Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Rating Supermarket Foods - 3 stars is Healthier

Hannaford Guides Consumers

From Adbusters #74, Nov-Dec 2007
http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/74/Hannaford_Guides_Consumers.html

The Hannaford Brothers supermarket chain developed a formula based on 21 measures, from calcium to fat to sodium, to rate the nutritional value of 27,000 products. Three stars are awarded to its healthiest products and zero to products that did not meet certain standards. Almost eighty percent of the products rated did not receive any stars.

The clear winners: fresh fruit and vegetables. All received three stars.

alt Other high scorers included pasta (88 percent of the products reviewed earned stars), cereals (55 percent) and seafood – 43 percent of those items snagged at least one star, and salmon earned three. By comparison, the high sodium content of canned soup meant that just 12 percent of the rated items earned one star or more. About a quarter of meat products got at least a single star; boneless, skinless chicken breasts won three.

Soft drinks received no stars. Bakery products also didn’t fare well: just seven percent earned even one star. Cookies, cakes and pies had too much added fat and sugar and not enough fiber. Bread often scored too high on sodium to earn any stars.

In the dairy case, skim milk earned three stars, whole milk got none (due to its fat content) while one percent milk snagged two stars. Nonfat, plain yogurt also earned three stars, but most other yogurt received none because of too much added sugar. Eggs went unstarred, although egg substitutes, which are low in cholesterol, often earned a star or more. Margarine was not rated, but it may be assessed in the second phase of the program. Butter earned no stars.

For the last 50 years, large food corporations set the agenda on what kind of products end up on supermarket shelves and in the kitchen pantry for millions of people. Trans-fats, preservatives, processed edibles of all kinds were introduced not to respond to consumer demand, but to provide longer shelf life for food suppliers. Today, a small chain of grocers called Hannaford is reversing the tide, with a nutrition system that gives consumers a quick, non-biased rating of the healthiness of the foods they purchase. Their “Guiding Stars” nutrition system has led to consumer groups hailing them as “heroes,” and has put big food companies against the ropes for selling “health-conscious” foods that don’t deliver what they promise.

Hannaford began the Guiding Stars effort to help consumers navigate the aisles for healthy products, much like travelers used stars in the past to guide their travels. Using a mathematical formula that scored food on positive traits (vitamins and minerals, fiber and whole grains) as well as negative (trans-fats, saturated fat, cholesterol, added sodium and sugars), Hannaford’s team of nutritionists devised a three-star system to rate their products. Products were given one star (good nutritional value), two stars (better nutritional value) or three (best nutritional value). Of the 27,000 products surveyed, a surprising 77 percent of them received zero stars; among them were foods that are advertised as being good for you.

Companies like Campbell’s were quick to defend themselves when products in their Healthy Request line of soup received zero stars. “We don’t like the idea that there are good and bad foods out there,” said John Faulkner, director of brand communication at Campbell Soup Company in The New York Times. Calling the Guiding Stars an “arbitrary grading system,” he insisted that his company’s soup aligned with the government’s definition of healthy food. A. Elizabeth Sloan, president of Sloan Trends, also commented that it was unrealistic for the manufacturers to remove all the fat, sugar and salt because nobody would buy the result. “Look at all those super-duper healthy products that are in those healthy food stores. They don’t taste good.”

Marion Nestle, food guru and a professor of nutrition at New York University, feels that the abysmal marks given by Hannaford reveal “what happens when an independent group sets the criteria.” As evidence of the system’s lack of bias, most of Hannaford’s own store-branded products received no stars. Nestle told Adbusters that while Hannaford’s system is difficult to know because the company has not made the criteria public, she supports the store’s initiative. “I like the Guiding Stars idea in principle,” she commented, “and I think it could be really useful particularly because the criteria – whatever they are – must be really strict. I am most curious to know whether the system encourages healthier choices.” Nestle will be meeting with a member of Hannaford later this year to discuss the results of their program.

The publicity generated by the Guiding Stars is putting the heat on other distributors to label the health value of their products. Already, with the move toward local and organic food, consumer demand has swayed big food distributors to providing better food for the masses. Several companies, including Wegman’s, Kroger and heb have started their own versions of this type of program, albeit with different guidelines. Even if you don’t shop at one of the 150 Hannaford grocery stores in the us, it may not be long before every store boasts a similar system – completely independent of influence from manufacturers – that helps people distinguish the real healthy foods from those that only claim healthiness on the label. With the Hannaford Guiding Stars lighting the way, consumers are already on the path toward taking back control of what they eat.

_Jenny Uechi

Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

Genes & Cells Affected By Thoughts - Genes Do NOT Control - Environment & Beliefs/Perceptions Influence

From the Better Humans Webpage:
http://www.betterhumans.com/

The Effect Of Thoughts On The Body
http://www.betterhumans.com/forums/thread/16774.aspx

Here are two lectures by Bruce Lipton (http://www.brucelipton.com/) click on the links and watch the videos. Lots of details that show genes do not determine how humans and other organisms work. Which means humans have much more influence over themselves than science has yet to admit against ever more evidence showing past hypothesises about genetic control are dead wrong.

Watch the last part of the 2nd webpage if the long winded details are too much. Then back up to learn a bit more.

Bruce's beliefs may well be as inaccurate as the bypothesises that have been shown to be inaccurate.
Knowing that old beliefs are not accurate doesn't mean the new ones are accurate. I doubt that all of his speculations have or will pan out.

Knowing that beliefs can be changed, that beliefs can cause considerable harm or can be helpful, opens up many more healthy possibilities.

If nothing else letting go of beliefs that are no longer useful can allow vast changes in ones life.

---
1. How DNA works - environmental signals activate the dna (blueprints) - behavior is created by perception, each cell has a brain, perceptions may not be accurate eg an unfounded belief - use it or loose it - the belief of aging will kill you -
http://www.eruptingmind.com/positive-thoughts-health/

accurate perceptions that are in line with what is healthful and what is possible in the environment can be life nurturing
dysfunctional beliefs that are not healthful or are not possible in the environment can be harmful to life

2. The universe is made of energy (Energetics, Wholistic, Uncertainty) - it is not only physical matter (Materialism, reductionism, determinism).
http://www.eruptingmind.com/how-thoughts-effect-body/
---

Notice what beliefs attempt to determine your behaviors. What beliefs/perceptions would you choose if you set aside the beliefs that were imported into you by culture, society, advertising, education etc etc.

Stress is a primary mechanism that allows cancer causing hormones to be influenced.
Energy healing is more affective than expected.

Cells move forward toward better health or retreat to protection or don't move. Both movements use energy. The more protection the less health. Can be so afraid that health shuts down.

Cells of a body work together as community. Stress reduces community.

Regulate stress for better health.

Reflex behavior reduces chances of intelligent decisions.

Adaptation/adjustments to stress can be a choice not random. Cells can actually choose to adjust to deal with stress - science used to say this was impossible.

Simultaneous creation and evolution.

Natural selection isn't what it was expected to be.

Body is saying deal with the stress - not cover up the symptoms. Covering up symptoms can be a disaster for a body.

The world has everything in it. Your beliefs generate perception of reality. Live in Fear - find fear. Live in belief of struggle - always fighting.

Brain waves sent out of body - broadcast. People interconnected by energy - power of prayer, power of hate -

Change beliefs, respond to the environment, can change your life as fast as you beliefs, you are not a victim since you can change your beliefs.

Turn off dysfunction beleifs. Watch your thoughts, create new thoughts, alter your environment.
Being powerful, being responsible ... much more than being determined by your genes, culture, society ...

From Bruce's website:

Insights into the Convergence of Science and Spirituality

Mind Over Genes

Bruce H. Lipton, PhD ©2007
http://www.brucelipton.com/

The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles is a book that brings attention to the amazing new awareness that is currently rewriting the science of biology and medicine. Until recently, conventional science has held that genes control life, a concept known as genetic determinism. While this disempowering belief is still held as truth by the mainstream public, leading edge research in the exciting new field of epigenetics reveals a completely different truth. Genes do not control life. It is the environment, and more specifically, our perception of the environment that controls gene activity. In the end, it comes down to a simple case of “mind over matter” in controlling the fate of our lives.

The Grand Convergence - Merging Science & Shamanism

Two events that are in-depth explorations of science, alchemy and shamanism:

Join Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. and Nicki Scully as they weave together science and spirituality in a dynamic presentation that may transform your core beliefs about reality. Bruce brings his extensive background in cellular biology, quantum physics, and consciousness. Nicki will apply her vast experience as a practioner of metaphysics, Alchemical Healing, shamanic traditions and ancient Egyptian mystical arts.

Bloggers Without Borders - Iraqi Refugees In Syria

I cried that night because for the first time in a long time, so far away from home, I felt the unity that had been stolen from us in 2003.
+++

Baghdad Burning

... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...

Monday, October 22, 2007
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Bloggers Without Borders...

Syria is a beautiful country- at least I think it is. I say “I think” because while I perceive it to be beautiful, I sometimes wonder if I mistake safety, security and normalcy for ‘beauty’. In so many ways, Damascus is like Baghdad before the war- bustling streets, occasional traffic jams, markets seemingly always full of shoppers… And in so many ways it’s different. The buildings are higher, the streets are generally narrower and there’s a mountain, Qasiyoun, that looms in the distance.

The mountain distracts me, as it does many Iraqis- especially those from Baghdad. Northern Iraq is full of mountains, but the rest of Iraq is quite flat. At night, Qasiyoun blends into the black sky and the only indication of its presence is a multitude of little, glimmering spots of light- houses and restaurants built right up there on the mountain. Every time I take a picture, I try to work Qasiyoun into it- I try to position the person so that Qasiyoun is in the background.

The first weeks here were something of a cultural shock. It has taken me these last three months to work away certain habits I’d acquired in Iraq after the war. It’s funny how you learn to act a certain way and don’t even know you’re doing strange things- like avoiding people’s eyes in the street or crazily murmuring prayers to yourself when stuck in traffic. It took me at least three weeks to teach myself to walk properly again- with head lifted, not constantly looking behind me.

It is estimated that there are at least 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria today. I believe it. Walking down the streets of Damascus, you can hear the Iraqi accent everywhere. There are areas like Geramana and Qudsiya that are packed full of Iraqi refugees. Syrians are few and far between in these areas. Even the public schools in the areas are full of Iraqi children. A cousin of mine is now attending a school in Qudsiya and his class is composed of 26 Iraqi children, and 5 Syrian children. It’s beyond belief sometimes. Most of the families have nothing to live on beyond their savings which are quickly being depleted with rent and the costs of living.

Within a month of our being here, we began hearing talk about Syria requiring visas from Iraqis, like most other countries. Apparently, our esteemed puppets in power met with Syrian and Jordanian authorities and decided they wanted to take away the last two safe havens remaining for Iraqis- Damascus and Amman. The talk began in late August and was only talk until recently- early October. Iraqis entering Syria now need a visa from the Syrian consulate or embassy in the country they are currently in. In the case of Iraqis still in Iraq, it is said that an approval from the Ministry of Interior is also required (which kind of makes it difficult for people running away from militias OF the Ministry of Interior…). Today, there’s talk of a possible fifty dollar visa at the border.

Iraqis who entered Syria before the visa was implemented were getting a one month visitation visa at the border. As soon as that month was over, you could take your passport and visit the local immigration bureau. If you were lucky, they would give you an additional month or two. When talk about visas from the Syrian embassy began, they stopped giving an extension on the initial border visa. We, as a family, had a brilliant idea. Before the commotion of visas began, and before we started needing a renewal, we decided to go to one of the border crossings, cross into Iraq, and come back into Syria- everyone was doing it. It would buy us some time- at least 2 months.

We chose a hot day in early September and drove the six hours to Kameshli, a border town in northern Syria. My aunt and her son came with us- they also needed an extension on their visa. There is a border crossing in Kameshli called Yaarubiya. It’s one of the simpler crossings because the Iraqi and Syrian borders are only a matter of several meters. You walk out of Syrian territory and then walk into Iraqi territory- simple and safe.

When we got to the Yaarubiya border patrol, it hit us that thousands of Iraqis had had our brilliant idea simultaneously- the lines to the border patrol office were endless. Hundreds of Iraqis stood in a long line waiting to have their passports stamped with an exit visa. We joined the line of people and waited. And waited. And waited…

It took four hours to leave the Syrian border after which came the lines of the Iraqi border post. Those were even longer. We joined one of the lines of weary, impatient Iraqis. “It’s looking like a gasoline line…” My younger cousin joked. That was the beginning of another four hours of waiting under the sun, taking baby steps, moving forward ever so slowly. The line kept getting longer. At one point, we could see neither the beginning of the line, where passports were being stamped to enter Iraq, nor the end. Running up and down the line were little boys selling glasses of water, chewing gum and cigarettes. My aunt caught one of them by the arm as he zipped past us, “How many people are in front of us?” He whistled and took a few steps back to assess the situation, “A hundred! A thousand!”. He was almost gleeful as he ran off to make business.

I had such mixed feelings standing in that line. I was caught between a feeling of yearning, a certain homesickness that sometimes catches me at the oddest moments, and a heavy feeling of dread. What if they didn’t agree to let us out again? It wasn’t really possible, but what if it happened? What if this was the last time I’d see the Iraqi border? What if we were no longer allowed to enter Iraq for some reason? What if we were never allowed to leave?

We spent the four hours standing, crouching, sitting and leaning in the line. The sun beat down on everyone equally- Sunnis, Shia and Kurds alike. E. tried to convince the aunt to faint so it would speed the process up for the family, but she just gave us a withering look and stood straighter. People just stood there, chatting, cursing or silent. It was yet another gathering of Iraqis – the perfect opportunity to swap sad stories and ask about distant relations or acquaintances.

We met two families we knew while waiting for our turn. We greeted each other like long lost friends and exchanged phone numbers and addresses in Damascus, promising to visit. I noticed the 23-year-old son, K., from one of the families was missing. I beat down my curiosity and refused to ask where he was. The mother was looking older than I remembered and the father looked constantly lost in thought, or maybe it was grief. I didn’t want to know if K. was dead or alive. I’d just have to believe he was alive and thriving somewhere, not worrying about borders or visas. Ignorance really is bliss sometimes...

Back at the Syrian border, we waited in a large group, tired and hungry, having handed over our passports for a stamp. The Syrian immigration man sifting through dozens of passports called out names and looked at faces as he handed over the passports patiently, “Stand back please- stand back”. There was a general cry towards the back of the crowded hall where we were standing as someone collapsed- as they lifted him I recognized an old man who was there with his family being chaperoned by his sons, leaning on a walking stick.

By the time we had reentered the Syrian border and were headed back to the cab ready to take us into Kameshli, I had resigned myself to the fact that we were refugees. I read about refugees on the Internet daily… in the newspapers… hear about them on TV. I hear about the estimated 1.5 million plus Iraqi refugees in Syria and shake my head, never really considering myself or my family as one of them. After all, refugees are people who sleep in tents and have no potable water or plumbing, right? Refugees carry their belongings in bags instead of suitcases and they don’t have cell phones or Internet access, right? Grasping my passport in my hand like my life depended on it, with two extra months in Syria stamped inside, it hit me how wrong I was. We were all refugees. I was suddenly a number. No matter how wealthy or educated or comfortable, a refugee is a refugee. A refugee is someone who isn’t really welcome in any country- including their own... especially their own.

We live in an apartment building where two other Iraqis are renting. The people in the floor above us are a Christian family from northern Iraq who got chased out of their village by Peshmerga and the family on our floor is a Kurdish family who lost their home in Baghdad to militias and were waiting for immigration to Sweden or Switzerland or some such European refugee haven.

The first evening we arrived, exhausted, dragging suitcases behind us, morale a little bit bruised, the Kurdish family sent over their representative – a 9 year old boy missing two front teeth, holding a lopsided cake, “We’re Abu Mohammed’s house- across from you- mama says if you need anything, just ask- this is our number. Abu Dalia’s family live upstairs, this is their number. We’re all Iraqi too... Welcome to the building.”

I cried that night because for the first time in a long time, so far away from home, I felt the unity that had been stolen from us in 2003.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Kucinich Rising In Rank - A Few Points Behind Edwards

Polls Show Democratic Candidate Kucinich Rising In Rank Ahead Of Debate

October 30, 2007 2:47 p.m. EST

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008998061

Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff

Philadelphia, PA (AHN) - Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich is entering Tuesday's Democratic Presidential debate at Drexel University on a wave of positive polling results. According to political analysts he is now poised in fourth place nationally, second in a major California straw poll, and leading among declared Democrats in an online survey sponsored by Democracy for America.

In New Hampshire, site of the nation's first Presidential primary, Kucinich is tied for fourth place with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson with 7 percent, only seven points behind Edwards, according to last week's Rasmussen Report. Also, the Survey Center at the University of New Hampshire just released polling data showing Kucinich and Sen. Hillary Clinton gaining momentum, while support for the other Democratic candidates appears to have peaked and actually may lessen in New Hampshire

Last week, in the largest Democratic straw poll in California conducted by the San Mateo County Democratic Party showed Kucinich finished a strong second to Edwards. According to the data Edwards received 29 percent of the total votes cast, Kucinich received just under 24 percent, and Obama and Clinton came in third and fourth, with 22.5 percent and 16.8 percent respectively. The other

Democratic candidates were all in low single digits. In a Zogby America poll earlier this month, Kucinich was fourth, six points behind Edwards, and ahead of Richardson and Sen. Joe Biden.

The Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll last month also had Kucinich tied with Richardson, and ahead of Biden and Sen. Chris Dodd.

Seven Democratic presidential candidates are scheduled to participate in a two-hour debate starting at 9 pm EDT Tuesday and telecast on MSNBC. Tuesday's debate marks their first debate in a month, and Clinton who has solidified her position as the person to beat is gaining in the polls, leading in fundraising and dominates a majority of political agendas and discussions.

Its this reason that Clinton coupled with the fact of her vast war chest will likely be a target of her competitors all vying for the White House, including Kucinich.

Kucinich's has raised about $2.1million this year. Edwards has raised more than $30 million, Richardson $18.7 million, Dodd $13.6 million, and Biden $8.2 million.

Candidates slated to appear in the debate are Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Debate organizers excluded former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel based on the fact he did not meet fundraising and polling thresholds.

It has been more than 30 years since Philadelphia has seen a debate between presidential candidates, but it will be the eighth time the seven leading democratic candidates seeking a shot at the White House have faced off, reported CBS station KYW-TV in Philadelphia.

During the nationally televised debate, candidates are expected to discuss various topics, including the economy, healthcare and the ongoing war in Iraq.

Carcinogens in cosmetics Petrochemicals in perfume A Toxic Reality

My best advice is that simpler is better. Really, fewer ingredients, fewer products.

there are a lot good (nontoxic) products out there on the market, and I would say start by switching out the ones that you use the most frequently like shampoo and deodorant that we're putting by our breast tissue

I think it's really important, especially for women in this culture, to recognize that the beauty industry is all about profit and bottom-line thinking. It's not concerned about our health issues. It is not concerned with telling the truth about its products.
+++

I'll Have My Cosmetics with a Side of Infertility, Please

By Heather Gehlert, AlterNet. Posted October 25, 2007.

Author Stacy Malkan reveals the dangerous truth about everyday products we put in our hair and on our skin.

Carcinogens in cosmetics? Petrochemicals in perfume? If only this were an urban legend. Unfortunately, it's a toxic reality, and it's showing up in our bodies.

In 2004, scientists found pesticides in the blood of newborn babies. A year later, researchers discovered perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel, in human breast milk. Today, people are testing positive for a litany of hazardous substances from flame retardants to phthalates to lead.

In her new book, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, Stacy Malkan exposes the toxic chemicals that lurk, often unlabeled, in the personal care products that millions of American women, men and children use every day.

AlterNet spoke with Malkan about these toxins and her five-year effort with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to get the beauty industry to remove them from its products.

Heather Gehlert: There are so many environmental issues you could've written a book about. Why cosmetics?

Stacy Malkan: I think cosmetics is something that we're all intimately connected to. They're products that we use every day, and so I think it's a good first place to start asking questions. What kinds of products are we bringing into our homes? What kinds of companies are we giving our money to?

It has something pretty interesting in common with global warming too.

It does. I think of it as global poisoning. I think that the ubiquitous contamination of the human species with toxic chemicals is a symptom of the same problem (as global warming), which is an economy that's based on outdated technologies of petrochemicals -- petroleum. So many of the products we're applying to our faces and putting in our hair come from oil. They're byproducts of oil.

Many cosmetic products on the market right now claim they are pure, gentle, clean and healthy. But, as you reveal in this book, they're far from it. Toxic chemicals in these products are showing up in people. What were some of the most surprising toxins you discovered in cosmetics?

Lead in lipstick was pretty surprising. We (the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics) just released that report last week. Many personal care products have phthalates, which is a plasticizer and hormone disruptor. That's why we started the cosmetics campaign -- because we know that women have higher levels of phthalates in their bodies, and we thought that cosmetics might be a reason. But, I think overall, the most surprising thing was to know that there's so much that we don't know about these products. Many, many chemicals are hiding in fragrance. Companies aren't required to list the components of fragrance. Products also are contaminated with carcinogens like 1,4 dioxane and neurotoxins like lead that aren't listed on the label. So it's difficult for consumers to know what we're using.

As a consumer I just want to know what ingredients to avoid, but you say in the book, protecting myself is not as simple as that. Why not?

There are no standards or regulations like there are in, for example, the food industry, where if you buy organic food or food labeled "natural," there's a set of standards and legal definitions that go behind those words. We might like to see those be stronger, but nevertheless, there are meaningful legal definitions. That's not the case in the personal care product industry, where companies often use words like "organic" and "natural" to market products that are anything but. And some of the most toxic products we've found actually had the word "natural" in their name, like natural nail strengtheners that are made with formaldehyde.

Generally speaking, risk assessment involves two factors: a hazard and people's exposure to that hazard. Could you explain some of the unique challenges to assessing risks with cosmetics?

That's a good question. Risk assessment is an extremely oversimplified way of pretending we have enough information to know how much chemicals we can tolerate in our bodies. A risk assessment equation will say, "How hazardous is a chemical, how much are we exposed to it from this one product, and is that harmful?" There's a lot of information left out of that picture: studies that haven't been done to determine impacts on fetuses, the fact that we're exposed to so many of these chemicals in so many places every day, and the fact there have been no -- or very few -- studies about chemical mixtures.

In chapter 2, you say that toxic cosmetics should raise concern for men too, regardless of whether they use any themselves. How so?

Well, men do, first of all, use personal care products. When I ask a group of people what products they've used today, the men will be keeping their hands down and eventually, reluctantly, raising their hands because they're using shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, cologne, lotion.

So it's not just a makeup problem.

No, it's not just a makeup problem. It's all products. And we know that some chemicals in these products are particularly problematic for men. We're all exposed to phthalates, and phthalates interfere with the production of testosterone, and they're linked to health effects like lower sperm counts, birth defects of the penis, testicular tumors.

You've had to struggle with some scary health problems. Tell us about that.

Like many of us, I've had bizarre health problems that nobody can explain: benign lumps in my breasts and thyroid, which is quite common among young women to have thyroid problems. And then also infertility, which is something that's becoming an increasingly common experience for people. And so many of us have heard from our doctors, "Well, we don't know why; we can't tell you why." But I think that's an interesting disconnect that we're looking at how to treat disease, but we're not looking at how to prevent disease.

You admit in the book that you used to be addicted to makeup and so-called personal care products. Do you think that could be related to the health issues you've had?

Well, who knows, and we can never say what caused what and so that's why risk assessment is not a useful tool to -- how do I want to say this -- that's why, in my opinion, we need to get rid of toxins wherever we possibly can in makeup, shampoo and lipstick is obviously a place where they don't need to be. But, yes, I did use a lot of cosmetic products -- 200 chemicals a day just in those products. And I also grew up in a very industrialized neighborhood near one of the largest incinerators in Massachusetts, near oil refineries. And we really didn't talk about these issues at all.

Do you think part of the problem with creating awareness around this issue is that the effects from toxins are often not that immediate? People don't say, Oh, I've been to this toxic site and now I have a rash all over my body.

Right, and that's what we hear from the cosmetics companies when they say, "Well, my product is safe if used as directed, and you can't prove otherwise." Which is true. We can't say that use of X product led to X disease because we're talking about long-term diseases with contributing factors. Doctors usually can't tell us why we got cancer, because it could be due to multiple factors in our pasts. We also know that exposures during critical windows of development -- babies in the womb, even teenagers -- can lead to later-life diseases.

Can you give me an idea of how many chemicals one product can contain? Earlier you said you were exposed to 200 chemicals a day during your youth, but that's not all from one product.

No, I used about 20 products a day. The average woman in the U.S. according to our survey uses 12 products a day with about 180 chemicals. And men use about six products with 80 chemicals combined. But it depends on the product. Some products have dozens of chemicals -- fragrances can have dozens or even hundreds of chemicals that aren't listed on the label. And even fragrance-free products can have a masking fragrance.

Talk a little about the history of the cosmetics industry. When did it come about and why is it so unregulated?

The cosmetics industry has fought really hard to keep itself unregulated for the last 30 years. It was first regulated under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938. That is a 350-page law with about 1.5 pages that address cosmetics. But it didn't give the FDA the power to require testing (cosmetic) products before they go on the market. The FDA can't require follow-up health monitoring; they can't even recall products. Basically, the FDA has to prove in court that a product is harmful before it can take action. There were several attempts to regulate the industry over the years, and the most well-known was in the 1970s with Thomas Eagleton, a senator from Missouri. He proposed that cosmetics should be regulated more like drugs, where there's a rigorous testing protocol that has to happen before products go on the market, but that was shot down and co-opted. What the industry has done is propose voluntary regulations every time a regulatory threat arises. And so the system that we have now is an industry-sponsored and run panel called the Cosmetics Ingredients Review Board, which is in charge of determining the safety of ingredients in cosmetics. We found lots of problems with that panel. They rushed through ingredients quickly, they hadn't looked at most of the ingredients or actually used these products and, most of the time, they find things to be safe. Even when they do make recommendations to restrict or eliminate ingredients, the industry is free to ignore them and sometimes does.

You say in the book that some companies have different formulations of the same products. Some, with harmful toxins removed, go to Europe, and others, with toxins, go to the U.S. Why is that?

Well, it's outrageous, but Europe has much better health protection laws, and they really take a precautionary approach. The European Union has banned 1,100 chemicals from cosmetics that are thought to cause cancer or reproductive harm, and so they take a precautionary approach by saying, "We know these chemicals are hazardous." Nobody argues about that. Instead of arguing about at what level are they safe in products, we need to take them out of the products and figure out how to make products without them. The United States, on the other hand, says, "We need to be able to prove that an ingredient in this product causes harm before we're going to do anything about it. Consequently, there are lots of known toxins in consumer products. It's not just cosmetics. Another example is formaldehyde in kitchen cabinets -- perfectly legal in the United States. You can buy kitchen cabinets, and they're wafting the carcinogen formaldehyde into your kitchen. You can't sell those cabinets in Europe, in Japan, even in China.

Is it really expensive for companies to reformulate their products to remove toxic chemicals?

It's not expensive to reformulate; many companies have already done it because they had to do it if they want to sell in the European market.

When did you begin working on cosmetic issues? How has the industry changed since then? What's the future outlook?

Well, we started the cosmetics campaign in 2002, when we were concerned about phthalates and found out they were in the majority of cosmetic products. At that time, we started to contact companies to try to have a dialogue with them about the chemicals they were using. ... Overall, I would say the mainstream companies have been incredibly resistant to any kind of change, but we have seen a big change in some products in the last few years. Because Europe banned phthalates, we were able to use that to pressure companies to remove phthalates from some U.S. products, particularly nail products. So we've seen a major shift in the formulation of nail products in the last few years because of the campaign (formaldehyde, toluene, and dibutyl phthalates have been removed from most nail products). So, it's possible that companies can change. They are changing, but not enough and not fast enough.

One thing that struck me about this book is that it's not just a story about cosmetic hazards. It's a story about activism. What was the thinking behind that?

Well, activism is fun, first of all. I think it's the best job in the world. And the inspiring stories from so many people from moms to former models who are speaking out, to the teenagers who have lobbied in Sacramento to get bills passed and now realize they have a political voice that they want to keep using, to nurses who have come together to pressure companies to pass protective policies. I think that's all so positive, and I think that people are coming together in ways that we haven't before.

What practical advice can you give to people wanting to clean up their cosmetics bags?

My best advice is that simpler is better. Really, fewer ingredients, fewer products. For instance, hair color and bubble bath are two things that I've given up. But there are a lot good (nontoxic) products out there on the market, and I would say start by switching out the ones that you use the most frequently like shampoo and deodorant that we're putting by our breast tissue, experiment with different kinds of natural products and just make changes as you can. You can also use the skin deep database to research your products. ... The onus at this point is on consumers to do our own research.

Anything else you'd like to add?

To learn more and take action, visit safecosmetics.org. To find out what toxins are in your personal care products, go to www.cosmeticdatabase.org. And to buy the book, check out notjustaprettyface.org.

Hedges: The American Police State

George W. Bush can tar any organization or individual, here or abroad, as being part of a terrorist conspiracy and by fiat render them powerless.

Secret evidence, which these court cases have exposed as a sham, is enough.

the abuse rolls on.

while terrorists can wound and disrupt our democracy, only we can kill it.
+++

The American Police State

by Chris Hedges
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/29/4876/
Published on Monday, October 29, 2007 by TruthDig.com

A Dallas jury, a week ago, deadlocked in its deliberations and caused a mistrial in the government case against this country’s largest Islamic charity. The action raises a defiant fist on the sinking ship of American democracy.

If we lived in a state where due process and the rule of law could curb the despotism of the Bush administration, this mistrial might be counted a victory. But we do not. The jury may have rejected the federal government’s claim that the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development funneled millions of dollars to Middle Eastern terrorists. It may have acquitted Mohammad el-Mezain, the former chairman of the foundation, of virtually all criminal charges related to funding terrorism (the jury deadlocked on one of the 32 charges against el-Mezain), and it may have deadlocked on the charges that had been lodged against four other former leaders of the charity, but don’t be fooled. This mistrial will do nothing to impede the administration’s ongoing contempt for the rule of law. It will do nothing to stop the curtailment of our civil liberties and rights. The grim march toward a police state continues.

Constitutional rights are minor inconveniences, noisome chatter, flies to be batted away on the steady road to despotism. And no one, not the courts, not the press, not the gutless Democratic opposition, not a compliant and passive citizenry hypnotized by tawdry television spectacles and celebrity gossip, seems capable of stopping the process. Those in power know this. We, too, might as well know it.

The Bush administration, which froze the foundation’s finances three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and indicted its officials three years later on charges that they provided funds for the militant group Hamas, has ensured that the foundation and all other Palestinian charities will never reopen in the United States. Any organized support for Palestinians from within the U.S. has been rendered impossible. The goal of the Israeli government and the Bush administration-despite the charade of peace negotiations to be held at Annapolis-is to grind defiant Palestinians into the dirt. Israel, which has plunged the Gaza Strip into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, has now begun to ban fuel supplies and sever electrical service. The severe deprivation, the Israelis hope, will see the overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza and the reinstatement of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has become the Marshal Pétain of the Palestinian people.

The Dallas trial-like all of the major terrorism trials conducted by this administration, from the Florida case against the Palestinian activist Dr. Sami al-Arian, which also ended in a mistrial, to the recent decision by a jury in Chicago to acquit two men of charges of financing Hamas-has been a judicial failure. William Neal, a juror in the Dallas trial, told the Associated Press that the case “was strung together with macaroni noodles. There was so little evidence.”

Such trials, however, have been politically expedient. The accusations, true or untrue, serve the aims of the administration. A jury in Tampa, Chicago or Dallas can dismiss the government’s assaults on individual rights, but the draconian restrictions put in place because of the mendacious charges remain firmly implanted within the system.

It is the charges, not the facts, which matter.

Dr. al-Arian, who was supposed to have been released and deported in April, is still in a Virginia prison because he will not testify in a separate case before a grand jury. The professor, broken by the long ordeal of his trial and unable to raise another million dollars in legal fees for a retrial, pleaded guilty to a minor charge in the hopes that his persecution would end. It has not. Or take the case of Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who in 2002 was spirited away by Homeland Security from JFK Airport to Syria, where he spent 10 months being tortured in a coffin-like cell. He was, upon his release, exonerated of terrorism. Arar testified before a House panel this month about how he was abducted by the U.S. and interrogated, stripped of his legal rights and tortured. But he couldn’t testify in person. He spoke to the House members on a video link from Canada. He is forbidden by Homeland Security to enter the United States because he allegedly poses a threat to national security.

Those accused of being involved in conspiracies and terrorism plots, as in all police states, become nonpersons. There is no rehabilitation. There is no justice.

“He was never given a hearing nor did the Canadian consulate, his lawyer, or his family know of his fate,” Amnesty International wrote of Arar. “Expulsion in such circumstances, without a fair hearing, and to a country known for regularly torturing their prisoners, violates the U.S. Government’s obligations under international law, specifically the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”

You can almost hear Dick Cheney yawn.

The Bush administration shut down the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development six years ago and froze its assets. There was no hearing or trial. It became a crime for anyone to engage in transactions with the foundation. The administration never produced evidence to support the charges. It did not have any. In the “war on terror,” evidence is unnecessary. An executive order is enough. The foundation sued the government in a federal court in the District of Columbia. Behind closed doors, the government presented secret evidence that the charity had no opportunity to see or rebut. The charity’s case was dismissed.

The government has closed seven Muslim charities in the United States and frozen their assets. Not one of them, or any person associated with them, has been found guilty of financing terrorism. They will remain shut. George W. Bush can tar any organization or individual, here or abroad, as being part of a terrorist conspiracy and by fiat render them powerless. He does not need to make formal charges. He does not need to wait for a trial verdict. Secret evidence, which these court cases have exposed as a sham, is enough. The juries in Tampa, Chicago and Dallas did their duty. They spoke for the rights of citizens. They spoke for the protection of due process and the rule of law. They threw small hurdles in front of the emergent police state. But the abuse rolls on. I fear terrorism. I know it is real. I am sure terrorists will strike again on American soil. But while terrorists can wound and disrupt our democracy, only we can kill it.

Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.“

GETTING LEAD OUT OF YOUNG MAY HAVE CAUSED DROP IN CRIME

Lead exposure, crime seem to correlate
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-28-lead-crime_N.htm?csp=34&loc=interstitialskip

Updated 1d 14h ago | Comments3 | Recommend

CRIME RATES RISE, FALL WITH LEAD LEVELS

By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY

For decades, researchers have known that lead poisoning lowers children's IQs and puts them at risk for severe learning disabilities and more impulsive, sometimes violent behavior. New research increasingly suggests that lead also affects long-term juvenile and adult crime rates.

Among the most startling findings: a pair of studies by economist Rick Nevin that suggest the nation's violent-crime rate in the second half of the 20th century is closely tied to the widespread consumption of leaded gasoline. Its gradual demise in the 1970s, he says, did more to stop violent crime among people who came of age in its wake than any social policy.

The sharp drop in violent crime in the 1990s has been attributed to the dot-com boom, more police on the streets and, with a measure of controversy, to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. Nevin, a consultant to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, began comparing leaded-gas consumption through the 20th century with FBI crime statistics.

Researchers already knew lead inhibits children's ability to control impulses. They also knew that people exposed to lead as youngsters were more likely to have both juvenile and adult criminal records.

Nevin wondered whether millions of people exposed as babies to higher levels of lead through car exhaust would commit more violent crimes than those exposed to lower levels.

He found a "stunning" fit, he says. The trend lines match almost perfectly: Leaded-gas use climbed in the 1940s and fell in the early 1970s; 23 years later, rates for violent crime followed in near unison. He also studied lead-paint levels from 1879 over the next 60 years, matching them to murder rates from 1900 to 1959.

FIND MORE STORIES IN:

Nevin published his work in the journal Environmental Research in 2000; health advocates embraced the findings.

But Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, says there are many more factors to consider — economic trends, incarceration policies and policing strategies, among others — before researchers can tie long-term violence levels and lead so closely.

"There is probably a real correlation, but we simply don't know if there is a real causal connection," he says. "It hasn't been proved, as far as I'm concerned."

Nevin says a study published in April ties lead exposure and crime in nine nations. "In light of all the other research, we should have a new sense of urgency about eliminating the remaining risk of lead-paint hazards," he says.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Nader On - Abuse Of Power - Rule Of Law Under Attack

Rule of Law Under Attack

by Ralph Nader
Published on Saturday, October 27, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/27/4850/

Every law student promptly learns the national ideal that our country is governed by the rule of law, not the rule of men. Today, the rule of law is under attack. Such activities have become a big business and, not surprisingly, they have involved big business.

On October 25th, Secretary Condoleeza Rice officially recognized before a House Oversight Committee that, remarkably, there was no law covering the misbehavior of Blackwater Corporation and their private police in Iraq.

Any crimes of violence committed by Blackwater and other armed contractors commissioned by the Defense and State Departments to perform guard duty and other tasks, fell into a gap between Iraqi law, from which they have been exempted by the U.S. military occupation and the laws of the United States.

Since the United States government is ruled by lawless men in the White House who have violated countless laws and treaties, Bush and Cheney clearly had no interest in placing giant corporate contractors operating inside Iraqi jurisdiction under either the military justice system or the criminal laws of the United States.

Presidential power has accumulated over the years to levels that would have alarmed the founding fathers whose constitutional framework never envisioned such raw unilateral power at the top of the Executive branch. Accordingly, they only provided for the impeachment sanction. They neither gave citizens legal standing to go to court and hold the Presidency accountable, or to prevent the two other branches from surrendering their explicit constitutional authority-such as the war-making power-to the Executive branch. The federal courts over time have refused to adjudicate cases they deem “political conflicts” between the Legislative and Executive branches or, in general, most foreign
policy questions.

Being above the law’s reach, Bush and Cheney can and do use the law in ways that inflict injustice on innocent people. Politicizing the offices of the U.S. Attorneys by the Justice Department, demonstrated by Congressional hearings, is one consequence of such Presidential license. Political law enforcement, using laws such as the so-called PATRIOT Act, is another widespread pattern that has drag netted thousands of innocent people into arrests and imprisonment without charges or adequate legal representation. Or the Bush regime’s use of coercive plea bargains against defendants who can’t afford leading, skilled attorneys.

Books and law journal articles have been written about times when government violates the laws. They are long on examples but short on practical remedies of what to do about it.

Corporations and their large corporate law firms have many ways to avoid the laws. First, they make sure that when Congress writes legislation, the bills advance corporate interests. For example, numerous consumer safety laws have no criminal penalties for the violations, or only the most nominal fines. The regulatory agencies often have very weak
subpoena powers or authority to set urgent and mandatory safety standards without suffering years or even decades of corporate-induced delays.

If the laws prove troublesome, the corporations make sure that enforcement budgets are ridiculously tiny, with only a few federal cops on the beat. The total number of Justice Department attorneys prosecuting the corporate crime wave of the past decade, running
investors, pensioners and workers into trillions of dollars of losses and damaging the health and safety of many patients and other consumers, is smaller than just one of the top five largest corporate law firms.

Out in the marketplace, environment and the workplace, the corporations have many tools forged out of their unbridled power to block aggrieved people from having their day in court or getting agencies or legislatures to stand up for the common folk.

Companies can wear down or deter plaintiffs from obtaining justice by costly motions and other delaying tactics. When people get into court and obtain some justice, the companies move toward the legislature to restrict access to the courts. This is grotesquely called “tort
reform”– which takes away the rights of harmed individuals but not the corporations’ rights to have their day in court.

Lush amounts of campaign dollars grease the way for corporations in the legislatures in the fifty states and on Capitol Hill.

As if that power to pass their own laws is not enough, large corporations become their own private legislatures. You’ve been confronted with those fine-print standard form agreements asking you to sign on the dotted line if you wish to secure insurance, tenancy,
credit, bank services, hospital treatment, or just a job.

Those pages of fine print are corporations regulating you! You can’t cross any of them out.

You can’t go across the street to a competitor- say from Geico to State Farm, or from Citibank to the Bank of America, because there is no competition over these fine-print contracts, with their dotted signature lines. Unless, that is, they compete over how fast they require you to give up your rights to go to court or to object to their unilaterally changing the terms of the agreement, such as in changing the terms of your frequent flier agreement on already accumulated miles

Oh, for the law schools that provide courses on the rule of men over the rule of law.

Oh, for the time when there when there will be many public interest law firms working just on these portentous dominations of concentrated power to deny open and impartial uses of the laws to achieve justice and accountability.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions

Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Burma Freedom & Calling To Account Chevron, Rice, Cheney, USA, Britian

Those who care for freedom in Burma and Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia and beyond
must not be distracted by the posturing and weasel pronouncements of our leaders,
who themselves should be called to account as accomplices.

We owe nothing less to Burma’s bravest of the brave.
+++

The Politics of Hypocrisy

by John Pilger
Published on Saturday, October 27, 2007 by the Guardian/UK
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/27/4855/

The news is no more from Burma. The young monks are quiet in their cells, or they are dead. But words have escaped: the defiant, beautiful poetry of Aung Than and Zeya Aung; and we know of the unbroken will of the journalist U Win Tin, who makes ink out of brick powder on the walls of his prison cell and writes with a pen made from a bamboo mat - at the age of 77. These are the bravest of the brave. What shame they bring to those in the west whose hypocrisy and silence helps to feed the monster that rules Burma.

Condoleezza Rice comes to mind. “The United States,” she said, “is determined to keep an international focus on the travesty that is taking place in Burma.” What she is less keen to keep a focus on is that the huge American company, Chevron, on whose board of directors she sat, is part of a consortium with the junta and the French company, Total, that operates in Burma’s offshore oilfields. The gas from these fields is exported through a pipeline that was built with forced labour and whose construction involved Halliburton, of which Vice-President Cheney was chief executive.

For many years, the Foreign Office in London promoted business as usual in Burma. When I interviewed Aung San Suu Kyi a decade ago I read her a Foreign Office press release that said, “Through commercial contacts with democratic nations such as Britain, the Burmese people will gain experience of democratic principles.” She smiled sardonically and said, “Not a bit of it.”

In Britain, the official PR line has changed; Burma is a favourite New Labour “cause”; Gordon Brown has written a platitudinous chapter in a book about his admiration of Suu Kyi. On Thursday, he wrote a letter to Pen, waffling about prisoners of conscience, no doubt part of his current empty theme of “returning liberty” when none can be returned without a fight. As for Burma, the essence of Britain’s compliance and collusion has not changed. British tour firms - such as Orient Express and Asean Explorer - are able to make a handsome profit on the suffering of the Burmese people. Aquatic, a sort of mini-Halliburton, has its snout in the same trough, together with Rolls-Royce and others that use Burmese teak.

When did Brown or Blair ever use their platforms at the CBI and in the City of London to name and shame those British companies that make money on the back of the Burmese people? When did a British prime minister call for the EU to plug the loopholes of arms supply to Burma. The reason ought to be obvious. The British government is itself one of the world’s leading arms suppliers. Next week, the dictator of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, whose tyranny gorges itself on British arms, will receive a state visit. On Thursday the Brown government approved Washington’s latest fabricated prelude to a criminal attack on Iran - as if the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan were not enough for the “liberal” lionhearts in Downing Street and Whitehall.

And when did a British prime minister call on its ally and client, Israel, to end its long and sinister relationship with the Burmese junta? Or does Israel’s immunity and impunity also cover its supply of weapons technology to Burma and its reported training of the junta’s most feared internal security thugs? Of course, that is not unusual. The Australian government - so vocal lately in its condemnation of the junta - has not stopped the Australian Federal Police training Burma’s internal security forces.

Those who care for freedom in Burma and Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia and beyond must not be distracted by the posturing and weasel pronouncements of our leaders, who themselves should be called to account as accomplices. We owe nothing less to Burma’s bravest of the brave.