Category: Natural Health

Government Study: Higher Levels Of Urinary Fluoride Associated With ADHD In Children

(Natural Blaze) Higher levels of urinary fluoride associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children, a government-funded study has just found.

The study looked at both Canadian and United States communities and included researchers from Harvard School of Public Health. 

Higher levels of urinary fluoride during pregnancy are associated with more ADHD-like symptoms in school-age children, according to University of Toronto and York University researchers.

“Our findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that the growing fetal nervous system may be negatively affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure,” said Dr. Morteza Bashash, the study’s lead author and researcher at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

Recommended: Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included

The study, “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptoms in Children at 6-12 Years of Age in Mexico City,” published today in Environment International, analyzed data from 213 mother-child pairs in Mexico City that were part of the Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) project, which recruited pregnant women from 1994 to 2005 and has continued to follow the women and their children ever since.

Tap water and dental products have been fluoridated in communities in Canada and the United States (as well as milk and table salt in some other countries) by varying amounts for more than 60 years to prevent cavities. In recent years, fierce debate over the safety of water fluoridation — particularly for children’s developing brains — has fueled researchers to explore the issue and provide evidence to inform national drinking water standards.

The research team — including experts from the University of Toronto, York University, the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico, University of Michigan, Indiana University, the University of Washington and Harvard School of Public Health — analyzed urine samples that had been obtained from mothers during pregnancy and from their children between six and 12 years of age to reconstruct personal measures of fluoride exposure for both mother and child.

The researchers then analyzed how levels of fluoride in urine related to the child’s performance on a variety of tests and questionnaires that measure inattention and hyperactivity, and provide overall scores related to ADHD. Analyses were adjusted for other factors known to impact neurodevelopment, such as gestational age at birth, birthweight, birth order, sex, maternal marital status, smoking history, age at delivery, education, socioeconomic status and lead exposure.

“Our findings show that children with elevated prenatal exposure to fluoride were more likely to show symptoms of ADHD as reported by parents. Prenatal fluoride exposure was more strongly associated with inattentive behaviours and cognitive problems, but not with hyperactivity,” said Bashash.

Recommended: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

This work builds off of previous research the team published on this population demonstrating that higher levels of urine fluoride during pregnancy are associated with lower scores on tests of IQ and cognition in the school-age children.

ADHD is the most common psychiatric disorder diagnosed in childhood, affecting between five and nine per cent of all school-aged children.

“The symptoms of ADHD often persist into adulthood and can be impairing in daily life,” said Christine Till, Associate Professor of Psychology at York University and co-author on the study.

“If we can understand the reasons behind this association, we can then begin to develop preventive strategies to mitigate the risk,” said Till, who is also the principal investigator of another National Institutes of Health-funded grant examining fluoride exposure in a large Canadian sample of pregnant women.

This article (Government Study: Higher Levels of Urinary Fluoride Associated with ADHD In Children) appeared at Natural Blaze and can be republished with attribution/link back to the homepage.

Study Finds Disinfectant Cleaners May Alter Children’s Gut Microbiome

(Natural Blaze) The right balance of good and bad bacteria in our gut affects our ability to extract nutrients from our food, supports our immune system function and affects mental health. Yet it seems the microbiome of children is potentially compromised by common household products, such as disinfectant cleaners.

The Study of Children’s Microbiome

A new Canadian study analyzed the microbiome of 757 babies. Using the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development birth cohort, the scientists studied the microbes in these children’s fecal matter.

The researchers initially assessed infants at age of 3-4 months. Then, they checked the weight of these your subjects at ages 1 and 3 years. In addition, the researchers used the World Health Organization growth charts to compare the participants’ body mass index to peers their age.

Furthermore, the scientists assessed how often common household products were used in the home of these children. The study included products such as detergents, disinfectant cleaners, and eco-friendly products.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

Household Disinfectant Cleaners Impact Home Environment

The findings of the study confirmed that using household disinfectants affects much more than germs living on household surfaces. Researchers discovered that babies 3-4 months old who lived in homes where disinfectants were frequently used had the biggest associations with altered gut flora. The same trend was found in homes that cleaned with disinfectants more frequently.

Specifically, infants from these households had lower levels of Haemophilus and Colstridium bacteria, while levels of Lachnospiraceae were higher.

Anita Kozyrskyj, a University of Alberta pediatrics professor, studies how alterations of the gut microbiome impact long-term health. As the principal investigator on this project, she shares:

We found that infants living in households with disinfectants being used at least weekly were twice as likely to have higher levels of the gut microbes Lachnospiraceae at age 3-4 months; when they were 3 years old, their body mass index was higher than children not exposed to heavy home use of disinfectants as an infant

Eco-friendly Cleaning Products

Interestingly, the Canadian study did not report the same gut biome association with detergents and eco-friendly products. The researchers reported that infants in homes that used eco-friendly cleaners were less likely to be overweight at age 1 and 3, compared to the disinfectant group.

Related: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

Kozyrskyj explains:

Those infants growing up in households with heavy use of eco cleaners had much lower levels of the gut microbes Enterobacteriaceae. However, we found no evidence that these gut microbiome changes caused the reduced obesity risk.

Of course, it is possible that homes that use eco-friendly products are more conscious in general about living healthy. One must consider that the general health of the parents and the family’s food choices may have also contributed to some of the subjects’ healthier weight.

Conclusion

Clearly, the study brings up a very important point: whatever chemicals you use within your home could end up in your gut. Using antibacterial cleaning products, as well as personal care products such as antibacterial soap, may help keep your home germ-free…but are you willing to risk your family’s long-term health?

Epidemiologists Dr. Noel Mueller and Moira Differding of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health share their findings from another study:

There is biologic plausibility to the finding that early-life exposure to disinfectants may increase risk of childhood obesity through the alterations in bacteria within the Lachnospiraceae family.

Let’s be realistic. It will likely take many more studies for the word to spread about the dangers of the overuse of disinfectant cleaners. As such, it is up to you to make an educated decision that is best for your family and your health.

Related: How to Use Vinegar and Baking Soda to Clean Your Home

There are many perfectly safe and effective ways to clean your home naturally. Click here for some simple ideas on how to make your own DIY household cleaners. As well, there are plenty of eco-friendly brands offering a variety of safe home cleaning products.

Read more articles by Anna Hunt.

Anna Hunt is writer, yoga instructor, mother of three, and lover of healthy food. She’s the founder of Awareness Junkie, an online community paving the way for better health and personal transformation. She’s also the co-editor at Waking Times, where she writes about optimal health and wellness. Anna spent 6 years in Costa Rica as a teacher of Hatha and therapeutic yoga. She now teaches at Asheville Yoga Center and is pursuing her Yoga Therapy certification. During her free time, you’ll find her on the mat or in the kitchen, creating new kid-friendly superfood recipes.

This article (Study Finds Disinfectant Cleaners May Alter Children’s Gut Microbiome) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Anna Hunt and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Six FDA Approved Sweeteners Proven Toxic To Human Digestion

(Prevent Disease) Using artificial sweeteners causes biochemical changes in the body and actually throw off the body’s ability to monitor how many calories we consume. FDA-approved artificial sweeteners and sport supplements have now been found to be toxic to digestive gut microbes, according to a new paper published in Molecules.

Artificial sweeteners are one of the most common food additives worldwide, frequently consumed in diet and zero-calorie sodas and other products. Large examinations have tracked biochemical changes in the body using high-throughput metabolomics.

Related: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

The collaborative study by researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) in Israel and Nanyang Technological University in Singapore examined the relative toxicity of six artificial sweeteners:

1. aspartame
2. sucralose
3. saccharine
4. neotame
5. advantame
6. acesulfame potassium-k

And 10 sport supplements containing these artificial sweeteners. The bacteria found in the digestive system became toxic when exposed to concentrations of only one mg./ml. of the artificial sweeteners.

“We modified bioluminescent E. coli bacteria, which luminesce when they detect toxicants and act as a sensing model representative of the complex microbial system,” says Prof. Ariel Kushmaro, John A. Ungar Chair in Biotechnology in the Avram and Stella Goldstein-Goren Department of Biotechnology Engineering, and member of the Ilse Katz Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology and the National Institute for Biotechnology in the Negev. “This is further evidence that consumption of artificial sweeteners adversely affects gut microbial activity which can cause a wide range of health issues.”

Related: Healthy Sugar Alternatives & More

Artificial sweeteners are used in countless food products and soft drinks with reduced sugar content. Many people consume this added ingredient without their knowledge. Moreover, artificial sweeteners have been identified as emerging environmental pollutants, and can be found in drinking and surface water, and groundwater aquifers.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 11 to 27 percent of ingested sucralose is absorbed by the human body (FDA 1998). Research published by the manufacturer of sucralose (Roberts 2000) shows that when 8 healthy male adults where given sucralose (in 1 mg/kg amounts), between 10.4% and 30.6% of the sucralose was absorbed. In addition, 1.6% to 12.2% of the sucralose accumulates in the body.

Related: Foods That Promote Candida Overgrowth and Lead To Leaky Gut

Aspartame is a multi-potential carcinogen, even consumed daily at 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. That is a lower quantity than the maximum recommended by the FDA (50 mg/kg of body weight) and the European Union (40 mg/kg).

It increases the incidence of malignant tumours in rats. In the females it increases leukaemia and lymphomas, as well as cancerous cells in the pelvis and urethra. In the males, it especially increases the incidence of malignant tumours in peripheral nerves.

“The results of this study might help in understanding the relative toxicity of artificial sweeteners and the potential of negative effects on the gut microbial community as well as the environment.

Furthermore, the tested bioluminescent bacterial panel can potentially be used for detecting artificial sweeteners in the environment,” says Prof. Kushmaro.

Also Read: Exposed: 85 Percent of Major Brands of Chewing Gum Still Contain Aspartame and Sucralose

Marco Torres writes for Prevent Disease, where this article first appeared.

Journal Admits Monsanto Role In Reviews Of Glyphosate Cancer Risks

(Natural Blaze) The scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology has issued a rare “Expression of Concern” and requested corrections to articles it published that failed to fully disclose Monsanto’s role in reviews of glyphosate’s cancer risks.

The journal said all five articles it published in a 2016 supplemental issue titled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate” failed to include an accurate disclosure of the pesticide-maker’s involvement.

The five articles at issue were all highly critical of the 2015 finding by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen.

“It’s deplorable that Monsanto was the puppet master behind the supposedly ‘independent’ reviews of glyphosate’s safety,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These papers were manufactured as a way to counteract the World Health Organization’s findings on glyphosate’s cancer risks. They could mislead the public in dangerous ways and should be completely retracted.”

Recommended: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

The documents revealing Monsanto’s role in the reviews came to light during a trial that culminated last month when a jury found that exposure to glyphosate products was a “substantial” contributing factor to the terminal cancer of a California groundskeeper, who was subsequently awarded $289 million in damages.

Those documents exposed that Monsanto improperly edited the articles and directly paid some of the authors a consulting fee for their work.

In an October 2017 letter to the publisher, the Center for Biological Diversity and three other national environmental health groups demanded the articles be retracted.

Recommended: New Study Shows Glyphosate Does Cause Tumors and Birth Defects, and More

The Declaration of Interest statement that was originally published with the papers:

  • Failed to disclose that at least two panelists who authored the review worked as consultants for, and were directly paid by, Monsanto for their work on the paper;
  • Failed to disclose that at least one Monsanto employee extensively edited the manuscript and was adamant about retaining inflammatory language critical of the IARC assessment — against some of the authors’ wishes; the disclosure falsely stated that no Monsanto employee reviewed the manuscript.

Additionally, multiple internal emails from Monsanto indicated the pesticide maker’s willingness to ghostwrite or compile information for the authors of the reviews, dictate the scope of one of the reviews, and identify which scientists to engage or list as authors of the reviews.

In an email sent yesterday to the Center, a representative from the publisher of the articles, Taylor and Francis, wrote: “We note that, despite requests for full disclosure, the original Acknowledgements and Declaration of Interest statements provided to the journal did not fully represent the involvement of Monsanto or its employees or contractors in the authorship of the articles.”

Recommended: GMO Rice Approved While Other GMO Grasses Cannot Be Contained

Several of the authors issued apologies in the updated Declaration of Interest sections of three of the five review papers, including:

  • Keith R. Solomon (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • David Brusick (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • Marilyn Aardema
  • Larry Kier (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • David Kirkland (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • Gary Williams (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • John Acquavella (former Monsanto employee, has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • David Garabrant
  • Gary Marsh
  • Tom Sorahan (former Monsanto employee, has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • Douglas L. Weed (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)

Some of the details of the corrections include:

  • Another correction states that Monsanto scientist William Heydens “pointed out some typographical errors.” Based on the documents we have, Heydens was far more involved in drafting, editing and organizing the reviews than the correction indicates. In an email correspondence with Dr. Ashley Roberts of Intertek, Heydens admits to writing “a draft introduction chapter” for the series of reviews, then asks Roberts “who should be the ultimate author” of the introduction chapter he ghostwrote. Dr. Heydens’ full involvement in these reviews remains uncorrected despite the fact that many of his edits and revisions can be found in the published final manuscript.
  • The reviews were conceived as part of a company plan to discredit IARC well before the agency came to its conclusion that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. One of the plan’s stated goals was to “orchestrate outcry with IARC decision, ”while another plan made clear that the company sought a “WHO Retraction” and made it a priority to “invalidate relevance of IARC.” A Monsanto “Post-IARC Meeting” details several scientists that Monsanto pegged as potential authors. The meeting presentation also asks the question, “How much writing can be done by Monsanto scientists to help keep costs down?” In an email under the subject “Post-IARC Activities to Support Glyphosate,” Monsanto executive Michael Koch wrote that the review on animal data cited by IARC should be “initiated by MON as ghost writers,” and “this would be more powerful if authored by non-Monsanto scientists (e.g., Kirkland, Kier, Williams, Greim and maybe Keith Solomon.)
  • The authors of these papers cited previous reviews that were ghostwritten by Monsanto. In an email discussing the plan for the review papers, Heydens wrote, “An option would be to add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams, Kroes & Munro, 2000.”

Despite the misconduct that Taylor and Francis acknowledged in the Expression of Concern, the publisher has refused to issue a retraction for the papers, in contradiction to its own Corrections Policy, and has allowed the title of the supplemental issue to retain the phrase “an independent review.”

“This peek behind the Monsanto curtain raises serious questions about the safety of glyphosate,” said Donley. “Monsanto’s unethical behavior and the publisher’s response undermine scientific integrity and ultimately public health.”

Evidence continues to mount about the toxicity of glyphosate, not only to humans, but to the broader environment. Glyphosate was recently found to make honeybees more susceptible to infection from pathogens, implicating it as a contributing factor in worldwide bee declines.

Glyphosate Box [No Naturalblaze affiliation]

Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here

Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here

Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure

Household Chemicals Causing Obesity

Bunt, Waschmittel, Flaschen, Waschmaschine, Plastik

(Dr. Mercola) Using satellite data, the Health Effects Institute found that 95 percent of the world is breathing polluted air.1 Their statistics are based on outdoor sources of pollution, including transportation vehicles, industrial activity and coal power plants. Although these numbers are considerable, they are likely conservative and do not account for small particulate pollution in your home.

Over the past 50 years the number of soaps and detergents have grown at an amazing rate as manufacturers work to meet the demands of consumers looking for quick, fragrant solutions to a dirty problem.2 However, using these chemical household cleaners as seldom as once a week come with significant health risks.

For example, one recent study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine3 demonstrated weekly exposure to chemical cleaning solutions increases your risk of lung damage from fine particulate air pollution.

Recommended: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

Disinfectants and Detergents Increase Your Child’s Risk of Obesity

Another study4 has linked exposure to cleaning products in early childhood to an increased risk of obesity. According to research published in 2013,5 20 percent of American deaths are associated with obesity, and the younger you are, the greater the influence on your mortality. Since 1980, childhood obesity rates have tripled in the U.S. and the rate of obese teens has quadrupled.

In this study, the researchers evaluated the gut flora of more than 750 babies between the ages of 3 and 4 months who were part of the Canadian Health Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) cohort. Fecal samples were collected at the start and end of the study to evaluate the type and number of bacteria.

During the study, researchers asked parents how often cleaning products were used and confirmed these answers with a visit to the residence. Reassessment was done at age 1 and 3 years, including a measurement of the child’s weight.6 The data revealed a change in the child’s gut microbiota, which differed depending upon the cleaning products used in the home.

For instance, children exposed to disinfectants had higher levels of Lachnospiraceae bacteria while levels of Haemophilus dropped. Children who lived in homes where eco-friendly products were used had lower levels of Enterobacteriaceae.

When the child’s weight was measured at the end of the study, those in contact with disinfectants had higher BMI scores, whereas homes where eco-friendly products were used experienced an inverse trend. The researchers controlled for a wide range of other potential factors affecting changes in gut bacteria, such as vaginal or cesarean birth, breastfeeding and exposure to antibiotics.7

While there was no evidence that gut microbiome changes caused the reduction in obesity risk, the analysis showed exposure to detergents and disinfectants did increase the risk.8 Lead author and pediatric professor at the University of Alberta, Anita Kozyrskyj, commented on the results:9

“A possible explanation is that mothers who used eco-friendly products during pregnancy had more nutritious diets and a healthier pregnancy.

As a result, their healthy microbiome was passed on to their newborns, leading to both a lower chance of their infants having lower levels of Enterobacteriaceae three to four months later and becoming overweight. When infants are implicated, changing the composition of microbiota at a critical time of development may affect the immune system.”

Recommended: Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included

The High Cost of Obesity

In December 2011, severe obesity was included as a qualifying disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, raising the cost to society as a whole. Data collected from thousands of Canadians has also confirmed obesity surpasses smoking in terms of creating ill-health, and Dutch researchers have predicted obesity and inactivity will overtake smoking as a leading cause of cancer deaths.

One study10 reviewed data from more than 170 countries measuring health effects associated with body mass index (BMI) and found 12 percent of adults, globally, are obese. When those who are overweight but not obese are included, the global rate is nearly 30 percent. This echoes previous studies and suggests there are now more overweight people than there are underweight ones.11

Many who are obese develop Type 2 diabetes, a condition caused by insulin and leptin resistance. Those with Type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, stroke, heart attack and negative health conditions associated with damage to microvasculature, including blindness and kidney disease.

Obesity also increases your risk of developing gallstones, crystal-like deposits created inside your gallbladder.12 The stones may be made from cholesterol in individuals who are obese, and the size can vary from a grain of sand to the size of a golf ball. While they don’t always cause symptoms, if they block the pancreatic duct you may experience noticeable pain lasting several hours.

A study published in the journal Neurobiology of Aging has also found structural changes in the brains of overweight individuals typically seen in far older people.13 The researchers discovered those who are overweight had accelerated loss of the brain’s white matter, and calculated the volume lost in an overweight 50-year-old was comparable to the same volume lost in a slim 60-year-old.

The loss may be related to an increased inflammatory response, but the exact reason remains undetermined. Higher amounts of body fat can contribute to various forms of cancer. While the connection isn’t clear, doctors believe low-level inflammation caused by obesity can gradually damage DNA over time, leading to cancer. The following types of cancer have been linked to obesity:

Endometrial cancer Esophageal adenocarcinoma
Breast cancer Gastric cardia cancer
Liver cancer Kidney cancer
Pancreatic cancer Colorectal cancer
Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

Strong Link Between Gut Microbiome and Weight

The importance of the human gut microbiome to health is only beginning to be explored. Several studies have described the structure and capacity of the microbiome in a healthy state and a variety of disease states.14 Ongoing efforts to characterize the function and mechanism continue to provide a better understanding of the role gut microbiome plays in health and disease.

The gut microbiome changes quickly during the first year or two of life and is shaped by breast milk, the environment and other factors. However, the number and type of bacteria tends to stabilize by the time you are 3 years old.15 That said, exposure to antibiotics, cleaning supplies, stress, processed foods and medications can all impact the health of your gut microbiome.

The bacteria have been linked to how people respond to medications, and it’s been suggested it may be linked with how well you sleep. Weight management is another area of health affected by the type of bacteria living in your gut. Your gut microbes influence appetite, inflammation and efficiency of metabolizing, and have a significant impact on your immune system.

Data from a Danish study16 revealed your gut microbiome may be responsible for how much weight you can lose and under what circumstances. The study’s coauthor, Arne Astrup, Ph.D., explained:17

“Human intestinal bacteria have been linked to the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity, and scientists have started to investigate whether the intestinal bacteria can play a role in the treatment of overweight.

But it is only now that we have a breakthrough demonstrating that certain bacterial species play a decisive role in weight regulation and weight loss.”

In studies comparing intestinal bacteria in obese and lean individuals, researchers found lean individuals had a rich community of microbes brimming with many species, but obese individuals had a less diverse group of microbiota.18

Although documenting the differences does not indicate discrepancies are responsible for obesity, further research in animal studies19 and the featured study indicate changes in gut microbiome may hold a significant clue to weight management.

For example, in one small study,20 calorie restriction and physical activity was found to impact the composition of the gut microbiome. The goal of the study was to determine the influence of a treatment program on the gut microbiome, finding those in the high weight loss group experienced a greater change in total bacterial growth and diversity than those in the low weight loss group.

Weekly Use of Chemical Cleaners Comparable to Pack-a-Day Smoking

As mentioned earlier, exposure to cleaning solutions as seldom as once a week may accelerate decline in lung function, as demonstrated by research from the University of Bergen in Norway.21 The researchers found once-weekly use of cleaning solutions for 20 years produced damage to lung tissue equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes a day for 10 to 12 years.

The researchers used data from over 6,000 participants whose average age was 34 at the time of enrollment in the study. After 20 years of follow-up, women who used commercial cleaning solutions experienced reductions in lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume and forced vital capacity, at a much faster rate than those who used them less frequently or not at all.

Nontoxic Cleaners Safer for You and the Environment

The average American worker spends nearly one hour on housework daily.22 However, there’s a misconception that in order to get a truly clean home, you have to put on rubber gloves and spray harsh chemicals.

One of the primary reasons to regularly clean is to remove many of the toxic chemicals accumulating in house dust, including flame retardants and phthalates.23 However using commercial sprays, wipes and scrubs actually introduces more toxins into your environment.

If you’ve ever felt sick, dizzy or gotten a headache after cleaning your home with typical supplies, it’s likely because of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Long-term use of these chemicals can damage your liver, kidneys, central nervous system and even cause cancer.24

After testing 25 household products, including air fresheners and all-purpose cleaners, researchers found the average product contains 17 VOCs.25 Products with fragrances are particularly problematic and studies reveal nearly 35 percent of Americans have had health problems when exposed to them.26

Meanwhile, a typical professional cleaning product will contain more than a 132 different chemicals, among them fragrances, surfactants, phosphates, detergents and more.

If you are ready to switch to nontoxic, efficient and effective cleaners, discover how you may create your own at home using most of what you already have in your cabinets in my previous article, “Keep a Clean House with Nontoxic Cleaners.”