eating GM Foods

But let’s get back to the infertility caused in animals.

The evidence of third-generation sterility in hamsters is just one link in a chain of studies that show evidence of this tragic side effect.

For example, back in 2005, Dr. Irina Ermakova, one of the senior scientists with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than 50 percent of the babies from mother rats that were fed GM soy died within three weeks, compared to a 10 percent death rate among the controls.

Again, that’s a death rate five times higher than normal – identical to the findings in the hamster study above.

Similarly, the rats were also growing more slowly, just like the hamsters, and their offspring also had lower birth weights. And again, when the rats’ offspring tried to reproduce, they too were found to be mostly sterile, but it happened sooner, with infertility striking the second generation of rats, as opposed to the third generation of hamsters.

Ermakova wanted to perform further studies to analyze the organs she’d collected from the study, but she never got the chance. Says Smith:

“She told me as we were sitting at the EU Parliament after giving a presentation there, that her boss had been pressured by his boss.

So, she was told to do no more GM food study on animals, her documents were burned on her desk, samples were stolen from her laboratory, and one of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, “Well maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem on earth.”

She wasn’t impressed.”

Neither am I.

However, she inadvertently stumbled upon further proof that GM soy wreaks havoc with reproductive health. She discovered that the rat chow being fed to all rats in the facility had been switched, so that all of it contained GM soy… Two months later she asked her colleagues whether or not they’d discovered any surprising changes in the infant mortality of their various studies, and yes indeed, they had!

Inexplicably, infant mortality in the animal studies performed at the National Academy of Scientific Laboratory in Moscow had skyrocketed to over 55 percent, sometimes higher.

There’s more evidence of reproductive health being harmed in various ways. Smith explains:

“[Ermakova] gave me a slide of a completely new study in which she fed male rats genetically modified soy, and it’s absolutely stunning.

On the left side of the slide is a pink testicle. On the right side of the slide, is a blue testicle.

She said that when the GM soy was fed to the male rats, it changed the color of their testicles from pink to blue, and you could see the cells on another slide, left to right, the structure of the cells in the testicle was different; a completely different blood flow.

And this reminded me of what they had studied in Italy, where they fed mice genetically modified soy and they also had changes in their testicles, including damage to the young sperm cells.

Now, if you’re damaging the young sperm cells, it could result in one of two things. They can result in infertility, or problems with the offspring.

Well, it appears that they may have had both.

In fact, with the mice, they looked at the offspring and they took the embryos out of the pregnant mothers and looked at how the DNA was functioning. And they compared the DNA of those who were born to GM soy-fed parents versus those who were fed non-GM soy and the DNA functioned differently.

So we’re seeing a fundamental change in the offspring of mice that were fed genetically modified soy, whose parents were also fed genetically modified soy.”

Other feeding studies using GM corn have also produced similar results. For example, mice fed GM corn had increasingly fewer and smaller babies the longer they stayed on the GM diet.

There are also plenty of reports about pigs, cows and other livestock having reproductive problems when fed genetically modified feed.

It’s Time to Save Yourself and Your Famiy Because White Knights Don’t Exist in Government

It’s important to realize that the key to ending the ongoing atrocity of GM foods lies not with government, but with you and me.

Consumers are going to have to drive GM foods out, and we CAN do it.

Through educating yourself, your family, friends and community about GMOs, and most importantly of all, through the food purchases you make, you can stop this unregulated science experiment.

Once we reach the tipping point, which is probably as little as five percent of the US population, the market WILL respond. They can’t afford not to!

Once enough people refuse to buy GM food products, it won’t be long before food manufacturers start switching their ingredients.

How to Sniff Out GMOs and Vote with Your Pocketbook

You CAN avoid GMOs, if you know what to look for.

First of all, remember there are eight genetically modified food crops:

1. Soy
2. Corn
3. Cottonseed (used in vegetable cooking oils)
4. Canola (canola oil)
5. Sugar from sugar beets
6. Hawaiian papaya
7. Some varieties of zucchini
8. Crookneck squash

Based on this list, anything containing soy or soy derivatives should be avoided, as well as anything containing corn, the most obvious ingredient being high fructose corn syrup.

The easiest way to avoid ending up with GM foods in your shopping cart is to do some pre-planning using the free non-GMO shopping guide, available at www.NonGMOshoppingGuide.com.

TheInstitute for Responsible Technology has also created a free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

The shopping guide lists the various derivatives of each crop to be avoided, and even better, it lists hundreds of brand products in 22 food categories that are non-GMO, so if you’re still buying processed foods, at least you can easily select a brand that does not use genetically modified ingredients.

Tipping Point… If Europe Did it, the US Can Too!

Getting into a shopping habit of continually avoiding GM food products will create pressure on the marketplace, without which there is little hope. So take this one step! Download the shopping guide, and make note of which brands to buy and which ones to avoid like the plague that they are.

Europe managed to reach their tipping point in April of 1999, ELEVEN YEARS AGO(!), within a single week of negative media which swayed the shopping habits of consumers enough for food companies to commit to stop using GM ingredients.

The idea that consumers have tremendous power is not wishful thinking. It’s an absolute fact.

Monsanto could probably be effectively bankrupted by the end of this year, if enough consumers were to take individual, proactive steps to avoid purchasing anything even remotely related to their business.

Another point that validates the effectiveness of this consumer-driven strategy is the progress we’re now seeing with high fructose corn syrup. Within the last few weeks, several major corporations have declared they’re taking HFCS out of their products due to consumer demand.

More Educational Material

You can find loads of additional information about GMOs on the site www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

There you can also order additional guides to hand out to friends, health care practitioners, and decision makers within your community, along with free online videos, pod casts, and articles that you can repost and republish.

Last but not least, I want to put out a call for a very special donation.

The iPhone application was created by someone who generously donated their time to make it, and if you or someone you know is a competent Android developer who is willing to assist in this cause, please contact info@ResponsibleTechnology.org.

You can also make financial donations on their website to help accelerate the tipping point against GMOs.