The Sunscreen Info to fight Sunscreen Disinfo

NaturalNews.com
June 27, 2011

Ask somebody about sunscreen and you’re likely to receive an earful of disinformation from a person who has been repeatedly misinformed by health authorities and the mainstream media. Almost nothing you hear about sunscreen from traditional media channels is accurate. So here’s a quick guide to the 7 most important things you need to know about sunscreen, sunlight and vitamin D:

#1) The FDA refuses to allow natural sunscreen ingredients to be used in sunblock / sunscreen products

It’s true: If you create a truly natural sunscreen product using exotic botanicals with powerful sunscreen properties, you will never be able to market it as a “sunscreen” product. That’s because the FDA decides what can be used as sunscreen and what can’t, regardless of what really works in the real world. And there are really only two natural ingredients the FDA has allowed to be sold as sunscreen: Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

Any other non-chemical sunscreen ingredients, if sold as “sunscreen,” would be considered mislabeled by the FDA and result in your products being confiscated… even if they offer fantastic sunscreen protection!

Not surprisingly, this whole monopoly over sunscreen chemicals is designed to protect the profits of the chemical companies while marginalizing the natural product companies which could easily formulate far better solutions. I have personally spoken to the founders of several health product companies who have figured out amazing sunscreen formulations using nothing but natural botanicals, butthe FDA won’t let them market their products as sunscreen products!

It’s just another example of the FDA standing in the way of health innovation.

#2) Nearly all conventional sunscreen products contain cancer-causing chemicals

Read the ingredients list of any sunscreen product sold at Wal-Mart, or Walgreens, or any other mainstream store. I dare ya!

You will not be able to pronounce most of the chemicals found in the ingredients list. That’s because most sunscreen products are formulated withcancer-causing fragrance chemicals, parabens, harsh alcohols, toxic chemical solvents and petroleum oils. A typical sunscreen product is actuallya chemical assault on your body. That’s why research shows that using sunscreen actuallycausesmore cancer than it prevents (http://www.naturalnews.com/023317_s…).

#3) In a nation where over 70% of the population is vitamin D deficiency, sunscreen actually blocks vitamin D production

Vitamin D deficiency is perhaps the most widespread vitamin deficiency in North America. According to the research, 70 percent of whites are deficient in vitamin D, and up to97 percent of blacksare deficient (http://www.naturalnews.com/030598_v…).

Chronic vitamin D deficiency promotes cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/031560_v…), winter flu and infections, depression, osteoporosis and hormonal imbalances. Depending on whom you believe, vitamin D alone can prevent anywhere from 50% to nearly 80% of all cancers (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html).

By blocking vitamin D production in the skin,sunscreen products actually contribute to cancer-promoting nutritional deficiencies.

This doesn’t mean you should never wear a sunscreen product, of course. If your skin is really pale and you’re planning a day on the beach in Hawaii, you will obviously benefit from some level of sun protection using a truly natural sunscreen product. But an informed health-conscious person would try to allow their skin to achieve a natural, healthy tan (yes, a tan truly is healthy if it’s combined with good nutrition, see below) through sensible exposure levels that activate vitamin D production in the skin.

#4) You can boost your internal sun resistance by changing what you eat

Here’s the real secret about sun exposure thatno onein conventional medicine is talking about (because, as usual, they are woefully ignorant about nutrition): You can boost your internal sunscreen by eating antioxidant-rich foods and superfoods.

The supplement astaxanthin, for example, is very well known for boosting your skin’s natural resistance to sunburn. Its fat-soluble carotenoids are actually transported to skin cells where they protect those cells from UV exposure.

The more natural antioxidants you have in your diet, the more sunlight your skin will be able to handle without burning. Nearly everyone mistakenly believes that a person’s sunlight burn response is purely a genetic factor. They’re wrong. You can radically improve your resistance to UV exposurethrough radical dietary changes.

I’m a great example of this, actually, as I used to burn in just 20 – 30 minutes of sunlight when I was on a junk food diet years ago. But now, as someone who eats superfoods and high-end nutritional supplements every day, I can spend hours in the sun and will only turn slightly red (which fades a few hours later and does not result in a burn or skin peeling).

Except for one time on an all-day visit to a water park, I have not worn sunscreen in over 8 years. I spend a large amount of time in the sun, and I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever about skin cancer. My skin, most people tell me, looks significantly younger than my biological age. That’s not from sunscreen; it’s from nutrition. Sun exposure does not make your skin “age” if you follow a high-nutritional density diet.

#5) UV exposure alone does not cause skin cancer

It is a complete medical myth that “UV exposure causes skin cancer.” This false idea is a total fabrication by the ignorant medical community (dermatologists) and the profit-driven sunscreen companies.

The truth is actually more complicated: Skin cancer can only be caused when UV exposure is combined with chronic nutritional deficienciesthat create skin vulnerabilities.

To create skin cancer, in other words, you have to eat a junk food diet, avoid protective antioxidants, and then also experience excessive UV exposure. All three of those elements are required. Conventional medicine completely ignores the dietary influences and focuses entirely on just one factor: Sunscreen vs. no sunscreen. This is a one-dimensional approach to the issue that’s grossly oversimplified to the point of being misleading.

The medical industry, it seems, does not want people to figure out they can literally eat their way to healthier skin. It’s amazing, actually: Your skin is made entirely out of the food you eat, so how could your diet not affect your skin health? Yet no one in conventional medicine — not the dermatologists, not the doctors and not the health regulators — has the intellectual honesty to admit thatwhat you eat largely determines how your skin reacts to UV exposure.

#6) Not all “natural” sunscreen products are really natural

Be careful when shopping for so-called “natural” sunscreen products. While there are some good ones out there, many are just examples ofgreenwashing, where they use terms like “natural” or “organic” but still contain loads of synthetic chemicals anyway.

A good guide for checking on sunscreen products is theEnvironmental Working Groupguide (EWG) at:
http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/

Some of the products that aretrulynatural includeLoving Naturals sunscreenandBadger All Natural Sunscreen. Read the ingredients labels to see for yourself. Don’t use any sunscreen product containing ingredients that sound like chemicals:

• Methyl…
• Propyl…
• Butyl…
• Ethyl…
• Trieth…
• Dieth…
etc.

Always buy unscented sunscreenunless for some reason you just enjoy coating your skin with artificial perfume chemicals. A typical sunscreen product is made with over a dozen cancer-causing fragrance chemicals, and they’re absorbed right through your skin. Most sunscreens, when applied as directed, are really justtoxic chemical bathsthat heavily burden your liver and can give you cancer.

#7) Many “chemical free” sunscreens are loaded with chemicals

Search Amazon.com for “chemical free natural sunscreen” and you’ll see a listing for:

Jason Natural Cosmetics – Earth’s Best Sun Block Chemical Free, 4 oz cream

Click on the product and you’ll find a listing of its ingredients which includes: C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Sorbitan Isostearate, Sorbitan Sesquioleate, Ethylhexyl Palmitate, Ethyl Macadamiate, Calcium Starch Octenylsuccinate, Stearalkonium Hectorite

So how are those not chemicals? Ethylhexyl Palmitate is NOT a chemical? Who are these people kidding? The Amazon.com description (title) of this product is false and misleading. In all fairness, however, this product title looks like it was added into the Amazon.com system by the vendor and not the Jason company itself. But it’s an example of how the information you see from online vendors can often be misleading.

Always read the ingredients of any sunscreen product before using it. Don’t poison yourself with sunscreen!

Beware the disinfo minefield surrounding sunscreen products

Perhaps more with sunscreen than any other personal care product, the “official” information distributed through the mainstream media is hopelessly misleading (if not downright false). Remarkably, no one in the media or the government is even willing to admit that fragrance chemicals are bad for your health. Similarly, no one is willing to admit thatthe chemicals you put on your skin get ABSORBED by your skin.

Without those two truths being acknowledged right up front, the rest of whatever they say about sunscreen is worthless babble. Any honest talk about sunscreen must acknowledge the simple truth that the chemicals you put on your skin get absorbed into your skin, and that most sunscreen products are made out ofa chemical cocktailof cancer-causing substances.

This is the truth about sunscreen that both the sunscreen industry andthe cancer industrydoesn’t want you to hear. It’s the dirty little secret of sunscreen: The more you use, the more you CAUSE cancer in your body! (And the more money the cancer centers make “treating” your cancer with yet more deadly chemicals known aschemotherapy.)

So buyer beware. Sunscreen products are a minefield of lies, fraud and disinformation designed to keep you ignorant of the importance of sun exposure as well as the health risks associated with using cancer-causing chemicals on your skin.

Stick with truly natural sunscreen products (when needed) and try to build up a healthy tanwhile consuming large quantities of superfoods and antioxidantsin your diet. Consider taking astaxanthin or other fat-soluble nutrients on a regular basis. Engage in daily juicing of fresh fruits and vegetables which are loaded with living nutrients. Time your sun exposure to build up a healthy tan so that you don’t need sunscreen at all. Contrary to all the misinformation we’ve all been fed, a healthy tan is actually a good sign that you’re achieving adequate vitamin D synthesis in your own skin.

Big Pharma Pills will have Nano devices to track patients

Natural News

The emerging field of nanotechnology is currently gaining a lot of attention across many industries. Nanotechnology allows scientists to manipulate individual atoms and molecules to create unique materials and even micro-scale devices, and this is leading to a wide range of applications in clothing, textiles, electronics and even food and medicine.

Sounds great, right? Except for the fact that, like genetic modification of food crops, nanotechnology tampers with Mother Nature in a way that’s largely untested for safety. And here’s something really bizarre: The pharmaceutical industry may soon begin using nanotechnology to encode drug tablets and capsules with brand and tracking data that you swallow as part of the pill.

To really explain how this works, let me simplify how nanotechnology works so you’ll see why this is so bizarre (and potentially dangerous). Instead of using materials and elements as they’re found in nature to build and construct things, nanotechnologists are deconstructing the basic building blocks of these materials and elements to make completely new ones. In other words, nanoscientists are reconstructing the molecular building blocks of our world without yet knowing what it will do to humans and to the environment.

The long-term consequences of nanotechnology are still largely unknown because not a single formidable study has ever been conducted on this emerging science that proves it to be safe. In fact, most of the studies that have been conducted on nanotechnology show that it’s actually detrimental to health and to the environment (which I’ll cover further, below).

But that hasn’t stopped Big Pharma from potentially adopting it for use in a new tracking and identification system that could be integrated into the very drug pills and capsules that millions of people swallow every day.

By the way, I’ve also posted a video explaining all this. Check it out here: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=93626…

Nano-encrypted bar code in every dose

Now don’t get me wrong. Big Pharma isn’t the only industry using nanotechnology despite a complete lack of safety evidence. “Nanoparticles” are present in sunscreens, fabric protectors, plastic food liners, and other products. But what’s different about the nanoparticles soon to be found in a pill near you is that they are capable of storing data about where the drug was made, when it was made, and where it has traveled.

It’s a lot like the bar codes used on parcels to track them along their shipping journeys, except that in the drugs, it’s a molecular bar code that people will be swallowing. During digestion of the pill, the nano data bits will be distributed throughout your body and can become lodged in your body’s tissues.

A company that’s introducing this system for pharmaceuticals, says it this way on its website:

“In the NanoEncryption process, NanoCodes are incorporated directly onto tablets, capsules and vial caps. These codes may be associated with an unlimited amount of manufacturer-determined data, including product information (strength and expiration date), manufacturing information (location date, batch and lot number) and distribution information (country, distributor, wholesaler and chain).”

So if you take these drugs, you’ll be swallowing nano “hard drives” that can store data — data that will be distributed throughout your body and can be read by medical technicians who could then track what drugs you took in the past. And what’s the rationale for this? According to the company, it’s to “defen[d] against pharmaceutical counterfeiting and illegal diversion”.

It sounds like a good idea, right? Unfortunately, there’s a whole lot more to this technology than meets the eye.

Editor’s Note: UPDATE 1 — The company originally mentioned in this story now denies what NaturalNews reported. Their own website text as quoted in this story, was apparently misleading, and they now claim they do not use nano “material” of any kind to achieve their nano encoding. We are temporarily removing the name of this company from this story while we attempts to sort out the truth of the matter. In the past, we’ve had many company rush to change their own website text after we ran a story on them. All quotes published in this story were 100% accurate at the time of publication, and we made a good faith attempt to report this story accurately.

Link between tanning beds, melanoma grows stronger

USA Today

Strong evidence now links tanning beds to melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer that afflicts nearly 69,000 Americans a year.

People who have ever used tanning machines were 74% more likely to develop melanoma than others, according to a study of 2,268 patients reported today in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Those who tanned the most — for 10 years or more — had more than twice the risk of melanoma compared with people who never used tanning beds, says co-author Martin Weinstock of Brown University School of Medicine. Those risks didn’t change when researchers accounted for age, sex, income, family history, education, skin and eye color, freckles, moles, sunscreen use or time in the sun.

About 2.5% of men and 1.7% of women develop melanoma, according to the American Cancer Society.

The study provides some of the strongest evidence yet to link tanning beds to melanoma, which kills nearly 7,000 Americans a year, says Electra Paskett of Ohio State University.

The study includes information on the newest tanning technologies, finding that machines emitting both types of ultraviolet light — UVA and UVB — increased melanoma risk, says Allan Halpern of New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Halpern and many other doctors say they’re especially concerned about the risks of tanning salons for teenagers, which are popular this time of year as kids prepare for proms, graduations and beach trips. About 35% of 17-year-old girls use tanning machines, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The new report comes at a time of increased scrutiny of indoor tanning:

•The FDA is considering recommendations from an advisory panel that suggested that teens be barred from tanning salons, or at least get parental consent before tanning.

•Congress included a 10% tax on indoor tanning in the health reform bill to help pay for expanding medical coverage and to make it harder for teens to afford indoor tanning.

•The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, in July listed ultraviolet radiation-emitting beds as “carcinogenic to humans,” its highest category of cancer risk.

In a statement, the Indoor Tanning Association’s John Overstreet says scientists disagree about the link between melanoma and tanning beds. “When reputable researchers are coming to vastly different conclusions, it’s clear that a lot more research is needed,” he says. “The science on both sides of the question needs to be weighed before consideration is given to any sweeping policy changes.”

Laundry Detergents Contaminated with Dioxane Chemical

Natural News

One of the major issues being tackled by consumer watchdog groups this year is the presence of 1,4-dioxane, a syntheticcare productspetrochemical carcinogen, in consumer products. Since hair care products, cleaning formulas and laundry detergents are all susceptible to containing this toxic chemical byproduct, which is not listed on product labels, David Steinman from the Green Patriot Working Group (GPWG) began a study in 2007 to see which consumer products are the worst offenders. This year, his organization along with the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), released the results of a portion of the study conducted last year on laundry detergents.

When cleaning products and detergents are processed using ethoxylation, a cheap technique that lessens the severity of the harsher ingredients, 1,4-dioxane is created. Since it is considered a byproduct of ethylene oxide reacting with other ingredients, 1,4-dioxane is technically considered a contaminant and thus does not have to be included on product labeling. As a result, consumers are largely unaware of its presence in major household products.

For the study, Steinman evaluated 20 different laundry detergents from both conventional and “natural” brands. Evoxa, an independent, third-party laboratory that is highly respected for its rigorous methods and high standards, conducted all product testing. The results are as follows:

Conventional brands:
1. Tide (P&G) – 55 parts per million (ppm)
2. Ivory Snow Gentle (P&G) – 31 ppm
3. Tide Free (P&G) – 29 ppm
4. Purex (Dial Corp.) – 25 ppm
5. Gain 2X Ultra (P&G) – 21 ppm
6. Cheer BrightClean Detergent (P&G) – 20 ppm
7. Era 2X Ultra (P&G) – 14 ppm
8. Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight Co.) – 5.0 ppm
9. Wisk 2X Ultra (Sun Products Corp.) – 3.9 ppm
10. Woolite Complete Detergent (Reckitt Benckiser) – 1.3 ppm
11. All laundry detergent (Unilever) – 0.6 ppm
12. Dreft powdered detergent (P&G) – non-detectable (ND)
13. Sun Burst (Sun Products Corp.) – ND

“Natural” brands:
1. Planet Ultra Liquid laundry detergent – 6.1 ppm
2. Mrs. Meyers laundry detergent – 1.5 ppm
3. Clorox Green Works Natural laundry detergent – ND
4. Ecos laundry detergent (Earth Friendly Products) – ND
5. Life Tree Laundry Liquid – ND
6. Method Squeaky Green laundry detergent – ND
7. Seventh Generation Free & Clear laundry detergent – ND

Of the products detected, P&G products came up the highest in 1,4-dioxane levels, as did most of the conventional brands. Of the natural brands tested, only two were found to contain 1,4-dioxane, and in levels far below the average conventional brand. While not all available brands were tested, it is clear from the results that consumers need to be wary of most conventional brands. They also must perform due diligence in verifying that their “natural” brand of choice is truly free of 1,4-dioxane as well.

The 1,4-dioxane found in laundry detergent is particularly harmful in the fact that the chemical binds easily to water and remains there. Even after water containing the chemical has been purified and filtered, low levels have been detected, indicating that it is not easily removed from water. Numerous water supplies across the country have been found to be tainted with 1,4-dioxane.

Of the 80,000 known chemicals, only 200 are tested by the EPA; 1,4-dioxane is not one of the ones tested. Average aggregate exposure to 1,4-dioxane is unknown since it is found in numerous consumer care products. Because it is a known carcinogen that is implicated in causing cancer, liver disease and other serious problems, it is important to avoid it whenever possible.

OCA has prepared a Personal Care and Cleaning Products Safety Guide outlining which consumer products are safe and free of 1,4-dioxane and which ones are not. Categories include dishwashing soap, hand soap, all-purpose soap, laundry detergents, household cleaners, body washes and shampoos, conditioners, facial cleansers, lotions, sunscreens and deodorants.