Will your toothpaste kill you?

My boyfriend likes to throw his hands up in the air and scream at every new thing that I find to add to my list of things to avoid. He is very fond of saying that "in the right dosage anything will kill you." He is also fond of saying that I can't eat anything except lettuce (and maybe sawdust and grass). I always retort that "if it's good for the cows then it's good for me." I know that it drives him crazy; however, I believe that there are some things that are best to not be used at all.

Does it strike anybody as wrong that there is a substance in toothpaste, and sunscreen, and various other personal care products, that can also be found as a coloring agent in some foods? Also, that the same substance found in all of these different places is carcinogenic? Additionally, it can cause immunotoxicity, has occupational hazards, organ system toxicity, skin/eye/lung irritation, and can cause changes on the cellular level (1). This does not sound like something that I would want anywhere near me, much less in my mouth!

If one was to Google the Material Safety Data Sheet for this substance then one would find the statement, "May cause gastrointestinal (digestive) tract irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea (2)." I am not entirely certain how much titanium dioxide would have to be consumed in order for these effects to occur; however, the fact that this is an additive for coloring in various food products is appalling. Interestingly, in the same data sheet, protective equipment used while handling this substance: gloves, lab coat, dust respirator, and safety glasses are listed. These are things that are used in order to keep something off the body, or out of the body. If that much precaution is used in its handling, why would I want it inside of me (regardless of the amount)?

The earlier statement, about how anything in the right amount could kill you, needs to be reiterated. While that may be true, and while it may not seem that by eating a Little Debbie snack cake might not warrant a national emergency, one has to consider how much of this substance we, as consumers, are actually in-taking on a daily basis. It can be found in deodorant. It can be found in food. And I know I have seen it in toothpaste ingredients. The Environmental Working Group's website also specifies other places and names that it can be found under. Given all of this, it can be assumed that we are all probably getting more titanium dioxide in our systems in a month than we should in an entire lifetime. It would be one thing if it was an occasional use; then it might not be as big a deal to consume it (especially since, presumably, the amount of this chemical in personal care and food products is minimal). However, when it is in things that normal people use everyday (while getting ready to start the day, and while getting ready for bed) then I see this as a problem.

Disturbingly, it is difficult to escape this chemical. Before I was aware of the health risks that titanium dioxide can pose, I purchased some vegetarian friendly hand lotion. Titanium dioxide is one of the listed ingredients. In parentheses it describes it as being from a plant. The questions that I have, that I have been unable to find the answer: is there a difference between vegetable derived titanium dioxide and non-vegetable based? Is there such a thing as different kinds of titanium dioxide? Is one safer than the other? Or is there just one universal version of this chemical? And, why would anybody want to pay $10 for something that purports to be vegetarian (and by implication, better than chemical and animal-derived sludge) and yet still contains things that are unnecessary for the existence of the product? As far as I have read, there is no nutritional value to the consumption or use of this chemical. So why does it exist? Or, more importantly, why do companies use it?

When discussing and thinking about these chemicals there are more questions than answers. However, quite simply, I would like to be able to brush my teeth (so my teeth do not rot out of my head), and not have to wonder if I am going to have some serious health issue as a result!

(1) Environmental Working Group
(2) Material Safety Data Sheet

Beware of the Foam!

I was recently at Target, and decided to look at the personal care products to see if they had any shampoos that did not contain any carcinogenic or neurotoxic substances. I could not find a single one! One of the chemicals that kept coming up as one of the main ingredients in these products is sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureth sulfate. There are only slight variations as to what they do. One is slightly milder than the other; however, they both cause the foaming action in soaps, toothpastes, and shampoos. This is perceived to be a good thing, as a lot of people associate foaming with cleaning. I know that it kind of freaked me out the first time I used a toothpaste that didn't foam. Now, I am glad that there are products out there that do not foam.

Sodium lauryl sulfate is "used in garage floor cleaners, engine degreaser, car-wash soaps"(1) and cleans via corrosion. It is a skin irritant that "penetrate[s] into the eyes as well as heart, liver, etc, and [has] long-term retention in the tissue(1)." Additionally, it has been known to cause cataracts. (Imagine, every time you accidentally get shampoo in your eyes when you shower, this chemical is leaching its way through your eyeball and attacking it and other vital organs in your body.) It also can attack the follicles and cause hair loss to occur. It "dries skin by stripping the lipids from the surface so it can't effectively regulate moisture(1)." Also, to make things worse, it has the potential to be carcinogenic when contaminated with nitrates.

Sodium lauryl sulfate absorbs through the skin into the body. When this happens it can also mimic oestrogen, which can decrease male fertility, increase female cancers, and increase PMS and menopausal symptoms(2).

Personally, I have frequently has issues with using soaps and shampoos because of the drying effect that they have on my hands. I get out of the shower, and I immediately have to apply lotion or else I cannot stand for my hands to be attached to my body anymore. I never knew why this was the case. I once even had the theory that it had something to do with whatever chemicals may be in the city water. Now I know, and it scares me a lot.

The same day I went to Target, I also frequented various other retail stores. At Wal-Mart, I was faced with the same problem. I could not find a toothpaste, or shampoo, that did not have this chemical. Finally, I found some products in the organic section of Hannaford that did not contain it. However, with the $10+ price tag, and my budget as tight as it has to be, I'm stuck with using the cheapo poison that I always have used. Hopefully, by the time I run out of my Dove Moisturizing Shampoo (that lists its first ingredient as being sodium lauryl sulfate), then I will be able to afford the stuff that doesn't contain this chemical.

I'm pretty sure we, as a nation, and as an universal population, can do better than this. We need to take a stand, and let these companies know that we will not tolerate these poisons in our showers, bathrooms, or households any longer! We need to get these harmful products banned from store shelves, and we need to get the prices of the poison-free products lowered so they can be more affordable for everyone. I do not care how cheap sodium lauryl sulfate is to produce. I can live without the foam! I cannot live with garage floor cleaner or car engine degreaser absorbing into and affecting my body!

Sources:
(1) Dangers of sodium lauryl sulfate
(2) Effects of sodium lauryl sulfate

TO Soy or NOT to Soy...

Everything that I have ever heard people talk about is how great soy is and how if you want to be a vegetarian (like I am) then soy pretty much becomes a staple food for a lot of people. After all, it is marketed as a great source of protein, and, true to that calling, as a result every soy chip, crisp, etc. always includes the amount of protein it contains, per serving, on the front of the package. Even my doctor told me that I should include soy products in my diet because it is very important to have a source of protein in the diet.

The thing that none of these people (either other vegetarians, health care professionals, etc) tell you is the harm that can come from consuming soy. They do not tell you that a chemical solvent called hexane is used in soy processing (primarily to extract the oils from the soy bean) and is left over as residue in various commercially sold products such as tofu.

If that is not bad enough, people never talk about how unfermented soy does more harm than good. Soy is marketed as a great product, a very healthy, nutritious product. However, the phytic acid in unfermented soy causes the body to not be able to absorb the various minerals in soy. It makes it hard for the body to process and use minerals such as iron and calcium, and iodine. This causes a lot of thyroid issues, as this gland needs iodine to work properly. Other issues that unfermented soy can cause is a weakened immune system. Also, phytoestrogens in unfermented soy mimics the body's naturally produced estrogen. An article on naturalnews.com states that "drinking only two glasses of soy milk daily for one month has enough [phytoestrogens] to alter a woman's menstrual cycle." This, at least in my mind, poses the question: would drinking soy milk be just as affective as the pill? Birth control pills consist largely of estrogen, and that added amount of estrogen causes the body to think that a woman is pregnant, therefore preventing her from becoming pregnant in the first place. If there is enough phytoestrogen in soy milk to change a woman's cycle, then could this not be an alternative to the pill? Would it be more or less affective? And, most importantly, what does this mean for women who are taking birth control pills and who regularly consume soy milk? I am sure that there are many women out there who do consume both products. Does this mean that they are getting far in excess of the amount of estrogen that their bodies can handle? And if so, what happens to them? I have read articles that mention unfermented soy and the increased risk of breast cancer. Does that mean that if a woman consumes both the pill and soy milk on a daily basis that her risk of breast- or other-cancer would increase substantially more?

The same article describes how "it has been estimated that infants who are exclusively fed soy formula receive the equivalent of five birth control pills worth of oestrogen every day." While naturalnews.com does not compare soy milk with soy formula in terms of the amount of estrogen that would be consumed, I think this estimation asks the question: how many birth control pills worth of estrogen is a woman who drinks two glasses of soy milk every day receiving? What about the people who drink more than two glasses of soy milk a day? What about the people who drink soy milk every day, but also consume a regular amount of tofu, soy yogurts, and other items with soy lecithin, hydrolysed soy protein, texturized soy protein, or other various soy products that are unfermented? What about the vegetarians or vegans out there whose staple food is soy?

I think that even more disturbing than the information in this article, which is repeated in various other articles across the internet, is the fact that none of them really go into detail about how a person would be able to tell what products contain fermented soy. I am aching for the answer to this question, more so than any of the aforementioned questions in this blog. How do I know if the soy I am consuming has been fermented, or not? The Cornucopia Institute issued a report about hexane in soy, and issued a scorecard of which companies absolutely use hexane-free soy; however, even this report does not really indicate which companies ferment the soy that they use in their various products. Should I deduce that those companies who do not use hexane in their soy production would also not use unfermented soy? I think it is very dangerous to just assume one thing from the other, especially since they are two entirely different things.

The real question is, what is the appropriate course of action? Just last night I emailed various companies who sell soy products that I enjoy, or would like to try in the future, and asked them if they use fermented soy. None of them has replied, yet. I am hoping that they do; however, what if they do not ferment the soy that they use? Am I supposed to be deprived of that valuable source of protein, or else risk cancer from hexane, or the issues related to unfermented soy consumption? Or should I take an even more extreme route and grow my own soy plant and ferment the soy beans myself?

For further reading on this subject:
The Truth about Unfermented Soy and Its Harmful Effects
Phytoestrogens and Breast Cancer
Soy Protein Used in "Natural" Foods Bathed in Toxic Solvent Hexane
Hexane
Boycott Non-Organic, GMO, Hexane-Processed Soy
Behind the Bean

Iced-tea mix to go

It is July, and supposed to be part of the season for iced tea, lemonade, or any number of other refreshing fruity drinks. While this summer has been more mild, rainy, cold nastiness, it is still enjoyable to sometimes quench ones thirst with these beverages.

While brewing tea and then icing it is probably healthier, using the mixes that Lipton or 4C produce are sweeter, and tend to lack the bitterness that brewed tea has. Reading the labels on most of these items is scary. Why? Because instead of being sweetened by sugar, they are sweetened with aspartame. 4C offers a product that does not contain aspartame. However, any of the to-go packs do. So if you want to enjoy any of Lipton's, or Crystal Light's products this summer, be aware that you are ingesting a product that metabolizes into methanol, and then oxidizes into formaldehyde.

I look at this section of the grocery store, and it makes me sad. I would like nothing more than to put one of the to-go packets into my bottle of water, shake it up, and voila! have a sweet refreshing beverage. However, I would much rather have sugar. Sugar may have more calories than aspartame. However, sugar is not going to kill me. Sugar is not going to give me life-threatening illnesses, or otherwise make me sick. It is not going to mess with my nervous system, kill brain cells, give me seizures, etc. Aspartame can do all of those things. It can complicate diabetes, cause weight gain, and at least 90 other harmful affects. At least when sugar metabolizes in the body it breaks down into energy so that cells can function. Yes there are simple and more complex sugars. Some metabolize faster, and some take longer (therefore giving your body more of a helpful benefit), but none of them are going to have that many harmful attributes.

What I don't understand is why companies, such as Lipton, do not offer iced tea products that do not contain aspartame. Even if they marketed their product unsweetened, like Kool-Aid, and then have the consumer sweeten it themselves with the product of their choice, that would be preferable to nothing. That way, if people want to continue poisoning themselves with an item that was once considered to be utilized as a biochemical warfare agent by the United States government, then that is the consumers' business.

The more and more that I become informed about these things, the more I realize that the adage: "You are what you eat" is a dogma that should be followed more frequently. I, for one, do not want my body to have anything to do with a chemical that is used as an industrial alcohol (methanol), and another chemical that is used to preserve dead bodies (formaldehyde). These substances are lethal in and of themselves. While the tea mixes, sodas, gums, etc. that contain aspartame would not have enough to be lethal in and of itself (how could it, because then the companies that produce it would not have a consumer-base to market to), over an extended period of time, it could be lethal. In the meantime, even one usage could cause headaches, nausea, and other "milder" health complications.

Something that should be considered is the fact that if formaldehyde can be used for preserving dead bodies, how much does that really disrupt the flow of normal bodily functioning? Regardless of the fact that it is carcinogenic, but as a preservative? I recently cleaned out my car, and there was a chocolate chip cookie underneath the seat. I do not know how long it had been there because I could not even remember the last time that I purchased such a cookie, but it was fully intact, not crumbling to pieces, but not too hard. It looked just like a cookie should look. There was no mold whatsoever. I could have put it on the kitchen counter, and somebody would have eaten it without realizing how old it was, or where it had been. Of course, I did throw it away, but just imagine how powerful the preservatives in that cookie were; and, I highly doubt that formaldehyde was involved at all. I cannot even remember what brand of cookie it would have been, but do I really want something like that inside my body? The bread that I buy molds in about a week (if I do not eat it fast enough and do not refrigerate it). That is a normal decomposition rate for food. The cookie had been there for months...This kind of begs the question: when aspartame is consumed, how long does formaldehyde stay in the human system? None of the research that I have done so far has given me this answer yet. However, I assume that most people who consume diet sodas, or chew gum do so on a regular basis, just as people who consume regular, sugared, sodas generally do so on a regular basis (as opposed to purely on special occasions--although, there are those who do that as well). Therefore, with regular consumption, I imagine that formaldehyde probably remains in the human body for years before all traces of it disappear. Just think of all the people who drink three or more diet sodas a day, or even just in one afternoon. Think of all the people who drink these beverages like they would otherwise drink water if those beverages were not available for consumption.

To conclude, I would encourage people to think before they consume anything with any sort of artificial sweetener. Just think of the fact that by consuming these drinks, methanol and formaldehyde are also being consumed, because that is the chemical reaction that transpires within the human body when aspartame is ingested. Sugar is not going to kill you, but aspartame has that side effect. Sugar may be known to have more calories; however, aspartame is also noted to cause weight gain.

I also encourage companies, such as Lipton, to offer iced-tea beverage mixes that are sweetened with sugar. Or, at the least, offer an unsweetened variety so I can add my own sugar (like what Kool-Aid does with its products). This would certainly make my summer sweeter. In the meantime, however, I am going to continue brewing my own tea. There are various varieties of tea, such as raspberry tea, or blueberry pomegranate white tea, or blueberry green tea that are tasty as iced teas without adding any sugar to them. This is definitely the healthier choice, but sometimes consumers like convenience. That is why there are convenience stores, or fast food establishments that are so successful. Adding a tea packet to water and shaking is a lot more convenient than waiting for tea to steep or brew.

For further reading about aspartame, methanol, or formaldehyde:

Aspartame
Aspartame Side Effects
The Chemistry of Aspartame
Methanol/Formaldehyde research
Formaldehyde poisoning associated with aspartame consumption
Aspartame: biochemical warfare agent

Fast Food: The challenges of eating out when meat is not on the menu

Given what I have learned, in my relatively short lifetime, about monoglycerides, gelatin, and natural flavors, to name a few, it is unbelievably difficult to eat out. Of course, it is cheaper, in the long run, to just go to the grocery store and buy food and then eat it over the span of a week or so. Twenty bucks at the supermarket goes a lot farther than twenty bucks at Burger King or McDonald's. However, occasionally, there are times when I just don't feel like foraging through my fridge or boiling water to make pasta or rice. Sometimes I just want something quick that I don't have to make or clean up after.

If monoglycerides did not exist then at least I would be able to eat sandwich buns or tortilla shells, and just put vegetables on or in them, and then I would be fine. I would at least be able to order a hamburger or cheeseburger without the meat. Unfortunately, monoglycerides do exist, and so that is not even a possibility. And as far as dessert goes? Guess again.

Natural beef flavor in one fast food's french fries also makes those tasty sticks of potato out of the question as well. America's favorite fry is off limits, and that makes me feel like I've been excommunicated from being American, at least sometimes.

The gelatin in yogurt also puts Parfaits off the menu as well. However, Fruit and Walnut Salads somehow ended up with gelatin-free yogurt. At McDonald's, at least in my opinion, the two different yogurts taste the same. Why one ended up animal-free is a mystery, and I really wish that it was the other way around, if gelatin was present at all, because in my opinion, the fruit in the Parfaits is a higher quality. Yes, it comes frozen, but at the same time, it seems like more often than not I end up with apples that are fridge-burned, or grapes that are mushy, and I'm not a big fan of the candied walnuts. I'd take the granola any day.

The conclusion that I have to stand by is that the vegetarians who get meat-less Big Macs or Whoppers need to stop doing so. The people who are unaware of the unconventional added flavor to their french fries need to become enlightened and then put their foot down. And, while these big fast food chains are spending their time trying to come up with healthier alternatives for the health-conscious patrons who refuse to buy fatty sandwiches, they also need to start better catering to those of us who know what monoglycerides are, and will not stand to eat them. I know I would like to have more choices other than salads with Balsalmic Vinagriette or Italian dressings and Fruit and Walnut Salads.

I think that these chains need to take a lesson from establishments such as Kentucky Fried Chicken or Tim Hortens. Both of these establishments offer things that are most definitely veggie-friendly, and they offer an abundance of those things. In addition to a side salad, KFC also offers macaroni and cheese, corn, green beans, and if it is a KFC/Taco-Bell combo store, then there are also taco salads (asked for without the meat), and nachos with cheese. Tim Hortens offers a vegetable soup that is vegetarian friendly, and they also offer various muffins and donuts that do not have any animal additives in them. I cannot say much for places such as Dunkin' Donuts which is loath to list their ingredients on their website.

I have found that the best restaurants actually do list their ingredients on their websites. It offers an opportunity for those who want to be conscious of what goes into their bodies to look up what is in these foods. It eliminates any guess-work on the consumer's part, and any deception on the part of the company in question.

I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO HUNT DOWN THIS KIND OF INFORMATION. It should be available without having to request it, or emailing companies who only vaguely answer the questions you ask them in the first place.
Some sites offer nutritional values without the ingredients. That may be helpful for those who count their calorie/carb/fat intakes; however, that is not why I am a vegetarian. I do not by any means need to lose weight, and I do not need to feel railroaded every time I encounter a company's website that does not openly provide the information that I need; obviously people have asked for this information before (because for even one company to list ingredients, there would have to be at least one other person in this world asking the same questions that I do). The number of consumer-interest books that are online, or at the library, also attest to this common interest. Therefore, every food company should provide this information. It is not Easter year round, and I don't need to go on a scavenger hunt every time I turn on my computer to figure out if I can still eat this food or that food. It should be right on the wall of every restaurant: Vegetarian-Friendly/Vegan dishes, and then list them, just like they list information about food allergies. While I won't die if I accidentally eat meat, I will get sick because my body is no longer used to digesting it. I have not had to deal too much with this experience, but I imagine it could possibly be similar to getting food poisoning. Food poisoning is a public health issue. Therefore, identifying vegetarian foods should also be a public health issue! Is it really so much to ask? People with peanut allergies do not have to guess as to whether or not the product they are considering buying may possibly contain cross-contaminated peanuts. Vegetarians should not have to guess as to whether the products that they buy contain some sort of animal. By being forced to guess, if anything, vegetarians are being discriminated against by food companies: both fast food or otherwise.

Can we please stop the food discrimination both in fast food, sit-down restaurants, and grocery stores?

Beef flavored ice cream

Gelatin seems so archaic. It is something I remember talking about with my mother as a kid. Who would have thought that it would still appear in food, especially since, once again, there are alternatives. Agar gum is derived from seaweed and serves the same purpose. Plus, it does not use animal parts. However, despite this fact, gelatin still appears in yogurts, ice cream, some desserts, as well as toaster pastries and various other products.

One of the most annoying things that I have come across in the grocery store is when I think that I could still eat something, like various brands of toaster pastries, and then come to the part in the ingredients list that says "gelatin." So any time I buy a box of toaster pastries, I need to buy the expensive organic ones. There are three or four individually wrapped packages in the box, and they cost nearly $5. It does not really make much sense, but even the generic brands of these breakfast fruit/chocolate/sugary cinnamony filled wonders are made with pig and cow parts. How appetizing is that?! Do we really want to be eating ground up bones in our breakfast? Or our ice cream? I do not know about anybody else, but even if I ate meat, I would not want animal bones in my ice cream. Ice cream is dessert, to be eaten after everyone has had their fill of steak or pork, or whatever kind of flesh happened to be on the menu. I do not think many people would really go for an ice cream that is chicken flavored, or beef flavored. So why hide beef or pork in it? (No, I am not implying that the bones of these animals are flavorful, I am only trying to make a point that if we do not manufacture meat-flavored dairy products, then why do companies put animal byproducts in them?)
Humans do not normally eat the bones as well as the flesh that is hanging off of them. People pick the bones clean and then leave them, as do other animals. Therefore, I do not think anybody can make an argument that the creation and use of gelatin is, in any way, a natural occurrence. It is just another way for the food industry to use as much of the animals it slaughters as possible to return a greater profit. This does not, in any way, mean that it is good for consumption.

Natural Flavors

I mentioned "natural flavors" in my introduction. However, I think it is important to dedicate an entire post to them. They appear in almost every food, especially snack food. This makes it more difficult to find items, like chips, that are both flavorful, but don't have unspecified natural flavors. If the product does not specify what source the natural flavor was derived from then I will not eat it.
As a result of my "campaign" against natural flavors that don't list the source, I have begun only eating chips such as Fritos, tortilla chips, and regular potato chips. These are items that basically consist of either corn or potato, salt, and some sort of vegetable oil. It can get pretty bland after a while. Salsa can take an edge of the blandness of these products, but it's just not the same as biting into Cooler Ranch Doritos, or some other chip, that is tasty enough as is, without needing dips to go with it.
Chips are not the only product that have unidentified natural flavors. Also, they are not just in junk food. They appear in lemonades, sodas, iced teas, pre-made pasta or rice dishes, etc. I avoid them all because there is no reason why I should not know if it's just derived from dairy, or if it's animal, or vegetable.

One thing that I have found is that if the natural flavor is from a plant source, then it will specify, usually with the phrase "(from a vegetable source)." Because of those four words, this leads me to believe that if it is not specified as a vegetable, then all the rest of the natural flavors are implied to be from an animal. How many customers are these food companies losing every day, just because they do not specify? I'm sure there are natural flavors that remain unidentified that are vegetarian friendly, and consumers would never know it because nobody ever bothered to inform them on the package. Why is that? Could it be because if everything that was a plant source or dairy source was identified, then America would come to realize how much of what they eat has some sort of mystery animal part in it? If Americans did know what was really going into their foods (in terms of animal or vegetable) then would it really make a difference as to what they buy anyway? I mean, in terms of the omnivores or carnivores out there, would they really care so much if they knew that the natural flavor in their chips was from an animal source? I think what they might be afraid of is the fact that there are vegetarians out there that do not take the time to read the labels or do any sort of research. There are vegetarians out there that are not aware that the french fries they are eating are flavored with natural beef flavor, and there could be a potential backlash if they did; if companies started openly advertising that information, instead of only leaving it available to those who look it up, then how many people would try to sue?

I have found that the best sources of natural flavors that are identified are the things that say "organic" on the front of the box. These items will almost always say that they are from some sort of plant source. This is another reason for me to believe that the companies that do not produce organic products, are even more likely to be using animal byproducts in their foods.
Natural flavors seem to be the elephant in the room. Everyone who has ever read a food label knows that it is there; they just choose to ignore it because it seems to be easier that way. After all, it is just an additive to make the food taste better. However, it is still being consumed, and why not err on the side of caution? If there is a question as to what it actually is, maybe it should not be consumed in the first place.
How much money have companies like Kraft, etc. lost just from me? More than even I could possibly know. Just know this, because of what natural flavors could, potentially, be (meat), I no longer consume foods that contain them, if they are unidentified. I have had to completely change my way of shopping, and therefore, completely change most of the foods that I eat because of just this one mystery ingredient. How many others, like me, have done this? With any luck, more people (even omnivores) will want to become more aware of what they are putting in their bodies. Hopefully just this one ingredient will impact the food industry ten-fold, and maybe then packaging companies will start to specify what these ingredients actually come from. Until they do, they have lost, at least, my business.