Almost half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivatives, according to an evaluation of those products released today.

AOL News also has learned through documents and interviews that the Food and Drug Administration has known of the potential danger for as long as a decade without alerting the public, which the FDA denies.

The study was released with Memorial Day weekend approaching. Store shelves throughout the country are already crammed with tubes, jars, bottles and spray cans of sunscreen.

The white goop, creams and ointments might prevent sunburn. But don't count on them to keep the ultraviolet light from destroying your skin cells and causing tumors and lesions, according to researchers at Environmental Working Group.

In their annual report to consumers on sunscreen, they say that only 39 of the 500 products they examined were considered safe and effective to use.

The report cites these problems with bogus sun protection factor (SPF) numbers:

* The use of the hormone-disrupting chemical oxybenzone, which penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream.
* Overstated claims about performance.
* The lack of needed regulations and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration.

But the most alarming disclosure in this year's report is the finding that vitamin A and its derivatives, retinol and retinyl palmitate, may speed up the cancer that sunscreen is used to prevent.

A dangerous additive
The industry includes vitamin A in its sunscreen formulations because it is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging.

But the EWG researchers found the initial findings of an FDA study of vitamin A's photocarcinogenic properties, meaning the possibility that it results in cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight.

"In that yearlong study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent faster in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream," the report said.

The conclusion came from EWG's analysis of initial findings released last fall by the FDA and the National Toxicology Program, the federal government's principle evaluator of substances that raise public health concerns.

EWG's conclusions were subsequently scrutinized by outside toxicologists.

Based on the strength of the findings by FDA's own scientists, many in the public health community say they can't believe nor understand why the agency hasn't already notified the public of the possible danger.

"There was enough evidence 10 years ago for FDA to caution consumers against the use of vitamin A in sunscreens," Jane Houlihan, EWG's senior vice president for research, told AOL News.

"FDA launched this one-year study, completed their research and now 10 years later, they say nothing about it, just silence."

On Friday, the FDA said the allegations are not true.

"We have thoroughly checked and are not aware of any studies," an FDA spokesperson told AOL News. She said she checked with bosses throughout the agency and found no one who knew of the vitamin A sunscreen research being done by or on behalf of the agency.

But documents from the FDA and the National Toxicology Program showed that the agency had done the research.

"Retinyl palmitate was selected by (FDA's) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for photo-toxicity and photocarcinogenicity testing based on the increasingly widespread use of this compound in cosmetic retail products for use on sun-exposed skin," said an October 2000 report by the National Toxicology Program.

FDA's own website said the animal studies were done at its National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Ark. And it was scientists from the FDA center and National Toxicology Program who posted the study data last fall.

In a perfect world
The ideal sunscreen would completely block the UV rays that cause sunburn, immune suppression and damaging free radicals. It would remain effective on the skin for several hours and not form harmful ingredients when degraded by UV light, the report said.
Graph of melanoma of the skin rates from 1975 to 2006.

But in the U.S., there is currently no sunscreen that meets all of these criteria. European countries have more chemical combinations to offer, but in the U.S. the major choice is between the "chemical" sunscreens, which have inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body's hormone systems, and "mineral" sunscreens zinc and titanium dioxide.

Increasingly, as AOL News reported in March, the industry is using titanium dioxide that is made nanosized, which a growing number of researchers believe have serious health implications.

The sunscreen industry cringes when EWG releases its yearly report -- this is its fourth. The industry charges that the advocacy group wants to do away with all sunscreen products, a claim that is not accurate.

The report's researchers clearly say that an effective sunscreen prevents more damage than it causes, but it wants consumers to have accurate information on the limitations of what they buy and on the potentially harmful chemicals in some of those products.

EWG does warn consumers not to depend on any sunscreen for primary protection from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. Hats, clothing and shade are still the most reliable sun protection available, they say.

Don't count on the numbers
Some of us are old enough to remember when the idea of having a tan was good, a sign of health, when billboards and magazine ads featured the Coppertone girl showing off her tan when a puppy pulls down her bathing suit bottom.

Going for that tan, we coated our kids and ourselves with sun blockers with sun protection factors of 1 or 2. Some overly cautious parents might have smeared on a 4 during the hottest part of a day.

But we've learned of the dangers that come from exposure to the sun's rays, especially ultraviolet A and B. So today, drugstore shelves are crammed with sunscreens boasting SPFs of 30, 45, 80 or even higher.

However, the new report says those numbers are often meaningless and dangerous because products with high SPF ratings sell a false sense of security, encouraging people using them to stay out in the sun longer.

"People don't get the high SPF they pay for," the report says. "People apply about a quarter of the recommended amount. So in everyday practice, a product labeled SPF 100 really performs like SPF 3.2, an SPF 30 rating equates to a 2.3 and an SPF 15 translates to 2."

In 2007, the report says, the FDA published proposed regulations that would prohibit manufacturers from labeling sunscreens with an SPF higher than "SPF 50." The agency wrote that higher values would be "inherently misleading," given that "there is no assurance that the specific values themselves are in fact truthful."

This is being widely ignored by the sunscreen makers who are heavily advertising their 80, 90 and 100 SPF products.

"Flouting FDA's proposed regulation," companies substantially increased their high-SPF offerings in 2010 with one in six brands now listing SPF values higher than 50. "Neutrogena and Banana Boat stand out among the offenders, with six and four products labeled as 'SPF 100,' respectively," the new report says.

The full list of the best and worst sunscreens can be found on the EWG's searchable database.

Full article

One Denver mom says she has found the answer to helping her kids fight allergies and colds.  Erika Roberg takes her three children to a chiropractor once a week.

Her oldest son, 4-year-old Caleb started seeing Dr. Greg Mortimer of Englewood just days after he was born. Roberg says the adjustments have worked.  "If he gets a cold, it is over in hours, not days," she said.

Her 2-year-old son, Andrew needs the most help. He has severe allergies and asthma and often needs oxygen to function and feel good.

"I can bring Andrew here in an acute allergy attack. Before we leave, he is about 80 percent better. He can breathe easier. His mood is generally better. His eyes are usually less puffy. The redness will be mostly gone. And then, by the end of the evening, if he's on oxygen, I can get him off oxygen. He's just better."

So is chiropractic care the answer to allergy problems?

"Chiropractic does not treat those allergies," Dr. Greg Mortimer of FSP Wellness Center (www.fspwellness.com), said.  "What we do is open those little vertebras where the nerves go to the lungs and allow Andrew to breathe easier. Over time, his body will get strong enough where his body may outgrow his allergies."

"It is the same with an adult," Mortimer adds. "We are in allergy season right now... itchy eyes, irritated sinuses, the wheezing from the blooming and the pollen. I can help with the symptom of the allergy. I can help the sinuses and lungs open up and help the body become stronger on the immune system level. Some people will need medical intervention. I am not against that at all. But, if we can create less sick people in our system, we will have an answer to our health care crisis right now."

Mortimer says when it comes to working on children, the adjustments are light and require no more pressure than what one would use to test the ripeness of a tomato.

Caleb and Andrew are not the only patients in the Roberg family.  Seven-week-old Gavi who was born premature had her first adjustment on her second day.

"We saw an immediate improvement. She had free range of motion in her neck after that. She was able to recuperate and grow quicker because she didn't have the locked up neck."

Roberg says Gavi's doctors were able to discharge her from the hospital sooner than they thought because she did so well for a preemie. Roberg credits the chiropractic adjustments.

For most parents, chiropractic care for their children is not something that's not on their radar. Roberg says it is a tremendous asset for her family.

"My kids love it. They will say when they need an adjustment and they're always right. They always have a misalignment when we get here," she said.

She says the stretching and light manipulations are relaxing and comforting to them.

See the video clip

Families, schools, food industry key to curbing childhood obesity

At Orange County High, the sugar rush begins barely an hour and a half into the school day — at 9:30 am.

As students dart through the hallways between classes, a crowd builds at a popular meeting place. It’s a food cart loaded with cookies, candy bars and other sugary treats.

Business is brisk. But do kids really need a Kit Kat bar at 9:30 a.m.?

“Maybe not a Kit Kat bar,” said Gene Kotulka, the school’s principal. “But we have other breakfast items on there, because we have some kids that don't eat breakfast.”

Kotulka is unapologetic about the cart’s offerings. He says it brings in $400 to $500 a week — extra cash that pays for after-school sports programs at a time when the budget is tight.

Still, it’s not the kind of breakfast he’d want for his kids.

“But that's my job as a parent to educate my kids,” he said. “And hopefully they'll make good choices.”

The kinds of food kids are eating these days is getting more scrutiny than ever as obesity rates among children have tripled from a generation ago.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in three children in America is either obese or overweight. That puts them at risk at some point in their lives of developing Type-II diabetes, a disease that — until now — affected mostly middle-aged adults.

Even more alarming is a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that concluded this could be the first generation to have a shorter lifespan than their parents.

‘Do or die’ moment
Doreese Licari is a 10th-grader at Arlington Catholic High School outside of Boston. At 15, she weighs about 250 pounds and has been overweight for most of her young life. Just a few months before we met her, she learned she has a good chance of developing diabetes.

Debating whether marketing high-fat foods and sugary snacks to children is actually contributing to childhood obesity, with Jennifer Pomeranz, Yale Rud Center Legal Initiative director, and Justin Wilson, Center for Consumer Freedom.

“It was extremely scary,” she said. “I've never had to experience anything like that before. My mom saw me crying because I was so scared. I was almost lost.”

Doreese called it her “do or die” moment — a phrase that may be more apt than she realizes.

“An overweight or obese child who develops Type-II diabetes by age 15 may be looking at renal failure, a heart attack, or severe neurological damage before the 30th birthday,” said Dr. David Ludwig, who leads a weight-loss program at Boston Children’s Hospital, where Doreese and her family turned for help.

“Because of the obesity epidemic, we may be looking at heart attack as becoming a pediatric disease,” he said.

Doreese’s mother, Charlene Deveney, as a single parent who sometimes works seven days a week holding down two jobs, often didn’t have enough time — or money — to put nutritious meals on the table. She says she regrets she didn’t see the warning signs of her daughter’s diabetes earlier.

“I felt like it was my fault,” she said. “Because I thought I should have been more on top of things that she was eating.”

Doreese has some regrets of her own, too.

To read more click here

Why did the Russians Ban an Appliance Found in 90% of American Homes?

By now, you probably know that what you eat has a profound impact on your health. The mantra, “You are what you eat” is really true.

But you need to consider not only WHAT you buy, but how you cook it.

Eating most of your food raw is ideal. But most of us are not going to be able to accomplish a completely raw diet, and we’ll end up cooking some percentage of our food.

Smart food preparation starts with high quality foods and food preparation and that means saying sayonara to your microwave oven. Need to sterilize a dishcloth? Use your microwave. But zapping your casserole is a BAD idea if you are interested in preparing healthy food.

Why the no nukes policy?

When it comes to microwave ovens, the price for convenience is to compromise your health. In this article, I will review what we know about the effects microwaves on your food and on your body.

Sad State of Our Soils

Over the past century, the quality of fresh food has declined due to soil depletion, unsustainable farming practices, overproduction of crops, and the use of pesticides and herbicides. You can no longer assume you’re getting all of the vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and phytonutrients you need by eating a multitude of fresh produce—even if you’re eating organically.

Not surprisingly, a calorie today will provide you less nutrition than a calorie from 100, or even 50 years ago.

Three recent studies of historical food composition have shown 5 to 40 percent declines in some of the minerals in fresh produce, and another study found a similar decline in our protein sources.[1]

So now, more than ever, you must be careful to maximize the “bang for your buck” when it comes to the foods you eat.

Research shows that your microwave oven will NOT help you in these efforts—and in fact will threaten your health by violently ripping the molecules in your food apart, rendering some nutrients inert, at best, and carcinogenic at its worst.

Convenience Comes at Significant Toxic Threat to You and Your Family

Microwaves heat food by causing water molecules in it to resonate at very high frequencies and eventually turn to steam which heats your food. While this can rapidly heat your food, what most people fail to realize is that it also causes a change in your food’s chemical structure.

There are numerous issues that have emerged since microwave ovens were first introduced to consumers more than 40 years ago, besides depleting your food’s nutritional value, which will be addressed a bit later.

The first thing you probably noticed when you began microwaving food was how uneven the heating is.

“Hot spots” in microwaved food can be hot enough to cause burns—or build up to a “steam explosion.” This has resulted in admonitions to new mothers about NOT using the microwave to heat up baby bottles, since babies have been burned by super-heated formula that went undetected.

Another problem with microwave ovens is that carcinogenic toxins can leach out of your plastic and paper containers/covers, and into your food.

The January/February 1990 issue of Nutrition Action Newsletter reported the leakage of numerous toxic chemicals from the packaging of common microwavable foods, including pizzas, chips and popcorn. Chemicals included polyethylene terpthalate (PET), benzene, toluene, and xylene. Microwaving fatty foods in plastic containers leads to the release of dioxins (known carcinogens) and other toxins into your food. [8] [2]

One of the worst contaminants is BPA, or bisphenol A, an estrogen-like compound used widely in plastic products. In fact, dishes made specifically for the microwave often contain BPA, but many other plastic products contain it as well.

Microwaving distorts and deforms the molecules of whatever food or other substance you subject to it. An example of this is blood products.

Blood is normally warmed before being transfused into a person. Now we know that microwaving blood products damages the blood components. In fact, one woman died after receiving a transfusion of microwaved blood in 1991 , which resulted in a well-publicized lawsuit.

To read full Mercola article click here

A new analysis of U.S. health data links children's attention-deficit disorder with exposure to common pesticides used on fruits and vegetables.

While the study couldn't prove that pesticides used in agriculture contribute to childhood learning problems, experts said the research is persuasive.

"I would take it quite seriously," said Virginia Rauh of Columbia University, who has studied prenatal exposure to pesticides and wasn't involved in the new study.

More research will be needed to confirm the tie, she said.

Children may be especially prone to the health risks of pesticides because they're still growing and they may consume more pesticide residue than adults relative to their body weight.

In the body, pesticides break down into compounds that can be measured in urine. Almost universally, the study found detectable levels: The compounds turned up in the urine of 94 percent of the children.

The kids with higher levels had increased chances of having ADHD, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, a common problem that causes students to have trouble in school. The findings were published Monday in Pediatrics.

The children may have eaten food treated with pesticides, breathed it in the air or swallowed it in their drinking water. The study didn't determine how they were exposed. Experts said it's likely children who don't live near farms are exposed through what they eat.

"Exposure is practically ubiquitous. We're all exposed," said lead author Maryse Bouchard of the University of Montreal.

She said people can limit their exposure by eating organic produce. Frozen blueberries, strawberries and celery had more pesticide residue than other foods in one government report.

A 2008 Emory University study found that in children who switched to organically grown fruits and vegetables, urine levels of pesticide compounds dropped to undetectable or close to undetectable levels.

Because of known dangers of pesticides in humans, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency limits how much residue can stay on food. But the new study shows it's possible even tiny, allowable amounts of pesticide may affect brain chemistry, Rauh said.

The exact causes behind the children's reported ADHD though are unclear. Any number of factors could have caused the symptoms and the link with pesticides could be by chance.

The new findings are based on one-time urine samples in 1,139 children and interviews with their parents to determine which children had ADHD. The children, ages 8 to 15, took part in a government health survey in 2000-2004.

As reported by their parents, about 150 children in the study either showed the severe inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity characteristic of ADHD, or were taking drugs to treat it.

The study dealt with one common type of pesticide called organophosphates. Levels of six pesticide compounds were measured. For the most frequent compound detected, 20 percent of the children with above-average levels had ADHD. In children with no detectable amount in their urine, 10 percent had ADHD.

"This is a well conducted study," said Dr. Lynn Goldman of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a former EPA administrator.

Relying on one urine sample for each child, instead of multiple samples over time, wasn't ideal, Goldman said.

The study provides more evidence that the government should encourage farmers to switch to organic methods, said Margaret Reeves, senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network, an advocacy group that's been working to end the use of many pesticides.

"It's unpardonable to allow this exposure to continue," Reeves said.

See Yahoo article