New Study Shows Artificial Sweeteners Lead to Diabetes

By Dr. Mercola

The American Diabetes Association states foods and drinks that use artificial sweeteners are an option that “may help curb your cravings for something sweet” if you have diabetes. They’re among a number of public health organizations spreading the deceptive and incorrect message that artificial sweeteners make a sensible alternative to sugar for diabetics even as the research continues to accumulate to the contrary.

In a small, preliminary study presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Lisbon, Portugal, researchers at the University of Adelaide in Australia revealed that artificial sweeteners impair the body’s response to glucose, reducing control of blood sugar levels.1,2 The study involved 27 healthy participants who were given either capsules of the artificial sweeteners sucralose (brand name Splenda) and acesulfame K in an amount equivalent to consuming 1.5 liters of diet drinks a day or a placebo.

It took just two weeks for the artificial sweetener group to show adverse effects to their blood sugar levels, including a reduction in numbers of the gut peptide GLP-1, which limits the rise in blood sugar after eating. Lead study author Richard Young, associate professor at the University of Adelaide, said in a news release, “This highlights the potential for exaggerated post-meal glucose levels in high habitual NAS [noncaloric artificial sweeteners] users, which could predispose them to developing Type 2 diabetes.”3

Science Increasingly Suggests Artificial Sweeteners Contribute to Glucose Intolerance, Diabetes

Critics of the University of Adelaide study suggested it was too small and “impossible from the data available” to conclude that the observed changes would lead to diabetes.4 However, it’s not the first study to suggest such a link. For instance, drinking aspartame-sweetened diet soda daily increased the risk of Type 2 diabetes by 67 percent (regardless of whether the participants gained weight or not) and the risk of metabolic syndrome 36 percent in one study.5

Artificial sweeteners may increase your risk of weight gain, obesity, metabolic syndrome and other related problems like Type 2 diabetes by inducing “metabolic derangements,” according to a report published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism.6 Research published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism also found aspartame intake is associated with greater glucose intolerance in people with obesity.7

Glucose intolerance is a condition in which your body loses its ability to cope with high amounts of sugar, and it’s a well-known precursor to Type 2 diabetes. It also plays a role in obesity, because the excess sugar in your blood ends up being stored in your fat cells. This means obese individuals who use aspartame may have higher blood sugar levels, which in turn will raise insulin levels, leading to related weight gain, inflammation and an increased risk of diabetes.

Artificial Sweetener in Four Cans of Diet Soda Daily May Increase Fat Production, Inflammation

As far as sucralose goes, in April 2017 research presented at ENDO 2017, the Endocrine Society’s 99th annual meeting in Orlando, Florida, also found that this artificial sweetener promotes metabolic dysfunction that may promote the accumulation of fat.8

Sucralose was tested on stem cells taken from human fat tissue, which revealed that a dose similar to what would be found in the blood of someone who drinks four cans of diet soda a day increased the expression of genes linked to fat production and inflammation, as well as increased fat droplets on cells.9

The study’s lead author, Dr. Sabyasachi Sen, associate professor of medicine and endocrinology at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., noted in a press release, “From our study, we believe low-calorie sweeteners promote additional fat formation by allowing more glucose to enter the cells, and promotes inflammation, which may be more detrimental in obese individuals.”10

The fact that the artificial sweetener was associated with increased glucose uptake in the cells was particularly concerning, as it could have detrimental effects for people with elevated blood sugar levels, like those with diabetes or prediabetes.11

Consuming Artificial Sweeteners Alters Gut Flora, Exacerbating Metabolic Disease

It’s a little-known fact that artificial sweeteners have been shown to induce glucose intolerance by altering gut microbiota.12 Research led by Eran Elinav of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, first showed that mice fed artificial sweeteners developed glucose intolerance after 11 weeks. They then revealed that altering the animals’ gut bacteria influenced their glucose response.

Specifically, when they transplanted feces from glucose-intolerant mice consuming saccharin to mice with sterile intestines, the latter group developed glucose intolerance, “indicating that saccharin was causing the microbiome to become unhealthy,” Scientific American reported.13 Perhaps the most revealing part of the experiments came when the researchers tested artificial sweeteners on people. Scientific American continued:14

“[Elinav’s] team recruited seven lean and healthy volunteers, who did not normally use artificial sweeteners, for a small prospective study. The recruits consumed the maximum acceptable daily dose of artificial sweeteners for a week. Four became glucose intolerant, and their gut microbiomes shifted towards a balance already known to be associated with susceptibility to metabolic diseases.”

Splenda has also been found to reduce the amount of beneficial bacteria in rat intestines by 50 percent15 and depending on which ones are affected it could certainly affect your diabetes risk. Studies have found that the microbial composition in diabetics differ from nondiabetics.16

In particular, diabetics tend to have fewer firmicutes and more plentiful amounts of bacteroidetes and proteobacteria compared to nondiabetics. A positive correlation for the ratios of bacteroidetes to firmicutes and reduced glucose tolerance has also been found.

A researcher in Amsterdam, Dr. Max Nieuwdorp, has published a number of studies looking at changes in the microbiome that are characteristic of Type 2 diabetes.17 In one trial, he was able to reverse Type 2 diabetes in all of the 250 study participants by doing fecal transplantations on them. Remarkable as it may sound, by changing the makeup of the gut bacteria, the diabetes was resolved, so it’s not a stretch to think that the opposite could also hold true.

Diet Drinks May Trigger a Greater Metabolic Response Than Sugary Drinks

Part of the problem with artificial sweeteners is that the sweet taste they provide (in many cases even hundreds of times sweeter-tasting than sugar) does not match up with the energy (or calories) the food provides.

Your body, however, is designed to relate the two, and a recent study by Yale University School of Medicine researchers revealed that the mismatch that occurs when consuming artificially sweetened foods and beverages leads to disruptions to metabolism.18,19 In a Yale University press release, senior author and psychiatry professor Dana Small said:20

“The assumption that more calories trigger greater metabolic and brain response is wrong. Calories are only half of the equation; sweet taste perception is the other half … Our bodies evolved to efficiently use the energy sources available in nature. Our modern food environment is characterized by energy sources our bodies have never seen before.”

The study found that an artificially sweetened, lower-calorie drink that tastes sweet can trigger a greater metabolic response than a drink with a higher number of calories.21 Your body uses the drink’s sweetness to help determine how it should be metabolized. When sweetness matches up with the calories, your brain’s reward circuits are duly satisfied. However, when the sweet taste is not followed by the expected calories, your brain doesn’t get the same satisfying message.22

This may explain why diet foods and drinks have been linked to increased appetite and cravings, as well as an increased risk of diabetes and other metabolic diseases.23,24 When you eat something sweet, your brain releases dopamine, which activates your brain’s reward center. The appetite-regulating hormone leptin is also released, which eventually informs your brain that you are “full” once a certain amount of calories have been ingested.

However, when you consume something that tastes sweet but doesn’t contain any calories, your brain’s pleasure pathway still gets activated by the sweet taste, but there’s nothing to deactivate it, since the calories never arrive. Artificial sweeteners basically trick your body into thinking that it’s going to receive sugar (calories), but when the sugar doesn’t come, your body continues to signal that it needs more, which results in carb cravings.

Yale Cardiologist — and Ex-Diet Soda Fiend — Speaks Out Against Them

Dr. Harlan Krumholz is a cardiologist at Yale University School of Medicine who openly states, “I used to pound down diet drinks.”25 Like so many Americans, he believed the low-calorie, sugar-free drinks to be a guilt-free source of caffeine that helped him keep his weight down. Now he feels betrayed, and he’s speaking out against them. Krumholz cited a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) — the gold standard of research — which found:26

“Evidence from RCTs does not clearly support the intended benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management, and observational data suggest that routine intake of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with increased BMI [body mass index] and cardiometabolic risk.”

He also mentioned other concerning studies, like one that found artificial sweeteners activate different areas in the brain than regular sugar,27 which could ultimately influence feelings of hunger and reward pathways.

Another, conducted by his Yale University colleagues, found artificial sweeteners “are not physiologically inert compounds” and may “impact energy balance and metabolic function, including actions on oral and extra-oral sweet taste receptors, and effects on metabolic hormone secretion, cognitive processes (e.g., reward learning, memory, and taste perception), and gut microbiota.”28 Krumholz wrote in The Wall Street Journal that he’s stopped his daily diet drinks and is removing them from the rest of his diet as well.

It is reasonable to ask why these substances were not evaluated as drugs in the first place,” he says. “Millions of people are exposed to them every day, and yet their long-term effect is uncertain. Could they be actually causing the health problems they were intended to prevent? I don’t know the answer at this point, but it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the manufacturers to show benefit and demonstrate safety through clinical trials …

If, in the end, we discover that large-scale consumption of diet drinks and foods helped fuel the obesity epidemic, it would be more than ironic. It would be tragic.”29

Are You Ready to Ditch ‘Diet’ Foods From Your Diet?

I would not recommend waiting for public health agencies to catch up to the science and change their stance on artificial sweeteners before making changes to your diet. If you’re currently an artificial sweetener fanatic, or even if you consume them in moderation, ditching them from your diet is a smart move for your health. Be aware that they’re found not only in diet sodas but also in many low-calorie and reduced-calorie foods, from yogurt and ice cream to bread and salad dressing.

Stevia is an acceptable replacement, but I also suggest curbing your sweet cravings by eating fermented vegetables or drinking water with lemon or lime juice added — the sour taste helps reduce cravings, as does organic black coffee.30,31 To learn more, my book “Sweet Deception” has the details about why artificial sweeteners are so hazardous for your health as well as common artificial sweetener-related side effects to watch out for.

Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy Correlates to Lower IQ in Their Children

By Dr. Mercola

Many still do not realize the proven health risks inherent with fluoridated water, but the information is spreading. Beginning in 1945, it was claimed that adding fluoride to drinking water was a safe and effective way to improve people’s dental health. Over the decades, many bought into this hook, line and sinker, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Scientific investigations have revealed that fluoride is an endocrine-disrupting chemical,1 and have linked it to the rising prevalence of thyroid disease.2 Importantly, fluoride has been identified as a developmental neurotoxin that impacts short-term and working memory, contributes to rising rates of attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD)3 and lowered IQ in children.4

Now, a new, long-term multimillion-dollar study sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and conducted by a research team that has produced over 50 papers on the effects of environmental exposures on children’s cognitive health, sheds light on the price children pay when mothers are exposed to fluoride during pregnancy.

As noted by Paul Connett, Ph.D., toxicologist, environmental chemist and former director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) in the video commentary above (while retiring and handing over the director’s position to his son Michael, Connett remains very active in the organization):

“This should spell the end of water fluoridation worldwide. How can you possibly continue to expose millions of pregnant women and children to a known neurotoxic substance, now that you know there’s a relationship between how much fluoride a woman is exposed to in pregnancy and the IQ of the children born to them?”

Lowered Fluoridation Level Still Too High

In April 2015, the U.S. government admitted the “optimal” level of fluoride recommended since 1962 had in fact been too high, resulting in over 40 percent of American teens having dental fluorosis — a sign of fluoride overexposure. In some areas, dental fluorosis rates are as high as 70 to 80 percent, with some children suffering from advanced forms.

As a result of these findings, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lowered its recommended level of fluoride in drinking water by 40 percent, from an upper limit of 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.7 mg/L.5

The HHS will re-evaluate dental fluorosis rates among children again around 2025, to assess whether they were correct about this new level being protective against dental fluorosis. However, even if 0.7 mg/L lowers incidence of dental fluorosis, the current study clearly shows this does NOT mean it’s a safe level overall.

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure Lowers IQ in Children

In a complaint filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in response to its denial of a petition to ban water fluoridation, FAN, along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups, presented the agency with more than 180 studies showing fluoride causes neurotoxic harm and reduced IQ in children.6

Many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or precariously close to, the levels millions of American children receive on a regular basis. All in all, there are more than 300 animal and human studies demonstrating fluoride can cause:7

  • Brain damage, especially when coupled with iodine deficiency or excessive levels of aluminum
  • Reduced IQ
  • Impaired ability to learn and remember
  • Neurobehavioral deficits such as impaired visual-spatial organization
  • Impaired fetal brain development

Now we can add yet another study to this ever-growing list. This study,8,9,10,11 published in Environmental Health Perspectives last month, found a correlation between fluoride exposure in utero and subsequent reductions in cognitive function at the ages of 4 and 6 through 12. Each 0.5 mg/L increase in fluoride over 0.8 mg/L in the mother’s urine was associated with a 2.5-point reduction in IQ and a 3.15-point reduction in general cognitive index (GCI) scores in the child, leading the authors to conclude that:

“… higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6-12 y[ears].”

Prenatal Exposure More Hazardous Than Childhood Exposure

According to lead author Howard Hu, founding dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, this is one of the largest, longest and most rigorously executed studies on fluoride and neurodevelopment ever conducted. The data was collected from nearly 300 Mexican mothers and their children.

While Mexico does not fluoridate drinking water, Mexicans are still exposed to many other sources of fluoride, including naturally-occurring fluoride in water, fluoridated salt, dental products, supplements, pesticides and tea.

Importantly, the researchers found that prenatal exposure was far more influential with respect to cognitive function than subsequent fluoride exposure during childhood. As noted by Hu, “the fetal system tends to be more sensitive to environmental toxicants than once the child is born,” and this study supports that view. According to Connett:

This is the biggest moment for us since the Fluoride Action Network was formed in 2000. It vindicates the concerns we have had on fluoride’s neurotoxicity since Mullenix’s study on animal behavior in 1995 and the first two Chinese studies on IQ published in 1996.”

The mean level of fluoride in the urine of the mothers included in the study was 0.9 mg/L. In the U.S. 75 percent of the population’s drinking water is fluoridated, and according to Hu, the levels of fluoride found in Mexican mothers is unlikely to be significantly different from those found in American women.

Despite that, the American Dental Association (ADA) is still refusing to see the light and commented on the study saying its findings “are not applicable to the U.S.,” and that the ADA “continues to endorse fluoridation of public water as the most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay.”12 How the ADA can prioritize the prevention of tooth decay over IQ loss is simply incomprehensible.

This is especially outrageous in light of research13 showing fluoride only works — and inefficiently at that — when used topically. It has no beneficial effects on teeth when ingested. Besides, there are far more effective and safer options for decreasing tooth decay than using a topical poison or ingesting a harmful industrial pollutant!

IQ Loss From Fluoride Exposure Is Significant

According to Connett, the featured study is very important, as it reveals the loss of IQ is quite large. Essentially, a child of a mother drinking water with 1 part per million (ppm) of fluoride would be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower than a child born to a mother who drank fluoride-free water.

Another important point to be made with regard to this study is that they measured fluoride in urine, which is a far more accurate indicator of total fluoride intake than simply measuring the concentration of fluoride in drinking water, and then calculating how much water is being consumed.

When drinking water is the dominant source of fluoride, then fluoride concentrations in urine and water are typically about the same. Hence, a mean urine fluoride level of 0.9 mg/L implies these women were ingesting the same amount of fluoride as women drinking water with a fluoride level of 0.9 mg/L — just 0.2 mg/L above the currently recommended level for drinking water in the U.S.

When you factor in the range of fluoride exposures in the study, the exposure is likely very close to the range found in many fluoridated areas of the U.S. In a personal email to me, Connett writes:

“The doses in this study are directly applicable to areas with artificial fluoridation. There is no need to extrapolate downward from effects at higher doses. The claims by fluoridation defenders that only studies using much higher doses than occur in areas with artificial fluoridation have shown a loss of IQ are squarely refuted by this study.

Those false claims range from 11 times to 30 times higher, but are based on the logical fallacy that it is the highest dose amongst several studies that is relevant, when it is the LOWEST dose amongst studies that is most relevant.”

NIEHS Study Confirms Earlier Results, Necessitating Action

The study also controlled for a wide range of factors — including lead, mercury, socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol use and pregnancy-related problems — that could potentially skew the results or produce a false effect. Importantly, the researchers were able to largely rule out the influence of these confounding factors. It also confirms the results of earlier, less sophisticated studies done in Mexico and China, which have been criticized for their shortcomings. According to Connett:

“Some of those studies had higher fluoride exposures than commonly found in the U.S., but many did not. The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation (as opposed to artificial salt fluoridation, which was likely a main source of fluoride in this new study) was by Broadbent in New Zealand.

That study found no association between water fluoridation and IQ and was trumpeted by fluoridation defenders. But that study was shown to have almost no difference in TOTAL fluoride intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with unfluoridated water, since most of the children drinking unfluoridated water were given fluoride supplements.”

Hu and his co-authors are cautious in their conclusions, and this is to be expected. But that does not detract from the fact that the implications of this study are enormous. No singular study can prove fluoride lowers IQ when consumed in doses found in fluoridated areas, but when you add it to previous studies, it’s clearly raises a bright red flag.

Study Shows Linear Relationship Between In Utero Fluoride Exposure and IQ Loss

Another really important finding that is being downplayed or entirely ignored by mainstream media is the fact that there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ. The study explains this as follows:

“The smooth plot of the association between GCI [editor’s note: IQ test at age 4] and maternal prenatal urinary fluoride from an adjusted GAM model [editor’s note: a model that corrects for extraneous factors] suggested a linear relation over the exposure distribution (Figure 2).”


Source: Environmental Health Perspectives September 2017; 125(9)

In a nutshell, this means that as the level of fluoride in urine increased, IQ decreased — across the entire range of exposures, from lowest to highest. This in turn means there’s no level at which there will not be some kind of detrimental effect on cognition — it’s just a matter of degree.

Remarkably, the ADA tries to brush off these results by saying it doesn’t apply to Americans drinking fluoridated water because the source of the fluoride was unidentified. As noted by Connett, “This makes no sense. It is irrelevant whether the Mexican women got their fluoride from fluoridated salt, fluoride in drinking water, or from fluoridated dental products.”

The Many Ways in Which Fluoride Harms Children’s Brain Function

As mentioned, there are now hundreds of studies showing fluoride damages brain function, in a variety of different ways. Among the proposed mechanisms of harm, studies have shown fluoride can:14

Interfere with basic functions of nerve cells in the brain

Reduce nicotinic acetylcholine receptors

Reduce lipid content in the brain

Damage the pineal gland through fluoride accumulation

Impair antioxidant defense systems

Damage the hippocampus

Damage purkinje cells

Increase uptake of aluminum, which has neurotoxic effects

Encourage formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer’s disease)

Exacerbate lesions induced by iodine deficiency

Increase manganese absorption, which has also been linked lower IQ in children

Impair thyroid function, which can also affect brain development

Fluoride Is an Unapproved Drug

If everyone knew the dangers of fluoride and had a choice, most would likely opt for fluoride-free drinking water. Unfortunately, you don’t have that choice if you live in an area that adds fluoride to its municipal water supply. Whether you want it or not, you’re being medicated with a substance known to have toxic effects.

It’s important to remember that fluoride is in fact a drug, since it’s used to prevent a disease (tooth decay), and no other drug has ever been administered as a public health measure across the board without regard for age, sex, medical need and other factors that might place you at increased risk for side effects. Patients who are prescribed drugs must be medically monitored, yet in the case of fluoride, no one is tracking anything.

Once you put fluoride in the water, there is no way to control who gets it and how much, and if you suffer side effects, there’s no recourse. Most don’t even realize that their health problems might be connected to fluoride toxicity. Fluoride in water is not even regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), even though it regulates fluoride in toothpaste and other oral care products, which must bear warning labels about the danger of ingesting those products.

The FDA does not even recognize fluoride supplements (which, like water, are ingested) as safe and effective. In fact, to this day the FDA classifies them as “unapproved new drugs.” Last year, the FDA clamped down on pharmacies selling and misrepresenting unapproved fluoride supplements.

They also issued a warning letter to a fluoride supplement manufacturer, demanding it cease making the product because it’s an unapproved drug — hence it is illegal to manufacture and sell. So, how is it that fluoride can still be added to water supplies across the U.S. for the purpose of preventing tooth decay — a purpose that in the eyes of the FDA renders it a drug, and one which they’ve never approved as safe or effective? It’s a most curious situation that no one appears to have the answer to.

Water Fluoridation Is a Violation of Freedom of Choice

Water fluoridation is an absolute violation of your freedom of choice — to take a drug or not, and a toxic one at that. Fluoroquinolones (fluoride-containing antibiotic- and antimicrobial drugs) require FDA black-box warnings, and some of the newer ones have been withdrawn due to toxicity.15 Fluoride-containing drugs have the unique ability to penetrate your central nervous system, including your brain, which is often why fluoride is used in the formulation.

So, why should we think fluoride in water won’t affect the brain? In light of all the evidence, it’s high time we cease this careless and dangerous public health practice. It’s bad medicine that is doing far more harm than good.

Moreover, the types of fluoride typically added to water supplies are not even “clean” pharmaceutical grade fluoride — which is toxic enough — but rather the chemical byproducts of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate fertilizer and nuclear weapons manufacturing. These fluoride chemicals have been shown to contain all sorts of toxic contaminants, including lead, arsenic, radionucleotides and aluminum.

To learn more about fluoride and how you can help end this harmful practice, I highly recommend getting a copy of Connett’s book, The Case Against Fluoride. You can also download my free report on water fluoridation for more information on the bad science and political agendas that got this toxic chemical in our drinking water.

Federal Officials Alerting Consumers About Dangerous Mattress Chemicals

By Dr. Mercola

In 2015, Earthjustice and Consumer Federation of America, on behalf of a group of more than 20 firefighter, health, science and consumer groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Hispanic Medical Association and the International Association of Fire Fighters, asked the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ban organohalogen flame retardants (OFRs), which have been linked to reduced IQ, cancer, hormone disruption and reproductive system damage.1

The petition called for sales of four categories of consumer products — children’s products, furniture, mattresses and electronic casings — to be prohibited if they contain the chemicals, and in a major victory for environmental and public health, in September 2017 CPSC voted to grant the petition to remove the toxic chemicals from the product categories mentioned.

Organohalogen Flame Retardants May Leave a Toxic Legacy Similar to PCBs

At a public hearing held prior to the vote, Genna Reed, science and policy analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, testified that OFRs should be urgently banned, comparing their use to the “earliest form of flame retardants, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),” which are also organohalogens, along with DDT.

PCBs, which have been linked to cancer, reproductive problems and impaired fetal brain development, accumulate in the environment, leaving a lasting toxic legacy that, unfortunately, may be very similar to that left by flame retardants, even after they’re banned. Reed testified:2

“Despite being banned in 1977, these chemicals [PCBs] are still found in dangerously high amounts all over industrial hotspots of the country, and continue to bioaccumulate in a range of species. The ban of PCBs happened decades ago and we are still managing the damaging impacts of the chemical’s prevalence across the country.

The next generation of these chemicals, organohalogen flame retardants, are inside of our own homes in a range of products, thanks largely in part to the disinformation campaign sowed by special interests. The fact remains that the science does not support their continued use.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also evaluating OFRs, but it could be 10 years or more before they make a decision to ban or restrict their use.3 Part of what makes OFRs so toxic is their semivolatile nature, which allows them to migrate from consumer products into household dust, where every household member, from children to pets, is easily exposed.

In a U.S. study conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), flame retardants were detected in every sample of household dust they tested, at concerning levels.

“The average level of brominated fire retardants measured in dust from nine homes was more than 4,600 parts per billion (ppb) … [while] a tenth sample contained more than 41,000 ppb of the chemicals — twice as high as the maximum level previously reported by any dust study worldwide,” EWG reported.4 As Reed noted, OFRs easily meet the definition of “toxic” under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) because ample evidence shows they have the “capacity to cause personal illness.”

“[E]xposure has been associated with a range of health impacts including reproductive impairment, neurological impacts, endocrine disruption, genotoxicity, cancer and immune disorders,” she said at the public hearing, adding that, “perhaps most egregiously, biomonitoring data have revealed that communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to and bear high levels of flame retardant chemicals, adding to the cumulative chemical burden that these communities are already experiencing.”5

American Chemistry Council Deceived the Public About Flame Retardants’ Toxicity, Effectiveness

In 2012, the Chicago Tribune published a revealing investigation, “Playing With Fire,” showing how the chemical industry used tobacco-industry tactics to deceive Americans into accepting flame-retardant chemicals into their homes. In fact, Big Tobacco was involved in their pervasive spread because when the chemicals were developed in the 1970s, nearly half of Americans smoked and cigarettes were a common cause of fires.

As revealed in Toxic Hot Seat, a documentary based on the Tribune’s investigation, rather than create self-extinguishing cigarettes to cut down on fire hazards, the tobacco industry created a front group called the National Association of State Fire Marshals, which pushed for federal standards for fire-retardant furniture.

It worked, and in 1975 California Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117) was passed, which required furniture sold in California to withstand a 12-second exposure to a small flame without igniting — and it basically became a national standard.

The chemical industry then engaged in a deceitful battle to ensure the chemicals stayed front-and-center in Americans’ homes, from establishing phony front groups to funding biased research to meet their agenda, despite evidence showing the chemicals limited effectiveness and health risks. Reed testified in September 2017:6

“The companies that manufacture OFRs have put significant time and money into distorting the scientific truth about these chemicals. As a 2012 Chicago Tribune investigative series noted, the chemical industry ‘has twisted research results, ignored findings that run counter to its aims and passed off biased, industry-funded reports as rigorous science.’

In one case, manufacturers of flame retardants repeatedly pointed to a decades-old government study, arguing the results showed a 15-fold increase in time to escape fires when flame retardants were present.

The lead author of the study, however, said industry officials ‘grossly distorted’ the results and that ‘industry has used this study in ways that are improper and untruthful,’ as the amount of flame retardant used in the tests was much greater than would be found in most consumer items.

The American Chemistry Council has further misrepresented the science behind flame retardants by creating an entire website to spread misleading ideas about flame retardants as safe and effective, even though research has consistently shown their limited effectiveness. In doing so, the American Chemistry Council and its member companies have promoted the prevalent use of OFRs at the expense of public health.”

The chemical industry also engaged in a tactic known as “regrettable substitution,” in which they removed certain flame retardants from products only to replace them with similar, less regulated chemicals that pose many of the same health risks.7

On a positive note, California revised TB117 so that an open flame test is no longer required. As of January 1, 2015, compliance with the updated TB117-2013 became mandatory, which requires upholstered furniture sold in the state to no longer smolder 45 minutes after a lit cigarette is placed on it. This requirement can be met without the use of flame-retardant chemicals (although the law does not ban their use).

Maine Passes Law to Phase Out Flame Retardants in Furniture

It seems the die may have been cast when it comes to the future of flame retardants in the U.S., with both the CPSC’s recent stance against them as well as an August 2017 vote in Maine, in which lawmakers passed a law to phase out all flame retardant chemicals in home furniture—overriding a veto from the governor to do so. While existing inventories of furniture will be allowed to be sold, this ends after January 1, 2019 — the date which furniture containing flame retardants may no longer be sold in the state of Maine.

As for the CPSC vote, it’s encouraging that the agency finally took a stand against toxic flame retardants. As EWG said, “The CPSC’s decision is the most sweeping action to date by the federal government to reduce Americans’ exposure to these chemicals,” although “[r]emoving these chemicals from products will not happen overnight, as the commission will appoint an expert panel of toxicologists to guide the agency on rulemaking.”8

In Washington, meanwhile, the Toxic-Free Kids and Families Act, which bans five flame retardants and gives the state Department of Health the ability to ban additional flame retardants in children’s products and residential furniture, took effect in July 2017. It includes the first ban on tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), which is a flame retardant often found in children’s car seats.9

New TVs Loaded With Flame Retardants

While CPSC has begun the conversation to ultimately ban the use of OFRs in children’s products, mattresses, furniture and electronic casings, research released by Toxic-Free Future revealed that high levels of the chemicals are still being added to new products, namely televisions. Eleven of the 12 TVs tested contained flame retardant chemicals at levels up to 33 percent by weight in the plastic.10 Eight of them also contained flame retardants of “high concern.”

Toxic-Free Future reported, “Two of the TVs — one made by Element and one made by Samsung — contained the PBDE flame retardant deca-BDE, despite its being banned in five states. Those states are Washington, Maine, Oregon, Vermont, and Maryland. The TVs in the study were purchased in Washington. Only one TV, made by Insignia, did not contain any of the flame retardants tested for.”11

It’s a concerning finding, because it means the chemicals will continue to contaminate household dust and bioaccumulate in the environment and people’s bodies for many years to come. While CPSC has urged manufacturers to stop using the chemicals, they’re likely not going to give in without a fight.

Protect Yourself and Your Children From Flame Retardant Chemicals

If you have older furniture in your home but aren’t ready to replace it, consider replacing the foam cushions with flame-retardant-free foam. If you’re not sure whether your furniture’s foam contains these chemicals, Duke University scientists will test it for you. All you need to remove is a sample the size of a marble and it will be tested for the presence of seven common flame retardants.

The research lab only has the capacity to analyze 50 samples per month, and they close submissions once the quota is reached. Before sending in your sample, check with the Duke University Superfund Submit a Sample website to see if they’re still accepting submissions (for best results, check in on the first of the month). In addition, there are steps you can take to reduce your exposure, including these tips from the Green Science Policy Institute:12

  • Avoid upholstered furniture with the TB117 label. If the label states, “This article meets the flammability requirements of California Bureau of Home Furnishings Technical Bulletin 117 … ” it most likely contains flame retardants. However, even upholstered furniture that’s unlabeled may contain flame retardants.
  • Furniture products filled with cotton, wool or polyester tend to be safer than chemical-treated foam; some products also state that they are “flame-retardant free.” Organic wool (100 percent) is naturally flame-resistant.
  • Avoid baby products with foam. Nursing pillows, high chairs, strollers and other products containing polyurethane foam most likely contain flame retardants.
  • Avoid foam carpet padding. If possible, minimize the use of foam carpet padding, which often contains flame retardants. If removing carpeting, take precautions to avoid exposures. You’ll want to isolate your work area from the rest of your house to avoid spreading it around, and use a HEPA filter vacuum to clean up.
  • PBDEs are often found in household dust, so clean up with a HEPA-filter vacuum and/or a wet mop often. Washing your hands regularly can also help.

As far as mattresses go, if you want to avoid flame retardants and other chemicals in your mattress, you can have a licensed health care provider write you a prescription for a chemical-free mattress, which can then be ordered without flame retardants from certain retailers. You can also find certain natural mattresses on the market that don’t contain them. For instance, most wool mattresses do not have flame retardant chemicals added because wool is a natural flame retardant.

Another option is to look for an organic mattress that meets the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), which means at least 95 percent of the mattress materials must be certified organic and certain substances, including flame retardants and polyurethane (common in memory foam products), are prohibited.

Since you spend from six to nine-plus hours every night with your face in close proximity to your mattress, breathing in these chemicals, choosing a flame-retardant-free mattress is an excellent first step toward reducing your exposure.

Las Vegas Mass Shooting Eyewitness: Crazy Women Warned Concert Goers That Everyone Was Going To Die 45 Minutes Before Shooting

(Alex ThomasIn yet another startling revelation in a night full of pure craziness, an eyewitness to the shooting in Las Vegas that left at least 20 people dead and over 100 injured has claimed that a women pushed her way to the front of the concert 45 mins before the actual shooting and threatened everyone around that they would soon be dead.
Read more »

“More Information (than you may want) about lots of the ‘Holy Crap’ that’s going on around the planet”… as of 10-2-17

Click to view full image

These are mostly videos, and a couple links. I’m not evaluating any of them, but the Las Vegas one looks like a false flag, the Puerto Rico business like a mixture of things, Catalonia… well, just like Hawai’i (namely, those who support the Kingdom of Hawai’i), many want their independence… again.

Just posting all these out of a “strong sense” to do so.

[Jordan Sather FB]
“Tell me again how one man was able to get over 10 fully automatic machine guns up to the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay resort?… Catalonia voted for independence from Spain with a resounding 90% Yes vote. The Spain federal government then sent their armor clad guards in and assaulted over 700 people… the Puerto Rico ridiculousness is getting exposed. The local government there is completely corrupt and inept, disallowing almost 10,000 containers from being moved across the island, and using this as a political move against the current American administration. The San Juan mayor was never even attending the FEMA meetings…”

10.2 – Dissecting Vegas Shooting | Puerto Rico Truth | Catalonia | Another Dead Dr.

The GoldFish Report No. 138 Week 37 POTUS Report w/ Dr. James Fetzer

A few more videos I’ve watched:

Filed under: apocalypse, cabal, energies, new energies, partners in contrast Tagged: Catalonia, Jim Fetzer, Jordan Sather, Las Vegas, Louisa, Puerto Rico

Find Your Soul Tribe

(Lissa Rankin) Like many of you, I was a child raised in the United States in the era of John Wayne and James Dean, when the rugged individualist was prized as the pinnacle of American success. If you relied on no one, proved yourself to be self-sufficient, autonomous, and independent, you won the brass ring of life’s merry-go-round. I was conditioned to believe that in order to be a valued member of society, especially as a woman raised during the feminist movement, I must avoid being “needy” or, even worse, “clingy,” and Lord knows I’d better not lean on a man or take more than I give to anyone.
Read more »