It's common for musicians to hail from musical families. The clan of Johann Sebastian Bach, for instance, was full of musicians, with five of his own children considered important composers and 45 other relatives achieving some mark in the musical world.¹ (The same might be true of baseball.

[Read the rest of this article...]

By Dr. Mercola

If you're a corporation or a lobbyist and you want to "buy" a member of Congress, one common and effective way to do so is by secretly promising them a high-paying job once they leave office.

Since such deals are not made public, legislators can pass laws or create special tax cuts that benefit their future employer with little or no accountability. Politicians do not have to disclose job negotiations while in office, and also do not have to disclose how much they're paid after leaving office.

But it is probably not a coincidence that former Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) spent his last year in office fighting reforms to the derivatives marketplace, and then upon leaving office joined that board a derivatives trading company and became an "advisor" to Goldman Sachs.

According to the featured article in Republic Reportⁱ :

 "Our research effort uncovered the partial salaries of 12 lawmakers-turned-lobbyists. Republic Report's investigation found that lawmakers increased their salary by 1,452 percent on average from the last year they were in office to the latest publicly available disclosure".

Is it Bribery, or Legitimate Career Change?

A previous Republic Report highlights the questionable job search of another Congressman about to quit Congress. Heath Shuler (D-NC) is reportedly already talking to different lobbying firms, assessing his options.  According to Republic Reportⁱⁱ :

"One of the organizations taking a serious look at Shuler is The Majority Group, a lobby shop founded by former Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), according to sources. Rob Ellsworth, a former legislative assistant of Shuler's, is a co-founder of the boutique lobbying firm.

The Majority Group... currently represents the beef industry, a foreclosure servicing company called FCI Lender Services, as well as bank holding companies with business in health, life, and real estate insurance. And while Shuler meets with lobbying firms openly interested in hiring him, the Congressman continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the laws we all live under... [L]awmakers like Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK), and many others are [also] possible recruits for K street.

While some call this phenomenon the "revolving door," the line between casual bribery and simply changing careers is incredibly fuzzy. How do we know that lawmakers like Shuler aren't influenced by the lobbying firms already promising them cash?"

Bribery - The Sordid Details of How the U.S. Political System Works

After viewing the shocking 60-Minute expose about the former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, it's quite clear that the entire system runs on bribery, in one form or another. It is fatally flawed, and cannot be fixed through reform efforts, because those creating the reforms are the very people affected by them.

Jack Abramoff has been characterized as the most notorious and crooked lobbyist of our time, and is the classic example of brazen corruption and influence-peddling.  In his interview with Leslie Stahl for 60-Minutes, he details how he used corporation's money to buy powerful friends and influence legislation. He was a master at showering gifts on lawmakers in the 1990s in return for their votes on legislation. He was so good at it, he took home 20 million dollars a year!

It all came crashing down five years ago when he plead guilty to corrupting public officials, tax evasion, and fraud, and served three and a half years in a federal prison. If you haven't seen this interview, I urge you to take the time to watch it now. It's a dramatic eye-opener to the reality of our political system.

Download Interview Transcript

How Large Corporations Manipulate the System for Their Benefit

Abramoff was able to freely share the specific details of how he manipulated the political system because he had already served prison time for his crimes. Otherwise, we would never have become privy to these first-hand accounts of how it's really done. He believes that most Congressmen actually do not feel they're being bought and are able to rationalize their actions, and the system as a whole, in their own minds... And that, according to Abramoff, is a mindset that is nurtured by lobbyists, as it is exactly the way lobbyists want them to feel.

This is similar to doctors; most of whom do not believe they're being unduly influenced by their pharmaceutical representatives. Little do they know these reps are actually trained in highly sophisticated brainwashing techniques. They are meticulously taught to spot the weaknesses of every client.

Doctors usually believe they are immune to persuasion tactics, and drug reps know just how important it is to maintain that illusion. Not only are reps trained to assess their personality, practice style, and medical preferences, they're also instructed to sniff out personal information, like the names of family members, birthdays, and family interests -- as well as the physician's professional interests and recreational pursuits. All of this information goes into a database for future reference. When the time comes to devise an "incentive" -- say a dinner, sporting event, or membership -- it is custom tailored to suit the prey.

It's all about establishing personal rapport. Oftentimes doctors mistake the reps' cleverly disguised interest in them as personal friendship. This is exactly how it's designed to work.

The same appears to be true for many lobbyists. Abramoff, for example, admits to having had "very strong personal relationships with a lot of his staff," referring to staff members of Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

The Ace in the Sleeve...

Abramoff would lavish certain Congressmen and Senators with access to private jets and junkets to the world's great golf destinations, free meals at his own upscale Washington restaurant, and he spent over a million dollars a year to give them access to the best tickets to all the areas' sporting events. In response to Leslie Stahl's question, "Was all of that legal?" he replies:

"We would certainly try to make the activity legal, if we could. At times, we didn't care."

However, lavish getaways and sports events aside, Abramoff's greatest, most effective "weapon" was the promise of a future job at a huge pay increase. In his case, he would typically focus on a Congressman's Chief of Staff; offering him or her a position after finishing working for the Congressman. This allowed him inside access, and the ability to control the Congressman's votes on legislation. In his own words:

"I would say... to him or her at some point, "You know, when you're done working on the Hill, we'd very much like you to consider coming to work for us." Now the moment I said that to them... that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they're going to do. And not only that, they're going to think of things we can't think of to do!"

His influence was so pervasive that he alone controlled about a quarter of the U.S. Congress! Sadly, he is not alone in his corrupt and criminal behavior, and that's largely why we're in the mess we're in. As of last year, there were 12,654 registered lobbyists in the U.S.ⁱⁱⁱ  That's a lot of people working to influence politicians in favor of their clients...

Private Industries Control the Political System

It is a well-documented fact that the drug companies have the largest political lobbying organizations^iv . They are some of the most clever marketers on the planet, and know exactly how to leverage their resources by bribing politicians to give them an unfair advantage in the marketplace. One primary technique is by creating legislation that devastates their competition. This is typically implemented through federal regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Another political powerhouse is the biotech industry, led by Monsanto.

While many other nations are banning genetically engineered foods, and/or require such foods to be labeled, Monsanto's reach into the very heart of the U.S. regulatory agencies and political offices has ensured that most Americans are completely unaware of what they're eating, or the many dangers of genetically engineered crops to both the environment and animal- and human health.

Contrary to other nations, certain U.S. states are actually passing legislation that protects the use of genetically engineered seeds and allows for their unabated expansion! At present, no less than 14 states have passed such pro-industry legislation. Michigan's Senate Bill 777^v , if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws, and would remove the any authority that local governments may have to "adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds."

Bills like these are essentially bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the U.S. government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government -- a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter. Monsanto is a perfect example of the revolving door between industry, political offices, and various regulatory agencies. There can no longer be any doubt that Monsanto's success is largely due to the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.

Can the System Be Saved?

Most people are under the impression that political corruption only involves somebody handing over a check and getting a favor. But as the first-hand account of Abramoff reveals, that's usually not the case. The foundation of the corruption, really, is all about bribery that involves giving a gift to somebody who makes a decision on behalf of the public. At the end of the day, that's really what bribery is.

And while there have been efforts at reform, the system has never actually changed and continues to this day because the people who make the reforms are the people within the system itself. According to Abramoff:

"There's an arrogance on the part of lobbyists—and certainly there was on the part of me and my team—that no matter what they come up with, we're smarter than they are, and we'll overcome it. We'll just find another way through. That's all."

"Reform efforts" are in actuality little more than fake efforts to appease the critics. For example, the system forbids lobbyists from taking a Congressman to sit-down lunch for 25 dollars, but allows them to take him to a fundraising lunch—where food is served standing up—and give him 25,000 dollars extra to boot. So despite "reform efforts" to stop lobbyists from plying politicians with free meals, they still have all the same access, and all the same interaction with that Congressman—they just have to stand up to do it...

"Our system is flawed, and has to be fixed," Abramoff says. "Human beings populate our system, and human beings are weak."

According to Abramoff, the only solution is to prohibit members of Congress and their staff from ever becoming lobbyists in Washington. I agree. I believe if you make the choice to serve the public with public service, then serve the public, not yourself.

Whether or not we can make that happen is another question...  

The good news is that increasing numbers of people are now waking up to these harsh realities, and you, being among those who are informed, can help share this knowledge with others. Remember that the definition of fascism is a government system that has complete power in regimenting all industry and forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. What we have here is a hybrid—a sort of corporate fascism, where industry has powerful control over government, and forcefully suppresses anything that threatens their monopoly on profits.

But, this doesn't mean that you have to buy into their agenda.

From my perspective, two of the top industries running the U.S. at present are the pharmaceutical- and biotech industries. But they can still be stopped. The goal is to reach a critical mass of people who refuse unnecessarily dangerous drugs and genetically engineered foods, and who demand that our public servants serve the public rather than corporate interests. I believe that can and will serve as a powerful stimulus to generate authentic change. More than 1.6 million people currently receive this newsletter, and together we can make a huge difference.

References:

---

• ⁱ Republic Report March 14, 2012
• ⁱⁱ Republic Report March 12, 2012
• ⁱⁱⁱ OpenSecrets.org Lobbying Database
• ^iv OpenSecrets.org Top Industries
• ^v The Michigan Citizen

• Republic Report March 14, 2012

Related Articles:

 Comments (3)

[Read the rest of this article...]

By Dr. Mercola

A simple sign on a grocery store shelf has gone viral, causing a storm of outrage among consumers who feel they've been misled by cereal maker Kellogg's claims about its Kashi cereals. A Rhode Island grocer posted a note on the shelf where Kashi was supposed to be, saying he'd learned it wasn't 100 percent natural after all, and therefore wasn't carrying it anymore.

It turns out the soy in Kashi cereals comes from genetically modified Roundup-ready soybeans, which have a gene inserted in them that allows the crop to withstand otherwise lethal doses of the weed killer.

USA Today reported that consumers felt duped into believing that Kashi was all-natural when it's notⁱ. Their complaints were initially brushed off by Kashi general Manager David DeSouza, who told USA Today that since the FDA doesn't regulate the term "natural," the cereal maker has done nothing wrong by defining "natural" as minimally-processed with no artificial flavors, colors, preservatives or sweeteners.

Were You Duped by Kashi's Wholesome Brand Identity?

People generally tend to believe that the word "natural" refers to foods grown "in a natural way," which really amounts to organic farming methods, or close to it; sans harsh chemicals, and most definitely not something that has been genetically engineered. Unfortunately, that's not what the "natural" label represents at all. In fact, the "natural" label is unregulated, and companies can define it as they please.

But most food manufacturers are well aware of this general misperception of what the label means, and frequently misuse it to lure health conscious consumers into spending more. This is known as "green-washing" and it certainly applies in this case.

Adding insult to injury, the company appears to have made a poor attempt to save face by further misleading consumers about the accuracy of the information that led the Rhode Island grocer to not carry the Kashi brand anymore.

The Cornucopia Institute released a report, Cereal Crimes, back in November of last yearⁱⁱ, which details the presence of genetically engineered grains in a number of leading "natural" cereal brands, including Kellogg's Kashi brand. Shockingly, many of the products tested were found to contain high amounts of genetically engineered grains—some, including Kashi, containing 100 percent genetically engineered grains!

The report also mentions a class action lawsuit filed against Kellogg/Kashi on August 31, 2011, "for allegedly misleading consumers with its "natural" claims. One Kashi® product in particular, GoLean® Shakes, is composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients, according to the plaintiff."

The report contrasts these findings with tests of certified organic cereal products, which by law are not allowed to contain any genetically engineered ingredients or synthetic pesticides. While some were found to be mildly contaminated with genetically engineered ingredients, overall, the report highlights the fact that the ONLY way to ensure you're not buying a genetically engineered product is to buy a product bearing the USDA 100% Organic label.

When Greenwashing Attempts Finally Backfire...

Once the grocer's sign went viral and angry consumers began overloading the Kashi telephone lines, the company switched to a recorded message stating they were temporarily unable to accept calls. Then, according to an April 26 report by Cornucopia Instituteⁱⁱⁱ:

"When the company again began accepting calls, a Kashi consumer affairs employee, Rick Duran, told a Cornucopia staff member that "no actual testing" of their cereal products had been performed. This mimicked the analysis also offered in a response by the company in an online video posted that same afternoon on the Kashi Facebook page. The video spokesperson called Cornucopia's information "scientifically inaccurate and misleading because it was not based on actual testing of Kashi products."

"This characterization of our work by Kashi is blatantly false," said Will Fantle, Cornucopia's Research Director. "We purchased a readily available box of Kashi's GoLean® cereal from a Whole Foods store. We then sent a sample to an accredited national lab for testing, finding that the soy in the natural cereal was 100% GMO."

The Kashi video also suggested, disingenuously, that any genetically engineered contamination in their food was from incidental sources rather than crops intentionally grown from GMO seed. While acknowledging that over 80% of the soybeans grown in North America are GMO, they explain that, "practices in agricultural storage, handling, and shipping, have lead to an environment where GMOs are not sufficiently controlled."

"This is classic public relations spin and crisis communications work, where corporations use misinformation to try to cover their tracks," said Rebekah Wilce, of the Center for Media and Democracy/PRWatch, which helps expose corporate PR tactics..."

Three days later, the USA Today reported^iv:

"... Kellogg got itself into trouble by "not being entirely transparent," says Roger Nyhus, president of Nyhus Communications in Seattle. He sees a trend among some companies "of fudging language to allay consumer concerns and jump on the green bandwagon, and I think it's starting to backfire."  ... Kashi's DeSouza says that by 2015, all new Kashi products will "contain at least 70 percent USDA organic certified ingredients."

So, in a matter of days, Kashi ended up backpedaling as their initial attempt to discredit the Cornucopia Institute's test results backfired, and now the company has agreed to ensure their products will, within the next three years, contain at least 70 percent certified organic ingredients. While this is probably not going to be enough for most health conscious consumers, Kashi's pledge is at least a good demonstration of the power of consumer education, and that consumers ultimately have the power to influence even the largest of food companies. After all, they can only sell what you're willing to buy!

"Natural" Label is Frequently Misused to Lure Health Conscious Consumers

The misuse of the term "natural" by companies who simply pay lip service to  sustainability and the organic movement undermines companies that are truly sincere in their efforts to bring you eco-friendly, unadulterated, safe foods.

And companies like Kashi cannot rightfully claim ignorance about the impact the word "natural" has—marketing firm polls have shown that more people respond favorably to the "all-natural" label than the organic label! It's a powerful word that conjures up wholesomeness in most people's minds. Marketing terms such as "natural" are certainly not chosen willy-nilly. No, they're selected based on what works and what sells. As illustrated by this market research summary by The Hartman Group^v:

"Consumer understanding and shopping behavior of organic and natural foods and beverages continues to change and evolve. Today's consumers are confused, yet continue to be engaged by the vast array of products, messages, symbols and labels they encounter when making decisions about what to eat or drink and where they shop.

... This study will identify the hierarchy among these attributes and point out differences by product category as well as deeper distinctions between "organic" and "natural" themselves. It will enable companies to go beyond the clutter of product call-outs to have a singular focus on what matters most to consumers thereby increasing brand loyalty and likelihood of purchase"

According to a 2010 Hartman Group poll, more than 60 percent of consumers erroneously believe that the "natural" label implies or suggests the absence of genetically engineered ingredients, so Kashi's statement that there's nothing wrong with using genetically engineered ingredients in their "natural" products is rather weak. Food companies know this misconception exists, and they actively prey on consumers' assumptions. Fortunately, the Cornucopia Institute's report has awakened many to this sad truth. As one now-former Kashi consumer stated on the company's Facebook page:

 "Yours is the only brand cereal I have bought for years. Not anymore! You are despicable. Everything you supposedly stand for is a lie."

The Difference Between Natural and Organic

It's important to understand that the "natural" label is not regulated and does not provide a guarantee of being free of genetically engineered ingredients or synthetic pesticides and additives. Currently, the ONLY label that can protect you against genetically engineered ingredients and other unsavory additives is the USDA 100% Organic label.

The USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) took effect October 21, 2002, and regulates the standards for any farm, wild crop harvesting, or handling operation that wants to sell an agricultural product as organically produced. The labeling requirements of the NOP apply to raw, fresh products and processed products that contain organic agricultural ingredients^vi. In order to qualify as organic, a product must be grown and processed using organic farming methods that recycle resources and promote biodiversity.

Crops must be grown without synthetic pesticides, bioengineered genes, petroleum-based fertilizers, or sewage sludge-based fertilizers^vii. Organic livestock must have access to the outdoors and cannot be given antibiotics or growth hormones.

• Products labeled "USDA 100% organic" must contain only organically produced materials
• Products labeled simply "USDA organic" must contain at least 95 percent organic ingredients, whereas
• The label "made with organic ingredients" can contain anywhere between 70 to 95 percent organic ingredients

Organic products cannot be irradiated, are not allowed to contain preservatives or flavor enhancing chemicals, nor can they contain traces of heavy metals or other contaminants in excess of tolerances set by the FDA^viii. Additionally, the pesticide residue level cannot be higher than 5 percent of the maximum EPA pesticide tolerance^ix. For the complete National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under the USDA organic label, see this link^x. To learn more about organic foods and the findings detailed in the Cereal Crimes report, please listen to my interview with Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute.

Download Interview Transcript

Mom Stands Up to Monsanto and Wins Major Environmental Award

Genetically engineered foods do not just pose a health hazard for those consuming them. GE crops also threaten the health of the environment and those living in GE farming communities, due to the heavy use of pesticides required to grow these crops.

A woman in Argentina who was instrumental in getting the president of Argentina to investigate the connection between pesticide use and the incidence of cancer and other devastating illnesses and deaths in her town has been awarded the 2012 Goldman Environmental Prize—the world's largest prize honoring grassroots environmentalists. The Goldman recognizes unsung heroes who often take great personal risks to work to protect the world's natural resources and human lives.

Thirteen years ago Sofia Gatica gave birth to a daughter who died three days later of kidney failure. Determined to learn what killed her child, she learned that the people in her working-class neighborhood, surrounded by genetically engineered soy fields and subjected to regular insecticide spraying, were plagued with unexplained health issues including high rates of neurological and respiratory diseases, birth defects, and infant mortality. Even though she faced an uphill battle and death threats, Gatica succeeded in getting a municipal ordinance passed prohibiting aerial spraying around her town. Argentina's Supreme Court followed with a ruling that not only banned chemical spraying near populated areas, but ordered the government and soy producers to prove the chemicals are safe.  

The Devastating Health Effects of Roundup

As of July 2013, Argentina will no longer allow the use of endulsofan, an off-patent organochlorine insecticide, and Gatica is currently involved with an effort to enact a nationwide ban on glyphosate as well. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is used on all genetically engineered Roundup-Ready crops, which have been genetically altered to withstand otherwise lethal doses of the chemical.

Glyphosate is easily one of the world's most overlooked poisons. Research published in 2010 showed that the chemical, which works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications^xii. The malformations primarily affected the:

• Skull
• Face
• Midline and developing brain
• Spinal cord

The amount of glyphosate residue you can be exposed to through food is remarkably high, in terms of being close to the maximum residue limit (MRL) allowed. According to a report in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. Genetically engineered soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg!^xiiiThat's 10 times lower than the MRL. Other independent scientific research has also found that glyphosate has the potential to cause grave health damage, including a 2009 study that tested formulations of Roundup that were highly diluted (up to 100,000 times or more) on human cells, and even then the cells died within 24 hours.^xiv

Why We MUST Insist on Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

Labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of genetically engineered foods in the U.S,, but simple petitions will likely fail. We strongly support state initiatives, such as California's ballot initiative to require labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. A coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals has already submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General, and thousands of volunteers have done an outstanding job collecting the required signatures.

Now, the campaign needs funding. Needless to say, it's going to be an enormous battle, as the biotech industry will outspend us by 100 to 1, if not more, for their propaganda aimed at stopping Californians from voting it into law.

I urge you to participate in the Money Bomb Against Monsanto, which was launched on May 1. By May 26, a broad coalition of food-, farming-, health groups, and organic food manufacturers, will attempt to raise one million dollars (i.e. "The Money Bomb") to help get this law passed.

Donations can be made online, via regular snail mail, and over the phone. And to sweeten the deal further, a group of "Right to Know" public interest organizations and organic companies have pledged to match the first million dollars raised in this nationwide "Drop the Money Bomb on Monsanto Campaign." So please, help us raise two million dollars to win this historic campaign!

You can donate online, by phone, or by dropping a check in the mail.

References:

---

• ⁱ USA Today April 29, 2012
• ⁱⁱ Cornucopia Institute, Cereal Crimes Report, October 11, 2011
• ⁱⁱⁱ Cornucopia Institute April 26, 2012
• ^iv USA Today April 29, 2012
• ^v Hartman Group, Beyond Organic and Natural: Resolving Confusion in Marketing Foods and Beverages
• ^vi United States Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program, Organic Labeling and Marketing Information
• ^vii Food Marketing Institute, Natural and Organic Foods, Executive Summary
• ^viii US Food and Drug Administration, August 2000, Action levels for poisonous or deleterious substances in human food and animal feed
• ^ix Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Health and Safety, Pesticides and Food:
  
  What the Pesticide Residue Limits are on Food
• ^x US Department of Agriculture, The National list of allowed and prohibited substances
• ^xi Non-GMO Project
• ^xii Chemical Research in Toxicology 2010; 23(10):1586–1595
• ^xiii Chemical Research in Toxicology 2010; 23(10):1586–1595
• ^xiv Chemical Research in Toxicology 2009 Jan;22(1):97-105.

• USA Today April 29, 2012

• Bloomberg May 7, 2012

Related Articles:

 Comments (7)

[Read the rest of this article...]

If you’re pregnant or thinking of having a baby, you might want to take a look at some new research on the effects of plant estrogens, such as that found in soy, on a developing fetus. According to Medical News Today, a paper published in Biology of Reproduction’s Papers-in-Press suggests that exposure to estrogenic chemicals in the womb or during childhood has the potential to negatively affect a woman’s fertility as an adult.

This coincides with earlier research on neonatal effects of exposure to plant or environmental estrogens. In studies with mice, researchers found that causes of infertility included failure to ovulate, reduced ability of the oviduct to support embryo development before ovulation, and failure of the uterus to support effective implantation of blastocyst-stage embryos.

Since human development of the reproductive tract continues through puberty, researchers believe that estrogenic chemical exposure to human females as fetus, infant, child, and adolescent could have impacts on their fertility. The authors suggested that minimizing the use of soy-based baby formula would be a step toward maintaining female reproductive health.

[Read the rest of this article...]

With the height of the sun season upon us, health officials are telling everybody to pull out their sunscreen and slather it on. But before you do that, it might be best to check the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2012 Sunscreen Guide to see if your sunscreen is one of the 25 percent with potentially harmful ingredients in it.

While there’s disagreement on the actual level of toxicity some of the chemicals on the list have on humans, the list does provide safer alternatives that consumers can choose. And while you’re checking that list, you might want to look at other articles the EWG provides on its website on surprising truths about sunscreen, efficacy questions, and whether or not it actually protects you from cancer.

[Read the rest of this article...]