Phthalates are plasticizers that stabilize scent in perfume and color in cosmetics; they also keep nail polish from chipping. You won’t find them listed on most labels, though they can be present in almost every conceivable personal-care item hidden in the ingredient “fragrance.” (Company formulas are legally protected as proprietary information.) Multiple studies have linked phthalates to depression of normal thyroid function and birth defects, mostly affecting the genital development of young boys and sperm counts in adult men.

Two kinds of phthalates commonly found in cosmetics were banned in the EU with its recent cosmetic safety directive, forcing international companies to reformulate their products for the European market. A number of nail polish manufacturers have removed the “toxic trio” — dibutyl phthalate, toluene (a solvent and neurotoxin) and formaldehyde — from their nail polish formulas. Still, it’s smart to view nail polish and products with caution, especially if you’re pregnant. Water-based polishes are the most benign option.

Nanoparticles consist of ultra-tiny particles of common ingredients and are used in everything from sports clothing to car tires. They’re often found in sunscreen, to make it transparent instead of white, and in anti-aging products to help them penetrate deeper skin layers; they can be listed on labels as “microfine particles.” These “penetration enhancers” are worrisome in the company of phthalates and parabens. And, because they’re a new and quite powerful technology, environmental-health experts are also concerned about their impact on the environment once they’re washed into rivers and lakes. While the particles alone have not been implicated in health issues, many experts recommend waiting to use them until more studies have been completed.

Sodium Lauryl/Laureth Sulfate (SLS) is a synthetic detergent and foaming agent connected to skin and eye irritation. It’s also linked to the byproduct 1-4 dioxane, a suspected carcinogenic contaminant produced by the ethoxylation process, used to make some ingredients less harsh. (Sodium lauryl sulfate is converted to sodium laureth sulfate, for example.) Ethoxylation is one reason why so many “gentler” products — those with a natural slant or made especially for kids — have turned up surprisingly high levels of toxins.

According to researchers at the Organic Consumers Association, who conducted tests for 1-4 dioxane on hundreds of products from 16 major brands in 2008, only 23 products were found to be free of 1-4 dioxane contamination. Many companies have quit using ethoxylated ingredients like sodium lauryl sulfate to avoid 1-4 dioxane contamination as well as allergic reactions, and the standard for the Whole Foods Premium Body Care Seal doesn’t allow it. Look for “-eth” at the end of other ingredient names to detect this process.

Synthetic fragrances can contain as many as 200 ingredients that manufacturers are not required to disclose. A common allergen, “fragrance” on an ingredient label is a reliable indicator that the product contains phthalates, unless it’s clearly indicated that the fragrance contains no synthetics. Higher-potency fragrances are the likeliest suspects for high concentrations of phthalates. Sophie Uliano, natural-beauty expert and author of Gorgeously Green: 8 Simple Steps to an Earth-Friendly Life (HarperCollins, 2008), points out that “fragrance-free” or “unscented” products aren’t always a dependable alternative, since manufacturers sometimes use masking fragrances in place of identifiable scents. Look for products that explicitly say “no synthetic fragrances” or “natural essential oil fragrance only,” or try to buy from companies that have signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics.

Diethanolamine (DEA) and Triethanolamine (TEA) are emulsifiers and foaming agents typically found in shampoo and body wash. They can produce allergic reaction as well as, ironically enough, hair and skin dryness. They belong to the category of “nitrosamines” that Uliano cautions against, which studies have shown can be carcinogenic.

Diazolidinyl and Imidazolidinyl Urea are frequently used synthetic preservatives that can cause contact dermatitis and are suspected formaldehyde releasers. They appear in sunscreen, lotion, shampoo — the same places you’ll find parabens.

The number of personal-care ingredients with unknown or suspected health effects is quite long; you can find a comprehensive list at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com.

Source for Story:

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/7-ingredients-to-ban-from-your-bathroom.html#ixzz1jkd3mUyw

said Ishwarlal Jialal, UC Davis professor of endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism and senior author of the article, “Adipose Tissue Dysregulation in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome,” published online today in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. “We have shown that the dysfunction in the fat of people with metabolic syndrome is more than can be explained by obesity. It tells us that metabolic syndrome is a high-risk condition for people who are obese.”

While previous studies using circulating blood have found some of these biomarkers in people with metabolic syndrome, the current study is the first to pinpoint fat as a contributing source of these markers. The study is also unique in that it involved patients newly diagnosed with metabolic syndrome who had not yet developed diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Researchers compared fat from study subjects to fat from people who were also obese, but did not have metabolic syndrome.

“This drives home the point that clearly metabolic syndrome is high-risk for obesity and needs to be treated seriously,” said Jialal, who directs the UC Davis Laboratory for Atherosclerosis and Metabolic Research.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 35 percent of American adults have metabolic syndrome, and its prevalence is increasing even in children and young adults globally. It doubles a person’s chances of developing cardiovascular disease — which can lead to heart attack or stroke — and is at least five times the risk for developing diabetes.

“This is the plague of our time,” said Jialal, who is also the editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journal Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders.

In the current study, biopsies were performed to remove subcutaneous adipose tissue, which accounts for about 80 percent of body fat, from the buttocks of 70 patients: 39 newly diagnosed with metabolic syndrome and 26 who were obese. Researchers also took standard measurements, such as fasting glucose and blood pressure, waist circumference and body mass index (BMI). Glucose measurements were used to estimate insulin resistance, and both waist size and BMI were used in the statistical analysis to match test subjects with their control counterparts.

Jialal and his collaborators then measured 11 biomarkers for diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as counting the number of macrophages in the fat tissue. These macrophages form crown-like structures around fat cells that have outgrown their blood supply and died. The presence of macrophages — immune system cells that engulf and destroy cellular waste — indicates the kind of inflammatory response implicated in cardiovascular disease.

Last year, Jialal published a study on these same 65 patients showing that they have both dysfunctional and fewer endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) than control subjects. These cells eventually form the lining of blood vessels and are used as a measure of cardiovascular health. As in the current study, this abnormality cannot be explained simply by obesity. Jialal’s team now is looking at differences in monocytes between the two study groups. The new data suggests intrinsic defects in the critical adipose tissue cells and EPCs that are relevant to increased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

While metabolic syndrome can be reversed through diet and exercise resulting in weight loss, other kinds of treatment may be needed, Jialal said.
“I have done this for 34 years. It is hard to get people to stick to therapeutic lifestyle changes,” he said, adding that researchers need to address the dysfunction of fat cells, using existing or novel drug therapies to block the production of damaging biomarkers.

“Once people have cardiovascular disease or diabetes, it’s too late and far more expensive given the complications that ensue. Metabolic syndrome is the antecedent. This is where we need to intervene,” said Jialal.

Source for Story:

http://www.jpost.com/Health/Article.aspx?id=236350

the immune response and intestinal damage found in celiac disease. Although both conditions have similar symptoms (pain, gas, bloating, diarrhea), or sometimes no gastrointestinal symptoms at all, celiac disease is an autoimmune reaction to gluten that can cause severe degradation of the small intestine; whereas, gluten intolerance/sensitivity is an inability to digest gliadin with no damage to the intestines.

The medical community’s use of improved diagnostic tools (saliva, blood, and stool tests; and bowel biopsies) as well as self-diagnosis by aware individuals has certainly contributed to the swelling ranks of people afflicted with these maladies; however, that’s not the whole story. A combination of hybridized grains, America’s growing appetite for snacks and fast food, and the genetics of gluten intolerance and celiac disease have brought discussions of these once uncommon conditions front and center.

New evidence indicates that the hybrid versions of grains we eat today contain significantly more gluten than traditional varieties of the same grains. Experts such as Dr. Alessio Fasano, medical director of the Center for Celiac Research at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, believe this recent increase in the amount of gluten in our diet has given rise to the number of people suffering from gluten intolerance and celiac disease.

According to Fasano, “The prevalence of celiac disease in this country is soaring partly because changes in agricultural practices have increased gluten levels in crops.” He further states, “We are in the midst of an epidemic.”

For example, the ancient wheat that Moses ate was probably very different from our wheat today. Moses lived about 3,500 years ago, when wheat, spelt, and barley were all popular grains. Modern wheat varieties, however, have been bred to grow faster, produce bigger yields, harvest more efficiently, and bake better bread. The downside to today’s hybridized cereal grains is that they contain more gluten.

Celiac disease was once considered a rare malady and was estimated to have afflicted approximately 1 in 2,000 people in the United States. According to research done by the Mayo Clinic, CD is four times more common today that it was five decades ago. This increase is due to increased awareness and diagnostics, and the estimate today is that 1 out of every 133 people in the United States has celiac disease. To read more facts and figures please read The University of Chicago Celiac Disease center at http://www.uchospitals.edu/pdf/uch_…

Here are estimates for other parts of the world:

· 3 in 100: United Kingdom

· 1 in 370: Italy

· 1 in 122: Northern Ireland

· 1 in 99: Finland

· 1 in 133: United States

· Once thought rare for African-, Hispanic- and Asian-Americans, current estimates in these populations: 1 in 236

· 1 in 30 are estimated to have gluten intolerance in the United States.

More than 6,000 years before Moses was born, an agricultural revolution took place in the Middle East that allowed humans to embrace farming (sewing and harvesting wild seeds), herding, and other forms of agriculture and move away from our hunter-fisher-gatherer ancestors. This was the first major introduction of gluten into the human diet.

According to Dr. Loren Cordain, PhD, author of The Paleo Diet, “The foods that agriculture brought us — cereals, dairy products, fatty meats, salted foods, and refined sugars and oils- proved disastrous for our Paleolithic bodies…. studies of the bones and teeth early farmers revealed that they had more infectious diseases, more childhood mortality, shorter life spans, more osteoporosis, rickets, and other bone mineral density disorders than their ancestors thanks to the cereal-based diet. They were plagued with vitamin and mineral deficiencies and developed cavities in their teeth.”

In other words, people traded their health for sustainable food sources and a less nomadic way of life.

Two hundred years ago, the global diet received another big injection of gluten with the birth of the Industrial Revolution and steam-powered mills that were able to produce refined-grain flours that had significantly longer shelf lives, making flour (aka: gluten) more accessible and available to an almost global market. “We were able to mill and process grains for consumption and eat them in larger quantities than we had ever done in the past,” writes Cordain.

Jack Challem, “The Nutrition Reporter,” offers a different long view of human consumption of gluten: “Look at in another way, 100,000 generations of people were hunter-gatherers, 500 generations have depended on agriculture, and only 10 generations have lived since the start of the industrial age, and only two generations have grown up with highly processed fast foods. This short period of time in the course of man’s existence that grains have been around has proven that many of us are not physiologically able to tolerate gluten.”

Historical evidence of people having trouble digesting gluten was first documented in the 2nd century A.D. when the Greek physician Aretaeus of Cappadocia, diagnosed patients with celiac disease. The symptoms included “wasting and characteristic stools.” Since Aretaeus’ time, the disease has gone by a variety of names, including “non-tropical sprue,” “celiac sprue,” “non-celiac gluten intolerance,” “gluten intolerance enteropathy,” and “gluten sensitive enteropathy.”

Fast forward to 1950, when the Dutch pediatrician Willem-Karel Dicke proposed wheat gluten was the cause of the disease. His theory was based on observations that celiac children improved during World War II when wheat was scarce in Holland.

As Challem points out, today, thanks in large part to the fast food and snack food industries, gluten is in just about every kind of food imaginable.

So Why Can’t Everyone Handle Gluten?

People who that carry any of the genes for CD and GI (expressed or not) are more susceptible to developing either condition. You can carry two dominate genes for celiac disease and perhaps end up developing CD or you can carry one dominant gene and one recessive gene and develop only GI. Your genes determine the body’s immune response in the presence of gluten, and many different health problems may result from that response. Some people may have their brain affected and develop cognitive problems such as depression or impaired brain function, while others suffer pancreatic problems and develop diabetes. Research still needs to be done to answer the question as to why these maladies affect different parts of the body in different people.

When populations that are genetically predisposed to CD and GI are exposed to cereal grains with higher gluten content, there’s little wonder why more people are having these genes “turned on” and develop gluten insensitivity on a much larger scale — especially now that the flour made from these grains are part of the “hidden ingredients” in foods from ice cream to lunch meats.

OK, Now What?

So, gluten has changed, and we have changed, and it appears not for the better. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, identifying and eliminating the foods and ingredients from your life that do not work for your body is the only answer. There is no magic pill to take to make it all go away.

If you, or someone you know, is experiencing major health issues that aren’t getting better, enlisting a knowledgeable physician who understands the complexities of CD and GI testing is an excellent idea; however, on average, it takes the medical community 10 years to diagnose people who are suffering with severe health problems from undiagnosed CD and GI.?

The Bottom Line

Gluten intolerance is not a fad diet. I have seen countless cases display miraculous improvements in?long standing ailments — simply by adapting this lifestyle. Even if you have a test for CD and it comes back negative?and medical community clears you to continue?eating gluten, but you feel better without it,?listen to your body. You?know yourself far better than anyone else and you deserve?good health. If you have doubts about your diet, try going gluten-free for two weeks and see how you feel. Those with more advanced illnesses (autoimmune diseases and such) will usually not experience changes until they have been gluten-free for six months to a year.

Source for Story: http://www.naturalnews.com/032823_gluten_intolerance_celiac_disease.html#ixzz1QVpQ0dqM