The U.S. EPA announced Wednesday that it is taking several steps to increase the safety of flea and tick treatments for pets, including requiring better labeling and instructions to prevent misuse. The agency also promises to subject new and existing products to stricter testing.

The EPA found that small dogs are more likely to have an adverse reaction to spot-on flea treatments.

The move comes after hundreds of reports of pets falling ill, or even dying, nationwide after being treated with flea and tick treatments available on the consumer market. The agency reported that it logged more than 44,000 reports of bad reactions to topical flea and tick products in 2008, which was up considerably from the 28,000+ reported in 2007. The reactions included skin irritations, gastrointestinal problems that included vomiting and diarrhea and nervous system effects — trembling, seizures, depression.

Pinpointing the products targeted also is tricky, because there are dozens of flea treatments on the market. For now, the EPA’s review will focus on the “spot-on” treatments in which pet owners dab a small amount of a pesticide onto the pet’s fur to help repel fleas and ticks. While these products might fulfill their mission, they do so while leaving a poisonous coating on our furry friends, and expose people to the same chemicals.

That worries environmental advocates. Last year, the Natural Resources Defense Council reviewed the safety of treated tick and flea pet collars, finding that the level of residue on the animal was higher than what the EPA had projected when greenlighting these products.

Today’s acknowledgment by the government agency that flea and tick treatments can cause health effects “serves as a reminder that just because they’re in stores, does not mean they’re safe,” said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, an NRDC scientist who’s been following this issue.

For more details about some of these ill effects, you can read Rotkin-Ellman’s blog, which includes tips for safer ways of dealing with pet pests. (Wash, wash, wash those dogs vigorously with soap and water; vacuum well and often if fleas are an issue in your area.)

Manufacturers, however, insist that the current line of consumer products are safe, if used correctly.

According to Georgia-based Merial Ltd., the maker of the Frontline tick and flea treatment, the vast majority of negative reactions to these products are “minor.” The Associated Press quoted the company as saying in a statement: “The number of adverse events reported for FRONTLINE has remained consistently low since the product’s introduction in 1996.”

The AP also quoted an official with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who said that most adverse reactions involve skin irritations and upset stomach (on pets, that is).

Expect to hear more on this issue.

In the meantime, the EPA advises pet owners to:

• Read labels carefully and follow all labeling “before exposing your pet to a pesticide.”

• Consult your veterinarian before using any pesticide on “weak, aged, medicated, sick, pregnant or nursing pets, or on pets that have previously shown signs of sensitivity to pesticide products”.

• Be sure not to use dog flea treatment on cats.

The EPA noted in its announcement that it has found that exposing cats to flea treatments intended for dogs is “a concern” and also that small dogs tend to be disproportionately negatively affected by these products. Regulators hope to find out more such useful information by improving “market surveillance” of flea treatments. The agency also will be requiring more reporting of post-sale adverse effects (presumably from veterinarians or manufacturers) so it can better evaluate the incidence of negative health effects.

You can read more on the EPA’s study of flea and tick treatments at the agency’s website.

With all the talk about natural cosmetics, organic makeup and getting the chemicals out of personal products, you’d think that finding basic, non-toxic facial foundations would be a simple matter.

Finding a pure foundation requires good eyes -- with which to read the label. (Photo: Volkova/dreamstime.)

You’d be wrong. We took five foundations that claim to be “natural” and free of concerning chemicals and matched them against Skin Deep, the database that rates makeup for toxicity.

The results surprised us. And they remind us once again that the labels touting “organic”  and “natural” ingredients, can be deceiving in body products. A cosmetic can use those labels, and still contain compounds that raise red flags.

In many cases, the words “organic” on the label may only mean that some of the ingredients are organic. The cosmetics industry is not as tightly regulated as the food business where products must meet certain strict criteria to win the USDA’s “Certified Organic” label. In cosmetics, the wording “organic” may be more about marketing. When products are partially organic, yet use the label, the Organic Consumers Association calls them “organic cheater brands.”

Happily, our search for a non-toxic foundation was not an exercise in futility. We found pure formulations that we can slather on without being dogged by doubts about their long-term safety. We found them among five foundations we tried. We chose these five because they claim to have organic and natural pedigrees and seemed to represent a sampling of what’s out there on the market:

• Aubrey’s Organic’s Silken Earth Translucent Base mineral makeup

• Christopher Drummond’s “Beyond Mineral Makeup”

• Bare Escentuals’ Bare Minerals foundation

• Physicians Formula Organic Wear cream foundation

• Almay’s pure blends cream foundation

First a word about our method. Skin Deep, the database we used, was put together by the Environmental Working Group in Washington D.C. and is widely considered to be a responsible, public-use source of information. It is intended to help people sort out the labels — not to scare them, but to help them find out more about what that tiny type on the back of their makeup, body lotion or bath oil really means.  The database flags all sorts of ingredients, from those that may only irritate your skin to those that could alter your body chemistry enough to increase your risk of cancer, fertility problems or thyroid issues.

Dangerous compounds in cosmetics aren’t likely to sicken you overnight, but increasingly scientists worry about the accumulation of chemicals in our bodies that could make us vulnerable to diseases over time.

The EWG uses the term “body burden” to describe this threat.  As we add pile on the body products – shampoo, lotions, makeup – the chemicals in them (parabens, phthalates, nanoparticles, mercury, to name but a few) accumulate in our bodies, creating a chemical “burden” that scientists are only beginning to understand. The EWG advocates believe that we should be aware of the presence of these chemicals, and try to reduce our exposure to them with the conservative and judicious use of body products. Put another way, there’s no need to run screaming from your bathroom (unless you’ve spotted a dangerous spider in there), but you should peruse the labels and reduce your contact with the chemicals of concern. Until more is known.

We tried foundations, because they’re right there on your skin, all day long. If anything should be pure, these should be. So here is what we found:

• Aubrey’s Organic’s Silken Earth Translucent Base mineral makeup

Aubrey is a pretty big name in natural and organic products and we were pleased to find that they had a mineral foundation in large containers, making it more affordable than many comparable brands (around $25). It went on smooth and worked to cover fine imperfections.

Aubrey's Silken Earth mineral foundation

But turns out the words “organic” on the label aren’t a foolproof way to choose a foundation. The Skin Deep database gave this product a Level 3 or “Moderate Hazard” rating on its 10-point scale. The reason, mainly, was the inclusion of “silica” – which sounds and is natural – but has been linked to cancer and “organ system toxicity”, according to the database. It can be rated low, moderate or highly toxic, depending on its product usage and the risk of inhalation, and in this case EWG assigned this ingredient a high hazard rating. Still, this is a tricky matter. As with many cosmetics, there is a significant “information gap” because so little is known about cosmetics formulations — the ingredients are not well studied and U.S. laws do not require any independent reviews.

Aside from the silica, most of the remaining ingredients in the Aubrey foundation were considered in the safe range. We reached two conclusions: We were surprised this product wasn’t listed as “low hazard” and we could envision it moving into the safer category with small changes, potentially.

• Christopher Drummond’s “Beyond Mineral Makeup” Veludo Velvet Foundation

This is a new line that looks quite promising. It’s hand-crafted, all natural and based on organic ingredients. We were

Chris Drummond's new mineral make-up with non-irritating base ingredients

excited to get a small sample of this makeup, which makes an earnest effort to leave all the bad stuff out.  There’s no titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and bismuth oxychloride — which are not chemicals of high concern, but can irritate skin, according to Drummond, a celebrity makeup artist. The coverage with this foundation was terrific, and though it felt a tad heavier than some mineral foundations, it was a smooth feeling and not drying.

The foundation of this foundation was new to us; it relies on organic cornstarch and White Kaolin clay as the base ingredients.

Skin Deep does not rate this product in total, so we looked up those two key ingredients in the database. The reports were encouraging, both the cornstarch and the Kaolin clay are listed as having “No Toxicity” (the cornstarch) or “Low Toxicity” (the clay). Based on these ingredients this makeup would receive a 0 or 1 rating, about as good as it gets on the harmful chemicals barometer.

The remaining ingredients are mainly essential oils, some of which can irritate skin in larger amounts, like Bergamot oil, which gets a 2 rating on Skin Deep. The Bergamot was not irritating in our experience. It was nice to see a new line that’s truly pure and non-toxic.  Kudos to Drummond for bringing it to market. (It’s available for now only online.)

• Bare Escentuals’ Bare Minerals

We tried this foundation in “light” (which sometimes makes a difference in the ratings) — over many years, in fact. A pioneer in mineral makeup, they seem to have gotten it right.

BareMinerals by Bare Escentuals

The foundation in light scored a 2, which is in the Low Hazard category on the Skin Deep scale. This product gets a favorable mention for providing sunscreen coverage – and the titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in this product are listed as “Non-Nano” versions, a plus because so little is known about the safety of nanoparticles, which are creeping into many sunscreens and cosmetics. Early word from activists is that nanos may not be so healthy for our skin.

As for the titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, these are additives that create color and act as sunscreens in skin products. The EWG has decided that their benefits in providing sunscreen cover outweighs any slight risks. (Though Chris Drummond will tell you they can be drying and irritating, which may be true for some users).

A concern: Bare Escentuals, even though it has achieved great success and is a mainstay at Sephora and other beauty bars, has not signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, which would require full disclosure of all ingredients and that the company comply with EU Cosmetics Directive, which bans certain known toxics.

• Almay pure blends

This was one of two liquid foundations we tried. Almay has branded itself as clean and pure, and the claim on the label that this product is 97.4 percent “natural” was intriguing.

Almay Pure Blends, mostly pure

In sampling it, we first had to readjust to the liquidity of it. It seemed positively watery next to the mineral products, but it was blend-able and felt light on our skin. Thankfully, it dried, leaving a little sheen, which was not unappealing, just notably different than the matte effects of the mineral makeups. It also smelled great, which raised our suspicions. What this yet another of the countless products that chase out the harmful ingredients, only to sour the deal with synthetic fragrances?
We were pleasantly surprised. Apparently, that scent is from essential oils from pansies!

We were back up at a 3 or Moderate Hazard rating, however. In this case, the offending agent was sodium borate, which was listed as being linked once again to “organ system” toxicity and reproductive effects. To see the references for this conclusion, visit the Skin Deep report on sodium borate, which is used in cosmetics as a ph balancer. The gist of it: It’s considered safe in cosmetics, depending on the concentration. Here again, we don’t know enough to judge, which seems to be reason #805 for more government regulation and better disclosure.

In the end, Almay’s pure play was OK — free of talc, free of parabens as advertised — but not as pure as pure could be.

• Physician’s Formula Organic Wear – Natural Origin Tinted Moisturizer

We felt compelled to try this one with its claim of being organic and natural and formulated by physicians, or so the labeling implies. First, it did wear well. As one would expect from a tinted moisturizer, it was not as heavy as a liquid foundation. But it did even out the skin, imperceptibly. Take that or leave it, depending on what you’re looking for.

Physicians Formula Organic Wear, only moderately toxic

Here’s the interesting part, though. For all its natural and organic claims (that it is made with non-GMO plant products and contains no parabens), this product ranked highest on the hazard scale of all those we tried, a 4 — making it a Moderate Hazard. The ingredients of concern: alcohol and aluminum hydroxide. (Get your aluminum out of your deodorant just in time for it to sneak back in in your foundation!)

It has sunscreen protection, but it uses Titanium Dioxide in nanoparticles.

In addition, Physician’s Formula is not a signer of the Compact for Safe Cosmetics.

And yet, a caveat is in order here with regard to the Aubrey, Almay and Physicians Formula products. Of all the many foundations out there, these still rate better than most. Many of the top labels have foundations ranked at the high end of the Moderate Hazard range, with some “age-defying” products hit the buzzer in the “High Hazard” category.

From our small sampling, we can say this: When you see pure and organic, it may not mean pure and organic. Think of it as  meaning “better than average”. And if you buy something, regardless of its pure and organic claims, check it out at Skin Deep.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Whether or not cell phone radiation presents a human health risk remains one of those dangling  public health questions. Some studies have suggested that longtime users of cell phones face an increased chance of developing brain or salivary gland cancers. But many others have found no link, prompting some public health groups to give cell phone a clean bill.

Motorola Droid at the high end of the radiation scale at 1.49 SAR when held at the ear

In the absence of a clear signal either way, and in the  belief that we’d be better off to err on the side of caution, the Environmental Working Group analyzed the radiation from some of the newest model cell phones.

The results, released today, show that some of the top-rated, do-everything phones emit some of  highest levels of radiation.

“Motorola Droid, Blackberry Bold 9700, HTC Magic and LG Chocolate Touch, hyped as the latest and greatest new cell phones in 2010, rate high marks from tech experts for performance and features,” the EWG reported in a news release.

“But the flashy ads don’t disclose that these new models top the radiation charts. EWG has found that all four phones’ emissions are pushing the edge of radiofrequency radiation safety limits set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).”

The EWG is proposing a solution, inform consumers at the point of sale about a phone’s radiation ratings.

“A number of health agencies around the world advise people to reduce exposures to cell phone radiation, driven by recent studies raising questions about the safety of this radiation, particularly for children,” said Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research at Environmental Working Group.

“That’s why it’s essential for consumers to have radiation output information before they purchase phones for themselves and their families.”

California and San Francisco officials are already discussing potential disclosure requirements. Those would require that the radiation emitted — technically known as the Specific Absorption Rate or SAR, a calculation based on emissions ouput measure again a kilogram of body weight — be placed on a phone’s label.

Federal law requires that a phone’s SAR level be disclosed to the FCC, but this information rarely makes it to consumers, the EWG says.

Apple iPhone, middle of the pack of phone's analyzed by EWG

The CTIA Wireless Association, however, points out that consumers can find a phone’s SAR rating online and more importantly, can be assured that any phone sold in the U.S. does not exceed the FCC’s limits for radiation exposure from cell phones, set at 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).

“The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices, within the limits established by the FCC, do not pose a public health risk or cause any adverse health effects,” said John Walls, vice president of public affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association. “That is why the leading global heath organizations such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration all have concurred that wireless devices are not a public health risk.”

One ripple in the theory that cell phone use is safe: People haven’t been using them that long, leaving a lack of long-term studies.

The EWG maintains that given the unknowns, labeling phones would better serve consumers by helping them sort out the high radiation phones from lower-emitting phones.

The non-profit public advocacy group argues that users need this information at least as much as they need the details of a phone’s features and aesthetics.

Motorola Brute, lowest of those tested for radiation at 0.86 W/kg

There is good news in the EWG report. Three of the new 2010 phones — the Motorola Brute, Pantech, Impact and Samsung Mythic emit “significantly less radiation” than their higher-emitting competitors.

Also, users of any cell phone can take steps to limit dangerous exposure.

By texting, instead of talking, and using headsets or the speaker mode, phone users can limit the amount of time their phone is in direct contact with their head or body.

See the EWG’s list of cell phone safety tips for more info on wise phone use.

For more information in the debate over whether cell phone use increases one’s chance of brain, acoustic or salivary gland cancers, see this recent article in New Scientist magazine.

Concerned about all those dangerous household chemicals you keep hearing about: BPA, phthalates and pesticides with cryptic names like 2,4-Dioxane?

We’ve found just the book for you.

Slow Death By Rubber Duck:The Secret Danger of Everyday Things (Counterpoint, 2009. U.S. $25) will take you on a chilling, but informative ride through our chemically enhanced consumer product world. Starting with your kid’s Rubber Duck, which contains five chemicals of concern, imagine what the rest of the household contains.

Frankly, I worried that this cleverly titled book about the dangerous additives lurking in our house dust, furniture, hand soaps and Teflon pans would be just that, an inspired title followed by surface information. But I was quickly relieved of that concern. Co-authors Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie are not just scratching the stick-resistant surface here.

Dr. Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence Canada, and Lourie, a longtime environmental adviser to governments and corporations, look at how dangerous chemicals got into our products — because they were invented! and people wanted eggs that slipped off pans before we knew much about the chemistry of those pans, and manufacturers wanted to protect us from flaming couches by dousing them with flame retardants, now linked to increased cancer risks and neuro-motor deficits in children. And, well, there’s a story behind every chemical load in every product. The takeaway: Often these added chemicals are needless, or of dubious added value.

Perhaps more importantly, Smith and Lourie looked at how toxic ingredients leap from consumer goods into our bodies. Despite the reassurances of manufacturers that PBDEs (flame retardants), Teflon and Bisphenol A remain locked into their respective products, scientific studies have revealed that PBDEs turn up in household dust; Teflon fumes can fry not only eggs but the lungs of pet birds and BPA, as you’ve likely heard, leaches from polycarbonate plastic containers, getting into food and drinks. (and it’s in the resin lining food cans everywhere.)

Our Rubber Duck guides don’t just recite that science, or take it on faith, they test it. Smith and Lourie become the guinea pigs for their inquiry, exposing themselves systematically to common problem ingredients and then having their urine and blood tested to see whether their levels of contamination increased.

For instance, Smith tested his levels of phthalates, a plastics-additive found in toys and dozens of  body products, before and after exposing himself to a pre-selected list of highly scented deodorants, toiletries, dish soap and an air fresheners containing phthalates.

His levels of one type of phthalate, DEPs (diethyl phthalates, which turn up in the body as MEPs, monoethyl phthalates, and which have been linked to male reproductive problems) shot through the roof.

“It worked all right,” Smith writes. “I was actually shocked at the results…And my little experiment showed how amazingly easy it is to dramatically crank up levels of MEP after a simple change in toiletries for two days. Who knew that conditioning your hair could be hazardous to your health?”

Of course, the upside is, if you can make the levels of chemicals in your body go up, you can also make them go down, in many cases, as the authors also demonstrate.

I don’t want to spoil other outcomes here, but let’s just say, Smith and Lourie’s findings ranged from interesting to hair-raising. Their escapades with phthalates, flame retardants,  BPA, Teflon, mercury, anti-microbials and pesticides, were at turns humorous and dismaying. It left me riveted. I grew so fond of this book, I threw over my usual fiction for several nights running to curl up with the adventures of these chemical detectives.

And while I was provided a free review copy of the book, that will hardly cover the cost of the stainless steel pans I’ll now be buying to replace my non-stick set. Hmmpff!

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Over the past year or so, there’s been a velvety, yummy buzz: Chocolate may just save the planet!

Divine Hearts are actually good for your heart

Actually, that’s a stretch. But in the months leading up to the Copenhagen climate talks last December, several chocolate-makers claimed they were venturing further into fair trade practices, including Nestle, Mars and Cadbury.

Add to that the promising method of “cabruca farming” in Brazil — a way of supplementing rainforests with valuable cacao plants to offset wholesale slash-and-burn techniques. Then multiply those happy developments by now-abundant data showing that chocolate — dark chocolates and bittersweets, specifically — are good for our health, and you’ve got a growing body of evidence that semi-sweet, Fair Trade chocolate is not only good for body, heart and soul; it could be good for the environment.

“Chocolate is considered to be a super food,” says Steven Flood, co-owner of Fat Turkey Chocolates, an organic chocolatier based in Austin, Texas. “You could actually live and sustain yourself on chocolate alone and get everything you need. And you wouldn’t get fat. Because there’s not a lot of fat in dark chocolate.”

According to the American Institute for Cancer Research and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center’s  Cancer Prevention Center, among others, cacao contains potent antioxidants that reduce free radicals in the body much quicker and more efficiently than green tea or vitamin C, helping to prevent cancer. Also, the natural flavanoids in chocolate have a beneficial impact on our systems’ blood vessels, helping them pump that vital red fluid more smoothly, making heart disease less likely.

And, posits Fat Turkey’s Steven Flood, “The darkest chocolates have a chemical called theo-bromine, which is also a decongestant. It’s similar to caffeine in chemical structure. So if your kids are congested, you can give them a little bit of dark chocolate instead of medicines and chemicals.”

But you don’t need to wait for a cold or congestion, of course. For many of us, February is officially “chocolate month.” It’s the season where we say to all things chocolate, “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. …”

CHOCOLATE: FUTURE RAINFOREST SAVIOR?

It turns out there’s a lot more to savor than just chocolate’s rich, almost primal flavor. Some farmers and scientists think they can use a certain type of farming to protect, and potentially, revitalize parts of the rainforest.

Back in December, the Swiss behemoth Nestle and Europe’s Fairtrade Foundation reached an agreement that would certify a certain type of Nestle’s Kit Kat bar, the choco-biscuit bar, as Fair Trade — the caveat: it’s only these certain size of Kit Kats, and they’re only sold in the U.K. and Ireland. But last October, Nestle launched its “Cocoa Plan,” a global, 10-year initiative that invests 65 million British pounds (about $102 million U.S. dollars)  to address fair trade issues that have plagued cacao farmers from Africa to South America, such as lack of health-care, educational and environmental protection plans.

Farmers in Côte d’Ivoire (the Ivory Coast)  – producers of more cocoa than any other country in the world — will especially benefit from the Nestle plan, which calls for farmers’ groups to receive extra Fair Trade premium payments, in addition to the Fair Trade price (or market price if higher) for their crop; these extra payments can be used as the cocoa growers see fit, but most experts expect the money to go toward the groups’ health-care, education and community improvements (water, sewage, preservation of farmland), along with reinvestment into more eco-sustainable farming.

In early 2008, Britain’s Cadbury announced its Cadbury Cocoa Partnership, which invests 45 million pounds ($70.5 million) into cocoa producing farms in Ghana, India, Indonesia and the Caribbean. Also, in 2008 it reached an agreement with Fair Trade bodies in the UK that would certify “Dairy Milk” bars as Fair Trade — though, as a result of the global economic crisis, Cadbury says, there have been delays .

Typically, a “fair trade” label means that the chocolate manufacturer has agreed to buy a certain percentage of Fair Trade cocoa — or to use a certain ratio of Fair Trade cocoa in a particular brand and size of candy bar — from Fair Trade providers who pay a decent living wage and adhere to other standards. Fair Trade products often employ sustainable models of production.

In fact, as Carmen K. Iezzi of the U.S.’s Fairtrade Federation cautions, these announcements and partial Fair Trade-purchases could be more PR campaigns than anything.

“These big companies aren’t interested in making that full commitment (to using only Fair Trade cocoa); they are selectively incorporating Fair Trade into their purchases for several reasons, partially because they want to capitalize on consumer’s growing interest in making responsible decisions,” says the federation’s executive director, Iezzi. “We want consumers to move in that direction and really harness the power that they have, but we want people to be clear on what’s really going on, and often it’s a difference between the messaging and marketing and the actual purchasing.”

What is provable, however, is that in the Brazilian rainforests, old-school farmers are working with scientists at the State University of Santa Cruz in Eastern Brazil, the World Agroforestry Center and chocolate manufacturers of Mars, Inc. to research a cacao-growing practice known as “cabruca farming.”

Essentially this means that cacao fruit trees are planted within rainforests, rather than in open spaces. Granted, it requires the felling of a relative few old-growth giants to make room for the squattier cacao plants, but since the forests will then shelter a valued commodity (the essence of chocolate!), governments, corporations and small farmers are less likely to take out entire swaths of forest.

It’s a long-shot — salvaging rainforests by growing cacao. And one that isn’t going to restore millions of lost acres, experts say. But it provides an example of a different way to farm cocoa and make money. Also, some scientists are noting that over a period of time, as fewer big trees are leveled and more crops are interspersed among the tall guys, carbon build-up in the soils is returning.

As a National Public Radio segment on “cabruca farming” stated… “There used to be 330 million acres of rainforest in eastern Brazil, called the Mata Atlantica. Settlers arrived hundreds of years ago and began destroying the forest for the wood, and to create fields for pasture and crops. Only 7 percent of the Mata Atlantica remains, and destruction is still going on. Every time a tree is burned, its stored carbon is released. As more carbon is released into the air, the planet gets warmer.”

The on-location report went on to explain how chocolate was once a major source of income for Brazil. But as the market for cocoa (made from the cacao tree’s beans) plummeted over the past 20 years, due largely to plant disease, the low price of cocoa discouraged farmers — who then began logging or harvesting the ancient carbon-storing trees, or simply burning down the forests for agricultural use.

But through “cabruca,” Brazil and other rainforest nations have an example of what can be done to halt and possibly reverse some of the slash-and-burn damage.

One family who has been growing cacao for four generations — the Joao Tavares family — has seeded 2,200 acres of rainforest with cacao. They cut only a few of the taller, canopy trees, adding the shorter cacao plants beneath. Over the past several years, the experiment has been successful, and the Tavares family are now seeing a replenished and reinvigorated soil, which again supports all kind of plant and animal life. They are learning that this may well mean salvation for some sections of rainforest.

“We understand that we have to preserve the cabruca,” Joao Tavares told NPR, “even if you have less production.

The upshot is, despite smaller yields, the quality and value of the plants is much greater, commanding higher prices from chocolate manufacturers. Farmers who grow in non-rainforest environments find their plants have many more diseases and insect problems. The other trade-off is that more and more consumers are demanding eco-friendly chocolates. So these specialty cabruca farmers have an already established market — and one that’s only growing, as people become more environmentally aware.

CHOCOLAT! SALUD? (WELL, IF IT’S DARK…)

A gift to make anyone wake up and take notice -- chocolate and coffee pairings from Equal Exchange.

Another boon to chocoholics is the fact that recent studies show that dark chocolate is good for the heart and circulatory system, as well as the immune system — and possibly the brain.

According to the American Society of Nutrition’s Journal of Nutrition and a story in ScienceDaily, the Research Laboratories of the Catholic University in Campobasso, Italy, published some interesting findings in late 2008.

Working with the National Cancer Institute of Milan, the university’s study was “one of the largest epidemiological studies ever conducted in Europe,” the Research Labs noted that inflammation of the cardiovascular system is notably less among people of a certain region in Italy where chocolate is a regular part of the diet.

Basically, the study indicates that by eating less than half of a 100-gram dark chocolate bar, consumers have less risk for heart disease, cancer and high blood pressure.

“We started from the hypothesis that high amounts of antioxidants contained in the cocoa seeds, in particular flavonoids and other kinds of polyphenols, might have beneficial effects on the inflammatory state,” stated Romina di Giuseppe, the study’s lead author. “Our results have been absolutely encouraging: People having moderate amounts of dark chocolate regularly have significantly lower levels of C-reactive protein in their blood. In other words, their inflammatory state is considerably reduced. The 17% average reduction observed may appear quite small, but it is enough to decrease the risk of cardio-vascular disease for one third in women and one fourth in men. It is undoubtedly a remarkable outcome”

Now for the not-so-good news. This only applies when we eat dark chocolate, and in moderation. The study proscribed an average of 6.7 grams per day – or a small square of chocolate up to three times a week.

“Beyond these amounts the beneficial effect tends to disappear,” di Giuseppe said. He also mentioned that previous research indicates that milk chocolate isn’t so healthy, and that the milk “interferes with the absorption of polyphenols. That is why our study considered just the dark chocolate”

Other professionals in the United States, including professor of nutrition Katie Eliot at Saint Louis University, in St. Louis, MO, say chocolate is having a renaissance because of its good qualities.

Dark chocolate products with a cocoa content of 60 percent or higher carry the desired flavonoids.

“Like green tea and berries, dark chocolate contains powerful antioxidants (flavonoids) that have been shown to reduce blood pressure and the bad LDL cholesterol to prevent cholesterol from collecting in the arteries,” Eliot said. “Most studies have used one 40-gram serving – or three large squares of dark chocolate-to show cardiovascular benefit. … (But) because one serving packs 200 calories, it should be your one sweet treat for the day and part of a balanced diet. If you just add 200 calories to your daily diet, you will gain weight.”

If you’re going for full-on Fair Trade chocolate that’s good for the planet and for your body/soul/conscience, here are three chocolate-makers in the U.S. where you can start your search:

• Divine Chocolates, owned by cocoa farmers in Ghana
• Alter Eco USA, sells various edibles, including Fair Trade chocolate bars. Find out where to buy locally here.
• Equal Exchange, Fair Trade 24/7.

Now — armed with all this feel-good data about chocolate — go forth and savor that midnight-colored, velvety, electrifying substance we know as chocolate.  After all, what’s not to love?

(The Fair Trade Federation in Washington D.C. is calling on teachers to educate about the value of Fair Trade chocolate this Valentine’s Day. Naturally, their offering enticements of…chocolate.)

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

PFOA, aka Perfluorooctanoic acid, is everywhere. It’s in the wrappers of frozen pizza and microwave popcorn; it’s in Teflon pots and pans; it’s in the stain resistant coating that protects new carpets.

PFOA is a stable man-made chemical used in industrial and consumer goods because it is good at repelling heat, water, grease and stains.

It is found in the blood of 98 percent of Americans and in 100 percent of all newborns, according to Bill Walker, vice president of the Environmental Working Group.

British researcher Tamara Galloway, who is the author of a new report on PFOA, says there’s some debate about how exactly PFOA gets into the body. ” It’s generally thought to be from the diet (e.g. fast food wrappers), from handling consumer and industrial objects and from ingesting household dusts.”

Concerns about PFOA have been around since the ‘70s, and the EPA has labeled PFOA as a potential carcinogen.
Now, British scientists have come up with additional cause for worry: people with higher concentrations of PFOA in their blood appear to have higher rates of thyroid disease.

The new study that was published this week in Environmental Health Perspectives, observed 3,966 adults 20 or more years of age. Their blood serum was tested between 1999 and 2006 for PFOA and all were questioned as to whether they had had thyroid problem. The researchers discovered that those with the highest 25 percent of PFOA levels were more than twice as likely to report being on medication for ongoing thyroid disease compared to those with the lowest 50 percent of PFOA concentrations.

The study was led by Galloway, a professor of ecotoxicology at the University of Exeter (U.K.) School of Biosciences, who notes, “These results highlight a real need for further research into the human health effects of low-level exposures to environmental chemicals like PFOA that are ubiquitous in the environment and in people’s homes. We need to know what they are doing.”

A scientist with the EWG reports that PFOA doesn’t break down and because it can live forever, it contaminates the environment, the food chain and the population.

The chemical industry has often defended its product saying that a small dose of PFOA is not a concern, but Walker disagrees.

“We now know that small amounts of PFOA exposure at the wrong time – such as to the fetus or to an infant, are of even more concern than PFOA exposure to an adult.” Olga Naidenko, senior scientist with EWG, agrees, adding that while no scientific study is definitive, “this paper strengthens our understanding that these chemicals have an effect on hormones.”

More research is needed, says Galloway, to determine how PFOA affects the functioning of the human thyroid. It’s possible that the PFOA compounds might be disrupting the binding of thyroid hormones in the blood, or might be altering their metabolism in the liver. Another point she makes is that it’s nearly impossible to figure out whether the higher PFOA levels already existed before the thyroid diagnosis.

So, what’s the answer? Naidenko says the best thing to do is decrease the source of our exposure to PFOA. “Avoid microwave popcorn. Try making good old-fashioned popcorn on the stove,” she says. “Also, instead of buying clothes that are coated with PFOA, consumers need to ask tough questions of their manufacturers. “Don’t buy it, if you discover that the item may be made with PFOA.”

In addition to curbing individual exposure, local governments need to monitor drinking water that has been found to have detectable levels of PFOA.

PFOA is not just an American phenomenon. It is a global problem, says Galloway. “PFOA is very hard to break down once it’s been made, which makes it a very persistent compound. It is found in humans, wildlife and in soil and water samples from across the globe, even in the Arctic. The data we used is from the largest study to have measured the chemical in the general population — studies that suggest that human and wildlife populations in other countries are exposed to similar levels.”

“We will definitely be doing more research to find out more about the links between PFOA and adverse health,” she says.

EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

When Nidhi Lal founded Los Angeles’s tres-green, tres-chic Recess Organic Nail Spa two years ago, she knew she wanted to target an upscale, conscientious clientele (read = Hollywood’s A-list); she never expected that followers like actress Jeanne Tripplehorn would tout her services while walking the Golden Globe Awards red carpet.

Jeanne Tripplehorn (Photo: Big Love, Home Box Office, Inc. )

But sure enough, as Lal watched E! Channel’s coverage Sunday night,  she heard Tripplehorn mention Recess’s pedi/mani treatments as part of the Big Love actress’s GG look.  Ditto actress Ginnifer Goodwin, who plays the youngest wife to Tripplehorn’s “first wife” on HBO’s Big Love series.  Goodwin also mentioned Recess at the event.

Since she opened Recess, Lal has acquired quite the celeb following, including Anne Hathaway, Jessica Alba, Emily Deschanel, Alicia Silverstone, Queen Latifah and Angela Bassett, among others.

So, what’s the secret to her success?

According to Lal, Recess was the first entirely “green” nail spa and waxing service in Los Angeles. A totally green-built structure (all done according to LEED standards), it takes a tender approach, both inside and out. All of the products used by her staff are either non-toxic or organic, from organic waxing products to a sanitation system called Autoclave, which is used by hospitals and other medical professions to sanitize instruments. The salon also has its own line of products that are paraben- and dye-free and made from essential oil blends

Recess Organic Nail Spa in LA

“Growing up, I’ve always been obsessed with beauty products,” says Lal, adding that when she was in college her father fell ill, and “I found myself visiting spas more and more as a refuge, something to get my mind off of things. After he passed away, I reassessed my own life and decided I wanted to devote it to something that I was passionate about, had meaning, and would hopefully make a difference. I knew I wanted to go green, and the more I researched, the greener I wanted to go.”

Soon after, she was introduced to the LEED guidelines, “and Recess had a life of its own after that,” she says.

Lal also knew the dirty little secret about nail products and many beauty products.

“Nail salons are in fact very toxic spaces. Typical nail salons are cramped (and) unventilated, with harsh chemicals and nail dust everywhere. First and foremost, the ventilation systems in those places are not effective ,” she says. “I actually did consult a LEED AP when designing and conceptualizing Recess , and he was literally disgusted by the nail filings that were airborne and being inhaled by other customers.”

Plus, many of the associated products – the traditional ones – are chock full of toxics, especially polishes and nail treatments themselves, which often contain the solvent toluene, formaldehyde, camphor. The industry also uses some hazardous disinfectants.

“This isn’t even mentioning the repercussions of doing acrylic nails,” Lals says. “Also, typical callus removers are so harsh that I was told that they were only a few ingredients away from being anti-freeze. No wonder the technicians wear gloves when applying something like that!”

Spurred by good press straight out of the gate, Lal and Recess quickly attracted pregnant women, cancer survivors, clients with allergies and sensitive systems, along with greenies from the entertainment industry. Some clients have discovered Recess through mentions in People, Allure and other magazines as well as television shows.

And while the green movement is going strong in Hollywood, to Lal’s knowledge hers is still the only “completely green nail spa in Los Angeles.”

“We have businesses that have followed in our footsteps in terms of going organic and non-toxic, but I am not sure what their business practices are in terms of recycling [or use of Autclave cleaning system]. … On the other spectrum, I’ve seen another nail salon that was constructed completely green, but their products are not. I try to go green whenever I can. Times are tough right now, though, and it is getting more difficult to make those choices due to budget constraints, so I completely understand when a business cannot build green or choose green products.”

Recently, Lal was asked to consult for the Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, and that experience that confirmed for her that their is a movement (if a slow one) toward creating green standards for nail salons. ” I am not sure when they will pass, but it is definitely in the works.”

Lal was originally in the real estate business, but given the life-changing experience with her father’s death – and the unique role that spas and beauty services played in her grieving process – she jumped ship, diving headlong into Recess.

Her next move: To expand the services and perhaps the building itself.

“We recently just expanded to waxing, and I think over the course of the next few weeks we will be doing massage as well. Facials are a little more complicated, but they will definitely take a lot more research with products. Hair care seems a little intimidating to me right now, but it’s possible that we will have it in the future as well.”

The waxing products are all organic and sugar-based, containing only chamomile, sugar, lemon, tea tree oil and water. It’s not only perfect for people with really sensitive skin (prone to allergies, break-outs) but for anyone who likes to leave a waxing feeling smooth as silk.

Keep track of Recess’s evolution by checking out their website.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

An emerging body of evidence suggests that the changing global climate is already affecting infectious disease transmission patterns. At a symposium today at the 58th annual meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene in Washington D.C., experts reported that such changes are expected to have a profound impact on global public health.

“There is concrete evidence that the global climate is changing, and these changes are expected to greatly impact human health as surface temperatures rise, agricultural belts shift, and extreme weather events become more commonplace,” Mary H. Hayden, Ph.D. of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said in a statement. “Although most scientists agree that climate change is underway, the role it plays in infectious disease transmission is still in contention. The evidence presented today suggests that climate change will exacerbate the challenges of controlling infectious diseases in the developing world.”

Climate change is expected to impact global health through a variety of factors including greater heat stress, air pollution, respiratory disease exacerbation, and changes in the geographic distribution of vector-, food- and water-borne disease.

“The complexity of such influences requires that the next generation of climate and health scientists undergo training to ensure that they can address climate-related public health challenges. Such preparation will be critical as the population of at-risk individuals continues to grow,” said Dr. Hayden, who is a program coordinator of a joint NCAR/US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention postdoctoral fellowship combining public health applications and climate science.

NCAR Director Eric J. Barron, Ph.D., who discussed the potential use of available weather and climate models in health forecasting, noted that “we are moving into the age of ‘decision-making’ with regard to climate change after decades of focusing on reducing uncertainties in attribution and prediction.”

“Health has huge potential and should be first in line for greater investment to improve the decision-making process because of its clear ties to weather and climate,” Dr. Barron said in a statement. “Whereas the medical community has tended to respond in a ‘point-of-service’ manner — reacting to incoming cases with almost no discipline of forecasting — health/climate forecasting has real potential if we can design monitoring algorithms or a robust predictive capability.”

The aim of the symposium, “Changing the Climate: A Data-Driven Discussion About Climate,” was to address the use, utility, and limitations of weather and climate models toward a goal of providing data-driven evidence of the links between weather, climate, specific pathogens and ultimately, human health. The symposium included several evidence-based presentations by speakers from the US Centers Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Columbia University’s International Research Institute on the established effects of climate variability/change on specific climate-sensitive diseases such as meningitis, malaria, plague and other vector-borne bacterial pathogens.

European researchers have found more evidence that the emotional benefits of dark chocolate are real and not just wishful thinking.

They are reporting in a study published in  the Journal of Proteome Research what we’ve all been hoping they (or someone) would — that eating dark chocolate regularly, albeit in small amounts, lowers stress levels. And potentially giving people with stress issues one more natural tool in their arsenal, should drugs be something they’d like to avoid.

More precisely,  the study found that volunteer subjects who ate dark chocolate every day for two weeks had fewer stress-reaction hormones and chemicals in their bodies. The researchers verified this by testing the urine of these young, healthy test volunteers.

Dark chocolate has been shown to have healthful effects on the cardiovascular system and to act as an antioxidant, but the mechanism for its reported mood-balancing properties has been less explored in the literature, according to the researchers.

Lead researcher Sunil Kochhar and colleagues wanted to find out how dark chocolate might be acting to reduce stress. What they found was that the chocolate altered the metabolism of the volunteers (from the Netherlands) in ways that would be expected to be mood-improving.

Their study, called Gut Microbiota, and Stress-Related Metabolism in Free-Living Subjects, looked at the biological output of volunteers who were rated as having higher than average anxiety after they were put on a two-week program of snacking on 40 grams of dark chocolate each day.

“Dark chocolate reduced the urinary excretion of the stress hormone cortisol … and partially normalized stress-related differences in energy metabolism (glycine, citrate, trans-aconitate, proline, ?-alanine) and gut microbial activities (hippurate and p-cresol sulfate),” they write.

But let’s not fret the technicalities.  Eat and be happy.

Man-made chemicals that have long made life easier for everyone from cooks to clothiers are getting another round of scientific scrutiny. They may be related to unhealthy levels of cholesterol, a study released Monday suggests.

Jessica Nelson, one of the authors of a new study of chemicals' impact on cholesterol

The chemicals are PFCs, and they’ve already been proven problematic. The Environmental Protection Agency and the top producers of one PFC (perfluoroalkys) have agreed to eliminate its use and emissions worldwide by 2015.

Even if they were eradicated tomorrow, the researchers at Boston University School of Public Health point out that some PFCs linger in the body a long time – one has a half-life of up to 8½ years.

There are hundreds of PFCs, and science is just scratching the surface of their potential impact on people. The chemicals are used to create non-stick or repellent materials on a laundry list of products. Your cooking pan, that waterproof jacket, your carpet and the packaging your frozen dinner came in all contain PFCs. The chemicals are used in almost every industry, from automobiles to electronics, textiles to cleaning products.

“PFCs have been used for over 50 years,” said Jessica W. Nelson, one of the authors of the study. “It is a large family of chemicals. There has been a fair amount of study in animals, but studies with people have been fewer.”

In studies of animals, there were direct correlations between high PFC levels and a host of illnesses, including cancer and developmental problems, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

“So far, these have mostly consisted of studies in people who work with PFCs and have higher exposures. Studies of people exposed to background levels are just starting to come out,” Nelson said.

Many water-repellent fabrics and surfaces contain PFCs.

“We really don’t know specifically how people are being exposed to PFCs. . . . They’re used widely in industry as surfactants and coatings. They make products resistant to stains, oil and water,” Nelson said Monday. “They’re used in products like pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags, take-out food wrappers, textile coatings, carpet treatments . . . “

Researchers believe PFCs may enter the body through food and drinking water, ingesting and inhaling air and dust, or directly from products.

So what is the correlation between the PFCs and cholesterol?

The scientists were able to gather blood serum from 2,094 people, making use of a large, varied group of Americans who have been part of an ongoing survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Our study found an association between blood levels of several PFCs and higher levels of bad (LDL) cholesterol,” Nelson said. Of the study participants, the 25 percent carrying the highest levels of PFOS, PFOA and PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid) in their bodies had higher levels of “bad” serum cholesterol.

The study participants with the least amount of those three PFCs had less “bad” cholesterol in their bodies. There was not a clear link between PFCs and body size/weight and insulin resistance, which the researchers also analyzed.

Non-stick cookware has long been made with PFC coatings.

One interesting finding in the study suggests that even typical adults with relatively low levels of the three PFCs in their bodies had higher LDL cholesterol than the general population. This was especially pronounced in people with PFNA in their systems.

The fourth chemical, PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid), which has not been studied extensively, did not appear to have a strong link with cholesterol levels.

Researcher Nelson emphasized that their findings are “exploratory, and need to be followed up.

“Our results do not say that PFCs cause higher cholesterol. However, the association that we found – together with what other studies have found – is cause for concern and more research.”

The most prevalent chemical, PFOS, was more common in non-Hispanic white males, and age didn’t appear to be a factor.

The ranks of people with high levels of “bad” cholesterol has been growing, and that is linked to coronary heart disease, among other health problems.

“Despite its limitations, this study contributes to the literature suggesting that PFC exposure may disrupt cholesterol metabolism or homeostasis in humans,” the report said.

The study appeared in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal and is available online. The journal is part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The EPA has answers to frequent questions about PFCs, and more information is available from the nation’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Exposure to nanotubes may affect the outer lining of the lungs, according to a study by a collaboration of scientists studying the potential health effects of nanotubes on human health.

Researchers at North Carolina State University, the Hamner Institute for Health Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences decided to take a look at what happens when mice inhale nanotubes.

Nanotubes in the lung

What they found was that multi-walled nanotubes could reach the pleura lining of the lungs, which is the area aggravated by asbestos fibers in the development of the cancer mesothelioma.

In the studies, the researchers determined that the inhaled nanotubes travel through the lungs, where they cause a “unique pathologic reaction on the surface of the pleura.”

The infiltration caused a fibrosis that cleared up over three months. So far, the researchers are unable to say what might happen if subjects – mice or humans – were repeatedly exposed to nanotubes.

The mice used in the experiment were exposed to a single inhalation of nanotubes over six hours. The effects on the pleura were only apparent at the highest dose used by the researchers of 30 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). No ill effects were noticed at lower dose levels.

The local reaction in the affected mice began within one day of the inhalation and the fibrosis or scarring began two weeks later, according to Dr. James Bonner, associate professor of environmental and molecular toxicology at NC State and senior author of the study.

While the study could not project any long-term effects, it argues for more knowledge about how nanotubes, which are used in an array of products, from sports equipment to computer and auto components. Carbon nanotubes are extremely strong and also are being studied for use in medical treatments that would enable small sensors or implants to reach otherwise unreachable areas of the body.

But nanotubes have been suspected of doing biological damage because of their thin fibrous structure, similar to the asbestos fibers that cause mesolethioma.

“The major conclusion from this study is that multiwalled carbon nanotubes, once inhaled into the lungs of mice, travel to the pleural lining surrounding the lungs and remain there for weeks,” Dr. Bonner said.

“They also cause some tissue scarring (i.e., fibrosis) at the pleural lining of the lungs. This finding has the most important implications for occupational exposures, where workers might be exposed to carbon nanotube dust. In this case I advise safe handling and for workers to avoid breathing dust containing nanotubes.”

The scientist said he was not immediately concerned about specific consumer products because those that use carbon nanotubes such as carbon tennis rackets and bike frames are likely not a threat because they are “solid packed composites.”

As for the potential of nanotubes incursions into the body to trigger cancer, the study was not definitive.

“It remains unclear whether the pleura could recover from chronic, or repeated, exposures,” Bonner said in a statement. “More work needs to be done in that area and it is completely unknown at this point whether inhaled carbon nanotubes will prove to be carcinogenic in the lungs or in the pleural lining.”

“Inhaled Carbon Nanotubes Reach the Sub-Pleural Tissue in Mice,” was co-authored by Bonner, Dr. Jessica Ryman-Rasmussen, Dr. Arnold Brody, and Dr. Jeanette Shipley-Phillips of NC State, and Dr. Jeffrey Everitt who is an adjunct faculty at NC State; Dr. Mark Cesta of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Earl Tewksbury, Dr. Owen Moss, Dr. Brian Wong, Dr. Darol Dodd and Dr. Melvin Andersen of The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences. The study is published in the Oct. 25 issue of Nature Nanotechnology and was funded by The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences, NIEHS and NC State’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

The Mediterranean diet or style of eating is not just for cultivating healthy arteries anymore. Now researchers say it may reduce the risk of depression.

Image: © 2009 Oldways Preservation & Exchange Trust; (www.oldwayspt.org/)

A dietary pattern of eating plenty of fresh fruits and veggies, whole grains, fish and olive oil appears to help people fend off clinical depression, according to a report in the October Archives of General Psychiatry, a publication under the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) group.

The study looked at mental depression in a sampling of people in Spain, where mental disorders are traditionally less prevalent than among people in Northern Europe.

Other studies have suggested that a diet rich in monounsaturated fats (in this case, olive oil), and lighter in saturated fats from meats and dairy foods, could help protect people against serious mental illnesses.

The Mediterranean style of eating has also been associated with reduced risk of obesity and heart issues. It’s considered to be a greener style of eating because it does not revolve around large portions of beef and other meats, which raise the carbon imprint of a diet because livestock requires extensive water, grains and fuel to bring to market. Plant-based eating, or diets lower in meat, are considered to be more sustainable. Health-wise, the Mediterranean diet has been popular for weight reduction, improving mental acuity and reducing the cholesterol that can lead to hardening of the arteries. It has been associated with longevity and reduced risk of some cancers. And, it has been popularized in many nutrition books and cookbooks.

The sample group of 10,000 healthy Spaniards in the study were followed over nearly five years. Researchers found that those who adhered most closely to the Mediterranean diet — defined as consuming a high ratio of monounsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty acids; moderate intake of alcohol and dairy products; low intake of meat; and high intake of legumes, fruit and nuts, cereals, vegetables and fish — had a 30 percent reduced rate of depression compared to those who did not ascribe to the diet.

The association did not change when the results were adjusted for other “markers of a healthy lifestyle,” such as marital status.

“The specific mechanisms by which a better adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern could help to prevent the occurrence of depression are not well known,” the authors write in the study report. Aspects of the diet may improve blood vessel function, fight inflammation, reduce risk for heart disease and repair oxygen-related cell damage. And all those factors could, in turn, reduce  one’s chances of  developing depression.

More likely, though, it is a combination of factors related to the overall diet that suppress the development of the mental illness.

“It is plausible that the synergistic combination of a sufficient provision of omega-three fatty acids together with other natural unsaturated fatty acids and antioxidants from olive oil and nuts, flavonoids and other phytochemicals from fruit and other plant foods and large amounts of natural folates and other B vitamins in the overall Mediterranean dietary pattern may exert a fair degree of protection against depression,” the authors write.

Almudena Sánchez-Villegas, B.Pharm., Ph.D., of University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Clinic of the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, led the study.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media