• The human microbiome: Gut Bacteria quickly being cast as culprits or saviors for a diverse array of ailments
• Researchers find link between low-stress environments and healthier more diverse microbiomes

• Hugging a tree is good for you, scientifically validated!
• The Healing Effects of Forests
• Trees have social networks too
• How the City Hurts Your Brain - and Nature Heals It
• Nature walks improve mental well-being, lower stress and depression

• Doctors Warn About 'Facebook Depression' In Teens
• Excessive Chatting on Facebook can lead to Depression in Teenage Girls

The Negative Effects of Pesticides on Children Are Significant

The body of published, peer-reviewed science showing the wide range of problems caused by pesticides to the fetus and newborn is substantial and compelling. The current testing methodologies use adolescent through to adult animals. This means that they will not detect the adverse health issues that are specific to the unborn and small children.

Despite the fact that many professional experts in this area such as the USPCP, the WHO, and UNEP have been calling for specific toxicological studies that are relevant to the fetus and growing children to determine if the current MRLs and ADIs of pesticides are safe for them, regulatory authorities largely continue to ignore this dangerous oversight. Until these specific tests are done, regulatory authorities are using data-free assumptions that the current pesticides used in food, households, playgrounds, schools, and in the general environment are safe for our unborn and growing children. Regulation should not be based on assumptions but should use independently published, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to prove whether these toxins are safe. Given that our children are our future and most of them are exposed to multiple chemicals, time will prove the regulatory committees' unwillingness to act against pesticides more serious than their decades of inaction over asbestos.

• Prosecutors still going after mom who refused to drug her daughter

"Five out of five judicial reviews," explained Folmar, "found that Maryanne had the right to defend her home and child. That the prosecution refuses to end this attack is ample proof that she is being persecuted."

In essence the court ruled that Godboldo had the right to defend her child from being forcibly drugged with a potentially lethal psychiatric drug, which carries four drug regulatory agency warnings, citing death as a possible side effect.

"In many ways," says Folmar, "this case really puts psychiatrists and the pharmaceuticals on trial because they tried to do something that they had no right to do. There are a multitude of lawsuits against the pharmaceutical company that makes Risperdal. This is a devastating, harmful drug that should not have been prescribed for this child."