Phthalates are ‘plasticizer’ chemicals that are commonly found alongside BPA in many plastic products. Often found in soaps, lotions, and even used as a pharmaceutical coating, studies have found that phthalates present a serious risk to your health. The latest research found that those with high phthalate levels are about twice as likely to develop diabetes.

Released April 12th and published in the print edition of the Diabetes Care journal, the study adds to a long list of conditions that are associated with phthalates exposure. Collecting data on more than 1,000 Swedish men and women, lead researcher Monica Lind and her team from Uppsala University reached some shocking conclusions. Observing the blood sugar, insulin levels, and toxins from the breakdown of the phthalates, the scientists found that diabetes was much more common among those with higher blood levels of phthalates — much more so, in fact.

Participants with high phthalate levels had double the risk of developing diabetes in comparison to those with lower levels – lower levels, not zero. Even after taking obesity, cholesterol, smoking, and exercise into account, the link remained.

“Our study supports the hypothesis that certain environmental chemicals can contribute to the development of diabetes,” said Lind

Phthalates have been previously shown (along with bisphenol-A) to damage your arteries. More specifically, the chemicals were found to lead to cartoid (a vital artery that supplies the head and neck with oxygenated blood) plaques. Sadly, these chemicals are often present in the plastics you may be handling on a daily basis. One study found that 70% of common plastic products were tested positive for estrogenic activity, and the number skyrocketed to 95% when the products were put through real world conditions such as microwaving or dishwashing.

In my article The BPA Solution, I explain how to not only diminish the presence of BPA phthalates in your body, but diminish or reverse the harmful effects of BPA exposure. You should do your best to avoid exposure by choosing products labeled BPA and phthalate free, but do not stress over past BPA exposure. Instead, start taking action today.

There is an ongoing and unusual trend that is steadily becoming more recognized by the public. Why are girls going into puberty at such young ages? Furthermore, what are the causes and implications of this strange new trend?

Girls as young as 7 are now beginning to undergo body changes that their mothers hadn’t experienced until years later. At this rate, by the time that they’ll be taught about puberty in the school curriculum, they will have already finished it. This trend is so puzzling, and yet slowly is becoming considered an inevitable “new norm” rather than being highlighted as an aggravated health condition.

Toxic BPA is featured in the vast majority of plastics used commercially today. This chemical has the property of mimicking estrogen when leeched into the body. The delicate hormonal balance in the developing human body is being offset by the introduction of BPA and other chemicals into an average child’s life. Nearly out of the womb, children who are given plastic toys, pacifiers or bottles all come under the influence of this hormone disruption incredibly early.

In girls, this disturbance accelerates their growth rate, setting off puberty at much younger ages. In boys, this can retard their growth and stop them from reaching full maturity altogether. The damage also carries into adulthood, causing a number of health problems associated with hormonal imbalance including breast cancer. The average person has looked at this recent phenomenon and dismissed it due to the lack of information, combined with the incredible subtlety with which the chemical culprits have been woven into daily life.

BPA appears in the majority of plastics used today. Most containers and plastic bags contain the substance. Even dollar bills and toilet paper contain it. It has also been discreetly worked into the food supply in numerous ways. Most bottled water, often being subjected to extreme temperatures, has an increased concentration of BPA in the contents of the water.

A majority of canned products also contain BPA, used as lining for the insides of cans. Any microwaved food in a container or bag also becomes contaminated, due to the high temperatures causing the chemical to leach into the food during preparation. Another notable culprit is the presence of soy foods and products in a diet. Soy is pushed as a health food, but is often highly genetically modified. In addition, it contains large amounts of estrogen.

These hidden health risks are largely to blame for what has been mostly considered an unexplainable phenomenon. Many doctors fail to point out any of the reasons why these transformations take place. Effectively, our natural biology is being reconfigured at an alarming rate.

If you are a woman and have been using any type of hormones to ease menopause symptoms, you could be upping breast cancer risk. Recent research shows that the use of these hormones over a long period of time ignites a minor increase in breast cancer risk.

Long Term Use of Hormones Increases Breast Cancer Risk

Tracking the health of nearly 60,000 nurses, the recent study found that 10 years or more of hormone use was enough to raise breast cancer risk, although it is recommended that the lowest dose possible be used for the shortest amount of time possible. The research is surprising to many as some women who were taking estrogen alone were thought to have a decreased chance of developing breast cancer. And it is already known that taking pills combining estrogen and progestin — the most common type of hormone therapy — can increase breast cancer risk.

“There’s a continued increase in risk with longer durations of use and there does not appear to be a plateau,” said study leader Dr. Wendy Chen of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The research also supports the possibility and previous evidence linking hormone-mimicking chemicals like BPA to increase breast cancer risk. In fact, there are more than 130 studies confirming the link between bisphenol A (BPA) and breast cancer.

In addition to realizing the connection between long-term hormone use and increased breast cancer risk, there are a few other things to take into consideration when trying to avoid breast cancer. For example, a recent study found that a class of chemicals known as parabens, which are present in the majority of mainstream consumer products, were present in 99 percent of breast cancer patients tested.

“It’s hard to be surprised that if you keep taking it, sooner or later it’s going to raise risk,” said Dr. Robert Clarke of Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

What’s more, many breast cancer patients are actually participating in completely unnecessary and ineffective mammograms which are actually contributing to cancer risk. Even mainstream health officials are admitting that breast cancer screening methods are not only ineffective, but are leading to improper diagnoses and unnecessary treatments at around 7,000 per year. These unnecessary and ineffective solutions are prompting radiation-induced DNA damage in epithelial breast cells — an issue also increasing breast cancer risk.

Producers of toxic BPA are now boasting $8 billion in sales for 2012 thanks to the FDA rejecting a potential ban on the cancer-linked chemical on March 30th. According to GlobalData, manufacturers will produce 4.7 million metric tons of BPA this year to be dispersed into the daily lives of millions worldwide. BPA now goes into everything: plastic bottles, canned foods, DVDs, plastic wrap, and much more. Despite being linked to about as many serious health conditions as the amount of products it contaminates, the FDA has decided once again to side with mega corporations over protecting the health of the people.

Even Campbell’s Soup and the Heinz corporation are removing BPA from their products in an effort to reclaim consumers who are fully aware of the issues surrounding BPA. California is also banning the substance from baby bottles and sippy cups in attempts to protect newborn babies whose developing bodies are majorly affected by the estrogen-mimicking chemical. But the FDA? They recognize that BPA may be breeding disease among the public, but they’re still perfectly okay with letting it contaminate the food supply. Instead of taking action over the threat, the FDA decided to pick at the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have linked BPA to everything from cancer (in over 130 studies) to depression and diabetes.

“While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” the FDA says.

This is the same agency that has no trouble going after nutritional supplements containing 100% organic and natural super-nutrients that have been used for thousands of years. It is also the same government powerhouse that has allowed for mercury to lurk in the processed food supply for years despite major consumer groups demanding action. The list can go on and on — the FDA simply does not seem to care about legitimately threatening items like GMOs and artificial sweeteners, so why would they care about BPA? After all, the carcinogenic chemical has the backing of an $8 billion industry.

It was reported not too long ago that the Food and Drug Administration would make a decision on the banning of the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol-A (BPA). Now, the agency has finally come to a decision, and unsurprisingly, it has decided that there is not enough scientific evidence supporting for the ban of BPA – that is to say, BPA will not be banned from use in food products, plastic packaging, and personal care products.

On Friday the agency made the decision due to lack of scientific evidence to justify the new restrictions, despite tons of evidence showcasing BPAs dangers. The FDA’s problem? Much of the research was performed using mice, and so they claimed that the findings don’t relate to humans.

“While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” the FDA says.

But it seems that many other nations and companies seem to disagree with the FDA, in that they have already taken action in banning or removing the chemical from use. Canada banned BPA from baby bottles in 2007, while the European Union, Turkey, and other countries banned BPA from baby bottled in 2008. What’s more, various companies such as Toys “R” Us and even Walmart claimed to have discontinued use of BPA in children’s items.

While the FDA continues to fall behind many nations in the ban due to ‘lack of scientific evidence’, it seems that the agency secretly doesn’t want the ban altogether. The recent decision made by the FDA was prompted only due to a lawsuit against it after they failed to respond to petition requesting the ban. It took the FDA more than 180 days to respond to the National Resources Defense Council’s petition, which is surpassing a deadline it must reach regarding response to petitions.

BPA has been shown to prompt hyperactivity and depression in young girls, while also being linked to breast cancer in more than 130 studies. Infertility and fertility defects are also caused by BPA exposure. The chemical is used so widely that it has been found in the urine of nearly 93 percent of Americans, with one study finding that eating canned soup can spike urinary bisphenol-A levels by 1,200 percent compared to fresh soup.

Previously reported by scientists to cause a reproductive defect in males that can lead to infertility, new research has found that bisphenol a (BPA) also endangers the reproductive abilities of women. The newly unleashed information reveals the negative side effects associated with BPA exposure regarding fertility, highlighting how BPA exposure in women can not only lead to reproductive issues but a potentially fatal infection.

The conditions are a result of BPA’s affect on the actual structure of the uterus. Once the reproductive organ is altered, women can develop something known as pyometra — the infection and inflammation of the uterus. Pyometra is usually found in animals like dogs and cats, but it can affect humans and becomes deadly if left untreated. The connection was found by exposing lab mice to different dietary levels of BPA in their food. The doses ranged from 4 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight to over 4,000. In addition to BPA levels, the mice were also given another endocrine disruptor — a semi-synthetic steroidal estrogen known as 17á-ethinyl estradiol (EE) in doses of one to over 150 kilograms.

The results of the study showed that at the BPA concentrations observed, there was a direct increase in the risk of pyometra development. The study was published on March 9, 2012 in the advance online edition of the Journal of Reproductive Toxicology. Principal investigator and professor in the department of pharmacology and cell biophysics Scott Belcher, PhD, explained:

“These results suggest that BPA enhances the immune responsiveness of the uterus and that the heightened responsiveness in the C57BL/6 strain of females is related to increased susceptibility to pyometra.”

The FDA is currently considering banning BPA from both food and personal care products following consumer outrage and court intervention. In addition, some mega corporations like Campbell’s are being forced to omit the substance from their products in response to consumer demand. BPA is present in many plastic food containers, personal care products, and plastic water bottles. The majority of these items often go through wear and tear as well as heat exposure which can increase your rate of BPA exposure. Thankfully, there are natural ways to combat BPA.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) says that school lunch programs can now drop the famous ‘pink slime‘ filler in cafeteria meals served to children. Treated with toxic ammonium hydroxide and fed to unknowing consumers in schools and restaurants alike, the pink slime has gained significant attention as action groups and health advocates across the globe have been calling attention to the presence of the hazardous filler. The news comes after fast food giant McDonald’s was forced to stop using the substance in their burgers amid public outcry.

Pink slime consists of what’s left over after all the muscular cuts of beef have been taken from a cow. In addition to the ammonia and other chemicals, experts say that the meat is not compromised of muscle, but fat trimmings and connective tissue that has been separated from the bone. In other words, scrap meat that really isn’t fit for human consumption. The ammonia comes in to kill off the bacterial contaminants that may be lurking on the meat, and afterwards it is minced. The result? A pink and slimy ‘meat’ substitute that provides virtually no nutritional value.

So why are children being fed this ‘meat garbage’? Celebrity chef James Oliver led the campaign against McDonald’s to stop using pink slime in their products, explaining exactly how the processed slime is virtually unfit for human ingestion:

“Basically, we’re taking a product that would be sold at the cheapest form for dogs and after this process we can give it to humans,” said the TV chef.

We are increasingly seeing government organizations and food corporations alike take action in response to consumer outrage. With the possible ban of cancer-causing bisphenol A (BPA) put forth by the FDA and the exclusion of the substance from Campbell’s products, we are seeing a serious paradigm shift in the corporate food monopoly. With pink slime now being ousted as a health threat and subsequently removed, it’s time to continue the proverbial charge against all health threats far and wide. You do have a voice, and it is being heard — just keep shouting!

With the increase in solar flares and expert warnings over the threat of asteroids, volcanoes, and earthquakes, it’s understandable to be concerned about the future of the earth and mankind alike. What many experts and publications are forgetting, however, is that these disasters may actually be less threatening than the harm placing on our own bodies. Known by some as the ‘infertility timebomb’, men are increasingly becoming infertile at an astounding rate that worries many scientists. We can’t control the trajectory of asteroids, but we can control what we put into our bodies.

Scientific reports have been revealing that men are rapidly on the path to infertility at an alarming pace. One in five men between the ‘healthy’ ages of 18 and 25 were reported to produce abnormal sperm counts, with only 5 to 15% of their sperm healthy enough to be classified as ‘normal’ by the World Health Organization. What’s more, a male infertility problem is considered important by a shocking 40% of couples. Professor Niels Skakkebaek from the University of Copenhagen has been speaking out about the fertility issue, stating that it is as important as the severe environmental concerns that currently face the planet. Another scientist stated that if scientists from another planet were to study the male reproductive system, they would actually conclude that ‘man was destined for rapid extinction’.

Ubiquitous, Toxic Chemicals Leading to Mass Infertility

Given the severity of the problem, you must be wondering why you haven’t heard of it before. Well, it may have to do with the corporate food industry as well as biotech giant Monsanto. Chances are that you are being exposed to infertility-linked items on a daily basis, from food products to common herbicides. Ubiquitous substances like bisphenol A (BPA) have been tied to fertility defects in offspring which cut off their ability to reproduce, and can be found in everything from plastic water bottles to canned goods. Shockingly, fertility-crushing BPA has been found in 90% of babies’ cord blood.

Even junk food, which compromises a significant percentage of the American diet, has been directly linked to infertility. Analyzing a similar demographic of males between the ages of 18 and 22, scientists found that those who ate a high amount of junk food had poorer quality sperm than those with a nutrient-dense diet. Is it any wonder that fertility rates are declining?

Unfortunately, it does not stop there. One recent study found that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup can also be contributing to the possible extinction of the human race. Researchers tested Roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed. The most disturbing part? In a study conducted by a German university, the active component of Roundup, Glyphosate, was found in all urine samples tested. The very substances linked to infertility are perhaps some of the most commonly found in the body. And this is not a complete list — in fact, it is but only a small sample.

Fertility expert Dr. Gillian Lockwood says that these devastating effects on reproductive health occur even before birth, attacking the fetus as it develops.

‘Sperm counts are declining and there is mounting evidence that the problem starts even before birth,’ says Dr Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services.

Time For Change

Scientists and experts are sounding the alarm. It’s time to change the current health paradigm and rid the biosphere of toxic substances that are leading to the demise of the entire human race. Infertility-causing chemicals are a threat even in small concentrations, but many of these chemicals like BPA are being ingested in such large amounts that the catastrophic effects on the global populace will not be fully known for years. The same holds even more true for Monsanto’s Roundup, which is not only threatening the reproductive capabilities of the population, but the environment as a whole.

Activism works. Global activism has forced companies like Campbell’s to change their BPA-containing recipe, rid the food supply of high-fructose corn syrup, and introduce a number of GMO labeling campaigns internationally. Now it’s time to take back the health freedom of the planet and secure the prosperity of the human race as a whole. This is not an isolated issue.

The foundation of the international food industry, monopolized by large corporations that hold zero regard for your health, is cracking. As more and more individuals begin to realize that they are eating their way to disease through the consumption of these products, they become outraged at the companies peddling their latest toxic food product. The result? Companies are now being forced to either answer to the consumer demands (removing the toxic substances from the food supply and adapting legitimate environmental manufacturing practices) , or lose their customers.

Increasingly, we see this happening on a larger scale. Major companies like Campbell’s have begun abandoning bisphenol A (BPA), the cancer-linked chemical found in can linings and plastic containers. The change comes after even the FDA was forced to re-evaluate the safety of BPA, potentially issuing a ban by the end of this month. Linked to cancer, diabetes, and much more, consumers have become fully aware of the dangers that BPA presents — and they aren’t handing over their hard-earned dollars to companies that refuse to remove BPA from their products.

On a larger scale, corporations are also being forced to remove high-fructose corn syrup. Well known for its health effects even throughout the general public, not only does high-fructose corn syrup breed obesity and cancer, but it is even known to contain mercury. Consumers are now refusing to eat anything that contains this ingredient, and for good reason. Even Michelle Obama has gone public in stating that she refuses to feed her own children products that contain high-fructose corn syrup. It is due to this that food titans like Sara Lee and Kraft have begun removing the ingredient from their products to avoid losing a large number of sales.

Activism and education is making legitimate changes in the way that the world eats and thinks.

While it is a major victory that these companies are phasing out these ingredients, it is only the beginning of the mass rejuvination of the food supply that needs to take place in order for consumers to experience optimum health. BPA and high-fructose corn syrup alone are creating biological devastation, but what about aspartame, MSG, genetically modified ingredients, trans fat, and other harmful additives? These harmful substances can be removed as well; it simply requires the same activism and education that is resulting in the removal of BPA and high-fructose corn syrup.

Spread the word. It will not only change the health of your close friends and family, but the entire globe. Removing just a few toxic ingredients can prevent countless unnecessary deaths as a result of disease development.

After their products were confirmed to have some of the highest BPA levels among canned foods tested in independent research, consumers have been calling upon Campbell’s to stop using bisphenol A (BPA) in their popular canned soups. Linked to breast cancer in over 130 studies as well as diabetes, hardening of the arteries, and depression, BPA is comprising the health of many. Despite this scientific evidence, Campbell’s and some stubborn public health organizations still continue to assert that BPA is completely safety. Nonetheless, the company is making the move in response to the powerful concerns raised by consumers and health advocates alike, representing a major victory and highlighting the power of vital health activism.

The news comes just after it was announced that the FDA may soon ban the usage of BPA within the United States. With the final decision coming by March 31, the agency said that it is actually considering a ban on BPA usage in all food packaging. It is not yet certain if the FDA will follow through with the decision, as it took the organization 41 months to even respond to the original petition calling for the ban. In fact, the FDA says that the potential U.S. ban of BPA originally dates back to a 2008 lawsuit filed against the FDA by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

After not answering for an absurd number of months despite regulations requiring the agency to respond after a 180 day maximum time period, court intervention brought upon by the NRDC has finally forced the agency to answer. Now, the final notice will be known at the end of the month. The report comes at a time where many nations are taking action against BPA, with France banning the use of BPA in all food packaging back in February.

Many other countries besides France have already taken direct action against BPA to protect the health of citizens:

• The European Union, Turkey, and other nations banned BPA from baby bottles as far back as 2008.

• In 2007, Canada took a stand against BPA and banned it from baby bottles

• Denmark has banned BPA in baby food products.

• Japan has taken action against using BPA in can linings.