What's in Your Shampoo?

Most of us use shampoo every day, or at least a few times a week. We grab for the bottle, squirt a dollop into our hands, lather, and voilà: Clean hair. But do you know what’s actually in it? Let’s take a look at the basic anatomy of a shampoo by breaking down the “recipe” of ingredients: surfactants, actives, preservatives, color, and fragrance. We'll look at what is used in conventional shampoos—aside from water, which makes up 50 percent of most of them—and what is used in cleaner alternatives.

Deciphering the key components of the shampoos we use on a regular basis helps makes the long names found on their ingredient lists less confusing—and may also give you something to think about when choosing your next one.

Surfactants

Also known as surface active agents, surfactants are necessary for the lathering, cleaning, and degreasing effects of a shampoo. Shampoos usually contain a cocktail of surfactants, artfully combined to strike the right balance.

Conventional: These have the potential for harshness, stripping away fatty acids and usually contain a higher percentage of petroleum-based ingredients and portions. These ingredients can include compounds with environmental concerns. Examples include: sodium lauryl/laureth sulfate, ammonium laureth sulfate, cocamide DEA, ammonium xylene sulfonate.

Natural: Your shampoo may not foam like a conventional product because it contains a higher percentage of natural materials, but your hair will still be just as clean, with added natural benefits. Examples include: decyl glucoside, sucrose cocoate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, sodium lauroamphoacetate.

Preservatives

The main function of preservatives is to prevent microbial growth and to ensure a long shelf life. When it comes to preservatives, none are truly benign. And while preservative systems are a necessary component of most personal care products—and in particular water-based ones such as shampoos—some are worse than others.

Conventional: These tend to be stronger, used to increase shelf life. With this comes allergenic and irritant potential, and there is concern about some preservatives' hormone-disrupting ability. Examples include: iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, methylisothiazolinone, and methylchloroisothiazonlinone (which are not allowed in personal care products at Whole Foods Market), as well as parabens.

Natural: These preservatives will be milder. They will be ones that have been shown to function properly, yet with a lower likelihood of causing cosmetic-related allergies and sensitivities. Examples include: potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, and alcohol.

Active and other Ingredients

These are the ingredients that are intended to nourish and beautify, making your hair shinier, smoother, softer, thicker, and more manageable. Other ingredients, such as thickeners, humectants, pH-control agents or chelators, may be added to stabilize the formula.

Conventional: These products typically contain less natural actives, fewer botanical-based ingredients and more synthetic ones. Examples include: disodium EDTA, polyquaternium-10, and aminomethyl propanol.

Natural: These products will contain high percentages of natural actives such as aloe vera gel, antioxidants, herbal extracts, plant oils, vitamins, proteins, amino acids, and fatty acids.

Fragrance

Along with functionality, fragrance—often a melange of many artificial smells, combined in a proprietary formula—is one of the main reasons we consumers will pick one product over another.

Conventional: Typically, synthetic fragrances are used in conventional shampoos, due to cost, performance, and variety. These have the potential to be irritating and their safety has been questioned.

Natural: Ideally, these are phthalate-free and 100 percent natural. At Whole Foods, only 100 percent natural fragrances are allowed in our Premium shampoos, for philosophical and safety reasons.

Color

In basic shampoos, color is added for decorative purposes only, and is unnecessary for functionality.

Conventional: Synthetic colorants are often added for decorative purposes only. In Premium Body Care products at Whole Foods Market, no colors are allowed, neither natural nor synthetic, as they are not necessary for a shampoo to function at all.

Natural: Most natural brands skirt even "natural" dyes in their shampoo.

So how does your shampoo measure up? Shampoo is one of the most challenging products to make truly natural because functionality is so important for hair products, and so we applaud brands like Depth, Ikove, Alaffia, Mineral Fusion, and John Masters Organics, which prove it is possible to make many good improvements in the area of natural shampoos while keeping your hair clean and looking its best.

 

Read the original post here: http://www.good.is/post/what-s-in-your-shampoo/

Instructions: How to Green Your Bedroom

On the hunt for new bedding, one is presented with exhaustive (and exhausting) options. Sateen or jersey? Is there a difference between the 300- and 800-threadcount comforter? What is pima cotton? And how on earth can you choose a mattress after lying on it for five minutes at Sleepy's? Throw sustainability and organics in the mix and it's more confounding that ever.

And yet we spend a third of our lives sleeping, so there's a reason these can be hard decisions to make. It's also why we should all give a little more thought to chemicals involved in the production of our beds and linens. Cotton farming occupies only 3 percent of farm land, and yet accounts for about 25 percent of worldwide insecticides use and over 10 percent of pesticide use. To help break it down, it takes about a quarter pound of chemicals to produce one cotton T-shirt. So, think of all the chemicals going into a set of sheets and a blanket, and then consider these guidelines to make your bedroom shopping trip a little greener.

1. The next time you shop for sheets, go organic. Organic cotton farming leaves no chemical residue on the finished material, so they are safe for you to cuddle up in at night. This is good for the planet and for you.

2. Think outside the usual material. There are great natural fibers you can try like linen, silk, jersey, and flannel. Online shopping is great when it comes to bedding because of the great selection and with standard bed sizes, fit isn't a concern.

3. Be a little flexible with colors. Synthetic dyes offer a wide range of colors, but they are just that—synthetic. There is a range of colors offered in organic bedding, but they may not be as easy to find or as vast as the non-organic sheets you find in most stores. You can always get a little help from the internet. Or you can opt for a more neutral hue and spice up the room with paint or other colorful accessories.

4. If have a little Martha in you, make your own duvet cover or pillow cases. For the duvet cover, take two organic flat sheets or blankets and sew them together to create your own duvet for a fraction of the cost. All you need for the pillow cases is some great organic material from the fabric store and a simple pillow pattern.

5. When choosing a new mattress, do your research. Most conventional mattresses are chemical havens. They are often made with synthetic materials like polyester, a plastic that emits gasses, and then they are covered in formaldehyde-based finishes for stain resistant convenience. Many also contain a fire retardant, which is a whole other set of chemicals.  So, opt for natural fibers. They are sometimes more expensive, but arguably a worthwhile investment that will last you a decade or longer.

6. Get a good pillow. Fortunately, there are several options in the eco-friendly department when it comes to pillows. If you prefer firm, look at organic cotton. For a bit of spring, try wool. If you are concerned with proper alignment, look at natural latex foam pillows. There are several more options out there one of which should suit your particular needs.

7. Buy a pillow protector. This may just seem like an extra pillowcase, but a pillow protector will extend the life of your pillow and help to relieve dust mite allergies. Extending the life of our products creates less waste.

Do you have any great natural-bedroom tips to share?

Read the original post here: http://www.good.is/post/good-instructions-how-to-green-your-bedroom/

The false claims of GMOs

by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer - Natural News

(NaturalNews) For years, biotechnology companies have been making lofty, unsubstantiated claims that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are the cure for world hunger, and that without them, people will starve to death. But according to many agricultural scientists and researchers, such claims have absolutely no basis in reality, and are nothing more than deceitful marketing. One researcher from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently compared the nonsensical industry rhetoric in favor of GMOs to giving cigarettes away free to children -- in other words, claims that GMOs are the answer to world hunger are nothing but a ploy to hook farmers and consumers into taking the deadly bait.

Biotech mouthpieces and their media lackeys routinely hail GMOs as superior to conventional and organic crops because they say yields are better, less pesticides are needed to grow GM crops, and GM crops can be grown more densely in a given area than alternatives can. But is any of this actually true? To date, GMOs have not surpassed conventional or organic crops in terms of yields. And since 1996, which is right around the time GMOs were first introduced, pesticide use in the US has increased by nearly 400 million pounds (http://www.naturalnews.com/027642_g...).

On the other hand, a recent United Nations (UN) report explains that eco-farming, which uses natural growing methods rather than chemical- and GM-based methods, has actually boosted food production much more significantly than any GM methods have.

"Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agro ecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live -- especially in unfavorable environments," said Olivier De Schutter, a UN Special Rapporteur, at a recent presentation. "To date, agro ecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80 percent in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116 percent for all African projects. Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of three to ten years."

In truth, GMOs have failed in virtually every category of supposed benefit -- they simply do not live up to the industry hype. And besides offering no benefit or improvement upon natural growing methods, GMOs are also a significant threat to both environmental and human health. There are no credible safety studies that have ever been conducted proving that "Frankencrops" are safe or beneficial (http://www.naturalnews.com/031951_G...).

Sources for this story include:

http://www.stltoday.com/business/lo...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032492_GMO_biotech.html#ixzz1NO4B4otf

The health benefits of phytochemicals

(NaturalNews) Phytonutrients, the chemicals that help plants defend against environmental challenges, such as damage from pests or ultraviolet light, appear to provide humans with protection as well. Mounting research shows their effectiveness in preventing and treating a range of conditions including everything from cancer and heart disease to diabetes and high blood pressure. But current law dictates that if anyone advertises health benefits without FDA approval, it is automatically considered an illegal health claim, even for everyday foods, such as walnuts.

Phytochemicals are thought to be responsible for much of the disease protection granted by diets high in fruits, vegetables, beans, cereals, and plant-based beverages such as tea and wine, according to a University of California, Davis report (http://chnr.ucdavis.edu/content/Fac...).

Although it has become widely accepted that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains reduces the risk of cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses, scientists have only recently begun researching the effects of the different phytonutrients those foods contain.

Previous evidence has come from observations of cultures that eat plant-based diets and have lower rates of certain types of cancer and heart disease. The relatively low rates of breast and endometrial cancers in some Asian cultures, for example, are credited partly to dietary habits. These cancers are much more common in the United States, possibly because the typical American diet is higher in fat and lower in fruits, vegetables, legumes and grains, according to American Cancer Society.

Many experts suggest that people can reduce their risk of cancer significantly by eating the foods that contain phytonutrients, according to American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Tre...). Evidence shows that they may work by helping to prevent the formation of potential carcinogens, blocking the action of carcinogens on their target organs or tissue, or acting on cells to suppress cancer development.

Research suggests that flavonoids, the most diverse group of phytochemicals, may be a key phytochemical group that contributes to the reduced mortality rates observed in people consuming high levels of plant-based foods, according to the UC Davis report. In the Zutphen Elderly Study, myocardial infarction was found to decrease as falvonoid intake increased. Similarly, the Seven Countries Study, which compared the diets of men living in various Western countries including the U.S., suggested that consumption of flavonoids was responsible for 25 percent of the observed difference in mortality rates in the different countries.

University of Minnesota Hormel Institute researchers say phytonutrients could be used in effective cancer prevention therapy, so much so that they eventually aim to develop phytochemical-derived anticancer drugs, Dr. Sigang Dong told The Austin Daily Herald (http://www.austindailyherald.com/20...).

"In the future, personalized prevention methods using photochemical could have a crucial role in cancer prevention, especially in high-risk populations," Dong said. "We will continue our rigorous research in identifying molecular targets and aim for conducting human studies with phytocehemicals - this would provide the path for an enhanced approach to personalized cancer prevention."

FDA monopoly on health

Evidence favoring the health benefits of phytonutrients is growing every day, so much so that the biotech industry is already researching transgenic and non-transgenic ways to vastly increase the phytonutrient levels in plants that already contain high levels of the chemicals, according the 2009 book Recent Advances in Biotechnology (http://books.google.com/books?id=Sl...).

Yet, even as the science bounds ahead, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuses to allow food producers to put the facts on their labels.

The agency has structured the rules to categorize anything that treats or prevents disease as a drug. If you eat walnuts, which are shown to lower high cholesterol -- according to Natural News, the FDA declares your walnuts to be a drug. Furthermore, if anything is advertised as providing health benefits without FDA approval, it's automatically considered to be an "unapproved drug", even if it's a common, everyday food like walnuts, cherries, grapes or orange (http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enforcemen...).

Shockingly, even references to peer-reviewed scientific studies are a no-no without FDA permission. So if you sell walnuts, and your website merely links to such studies, then you can be threatened, arrested, imprisoned and fined millions of dollars by the FDA for selling "unapproved drugs." (http://www.naturalnews.com/027750_G...)

The Alliance for Natural Health, a non-profit organization committed to protecting integrative medicine, is fighting these FDA mandates with The Free Speech About Science Act. The congressional bill, HR 4913, is designed to stop government censorship of truthful, scientific health claims about natural foods and herbs, and restore free speech to natural health (http://www.naturalnews.com/028879_c...). If the bill passes, it will allow manufacturers and producers to reference peer-reviewed, scientific studies that highlight the health benefits of food products that they grow or sell.

Understanding Phytonutrients

Some researchers estimate up to 40,000 phytonutrients will someday be fully catalogued and understood. In just the last 30 years, many hundreds of these compounds have been identified and are currently being investigated for their health-promoting qualities, according to The George Mateljan Foundation for the World's Healthiest Foods.

Phytonutrients are classified by their chemical structure and categorized into families based on the similarities in their structures. The phenols, or polyphenols is one family that has received attention in the scientific literature. They include the anthocyanidins, which give blueberries and grapes their dark blue and purple color, and the catechins, found in tea and wine, which provide the bitter taste as well as the tawny coloring in these foods (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?...).

Flavonoids are also commonly considered phenols, although the term "flavonoids" can refer to many phytonutrients. Isoflavones are usually categorized as members of this family. They are found in soy, kudzu, red clover, flax and rye, and have been researched extensively for their ability to protect against hormone-dependent cancers, such as breast cancer.

Other phytonutrients include the organosulfur compounds, such as the glucosinolates and indoles from brassica vegetables like broccoli, and the allylic sulfides from garlic and onions, all of which have been found to support our ability to detoxify noxious foreign compounds like pesticides and other environmental toxins.

Integrating phytonutrients into your diet

A recommended intake of phytochemicals does not exist today, according to the UC Davis report. The Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes and its Panel on Dietary Antioxidants and Related Compounds chose not to create a Dietary Reference Intake due to the lack of food composition data and a true understanding of the absorption and metabolism of phytonutrients. In the absence of such a DRI, many health authorities such as the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association recommend consuming a diet high in fruits and vegetables to
ensure that people get an adequate amount of phytochemical compounds.

Available scientific evidence does not support claims that taking phytochemical supplements is as helpful as consuming the fruits, vegetables, beans, and grains from which they are taken, according to the American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Tre...). So, the best choice, according to O Magazine, is to head to the local farmers' market for the season's freshest produce packed with those precious chemicals. Typically, fruit travels more than 675 miles before hitting your table and it is leeching phytonutrients all the way.

And don't forget to look beyond produce to the other phytonutrient-dense foods like beans and spices.

Beans are a miracle food, according to The Daily Times. They lower cholesterol, regulate blood sugar and insulin production, promote digestive health, and protect against cancer. If you think of fiber, protein, and antioxidants and immediately think whole grains, meat, and fruit, think again - beans offer all three in a single package.

Turmeric, ginger, coriander, cumin and fennel are just a few of the spices containing phytonutrients, according to The Detroit News. Cinnamon has been found to help control blood sugar and improve insulin resistance in diabetics. Paprika may help raise good cholesterol, and ginger, coriander and cumin may promote healthy digestion. (http://www.detnews.com/article/2011...).

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com/028879_c...
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enforcemen...
http://www.austindailyherald.com/20...
http://www.oprah.com/health/Eat-Sea...
http://www.organiclifestylemagazine...
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Tre...
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...
http://chnr.ucdavis.edu/content/Fac...
http://www.detnews.com/article/2011...
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sl...
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?...

Read the original post here: http://www.naturalnews.com/032463_phytochemicals_health_benefits.html#ixzz1NO33zx00

North America's water fluoridation debate: Battleground Austin

by: Neev M. Arnell

(NaturalNews) As a result of a year-long public outcry against water fluoridation in Austin, TX, the City Council held its second public meeting on the issue May 18, which attracted a standing-room only crowd.

Water fluoridation is a policy endorsed by numerous global health organizations, most notably the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Controversy surrounding the practice has grown in recent years, however, as an increasing number of scientists and health professionals argue that fluoride in drinking water causes many negative health effects, especially when looked at beyond dental health to the impact on the whole body. (http://impactnews.com/southwest-aus...)

Areas in the U.S. and Canada, most recently Calgary with 1.1 million people, have already stopped fluoridation and U.S. cities such as Austin, Denver, CO and Boulder, CO, which are considering the fluoridation issue currently, may follow suit. This could cause a domino effect across North America and bring water fluoridation to a halt permanently, according to Fluoride Action Network Executive Director Dr. Paul Connett, who attended Austin's meeting.

Austin's Battle

"For a year, members of the community would keep coming to [the regular City Council meetings] to talk about it," said councilmember Randi Shade. "And we would just sit there because there was no format, no opportunity for us to do anything in that situation, so my point was to take it out of that and into a place we can actually deliberate, actually get the facts, start really getting education on what the implications would be for the larger community."

The Austin City Council Health and Human Services Subcommittee invited speakers both in favor of and against fluoridation of drinking water to address specific questions from the City Council, and enable subcommittee members to determine if Austin needs to remove fluoride from the city's drinking water.

The fluoride debate

Dr. Delton Yarbrough, chair of the Council on Dental Economics, and Dr. Cecil George from the Texas Dental Association, who attended the meeting as the pro-fluoridation experts, were unable to respond to the onslaught of science from the opposing side with science that supported their pro-fluoridation views.

"[Dr. Connett] is clearly very articulate and excellent at presenting his case," Shade said. "But the issue that Dr. Connett raised is really, the United States government, who is responsible for setting health care policy for the nation, should be looking at this."

Connett, professor emeritus of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York and author of the book "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep it There," flew into Austin for the day to argue against fluoridation. Arguably the leading authority on water fluoridation, Connett responded to every point made by his opponents by quoting peer-reviewed studies, as did his associate, dentist Griffin Cole, who runs a fluoride-free practice in Austin.

"My two opponents today didn't cite one primary study indicating safety -- not one study showing that fluoridation works," Connett said. "They really were not satisfactory answers. I think independent observers would find their case wanton."

Yarbrough and George instead relied heavily on endorsements of fluoride from public health organizations and anecdotal evidence.

"More than 100 national and international health, science, service, and professional organizations recognize and endorse the public health benefits of community water fluoridation," Yarbrough said. "Outside of that, as a practicing dentist in an area where the fluoride content of the water on the low end is .9 parts per million, I don't really need the benefit of science to know how effective fluoride in the water is. I see it every day at work when patients open their mouths."

Yarbrough later was dismissive of Connett's studies without backing up his claims and eschewed science in general in favor of an appeal to faith.

"They say these studies aren't validated. We say their studies aren't validated," Yarbrough said. "The studies their quoting out of China, Dr. Connett paid to have those studies translated and brought out of China and the modalities of those studies have been questioned, so it comes down to, who do you believe? Do you believe us? Do you believe them? Do you believe the gigglers in the audience?"

Laughter at the statement "Who do you believe?" was followed by a murmur of disapproval running through the audience of the mostly anti-fluoride Austin residents.

"It's not about who you believe. It's about the science," said one spectator.

Going against the recommendations of the public health organizations puts the burden of proof on the opposing side, according to Shade.

"The question that Yarbrough provided was "Who do you believe?" Shade said. "I think the majority of the community would say, if you're not going to take the recommendations of the CDC whose job it is to provide health care policy for municipalities across the country then you really have to be sure that we are going to do this."

The delicate fluoridation decision

Whether or not Austin will reverse fluoridation remains to be seen. There is no set date for future action. A change in Austin's fluoridation policy will require two councilmembers to put it on the agenda and four to vote it out.

"I'm just very nervous about making a change that goes against what the recommendations are for good public health policies from the people who are supposed to responsible for that in our nation," Shade said. "I mean it's risky."

But Lago Vista, a city less than 20 miles outside of Austin, reversed its decision to fluoridate in April 2011 without much fanfare, according to City Manager Bill Angelo.

"There were some concerns that it may not be as healthy as people once thought, and that people have other methods to get fluoride if they want it," Angelo said. "We also just realized that we didn't have the expertise to refute whether it was bad or good, so we felt the safest thing to do was remove it."

In the past few years, a handful of cities surrounding Austin that started fluoridating in the 1980's have ceased fluoridating their water supplies, including Lago Vista, Alamo Heights, Elgin and Marble Falls.

Elgin's city council voted 5-3 to take fluoride out of the water, citing reasons, including opposing putting a lead containing material in the water (http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert...), opposing forced medication on the public, an inadequate margin of safety and issues with the "additives" in the commercially produced product that is used for fluoridation (http://macsaferwater.wordpress.com/...).

"There was an ominous sign at the end [of the Austin meeting] about how risky it was bucking officialdom," Connett said. "We have these big agencies like the CDC telling them this is the best thing since sliced bread. But I think that all people that are in positions of power, have responsibility, and good leadership does require occasionally standing up against powerful forces when you have been convinced that those powerful forces are wrong."

And with the news that civil rights leaders speaking out against fluoride this past month have also been joined by Martin Luther King's daughter, Bernice, who went public with a denunciation of water fluoridation this week on Georgia's Praise 102.5 FM, Connett is hopeful about winning the fluoridation battle.

"What is happening in Atlanta is huge" Connett said. "We have known for a long time that blacks and Hispanics are more susceptible to dental fluorosis [which is the staining and pitting of teeth caused by ingesting fluoride]. But now that Andrew Young and Beatrice and other black leaders in Atlanta, right under the nose of the CDC, are coming out against this, I think the writing is on the wall."

Yarborough did not comment on the future of fluoridation from the pro-fluoride side and refused an interview with NaturalNews.

Sources for this article include:
http://austintx.swagit.com/player.p...
http://macsaferwater.wordpress.com/...
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert...
http://impactnews.com/southwest-aus...
http://conversations.blackvoices.co...

Read the original story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/032488_water_fluoridation_Austin.html#ixzz1NO1OdKrz

Peter Greenlaw’s Lecture - Toxicity in North America

A few months ago, I made my way to a presentation to hear Peter Greenlaw speak. Peter is ‘a researcher of researchers’, having dedicated the last 10 years of his life gathering and piecing together information on the effects of environmental toxicity on the human body.

If you’re into facts and stats – Peter is your guy. In 90 minutes, he seemed to share enough information to fill a 300 page book. And in fact, Peter has just co-authored a book with a medical doctor which is to be released some time in the next few months. After hearing him speak last week, I can hardly wait.

My head was absolutely spinning at the end of his lecture. There’s only so much the brain can absorb in 90 minutes. However – I did take some good notes, and I thought some of you might find this information to be interesting and informative.

The rest of this post is a summary of his lecture, with some of the stats and figures Peter shared.

Below is a brief clip from his lecture.

[viddler id=e4a2eb85&w=437&h=370]

So here it is – a detailed summary of Peter Greenlaw’s Lecture, ‘Toxicity in North America’.

The State Of Our Health

In 1930 less than 3000 in North America people died of heart disease. This year roughly 1,000,000 people will die of the same cause.

In the year 1990, 1/50 women got breast cancer. Today, it’s 1/8. Ten years from now, it is projected that 1/3 women will get breast cancer.

In the year 1990, 1/10,000 children were born with Autism. In 2010, it is 1/100 and 1/70 boys.

1/3 babies born today will develop diabetes in their lifetime.

What Kind of Air are we Breathing?

Peter explained that in a given space the ideal percentage of Oxygen should be 25%. He also noted that if this drops below 5%, we can’t survive. In big cities around North America such as Chicago, New York, Toronto and Los Angeles, the Oxygen levels are already dropping to as low as 17%. He told a brief story about a time when he was speaking in Hong Kong and on the day he was there, the Oxygen levels had dropped to 7%.

Peter’s Tip: The Breath of Fire

Stand up and start to take deep breathes through your nose. Begin slowly, and steadily increase the speed of the breathes over a 20 second period. On the last breath hold it for just a few seconds and release your air on the sound ‘Pahw’. According to Peter, if you do this just a couple of times per day (first thing in the morning, and right before you go to bed) it will have a significant impact on your health, and it fuel your body Oxygen.

He risked his life!

10 minutes into his lecture Peter held up a glass of water and announced, ‘I am about to risk my life right now, by drinking this tap water’. After sipping the water he explained that on average he had just consumed 700 chemicals. He shared that water treatment plants are now having to build screens in their systems to take out the plastic pill capsules moving through our water and that Gastroenterologists are finding pills in their colon cleanses. Not only have these pills not been digested and absorbed, but in many cases they can still read the labels.

And finally, Peter polled the room about the use of nutritional supplements. When 95% of the room raised their hands he responded, ‘Congratulations. Welcome to the world of expensive urine’.

His point was this: the biggest problem we have with drugs, supplements and food is absorption. In other words, how much is actually getting to where it needs to be? Through his research, he’s concluded that because we are so toxic, our ability to absorb nutrition is dropping significantly.

What is a Calorie?

The next topic was one we all love – diets. He asked the room to give him the definition of a Calorie. Nobody was able to.

He was kind enough to share the real definition: A Calorie is the amount of heat it takes to raise 1 gram of water, 1 degree centigrade.

Then, the message: “Do you understand that the body cannot count calories? It doesn’t know what they are! The only thing your body can measure and use is nutrition”. He explained that most of the calories we’re eating today look like a donut – they are empty. We’re eating and eating, but we’re never full because there’s no nutrition. “And the more bankrupt our food becomes, the more we eat, the bigger we get, the sicker we get, the more tired we get because we don’t have any fuel”.

Some quick facts about our food (in point form)

* Lettuce grown in the fall and winter months in Southern California or Arizona may contain higher levels of toxic rocket fuel than is considered safe by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
* If you eat a normal serving of fruits and vegetables on a daily basis in North America this year you will drink approximately 1 Gallon of Herbicides and Pesticides.
* Showing up in our fruits and vegetables and now showing up in mother’s breast milk – traces of of jet fuel
* Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein is a chemical made from junk vegetables that are unfit for sale and it is added to tons of the processed food we see in our grocery stores today
* The amount of HVP in a single bowl of commercially available soup is probably enough to cause blood glutamine levels to rise higher in a human child than levels that predictably cause brain damage in immature animals
* The food industry has substituted nutrition, with sugar

What’s going on with our soil?

I personally found this next point to be somewhat shocking. Peter picked up a report and read, “The leading authorities of the day would sound the alarm that depleted soils are causing a significant decline in the nation’s health, as evidenced by a steady increase of degenerative diseases. Most of us today are suffering from certain dangerous diet deficiencies which cannot be remedied until the depleted soils from which our foods come are brought into proper mineral balance.

The alarming facts that fruits, vegetables and grains now being raised on millions of acres of land no longer contain enough of certain needed minerals. They are starving us no matter how much of them we eat.

It is bad news to learn from leading authorities that 99% of American people are deficient in these minerals, and that a marked deficiency in any one of these important minerals actually results in disease”.

As if this wasn’t enough, after he read this Peter shared that this was from a report published in the year 1936!!

What effect is this having on us directly?

He read from a report recently published by the American Red Cross: ‘…the average baby tested an average of 287 contaminants in their umbilical chord blood. Of the 287, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 280 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests”.

Peter noted that today in North America we now have 100,000 chemicals in commercial use and that only 563 of these chemicals have been tested for their effect on humans. Furthermore, it is the chemical companies who do the testing.

Here are a few more stats he shared (again, in point form):

* In China, a 2001 study found that 85% of University students that were tested were completely infertile
* Among 8-year-old girls in the US, Britain and Australia, 1/6 have already entered puberty (Just a generation ago it was 1/100)
* Today, nearly 2 out of every 100 girls are showing signs of sexual development at just 3 years of age

When you come to his lecture there will be more information shared by Peter Greenlaw as well as a very informative question and answer period.