Sunscreen Toxins Absorb Into Skin – FDA Regulations Are Being Updated

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in the process of updating its sunscreen regulation requirements. A small study funded by the agency has discovered that the active ingredients in sunscreen get absorbed into the bloodstream. Regulations for these ingredients haven’t changed since the 1970s, and the FDA is now asking for more information regarding 12 of the most commonly used active ingredients in sunscreen, like oxybenzone, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, homosalate, and avobenzone. These ingredients are also absorbed into the bloodstream within hours and remain in levels that exceed the generally regarded as safe levels set by the FDA. Theresa Michele, director of the FDA’s division of nonprescription drug products and coauthor on the FDA-funded study, says

Everyone had always thought that because these are intended to work on the surface of the skin that they wouldn’t be absorbed, but they are…”

As of yet, only two of the active sunscreen ingredients studied recently by the FDA have been deemed safe, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

Editors Note: There are problems with zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as well.

The shocking truth is the fact that both petrochemical sunscreens (avobenzone, methoxycinnamate, padimate-o and the like) and physical sunblocks (chemically-reacted synthetics titanium dioxide and zinc oxide) are not natural and have been found to generate free radicals when exposed to sunlight, which then can attack the nuclei of your skin cells and cause mutations. That’s right, they can cause skin cancer. Furthermore, sunscreen chemicals have been found to pass through the skin and mimic the effects of estrogen, which may disrupt the delicate balance of the body’s natural hormones.

Sunscreen Dangers

Actively Harming Ingredients…?

The most recent sunscreen study focused on proving how feasible a sunscreen use trial would be and gathering information on frequently seen active ingredients. Researchers used four different types of sunscreen formulations (two sprays, a lotion, and a cream) to test exposure levels of four different chemicals – avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, and ecamsule. All four of the chemicals registered significant exposure levels, and avobenzone, oxybenzone, and octocrylene reached those levels within the first six hours of application. Those elevated exposure levels also took at least 24 hours to decrease, with octocrylene concentrations taking the longest amount of time to decrease (84 hours).

Recommended: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

There is not enough information about these chemicals, although what we do know is concerning. Some active sunscreen ingredients like oxybenzone and avobenzone have been identified as endocrine disruptors. These chemicals also degrade when exposed to the sun, releasing free radicals and increasing skin cancer risks. It doesn’t help that many of these ingredients find their way into breast milk, amniotic fluid, and urine in addition to the bloodstream.

But We Need the D

Sunscreen can also impede the body’s ability to absorb vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiencies are no joke. A lack of the vitamin can result in fatigue, back pain, hair loss, and depression, among other things. This deficiency is widespread, even among populations with constant access to sunlight and it has been declared a pandemic by health organizations for over a decade. A study from 2010 counted over a billion people worldwide with insufficient vitamin D levels. As of last year, 42 percent of Americans were not getting enough vitamin D.

While it’s possible to get vitamin D from diet, the best source is the sun. But sunscreen interrupts that absorption, making the product doubly problematic. It disrupts the intake of an essential nutrient while replacing it with improperly tested and potentially toxic chemicals.

There are two types of skin cancer. There’s what’s called non-melanoma skin cancer and there is no question that excessive exposure to sunlight and sunburns will damage the DNA and induce skin cells to become cancerous. That is non-melanoma squamous and basal cell cancers. They are typically easy to detect, easy to treat. They’re not lethal, for the most part.”

Dr. Michael Holick, homemade sunscreen article

Related: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

A New Vision

Wear sunscreen has become a mantra. Professionals in the health and beauty sectors tout the benefits of the product left and right. There’s even a song about it! But none of that well-meaning advice addresses the possibility that sunscreen could be more harmful than previously thought. Ideally, new regulations will do something to bring those dangers to attention.

Sources:

Roundup Lawsuit Results in a $2 Billion Loss for Bayer

The hits keep coming for pharmaceutical giant Bayer and their popular herbicide Roundup as a California jury awards two plaintiffs $2.055 billion dollars in damages. The verdict came in the case of Alva and Alberta Pilliod of Livermore, Calif., who say that three decades of exposure to Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are the cause of their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Each plaintiff received $1 billion in punitive damages and an additional 55 million in collective compensatory damages. Bayer refuted the jury’s findings in a statement released on Monday,

Bayer is disappointed with the jury’s decision and will appeal the verdict in this case, which conflicts directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim registration review decision released just last month, the consensus among leading health regulators worldwide that glyphosate-based products can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and the 40 years of extensive scientific research on which their favorable conclusions are based.”

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

Not the Only One

This is not the first successful verdict against Roundup within the last year, all of them occurring in California. The first judgment was reported in August of 2018, where judges awarded $289 million in damages (later reduced to $78 million). The second happened in March of this year, where a San Francisco jury found in favor of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman to the tune of $80 million in damages.

California Dreaming

In every statement following the verdicts against them, Bayer has cited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) classification of glyphosate as non-carcinogenic. Until recently, that was powerful evidence for the pharmaceutical corporation. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer listed glyphosate as cancer-causing. There were strenuous objections from then Monsanto and the EPA, but emails released in an early 2017 lawsuit suggested that prominent employees at the government agency had suppressed research unfavorable to glyphosate. The State of California recognized glyphosate as carcinogenic in July 2017. Since then, lawsuits against the herbicide have gained increasingly more traction.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

Money on the Mind

Three juries have found in favor of plaintiffs vs. Bayer, and there are anywhere from 4,000 to 11,000 lawsuits pending. It remains to be seen if spending large quantities of money on court cases will be enough for Bayer to pivot to a different product or begin to take responsibility for their product. Monsanto made $1.9 billion in gross revenue from herbicide products in 2015. The current bill for Roundup cases is $2.213 billion dollars. Is it enough?

Sources:

New Zealand Manuka Honey Producer Pleads Guilty To Adding Chemicals

A New Zealand company pled guilty to charges of adding artificial chemicals to their Manuka honey in order to charge a higher price for it.

New Zealand Food and Safety filed a lawsuit in 2016 against Evergreen Life Ltd after the company recalled 18 of its products. Everything recalled consisted of or contained Manuka honey, and the recall suggested the company had been adding dihydroxyacetone and methylglyoxal to their products.

Related: Healthy Sugar Alternatives & More

DHA and MGO

Both of these substances are crucial to the antimicrobial activity that is so highly prized in Manuka honey. Dihydroxyacetone (DHA) is found in the nectar of Manuka tree flowers, and it converts to methylglyoxal (MGO). The higher the levels of MGO are, the more potent the antimicrobial activity in the honey is. This translates to a more expensive product. While these chemicals naturally occur in Manuka honey, Evergreen Life Ltd has pled guilty to adding artificial DHA (often found in tanning lotions) to their products.

Supply and Demand

Manuka is a highly sought after medicinal product. But is there enough honey to meet the demand? Probably not.

In a 2014 article, the Independent reported that people in the U.K. consumed 1,800 tonnes of Manuka honey. That total is significantly less than the 10,000 tonnes consumed worldwide, but U.K. consumption was still greater than the reported amount of authentic Manuka honey produced: 1,700 tonnes. That math means that the majority of all Manuka honey sold is not genuine.

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut

The organization behind those numbers, the Unique Manuka Factor Honey Administration Factor (UMFHA), has since introduced a Unique Manuka Factor (UMF) certification for Manuka honey. The grading system has been called into question, as the UMFHA is a paid membership trade association. There is also the MGO developed by professor Thomas Henle and used primarily by New Zealand based company Manuka Health. The KFactor grading system has been developed by the Wedderspoon company. These are not independent rating systems, and until recently that didn’t even matter. The New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) only introduced the science-based definition of Manuka honey in 2018, leaving companies free to choose their own authentication methods prior to that decision.

Regulation and Reality

This is the service that government food and regulatory agencies are designed for. Often, the alternative health world has with stories of the USDA and FDA’s incompetence, but those agencies are responsible for food recalls and the reason we have labels on our food in the first place. The biggest problems with these agencies arise when they become bought and paid for, putting corporate profits and big business over the public, or when the agency is unable to keep up with the market. For instance, the U.S. regulating agencies still see no problems with Roundup – despite much evidence to the contrary.

Research is the reality of being a consumer in today’s world. We spend hours looking for the best possible product and hours looking into where it’s from and the history of the manufacturer. Yet today’s world has also gifted us that opportunity. You used to have to take their word for it.

Sources:

The Sugar Rush Isn’t Real

A new study has found that a “sugar rush” is not a real thing. In fact, your levels of fatigue after the consumption of carbohydrates increase within 30 minutes.

Researchers in the U.K. and Germany examined results from 31 different studies encompassing nearly 1300 adults and found that those who consumed carbohydrates experienced no positive mood changes. In comparison with those who were given a placebo, the carbohydrate consumers reported lower levels of alertness within 60 minutes of ingestion.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

Not A Real Boy

Not only is the sugar rush not real, but there is evidence that regular sugar consumption can lead to higher incidences of depression and anxiety.

A long-term study of 8,000 British civil servants found that men who ate 67 grams or more of sugar daily in a five-year period were 23% more likely to be diagnosed with depression than men who ate 40 grams or less. None of these men had mental health issues before the study began, and the effect sugar had on their mental health remained even after researchers filtered out other possible causes of depression.

Sugar definitely doesn’t help with anxiety. Some of the physical side effects of sugar like blurry vision, difficulty thinking, and fatigue even mimic the signs of a panic attack. Your body is less able to deal with stress. An overactive serotonin system has been linked to social anxiety disorder, and sugar is a well-known serotonin booster. Rat studies have linked sugar consumption to anxiety as well.

Related: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

Reexamining Common Myths

People have more access to information than ever before. There’s an increased interest in knowing how our health works. With that, some of the most commonly held beliefs have been or need to be reexamined. We’ve all heard of the “sugar rush.” It’s not real, and you’re more likely looking at a long-term sugar crash.

Sources:

Gene-Edited Oil is Being Used in Restaurants

The CEO of agriculture company Calyxt has confirmed that their gene-edited soybean oil is currently at use at locations in the Midwest. Although he was unable to name the locations using the product for competitive reasons, this marks the first appearance of a gene-edited food in restaurants. Unlike GMOs, gene-edited plants do not contain genetic material. The editing is applied only to the plant’s own DNA, altering or adding already present traits. The soybean oil now being used in restaurants has been edited to have a longer shelf life and contain no trans fats.

No Label, No Warning, No Problem…?

As a consumer, the arrival of gene-edited foods leaves something to be desired. For one thing, the company isn’t releasing where these oils are being used. For those who are concious of what they’re eating, that’s an issue.

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

Gene-edited foods are also exempt from labeling. Since the changes to the plant could potentially happen through traditional breeding methods, the U.S. regulatory agencies does not consider the product to be genetically engineered. Compnaies are not required to report anything to the Food and Drug Administration, although they can request an evaluation. has Calyxt?

This attitude contrasts with the European Union’s take on gene-edited foods. Last year, the Court of Justice in the European Union ruled that gene-edited crops will be subjected to the same regulations as GMOs. There is language allowing for exemptions, but those have conditions, according to the court. Only plants that have “conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are exempt from those obligations.” This is a much more decisive stance than that of the U.S. government, which is exercising little to no oversight.

Market Players

Depending on the poll, the percentage of American people in favor of GMO labeling is anywhere from 89 to 96. The number of countries banning or heavily regulating those products is growing. What we think of when we think genetically modified food is becoming more expensive to bring to market and there is much less demand for it. Major companies are looking for another advantage, and genetically engineered plants allow them to use many of the same resources at their disposal with fewer regulatory hassles and less consumer knowledge.

Related: Best Cooking Oils – Health benefits, Smoke Point, Which to Use and Avoid

Calyxt is the first company to get gene-edited crops into restaurants, but it will not be the last. Syngenta, an agribusiness giant and producer of GM seeds, has plans to have genetically engineered products on the market in the next decade. The ChemChina owned corporation is also planning to expand into tomatoes, rice, and sunflowers. Arcadia Biosciences, another biotech firm based in Davis, CA, is also developing genetically engineered foods. Bayer (formerly Monsanto) is also getting into action, partnering with Pairwise, a gene-editing company based in North Carolina.

Business Friendly

The U.S. government has not tried to check the speed at which companies have been able to develop and implement genetically engineered foods. Once again, they are choosing big business over truly examining a new food technology with the potential to seriously damage our health and the environment.

Sources:

Hospital Linens Are Testing Positive For Mold

A study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases examined freshly- laundered hospital linens, and found that more than 10 percent of sheets received by a fifth of hospitals studied tested positive for Mucorales, a fungus responsible for potentially serious infections. Cases of healthcare-associated mucormycosis, the infection associated with Mucorales, have been on the rise for the past decade. Previously, scientists have suggested that contaminated medical devices could be a reason for this, but researchers from the University of Pittsburgh have identified hospital linens as another cause of the infection. The study shows that forty-seven percent of frshly delivered healthcare linenes in the hospitals studied contained Mucorales upon arrival.

Cleaning Hospital Linens

Healthcare is a business, and cutting costs is one of the ways a business makes money. In the modern age, that has translated to outsourcing hospital laundry, as the hospital is no longer obligated to pay for the equipment, energy, and manpower needed to wash their linen. Much of the process is now automated.

This automation isn’t necessarily a bad thing, especially if there’s a way to push for more environmentally friendly laundry practices. Still, this study shows there is cause for concern regarding the outsourcing of washing linens.

Recommended: Everything You Need To Know About Fungal Infections

Why Hospitals Breed Pathogens

While the washing of the linens no longer happens in hospitals, it can’t be denied that healthcare facilities are excellent breeding grounds for bacteria and fungus that cause potentially dangerous infections. Hospitals are where people who are dealing with these infections go. It makes sense that those pathogens will be present.

Modern medicine, in particular antibiotics, compounds the issue though. Antibiotics are designed to destroy all of the bacteria in the gut. While this can eliminate the present infection, it also kills the beneficial bacteria that balance the microbiome. There are also pathogens that antibiotics don’t eliminate. Those pathogens grow stronger in the microbiome vacuum created by the antibiotics. In a hospital setting, you don’t even need to take antibiotic yourself to experience these effects. A study from 2016 found that patients were more likely to develop a C.diff (a notoriously hospital-friendly pathogen) infection if the previous occupant of their hospital room or bed was given antibiotics.

Risky Business

People in hospitals are constantly exposed to infection. A frequent source of exposure is improperly cleaned medical devices, but this study adds another culprit into the mix, the linens. We can all agree that we need to limit our exposure to certain microbes, but indiscriminately killing them all leaves us with no natural defenses. Are the number of fungal infections up because there is more dangerous fungus out there? Or is it because we are increasingly ill-equipped to deal with them?

Sources:

Glyphosate Discovered in Popular Beer and Wine

Glyphosate can be found in almost everything we eat, and a new study released by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group has confirmed that the herbicide is also in what we’re drinking. In a look at 20 popular beers and wines, the study confirmed that 19 of the 20 beverages reviewed contained glyphosate residue. The beverage that showed the highest levels of glyphosate was Sutter Home Merlot, with a concentration of 51.4 parts per billion (ppb). Bayer toxicologist William Reeves said via a spokesperson,

The reality is that regulatory authorities have strict rules when it comes to pesticide residues…The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets daily exposure limits at least 100 times below levels shown to have no negative effect in safety studies.”

CBS News

He goes on to say,

Assuming the greatest value reported, 51.4 ppb, is correct, a 125-pound adult would have to consume 308 gallons of wine per day, every day for life to reach the US Environmental Protection Agency’s glyphosate exposure limit for humans. To put 308 gallons into context, that would be more than a bottle of wine every minute, for life, without sleeping.”

An Incomplete Picture

At 51.4 ppb, the Sutter Home Merlot is well below what the EPA considers to be a safe level of glyphosate.

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

Wines

Sutter Home Merlot: 51.4 ppb
Beringer Founders Estates Moscato: 42.6 ppb
Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon: 36.3 ppb
Inkarri Malbec, Certified Organic: 5.3 ppb
Frey Organic Natural White: 4.8 ppb

Beers

Tsingtao Beer: 49.7 ppb
Coors Light: 31.1 ppb
Miller Lite: 29.8 ppb
Budweiser: 27.0 ppb
Corona Extra: 25.1 ppb
Heineken: 20.9 ppb
Guinness Draught: 20.3 ppb
Stella Artois: 18.7 ppb
Ace Perry Hard Cider: 14.5 ppb
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale: 11.8 ppb
New Belgium Fat Tire Amber Ale: 11.2 ppb
Sam Adams New England IPA: 11.0 ppb
Stella Artois Cidre: 9.1 ppb
Samuel Smith’s Organic Lager: 5.7 ppb
Peak Beer Organic IPA: N/A

That doesn’t mean it’s safe, though.

Mr. Reeves, the toxicologist for Bayer, mentions that the EPA’s limits are at least 100 times below levels examined in safety studies. Yet that agency allows much higher concentrations of glyphosate than other safety regulators. The regulations set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) are much more severe. According to the EPA, a daily dose of 2 mg of glyphosate per kg of body weight should cause no ill effects. OEHHA’s safe daily level recommendations are 1,100 micrograms. OEHHA’s levels are nearly half of those put forth by the EPA.

Related: Microplastics In Tap Water and Beer Around the Great Lakes, and Everywhere Else

Causing Cancer

California has classified glyphosate as a carcinogen since 2017. The World Health Organization (WHO) was even earlier in linking the herbicide and cancer when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a statement labeling glyphosate “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The EPA has resisted that label for years. In fact, evidence in the recent verdict against Monsanto for 289 million dollars contained correspondence between the agro-giant and a high ranking EPA official promising to derail a glyphosate safety study.

The recent verdict against Monsanto (now Bayer) is only the first of more than 5000 lawsuits awaiting the company. Advertisements seeking participants for class-action lawsuits against Round-up are now commonplace on mainstream television. But it’s hard to believe we can come back from this without some serious change. Ninety-five percent of the drinks examined for this study had glyphosate residue. Glyphosate is showing in food, water, feminine hygiene products…the herbicide is everywhere.

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut

What’s Your Damage?

Finding glyphosate in beer and wine has consequences beyond how much you’re drinking. Though the herbicide is often found in organic products studies have found that people who consume greater amounts of organic food are less likely to develop cancer. On the flip side, Napa County, the heart of California wine country and an area with unusually high pesticide use, boasts the highest rates of childhood cancer. Perhaps the amount of glyphosate measured in these beverages is well below the recommended limit for consumptions, but that ignores the enviromental and health impacts of applying the pesticide in the first place.