Special contributor to Real Mama, Inc.

The Quick Facts: What follows is intended to be an inspiring portrait for women and caregivers about advocacy and how the author of Vaccine Epidemic, Louise Kuo Habakus, became involved in her work as an author, advocate, and speaker.

Louise is not “anti-vaccine.”  She states that “vaccines are an option that people have when contemplating how to protect against disease, and people should have access to them but they are by no means foolproof, or safe for all who receive them.  Vaccines are not the only tool in the health, wellness, and disease prevention tool box.”

Louise Kuo Habakus is currently the executive director and co-founder of the Center for Personal Rights.  She formerly ran corporate marketing operations for two of the world’s largest financial firms: Putnam Investments and Prudential Financial, and was a consultant with Bain & Company.  She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Stanford University, where she also received a graduate degree in international policy studies.

Real Mama:  How did you come to be on this path?

Most importantly, like your readers, I’m a Real Mama. I am the mother of two young children who experienced adverse reactions after vaccination.  Quite frankly, I am devastated by the chronically ill and neurologically damaged kids that I see, everywhere. Our government can pinpoint the precise source of food poisoning (i.e., ground turkey) that killed one person and made 76 people sick, and identify each one of them in 25 different states across the country.  However, our government can’t tell us the cause of asthma, affecting 1 in 9 children, ADHD 1 in 10 children, food allergies 1 in 12 children, and autism, now 1 in 110 children?  I’m outraged.  It’s time to be taking a very hard look at the prime suspects. There is no legitimate reason that vaccines should not be included among them.

Increasingly, parents of young children are realizing that there are more vaccines, and more doses of them, than ever before.  There has been a three-fold increase in just the twenty-five years.  New doses are often added, and almost never removed.  In 2011, the federal government recommends that children receive 70 doses of 16 vaccines by 18 years of age.  Some people believe that parents who allow their children to receive just a few or no vaccines are, well, crazy.  However, if you stop and really think about it, the fact that 90 to 95% of children are vaccinated is what’s truly extraordinary.  Most parents allow their children to get so many vaccines without really understanding what they are, how they work, what’s in them, what the unintended consequences might be.  The extent of vaccination today is unprecedented in human history.

The other big influence that placed me on this path is that I used to be a senior corporate executive. I understand how big companies operate, including the varied ways they can influence policy, and drive to bottom line results.  Many businesses spend significantly more money on sales, marketing, and lobbyists than they do on research and development.  Drug companies spend about twice as much on sales and marketing than on R&D.  Regardless of the product we are buying, we should be educated consumers.  This is especially true for a serious medical intervention such as vaccination.

Real Mama:  How did you come to be a speaker on this topic?

When I was a brand new parent, I never questioned vaccination for my children.  I accepted that it was standard medical practice.  I had never met a physician who raised any concerns.  In my circle of friends, I had never met parents who were worried either.  I did more research on cars and washer/dryers than I did on the dozens of doses of vaccines that doctors injected into my children.  I did not know the ingredients in vaccines, nor did I understand most of the diseases against which doctors were so eager to protect my babies.

There is nothing like personal experience to grab someone by the heart and the throat, and doubly so when one’s children are involved.  This is what motivated my research.  I wanted to know, above all, where’s the science?  Specifically, I was looking for the body of peer-reviewed literature, upheld by the highest standards of evidence-based medicine, which justifies today’s childhood vaccination schedule.

If you’re wondering the same thing, let me save you some time.  I could not find this literature because it does not exist.  I was flabbergasted.  There are no randomized, longitudinal studies on vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. There are no studies of the U.S. vaccine schedule as a whole.  There are no studies on health outcomes for individual vaccines.  And the U.S. government has never studied the large populations of children whose families allege that they sustained severe vaccine injury following vaccination.  These include hundreds of thousands of cases reported in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (www.medalerts.org) and the approximately 5,000 families in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding who collected comprehensive evidence and medical records, and retained counsel, to make the case that vaccination resulted in their children’s autism diagnosis.

I also learned that most pediatricians and family practice doctors do not understand the state of vaccine-safety science.  In medical school, students spend about one day learning about vaccines: what they are, how to administer them, and how to “catch children up.”  In their medical practices, most doctors learn about new vaccines and vaccine research by pharmaceutical company sales reps.  Drug companies perform the limited clinical studies required to justify licensure by the FDA.  Our government does not do its own research to justify its recommended schedules.

The icing on the cake, however, is when I discovered that vaccine manufacturers and physicians are not liable for most death and injury caused by vaccines.  In 1986, the drug industry asked for and received liability protection from Congress. Pharma argued that they were paying multimillion settlements to families of children who died or sustained massive brain damage after vaccination. Here’s the gist of the message that vaccine makers delivered to our government: “If you want your vaccine program, you better protect us. If you don’t, we won’t make your vaccines.  And even if we do, they’ll cost you an arm and a leg.”  Wow, right?  Instead of telling these companies to go make safer vaccines, our government acknowledged that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and passed legislation granting almost blanket liability protection.  By protecting industry, our government set the stage for an astonishing run up in the numbers of vaccines on the schedule.  The 1986 law set the stage, in the United States, for a marked departure with our first world peers.  After 1986, our government added some of our most controversial childhood vaccines to the schedule, including chickenpox, diarrhea, flu, cervical cancer, and the birth dose of hepatitis B to newborns.

Imagine this scenario.  Let’s say that you could run a business where you could get all fifty state governments to mandate your product as a condition of daycare and school admission.  Let’s add that, if someone died or became very ill from your product, you could never be sued.  What would you think about this kind business?  It’s a very simple equation, and corporations are exceptionally logical.  There are many hundreds of new vaccines in the development pipeline, and drug companies only make pediatric vaccines that they can get on the childhood schedule.

As I continued my research, I connected with other advocates who care about this subject.  Together, we stand on the shoulders of courageous researchers and activists who have done this work for decades and centuries, even.  A review of the history of science reveals that people have been concerned about vaccine safety since the inception of vaccination and its predecessor “variolation” (the use of pus from cowpox scabs) in the 1700s.   While much of the vaccination debate may appear to center on the science, it is not really about science.  It is about our fundamental rights.  Make the vaccines, make them available, and even subsidize them. But don’t hold a gun to parents’ heads and say “no shots, no school.”  That’s coercion.

Real Mama:  What is your position on vaccines?

I truly am not anti-vaccine.  Vaccines are an option that people have when contemplating how to protect against disease, and people should have access to them.  But they are by no means the only tool in the tool box.

People must have the right to make decisions that deeply affect their lives and their health, and includes whether to receive all, some, or no vaccines.  Parents must have the right and responsibility to make these decisions for their children.  I know these are not easy choices.  People are understandably and legitimately concerned about mortality from infectious diseases.  But they must understand that vaccination is not a risk-free panacea.  Vaccines don’t always work; and regardless, they are serious medicine, with potentially grave consequences.  Every vaccine carries with it the potential to cause death and massive injury. People deserve to know this, and factor it into their decision making.

Many feel they must delegate this important decision to the physicians.  I urge individuals to do some basic research first.  A great starting place is to read the first ten pages of our book Vaccine Epidemic (the preface and introduction) and the chapter entitled “What Should Parents Do?”  In chapter 24, I summarize eight advice books on vaccination authored by credentialed medical professionals that span the gamut from all to none, with several advocating “some,” including alternate schedules and other specific recommendations.  As with other important decisions that affect our lives, including religion and politics, reasonable people will differ when it comes to critical questions about health, wellness, and medicine.

It comes down to one important question.  Who gets to decide?

Dr. Bernadine Healy was the former director of the National Institutes of Health and served as president of the American Red Cross and a member of the Insitute of Medicine.  Dr. Healy passed away on August 6, 2011.  To remember her, I’d like to close this article with the quote that she wrote for the cover of Vaccine Epidemic:

“There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety.  We need studies on vaccinated populations based on various schedules and doses as well as individual patient susceptibilities that we are continuing to learn about. Vaccine policy should be the subject of frank and open debate, with no tolerance for bullying. There are no sides—only people concerned for the well-being of our children.”

The Quick Facts: A disturbing number of birth defects are caused by the use of dangerous medications during pregnancy, and many can be prevented through greater awareness and safer practices.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately one in every 33 babies is born with a birth defect.  A disturbing number of these are caused by the use of dangerous medications during pregnancy, and many can be prevented through greater awareness and safer practices.

Throughout the history of modern medicine, a number of popular medications have been linked to serious birth defects and fetal death after being on the market for quite some time.  Some of the most widely known include thalidomide, a medication used during the mid-1900s as a sedative and antiemetic agent, and Accutane, a medication used since the 1980s to treat severe acne.

Yet, even many unsuspecting drugs may increase a women’s risk of having a baby with a birth defect.  Yaz, one of the most popular birth control pills on the market, has been cited in various studies as a medication that may potentially cause birth defects if taken during pregnancy.  With an average failure rate of 5 percent, many women unknowingly expose their baby to the drug before their pregnancy can be detected.

Many women who have suffered because of Yaz and other medications have sought legal recourse against drug manufacturers by filing a Yaz lawsuit, as well as lawsuits against other manufacturers of dangerous medications.  Consumer advocates have argued that in a number of instances, negligent drug companies have hidden or downplayed serious risks posed to pregnant women by their medications.

Experts around the nation continue to express astonishment and concern over the amount of dangerous drugs used by many pregnant women today.  In today’s environment of ubiquitous medication use, health care professionals are instructing women to speak with their doctor before taking any new medication, regardless of whether it is available by prescription or over-the-counter.  Because even common pain medications such as Aleve and Aspirin can cause harm to a developing baby, patient advocates are warning women to air on the side of caution for their own safety and the safety of their baby.

For more information on drugs that can cause harmful effects during pregnancy, visit www.DrugWatch.com .

Information used in this article was found at the following sources, which you can visit if you want to find out more about this topic:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/pregnancy_gateway/meds/ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, “Medications and Pregnancy” section

http://www.rxlist.com/yaz-drug.htm, RxList Inc., The Internet Drug Index.
http://www.kellymom.com/ Evidence-based advice on breastfeeding, sleep and parenting.

Sean McCahill is the Managing Director for Drugwatch.com. Drugwatch.com offers information Drugs and their associated side effects. Sean spreads awareness to patients and consumers and is able to help with patients that have been affected by the side effects. Drugwatch.com was formed in September of 2009 and are look forward to working with patients for years to come. You can contact Sean directly at Sean [at] Drugwatch.com.

Aluminum Products
Aluminum is a metal that occurs naturally in our environment and is very widely used. There is no way to completely reduce exposure to it because it is the most abundant metal in the earth’s crust and the third most abundant element. However, having too much aluminum in your body can result in negative health impacts.

Aluminum is 100% recyclable without any loss of its natural qualities and is being recovered more and more as an important part of the aluminum industry. Aluminum is used in:

• Packaging such as aluminum cans and foil.
• Household items such as pots/pans, cookie sheets, cooking utensils, baseball bats, and paint (powdered aluminum).
• Food products that contain baking powders, bleached flour, table salt, and food additives (aluminum sulfate).
• Personal care products such as antiperspirant (aluminum chlorohydrate), antacids (aluminum hydroxide), toothpaste, and dental amalgams.
• Vaccines, which can contain certain aluminum salts to work as an immune response booster to allow the protein in the vaccine to achieve sufficient potency as an immune stimulant.
• Consumer electronics (for the outer shell such as photographic equipment).

Impacts on Health
Despite its natural abundance, aluminum is not needed by the human body and at elevated concentrations can present toxic effects including reduced skeletal mineralization (osteopenia), neurotoxins, and altered function of the blood-brain barrier. Likely exposure can result from excessive consumption of antacids containing aluminum compounds and aluminum-containing antiperspirants. In fact, aluminum’s use in some antiperspirants, dyes, and food additives has been controversial, although The Alzheimer’s Society has taken the stance that there is no causal link between aluminum and Alzheimer’s.

Ways to Reduce Exposure to Aluminum

• Use stainless steel, glass, or iron (or other non-aluminum products) for cooking and avoid using aluminum foil.
• Avoid antacids.
• Use Kosher or sea salt instead of iodized salt.
• Use deodorant with no aluminum.
• Avoid products that have aluminized baking powder as an ingredient.

Information used in this article was found at the following sources, which you can visit if you want to find out more about this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum (Wikipedia for general information about Aluminum)

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art7739.asp (Alternative Medicine Site, The Dangers of Aluminum Toxicity, Linda Paul).

Quick Facts: Since its introduction in 1970, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has replaced sugar in various processed foods in the U.S.  Such a rapid change in the American diet raises some important questions.  Reports show the sweetener may lead to obesity, as well as contain mercury.  The best strategy is to replace HFCS-containing foods with nutrient-dense foods.  While research continues, moderation remains important.

The American diet has changed dramatically over the last generation.  In particular, the prevalence of artificial or mechanically manipulated additives to foods has skyrocketed, as has the quantity of such foods we consume.  One example of this change is the substitution of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for table sugar.  It is a sweetener commonly used in many processed foods in the United States.  It is also used as a preservative.  It acts to preserve color and texture of processed foods and to promote freshness or to inhibit microbial spoilage and extend shelf life.  Since its introduction in 1970, HFCS has replaced sugar in various processed foods in the U.S.  Such a rapid change in the American diet raises some important questions:  What are the potential health impacts of HFCS?  Exactly what is HFCS and where does it come from?

What is it?
HFCS is extremely soluble and mixes well in many foods.  It is cheap to produce, sweet and easy to store.  It is used in everything — from bread to pasta sauces, to bacon to beer.  HFCS has been used in “health products” like protein/energy bars and “natural” sodas.  HFCS is made by changing the sugar (glucose) in cornstarch to fructose – another form of sugar.  The end product is a combination of fructose and glucose.  Table sugar is sucrose (which breaks down into fructose and glucose).

The HFCS industry initially was just a “side” business for the corn industry (which took off when we began feeding grain to livestock).  However, once food manufacturers discovered that HFCS is a cheap substitute for sugar, it became a major industry.  HFCS is somewhat cheaper in the United States perhaps as a result of a combination of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs and quotas.  Some speculate this is why it is so prolifically used as an additive in such a wide variety of foods.

So what is the controversy?
Research is producing conflicting results regarding the effects of HFCS on health.  According to the Corn Refiners Association, the average American consumes approximately 42 pounds of HFCS per year, or approximately 12 teaspoons worth each day.   The obesity epidemic has been blamed partially on the increased consumption of HFCS.  What scientists find especially intriguing is the spike in obesity levels that occurred simultaneously with HFCS market debut in 1970.  In children, roughly 4.2 percent were classified as obese in 1970.  By 2000, the share exceeded 15 percent.  Those are staggering numbers!  They also suggest that the body metabolizes fructose differently from glucose, and that the differences in the way the body metabolizes fructose may predispose the body to turn fructose into fat.  Another angle on the obesity epidemic and HFCS is that HFCS increases appetite, therefore, causing over-consumption of calories.  Studies are still ongoing.

What else is in it?
Another controversy is whether mercury is found in HFCS.  Recently, a study was conducted indicating that HFCS contained toxic amounts of mercury.  A pilot study reported that some HFCS manufactured in the U.S. in 2005 contained trace amounts of mercury.  The mercury appeared to come from sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid, two chemicals used in the manufacture of HFCS.  This mixture used to produce HFCS may have come from plants which use a specific process leading to traceable amounts of mercury in HFCS.  Nine of the twenty samples tested did contain measurable amounts of mercury.   The argument is thousands of food items contain measurable amounts of mercury.

However, Woodhall Stopford, MD, MSPH, of Duke University Medical Center, one of the nation’s leading experts in mercury contamination, reviewed the results of total mercury testing of samples of HFCS.  He reports, “the introduction of high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener has not been associated with any noticeable difference in mercury levels in foods and beverages containing high fructose corn syrup.  Levels of mercury found in such foods and beverages are what would be expected from mercury found normally in such foods and beverages and are at background levels.”  Again, studies are ongoing.

Another controversial health claim is that pancreatic cancer cells use the fructose in HFCS to proliferate.  Research from UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center takes aim at refined fructose, a major source of which in the American diet is HFCS.  The study found that pancreatic cancers use fructose to fuel their growth, and that, contrary to conventional wisdom, cancers processed fructose differently than glucose.  Studies continue.

Just another name?
In an effort to help clarify the labeling of food products for consumers, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) recently petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow manufacturers the option of using “corn sugar” as an alternative name for HFCS.  “Consumers need to know what is in their foods and where their foods come from and we want to be clear with them,” said CRA president Audrae Erickson. “The term ‘corn sugar’ succinctly and accurately describes what this natural ingredient is and where it comes from – corn.”  Popular campaigns by food activists and a negative perception by consumers in the United States that high-fructose corn syrup has harmful health effects continues to result in increasing reformulation of popular processed foods and reduced sales of HFCS.  Would a name change to ‘corn sugar’ slow the transition back to the use of regular sugar?

The Bottom Line:
HFCS is mostly found in foods with empty calories.  Empty calorie foods generally refer to foods with high calories but low nutritional values.  In the opinion of many consumers, high fructose corn syrup is a big, bad boogeyman that must be avoided at all costs.   The distrust has reached such heights that food and beverage manufacturers have been busily reformulating products to replace HFCS with beet sugar or cane sugar in order to keep their products competitive.  Even The Corn Refiners Association has tried to salvage the ingredient’s reputation proposing that it be renamed “corn sugar”.   What most don’t understand is that soft drinks and other processed foods sweetened with sugar are just as likely to cause weight gain as those sweetened with HFCS.  Regularly including these high calorie low nutrient content products in your diet has the potential to promote obesity – which, in turn promotes conditions such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and coronary artery disease.  The best strategy is to replace these foods with nutrient-dense foods.  While research continues, moderation remains important.

Information used in this article was found at the following sources, which you can visit if you want to find out more about this topic:

“Corn refiners petition FDA for use of “corn sugar” as alternative name for high fructose corn syrup” http://www.corn.org/corn-sugar-fda-petition.html

Environmental Health News http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/

American Journal of Clinical Nutritionhttp://www.ajcn.org/

Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.com/

US Food & Drug Administration http://fda.gov/

Center for Science in the Public Interest http://www.cspinet.org/

The Quick Facts: Using sunscreen (and bug spray depending on geography) is essential in the summer to protect kids and adults from exposure. In recent years information is readily available and is accessible to help make the important decision about which products to use to keep your family safe from the elements while taking into consideration health and environmental impacts.

Every summer we reach for the sunscreen and bug spray, often relying on the same brands we used last year and even the brands our parents used.  There are many resources now available that provide information on sunscreen ingredients and bug sprays, and ranks products with regard to safety and effectiveness.  (See Real Mama’s previous articles about specific ingredients and why they should be avoided: Safe Sunscreen for Kids and Safe Bug Spray for Kids: The “Buzz” on Chemical and Plant-Based Repellents)

Sunscreens — Top 15

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit organization whose mission is to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment, the top-rated sunscreens all contain the minerals zinc or titanium and not contain oxybenzone or vitamin A (retinyl palmitate), and are not sprayed or powdered.  Below are some examples from EWG’s website and the corresponding number ranking the products were given (0-2 recommended; 3-6 caution; 7-10 avoid):.

Mineral Sunscreens

• All Terrain: Aquasport Performance Sunscreen, SPF 30; TerraSport Performance Sunscreen, SPF 30; KidSport Performance Sunscreen, SPF 30 (2)
• Badger: Sunscreen for Face and Body, Unscented, SPF 30; Sunscreen for Face and Body, Lightly Scented, SPF 15 or 30 (1 & 2)
• California Baby: Sunblock Stick No Fragrance, SPF 30+; Sunscreen Lotion, No Fragrance, SPF 30+; Sunscreen Lotion Everyday/Year-Round, SPF 30+; Sunscreen Lotion, Citronella, SPF 30+; Sunblock Stick Everyday/Year-Round, SFP 30+ (1 & 2)
• Caribbean Solutions: Natural/Biodegradable SolGuard, SPF 25; Sol Kid Kare Natural Sunscreen, SPF 25 (2)
• La Roche-Posay: Anthelios 40 Sunscreen Cream (2)

Non-Mineral

• Beyond Coastal: Active Sunscreen, SFP 30; Daily Active Sunscreen, SPF 15 (3 & 4)
• Bull Frog: Ultimate Sheer Protection Face, SPF 30; Ultimate Sheer Protection Body, SPF 30 (5)
• Coppertone: UltraGUARD Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 15; Oil-Free Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 15; Sport Sunblock Lotion, SPF 15 (4 & 5)
• Glytone: Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 25 (4)
• La Roche-Posay:Anthelios Water Resistant Sunscreen Cream, SPF 15 (3)

Middle of the Road

• Coppertone, Water Babies Pure and Simple Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 50+ (3)
• CVS: Sunscreen with Zinc Oxide, SPF 45+; Baby Sunstick, SPF 50 (3, because it contains Vitamin A)
• Johnson & Johnson: Baby Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 40 (3)

Sunscreens — Buyer Beware

Although warnings about oxybenzone, sprays, and powders have been around for years, a new caution sprung-up recently around vitamin A (retinyl palmitate).  In 2009, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study indicated that retinyl palmitate, when applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions.

Vitamin A is added by the sunscreen industry to 41 percent of all sunscreens largely because of its anti-oxidant properties that supposedly slows skin aging.  Although that may be true for lotions and night creams used indoors, in 2009, the FDA found that vitamin A’s photo-carcinogenic properties may result in cancerous tumors when skin is exposed to sunlight.  The FDA data are preliminary and the agency is expected to publish a report in October 2010 that may even suggest that some sunscreens increase the risk of skin cancer.  Since findings are still preliminary and some contradictory, EWG recommends that consumers avoid sunscreen with vitamin A (retinyl palmitate or retinol on the label).  EWG recommends that consumers avoid the following products:

• Coppertone KIDS Continuous Spray Sunscreen, SPF 70+ (7, contains oxybenzone, spray, and misleading SFP); Note: EWG does not recommend using spray sunscreens, particularly for children because all the chemicals become airborne and maybe inhaled.
• Banana Boat Baby Max Protect, SPF 100 (7 unbalanced sunscreen, contains oxybenzone, contains vitamin A, misleading SPF); Note: EWG recommends that consumers avoid products labeled with anything higher than “SPF 50+” and reapply sunscreen often, regardless of SPF.
• Mineral Powders, SPF anything (7, contains vitamin A, powder); Note: EWG recommends that consumers do not use loose powder sunscreens since they can enter the airways and move from the lungs to the bloodstream.

Bug Sprays — Top 3

Generally, bug sprays that are plant-based are nontoxic and safe.  However, most chemical-based bug sprays have been found by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be slightly toxic, even when applied as directed.  Many plant-based bug sprays that have been found to be just as effective (against U.S. mosquitoes) include oil of lemon eucalyptus and soybean oil, but they work for shorter periods of time than chemical-based ones. Below are some bug sprays reviewed by EWG in their cosmetic database and their assigned ranking:

• Badger Anti-Bug Shake & Spray (1)
• California Baby Bug Repellent Spray (1)
• Jason Natural Cosmetics Quit Bugging Me: Natural Insect Repellant Spray (2)

Bug Sprays — Buyer Beware

Most of us have heard of DEET, however, the ingredient actually being used in bug sprays is N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide, also known as N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide, and commonly known as DEET.  DEET is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Center for Disease Control (CDC), and EPA for use when there is a need to prevent insect-borne diseases and insects other than just mosquitoes (i.e., ticks).  However, these institutions note that a DEET product with a concentration of 10% appears to be as effective as those with DEET concentrations of 30% (the maximum concentration recommended for children), with the only difference being that higher concentrations remain effective for longer periods of time.  Below are some sprays reviewed by EWG and their assigned rankings as well as percentage DEET:

• Cutter Backwoods Mosquito Spray Unscented (3, contains N-N-Diethyl-M-Toluamide, 21.85%)

In sum, there are safer ways to protect your family from exposure to the sun and insects.  Take a few minutes to check your beach and camp bags for the best products for your family and the environment.

Information used in this article was found at the following sources, which you can visit if you want to find out more about this topic:

http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/ (Environmental Working Group, a non-profit whose mission is to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment)

http://www.costmeticdatabase.com (Skin Deep is a safety guide to cosmetics and personal care products by the researchers at the Environmental Working Group)

http://aapnews.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/e200399v1 (AAP News article entitled, “Follow safety precautions when using DEET on children,” from the AAP Committee on Environmental Health)

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/deet.htm (EPA, Pesticides: Topical and Chemical Fact Sheet on “The Insect Repellent DEET.”)