We had a great turn out at our Health Talk last Saturday! Thank you to everyone who participated and helped make it possible! We have had some welcomed constructive feedback on a few issues, and are working toward resolving these issues in time for the next class.
#1 Lack of Space: I know we all felt a little like packed sardines :) And a special thanks to a couple of southern gentlemen that gave up there seats and stood the entire presentation! Instead of limiting the number of attendees at our next class, we are looking into larger areas (preferably in the same building) that will comfortably allow for all participants!
#2 Too HOT: The combination of a packed house, and projector heat left us all feeling like we were having a hot flash! We will make sure the next class is well ventilated and the air is on high!
#3 Mass Chaos after class: When the class was over, it got a little chaotic. There was not much structure or organization between selling product, compass readings, muscle testing, Q & A's, and appointment scheduling. We apologize for this and we have decided to resolve this issue in the following ways:
We will now designate specific rooms for each category. We have talked about having one or two people helping us with ringing up products so all of the practitioners are available for questions. We also will have 2 designated credit card areas where you can pay for ALL products together at once. This will eliminate having to make multiple payments for the different products or services.
Please feel free to let us know of any other suggestions you have that will improve future classes! Please also include any subjects you would like to see be included in our classes.
We are so grateful to our wonderful patients that make all of this possible! Thank you for supporting us in what we do, and embracing our guidance and services in helping you lead a Healthier, Happier, and more Harmonious life!
Yours in Health,
Dr. Tiffany Dubec
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
7 Everyday Products That are Linked to Cancer
Over a lifetime, 41 percent of Americans will develop cancer, and 21 percent will die from it. While the leading culprits include smoking, obesity, and sun exposure, a variety of common products—some of them quite surprising—can also be triggers, according to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Here’s a guide to seven known or probable carcinogens:
Are Americans “bombarded with…dangerous exposures” to cancer-causing toxins, as a scary report from the President’s Cancer Panel contends? Of more than 80,000 chemicals on the US market--some found in products used by millions of people in daily life—only a few hundred have ever been tested for safety, warns the report, released in May. Yet these largely unregulated chemicals, including some linked to cancer risk, are now so ubiquitous in our environment that 300 contaminants have been detected in the umbilical cord blood of newborns, leading the authors to warn that babies are born “pre-polluted.”
- Coffee: There’s hot debate brewing about the health effects of coffee, since it lifts risk for some cancers and cuts risk for others. A 1991 IARC report linked drinking coffee to increased risk for bladder cancer, while a study released in May found that men who consumed six or more cups daily were 60 percent more likely to develop fatal prostate cancer. Quaffing two or more cups a day raises lung cancer risk by 14 percent, according to a 2010 review. Classification: Probable carcinogen.
- Flame retardant baby products: In the 1970s, the flame retardant Tris was removed from kids’ sleepwear as a suspected carcinogen. In May, a study found chlorinated Tris in more than one-third of the polyurethane foam baby products tested, including nursing pillows, car seats, baby carriers and high chairs. A program within the EPA not only has identified the chemical as a cancer hazard, but also reports that animal studies link it to developmental defects, anemia, liver failure and reproductive problems. Classification: Probable carcinogen.
- Talcum powder: Widely used to keep skin dry and prevent rashes, talcum powder may cause ovarian cancer if applied to the female genitals. Particles from sanitary napkins, diaphragms, condoms and talcum power applications could travel through the vagina, uterus and fallopian tubes to the ovaries. An analysis of data from 16 studies found a 30 percent rise in ovarian cancer risk among talcum users. A safe alternative is cornstarch powder, which is not linked to cancer. Classification: Possible carcinogen.
- Alcohol: Nearly 10 percent of cancers in men—and 3 percent in women—are sparked by drinking too much alcohol, German researchers reported in April. They calculate that in the eight European countries studied, about 54,500 cases of alcohol-related cancer, such as cancers of the upper digestive tract, colon, liver and breast (in women), would have been prevented in 2008 if women limited themselves to no more than one alcoholic drink a day and men to two drinks. Classification: Known carcinogen.
- Hormone replacement therapy: Used to relieve menopause symptoms and delivered as a pill, patch or vaginal ring, hormone replacement therapy may involve estrogen alone or a combination of estrogen and progesterone. The Women’s Health Initiative study reports that daily use raised women’s risk for breast cancer by five to six percent for each year HRT was taken. Estrogen-only HRT more quintuples risk for uterine cancer. Doctors advise women who use HRT to take it for the shortest possible time. Classification: Known carcinogen.
- Salted fish. Eating salted fish, a popular food in Asian countries, raises risk for cancers of the nose, stomach and colon. Studies also link consumption of highly salty foods, including fish, to increased threat of ovarian and prostate cancer. Also be wary of caviar: A 2010 study of 77,500 Japanese men and women found that those who ate salted fish roe the most frequently had the highest overall rate of cancer. Classification: Known carcinogen.
- Tanning beds: There’s no such thing as a “healthy tan.” Some tanning beds emit 10 to 15 times more UV radiation than the midday sun. A 2010 study found that young people who have ever used a tanning bed are 1.41 times more likely to get melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, and those who have used them 10 or more times have double the risk. Melanoma rates in young women have tripled over the past 30 years, largely due to use of tanning beds. Classification: Known carcinogen.
Pay close attention to the sidebar at the bottom, "Don't Fall for Fake." Sugar-Free is NOT the answer!
Sugar Shock : Experience Life Magazine
Sugar can contribute to cellular inflammation, which is like a continuing series of paper cuts that compromise cell function. Deep inside the body, these microscopic wounds fester below the pain threshold. Because many of us don’t see or feel the damage, there is little incentive to cut back on the inflammatory diet that is causing this constant cellular damage, so the party continues.
That is, until the body blows a gasket. Left unchecked, inflammation can unleash dozens of different diseases, including heavy hitters like diabetes, heart disease and autoimmune disorders. “It takes roughly 10 to 15 years of a high-sugar diet before a person develops a chronic illness,” says Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, medical director of the Nutritional Magnesium Association. In the meantime, though, sugar can do plenty of other damage, depleting your immunity, disrupting your metabolism, contributing to yeast overgrowth and so on.
The good news: By curtailing sugar consumption you can prevent the damage. And this doesn’t mean you have to squeeze every granule of sugar out of your diet. With a little awareness and restraint, you can still enjoy some sweetness while respecting your body’s built-in limits.
Glucose, along with the sucrose and fructose it comes from, is one of the most abundant sugars in foods and is the body’s preferred source of quick energy. It fuels every cell in the body, particularly muscle cells and brain cells. Deprive the body of blood glucose and it goes into a coma. Give it too much and it stalls and sputters, like gasoline flooding a carburetor.
“Sugar must be made available to cells in just the right amount,” says Jacob Teitelbaum, MD, author of Beat Sugar Addiction Now! (Fair Winds Press, 2010). To maintain a healthy equilibrium in the body, he notes, the blood circulates roughly 2 teaspoons of sugar at any given time. But that’s not a lot — a single orange may contain 16 grams of sugar, the equivalent of 4 teaspoons.
All naturally sweet foods, such as ripe fruits, yams, squash and dairy, tend to be relatively dense in nutrients and calories. That’s why survival of the human species depended, in part, on our biological pull toward sweets, says Kevin Spelman, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute of Aging’s Laboratory of Clinical Investigation in Baltimore: “We have a deep, instinctual, evolutionary drive to eat sweets.”
The hitch is that the sweets our ancestors enjoyed came entirely from whole foods, like fruit, roots and tubers. These were available only in small quantities or at certain times of the year and contained health-enhancing macro- and micronutrients, such as fiber, antioxidants and other phytochemicals.
Thanks to the presence of all that naturally occurring fiber, our ancestors’ bodies digested any sugar they ate much more slowly. So, glucose entered their bloodstream in a steady stream. And because they were active, they burned through that sugar almost immediately as much-needed fuel.
Today, basic human biology is the same, but most of the sugar in our diets doesn’t come from whole foods; instead it is refined, purified, crystallized and liquified. And our lives are far more sedentary. As a result, the concentrated sugar in the modern diet hits the body like a hurricane, and often the energy it produces has nowhere good to go.
While some sources of sugar are obvious — the packet you pour into your coffee or the spoonful you sprinkle on your cereal — experts worry much more about the sugar you don’t see. “Hidden sugar lies at the heart of many modern-day health epidemics,” Teitelbaum says. “If you eat a standard American diet, you likely have a problem with sugar, whether you know it or not.”
The main source of added sugar in the American diet is soda. A 12-ounce can of soda packs more than 8 teaspoons of sugar, usually in the form of high-fructose corn syrup.
But sugar also pops up in everything from breads to sauces to salad dressings. “No one would knowingly pour a packet of sugar over lettuce or spaghetti, but that’s what food makers do all the time,” says David Katz, MD, director and cofounder of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.
Sugar is also seductive because it makes it easier for the amino acid tryptophan to get into the brain, where it is converted into serotonin. Dubbed the “happiness molecule,” serotonin is known for its ability to bestow mellowness and calm. “Sugar calms us down, makes us feel relaxed and at peace with the world, but at a price. When it wears off, we are in big trouble,” says DesMaisons.
What’s more, studies suggest that each sweet indulgence reinforces those neuropathways, causing the brain to become increasingly hardwired to crave sugar. In a 2007 study published in PLoS ONE, for instance, laboratory rats chose sugar water over intravenous cocaine.
Think you’re home free with calorie-free sweeteners? Sorry, the same thing happened when the rats were offered water mixed with saccharin, a common artificial sweetener.
To make matters worse, most simple carbohydrates, such as white bread, white rice and white potatoes, are quickly metabolized and digested as sugar (glucose). That’s why it’s important to keep the big picture in mind when watching sugar intake. “Excessive sugar in the typical diet is compounded by refined flours, which are compounded by artificial sweeteners,” explains Katz. Simply eliminating sweets and added sugars won’t even touch those concerns, he notes, but it’s “a step in the right direction.”
To learn more about how and why to moderate the sugars in your diet, read on.
The problem with having multiple names is twofold, says David Katz, MD, director and cofounder of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center. For starters, calling them different things implies there are meaningful differences in terms of their effect on health. “Gram for gram, the differences between types of sugar are just not worth talking about,” he says. “I suppose water at 215 degrees burns more than water at 212 degrees, but who really cares? Either way, it’s going to burn you.”
Secondly, when sugar appears on a food label under various noms de plumes, it confuses shoppers who are savvy enough to know that ingredients appear on a food label in order of weight. For instance, a shopper might compare the ingredients of two different jars of jam and choose the one that lists fruit first, like strawberry, over one that starts off with sugar. But the jam very likely includes several different sugars. Individually, none weighs more than the strawberries, but collectively they do. “Shoppers are being duped,” says Katz.
Most likely you recognize sugar’s most common aliases: cane syrup, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, glucose, lactose, maltose and sucrose. Pretty much anything ending in “ose” (the chemical name for sugar) is suspect. But you might be surprised by how many different ingredients are . . . well, sugar. Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, a medical doctor, practicing naturopath and author of more than 20 books on health, compiled a list of 100 different names for sugar. Here are just a few to watch out for:
Barley malt
Beet sugar
Brown rice syrup
Carbitol
Carmel coloring
Concentrated fruit juice
Date sugar
Dextrin
Dextrose
Diglycerides
Disaccharides
Florida crystals
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS)
Glucitol
Glucoamine
Glycerides
Glycerol
Hexitol
Inversol
Invert sugar
Karo syrups
Lactose
Malt dextrin
Malted barley
Mannitol
Monoglycerides
Pentose
Polydextrose
Ribose rice syrup
Rice malt
Saccharides
Sorbitol
Sorghum
Sucanet
Turbinado sugar
Xylitol
Zylose
The average American now consumes some 22 teaspoons of sugar a day. And our sweet tooth isn’t just making us fat — it’s triggering all kinds of inflammation, fueling chronic diseases and even increasing our risks of cancer.
As kids, we were taught that too much sugar would rot our teeth, but today we know that the ramifications of a lifelong sugar splurge are scarier than a finger-wagging dentist. Yes, sugar can cause cavities, but of much greater concern is the sweet stuff’s link to bodywide inflammation.Sugar can contribute to cellular inflammation, which is like a continuing series of paper cuts that compromise cell function. Deep inside the body, these microscopic wounds fester below the pain threshold. Because many of us don’t see or feel the damage, there is little incentive to cut back on the inflammatory diet that is causing this constant cellular damage, so the party continues.
That is, until the body blows a gasket. Left unchecked, inflammation can unleash dozens of different diseases, including heavy hitters like diabetes, heart disease and autoimmune disorders. “It takes roughly 10 to 15 years of a high-sugar diet before a person develops a chronic illness,” says Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, medical director of the Nutritional Magnesium Association. In the meantime, though, sugar can do plenty of other damage, depleting your immunity, disrupting your metabolism, contributing to yeast overgrowth and so on.
The good news: By curtailing sugar consumption you can prevent the damage. And this doesn’t mean you have to squeeze every granule of sugar out of your diet. With a little awareness and restraint, you can still enjoy some sweetness while respecting your body’s built-in limits.
Sweet Beginnings
One of the five basic tastes, sweet is the first we encounter, thanks to the lactose in breast milk (as well as most infant formulas). That’s one reason why people have a penchant for sugar. Another is that sugar is a source of quick energy for cells. So, biologically speaking, the body orients toward sweets the way a plant seeks out the sun.Glucose, along with the sucrose and fructose it comes from, is one of the most abundant sugars in foods and is the body’s preferred source of quick energy. It fuels every cell in the body, particularly muscle cells and brain cells. Deprive the body of blood glucose and it goes into a coma. Give it too much and it stalls and sputters, like gasoline flooding a carburetor.
“Sugar must be made available to cells in just the right amount,” says Jacob Teitelbaum, MD, author of Beat Sugar Addiction Now! (Fair Winds Press, 2010). To maintain a healthy equilibrium in the body, he notes, the blood circulates roughly 2 teaspoons of sugar at any given time. But that’s not a lot — a single orange may contain 16 grams of sugar, the equivalent of 4 teaspoons.
All naturally sweet foods, such as ripe fruits, yams, squash and dairy, tend to be relatively dense in nutrients and calories. That’s why survival of the human species depended, in part, on our biological pull toward sweets, says Kevin Spelman, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute of Aging’s Laboratory of Clinical Investigation in Baltimore: “We have a deep, instinctual, evolutionary drive to eat sweets.”
The hitch is that the sweets our ancestors enjoyed came entirely from whole foods, like fruit, roots and tubers. These were available only in small quantities or at certain times of the year and contained health-enhancing macro- and micronutrients, such as fiber, antioxidants and other phytochemicals.
Thanks to the presence of all that naturally occurring fiber, our ancestors’ bodies digested any sugar they ate much more slowly. So, glucose entered their bloodstream in a steady stream. And because they were active, they burned through that sugar almost immediately as much-needed fuel.
Today, basic human biology is the same, but most of the sugar in our diets doesn’t come from whole foods; instead it is refined, purified, crystallized and liquified. And our lives are far more sedentary. As a result, the concentrated sugar in the modern diet hits the body like a hurricane, and often the energy it produces has nowhere good to go.
Invisible Sources
Early humans ate about 4 pounds of sugar a year. By comparison, in 2008, the average American ate 136 pounds of sugar in the form of white sugar (cane sugar and beet sugar), corn sweeteners, honey, molasses and other syrups. That boils down to roughly 22 teaspoons of sugar per person per day.While some sources of sugar are obvious — the packet you pour into your coffee or the spoonful you sprinkle on your cereal — experts worry much more about the sugar you don’t see. “Hidden sugar lies at the heart of many modern-day health epidemics,” Teitelbaum says. “If you eat a standard American diet, you likely have a problem with sugar, whether you know it or not.”
The main source of added sugar in the American diet is soda. A 12-ounce can of soda packs more than 8 teaspoons of sugar, usually in the form of high-fructose corn syrup.
But sugar also pops up in everything from breads to sauces to salad dressings. “No one would knowingly pour a packet of sugar over lettuce or spaghetti, but that’s what food makers do all the time,” says David Katz, MD, director and cofounder of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.
The Taste of Happiness
One reason that we find sugar so appealing, so addictive, is that it activates the brain’s reward center, causing it to release feel-good substances, such as dopamine and beta-endorphins (natural pain killers). Some people have naturally lower levels of beta-endorphins, so they get a bigger rush from sweets, says Kathleen DesMaisons, PhD, author of Potatoes Not Prozac: Solutions for Sugar Sensitivity (Simon & Schuster, 2008) and a pioneer in the field of sugar and addiction. DesMaisons’s research shows that people who are “sugar sensitive” have naturally lower levels of these feel-good chemicals and are biochemically driven to eat more sweets from a very early age.Sugar is also seductive because it makes it easier for the amino acid tryptophan to get into the brain, where it is converted into serotonin. Dubbed the “happiness molecule,” serotonin is known for its ability to bestow mellowness and calm. “Sugar calms us down, makes us feel relaxed and at peace with the world, but at a price. When it wears off, we are in big trouble,” says DesMaisons.
What’s more, studies suggest that each sweet indulgence reinforces those neuropathways, causing the brain to become increasingly hardwired to crave sugar. In a 2007 study published in PLoS ONE, for instance, laboratory rats chose sugar water over intravenous cocaine.
Think you’re home free with calorie-free sweeteners? Sorry, the same thing happened when the rats were offered water mixed with saccharin, a common artificial sweetener.
Sweet Nothings
The problem isn’t limited to what sugar is, it’s also what sugar is not. Fill up on sugar, and you won’t have room for foods rich in important vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients and fiber. In a 2010 study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, researchers found that, among kids ages 2 to 18, nearly 40 percent of their total energy intake came in the form of empty calories. Half of those empty calories were from a handful of foods, including grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts and granola bars), pizza, fruit drinks and soda. “That means 40 percent of their diet is stripped of all nutrients,” says Teitelbaum. “Most people’s diets don’t have that much leeway.”To make matters worse, most simple carbohydrates, such as white bread, white rice and white potatoes, are quickly metabolized and digested as sugar (glucose). That’s why it’s important to keep the big picture in mind when watching sugar intake. “Excessive sugar in the typical diet is compounded by refined flours, which are compounded by artificial sweeteners,” explains Katz. Simply eliminating sweets and added sugars won’t even touch those concerns, he notes, but it’s “a step in the right direction.”
To learn more about how and why to moderate the sugars in your diet, read on.
Catherine Guthrie is a health writer in Bloomington, Ind., and a contributing editor to Experience Life.
Web Extra!
Sugar by Any Other Name
One of the most confusing things about sugar is not only that simple carbohydrates, such as white flour, white bread, white rice and white potatoes, are viewed as sugar by our bodies, but also that it has more than 100 different names on food labels.The problem with having multiple names is twofold, says David Katz, MD, director and cofounder of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center. For starters, calling them different things implies there are meaningful differences in terms of their effect on health. “Gram for gram, the differences between types of sugar are just not worth talking about,” he says. “I suppose water at 215 degrees burns more than water at 212 degrees, but who really cares? Either way, it’s going to burn you.”
Secondly, when sugar appears on a food label under various noms de plumes, it confuses shoppers who are savvy enough to know that ingredients appear on a food label in order of weight. For instance, a shopper might compare the ingredients of two different jars of jam and choose the one that lists fruit first, like strawberry, over one that starts off with sugar. But the jam very likely includes several different sugars. Individually, none weighs more than the strawberries, but collectively they do. “Shoppers are being duped,” says Katz.
Most likely you recognize sugar’s most common aliases: cane syrup, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, glucose, lactose, maltose and sucrose. Pretty much anything ending in “ose” (the chemical name for sugar) is suspect. But you might be surprised by how many different ingredients are . . . well, sugar. Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, a medical doctor, practicing naturopath and author of more than 20 books on health, compiled a list of 100 different names for sugar. Here are just a few to watch out for:
Barley malt
Beet sugar
Brown rice syrup
Carbitol
Carmel coloring
Concentrated fruit juice
Date sugar
Dextrin
Dextrose
Diglycerides
Disaccharides
Florida crystals
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS)
Glucitol
Glucoamine
Glycerides
Glycerol
Hexitol
Inversol
Invert sugar
Karo syrups
Lactose
Malt dextrin
Malted barley
Mannitol
Monoglycerides
Pentose
Polydextrose
Ribose rice syrup
Rice malt
Saccharides
Sorbitol
Sorghum
Sucanet
Turbinado sugar
Xylitol
Zylose
Still Think Organic is Too Expensive???
Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.
Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bio-availability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."
Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.
"Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," wrote the report authors in their conclusion. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.
"They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so," the authors added. "This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards."
First Posted: 06/ 7/11 07:48 PM ET Updated: 06/ 9/11 11:05 AM ET
WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.
Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bio-availability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."
Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.
"Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," wrote the report authors in their conclusion. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.
"They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so," the authors added. "This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)