Happy Birthday, Story of Cosmetics!

When we released The Story of Cosmetics a year ago this week to rally support for the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, we weren’t terribly surprised when the Personal Care Products Council—an industry front group—called the movie “a repugnant and absurd shockumentary.” After all, for years the multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry had been

largely left alone to decide what was safe to put in their products. You know, things like lead in lipstick. Neurotoxins in body spray. Carcinogens in baby wash.
Why ruin a good thing, right?
But we were taken aback by the number of small personal care products manufacturers who raised concerns about the Safe Cosmetics Act, which would give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to ensure that personal care products are free of harmful ingredients and that ingredients are fully disclosed.
Tens of thousands of Americans run small personal care product businesses—making everything from soap to hand cream. Many of the owners of these companies have experienced health issues from personal care products they used themselves, experiences that inspired them to make some of the most healthy products on the market. Quite a number of these companies had been supporters of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics—the co-producer of our movie—with many signing the Campaign’s Compact for Safe Cosmetics pledge.
In response, our partners at the Campaign launched a year-long effort to understand the concerns of these small personal care businesses. Campaign staff held in person meetings and organized phone calls. Rather than dismiss the criticism as the work of a small but vocal group or impugn their motives, the Campaign listened and brought their suggestions to the bill authors.
Then this spring, the sponsors of the Safe Cosmetics Act—Representatives Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin—went to work to come up with a version of the bill that addressed small business concerns, which centered around the proposed FDA registration process and fees, which the mom and pop shops felt would overwhelm their businesses. The result is the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, which exempts businesses with under $2 million in sales from registering and exempts businesses with under $10 million in revenue from the fees mandated in the bill but still ensures that cosmetics ingredients are safe for consumers, workers and the environment.
It turns out the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics’ hard work is not only good politics, it’s good news for all of us.
Current law—if you can call a bill last updated in 1938 ‘current’—allows the cosmetics industry to make its own decisions about what’s safe. The FDA can’t require companies to assess cosmetics ingredients for safety and can’t require that all the chemicals in cosmetics are disclosed to consumers. It can’t even require product recalls—as we recently learned when a popular hair straightener, called the Brazilian Blowout, was found to contain dangerous levels of formaldehyde.
Still, if the small business support for this year’s bill is any indication—not to mention the almost 800,000 views on The Story of Cosmetics over the past year—the public is ready to give the beauty industry a makeover.
This week, shortly after the bill was reintroduced, the Handcrafted Soapmakers Guild, a 1600 member guild, released a statement supporting the bill, as did a major ingredient supplier, Wholesale Supplies Plus. Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, the top-selling natural brand of certified Fair Trade soap, issued a press release calling on Congress to pass the bill, and the WS Badger Company has penned the helpful piece, “Five Reasons Why the Safe Cosmetics Act Makes Sense for Small Businesses”. Look for more business support coming soon.
If you’re ready to help, you can urge your Member of Congress to support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 and share The Story of Cosmetics with your friends.
As the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics knows, we’re going to need all the help we can get!

Is there any chemical hair straightener that’s safe to use?

From The FAQs...For more  See the link http://www.ewg.org/hair-straighteners/our-report/faqs-7/

Is there any chemical hair straightener that’s safe to use?
EWG hasn’t found a chemical hair straightener that we can recommend. Some brands claim to use chemicals that are less toxic than formaldehyde and less prone to cause allergic reactions. But these may require you to leave the product on for a day or two before rinsing, so you’re exposed to more of the chemical – you’re breathing more vapors, and more is soaking through your skin over time. Some “formaldehyde-free” products contain “formaldehyde releasers” that expose you to the chemical anyway. Most of the products we’ve reviewed don’t list their active ingredients, but almost all unlabeled products that have been tested have been found to contain substantial amounts of formaldehyde.

What other hair-care products should I avoid?
Perms and straighteners rely on chemicals to break the hair’s bonds, after which it reforms to a desired shape. You should avoid or be a very careful consumer of both perms and straighteners. We assess many of these products for safety and explain our concerns here: [For more information, click here.]. Minimize your use of dark hair dyes; many contain coal tar ingredients that have been linked to cancer in some studies. “Cold” permanent waves based on chemicals, not heated rollers, rely on some of the same chemicals used to straighten hair.

Brazilian-style straightening treatments: Adverse reactions and injuries

Over the past two years, the Food and Drug Administration has received 47 complaints of adverse reactions and injuries from salon workers and clients who used Brazilian-style straightening treatments, according to FDA records obtained by the Environmental Working Group through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Reported injuries:

• “Within five days of the treatment I began losing large amounts of hair… I have experienced about a 40% volume loss in my hair and it continues to fall out at the same alarming pace.”
• “Hair continued to fall off as she continued to rinse. Blisters also discovered on the back of head… Complainant developed severe stability problems (severe dizziness)… Physician examined and noted hair loss, blisters on scalp and ulcer formation in her mouth.”
• “I immediately experienced burning eyes, burning and running nose and a burning throat… I was in agony during and after the appointment.”
• “flu-like symptoms emerged, including headaches, vomiting… Clusters of her hair were also falling off. Complainant contacted salon owners to obtain BB [Brazilian Blowout] ingredients but was denied. Complainant’s condition continued to deteriorate – persistent vomiting, difficulty breathing, chest, eye and nose irritation developed…Complainant was admitted to [redacted facility name] for respiratory distress… severe stability problems, persistent vomiting… Physician called poison control and was told that BB [Brazilian Blowout] did not contain any “harmful” chemicals.”
• “Severe neck rashes, itching, welting, redness, eventually also rash appeared on sides of face… Severe eye burning reaction, also slight bleeding in right nostril two days later.”

Health agencies in six countries — Australia, Ireland, Canada, France, Germany and Cyprus — have announced recalls of formaldehyde-based hair straighteners. Yet FDA has adopted a “wait-and-see” approach. According to its website the agency says it is “working… to determine whether the products or ingredients would be likely to cause health problems under the intended conditions of use… FDA will continue to monitor this problem and will report on any new developments” (FDA 2010A).
FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System is voluntary and likely underplays the actual number of complaints. In 1995, John E. Bailey, Ph.D., director of FDA’s Office of Colors and Cosmetics, estimated that the agency received one of every 50 reports of adverse reactions received by industry (Stehlin 1991). (More recent estimates are not available.) Under a voluntary system companies have no incentive to report their customers’ injuries and every reason to soft-pedal possible dangers. Consumers rarely report injuries to FDA on their own.
FDA injury reports obtained by EWG are excerpted below and available in full. [6 MB PDF file]
http://www.ewg.org/hair-straighteners/our-report/adverse-reactions-and-injuries-hair-straighteners/

Brands that hide formaldehyde

The chemical name game

EWG has investigated 16 companies brands that make hair-straightening products with high formaldehyde content. All exceed safety limits set by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, an industry safety panel. Which hair straighteners come clean about their formaldehyde content?  None, in EWG’s review.
15 of 16 brands admit to little to no formaldehyde. Tests show their products contain substantial amounts.
Companies whose claims and tests do not match include Brazilian Blowout, Keratin Express, KeraGreen, Tahe and R&L. The 16th company, Goleshlee, admits on its website that its product contains formaldehyde but omits the toxic chemical from its online ingredient list.
Can hair straighteners get away with the claim “formaldehyde free?”

Name games

Leading hair straighteners, including Brazilian Blowout, claim that formaldehyde mixed with water creates a new chemical, methylene glycol.  That is like saying that sweet tea does not contain sugar. In fact, when you purchase straight formaldehyde from a chemical company, you are actually buying a formaldehyde-water mixture. Over time, if exposed to air, the formaldehyde will off-gas, in other words, reverting to a gas, its natural state at room temperature.
When its scientists conduct risk assessments, the Environmental Protection Agency calls this formaldehyde/water mixture a “pool of free formaldehyde” (EPA 2010B). The American Chemistry Council says the scientific community widely considers methylene glycol to be “formaldehyde in solution” for the purpose of determining a product’s formaldehyde content (ACC 2010). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s formaldehyde regulations cover formaldehyde gas and “its solutions, and materials that release formaldehdye” (OSHA 1992).
Some makers of hair straighteners  - Brazilian Blowout, Cadiveu, Global Keratin and Marcia Teixeira – make the misleading claim that methylene glycol is not formaldehyde.  Altogether, four companies list “methylene glycol” on their websites or worker safety materials.

Misleading tests

Cadiveu and Brazilian Blowout bolster their low-formaldehyde claims by analyzing only the tiny amounts of formaldehyde gas in their products.  They ignore the products’ formaldehyde-water solution, even though some of it is transformed to gas when hair coated with the product is heated by a straightening iron.  That explains why Cadiveu reports formaldehyde levels of 0.0002 percent, when Heath Canada found it to contain 7 percent formaldehyde (Cadiveu 2011, Health Canada 2010C).

Other names

At least two companies disguise formaldehyde with obscure names known only to chemists – and not many of them.  For example, Keratin Express  says its hair straighteners “contain an aldehyde” (Keratin Expres 2011).  Tests show up to 1.2 percent formaldehyde in its products. Bravo Biocare’s product, Organic Thermo Fusion – Brazilian Keratin Treatment, describes formaldehyde as “morbicid acid” (Bravo Biocare 2011).

Formaldehyde releasers

Some companies use chemicals that are not, strictly speaking, formaldehyde but that break down to formaldehyde and release the chemical into the air when they are heated. Coppola says its hair straightener contains a “bonded aldehyde” that, when heated, decomposes and binds to the hair (Copolla 2010).   Hot vapors steaming off  heated hair as the chemical coating breaks apart would test positive for formaldehyde.  Trichovedic, an Australian company that markets HydroSpa products, sidestepped regulations and reformulated to a formaldehyde-free product that now uses formaldehyde-releasing chemicals after product testing found formaldehyde.

Silence

IBS Beauty and Spazzola are mum about their use of formaldehyde. EWG researchers found no formaldehyde claims one way or the other, on either company’s website or media reports.
The vast majority of products surveyed by EWG – 64 of 95 – have not been tested for formaldehyde.  Most companies that manufacture keratin hair straighteners – 43 of 46 – do not disclose they have used this hazardous chemical.
Government and indepedent laboratories have detected formaldehyde above industry-recommended safe limits in 28 of 31 products tested. So if you are wondering about a brand that has not been tested, odds are formaldehyde is in that bottle.
It is not just customers who are being hoodwinked. Misleading claims help manufacturers and salons avoid OSHA regulations that require employers to list formaldehyde on worker safety materials (technically called material safety data sheets or MSDS) when their employees handle solutions containing more than 0.1 percent formaldehyde.

TABLE: 15 of 16 companies claim little to no formaldehyde when tests show their products contain substantial amounts See Linkhttp://www.ewg.org/hair-straighteners/our-report/hair-straighteners-that-hide-formaldehyde/

Who says formaldehyde is in the bottle

Many experts debunk hair straightener makers’ claims that the formaldehyde-water solution “methylene glycol”  is not formaldehyde:
American Chemistry Council
The chemical industry trade group’s formaldehyde panel, which represents the “producers, users, and suppliers of formaldehyde and formaldehyde products,” takes the position that “the scientific community widely considers methylene glycol as ‘formaldehyde in solution.’ Thus, both formaldehyde gas and formaldehyde reacted in water determine the formaldehyde content of a product” (ACC 2010).
Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration
This Oregon state agency asserts that “a hyper-technical argument over appropriate chemical nomenclature does not alter the applicable workplace health and safety requirements, nor should it be allowed to disguise the risks” (Oregon OSHA, 2010B).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSHA’s workplace safety standards for formaldehyde cover “all occupational exposures to formaldehyde, i.e. from formaldehyde gas, its solutions, and materials that release formaldehyde” (OSHA 1992).
Environmental Protection Agency
In the EPA draft risk assessment for formaldehyde, the agency describes the mechanism by which formaldehyde solutions result in free formaldehyde exposures. It says that in a living organism, free formaldehyde leaves the water solution and binds with serum proteins and cellular components” (EPA 2010B).
EPA uses the term “formaldehyde” to cover both free formaldehyde gas and methylene glycol, or formaldehyde solution, on its inventory of chemicals manufactured or imported into the U.S. (EPA 2010A).
Academia
Dr. Alan Schusterman, a chemistry professor at Reed College, writes, “if I am exposed to methylene glycol, will I be exposed to formaldehyde? The answer to this is unequivocally YES. [The] equilibrium, Formaldehyde + Water = Methylene Glycol, is completely reversible at room temperature and methylene glycol spontaneously decomposes to make formaldehyde + water.  I can think of no simpler way to expose a person to formaldehyde than to expose [him] to a methylene glycol solution” (Shusterman 2010).
Health agencies
The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Health Canada, Irish Medicines Board, French Agency for the Safety of Health Products, and agencies in Germany and Cyprus have collectively recalled 22 products (ACCC 2010, AFSSAPS 2010, Health Canada 2010B, Health Canada 2010C, IMB 2010A, IMB 2010B, Irish NCA 2010, RAPEX 2010).
Cosmetics industry
The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), an industry-funded and self-policing body, originally assessed the safety of formaldehyde in 1984 and re-reviewed its safety in 2003. Its current recommendation is that use should be “limited to 0.2% as free formaldehyde but [kept] to a minimum; and should not be used in products intended to be aerosolized” (CIR 2010A). In 2010 the international nomenclature committee of the Personal Care Products Council added methylene glycol to a list of cosmetic ingredients separate from formaldehyde (PCPC et al. 2010).
The panel reached tentative conclusions in its March 2011 meeting. The chemical name “formaldehyde” was replaced with “formaldehyde/methylene glycol.” The CIR also determined that formaldehyde should not be used in products intended to be aerosolized to include products that would produce formaldehyde/methylene glycol vapor or gas under conditions of use. This conclusion would effectively prohibit the use of these ingredients in hair-straightening products at any level (CIR 2011B).

Name games: What is methylene glycol? Understanding the chemistry

A little background on the chemistry of formaldehyde goes a long way in understanding the fallacy of hair-straighteners’ “formaldehyde-free” boasts.
Formaldehyde is a gas at room temperature (NIST, 2008).  To make handling easier it is usually mixed with water and sold as a liquid labeled “formalin” or “formaldehyde solution.”  A molecule of water reacts with a molecule of formaldehyde to form methylene glycol (also referred to as methanediol, formaldehyde monohydrate, or formaldehyde in water). Very little free formaldehyde remains as a gas in solution, but the reaction is fast and completely reversible.  For every molecule of free formaldehyde that remains in the solution, there will be 1,820 molecules of methylene glycol (Dasgupta 1986).  If an analyst measures only the gaseous formaldehyde in solution the result will be 1,820 lower than the actual amount of available formaldehyde, because methylene glycol reverts to free formaldehyde almost immediately upon contact with air or skin.
When free formaldehyde evaporates from solution or reacts with skin,  the remaining methylene glycol solution will release more free formaldehyde gas nearly instantaneously.  This process will repeat until the methylene glycol is completely gone.  Heat from hair driers and flat irons speeds the reaction.  A hair-straightening session will release significant amounts of formaldehyde gas.

Flat-Out Risky: Hair straighteners Makers and Salons Cover Up Dangers

An EWG (Enviromental Working Group) Investigation

Our Report

• Executive Summary
• Salon workers at risk
• Top Salon Survey
• Adverse reactions and injuries
• Brands that hide formaldehyde
• Policy gaps and unsafe products
• Best options for straight hair
• Formaldehyde facts
• See the brands
• References
• FAQs

Obama administration moves to curb toxic hair straighteners

Authors: David Andrews, Ph.D, Senior Scientist; Jane Houlihan, MSCE, Senior Vice President for Research; Thomas Cluderay, Staff Attorney and Stabile Law Fellow; Elaine Shannon, Editor-in-Chief

April 12, 2011. For the past four years, some celebrities and fashionistas with $250 to $600 to drop at a hair salon have raved about “Brazilian-style keratin” hair straighteners purported to transform frizzy, unmanageable hair into flat, silky-smooth locks.
In fact, those chemical concoctions are loaded with formaldehyde, which numerous prestigious health bodies, most recently, a National Academy of Sciences panel, have labeled a human carcinogen. Formaldehyde is also a potent allergen. It is especially hazardous when it reverts to its natural state, a gas, and is inhaled. Formaldehyde-based hair straighteners present a particular danger to salon workers who apply blow driers and 450-degree flatirons to chemical-coated hair.
Some salon clients and personnel have suffered severe allergic reactions, massive hair loss, neck and face rashes, blistered scalps and other serious health problems, according to an Environmental Working Group review of 47 previously unpublished “adverse event” reports filed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
EWG’s comprehensive survey of 45 manufacturers of hair-straightening products has found that:

15 of 16 companies claim little to no formaldehyde but tests show their products contain substantial amounts – These include Brazilian Blowout, Cadiveu and other top brands. The hair straightener company Goleshlee admits on its website that its product contains formaldehyde but omits the toxic chemical from its online ingredient list.

Fumes in salon air – Tests of salon air conducted in 2010 found powerful formaldehyde fumes. Other tests have found that hair straighteners contain up to 11.8 percent formaldehyde. When vapors reach significant levels, and when products contain a formaldehyde solution of more than 1 percent, federal law requires salons to provide medical monitoring for workers with symptoms, quick-drench showers for immediate use if solution touches skin and emergency eyewash stations.

Most top salons deny risks – Only three of Elle magazine’s 41 top-rated salons surveyed by EWG do not offer hair-straightening services because of health dangers. Nine salons claimed they used products free or nearly free of toxic chemicals. Yet test results compiled by EWG show the products are laden with formaldehyde. The salons’ claims usually echoed the manufacturers’ own misstatements about the chemistry and safety of the products. Among salons offering formaldehyde hair straighteners are the Andy Lecompte salon in Los Angeles, Whittenmore House Salon in New York and Metodo Rossano Ferretti Hair & Spa in Miami.

Inexplicably, government officials charged with protecting public health and worker safety have been slow to move against risky hair straighteners.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has belatedly issued a “hazard alert” to salon workers and owners, urging them to stop using formaldehyde-based hair straighteners. If they persisted in selling the service, the agency said, they must take extensive precautions, including air monitoring, installing ventilation, training workers and providing protective equipment such as gloves, chemical splash goggles, face shields and chemical resistant aprons. The agency disclosed that it is investigating a number of salons, importers, distributors and manufacturers of these products and already has issued some citations. “Workers have the right to know the risks associated with the chemicals with which they work, and how to protect themselves,” OSHA chief David Michaels said on April 11, 2011, as he announced the agency’s salon crack-down. “Employers need to know these risks in order to ensure the safety and health of their employees.”
The California Attorney General’s office has filed suit against the Los Angeles-based maker of Brazilian Blowout for deceptive advertising for claiming that its “Acai Professional Smoothing Solution” is “formaldehyde free,” when lab tests show it contains the carcinogenic chemical and releases it as gas during salon processes. Oregon, Washington state, Connecticut and California officials responsible for worker safety have issued warnings. According to OSHA officials, many other states are conducting investigations of salon workers’ exposure to dangerous formaldehyde fumes.
But far more aggressive actions by federal and state agencies are needed to protect unwitting consumers. Because of formaldehyde’s long-recognized dangers, most hair straighteners that rely on this chemical disguise it under other names or deny its presence.
The FDA, responsible for cosmetic safety, does not limit amounts of formaldehyde in hair-straightening products and has not taken action against companies using formaldehyde. Hair straighteners based on formaldehyde have been recalled in six countries — Australia, Ireland, Canada, France, Germany and Cyprus — but are still widely used in American salons.
EWG has filed a citizen petition that asks FDA to draft regulations regarding formaldehyde in hair straighteners, to protect the health of salon workers and clients.
Petition to FDA
Exhibits filed with Petition
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, whose mission is to protect the public from false and misleading advertising, has failed to take action against hair straightener companies that cover up their products’ high formaldehyde content.
The American Chemistry Council, the leading U.S. chemical industry trade group, has taken the unusual step of aligning itself with government regulators and health advocates like Environmental Working Group in pressing for safety restrictions on formaldehyde-based hair straighteners. Last year, the ACC sided with the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration and against the Brazilian Blowout maker, which was denying the state agency’s tests that detected significant levels of formaldehyde in its products. The industry group effectively demolished Brazilian Blowout’s legal argument – that its product’s active ingredient, methylene glycol, a formaldehyde-water solution, was “completely different” from pure formaldehyde, a gas. The ACC said that the two chemicals were the same and “should be accounted for when measuring the formaldehyde content of a product.” With the chemical industry, worker safety and public health communities arrayed against it, Brazilian Blowout’s maker dropped its lawsuit against Oregon OSHA in late February.
The controversy over formaldehyde in hair straighteners and other beauty products is likely to escalate if, as reported, the Obama administration will soon designate formaldehyde a “known human carcinogen.”
The FDA’s website says it is “working… to determine whether the products or ingredients would be likely to cause health problems under the intended conditions of use.” Meanwhile consumer complaints filed with FDA are mounting. For instance, in November 2010, a customer reported that after a Brazilian Blowout, “hair continued to fall off as she continued to rinse. Blisters also discovered on the back of head… Complainant developed severe stability problems (severe dizziness)… Physician examined and noted hair loss, blisters on scalp and ulcer formation in her mouth.”
Our conclusion: if you opt for hair straighteners labeled “keratin” or a hair-smoothing session that promises to last longer than eight weeks, chances are you will be exposed to significant amounts of formaldehyde.
EWG’s recommendations:

• FDA should prohibit the use of formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals in hair straighteners.
• The Federal Trade Commission should take action against companies engaged in false and misleading marketing about their products’ formaldehyde content.
• Consumers should avoid chemical hair straightening.
• Salons should cease offering formaldehyde-based hair-straightening treatments.
• Salons workers should report to FDA all adverse reactions to salon products and should notify OSHA of suspected violations of worker safety standards.
• Companies should voluntarily recall their straightening products (FDA does not have this authority).
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration should enforce formaldehyde workplace standards in salons.
• Congress should require labeling of ingredients on professional-use products and reform cosmetic law to ensure that consumers and salons alike can be assured that all personal-care products are safe.

Why it is important to understand what Acid and Alkaline will do for you?

Link to the chart https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B3CqePDmp7nFMDdiMWE0NjMtNjU1Yy00ODI0LWJmMGUtODc0YzYyYTNiYjdh&hl=en_US

When they are metabolized, carbohydrates, proteins and fats produce inorganic and organic acids. These acids are all poisonous. We have to eliminate them from our bodies as quickly as possible. However, if these acids substances were eliminated through the kidneys and large intestines those organs would suffer damage from the acid.  The good part is that God created our bodies with the capacity to neutralize those acids by mineral compounds. Together, the mineral compounds and acids produce substances which are not longer poisonous to us and which can be safely eliminated.

The family of mineral compounds, which neutralizes acids, is carbonic salts. When carbonic salts meet strong acids such as sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid (from Proteins), acetic acid and lactic acid, (from Carbohydrates and fats) the alkaline minerals making up the carbonic salt leave the salt and combine with the acids to make new salts.

In short, the acids which are the end product of metabolism can be eliminated only after they are changed to neutral salts. Then they are not longer harmful to the kidney and to the wall of the intestine.

The result of this change from acid to neutral salt reduces the concentration of alkaline elements in the blood and then in the extracellular fluid. It is this lowered concentration of alkaline elements that is referred to as the acidic condition of the body fluid.

Since in order for us to be healthy our body fluid mist be kept at an alkaline level (PH 7.4), we must re-supply the lost alkaline elements through the foods we eat.

One of the important causes of cancer and other degenerative diseases is the cumulative effect of the acidic condition of body fluid.  I believe we can prevent almost all sicknesses, including cancer, if diets are changed considering the acid and alkaline effects of food in our bodies.

Cancer develops in the following stages:

1.      Ingestion of many acid forming foods, fatty foods, protein rich foods, refined foods,  carcinogenic substances such as nitrites, and chemically treated foods in general. X-ray scans contribute even at this stage.

2.      Increased constipation.

3.      Increase acidity in the blood.  This causes an increase of white cells and a decrease of red cells,   which is the beginning of leukemia.

4.      Increase of acidity in the extracellular fluids.

5.      Increase of acidity in the intracellular fluids.

6.      Birth of malignant cells. This is the stage of cancer initiation.

7.      The further consumption of many acid forming foods. Receiving high levels of radiation, chemical, and drug treatment. This is the stage of cancer called promotion.

It is my prayer this information will open the eyes of the readers. I was able to understand more why people are choosing to have a vegetarian diet and why the theory of Yin and Yang on foods.  The principles are the same and God had revealed to us with the Bible.

While I believe God allows afflictions for a reason, I also believe that He gave us the resources and instructions and commanded us to take care of our bodies. Ironically, we believe we know more than our ancestors did, but is this true? Or we have just bitten the apple and believe in the deceitful enemy? Are we really full of knowledge because now we have a drug for every illness and a vaccine for every disease?

I came across this part of the book from David C Pack that I want to add:

There are two opposing concept of treating a disease. The traditional concept of disease is not much different than voodoo. The only difference is that “evil spirits” have been replaced by evil germs, bacteria or viruses. The traditional concept is that disease unpredictably strikes unsuspecting victims -these things people “catch”. The job of modern “medicine man” is to rescue the victim by killing or driving out the evil intruders (the germ or virus) with “magic” medical power from his arsenal of needles and prescriptions.

The newer Biological concept takes exception to traditional symptomatic drug therapy in treating disease. It is based upon irrefutable proof that invading bacteria or viruses are not the primary cause of disease. Rather, it is a weakened resistance, brought about by health-destroying lifestyles. Bacteria enter the picture only in the larger stages. They help terminate organisms lacking a strong defense against them. Strong immunity is common to all healthy organisms.
Rather than treating the symptoms with drugs, the biological concept emphasizes finding and correcting the cause of the disease. The results are sometimes realized quickly. Other times, results take longer to appear. In a nutshell, the cause-and-effect approach has been far more successful that treating the symptoms.

Bibliography
Herman Aihara- Acid & Alkaline
Carrel, Alexis- Man, The Unknown
Guyton, Arthur, M.D- Funtion of the Human Body
U.S Department of Agriculture-Composition of Foods

Chart information: http://www.rosacea-ltd.com/LacticAcid.php3

2011 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce

http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/?utm_source=2011foodnews2testa&utm_medium=email&utm_content=image&utm_campaign=food