Enagic President, Mr. Oshiro, energizes a packed house with his surprise visit to Anaheim for the Power Training V Series. Photo by Kangen 1

It was a power packed day at the Anaheim Marriott in sunny California, and every bit as refreshing inside the ballroom as the Kangen 1 Power Training V series was lead by Enagic’s fastest growing distributor Daniel Dimicale. The entire production was first class and a success from start to finish.

Looking back at this summer’s top single-day training event, it’s still amazing to think that over 1500 guest attendees from all parts of the U.S. and Canada came together in one ballroom, with more energy than a high school football team, to celebrate the life-changing achievements of Kangen Water, and it’s faithful messengers. All of which was sustained with a true sense of community and comradery.

Enagic's President, Mr. Oshiro. Photo by Kangen 1

The presenter lineup couldn’t have made a stronger impact to everyone in attendance. Enagic’s President, Mr. Oshiro (69 going on 16), showed up unexpectedly, adding to an already dizzying array of heavy weights. The event was truly a nonstop educational and motivational experience brought forth from Dr. Shinya to Daniel Dimicale, George Gasich, Michael Kinnett, Gerry Kostecka, and the highlight of the evening–The Millionaire Mentor Panel that included Bobby Gridelli, Eli Dafesh, Javee Pacifico, Jeanne Basso and more!

Dr. Hiromi Shinya signing books and causing a few laughs with his witty yet subtle medical humor! Photo by Kangen 1

The event ended with an encore of 6As that came out of the audience to fill the stage. There were so many that the stage disappeared! Very motivating to see this many people spreading the word the world about Kangen Water!

See you all next time!

Photo credit: LeeBrimelow

First San Francisco banned it. Then Chicago started taxing it. Now, the city of Seattle is taking action against bottled water; last week, Mayor Greg Nickels signed an executive order to stop the city from buying bottled water. That means no more bottled water at city facilities and events, which may sound like a small step, but it’ll make a big difference; last year, the city spent $58,000 on the stuff (and that’s not including the true cost and carbon footprint of bottled water). We’re willing to bet that the city’s taxpayers can probably think of about 58,000 ways to better spend that money.

The move isn’t just an issue of saving money, though that is a nice ancillary effect. It’s also a strong vote of confidence in the city’s municipal water supply and treatment systems; in light of the fracas about prescription drugs in our water last week, it’s good to see the city standing behind its tap water and encouraging its employees and citizens to drink up.

Further, “This is a matter of leading by example,” Nickels said. “The people of Seattle own one of the best water supplies in the country, every bit as good as bottled water and available at a fraction of the price. When you add up the tremendous environmental costs of disposable plastic bottles clogging our landfills, the better choice is crystal clear.”

According to the city’s press release, “The mayor’s order — which applies only to city departments — is the first step in an effort to promote Seattle’s water and get people to consider kicking the bottle habit.” What else does the Emerald City have up her sleeve? Grab a glass of tap water, take a sip and stay tuned for more.

[ Via Tree Hugger ]

This book is a must-read if you or your patients are concerned about the way the prescription drug business works. If you have wondered why the cost of medications in our system has gone from half to more than the cost of physician services over a decade, you’ll find some answers here. The writing style is journalistic without being sensational, has well-supported observations, and is an easy read.

There is a strong British Columbia connection since Mr Cassels is a drug policy researcher at the University of Victoria whom many of us have met or heard speak on drug issues. Some of the examples given in the book are very familiar, including references to activities of the Therapeutics Initiative, the work of some BC physicians, and several Pharmacare initiatives. Mr Moynihan is an Australian medical journalist who has written in the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

The focus is on the myriad avenues through which “big pharma” constantly influences every facet of medication use—marketing, regulation and policy, upward cost pressures, research, guideline development, and the seduction of physicians with money, peer pressure, prestige, and trinkets.

Serious questions are raised that our profession should be asking itself about the reluctance to establish stronger ethical boundaries with the pharmaceutical industry, regulation of financial relationships with sellers, acceptance of financial incentives, and frank conflict of interest. Material is drawn from several countries’ experiences and it reveals the cost of shrinking government support for research and evaluation; it leaves drug development to an industry that aims to fund only what might increase sales.

The chapter titles are descriptive: Selling to Everyone (Cholesterol, the Ads), Working with Celebrities (Menopause and the Public), Making Risks into Medical Conditions (Blood Pressure), Advertising Disease (Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder), Taming the Watchdogs (IBS and the FDA), and so on.

The information in this book confirmed many things I had suspected. Physicians reading this book should recognize big pharma’s influence on the provision and cost of services and increased testing and office visits. The overlap from consumer advertising in the United States to the Canadian system and the number of patients sent to physicians’ offices specifically to request products they have been “sold” are further evidence of the industry’s sway.

The impact of siphoning billions of dollars away from other service needs, including physician services, and how we as a profession play a role in the uncontrollable rise in pharmaceutical costs are examined.

This is a timely book and I recommend it to anyone concerned about the bigger picture in health care. It makes clear that leaving our fate to the marketplace is risky and expensive and not necessarily a good thing for our patients’ health or our health care system.

—David Blair, MD

Book is available for purchase at Amazon.com:
Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients

The nation is entangled in two wars, a deep recession and a flu pandemic, and the people’s representatives are hard at work investigating the menace of . . . bottled water?

Rep. Bart Stupak, for one, isn't swallowing what the dihydrogen monoxide lobby serves up. (By Lauren Victoria Burke -- Associated Press)

“I don’t think we have to wait for a deadly outbreak of disease!” said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), holding aloft a bottle of Coca-Cola’s Dasani water. Stupak, chairman of the House commerce subcommittee that held yesterday’s hearing, titled “Regulation of Bottled Water,” called in the deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and others to talk about the terrible threat posed by H2O: “Just because it comes in a bottle, we assume it’s healthier,” he said, “but it’s not the case.”

Stupak had found the enemy, and it is Evian. And Poland Spring, and Aquafina and the rest. He even banished from the hearing room the bottles of Deer Park that are usually provided for members and witnesses, in favor of pitchers of iced tap water.

But is it true about this liquid scourge? Or is the chairman all wet? This much is clear, crisp and refreshing: Bottled water has not killed anybody, and it’s not even clear that it has made anybody sick. And, as the committee learned, it is already regulated more strictly than other foods.

“With all the life-threatening health priorities facing the FDA, including numerous foodborne-illness outbreaks, complications with acetaminophen and the swine flu pandemic, this issue does to me seem a little secondary,” chided Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), the ranking Republican on the panel.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) joined in the complaint that “today’s hearing doesn’t rank on the top of the list” of serious issues. “It shows when you look on your side how much support there is,” Barton said, beckoning to the Democrats’ seats, empty except for Stupak’s.

There are those who say the glass is half full. There are others who say it is half empty. And there is now a third group, which says the bottle that the water in the glass came from should be labeled to show the fluid’s origin, as well as its contaminants in parts per billion.

That third group was well represented yesterday in the Rayburn Building, where a House committee spent two hours testing the waters of bottled-water regulation. Aided by witnesses from the Environmental Working Group and the Government Accountability Office, Stupak had the tenacity of Eliot Ness as he took on the Fiji-sipping crowd.

“Bottled-water drinkers cite health and safety as the primary reason they choose bottled water over tap water,” the chairman said, with three unconsumed bottles of water on the desk in front of him. “However, bottled water has been recalled due to contamination by arsenic, bromate, cleaning compounds, mold and bacteria.”

It soon emerged from the witnesses that there was no evidence bottled water is any dirtier than tap water — and in some cases, such as lead, the bottled water standards are more stringent. The main difference is one of disclosure: Municipal water, regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, has to make public its test results; bottled water, regulated by the FDA, does not.

But Stupak’s grievances against the pernicious liquid were deeper. He railed against Aquamantra Spring Water, and its claim that “the molecular structure of water was changed by a Zen Buddhist monk’s thought.”

“I’d be highly skeptical,” said the FDA official, Joshua M. Sharfstein, but he added that the FDA would only object “if people are saying, ‘Drink this water and it cures cancer.’ ”

And what about Poland Spring’s claim that somebody on his deathbed once drank the water and lived? “Historical fable,” Sharfstein explained.

“How about the other ones, the makers of H2Ohm, claiming they play musical sounds at their bottling facility that charge the water with vibratory frequencies?” the chairman asked.

“I’m not a musician,” Sharfstein said, reminding Stupak that the FDA would step in only if the water were falsely claiming to treat a medical condition.

Of course, if you think Buddhist monks and musical vibrations are altering your water, you probably need a stiffer beverage in the first place.

Some members of the panel were trying hard not to quaff at the chairman’s bottled-water crusade. “Normally I have a bottle of water here so if I get parched, but now we are stuck with D.C. water,” said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), pointing out the chairman’s confiscation of the Deer Park. “There used to be a little sign in my office in the Longworth Building saying ‘Do Not Drink the Tap Water.’ I don’t know if that’s changed, but I’m a little reluctant to drink what’s before us today.”

Burgess finished before his time was up, and the chairman was pleased. “I didn’t want you to get parched,” said Stupak, who was not about to let the barbs dampen his investigation.

Finally, a lone Democrat, Del. Donna M. Christian-Christensen from the Virgin Islands, arrived and came to Stupak’s defense. She announced that she “may never” drink a bottle of Evian or Fiji water again.

Patiently, the man from the FDA explained anew that, while the regulations for tap and bottled water are slightly different, bottled water isn’t held to a lesser standard. In fact, he said, there is “definitely more” regulation of bottled water than of bottled soft drinks.

This was not going well. A congressional staffer in the audience started to play BrickBreaker on his phone. A small dog escaped from the Democratic staff room and made its way to the witness table before being apprehended. Stupak took a sip from his glass of iced D.C. water.

[ Via Washington Post ]

Summary of Stephen R. Covey’s
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
In his #1 bestseller, Stephen R. Covey presented a framework for personal effectiveness. The following is a summary of the first part of his book, concluding with a list of the seven habits.

Inside-Out:  The Change Starts from Within

While working on his doctorate in the 1970’s, Stephen R. Covey reviewed 200 years of literature on success. He noticed that since the 1920’s, success writings have focused on solutions to specific problems. In some cases such tactical advice may have been effective, but only for immediate issues and not for the long-term, underlying ones. The success literature of the last half of the 20th century largely attributed success to personality traits, skills, techniques, maintaining a positive attitude, etc. This philosophy can be referred to as the Personality Ethic.

However, during the 150 years or so that preceded that period, the literature on success was more character oriented. It emphasized the deeper principles and foundations of success. This philosophy is known as the Character Ethic, under which success is attributed more to underlying characteristics such as integrity, courage, justice, patience, etc.

The elements of the Character Ethic are primary traits while those of the Personality Ethic are secondary. While secondary traits may help one to play the game to succeed in some specific circumstances, for long-term success both are necessary. One’s character is what is most visible in long-term relationships. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “What you are shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say.”

To illustrate the difference between primary and secondary traits, Covey offers the following example. Suppose you are in Chicago and are using a map to find a particular destination in the city. You may have excellent secondary skills in map reading and navigation, but will never find your destination if you are using a map of Detroit. In this example, getting the right map is a necessary primary element before your secondary skills can be used effectively.

The problem with relying on the Personality Ethic is that unless the basic underlying paradigms are right, simply changing outward behavior is not effective. We see the world based on our perspective, which can have a dramatic impact on the way we perceive things. For example, many experiments have been conducted in which two groups of people are shown two different drawings. One group is shown, for instance, a drawing of a young, beautiful woman and the other group is shown a drawing of an old, frail woman. After the initial exposure to the pictures, both groups are shown one picture of a more abstract drawing. This drawing actually contains the elements of both the young and the old woman. Almost invariably, everybody in the group that was first shown the young woman sees a young woman in the abstract drawing, and those who were shown the old woman see an old woman. Each group was convinced that it had objectively evaluated the drawing. The point is that we see things not as they are, but as we are conditioned to see them. Once we understand the importance of our past conditioning, we can experience a paradigm shift in the way we see things. To make large changes in our lives, we must work on the basic paradigms through which we see the world.

The Character Ethic assumes that there are some absolute principles that exist in all human beings. Some examples of such principles are fairness, honesty, integrity, human dignity, quality, potential, and growth. Principles contrast with practices in that practices are for specific situations whereas principles have universal application.

The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People presents an “inside-out” approach to effectiveness that is centered on principles and character. Inside-out means that the change starts within oneself. For many people, this approach represents a paradigm shift away from the Personality Ethic and toward the Character Ethic.

The Seven Habits – An Overview

Our character is a collection of our habits, and habits have a powerful role in our lives. Habits consist of knowledge, skill, and desire. Knowledge allows us to know what to do, skill gives us the ability to know how to do it, and desire is the motivation to do it.

The Seven Habits move us through the following stages:

1. Dependence: the paradigm under which we are born, relying upon others to take care of us.
2. Independence: the paradigm under which we can make our own decisions and take care of ourselves.
3. Interdependence: the paradigm under which we cooperate to achieve something that cannot be achieved independently.

Much of the success literature today tends to value independence, encouraging people to become liberated and do their own thing. The reality is that we are interdependent, and the independent model is not optimal for use in an interdependent environment that requires leaders and team players.

To make the choice to become interdependent, one first must be independent, since dependent people have not yet developed the character for interdependence. Therefore, the first three habits focus on self-mastery, that is, achieving the private victories required to move from dependence to independence. The first three habits are:

• Habit 1: Be Proactive
• Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind
• Habit 3: Put First Things First

Habits 4, 5, and 6 then address interdependence:

• Habit 4: Think Win/Win
• Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood
• Habit 6: Synergize

Finally, the seventh habit is one of renewal and continual improvement, that is, of building one’s personal production capability. To be effective, one must find the proper balance between actually producing and improving one’s capability to produce. Covey illustrates this point with the fable of the goose and the golden egg.

In the fable, a poor farmer’s goose began laying a solid gold egg every day, and the farmer soon became rich. He also became greedy and figured that the goose must have many golden eggs within her. In order to obtain all of the eggs immediately, he killed the goose. Upon cutting it open he discovered that it was not full of golden eggs. The lesson is that if one attempts to maximize immediate production with no regard to the production capability, the capability will be lost. Effectiveness is a function of both production and the capacity to produce.

The need for balance between production and production capability applies to physical, financial, and human assets. For example, in an organization the person in charge of a particular machine may increase the machine’s immediate production by postponing scheduled maintenance. As a result of the increased output, this person may be rewarded with a promotion. However, the increased immediate output comes at the expense of future production since more maintenance will have to be performed on the machine later. The person who inherits the mess may even be blamed for the inevitable downtime and high maintenance expense.

Customer loyalty also is an asset to which the production and production capability balance applies. A restaurant may have a reputation for serving great food, but the owner may decide to cut costs and lower the quality of the food. Immediately, profits will soar, but soon the restaurant’s reputation will be tarnished, the customer’s trust will be lost, and profits will decline.

This does not mean that only production capacity is important. If one builds capacity but never uses it, there will be no production. There is a balance between building production capacity and actually producing. Finding the right tradeoff is central to one’s effectiveness.

The above has been an introduction and overview of the 7 Habits. The following introduces the first habit in Covey’s framework.

FROM DEPENDENCE TO INDEPENDENCE

Habit 1:      Be Proactive

A unique ability that sets humans apart from animals is self-awareness and the ability to choose how we respond to any stimulus. While conditioning can have a strong impact on our lives, we are not determined by it. There are three widely accepted theories of determinism: genetic, psychic, and environmental. Genetic determinism says that our nature is coded into our DNA, and that our personality traits are inherited from our grandparents. Psychic determinism says that our upbringing determines our personal tendencies, and that emotional pain that we felt at a young age is remembered and affects the way we behave today. Environmental determinism states that factors in our present environment are responsible for our situation, such as relatives, the national economy, etc. These theories of determinism each assume a model in which the stimulus determines the response.

Viktor Frankl was a Jewish psychiatrist who survived the death camps of Nazi Germany. While in the death camps, Frankl realized that he alone had the power to determine his response to the horror of the situation. He exercised the only freedom he had in that environment by envisioning himself teaching students after his release. He became an inspiration for others around him. He realized that in the middle of the stimulus-response model, humans have the freedom to choose.

Animals do not have this independent will. They respond to a stimulus like a computer responds to its program. They are not aware of their programming and do not have the ability to change it. The model of determinism was developed based on experiments with animals and neurotic people. Such a model neglects our ability to choose how we will respond to stimuli.

We can choose to be reactive to our environment. For example, if the weather is good, we will be happy. If the weather is bad, we will be unhappy. If people treat us well, we will feel well; if they don’t, we will feel bad and become defensive. We also can choose to be proactive and not let our situation determine how we will feel. Reactive behavior can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. By accepting that there is nothing we can do about our situation, we in fact become passive and do nothing.

The first habit of highly effective people is proactivity. Proactive people are driven by values that are independent of the weather or how people treat them. Gandhi said, “They cannot take away our self respect if we do not give it to them.” Our response to what happened to us affects us more than what actually happened. We can choose to use difficult situations to build our character and develop the ability to better handle such situations in the future.

Proactive people use their resourcefulness and initiative to find solutions rather than just reporting problems and waiting for other people to solve them.

Being proactive means assessing the situation and developing a positive response for it. Organizations can be proactive rather than be at the mercy of their environment. For example, a company operating in an industry that is experiencing a downturn can develop a plan to cut costs and actually use the downturn to increase market share.

Once we decide to be proactive, exactly where we focus our efforts becomes important. There are many concerns in our lives, but we do not always have control over them. One can draw a circle that represents areas of concern, and a smaller circle within the first that represents areas of control. Proactive people focus their efforts on the things over which they have influence, and in the process often expand their area of influence. Reactive people often focus their efforts on areas of concern over which they have no control. Their complaining and negative energy tend to shrink their circle of influence.

In our area of concern, we may have direct control, indirect control, or no control at all. We have direct control over problems caused by our own behavior. We can solve these problems by changing our habits. We have indirect control over problems related to other people’s behavior. We can solve these problems by using various methods of human influence, such as empathy, confrontation, example, and persuasion. Many people have only a few basic methods such as fight or flight. For problems over which we have no control, first we must recognize that we have no control, and then gracefully accept that fact and make the best of the situation.

SUMMARY OF THE SEVEN HABITS

Habit 1:  Be Proactive

Change starts from within, and highly effective people make the decision to improve their lives through the things that they can influence rather than by simply reacting to external forces.

Habit 2:  Begin with the End in Mind

Develop a principle-centered personal mission statement. Extend the mission statement into long-term goals based on personal principles.

Habit 3:  Put First Things First

Spend time doing what fits into your personal mission, observing the proper balance between production and building production capacity. Identify the key roles that you take on in life, and make time for each of them.

Habit 4:  Think Win/Win

Seek agreements and relationships that are mutually beneficial. In cases where a “win/win” deal cannot be achieved, accept the fact that agreeing to make “no deal” may be the best alternative. In developing an organizational culture, be sure to reward win/win behavior among employees and avoid inadvertantly rewarding win/lose behavior.

Habit 5:  Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood

First seek to understand the other person, and only then try to be understood. Stephen Covey presents this habit as the most important principle of interpersonal relations. Effective listening is not simply echoing what the other person has said through the lens of one’s own experience. Rather, it is putting oneself in the perspective of the other person, listening empathically for both feeling and meaning.

Habit 6:  Synergize

Through trustful communication, find ways to leverage individual differences to create a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. Through mutual trust and understanding, one often can solve conflicts and find a better solution than would have been obtained through either person’s own solution.

Habit 7:  Sharpen the Saw

Take time out from production to build production capacity through personal renewal of the physical, mental, social/emotional, and spiritual dimensions. Maintain a balance among these dimensions.

Book is available for purchase at Amazon.com:
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

WASHINGTON, DC– An Environmental Working Group (EWG) investigation of almost 200 popular bottled water brands found less than 2 percent disclose the water’s source, how the water has been purified and what chemical pollutants each bottle of water may contain. Just 2 of the 188 individual brands EWG analyzed disclosed those three basic facts about their water.

Full report found here: http://www.ewg.org/health/report/bottledwater-scorecard

Jane Houlihan, EWG Senior Vice President for Research, discussed the findings of the 18-month long study in testimony today before a congressional oversight hearing on the gaps in government regulation of the bottled water industry.

Some of the more interesting discoveries were that mainstream brands such as Sam’s Club and Walgreen’s scored relatively high marks, while waters marketed as elite, including Perrier, S. Pellegrino and the Whole Foods store brand, flunked because they provided almost no meaningful information for consumers.

Why the glaring lack of disclosure? Houlihan said that bottled water companies enjoy a regulatory holiday under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which give beverage corporations complete latitude to choose what, if any, information about their water they divulge to customers.

In contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — the federal agency that oversees the nation’s municipal water utilities — requires all 52,000 community tap water suppliers nationwide to produce an annual water quality report: The utilities’ reports detail water source and pollutant testing results for customers, as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act. An estimated 58 percent of these reports also describe water treatment methods.

“Many people assume bottled water is healthier and safer to drink than ordinary tap water. But some companies have lured consumers away from the tap with claims of health and purity that aren’t backed by public data,” Houlihan said. “The ugly truth is that under lax federal law, consumers know very little about the quality of bottled water on which they spend billions every year.”

“The Bottled water industry’s strategy has been to market bottled water as the safe and clean alternative to tap water,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the non-profit consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch. “This myth has been used to trick consumers into paying thousands times more for a product that is the same or even more polluted than the water available from our faucets. Tap water in the United States undergoes rigorous testing for contaminants—as often as 480 times a month, far more than the once–a–week test for bottled water.”

EWG researchers analyzed labels and websites from 188 bottled waters to learn which bottlers voluntarily disclosed the same information as required of community water suppliers. EWG found that many disclose little to no information at all on water source and purity.

EWG compared 2008 and 2009 labels and websites to learn how many brands are telling customers more this year than last. The answer was a heartening 52 percent, though in nearly every case water bottlers provided less information than municipal water utilities.

“Members of Congress need to understand that it has taken major public outcry, followed by proactive legislation, to provoke much of these changes,” said Kelle Louaillier, executive director for Corporate Accountability International, an organization that has compelled both Pepsi and Nestlé to label the source of their bottled water. “Starting today, Congress can work to guarantee the consumer’s right to know what exactly they are getting in these disposable plastic water bottles.”

Few water sources are completely free of detectable contaminants. The 40 percent of bottled water brands that rely on tap water are drawing from supplies that collectively contain at least 260 pollutants, according to EWG’s 2002-2005 survey of tap water testing conducted by community water supplies.

Last year EWG commissioned bottled water quality tests that found that the water is not necessarily any safer than ordinary tap water. The lab tests of 10 major brands identified 38 pollutants, ranging from fertilizer residue to industrial solvents. Pollutants in 2 brands exceeded some state and industry health standards.

Legislation is underway to close loopholes in nationwide bottled water standards. A California law effective January 1, 2009, requires bottled water companies to post information on the water source, treatment and testing on labels and websites. A bill introduced in the U.S. Senate last year would require similar strictures at the federal level.

###

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.http://www.ewg.org

Each and every time California’s babies and toddlers take a sip from their bottle or their sippy cup they are needlessly exposed to a dangerous chemical.  I am determined to change that and to protect our children.

I am currently embroiled in a David and Goliath battle to pass SB 797, which would ban the use of the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in food and drink containers for children three years and younger.   SB 797 passed the Senate with the bare minimum of 21 votes amid heavy lobbying by the chemical industry.  In the next few weeks my colleagues in the Assembly will have the final say on whether this bill goes to the Governor for his signature.

BPA, an artificial hormone, is widely used in shatter-proof plastic baby bottles, sippy cups and the lining of formula cans. It leaches out of the liquid into the food and drink consumed by babies and young children.  More than 200 peer-reviewed studies have linked BPA to a host of health problems, including breast and prostrate cancer, infertility, obesity, and neurological and behavioral changes, including autism and hyperactivity.  BPA is a hormone-disrupting chemical and it acts like an estrogen in the body. Its repeated ingestion is the equivalent of given babies daily low-level doses of birth control pills.  Because babies are growing and developing, their bodies, brains and organs are particularly susceptible to hormone disruption; they also cannot dispel harmful chemicals as well as adults.

Consumer outrage over the food industry’s continued use of the chemical has created a backlash that is spreading nationally and internationally. Minnesota became the first state in the nation to ban BPA from baby bottles, and Connecticut has since enacted a ban as well. 21 other states and municipalities have bills pending to restrict the use of BPA. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein is pursuing legislation on the federal level. Canada has banned the chemical from baby bottles.

Some members of the Assembly have told me they will not support my bill to protect our children because they want to wait and see what happens with California’s Green Chemistry Initiative (GCI).  I support the green chemistry initiative passed by the Legislature last year, which requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to look comprehensively at potential hazards from chemicals in consumer products and to find safer alternatives. But it may be several years before they are ready to review chemical bans.

In the meantime, more than 550,000 babies will be born in California each year and will be exposed to the health risks posed by BPA.  We can’t wait.

The powerful chemical industry has mounted an all out assault against my bill to protect our children. Highly paid lobbyists for popular formula companies are trying to kill SB 797 by telling my colleagues that alternative products aren’t available and a ban on BPA would cause a formula shortage. Yet, at the same time these companies are marketing a variety of formula and food containers to parents as “BPA free.”

California has always been a leader on environmental and health issues, but we are already behind other states and countries, which have already banned BPA from children’s products.

Please contact your representative in the Assembly and urge him/her to protect our children from harm by voting for SB 797.  Let’s get this dangerous chemical out of our children’s food and drink.

[via ewg]

Fluoride, the ionic form of the element fluorine, has been added to community drinking water supplies since the 1940s to help prevent tooth decay. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, about 184 million Americans — nearly 70 percent of the U.S. population — drink fluoridated water.

Over-exposure to fluoride can be toxic, causing fluorosis (mottling and loss of tooth enamel) and skeletal fluorosis (joint pain and stiffness and bone fractures). Some studies point to a possible link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma, bone cancer.

The Environmental Working Group supports the use of fluoride in toothpaste, where there is strong evidence of its effectiveness. But EWG’s analysis concludes that fluoridation of public water supplies should stop, because risks outweigh possible benefits, especially for infants and young children who consume more water than adults, relative to their size.

An August 2007 EWG analysis, Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water, warned that the Southern California’s Metropolitan Water District plan to fluoridate drinking water would expose more than 64,000 children to unsafe fluoride levels. The numbers of children at risk will grow if the Environmental Protection Agency follows a 2006 recommendation by the influential National Research Council to lower the legal fluoride level in drinking water.

Scientists are exploring whether childhood exposure to fluoride may cause osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. In June 2005, EWG executive director Richard Wiles urged the National Toxicology Program to add fluoride in tap water to its biennial Report on Carcinogens. Wiles cited research by Dr. Elise B. Bassin, whose 2001 Harvard doctoral thesis reported that boys who drank fluoridated water were five times more likely to develop osteosarcoma than those who drank unfluoridated water.

A side controversy developed when EWG discovered that Bassin’s doctoral advisor — Dr. Chester Douglass of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine — had omitted her striking results from his final report while conducting research on fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma on grants from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. Douglass’s claim that no relationship between fluoride and cancer had been observed, coupled with his financial relationship with fluoride toothpaste manufacturer Colgate-Palmolive, led EWG to file ethics complaints with NIEHS and Harvard. Douglass was subsequently cleared of “intentionally” suppressing Bassin’s findings.

In February 2008, EWG asked the Federal Trade Commission to stop Nursery Water, one of the nation’s biggest infant bottled water companies, from advertising that its fluoridated water is safe for babies, in violation of Federal Food and Drug Administration rules and American Academy of Pediatrics guidance.

For more information, contact the Fluoride Action Network.

[via ewg]

The result? Nothing less than the strongest anti-oxidant available, at the push of a button, and able to difuse the waves of scavenging free radicals which can cause major damage and corrosion inside the body.

Drink up and get well soon!,

The Kangen Family