Home sickness – health hazards of everyday life in the modern world – Statistical Data Included
Martin J Walker
In the first of a two-part series, Martin J Walker explores the health hazards of everyday life in the modern world.
Most of us believe that life today is generally healthier than in the past. Doctors and medical scientists, certainly, tell us that we are healthier than we have ever been: they explain that medical science has eradicated the major diseases of the nineteenth century; that mortality rates have fallen; that people live longer, in more sanitary conditions; that we are all, as a result, healthier.
What they rarely say is that, while medical science has certainly eliminated many of the killer diseases of the past, they have been replaced by a growing list of new disorders; often less obvious but no less dangerous. Growing lists of cancers, asthma, heart disease, multiple chemical sensitivity, allergies, pesticide and chemical poisonings, infertility… What is striking about modern, post-industrial society, in fact, is not how healthy it is, but how unhealthy.
The list of new and resurgent illnesses in Britain, as elsewhere in the ‘developed’ world, can be depressing. Most strikingly, cancer rates are increasing. Incidences of male cancers rose by around 25 per cent in the period 1970 to 1990, and the mortality rates from all cancers taken together continue to rise. In some categories, male cancer deaths have rocketed; male prostate cancer cases, for example, have doubled and cancer of the oesophagus has almost doubled too.  And while we are often told that these increases are due to our increased longevity, this is not borne out by the statistics — the mean age of death for many cancers hovers around 71, falling with cancer of the breast in women to 69 and with malignant melanoma of the skin to 63.  And some of the fast-expanding cancers — testicular and breast cancer, for example — increasingly affect younger people.
While cancers rise, new illnesses have sprung up in certain age groups and locations. Asthma now affects one in four 5-year-olds living in London’s inner city. Admissions to hospital amongst under 4-year-old male asthma sufferers rose from 6 per 10,000 to over 100 per l0,000 between 1955 and 1991.  The US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases suggests that allergies affect as many as 40 to 50 million people in the US — one in five.  Ischaemic heart disease in men aged between 45 and 54 quadrupled between 1921 and 1994.
Increasing numbers of people, meanwhile, are finding themselves intolerant of a variety of foods and sensitive to many unregulated chemicals. In America, an increasing number of people report adverse reactions to chemicals. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is regarded by many physicians to be a growing disease of modern society. And each new wave of patients who suffer adverse reactions to a toxic environment, whether at war or on a sheep farm, have to fight with the state, the medical profession and insurance companies, to get their illness recognised.
Although medical scientists try to convince us that a longer, healthy life and levels of health risk are fairly evenly distributed throughout society, contemporary health risk, in fact, reflects deeper inequalities worldwide. In all important areas of illness, over the last 40 years, mortality amongst the professional classes has decreased, while increasing amongst the poor. While we now live longer than we did 60 years ago, we also suffer from longer and more debilitating illnesses. In the 52 years between 1935 and 1987, the number of Americans living with one or more chronic diseases doubled from 22 per cent to 45 per cent, while by the late 1990s, one in every four American children had a chronic condition.  In the 10 year period from 1981-2 to 1991-2, the incidence of all cancers, malign and benign, for the whole population increased by 77 per cent, diabetes in males escalated by 61 per cent, asthma in younger males and females increased by 114 per cent and 165 per cent respectively, osteoarthritis inc reased in men by 58 per cent and in women by 214 per cent and breast cancer in woman rose by 39 per cent.  It is a long, growing and chilling list, and the trend it highlights is becoming clear: the post-industrial age has introduced its own chemical- and environmentally-caused illnesses.
Life, of course, has never been without illness, and never been without risk. But what is striking about today’s world is the cumulative nature of that risk. The ultimate health risk, for example, from a cocktail of pesticides is considerably higher than that of the single minimum quantity found on one vegetable or a piece of fruit. And today’s world is so complex that the risks multiply often before we can identify them.
And what is most striking of all is that the source of many of these risks can be found where you might least expect them: inside your own home.
No place like home
In January this year, The Mirror newspaper conducted tests on a 36-year old woman who ate organically and avoided major environmental pollutants. The tests found an array of 39 toxic chemicals in the woman’s fat and blood, including chemicals supposedly no longer used in Britain like DDT. There was also lindane, and three times the average level of xylene, a car exhaust emission.  A similar test carried out on volunteers by the Daily Mail, also found lindane, together with carcinogenic wood preservers and chemicals from cleaning fluids.  Overall, more than 400 toxic chemicals — some found in household products and food — have been found in human blood. 
This may point to the real story behind the increasing, and rapidly spreading, array of diseases already mentioned in this article. The chemical ingredients used by industry in food and household products have risen dramatically over the last 50 years. In 1940, the world output of chemicals was 1 billion lb; by the 1980s, this had risen to 500 billion lb.  About 60,000-70,000 synthetic chemicals are presently in regular use. This level of artificial chemical use is unprecedented in human history; and increasingly, the link between the pervasive chemical soup that surrounds us all, even in our own homes, and the increasing sickness of modern society, is being made.
Watch where you step
What is genuinely worrying about this situation is how the simple act of staying at home and living a normal life can expose us to risks that previous generations would never have experienced. A brief trip through the average home will demonstrate this well.
One of the most damaging and persistent chemicals found in the home is an old staple: formaldehyde. It was first created in the late 1800s, when scientists created a transparent elastic substance which came to be used to glue wood together and to produce a self-hardening insulating foam. These products have been used widely in the building trade in America and Britain. More recently, formaldehyde has come to be used in latex paints, fabrics, automotive resins and cheap furniture. Few houses today are likely to be without it in some form.
But formaldehyde is also one of the best-known volatile organic compound (VOC) pollutants, and a potent carcinogen. Products made with it release unstable particles into the atmosphere, a process called ‘outgassing’. It may take anything up to two or three years before all the fumes have released themselves from the products. It has been known since the 1920s that formaldehyde fumes are toxic but, ironically, the trend towards energy conservation has meant that many such fumes come to be trapped within new buildings. The inhalation of formaldehyde fumes cause flu-like symptoms, rashes, neurological illnesses and ultimately cancer.
But formaldehyde is only one of a wide range of household products that emit potentially poisonous fumes into our homes. In 1996, the Building Research Establishment monitored 174 homes in Avon, in the west of England, and found that levels of formaldehyde gas were 10 times higher indoors than out. Twelve homes also exceeded World Health Organisation air quality levels.  This was partly due, the research concluded, to the cleaning agents used, and gases generated by modern appliances: carbon monoxide, benzene vapour and volatile organic compounds.
Once this can of worms is opened, the contents can be shocking. Household cleaners, personal care products, pesticides, paints, hobby products solvents: all these very common household products can, effectively, gas us in our homes. Spray cans and atomisers release particles into the air which can cause headaches, nausea, shortness of breath, eye, throat and lung irritation, skin rashes, burns and liver damage. The use of sprays can lead to an indoor build-up of large quantities of carcinogenic vapours. The fumes from chlorine products, such as bleaches, can irritate the skin and eyes. If chlorine bleach is mixed with other cleaning solutions, it can produce deadly gases.
Wander around your house and see if you can find any of the products mentioned above. It’s highly likely. Links between all of them and illness have been established. And there are many more. Clean your upholstery; use a phosphate detergent to do the dishes; use a chemical spot remover to remove those carpet stains; polish the floor; paint the ceiling; it’s highly likely that the products you use to do all these things can, and perhaps will, make you ill. 
Many carpet and upholstery cleaners, for example, contain perchlorethylene, a known carcinogen which can cause anaemia, damage to the liver, kidneys and nervous system. Others contain ammonium hydroxide, which is corrosive, irritating the eyes, skin and respiratory passages.  In 1999, in an
unparalleled move, Right Guard upholstery cleaners, produced by the multinational 3M, were taken off the market. The company said it was ‘playing safe’ after suggestions that some of the contents were carcinogenic.
Benzene vapour, created by car exhausts and refineries, and from cigarette smoke as well as solvents used in the home, is potentially extremely poisonous. The use of chemical-based products such as bathroom spray cleaners’  is another domestic danger. Furniture polishes are petroleum distillates, which are flammable and can cause skin and lung cancer. They contain nitrobenzene, which is highly toxic and easily absorbed through the skin.
Then there is simple washing-up liquid; responsible for many everyday cases of stomach upset. Dishwasher detergents are even more toxic; most of them containing poisonous chlorine in a highly concentrated dry form. In the US, these detergents are the primary cause of child poisonings. 
Dying to look good
Perhaps if you never cleaned your house, you could avoid most of these risks. Maybe; but it would depend on what you did with the rest of your time at home. Do you ever wear make-up, for example, or simply use deodorants, after-shave, talcum powder? The US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has found that 884 chemicals used in personal care products and cosmetics are known to be toxic.  It is estimated that women absorb up to two kilograms of chemicals through toiletries and cosmetics every year. 
Thinking of dyeing your hair? You should know that long-term use of dark hair dye increases the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) by up to four times.  Hair dyes have also been implicated in breast cancer.
Bath time? It’s almost impossible to buy a soap, shampoo or bubble bath which does not contain synthetic sodium laurel sulphate or sodium laureth sulphate (SLS). This highly potent degreasing agent can destroy delicate tissues in the eye.  The American Journal of Toxicology reported that SLS irritates skin tissue, corrodes hair follicles and impairs the ability to grow hair. It also permeates the heart, liver, lungs and brain. 
But the most dangerous chemicals to be included in personal care products are ammonia derivatives, such as diethanolamine, triethanolamine, and monoethanolamine. Known to have hormone-disrupting effects, they are added to soaps, bubble baths and facial cleansers. When they are mixed with products containing nitrates, carcinogenic nitrosamines can be formed. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, based in Lyon, concluded in 1978 that, although no epidemiological data existed, nitrosodiethanolamine ‘should be regarded for practical purposes as if it were carcinogenic to humans’. 
Finally, before you go to bed, you’ll probably want to brush your teeth. Beware: the ingesting of too large a quantity of fluoride, a substance that is more toxic than lead, leads to dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis, a crippling bone disease. Fluoride is a waste product from the aluminium industry which, as well as mass-medicating the water and some milk in many areas of Britain, is put into toothpaste.  Most industrial toothpastes also harbour the same toxic chemicals that are put into industrial cleaners and cosmetic soaps: sodium laureth sulphate (SLS) and propylene glycol. Both are skin irritants and can, in conjunction with other substances, be carcinogenic.
If you have children, it’s a safe bet that, at some stage, they’ll pick up a dose of headlice. For many years, the treatment for headlice and mites has involved a healthy dose of toxic pesticides. The three types of pesticide used in preparations are organophosphates, carbamate and pyrethroids. All are neurotoxins, which have also been shown to interfere with the functioning of the immune system. They can also cause endocrine disruption which may not become apparent until a child is older. Carbaryl and the pyrethroids are considered to be potential carcinogens. 
Some lice shampoos also contain lindane which, when inhaled, ingested or absorbed through the skin, causes vomiting and diarrhoea. It can cause liver damage, stillbirths, birth defects and cancer. 
As if this wasn’t grim enough, the risk of childhood brain cancer is associated with the use of domestic pesticides to control termites, flea collars on pets, insecticides in the garden and herbicides to control weeds. In the US, there are over 20,000 different household pesticide products, containing over 300 active ingredients and up to 1,700 inert ingredients (unregulated chemicals not listed on the label).  In 1990 in America, nearly 18,000 pesticide-related hospital emergency admissions were reported; 74 per cent of them were of children aged 14 and under. 
A rose by any other name
Most women wear perfume at some stage in their lives. Perhaps if they knew what was in it, and how it is produced, though, they might be less keen to spray it on. The perfume industry, which launches thousands of toxic chemicals onto an unsuspecting public, is unregulated. In fact, the industry is protected by laws which allow it to keep the contents of its fragrances secret. And because no serious epidemiological work has been done on perfumes, there is little science to support the view of some doctors and chemists that perfumes are as damaging to health as tobacco smoke. 
But suspicions are growing. More than 5,000 chemicals are used in fragrance manufacture,  95 per cent of which are made from petroleum.  Most fragrances are produced from mixtures of up to 600 synthetic chemicals. The great majority of these substances have never been tested for human toxicity. In the US, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health reported that 884 toxic substances were identified in a list of perfume constituents. 
Many chemicals found in common perfumes and fragrances are designated as ‘hazardous’, including methylene chloride, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethyl alcohol and benzyl chloride.  Many of these toxins are capable of causing cancer, birth defects, central nervous system disorders and allergic conditions. They can also cause psychological, emotional and physiological changes in the human body. All fragrances are able to breach the blood-brain barrier.  When tested, a famous American brand of perfume was found to have 41 carcinogenic ingredients. 
Many of the chemicals in perfumes are easily absorbed through the skin and reach major organs, where they accumulate. The rise in asthma cases in children has often been linked to fragrances and there is considerable evidence that toluene, one of the petrochemical ingredients of many perfumes, can cause asthma in previously healthy people. 
Scents are now worked into many products besides perfumes; they are in air fresheners, deodorisers, cosmetic products, tissues, washing powders, detergents and cat litter. Many of these scents are produced from potentially carcinogenic chemicals.
Eat up your pesticides
Even if you never wash, never use perfumes or cosmetics and never clean your house (you’d be a rare breed), you’ll need to eat. Today, even this is a health hazard. The nature of food, how it is produced, how it is sold, how we buy it and re-process it has changed radically over the last half century. Today, the British consume around a quarter of a million tons of food chemicals a year.  And despite endless official reassurances, the links between this consumption and serious illness are becoming clearer by the year.
The World Health Organisation reports that there are over 1,000 pesticides, in over 100,000 commercial formulations, being used worldwide. In 1988, the UK chemical industry sold 23,504 tons of pesticide active ingredients in Britain.  Commercial chemical fertiliser production went up from around 2 million tons in 1950, to about 50 million tons in the 1980s.  UK production of synthetic pesticides increased by over 700 per cent from 1948 to 1982. By 1988, pesticides were applied to 97 per cent of all arable crops, involving 22.4 million kg of active ingredients.
Most pesticides and herbicides have ingredients that affect the nervous system of insects; they also affect humans. Some contain dimpylate, which is better known as diazinon, an extremely toxic chemical. Some contain chlorinate hydrocarbons, which are carcinogenic and mutagenic. These chemicals are not necessarily evacuated from the body with food waste but accumulate in fatty tissue, where they can ultimately be responsible for degenerative diseases.
In Britain in the 1980s, Peter Snell, a food technologist, looked at 426 pesticides cleared in Britain by the regulatory authorities and found that 68 were possible carcinogens, 61 were possible mutagens, 35 had been linked with reproductive effects and a further 93 were known irritants. 
Back in 1960, Dr Franklin Bicknell published a book called Chemicals in Food and in Farm Produce: their Harmful Effects. This small book was a straightforward account of the chemical sources in food and their possible effects upon human health. Even then, more than 40 years ago, Bicknell was writing:
‘The deliberate or accidental addition of possibly injurious chemicals, or “non nutritive substances”, to food is not new, but only in the last few hundred years have such additions become so universal that it is now virtually impossible not to eat several every day. The chemicals commonly present in food number many hundreds, and each year new ones are introduced with an ever increasing chemical complexity and with an unknown effect on the body.’ 
Bicknell referred, long before they were commonly known about, to organophosphorous (OP) compounds. Detailing how much pesticide residue was found in the 1950s on sprayed fruit and vegetables, he cited the 1957 report of a Plant Protection Conference.  Presentations at this conference suggested that Greek olive oil had been found to contain up to 14mg of parathion per kilo, and French wine up to 4mg per kilo. Bicknell then went on to discuss how OPs damage the human body:
‘The symptoms of acute poisoning… are, contraction of the pupils; headaches; photophobia; bronchial spasm; abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea; muscular weakness, twitchings, convulsions, asphyxia and death…  Other less obvious damage is done, which may be more important from the point of view of covert prolonged poisoning from food… I cannot overstress my belief that in the future unexpected insidious damage to many organs will be found to be due to protein metabolism, essential amino acid metabolism, being deranged not only by insecticides but also by other chemicals, like those used to treat flour, present in our staple foods. 
Bicknell, who died in 1964, was a visionary whose vision went unacclaimed by the government and its research establishments. It was not until the 1990s, when sheep farmers began to complain about the damaging effects of organophosphate sheep dip, that scientists were again faced with the health problems they bring about.
Organophosphate pesticides were compulsorily used on cattle in the 1980s and early 1990s, and are still being used with antibiotics on salmon and trout farmed for food. Organic farmer Mark Purdey has promulgated the view that organophosphate chemicals were responsible for BSE.
Organophosphates, though, are only the most obviously toxic of all the pesticides that we find in our foods. Organochlorines, also found in pesticides, constitute a wide range of chemicals, many of them carcinogenic, some of them damaging to the ozone layer and most of them damaging to wild life. Organochlorines are very stable and not water soluble, they can remain in the human body and the environment for long periods. One of them is the notorious DDT which, despite being banned in the USA and restricted in Europe, is still, along with its breakdown products such as DDE, being observed in the blood of European and US citizens. A great deal of research indicates a relationship between chlorinated chemicals, such as the 209 PCBs, banned in the USA, and breast cancer, liver cancer and pancreatic cancer. 
Why is such chemical poisoning of our everyday food products allowed? One reason it happens is the globalisation of food production; this has meant that low cost, high energy food often comes from the ‘developing’ world. The minimal regulation of chemicals in Europe and America is not echoed in these new producing countries; quite the opposite. Multinationals dump dangerous pharmaceuticals and food production chemicals in massive quantities on them. As the West imports increasing quantities of food from the ‘developing’ world, consumers find their health threatened by pesticides of which they imagined the ‘developed’ world was now free. What goes around comes around, it might be said.
In December 2000, The UN Environmental Programme came to an agreement to prohibit the production of 12 of the world’s worst ‘Persistent Organic Pollutants’ (POPS). Developing countries which still use many of these deadly chemicals are to be funded by developed countries to phase out their use and destroy stockpiles. The participating countries have been given five years to complete phasing-out. Eight of these 12 chemicals are pesticides developed in America and Europe — some of which, like DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), evangelists for the chemical industry still swear were, anyway, always safe.
In 1990, the World Health Organisation estimated that there were a minimum of 3 million acute, severe cases of pesticide poisoning — not including chronic cases — and 20,000 unintentional deaths each year, mostly in developing countries.  A study by Jayaratnam, also in 1990, estimated that 25 million third world agricultural workers are acutely poisoned every year.  In 1991, Greenpeace commissioned a study which looked at the effects of pesticides in three Mediterranean countries (Greece, Tunisia and Morocco). The study found that in the region around Athens there were 500 acute pesticide poisoning cases reported annually, which led to 30 deaths; 67 per cent of these incidents were caused by organophosphate pesticides. 
Americans put an estimated 62.7 million lb (28.5 million kg) of pesticides and 278.5 million lb (126.6 million kg) of antimicrobials (disinfectants) into their home each year.  In the mid 1990s, it was estimated that in America pesticides killed about 10,400 people. 
The rest of your dinner plate
Unfortunately, pesticides are not the only pollutants in foods. As you sit down to dinner, reflect upon the fact that all processed foods contain additives which are toxic in varying degrees. Over 200,000 tons of these additives are added each year to food in Britain.  Most processed foods also have quantities of hidden sugars or salts in them, which can add up to considerable amounts. Excess sugar interferes with insulin functions and essential fatty acids functions.  In some foods, of course, sweeteners are not sugar but artificial sweeteners. It has been suggested that one artificial sweetener, aspartame, used in many soft drinks might be implicated in the formation of brain tumours [see Sweet Talking, The Ecologist Vol 30 No 4].
Fats in food play an important role in health, and for many years, different types of fats have been suspected of causing a range of illnesses, including cancer. Hydrogenation changes essential fatty acids, which are nutritional necessities, into ‘trans-fatty’ acids. These are found in margarine, shortenings and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. Trans-fatty acids are widespread in food: in breads, cakes, biscuits and junk food.  The absorption of trans-fatty acids has been shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, increase abnormal sperm, correlate with low birth weight in babies, interfere with liver enzymes necessary for detoxification, increase cholesterol.
Fats also become toxic when they are fried. Research shows that fried fats cause cancer and hardening of the arteries.  Finally, all oils which are not first pressed virgin olive oils have been treated by a number of chemical processes which leave them not only with a different colour and consistency but containing toxins. They are degummed with a corrosive cleaner used to clean clogged kitchen sinks, they are refined with acid, bleached, and finally deodorised. 
What conclusions can be drawn from this depressing array of facts? Some seem clear: regulation of chemicals is not working. ‘Experts’ in various fields cannot apparently be trusted to protect the public from potential poisons. Many of our new and resurgent diseases increasingly appear to be a result of such laxity. If a person’s home was once his castle, it will, while these issues remain untackled, increasingly become a chemical dump.
Next month: Martin J Walker examines the health risks of everyday life beyond the front door.
Martin J Walker is a writer and researcher, author of Dirty Medicine and five other books. He is presently writing about alternative cancer treatments in Britain since the 19th century. Any information on this subject, or on Dr Franklin Bicknell, will be gratefully received. Contact him at Slingshot Publications, BM Box 8314, London WC1N 3XX.
(1.) Charlton J, Murphy M, eds. ‘The Health of Adult Britain 1841-1994’. Vols 1 & 2, London, ONS, 1997.
(2.) Expectations of Life’ series, DH1 N031, 1998. Table 25.
(3.) Charlton J, Murphy M, eds, op cit.
(4.) Cited in Cone R A, Martin E. ‘Corporeal flows: the immune system, global economies of food and implications for health.’ Ecologist.
(5.) Hoffman C, et al. ‘Persons with chronic conditions.’ Amer Med Assoc 1996; 276: 1473-9. [Quoted in Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly, 536, March 6 1997] This data is from a non-institutionalised population.
(6.) Charlton J, Murphy M, op. cit.
(7.) Rosselson R. The Mirror, January 11 2001.
(8.) Estridge B. ‘Pesticide Poisoning.’ Daily Mail, January 23 2001.
(9.) Steinman D, Epstein S S, ‘The safe shoppers bible.’ New York. Macmillan, 1995.
(11.) The Times, April 11 2000,
(12.) American Lung Association, Indoor air pollution fact sheet on household products. www.canukahseals.
(13.) Alexander R. ‘Top ten hazardous household chemicals’, Alexander, Hawes & Audet, LLP.
(14.) O’Connell, A The Times, April 11 2000.
(15.) Alexander R, op cit.
(16.) Brooking M V, Zama N. ‘Toxic chemical overload’, Positive Health, July 2000.
(17.) Haughton E. The Times Weekend, September 2, 2000.
(18.) What Doctors Don’t Tell You. 2000; 11 (2).
(19.) Brooking M V, Zama N, op cit, quoting Dr K Green.
(20.) ibid, citing Brant et al. The final report on the safety assesment of TEA, DEA, MEA. J Amer Coll Toxicol 1983; 2: 183-235.
(21.) What doctors don’t tell you, 10 (7). citing, IARC 1978; 17: 77-82.
(22.) What doctors don’t tell you. Special Report: ‘Toothpaste: a close brush with poison’ 11 (4).
(23.) Figueroa J, Hall S, Ibarra J, eds. ‘Primary health care guide to common UK parasitic diseases.’ London: Community Hygiene Concern, 1998.
(24.) Alexander R, op cit.
(25.) Op Cit., 11.
(26.) Rachel’s Environment & Health Weakly, No. 469. November 23, 1995.
(27.) Steinman D, Epstein S S. op cit.
(28.) What Doctors Don’t Tell You 1999; 10(7).
(30.) Report by the Committee on Science and Technology, ‘Neurotoxins: at home and the workplace’, US House of Representatives, 99-827.
(31.) Steinman D, Epstein S S. op cit.
(33.) What Doctors Don’t Tell You. 1999; 10(7).
(34.) Fletcher V. Sunday Express. April 9 2000.
(35.) What Doctors Don’t Tell You. 1999; 10(7).
(36.) Holford P. The Optimum Nutrition Bible. London: Piatkus, 1977.
(38.) Watterson A. ‘Pesticides and your food’, London:, Green Print, London 1991.
(39.) Watterson A, et al. ‘Pesticides and residues: the case for real control’, London: London Food Commission, 1986.
(40.) Bicknell F. ‘Chemicals in Food and in Farm Produce: Their Harmful Effects’, London: Faber and Faber, 1960.
(41.) Plant Protection Ltd. Plant Protection Conference 1956. London; Butterworth’s Scientific Publications, 1957.
(42.) Bicknell F, op cit.
(44.) Rachel’s Environment and Health Weekly, 574, November 27, 1997. ‘The truth about breast cancer’. Part 4.
(45.) WHO/UNEP. ‘The public health impact of pesticides used in agriculture’, Geneva, WHO: 1990.
(46.) Jevaratnam, J. ‘Acute pesticide poisoning: a major problem’, World Health Statistics Quarterly. 1990, 43, 139-44. Cited in Dinman.
(47.) Greenpeace. ‘The effects of organo-phosphorous pesticides on human health’ Submission to the Barcelona Convention. 1995.
(48.) Rachel’s Environmental and Health Weekly, 588, March 5, 1998.
(49.) Rachel’s Environment and Health Weekly, 481 / 482, 1996.
(50.) Miller M. ‘Dangerl Additives at Work’, London: London Food Commission, 1985.
(51.) Erasmus, U. ‘Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill’, Vancouver: Alive Books, 1997.
Page 30 Body Snatchers
Home Help: natural contacts for household products
BIO-D CO LTD
British manufacturer of environmentally responsible detergents and hemp toiletries since 1988.
Contact us on tel: 01482 229950 or fax: 01482 229921
e-mail: email@example.com FOR A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT!
Special Offer for The Ecologist readers
Quote Ref EC501 and receive 10 per cent discount on safe alternatives to potentially harmful products. Essential Energies can offer you cutting-edge products that combine the best in science and the best in nature.
tel: 0800 015 2285
MotherHemp natural and organic bathroom products are made with cold pressed hemp oil, containing significant amounts of Omega 3, 6 and 9; essential fatty acids which penetrate, nourish and help to replenish the skin.
Contact MotherHemp for a free catalogue on tel: 07041313233 or visit www.shop.motherhemp.com
MotherHemp, Tilton Barns, Tilton Lane, Nr Firle, East Sussex BN8 6LL
Natracare is manufactured using totally chlorine-free processes. The certified organic, 200 per cent cotton tampons are synthetics-free. Natracare pads with wings are 95 per cent biodegradable made from a natural absorbent core together with a soft and comfortable cover. Available from health stores, Waitrose, Booths and Sainbury’s supermarkets.
Natracare, Unit 23 Marsh Lane Ind Est, Portbury, Bristol BS20 oNH
Simply Soaps handmake natural skincare produce, free from synthetics, colours, preservatives and petro-chemicals. ‘In harmony with you and the environment.’
For a free mail-order brochure, tel: (01603) 720869, or visit our website for more information: www.simplysoaps.com
SPIRIT OF NATURE
Spirit Of Nature Ltd offers over 1,000 natural products. Fashion made from organically grown raw materials, natural cosmetics and bodycare, eco-friendly household products and baby products.
Call 0870 725 9884 for a free catalogue
Spirit Of Nature Ltd. Burrhart House, Cradock Road, Luton LU4 OJF
COPYRIGHT 2001 MIT Press Journals
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group