Thursday, August 23, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
TAP WATER STRAIGHT FROM THE MAINS SOLD ON SHELVES AT ASDA AND TESCO
- What appears good value is tap water marked up 2,500 per cent
- Tesco start by saying the water originates from France - then admit it's from UK mains
- Asda admit it is filtered Yorkshire Water
- Ethical group sustain believe people are being conned
|
Supermarkets are selling bottled tap water to millions of unsuspecting customers.
Bottles of Tesco ‘Everyday Value Still Water’ and Asda ‘Smartprice Still Water’ are sitting on shelves alongside big brands of mineral water such as Evian and Perrier.
However, there is no explanation on the label of these supermarket brands that the contents are simply tap water.
Display: Asda's 17p Still Water next to other, more well-known, mineral waters
This means the supermarkets and their suppliers are enjoying a mark-up of around 2,500 per cent for filtering the water – something the mains suppliers say is unnecessary. They then put it into plastic bottles and ship it to thousands of stores across the country.
It echoes one of the best-loved episodes of the BBC’s Only Fools and Horses, featuring David Jason as the entrepreneurial Del Boy, of Trotters Independent Traders.
In pursuit of his millionaire dreams, Del came up with the idea of bottling tap water and selling it as the exclusive ‘Peckham Spring’. Just as Del Boy failed to mention the tap water origins of Peckham Spring, so Tesco and Asda have left this important detail off their labels.
Tesco sells the filtered mains water under the name of Everyday Value Still Water which can be bought in a two-litre bottle for 17p or six 500ml bottles for £1. On the label it says ‘Just water, nothing added’. There is a carbonated version which also sells for 17p.
Sneaky? Asda has attempted to defend its selling of what is essentially tap water in bottles
French connection? A Tesco representative said that its bottled water originated from France - but just what is the truth?
The prices look cheap compared with the 88p for a two-litre bottle of Evian Mineral Water, 69p for Highland Spring, or £1 for a 750ml bottle of Perrier.
The trade body for the nation’s mains water suppliers, Water UK, insists the product coming out of the taps is cheap, healthy and safe, with absolutely no reason to filter it.
According to the latest report from the Drinking Water Inspectorate, 99.96 per cent of all samples are within health and safety standards. Jo Tanner, of Water UK, said: ‘UK tap water is incredibly safe.
‘We really are a gold standard in terms of water quality. In terms of health and safety there is no need to filter mains water.
‘The idea of selling filtered tap water in supermarkets has a whiff of Del Boy and Peckham Spring about it. I can see it would be a nice money-making wheeze.’
When asked about the origins of its value water, a Tesco spokesman initially offered a completely inaccurate explanation.
She said: ‘My understanding from speaking to our water buyer is that it originates from a spring in France.’ Asked whether it was filtered mains tap water, she said: ‘No, absolutely not. No, its origin is French, but it is bottled in the UK – I think somewhere in the West Midlands.
‘The bottle doesn’t pretend to be anything other than it is. It is categorically not water from a tap and put into a bottle.’
Remember this? The revelations echo the famous
Only Fools And Horses storyline where Del Boy and Rodney tried to pass
off tap water as 'Peckham Spring'
Tesco claimed that while the water originated from the mains, the fact it is then filtered means it is unfair to describe it as tap water.
It said: ‘Our Everyday Value Still Water comes from UK sources and is filtered to improve the taste and remove impurities. Tesco sells a wide range of waters to suit all tastes and budgets.
‘All of our products are clearly labelled so customers know what they’re buying.’
Asda confirmed that its Smartprice water is filtered mains water. Its manufacturer gets its supplies from the tap water firm Yorkshire Water before filtering and bottling it. A spokesman argued the water was cheaper than buying a water filter and jug for the home.
Asda said: ‘Our two-litre bottle is 17p. For comparison – if a customer bought a Brita water filter jug at £16 and used it for the recommended 40 gallons, it would cost 21p to produce two litres of filtered water. We’re saving our customers time and money – as well as providing a container.’
In 2004, Coca-Cola ran into trouble after it began selling the premium bottled water Dasani, which turned out to be filtered tap water from Sidcup in Kent.
Jeanette Longfield, of the campaigning ethical food group Sustain, said: ‘First Del Boy tried it with Peckham Spring, then Coca-Cola with Dasani water, and now Tesco.
‘When people are struggling with their grocery bills the last thing they need is to be ripped off by eye-watering mark-ups and misleading labelling.
‘I hope people return to trustworthy tap water – saving money, saving energy and saving waste in the process.’
SOLD NEXT TO NAME BRANDS
The Tesco and Asda still water bottles sit alongside big-name mineral water brands on the shelves.At Tesco, the Everyday Value Still Water features a ‘best seller’ sticker while at Asda shoppers are drawn to a promotion sign advertising its 17p low price.
The Tesco brand adds the slogan: ‘Just water, nothing added.’ Asda’s tells customers it is ‘Good for hydration’ and its ingredients are ‘Still Water (100%)’.
The bottles also sit alongside the supermarkets’ own brand mineral waters. Tesco’s Ashbeck and Asda’s Eden Falls – at 42p and 45p respectively – list their spring source.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190027/Asda-Tesco-selling-tap-water-bottled-water-confusing-customers.html?ICO=most_read_module
Saturday, July 28, 2012
HARVARD STUDY FINDS FLUORIDE LOWERS IQ - PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JOURNAL
*Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
NEW YORK, July 24, 2012
PR Newswire
NEW YORK, July 24, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Harvard University
researchers' review of fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results
support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on
children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)
"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.
Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."
Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.
Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children's intelligence.
Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.
"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.
After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."
Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."
Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2). New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.
Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk. (3)
More information on fluoride's impact on the brain is here.
Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com
http://www.fluoridation.webs.com
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/idUS127920+24-Jul-2012+PRN20120724
"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.
Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."
Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.
Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children's intelligence.
Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.
"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.
After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."
Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."
Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2). New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.
Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk. (3)
More information on fluoride's impact on the brain is here.
Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com
http://www.fluoridation.webs.com
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/idUS127920+24-Jul-2012+PRN20120724
Monday, July 16, 2012
FUKUSHIMA-CONTAINED TUNA CAUGHT OFF CALIFORNIA COAST
Published: 29 May, 2012
Reuters/Romeo Ranoco
A fish prized for its market value and as a delicacy in sushi restaurants worldwide, bluefin tuna are known for their great migratory patterns that start in coastal Japanese waters and span the entire Pacific Ocean, taking them as far San Diego.
While the scientists have said the fish they studied are safe to eat, their findings do raise new questions about the risk of fish from Japanese waters.
“Frankly, we were surprised,” Nicholas Fisher, a professor of marine sciences at Stony Brook University, New York, and a member of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute team that completed the study, told the Associated Press.
The results noted two radioactive isotopes in particular that were discovered in the bluefin tuna; cesium-137 and cesium-134. Neither isotope occurs naturally in the Pacific. But while cesium-137 is known to have entered the Pacific Ocean artificially as a result of 1960s nuclear weapons tests, the only possible explanation for the cesium-134 is fallout from the Fukushima reactor.
The scientists told AP the results were “unequivocal”.
In attempts to quell contamination concerns, Japan has recently introduced even stricter radioactivity tests in the wake of the disaster a year ago. As of April 1, 2012, the limit on allowable radioactive cesium in food in Japan was lowered from 500 becquerels (a unit for measuring radiation in food) per kilogram to an incredibly stringent 100 becquerels.
However, the institute’s study leaves new cause for concern. The team plans on continuing its study on a new sample of bluefin tuna to be caught on the coming months in order to preclude any potential health hazards.
http://www.rt.com/news/tuna-fukushima-california-radioactive-472/
Sunday, July 15, 2012
URINARY TRACT INFECTION? GO AHEAD AND DRINK CRANBERRY JUICE
By Mary MacVean, Los Angeles Times July 11, 2012
Women who get urinary tract infections – and that’s nearly half of all women -- likely know this already: Try cranberry. It’s a treatment that’s been passed around among women for a long time to prevent the recurrence of this annoying infection.
Unlike some folk remedies, this one has gained credence through the years from the experts – the medical experts, that is. And a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine reinforces the use of cranberry products to prevent UTIs – one of the most common bacterial infections among adult women, with about 7 million doctor visits a year in the United States alone.
The authors of the study published Monday looked at 13 trials, which included 1,616 people, to see what effect cranberry products – juice or capsules, for example – had and concluded that they protect some people. But the authors also said the results should be interpreted “with great caution” because the trials were so different – different forms of cranberry or dosage or other factors.
Over time, various aspects of cranberry have been looked at as the potential helpful substance. In 1989, compounds known as A-type proanthocyanidins, or PACs, were identified as having the potential to keep the bacteria from doing their damage. But authors of the recent analysis said there are hundreds of other compounds in cranberries that might be helpful and have yet to be studied.
Women who get urinary tract infections – and that’s nearly half of all women -- likely know this already: Try cranberry. It’s a treatment that’s been passed around among women for a long time to prevent the recurrence of this annoying infection.
Unlike some folk remedies, this one has gained credence through the years from the experts – the medical experts, that is. And a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine reinforces the use of cranberry products to prevent UTIs – one of the most common bacterial infections among adult women, with about 7 million doctor visits a year in the United States alone.
The authors of the study published Monday looked at 13 trials, which included 1,616 people, to see what effect cranberry products – juice or capsules, for example – had and concluded that they protect some people. But the authors also said the results should be interpreted “with great caution” because the trials were so different – different forms of cranberry or dosage or other factors.
Over time, various aspects of cranberry have been looked at as the potential helpful substance. In 1989, compounds known as A-type proanthocyanidins, or PACs, were identified as having the potential to keep the bacteria from doing their damage. But authors of the recent analysis said there are hundreds of other compounds in cranberries that might be helpful and have yet to be studied.
Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times
THERE ARE DRUGS IN DRINKING WATER. NOW WHAT?
Originally published in The Mikiverse, 8/3/10. Republished in Mikiverse Health July 16, 2012.
By MIKE NIZZA
By MIKE NIZZA
There are traces of sedatives in New York City’s water. Ibuprofen and naproxen in Washington, D.C. Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety drugs in southern California.
A 2,550 word article from The Associated Press is drawing attention to the widespread problem of trace amounts of pharmaceutical chemicals turning up in the drinking water supply of millions of Americans, but no one seems to know how to react. The report itself culminated with a doctor offering a tried-and-true deduction for the Ages: “That can’t be good.”
But how bad is it, exactly? The answers range in degrees of confidence and alarm, though no one was ready to predict imminent doom.
”We recognize it is a growing concern and we’re taking it very seriously,” said Benjamin H. Grumbles, the Environmental Protection Agency’s water chief. But the government has not established any safety limits for pharmaceutical drugs in drinking water, as it has for many other chemicals; the agency is just learning how to detect low concentrations of drugs in water, let alone assess the risk posed by them.
The American Water Works Association, a trade group representing thousands of water utilities, seemed to suggest that the problem is the testing data, not the water. A California water official warned The A.P. before it published the article that that the public “doesn’t know how to interpret the information” from the tests.
Tom Curtis, the deputy executive director of the association, explained. “Today’s advanced technology has allowed scientists to detect more substances — at lower levels — than ever before,” he said. He called for calm, saying there was no research demonstrating “an impact on human health” from the detected levels of drugs in public water supplies.
So why has this burdensome fact of life been dropped on the shoulders on Americans? The lack of scientific proof of a threat does not rule one out, of course. Little study has been devoted to the long-term effects of low-concentration exposure on humans. But as the A.P. relates, research on the effects on wildlife has yielded some scary examples: Pharmaceuticals in river and lake water are being blamed for “feminized” male fish and other changes observed in earthworms and zooplankton.
So how are all these drugs getting in the water in the first place? Some fraction of every dose a person takes passes through unmetabolized and is evacuated by the body and flushed into sewage systems. Sewage treatment plants are meant to remove the more familiar kinds of pollutants, and typically do not remove pharmaceuticals from waste water as it is cleaned up and released back into the environment, eventually to find its way into other water supply systems. In some places, treated sewage water is reused directly for drinking water after several filtration processes to make it safe, although none of the systems in wide use effectively remove pharmaceuticals.
That Brita filter in your kitchen is not likely to do the trick, either. As for bottled water, it, too, may come from a tap, rather than some remote mountain spring. And the trade group representing bottled-water sellers told The A.P. that they aren’t testing for the presence of trace drugs anyway.
RELATED: Last April, Cornelia Dean covered drugs in the water in Science Times: Drugs Are in the Water. Does It Matter?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/there-are-drugs-in-drinking-water-now-what/
A 2,550 word article from The Associated Press is drawing attention to the widespread problem of trace amounts of pharmaceutical chemicals turning up in the drinking water supply of millions of Americans, but no one seems to know how to react. The report itself culminated with a doctor offering a tried-and-true deduction for the Ages: “That can’t be good.”
But how bad is it, exactly? The answers range in degrees of confidence and alarm, though no one was ready to predict imminent doom.
”We recognize it is a growing concern and we’re taking it very seriously,” said Benjamin H. Grumbles, the Environmental Protection Agency’s water chief. But the government has not established any safety limits for pharmaceutical drugs in drinking water, as it has for many other chemicals; the agency is just learning how to detect low concentrations of drugs in water, let alone assess the risk posed by them.
The American Water Works Association, a trade group representing thousands of water utilities, seemed to suggest that the problem is the testing data, not the water. A California water official warned The A.P. before it published the article that that the public “doesn’t know how to interpret the information” from the tests.
Tom Curtis, the deputy executive director of the association, explained. “Today’s advanced technology has allowed scientists to detect more substances — at lower levels — than ever before,” he said. He called for calm, saying there was no research demonstrating “an impact on human health” from the detected levels of drugs in public water supplies.
So why has this burdensome fact of life been dropped on the shoulders on Americans? The lack of scientific proof of a threat does not rule one out, of course. Little study has been devoted to the long-term effects of low-concentration exposure on humans. But as the A.P. relates, research on the effects on wildlife has yielded some scary examples: Pharmaceuticals in river and lake water are being blamed for “feminized” male fish and other changes observed in earthworms and zooplankton.
So how are all these drugs getting in the water in the first place? Some fraction of every dose a person takes passes through unmetabolized and is evacuated by the body and flushed into sewage systems. Sewage treatment plants are meant to remove the more familiar kinds of pollutants, and typically do not remove pharmaceuticals from waste water as it is cleaned up and released back into the environment, eventually to find its way into other water supply systems. In some places, treated sewage water is reused directly for drinking water after several filtration processes to make it safe, although none of the systems in wide use effectively remove pharmaceuticals.
That Brita filter in your kitchen is not likely to do the trick, either. As for bottled water, it, too, may come from a tap, rather than some remote mountain spring. And the trade group representing bottled-water sellers told The A.P. that they aren’t testing for the presence of trace drugs anyway.
RELATED: Last April, Cornelia Dean covered drugs in the water in Science Times: Drugs Are in the Water. Does It Matter?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/there-are-drugs-in-drinking-water-now-what/
Thursday, July 12, 2012
EUREKA! THE CHEMICAL THAT ENDS TOOTH DECAY
Yahoo!7 July 11, 2012,
For all those who fear a trip to the dentist, fear no more - perhaps.
Two researchers claim to have found a chemical that would make teeth cavity proof - and perhaps do away with trips to the dentist.
Two dentists in Chile are behind the discovery, which they're calling Keep 32, a reference to the number of teeth in a person's mouth.
The chemical works by wiping out bacteria that cause cavities - in just 60 seconds.
Keep 32 could be added to dental care products including toothpaste, mouthwash and chewing gum. The chemical has been tested for the past seven years but is only now going into human trials. Researchers José Córdoba from Yale University and Erich Astudillo from the University of Chile said Keep 32 could be on the market in about 18 months.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/14192562/eureka-the-chemical-that-ends-tooth-decay/
For all those who fear a trip to the dentist, fear no more - perhaps.
Two researchers claim to have found a chemical that would make teeth cavity proof - and perhaps do away with trips to the dentist.
Two dentists in Chile are behind the discovery, which they're calling Keep 32, a reference to the number of teeth in a person's mouth.
The chemical works by wiping out bacteria that cause cavities - in just 60 seconds.
Keep 32 could be added to dental care products including toothpaste, mouthwash and chewing gum. The chemical has been tested for the past seven years but is only now going into human trials. Researchers José Córdoba from Yale University and Erich Astudillo from the University of Chile said Keep 32 could be on the market in about 18 months.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/14192562/eureka-the-chemical-that-ends-tooth-decay/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)