Database Reveals 16,000 Foods That May Be Packaged with BPA

Tart Cherry Juice Lowers Blood Pressure
Tart Cherry Juice Lowers Blood Pressure
Tart Cherry Juice Lowers Blood Pressure

Environmental Working Group Database Reveals 16,000 Foods That May Be Packaged with BPA

WASHINGTON––For consumers who want to avoid bisphenol A, EWG unveiled an easily searchable database of more than 16,000 food and beverage items that may come in cans, bottles or jars containing the hormone-disrupting chemical, better known as BPA. The list was compiled from a little-known food industry inventory and is now available at EWG’s Food Scores database.

BPA acts like estrogen in the body and is especially dangerous for pregnant women and children in critical stages of development. Independent scientific studies link it to cancer, infertility, diabetes, obesity and brain, nerve and heart disorders, and it’s just been listed by California as a chemical known to cause reproductive problems.

“No other industry in the world is more adept at marketing products to its customers than food and beverage companies––except apparently when it comes to informing them about the possible presence of a toxic chemical linked to hormone disruption and cancer,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “So we decided to give them a little help in making their own data accessible. Our new database shines a light on just how pervasive BPA is in our food system, and will help Americans navigate the supermarket armed with more information.”

Most concern about BPA has focused on its use in plastic bottles and canned food linings. But the voluminous list of products brought to light by EWG shows that Americans are exposed to BPA in food packaging far more widely than previously known. The array of products from 926 brands includes:

  • The lids of glass jars for baby food, pickles, jelly, salsa and other condiments;
  • Aerosol cans for whipped toppings and non-stick sprays;
  • Bottles and tins of cooking oil;
  • Aluminum beverage cans, coffee cans and even beer kegs.

Food packaging is the largest source of exposure to BPA. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found it in the urine of more than 90 percent of Americans sampled. In 2009, tests commissioned by EWG were the first to find BPA in the umbilical cords of nine of 10 infants sampled.

California officials added the hormone disrupting chemical to the Proposition 65 list, which requires warnings on products with listed chemicals. The state allowed instead for generic warning signs at checkout registers that don’t name specific products.

Food companies set up a website with a list of products, but made little effort to publicize it. The website is a chaotic jumble––incomplete, inconsistent, poorly organized and not searchable.

EWG downloaded files from the industry website, which were in a variety of non-compatible formats, then extracted the brand names, product descriptions and barcodes. The data was then matched against information in Food Scores, and the matches were hand-reviewed to ensure accuracy.

Despite the mounting evidence of BPA’s health risks at very low doses, federal regulation is lagging. EWG urges regulators and lawmakers at the state and federal levels to regulators, federal and state lawmakers to look at the evidence and reassess BPA’s use in the U.S. food supply.

→  Read more on BPA

Vitamin C The Heart Of The Matter

Mammals producing their own vitamin C

don’t have heart disease – even though

many have very high levels of cholesterol.

Arterial blockage graphic
  • Vitamin C actually lowers the liver’s production of cholesterol.

  • It also optimizes cholesterol transport in the bloodstream and its uptake by the cells.

  • In addition, vitamin C inhibits blood cells from clumping together and forming clots, which can initiate heart attacks.

  • And, it recycles two other powerful antioxidants (vitamin E and glutathione) by “refreshing” them.

The Heart Of The Matter

Heart disease continues to be the #1 Killer of Americans, taking more than one in four people annually, over 600,000 individuals. Every year nearly 750,000 of us suffer heart attacks. In his best-selling Prescription for Natural Cures, James F. Balch, MD, writes that poor diet (particularly lack of fresh produce and low fiber intake), plus unhealthy lifestyle habits (e.g., smoking and lack of exercise) are the root cause of most heart disease. Heart disease, also called cardiovascular diease CVD), includes atherosclerosis (blocked arteries), angina (chest pain), heart attack, high blood pressure, and stroke.

Besides functioning to provide collagen, vitamin C is also a potent antioxidant. Oxidative damage is a major contributor to the development of CVD.FN  Fruits and veggies are our greatest source of vitamin C. Population studies show that people eating the largest quantities of fruits and veggies have a reduced risk of CVD. Researchers think the antioxidant property of the vitamin may be providing protection.

Although results from studies looking at associations between vitamin C and CVD risk are conflicting, several large studies show that sections of the study populations getting the most vitamin C also had a reduced risk of CVD. One of these positive studies is the Nurses’ Health Study, a 16-year study, involving over 85,000 female nurses. Another involved 20,600+ British adults. In the latter, those getting the most vitamin C showed a 42% reduced risk of stroke.

Enter Matthias Rath, MD. In 1987, Rath discovered the connection between vitamin C deficiency and a risk factor for heart disease – lipoprotein(a). In the early 1990s, while working with 2-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, at the Linus Pauling Institute, Rath authored and published Eradicating Heart Disease (Health Now, San Francisco). In it, he wrote about his work, explaining that heart attacks and strokes are not diseases, but the result of vitamin deficiency, particularly a lack of sufficient vitamin C. Since those early days, Dr. Rath has helped a huge number of patients by putting them on his drug-free supplement program.

In his book, Rath points out that mammals producing their own vitamin C don’t have heart disease – even though many have very high levels of cholesterol. For example, bears measure in at 400 mg/dl while the generally considered safe level for humans is under 200. The heart arteries of C-producing animals are kept in better condition than ours by the constant internal bath of ascorbic acid, which results in higher quality collagen.

Reversing Arterial Disease

Our arteries open and close 60, 70, 80 times a minute as the heart pumps. Rath has compared this with stepping on a garden hose  ongoingly with each pump. He has remarked that a new and flexible garden hose  functions as designed. On the other hand, a brittle hose begins to crack, and eventually fails. He likens this to our heart’s arteries, which become weakened by vitamin deficiency, and eventually fail.

In addition, once the arteries are damaged, the body tries to repair them by putting down plaque. Plaque is made from oxidized cholesterol. As this cycle goes forward, ever more plaque adheres to the arteries, narrowing them (atheroclerosis). Eventually, this makes it difficult for the heart to receive sufficient oxygen and other nutrients.

To summarize, heart attacks are a combination of mechanical stress from the pumping heart, the accumulation of plaque narrowing the arteries, and weakened artery walls. Sufficient vitamin C maintains the integrity of the arteries. By adding vitamin C (and some other nutrients), Dr. Rath’s patients have reversed heart disease.

Other benefits of vitamin C are from its antioxidant property. This supports the heart by improving cholesterol profiles. Vitamin C actually lowers the liver’s production of cholesterol. It also optimizes cholesterol transport in the bloodstream and its uptake by the cells. In addition, vitamin C inhibits blood cells from clumping together and forming clots, which can initiate heart attacks. And, it recycles two other powerful antioxidants (vitamin E and glutathione) by “refreshing” them.

Vitamin C Recommendations

Rath recommends 1 gram (1000 mg) per day of vitamin C, in several doses of 250-500 mg each). Although as little as 300 mg per day have been shown to cut heart disease risk in half, a gram remains a conservative amount.7 For years, I have taken between 1 and 3 grams per day of a highly absorbable form. Linus Pauling himself was famous for huge amounts (up to 12 grams daily) and lived well into his 90s.

Rath also recommends several other supplements, particularly the amino acids L-lysine and L-proline. These amino acids are indispensable in the formation of collagen. Lysine is an essential amino acid, meaning it must be consumed through food sources. Proline can be produced by the body, but often in insufficient quantities for therapeutic needs. Five hundred milligrams of each is recommended. (Take them on an empty stomach with juice or water. Protein foods interfere with their absorption.)

Both acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC, 250 mg 2x/d) and coenzyme Q10 (25-150 mg daily) improve the energy supply in the heart muscle cells, supporting the heart’s pumping action. Other important supplements are a multiple vitamin-mineral formula (containing chromium and selenium, 200 mcg of each); additional vitamin E (up to 600 IU); additional magnesium (up to 1200 mg); and omega-3 oils from fish (couple of grams).

 

Daily Coffee Halves Mortality Risk in Patients with Both HIV and HCV

This is a very exciting time for HCV research

as a cure that can eradicate the virus

is now available for all patients.

Tart Cherry Juice Lowers Blood Pressure

Siri Says, “I used to rise and shine.

But now I drink a cup of coffee and hope for the best.”

Three or More Cups of Coffee Daily Halves Mortality Risk in Patients with Both HIV and HCV

25 September 2017 Elsevier

Novel five-year study highlights importance of behaviors such as coffee drinking and not smoking on health and survival of HIV-infected patients, report investigators in the Journal of Hepatology

Patients infected by both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are at specific risk of end-stage liver disease and greater risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancer. In addition, HIV infection accelerates the progression of chronic hepatitis C to fibrosis and development of cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease.

In these HIV-HCV co-infected patients, drinking at least three cups of coffee each day halved the risk of all-cause mortality according to a new study published in the Journal of Hepatology.

This study is the first to investigate the relationship between coffee consumption and the risk of all-cause mortality in HIV-HCV co-infected patients. “This is a very exciting time for HCV research as a cure that can eradicate the virus is now available for all patients,” explained lead investigator Dominique Salmon-Céron, MD, PhD, of the Service des Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Hôpital Cochin, and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. “However, even when cured of HCV, patients co-infected with HIV have a higher risk of death with respect to the general population, due to an accelerated aging process that may result from cancer, complications related to diabetes and to liver disease, and from cardiovascular events.”

Coffee is known to have anti-inflammatory and liver-protective properties. In the general population, drinking three or more cups of coffee a day has been found to be associated with a 14% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality. This is probably due to the properties of polyphenols contained in coffee that can protect the liver and also reduce inflammation.

Investigators used data from a five-year follow-up of 1,028 HIV-HCV co-infected patients enrolled in the French national ANRS CO13-HEPAVIH cohort. ANRS CO13-HEPAVIH is an ongoing French nationwide prospective cohort of HIV-HCV co-infected patients that collects both medical and psychosocial/behavioral data over time via annual self-administered questionnaires.

At enrolment, one in four patients reported drinking at least three cups of coffee daily. Over the five years, 77 deaths occurred, almost half attributable to hepatitis C. However, the mortality risk was 80% lower in those who were cured of (i.e. who “cleared”) hepatitis C thanks to treatment.

Further analysis showed that drinking at least three cups of coffee daily was associated with a 50% reduction in mortality risk even after taking into account HCV clearance, HIV- and HCV-related factors, and other sociobehavioral factors, such as having a steady partner and not smoking.  Healthy behavior change should be promoted by physicians following HCV clearance.

This research highlights the importance of behaviors – coffee consumption and not smoking in particular – on reduced mortality risk. These results can help promote behavioral changes in HIV-HCV patients, which in turn can result in improved survival. With respect to coffee consumption, individuals who do not drink coffee because of caffeine can still benefit from the comparable anti-inflammatory effects of decaffeinated coffee.

First author Maria Patrizia Carrieri, PhD, of the HEPAVIH Study Group, Faculté de Médecine, Aix Marseille University, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Marseilles, France, observed that coffee consumption provides more protective effects on mortality in the HIV-HCV population than in the general population.

“The results of our study show that while curing HCV is fundamental, it must be complemented by behavioral changes if we are to improve health and survival in HIV-infected patients whether or not they cleared HCV. “I think we need to better monitor coffee consumption, together with other behaviors, such as alcohol use, smoking, physical activity, and to propose interventions to our patients which facilitate healthy behaviors even after HCV clearance. We also suggest that those patients who cannot tolerate a high intake of caffeine should consider drinking a few cups of decaffeinated coffee a day,” commented Dr. Salmon-Céron. “Accordingly, I believe that the benefits of coffee extracts and supplementing dietary intake with other anti-inflammatory compounds need to be evaluated in HIV-HCV patients.”

Attached files

  • Drinking three or more cups of coffee a day halves mortality risk from all causes in HIV-HCV co-infected patients.

→  Read full article

European Approved Health and Nutritional Claims

All this to define food.

No wonder so many new products keep showing up.

No surprise about the many possible certification labels for food.

Or, you can read Nutrition News

and get the clarity and confidence

you need to make healthy choices

Get Nutrition News Online All Year Long

Subscribe Now –  $97 / Year  or 

Subscribe Now –  $9.97 / Month

Natural First Aid For Kids cover image

Natural First Aid For Kids

Subscribe Now – $97 / Year or 

Subscribe Now – $9.97 / Month

Nutrition News Logo

Our readers are self aware and focused on a full, vital and abundant life.

They realize the importance of their health for a rich and rewarding life.

They pay attention to what works. They make connections between actions and results.

For 40 years our readers, people just like you, have turned to Nutrition News for

advertising free, easy to understand information about

healthy foods and nutritional supplements.

We review, edit and  publish compelling content about nutritional research and trends in optimal health.

We showcase, share and support health outreach initiatives of all kinds.

The inquiry into optimal health is naturally engaging.

We make healthy behaviors easy and fun.

Two Regulations Just To Explain Food Claims Used On Product Labels

How much of a bigger share from the Universe Of Food could we get if we talked more about the benefits of what it is we’re trying to regulate.

The most direct path to an intended outcome is to regulate for what you want. Seems like we have too many competing interests to agree on a simple, true story.

Food has been pretty cool for a long time now. We’re starting to realize just how important it really is. If they’re going through this much trouble in Europe, no wonder, clean, simple food is catching on and the packaged goods market is scrambling to keep up.

Thanks to  Richard A.H.G. De Klerk International Senior Account Manager, Nutrition/Pharma, Asia & Europe for this report.

European Commission published two regulations just to explain and determine approved claims to be used in food products labels, and one regulation regarding the consumer protection and detailed information about the label content. The regulations are better described below:

This isn’t meant to put anyone to sleep.It’s a sign that food and nutrition are becoming so important that multiple interests are keenly aware of how much power consumers are beginning to exert when it comes to food choices. An educated consumer is a healthy consumer. We don’t need a tracker to know where that  leads.

Didn’t Amazon just buy Whole Foods?

1. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods:

Nutritional Claim Conditions Applying

LOW ENERGY A claim that a food is low in energy, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product does not contain more than 40 kcal (170 kJ)/100 g for solids or more than 20 kcal (80 kJ)/100 ml for liquids. For table-top sweeteners the limit of 4 kcal (17 kJ)/portion, with equivalent sweetening properties to 6 g of sucrose (approximately one teaspoon of sucrose), applies.

ENERGY-REDUCED A claim that a food is energy-reduced, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the energy value is reduced by at least 30 %, with an indication of the characteristic(s) which make(s) the food reduced in its total energy value.

ENERGY-FREE A claim that a food is energy-free, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product does not contain more than 4 kcal (17 kJ)/100 ml. For table-top sweeteners the limit of 0,4 kcal (1,7 kJ)/portion, with equivalent sweetening properties to 6 g of sucrose (approximately one teaspoon of sucrose), applies.

SOURCE OF (NAME OF VITAMIN/S) AND/OR (NAME OF MINERAL/S) A claim that a food is a source of vitamins and/or minerals, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains at least a significant amount as defined in the Annex to Directive 90/496/EEC or an amount provided for by derogations granted according to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (1).

HIGH (NAME OF VITAMIN/S) AND/OR (NAME OF MINERAL/S) A claim that a food is high in vitamins and/or minerals, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains at least twice the value of ‘source of (NAME OF VITAMIN/S) and/or (NAME OF MINERAL/S)’.

CONTAINS (NAME OF THE NUTRIENT OR OTHER SUBSTANCE) A claim that a food contains a nutrient or another substance, for which specific conditions are not laid down in this Regulation, or any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product complies with all the applicable provisions of this Regulation, and in particular Article 5. For vitamins and minerals the conditions of the claim ‘source of’ shall apply.

INCREASED (NAME OF THE NUTRIENT) A claim stating that the content in one or more nutrients, other than vitamins and minerals, has been increased, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product meets the conditions for the claim ‘source of’ and the increase in content is at least 30 % compared to a similar product.

REDUCED (NAME OF THE NUTRIENT) A claim stating that the content in one or more nutrients has been reduced, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the reduction in content is at least 30 % compared to a similar product, except for micronutrients where a 10 % difference in the reference values as set in Council Directive 90/496/EEC shall be acceptable and for sodium, or the equivalent value for salt, where a 25 % difference shall be acceptable.

→  Read full article

Your Satisfaction Guaranteed

After reading your first report,

if you don’t love it . . .

or feel you don’t have the information and tools

to achieve optimal health,

just let us know within 30 days.

We’ll refund your money,

no questions asked.

You keep the Report.

You always win playing the

“Is It Healthy?” Game with 

Nutrition News.

The Story Behind The Why We Buy

Judges rule that excerpts from scientific/medical journal articles

can be used in advertising and promotional materials,

protected by the First Amendment and New York state law.

This sets a significant precedent.

A federal appeals court found that opinions about scientific studies,

at least when two private parties are involved in cases involving the Lanham Act,

is protected free speech.

If you say that a food is healthy and may help protect against heart disease, diabetes, or arthritis,

your words have magically changed that food into a drug.

And, guess what, that’s illegal.

Now you’ve created an illegal drug and that’s a crime

Free Speech Win For Scientific Conclusions in Federal Court

So why after all these years have we not shared all that great research about how food and nutrition can impact public health, access to food and opportunity as well as workforce development?  Where are we today? Take a look at the disruption in our food sector. Amazon buying Whole Foods and thousands of small scale rural and urban growers building local food systems.

From Alliance for Natural Health July 9, 2013

 A three-judge panel of the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York has ruled unanimously that researchers cannot be sued for stating the scientific conclusions made in journal articles about matters of scientific debate.

In this case, the manufacturer of a lung surfactant—a detergent-like agent that reduces the surface tension of the liquid film covering the inner lining of the lung’s small air sacs (alveoli) to help keep lungs from collapsing and help patients breathe better—brought a false advertising suit against a competitor.

The lawsuit alleged that the competitor paid for research designed to show that the competitor’s product was superior; that the findings were false and deceptive; and that the competitor disseminated those findings through an article published in a scientific journal and through promotional material citing the article’s conclusions.

The plaintiff didn’t claim that the competitor distorted the article’s findings, but that the findings themselves were inaccurate, and by publishing them, the plaintiffs suffered damage.

The main question was whether the defendant’s statements about the study were false and misleading under the Lanham Act, which is the primary federal trademark law in the US (the court also looked at this under NY state law).

They didn’t consider the question of whether the study findings themselves were false—only whether their statements about the study were false or misleading. The panel ruled against the plaintiff and found that the defendant did not misrepresent the research findings, and ruled the defendant’s statements to be scientific “opinion,” not fact, and therefore protected speech under the First Amendment.

This sets a significant precedent. A federal appeals court found that opinions about scientific studies, at least when two private parties are involved in cases involving the Lanham Act, is protected free speech.

Whether this ruling can be applied against the Federal Trade Commission’s recent actions toward supplement makers for making alleged “false and misleading claims” by citing scientific studies remains to be seen, as the laws involved are different. You may recall the FTC’s lawsuits against companies such as POM Wonderful for false advertising, even though POM cited scientific articles and studies.

Increasingly, the FTC appears to be applying the FDA’s pharmaceutical approach toward all health claims, including those for food or supplements, via consent decrees, as we discussed last year. These consent decrees are requiring manufacturers to obtain the FDA’s approval of any health claims prior to making them in advertising, and are insisting on a standard of double random controlled studies. In effect, the FTC seems to be doing what the FDA itself would like to do but is barred from doing. It seems to be an end-run around FDA law.

Given this background of increasing government censorship of science, this latest court ruling is very welcome. Companies cannot afford the millions of dollars needed to take a natural, non-patentable product through the FDA drug approval process in order to establish health claims. However, there is a lot of valid scientific literature explaining benefits of natural products, and companies should be able to use it for advertising purposes to inform the public without threat of fines or even jail.

This was the logic behind our push for Free Speech About Science (FSAS). A bill to reintroduce the Free Speech About Science Act is currently being redrafted. We will keep you posted as things. A resurrection is long overdue.

→  Read full article

Is The FDA Losing It’s Mind?

Here’s an example from recent history that speaks to how far certain interests will go to separate us from our food. Before any science came along to validate the idea that food is the key driver to human health and development.

Why is it that after the scientific validation for nutrition, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, as the building blocks for all life, and that they comprise our  food, why wouldn’t that story be worth shouting from the rooftops?

What if the foods we all eat got to tell it’s nutritional bona fides as medicine? Or, at the very least, beneficial and highly recommended for health and wellness. Thanks to CathyBurt at TimberJay.com for the alert on the FDA losing it’s mind.

The FDA Wants To Make Cherries, Walnuts Into Illegal Drugs

The FDA has sent a warning letter to the president and CEO of Diamond Foods stating that the firm’s packages of shelled walnuts are “in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”. Why? Because Diamond Foods dared to list some of the health benefits of walnuts on its website. Health benefits which have been scientifically researched and proven. The FDA says that the walnuts are being “promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation and treatment of disease”.

In other words, if you say that a food is healthy and may help protect against heart disease, diabetes, or arthritis, your words have magically changed that food into a drug. And, guess what, that’s illegal. Now you’ve created an illegal drug and that’s a crime

Common sense alone should tell you that walnuts, cherries, pomegranates and green tea are foods, not drugs.

Even though potato chips are mostly a deep fried snack food, with no scientifically proven health benefits, the FDA has no problem with FritoLay listing on its website some of what they claim are the health benefits of potato chips. We all know that carbohydrates fried in fat and covered with salt are just not healthy to eat. Plus they definitely won’t give you the GMO Free certification to go along with all their other nutritional needs products. Can anyone say “Gluten Free” ?

This certainly seems like a FDA double standard and it is just not acceptable for a government agency to disregard its own mission of educating the public and promoting health.

The Free Speech about Science Act (HR 4913)  was a bipartisan bill introduced into the House of Representatives on March 23, 2010. This legislation protects basic free speech rights, ends censorship of science and enables the natural foods and health products community to share peer-reviewed scientific findings with the public. The bill had the potential to educate the public about the real science behind natural health. This would have enabled the public to have access to credible information that they can use to make wise dietary choices. It died. It was reintroduced and it died again.

→  Read full article

Get The Latest Nutrition News Online All Year Long

Get The Latest Nutrition News Online All Year Long

Our readers are self aware and focused on full, vital and abundant lives.

They realize the importance their health has for a rich and rewarding life.

They pay attention to what works.

They make connections between actions and results.

 

For 41 years our readers, people just like you, have turned to  Nutrition News for advertising free, easy to understand information about healthy foods and nutritional supplements.

We review, edit and  publish compelling content about nutritional research and trends in optimal health.

We showcase, share and support health outreach initiatives of all kinds.

The inquiry into optimal health is naturally engaging.

We make healthy behaviors easy and fun.

 

 

 

Your Satisfaction Guaranteed!

Here's How:

We promise to capture your attention.

If you're not paying attention, we've failed you.

 

 

After reading your first report,

If you don’t love it . . .

Or feel you don’t have

Information and tools

To achieve optimal health,

Just let us know within 30 days.

We’ll refund your money,

No questions asked.

You keep the Report.

Superfoods cover image

Play The Is It Healthy Game!

Read Nutrition News

Making Healthy Choices Easier Than You Think

You have Successfully Subscribed!