warning: reading this article may make you upset, Not Reading It may kill you.
©2015 The Media Desk
Let's begin with a statement that you will probably find a bit excessive, possibly way over the top, somewhat paranoid, and, yes, patently offensive. But, hang on through this wandering bit of madness, and we'll substantiate it enough to bring the point within the strike zone of reasonable doubt.
"Fructose-based sweeteners, regardless of the source (corn syrup, agave, 100% fruit sugar, 'blended' honey, whatever), are simply poison. Stop Using That Crap. Now! Period." there's a bit more to it, but that's a start.
First we'll bore you with a bit of chemistry which is aimed directly at statements from the various makers of sweeteners, including some billed as "Natural" (which doesn't mean anything), "Organic" (which does), "low glycemic index" (which can be misleading), and so on.
Yes, Fructose is a simple Sugar. It is blood kin to Glucose (aka: dextrose), and usually arrive together in Table Sugar, one for one. And for that matter they are both cousins to Lactose, which is a bit more complex and is usually found in milk. OK, fine. Right? Of course right.
Your cells, and especially your brain just Love glucose. It is fuel for everything you do from running a marathon to just sitting and thinking about it. Without glucose your body begins to run down like a robotic toy whose batteries are dying. Yes, your cells like a few other things like simple starches (and amino acids from proteins as well), but their first best choice for energy is glucose.
While fructose (sometimes called levulose) is a simple sugar, the majority of the cells in your body look at it like it is one of those kitchen tools that somebody thought was a good idea but the rest of us have no use for, like those fancy banana slicers in the kitchen gadget aisle or the 'Zyliss Sandwich Knife' which we still don't understand. In its natural state, fructose is NOT used by the cells in your body, in fact, your small intestine has to be 'trained' and 'adapted' to absorb it, and, some people cannot absorb it at all. It is processed into fat by the body's "filter", the liver, and THEN is made available to your cells as fuel when everything else runs out. Truth be told (which is, after all, what we try to do here) fructose is very nearly your body's fuel of last resort. It is on the list just ahead of your body consuming its own muscle tissue to keep your brain functioning. See links below for more.
As recently as just a few years ago it was maintained that to your body, sugar was sugar was sugar. Various nutritional experts spent a great deal of time and effort stating that in various ways. For instance:
"Any added sugar used as an alternative to high-fructose corn syrup would have a similar chemical composition," University of Cincinnati obesity researcher Matthias H. Tschop, MD, tells WebMD. "While it is possible that there are differences in how these sugars affect metabolic pathways, I know of no studies that show this."Which flies directly into the face of research papers published every other year or so since about 1970 that pointed out that fructose was NOT directly used by the body, and while it might cross the blood-brain barrier, it did so as a pollutant and not as fuel for the neurons.
- http://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421/fresh-take-on-fructose-vs-glucose (hot link below)
SIDENOTE: We won't recommend Sorbitol as a sweetener even though it is 'natural', no, we'll skip that one. Why? Well, it is less sweet than sugar, and, has a couple of interesting side properties. Sorbitol, in just a slightly higher 'dose' than what is usually considered normal, whatever that is, has a tendency to behave as a laxative and a diuretic in the body. Maybe that's why "Nathan's Famous" puts it in their hot dogs. No, we're not kidding. (gives you a whole new perspective on their annual contest doesn't it?) 'sweetener' link below
So, this crap IS NOT and has never been 'healthy', it damages the liver which is also tasked with processing the other toxins the occur naturally in the world around us (we'll hit that as we go, don't worry) and can turn an otherwise mild mannered person into a raving maniac.... oh, wait a minute, we haven't talked about that yet have we?
Which takes us to King Henry the Morbidly Obese and at least Borderline Insane.
That Henry VIII had diabetes, and gout, and blood poisoning, and maybe a sexually transmitted disease or two, isn't in question. How his diet of very rich and very sweet foods, including baked goods loaded with honey and molasses, as well as Meade, and other such items figured into the equation, and how that all impacted the political life of Britain and Europe for the next century or so Is open for discussion.
In his early life the Man Who Would Be King was athletic and intelligent. Later, at least partially due to a wound suffered during an athletic outing, Henry became partially incapacitated, unable to engage in the outdoor pursuits that had delighted him, leaving only 'courtly' endeavors and intrigues that fueled his building paranoia, moodiness, and girth.
One added to the other, then those multiplied the third. Depression led to eating. Eating led to blood sugar spikes and mood swings. Mood disruptions led to thinking everybody was out to get him. Which made him depressed.
Oh well. Maybe it "Isn't Good To Be King".
Henry is an extreme example of what happens when one's diet turns against you. When a sweet tooth, perhaps coupled with an inability, or unwillingness to 'get up and GO', turns into a worst case scenario. Or at least for a couple of his wives, it did.
In 1955 with President Eisenhower, it had a different outcome for him, but it could be argued that the end result for the country, and to some extent, the world, was very nearly as bad.
As a result of the public health awareness of diet on the heart, things in the food marketing industry changed. Ingredients were now under the microscope, sugar and some fats were seen as perhaps not the best idea for everybody. But, as it turns out, there were alternatives to making things 'taste good' that were supposedly healthier to eat than traditional ingredients. Enter Margarine (which you've probably heard isn't the solution it was claimed to be to the point that the 'health gurus' are back to saying "eat butter"!) and Non-Sucrose Sweeteners..... Fructose for one.
To make it worse, Fructose isn't the only player in this game. Oh, no. If it were, we might be able to go back to our original statement, drop the italic phrase, and simply recommend that you dump everything that contains it down the garbage disposal and we'd all be on the road to better health and wellness. No. Life isn't that simple any more, if, indeed, it ever was.
There are even more sinister agents at work here. Shall we list a few?
You may wish to have the 'adult beverage' of your choice standing by.
"Better Living Through Chemistry" -DuPont company slogan 1935 - 1982
We could go through some chemicals that are in food, and then in 'personal care products' and then some in things like laundry soap and carpet shampoo, and, oddly enough, found in intensive care wards in hospitals to treat serious illness.
But, to make things simple, we'll start with one of the 'bad ones' that's in damned near everything, and, in sufficient dose, as it is "the dose that makes the poison" (Paracelsus) isn't 'good for you', but yet, if you are suffering from, say, lead poisoning, what's in your mayonnaise might just save your life.
That would be EDTA. Which is, for starters, a prescription drug used in I.V. suspension to treat heavy metal poisoning and other serious illness and diseases depending on which 'flavor' you have in hand. See: http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-1032-EDTA.aspx?activeIngredientId=1032&activeIngredientName=EDTA (link, and a couple examples, below)
With the introduction of Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA from here on) when used as a preservative in salad dressing, we get to talk about our old friend whom we quoted earlier and discuss exactly what makes something poisonous.
Everybody that thinks about their food knows that something with no salt in it can be almost too bland to eat. A little salt, "just a pinch", can make it not only palatable, but delicious. And then, if you go hog wild with the salt shaker, too much salt can make it so nasty that even wild hogs won't eat it.
You need salt to live. Without the sodium and the chloride in it, your body will begin to have problems regulating its own blood, which, when you think about it, is somewhat necessary for life. You've probably heard about "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The two elements that make up common table salt are two of the most important electrolytes. Sodium has an additional function in the way that neurons communicate with each other in assisting in the generation of the minute amounts of electricity it takes for one nerve to fire and the next one in line to know it happened. Without Salt, that doesn't happen, and, eventually, you won't have to worry about it.
Then again, too much salt, and you look like the Dead Sea, and a bit more, and you become the Bonneville Salt Flats.
The same goes with many of the substances we're talking about and the overall idea was coined by the classic Alchemist, Paracelsus (1493-1541). We talk about him at length in the Desk overview of the topic (see link below), and mention him in other places as well. So we'll be moving after just pointing out that for at least five hundred years 'we' have known that while a little of something may be good, and even needed for life, too much of it probably isn't. For instance, if you are thirsty and somebody gives you a glass of water, it's good. But if you are thirsty and they drop you into the middle of Lake Michigan, it may not be.
With the EDTA, and PEG, which we'll get to, it appears to be the same thing. A little isn't harmful, and in some cases, appears to be good for us (or at least is not directly harmful), but in the average day the average person gets an average exposure much like being dropped into the middle of the Lake.
According to those that put EDTAs, including the Calcium Disodium-, Potassium- Tetrasodium-, etc, in everything from the mayonnaise we've already mentioned to coffee creamer, pre-moistened baby wipes, and suntan lotion, a little of it isn't going to harm you. However, as we've mentioned, reasonable argument could be made that one form or another of it is in More household products and processed foods you come into contact with in the course of a normal day in the big city, than it isn't in.
Now, we've established that EDTA is, to begin with, a treatment used in cases where some unfortunate soul has been exposed to, well, uranium for one. It is also used in consumer products as everything from a solvent and emollient (Diammonium EDTA) to preservative, the disodium variety we mentioned, and as a general stabilizer. There is also a recurring warning about long term exposure to the substances causing damage to various organs and producing unpleasant reproductive effects, and, yes, it can be absorbed through the skin.
"Oral exposures to EDTA produced adverse reproductive and developmental effects in animals."
In the European Union, workplace exposure to the various compounds under that banner is strictly controlled because long term exposure, even at low levels, can cause damage to everything from the eyes to the gonads.
And remember. It is in shampoo, bodywash, dental care products, cosmetics, stuff on the breakfast table, and so on.
OK, we're going to get an axe and chop down a billboard. Well, no we're not channeling ol' what'shername from Prohibition days. We're talking about one of any number of companies that promise that their products are safe for long term use. And the promise is simply bullshit.
Here's the promise (link below with company name intact):
"blank is committed to providing safe products to our consumers. Ensuring the safety of our products is a responsibility that blank takes very seriously.How do you resolve that promise with the ingredient list from just one of their products that has the one we just talked about, AND the next one "PEG", and three 'parabens' off the "Greatest Hits List" (links below) that are known hormone disruptors? Oh, not to mention a few others that are... well, you'll see.
All blank ingredients must be substantiated for safety over a lifetime of intended use prior to manufacturing. As an example, we conducted over 250 separate safety evaluations for new blank product formulations in the last year alone."
One exposure, in one product, once a day, might be safe over a lifetime... but. You get the idea.
"Hello, thank you for calling, my name is Peggy."
Or rather, PEG.
Innocuous name, rather cute, might even be harmless right? Really, whose afraid of somebody named Peggy? Or maybe she was on a funny commercial about the failings of customer service.
This PEG isn't Peggy. This PEG is Polyethylene Glycol, and often appears with a numerical designation after the abreviation describing the length of the chain of the molucule, ranging from the single digits all the way up to, well, Peg-120 is: "PEG-120 Methyl Glucose Dioleate is a polyethylene glycol ether of the diester of methylglucose and oleic acid with an average of 120 moles of ethylene oxide." -EWG.org
In its various forms and cousins and in-laws, it's in everything from doggie treats to that 'unnamed' product we mentioned earlier, to those small packets of chopped onions and relish you grab at the hot dog wagon on the street.
Well, the first answer is that it keeps things from changing consistency during normal swings in temperature. Let's look at it like this: Companies make the same product year round, and except for a few specialty chocolatiers who Will Not ship their products "in the summer" because they know bad things happen to chocolate when left in a delivery van in the sun, the majority of manufacturers make their products and ship them year round. A lot of products sit in warehouses in all sorts of climates. It gets hot, and it gets cold. The body lotion, mayonnaise, whateveritis, may not look or feel the same after it has frozen solid and then thawed when placed on a store shelf in a controlled environment.
Our friend PEG-gy can help with that. As can EDTA, and the parabens, and so on. They keep things in their emulsion. Or prevent the individual ingredients from reacting with each other during storage. Or perhaps they keep the compound from eating the can its in, such as with BPA, we'll mention that one later.
The gist of the idea being that the various companies don't just put this stuff in the products 'for the hell of it'. Each and every ingredient serves a purpose. Some serve multiple purposes, such as Disodium EDTA, it prevents product separation and contamination. PEG-100 Stearate has a similar function. Evidently, the 'Olay' people thought they needed both, AND a few parabens in their lotion because, well, you never know, it MIGHT end up sitting in a box on the dock in Antarctica or in a truck on the side of the road in the Mojave desert, or on the shelf in the store down the road- for three years. Right?
"A bit more about chemicals...what we need to know. 85,000 chemicals in use – most not tested for safety."
The Parabens are an interesting case. As with PEG there are all sorts of flavors, "Ethyl", "Methyl", "Propyl"... and so on. Some are very common, some you only run into in very specialized applications. But, when you come down to it, they all react the same in the body. They raise hell with your hormones. Link below.
But, contrary to some of the 'Did You Know' things you see floating around the web and in your email from your sister in law's cousin's best friend, The Parabens, whatever else they may be, Are NOT Formaldehyde Releasing Agents.
Yes, they mimic Estrogen and Pituitary Hormones, and can make your spleen think you're pregnant, or whatever, but they Do Not turn into Formaldehyde once they are released from the bottle.
For that trick, you have to look for the few 'bad things' that Aren't in the Olay ® product we listed earlier and link to below.
If you see: DMDM Hydantoin, Quaternium-15, any of several that end in Urea, Thimerosal, and so on, you're looking at predecessors to Formaldehyde, overall one of the most toxic substances in the world. It is poisonous to the central nervous system, and the immune system, and is a documented cause of several cancers. These 'releasant' ingredients are, first and last, preservatives in that, as they decay in the product over time, they become, turn into, release as a by-product of their decomposition, whatever, Formaldehyde, which is truthfully one of the most effective antimicrobial agents ever known. But you can't sell something in the US with that word on the ingredient list. But who has a problem with "DMDM"? ....... and Quaternium sounds like something off a science fiction show. So, there you go.
Oh, and they're cheap!
So, you have a preservative that has a wide range of effectiveness against all sorts of contaminating 'bugs', a stabilizer that can give your concoction a very long shelf life, and a sweetener that you can claim is 'healthy', and away you go. Never mind what it may do to your customers.
Worked for RJ Reynolds didn't it? Oh, sorry, bad example.
Remember that stiff drink we mentioned earlier? Get it ready.
"Do it yourself zombies"
Part of the problem with these, and with others listed at various sites, including the Desk's "greatest hits chemical list" of things found in the majority of processed foods and household products we use every day is what they do once inside your body. And make no mistake, even if they are in a lotion you rub on your hands, many of them can be and are absorbed through your skin and get into your blood.
Oh, yes, and some of them can and do cross the blood-brain barrier, and can cross the placenta. From 2013:
"Environmental Defence tested the umbilical cord blood of three anonymous newborns in Toronto and Hamilton, finding a total of 137 chemicals overall. The number of toxins in each baby’s cord blood ranged from 55 to 121. Among them were flame retardants, PCBs, PFCs found in non-stick coatings and organochlorine pesticides."Other studies found even more.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/toxic-chemicals-found-in-newborns-report/article12833927/ (hot link below)
For the study, water samples were examined for the presence of about 260 commonly used chemicals. To obtain a nationally representative sample of water systems across the US, water from nine sites in Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas were tested. Some 130 different chemicals, which include pesticides, gasoline hydrocarbons, household-use products and solvents, were found in rivers and streams before cleanup at public water treatment plants. The assumption many of us would have is that the water treatment process would remove most, if not all, of these chemicals. That, however, as found by the study, is quite far from the truth, as about two out of every three of the 130 chemicals remained in the water post-treatment.
Date: July 21, 2015"What did Paracelsus say about poison in 1530?"
Source: Oregon State University
Summary: Common environmental chemicals assumed to be safe at low doses may act separately or together to disrupt human tissues in ways that eventually lead to cancer, a task force reports.
One would wonder about putting ice in the booze after that.
That's just the water.
Remember our old friend PEG? Some of them, the "lighter weight ones" under number 75 or so, can be absorbed through Un-Damaged skin. Nevermind the stuff in the 'first aid creams'.
And, that isn't from some 'nuts and twigs' hippie site, that's the US National Institutes of Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1568269/ (link... you know where)
The fact remains that, for the most part, anything put ON your skin will, at least to some degree, get through your skin. Most of the ingredients in your food and drink ends up being absorbed by your digestive system. And, while we're at it, that 'fresh scent' stuff you put on your carpet or in your clothes washer to make your underwear smell as fresh as a mountain meadow, are biologically active persistent chemicals, so you Can smell them days later, and they are absorbed by the lungs. If they weren't "bio-active", the stuff you put on your carpet would smell like glass or stainless steel.
Think about it, when you put the scented detergent in the wash cycle dispenser, it smells good. The clothes washed in it STILL 'smell good' after they go through the wash, the rinse, spend an hour or so in the drier, and THEN hang in the closet for a week. Exactly what sort of chemical can survive all that and retain its desirable characteristics?
The problem is that once it does get into you, what does while it is inside of you.
As we stated, the Parabens mimic various hormones, Fructose plays games in the brain, others do things to the liver or pancreas, and so on. None of which is in the best interest of the person.
Some of these things accumulate in your body. One of the more famous of those is Brominated Vegetable Oil. The fire retardant chemical that was, and still is, in various 'fruit flavored drinks' to 'keep them from separating or getting cloudy', although there was enough stink about it that many of the companies using it have pulled it... ... and found something that is probably just as bad to replace it with.
With BVO, the consumer ingested the element Bromine, which builds up in the body and can take up to two weeks to pass through and be eliminated, so if you 'only drank one or two a day' you could conceivably reach toxic exposure levels and begin to experience symptoms including irritation of mucous membranes, dizziness, nausea, and so on. Symptoms that are usually blamed on things like 'shellfish allergy' which is instead a sensitivity to iodine, which is also added to table salt, and some antiseptics, but... we're getting off track here.
The point being, that SOME of these chemicals, and nobody is quite sure which ones, because, well, we're coming to that, are bio-accumulative, and we are exposed to them multiple times a day, sometimes by just sitting in a chair and reading an article about how we're exposed to chemicals.
Are you touching anything, say, made out of plastic (BPA is a known hazard to your ongoing health link below)? Did you use a body wash with a persistent scent (we've already done that)? Did you wash your clothes in something with Dimethicone or Sodium Formate (formic acid salt, see MSDS: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927596 ) or any of dozens of other chemicals that if spilled out of a tanker truck on the highway are cause for the sheriff to call the guys in space suits to clean up, but are 'safe when used as directed'.
The fact of the matter is that only a handful of the 85,000 or so of chemical compounds that have ever been proposed for production in the US have ever been pulled for being demonstrably unsafe to those exposed to them. Link below to the "toothless law" and a case where a chemical company (DOW) got caught in multiple lies!
But an awful lot of those chemicals are known to be bad for the liver, or rather result in Toxic Hepatitis (see link to list below). And remember, your liver is already busy converting all that added fructose to fat... moving on.
In the USA, a chemical developed or discovered and has potential for commercial use, in everything from driveway paving material to the aftershave used by the driver of the car, is, usually, considered 'safe' unless it has been proven otherwise, usually after several years of lawsuits and legislative wrangling.
Don't be paranoid, just be aware. Some things that manufacturers make that seem pleasant - they taste sweet, are soft on the skin, or even smell nice - may not be the best things for us in the long run.
For instance, and in closing, and a final note, and .... another excuse for a belt of Ol' Stumpwater:
In World War One, some of the poison gases used had pleasant scent, which encouraged the victim to breath it in deeply. One of those was phosgene, which had a delayed reaction once inhaled. Which meant, the soldiers on the line may have noticed something that smelled like 'old hay' or a mowed lawn, and then, the next day, they fell over dead. And of course there were the cyanide derivatives that smelled like almonds.
So, think about it. Why would you put LEMON SCENT in chlorine bleach or ammonia?
So what's your point?
There's only one (besides a restating of the Paracelsus quote):
Be an informed and educated consumer that does not blindly trust those looking to sell stuff to them and the politicians they pay to smile and say "everything is just fine".
7 January 2016 Follow Up! we answer a lady's question:
"....but what can I do?...."
All links were working as of date of posting 16 Dec/201585,000 registered chemicals and a law without teeth: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/a-toothless-law-on-toxic-chemicals.html?_r=0
All links will open in new window. The Desk does NOT endorse any of the following, nor do they endorse TheMediaDesk.com nor is it responsible for any content on any outside site. thank you
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory:
"The initial reporting period by manufacturers, processors and importers was January to May of 1978 for chemical substances that had been in commerce since January of 1975. The Inventory was initially published in 1979, and a second version, containing about 62,000 chemical substances, was published in 1982. The TSCA Inventory has continued to grow since then, and now lists about 85,000 chemicals."
The Importance Of Nutrition In Cancer Prevention
Fructose and your liver (chemicals and the liver further down!):
"Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common chronic liver disease in adults and children. A number of genetic and environmental factors are known to predispose individuals to NAFLD. Certain dietary sugars, particularly fructose, are suspected to contribute to the development of NAFLD and its progression. The increasing quantity of fructose in the diet comes from sugar additives (most commonly sucrose and high fructose corn syrup) in beverages and processed foods. Substantial links have been demonstrated between increased fructose consumption and obesity, dyslipidemia, and insulin resistance. Growing evidence suggests that fructose contributes to the development and severity of NAFLD. In human studies, fructose is associated with increasing hepatic fat, inflammation, and possibly fibrosis. Whether fructose alone can cause NAFLD or if it serves only as a contributor when consumed excessively in the setting of insulin resistance, positive energy balance, and sedentary lifestyle is unknown. Sufficient evidence exists to support clinical recommendations that fructose intake be limited through decreasing foods and drinks high in added (fructose-containing) sugars."
And the Brain:
"This is your brain on sugar: UCLA study shows high-fructose diet sabotages learning, memory":
2010: "Increased Fructose Intake as a Risk Factor For Dementia
"... ...The question therefore becomes if these findings are strong enough to construct a mechanistic hypothesis to link high fructose intake to increased dementia risk (eg, all cause dementia and its subtypes including AD and VaD) in individuals with a high fructose diet? This article suggests that this is highly plausible, and if true, then the increasing consumption of fructose in the U.S. population could lead to greater dementia risk either directly only or more likely in synergic combination with the concomitant increases in obesity." ...
"Increasing evidence of a detrimental effect of fructose intake on metabolic health supports a possible major public health concern. There is an urgent need to elucidate the mechanisms of this association and determine whether a reduction in fructose intake can reverse any negative effects, particularly over long-term intake. ... ..."
The misleading WebMD fructose link from above: http://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421/fresh-take-on-fructose-vs-glucose
King Henry diet and medical problems: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/5193572/The-Kitchen-Thinker-Henry-VIII.html
Ike's heart attack: http://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/09/on_this_day_in_1955_president.html
The WORST of the 'healthy foods':
"Instead of cooking with vegetable oils or eating foods containing vegetable oils, trying including healthier varieties, including coconut oil, olive oil or butter (for some)."
"Just because something is organic doesn't mean that it's healthy. Remember, organic or not, junk food is junk food!"
That prescription drug in the mayonnaise:
EDTA is safe when used as a prescription medicine, as eye drops, and in small amounts as a preservative in foods. EDTA can cause abdominal cramps, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, low blood pressure, skin problems, and fever.
It is UNSAFE to use more than 3 grams of EDTA per day, or to take it longer than 5 to 7 days. Too much can cause kidney damage, dangerously low calcium levels, and death.
More, and others at: Environmental Working Group
The NIH link from above: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12396676
An example in "salad dressing" (and see Olay lotion at bottom of page for another example) http://www.foodfacts.com/ci/nutritionfacts/Caesar-Dressing/Kraft-Creamy-Caesar-Dressing-1-Gallon/79455
Sorbitol Sugar alcohol, less sweet than sugar, metabolized slowly. Laxative. Diuretic.
"Human studies show that sorbitol is safe, but that when people consume double of what's considered a "regular" dose for humans, it starts to behave as a laxative.
In addition, even though sorbitol is not the same as glucose, it can still raise your blood glucose level - which is especially important to know if you have diabetes or another blood sugar disorder."
PEG and your skin:
The drug that kills for pimples:
the "toxic drug" we didn't talk about:
Acetaminophen has an excellent safety profile when administered in proper therapeutic doses, but hepatotoxicity can occur with misuse and overdose. In the United States, acetaminophen toxicity has replaced viral hepatitis as the most common cause of acute hepatic failure and is the second most common cause of liver failure requiring transplantation.
"3,163 ingredients hide behind the word 'fragrance'" http://www.ewg.org
BPA and cancer:
Chemicals in drinking water:
The Oregon State Study http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150721091751.htm
The "Liver List" Industrial Chemicals Associated with Toxic Hepatitis http://www.haz-map.com/heptox1.htm
Also see: "Low-Level Exposures May Explain Rise in Liver Disease" http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20090529/environmental-toxins-and-liver-disease
America’s New Normal: Chronically Ill Kids http://fearlessparent.org/americas-new-normal-chronically-ill-kids/
"A bit more about chemicals": http://patientadvocates.com/a-bit-more-about-chemicals
"Busted: EPA Discovers Dow Weedkiller Claim, Wants It Off The Market":
Sodium Formate/formic acid salt MSDS: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927596
"The Olay Promise":
(Olay is a Registered Trademark of Procter and Gamble Corporation)
Full Text At: http://www.olay.com/en-us/beauty-trends/the-olay-promise
"Olay Quench Daily Lotion" Ingredients:
"Water, Glycerin, Niacinamide, Petrolatum, Isopropyl Isostearate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Camellia Sinensis Leaf Extract, Tocopheryl Acetate, Glycine, Alanine, Proline,Serine, Threonine, Arginine, Lysine, Glutamic Acid, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Extract, Panax Ginseng Root Extract, Dimethicone, Stearyl Alcohol, Cetyl Alcohol, Panthenol, Aluminum Starch Octenylsuccinate, Polyethylene, Sodium Acrylates Copolymer, Behenyl Alcohol, Benzyl Alcohol, Cetearyl Alcohol Cetearyl Glucoside, Dimethiconol, Disodium Edta, Stearic Acid, Peg-100 Stearate, Sodium Pca, Betaine, Sorbitol, Ethylparaben, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, C12-13 Pareth-3, Laureth-7, Sodium Hydroxide, Fragrance, Tin Oxide, Titanium Dioxide"
The ingredients from: http://www.olay.com/en-us/skin-care-products/quench-daily-lotion
Media Desk Articles Referenced
The Greatest Hits List as mentioned: http://themediadesk.com/newfiles7/hits.htm
An early edition in this series: Poisons in your Bathroom http://themediadesk.com/newfiles7/whatsinit.htm
More Non-Fiction and Mystery Series Articles. http://themediadesk.com/nonfiction.htm
[NOTE: Everything, chemical and otherwise, mentioned in this article is owned by other entities. Some of the substances mentioned may be trademarked by their owners. No undo disparagement or disrespect is intended. No endorsement of the Desk of them, or by them of the Desk is to be inferred.
If any company seriously disputes the conclusions about the long term safety of their products when combined with other products in daily use in the average home, they may, at their leisure, provide third party evidence to the contrary. At which time the Desk will review it and issue such a statement as is warranted.
The Desk is solely responsible for the analysis and conclusions hereby presented. If the reader has any issues with anything in the article they may contact the Desk through the usual channels.
Back to the Desk's Main page