February 20th, 2012
By: Mark Greenblatt
The Food and Drug Administration will launch a safety investigation of a new product that allows consumers to inhale caffeine through a lipstick-sized portable device, rather than drinking it.
AeroShot delivers 100 milligrams of caffeine per use, and comes in bright colored packages that describe it as “pure energy,” and “breathable energy anytime, anyplace.”
The manufacturer, Breathable Foods Inc., put it on the market in New York, Massachusetts, and in France late last month.
“You could easily overdose or succumb to toxicity associated with the caffeine ingestion,” Dr. Bruce Goldberger told ABC News. “You could mix it with alcohol in a social setting and also I’m troubled by its availability, potentially at home where young children can get a hold of it.”
Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said he shares those concerns.
“A new product like AeroShot raises questions that need to be answered before allowing consumers, especially teens and kids, to use and abuse it,” he said. “The AeroShot caffeine-inhaler is being marketed as a party enhancer; it can facilitate excessive drinking and its effects have never been examined by independent regulators to determine their impact on the human body and in combination with alcohol, especially for adolescents.”
The inventor of AeroShot, Harvard biomedical professor David Edwards, says his product is as safe as a cup of coffee, which provides roughly the equivalent dose of caffeine.
“I think that we are absolutely welcoming a dialogue with the FDA,” he said. “As I say, this is a new way of delivering food in your mouth, and we’re confident that as they look at the product that they will confirm what we hold, that the product is both safe and follows FDA regulations.”
Edwards was able to bring Aeroshot to the market without an FDA review being required because it is sold as a dietary supplement. ABC News asked Edwards if he or his company had done any studies of the health effects of AeroShot on children or teenagers.
“The answer is no, we did not do tests on children,” he said, explaining that children and teenagers are not part of his target market. “We need to be really clear what a company responsibly does to test the safety of their product, and we’ve followed those safety regulations.”
Edwards says his product delivers a lower dose of caffeine than many energy drinks or caffeine pills currently on the market, and says it comes in a controlled, smaller dose of caffeine.
Edwards says demand for the product is eclipsing anything he could have ever anticipated, and increasing.
ABC News found the product on store shelves throughout New York and around college campuses. We visited three delis near Columbia University — two sold us their shelf stock, while the third store was already sold out.
“I would try it during something like finals week,” said Thalia Dergham, a Columbia University student. Dergham said, though, that she would likely not be a regular consumer of the product outside of high stress times.
Other students were not so willing.
“It looks intense,” said Kristin Simmons, a Columbia University art history and visual arts major. “It looks like one of those monster Red Bull drinks.”
After announcing its review, the FDA is now likely to examine the health effects of inhaling the caffeine on at-risk populations, along with looking into the potential health effects of use when combined with alcohol.
“FDA will review information brought to the agency’s attention about this product,” the agency said in a statement. “As with any complaint or concern we receive about FDA-regulated products, we will consider whether a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act has occurred and, if so, whether regulatory action is warranted in light of FDA’s enforcement priorities and resources.”
The product’s manufacturer has come under fire for a round of advertisements that seem to show its use by younger men and women who are out at nightclubs, where alcohol may be present.
ABC News asked the inventor of the product about those ads. Edwards said the product itself is safe and fundamentally sound, but there is ongoing discussion within his company about how to market it and where to sell it.
“Speaking as an innovator, you’re not developing a product thinking of targeting people that it’s going to hurt. And so on the contrary, the motivation of this product was to actually create a healthier and more accessible way of having caffeine, when you need it, as opposed to overdoing yourself often when you don’t need it.”
For The Full Report Go To ABC News
Many Processed Foods Are Made With A Coal Tar Derivative Chemical That Causes Hyperactivity In Children
February 17th, 2012
By: Mike Adams
Would you knowingly feed your children an ingredient derived from coal tar? That’s exactly what you may be doing, if you let them eat any orange or yellow artificially-colored products including sodas, cheese-flavored products, flavored chips, pickles or a myriad of other foods and beverages. The industrial waste-derived coloring chemicaltartrazineis a common ingredient in all these foods, underscoring the need to read food labels religiously. (Why would anyone put artificial colors into pickles? Read the labels, and you’ll see!)
Tartrazine, also known as E102 or Yellow #5, was one of the colorings linked to childhood hyperactivity in a landmark 2007 study conducted by the United Kingdom’sFood Standards Agency. As a consequence, products containing it must carry a warning label anywhere in the European Union.
Not surprisingly, the United States has no such law — even though the coloring has been linked to asthma, migraines and cancer. But since when the FDA ever bother warning the public about dangerous chemicals in their food anyway? After all, aspartame, MSG and sodium nitrite are all legal — so why not add a little food coloring poison to the cocktail and call it “nutrition?”
For The Full Report Go To Natural News
Diet Soda Again Linked To Heart Attacks And Strokes – But Diet Coke Remains A Top Supporter Of Heart For Truth
February 8th, 2012
By: Elizabeth Walling
Diet soft drinks are considered the “healthier” alternative to high fructose corn syrup and empty calories. But the truth is that diet drinks have an evil side: new research confirms that diet soda can seriously increase your risk for heart attack and stroke. But in spite of this – and many other studies that warn us of the harmful side effects of diet soda – Diet Coke remains a staunch supporter of the Heart for Truth Campaign.
In the latest study, researchers looked at 10 years of data from 2,564 individuals enrolled in the Northern Manhattan Study. The link between diet soda and serious health issues was undeniable:those who drank diet soda on a daily basis were 43 percent more likely to experience heart attacks, stroke or vascular death.
This may be the most recent study connecting diet soda to serious health problems, but it’s far from the first. Diet drinks have been linked in previous studies to diabetes, obesity and metabolic syndrome. Other studies confirm the link between diet soda and heart problems. Suffice it to say there is no lack of research to support the idea that diet soda is a hazard to our long-term health.
But Diet Coke tries to preserve its positive image with marketing strategies that emphasize its support for Heart for Truth, a campaign that aims to increase heart disease awareness. Cute heart graphics are plastered on billions of cans of Diet Coke, while celebrities like Heidi Klum and Minka Kelly give public support of Diet Coke’s campaign.
While Diet Coke makes a show of supporting heart disease awareness, it certainly isn’t going out of its way to make customers aware of the possible dangers that may await them at the bottom of every can of diet soda. It seems like Diet Coke wants to sweep the evidence right under the rug.
If Diet Coke officials were truly concerned with heart health, they would simply pull their product from the shelves and apologize for endangering the public’s health for the last several decades. But since that would seriously squelch profit margins, they’d prefer to alleviate their guilt by painting red hearts all over their cans instead.
February 8th, 2012
By: Lindsey Tanner
Junk food remains plentiful at the nation’s elementary schools despite widespread efforts to curb childhood obesity, a new study suggests. Between 2006 and 2010, nearly half of public and private schools surveyed sold sweet or salty snack foods in vending machines or other places, the study found. There was little change over the four years, a surprising finding given vocal advocacy campaigns to improve kids’ diets, said researcher Lindsey Turner, a health psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the study’s lead author. The study focused on snacks not sold during mealtimes, which until recently weren’t subject to government nutrition standards.
Schools most likely to sell chips, cookies or similar foods were in the South, where obesity rates are the highest; these foods were scarcest at schools in the West. The results are concerning, Turner said, because they show that many schools have not heeded messages from health advocates including the Institute of Medicine, which in a 2007 report urged limiting availability of food in schools outside of mealtimes, and said these items should not be sugary, salty or fatty snack foods. Many schools in the study also offered more healthy foods outside of mealtimes, including fruit and vegetables. But selling them along with junk food may tempt kids to skip the healthy options, and sends “mixed messages about healthful nutrition,” Dr. Thomas Robinson, a Stanford University pediatrician and obesity prevention researcher.
Robinson called the study results “sobering” and said a key strategy for reversing childhood obesity includes improving nutrition in schools. Recent data suggest that almost 20 percent of elementary school children nationwide are obese. Policies that limit junk food sold in schools have been linked with less obesity among students, said C. Tracy Orleans, a senior scientist at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which paid for the study.
The study appears in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, released Monday. Robinson wrote an accompanying editorial. Anti-obesity advocates also have pushed to remove sugary sodas from schools, and some states and schools have enacted bans. Also, a 2010 report found a big decline in sales of these drinks to schools during some of the years studied. The new study, which focused only on foods, is based on surveys mailed to principals at public and private elementary schools. Nearly 4,000 responded, or more than half of those contacted. The participating schools were nationally representative and there were no geographic or economic differences in schools that didn’t respond that would affect the results, Turner said.
Overall, about 45 percent of schools sold sugary and salty snacks. Some schools sold low-fat salty snacks and baked goods, including pretzels and low-fat ice cream, but their high sugar or salt content makes them a poor choice, Turner said. Candy, salty snacks and regular-fat baked goods were more common at private schools than public schools; and low-fat ice cream was more common at both types of schools than full-fat ice cream snacks. The study authors say their results should encourage the U.S. Department of Agriculture to crack down on junk food in schools. A law enacted in December 2010, after the study ended, gives the agency authority to do so, and it is developing changes.
Before that measure, USDA policy restricted schools from selling foods “of minimal nutritional value” during mealtimes. Under the new law, the agency can set nutrition standards for all foods sold in U.S. schools.
Another USDA change announced last month focuses on making school lunches healthier, with changes including less sodium and more whole grains. The changes affecting snack foods “need to be comprehensive, they need to be strong, they need to be specific,” and they could be “a game-changer,” said Orleans. A website for the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service says restricting these foods can pose challenges for schools, because many rely on sales of snack foods to boost revenue. But it also explains why changes are needed.
“The constant availability of foods and beverages may increase the likelihood of impulse buying and contribute to overeating by some students,” the USDA website says. It lists states and school districts that have imposed some restrictions on these foods.
January 14, 2012
Most people drink diet soda in an effort to take in fewer calories, to help keep their weight down or take some off.
But a recent study shows drinking it could have unexpected consequences – namely, the OPPOSITE of what consumers intended.
The study, which was cited in EatingWell magazine, was done at the University of Texas. It showed that people who drank two or more diet sodas daily had a six-times-greater increase in waist circumference at the end of the 10-year study span those who didn’t drink diet soda at all.
On “CBS This Morning: Saturday,” contributor Dr. Holly Phillips served up the skinny on diet soda. To see her discussion, including possible reasons a product seen as a weight loss aid appears to act as the opposite, click on the video above.
January 9, 2012
By Tara Green
While drinking Mountain Dew, have you ever seen (or perhaps felt on your tongue) a thick, jelly-like substance? Maybe you assumed the ingredients in the soda had gelled. According to Mountain Dew manufacturer Pepsi, you may have been ingesting some extra protein with your beverage in the form of a liquified rodent.
An Illinois man is suing Pepsi, claiming he found a mouse in his can of Mountain Dew. Ronald Bell of Edwardsville, a small town near St. Louis, alleges there was a mouse in a can of soda he purchased and drank in 2009. Bell says he spit out the mouse and called the company to complain. At the soda manufacturer’s request, he sent them the mouse corpse. Pepsi had a veterinary pathologist examine the body. Their scientific expert found the rodent could not have been in the can since the soda case was sealed in August 2008, and its body would have dissolved as a result of the acid in the soda.
Bell says that Pepsi destroyed the evidence in the case and is seeking judgment. Pepsi’s legal team has moved to dismiss the case. Bell’s suit initially also involved the owners of the convenience store chain where he purchased the beverage, but those defendants have been dropped from the case and an amended suit was filed. The trial was set to begin in late 2011; however a Madison County Circuit Court judge granted Pepsi another month to argue for dismissal.
November 2, 2011
By Kelly Brownell
Today’s children will be the first generation in the history of the country to lead shorter lives than their parents did. There are several contributors to this dim picture, but obesity leads the list.
Many things are being done to help prevent obesity in children and teens. One of the most visible is the effort by cities, states, and even entire countries to wage war on beverages with added sugar. What was once a simple landscape with only a few flagship beverages like Coke, Pepsi, and 7 Up has morphed into entire new categories of drinks with sugar — sweetened teas, vitamin waters, sports drinks, and energy drinks are examples. Collectively, these beverages are referred to as soda, soft drinks, pop, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sugary drinks — all terms referring to drinks high in sugar and containing little or no nutrition. In the 1990s, consumption of sugary drinks overtook milk consumption in the U.S., a trend that makes health experts cringe.
There is a long list of reasons why these beverages are bad actors:
They are the single greatest source of added sugar in the American diet and add little or no nutrition.
The body does not seem to recognize calories very well when they are delivered in liquids, hence sugary drinks appear to fool the body’s feelings of being full.
There is very clear evidence linking consumption of these beverages with elevated risk for obesity and diabetes.
There is massive marketing.
The health consequences of consuming sugary drinks are well known. It is not surprising, therefore, that groups such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and other groups have said that consumption is too high and needs to come down.
What has been missing from this picture is a detailed analysis of how the industry markets these products to the most vulnerable segment of our population: children. It is important to know this in order to help establish government policies on whether children should be protected from this influence, and also test whether the industry is holding true to its promises to market less to this age group.
The beverage industry, dominated by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, is represented by a trade association called the American Beverage Association (ABA). The beverage companies have made a number of promises that it will market less to children. Coca-Cola, for example, claims they “…will not place any of [their] brands’ marketing in television, radio, and print programming that is primarily directed to children under the age of 12…” Some industry critics believe that the chief aim of such promises is to court public trust and to convince legislators that government intervention is not necessary. Objective information is needed to see whether industry promises are kept and whether, in fact, children are exposed to less marketing of products that may cause harm.
Our group at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University has just released the most extensive analysis ever of the marketing of sugary drinks to children and teenagers. This new report found that children are exposed to more — not less — advertising for sugary drinks than they were several years ago, and that the companies are finding new and sophisticated ways to reach youth.
Our study looked at 14 beverage companies and examined the nutritional quality of nearly 600 products, including full-calorie soda, energy drinks, fruit drinks, flavored water, sports drinks, and iced teas, as well as diet energy drinks and diet children’s fruit drinks. Some key findings:
October 26, 2011
The Epoch Times
By Epoch Times Staff
Adolescents who drink over five cans of regular fizzy drinks weekly may be more likely to behave aggressively, including carrying a weapon and behaving violently towards peers and siblings, according to a new U.S. study.
The research was based on a biennial survey of 1,878 teenagers aged 14 to 18 at schools in Boston, Mass.
The number of carbonated non-diet soft drinks that each youth had drunk in the past week was measured to create two groups—low consumption (up to four cans), and high consumption (five or more cans).
Just under 30 percent of the participants were found to be in the high consumption group. The researchers found that people in this group were more likely to have drunk alcohol and smoked at least once during the last month.
They were also more likely to carry a gun or knife, and perpetrate violence towards friends and family members.
“There was a significant and strong association between soft drinks and violence,” wrote the researchers in their paper. “There may be a direct cause-and-effect relationship, perhaps due to the sugar or caffeine content of soft drinks, or there may be other factors, unaccounted for in our analyses, that cause both high soft drink consumption and aggression.”
A dose-response relationship was discovered when these results were split into four consumption categories, despite controlling for factors like drinking alcohol and smoking.
“We thought that when we controlled for cigarettes and tobacco, the effect would disappear. But instead, soft drink consumption was still what mattered,” said study co-author Sara Solnick at the University of Vermont, according to CTV News. “Even if kids used tobacco or alcohol, or they did not, it still boosted the risk.”
The number of people carrying a weapon rose from just over 23 percent in those who drank one or no cans of soft drink to just under 43 percent in those drinking 14 or more cans. Similarly, violent behavior rose as follows:
From 15 percent to 27 percent towards a partner;
From 35 percent to 58 percent towards peers;
From 25 percent to more than 43 percent towards siblings.
Overall, the researchers found that high consumption of regular fizzy drinks was associated with an increase in aggressive behavior of 9 to 15 percent. This correlation is also seen with alcohol and tobacco.
“We can’t explain why this is happening,” Solnick added. “What we have now is just an association. People who are involved in a lot of aggression also drink more soda and we don’t know why.”
Today, Kevin explains where every ailment, every sickness, and every disease can be traced back to and how natural remedies are more effective than drugs and surgery.
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Recently, the President of the Corn Refiners Association left a comment on KTRadioNetwork.com defending their stance on high fructose corn syrup.
First of all, who is the Corn Refiners Association? It is an association that gets their money from all the corn refiners and corn producers. They give this association a mandate; do everything you can so that we can continue to sell huge amounts of high fructose corn syrup. Their goal is to increase the sale and usage of high fructose corn syrup. That is what they were set up to accomplish.
Click here to read the comment and Kevin’s response: http://bit.ly/qUR055
Yours in health…