Sugar Kills ???

Sugar Industry Influenced Studies???

baby-is-shockedpublished by Robert Zito

“I don’t have a whole lot to say about this” …. said one young child.

Shocking?  Not really. Not even to my nine year old.

Imagine the industry that demanded that Congress (in 2003), to end millions in funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), if they did not scrap their guidelines for sugar consumption.  In a letter to Gro Harlem Brundtland, the WHO’s director general, the Sugar Association said it will “exercise every avenue available to expose the dubious nature” of the WHO’s report on diet and nutrition, including challenging its $406m (£260m) funding from the US.

The industry was furious at the guidelines, which say that sugar should account for no more than 10% of a healthy diet. It claims that the review by international experts which decided on the 10% limit is scientifically flawed, insisting that other evidence indicates that 25% of our food and drink intake can safely consist of sugar.

“Taxpayers’ dollars should not be used to support misguided, non-science-based reports which do not add to the health and well-being of Americans, much less the rest of the world,” said the letter. “If necessary we will promote and encourage new laws which require future WHO funding to be provided only if the organisation accepts that all reports must be supported by the preponderance of science.”

The association, together with six other big food industry groups, also wroten to the US health secretary, Tommy Thompson, asking him to use his influence to get the WHO report withdrawn. The coalition includes the US Council for International Business, comprising more than 300 companies, including Coca-Cola and Pepsico.

The report, Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases, has already been heavily criticized by the soft drinks industry, whose members sell virtually everywhere in the world, including developing countries where malnutrition is beginning to coexist with the obesity common in affluent countries.

The industry does not accept the WHO report’s conclusion that sweetened soft drinks contribute to the obesity pandemic. The Washington-based National Soft Drink Association said the report’s “recommendation on added sugars is too restrictive”. The association backs a 25% limit.

For more info on this subject go to:

Now I have had a lot of people ask me in the past few days about the news report over doctors now believing that sugar causes heart disease, that I could not take being silent anymore.

  1. It is a historical analysis of internal industry in JAMA.
  2. They discovered in their infinite wisdom, that prior to 1984 there were numerous , highly influential articles that were actually wrote & paid for by the sugar industry. They were designed to point the finger of blame at Saturated Fats not Sugar.
  3. (This last one may be a little over stated by me) Anyone who ever had a loved one die because of heart disease should be filing there law suites against the sugar industry. This, for knowingly contributing to the death of their family members, by concealing and conspiring to hide truth about sugar and its’ correlation to Coronary Heart Disease.

As a favor I have gone out and found the article for you. If you would like to read the un-highlighted version go to JAMA:

Let me point out that:


Discount Noted Studies and Pay for Contradictory Information

After all, they did learn this from the Tobacco Industry.

One last thing…   To understand what sugar is, you need to know that sucrose (table sugar) is a glucose molecule attached to a fructose molecule by a single,weak, hydrogen bond. It is so weak that it breaks down the moment to touches the saliva on your mouth.Sucrose_ball-and-stick

Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research      

A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry

Cristin E. Kearns, DDS, MBA1,2; Laura A. Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH1,3,4; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD1,5,6,7,8       [+] Author Affiliations

JAMA Intern Med. Published online September 12, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394


Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.  The Sugar Research Foundation (now called the Sugar Association)


In the 1950s, disproportionately high rates of coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in American men led to studies of the role of dietary factors, including cholesterol, phytosterols, excessive calories, amino acids, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals in influencing CHD risk.1 By the 1960s, 2 prominent physiologists we are championing divergent causal hypotheses of CHD2,3: John Yudkin identified added sugars as the primary agent, while Ancel Keys identified total fat, saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol. However, by the 1980s, few scientists believed that added sugars played a significant role in CHD, and the first 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans4 focused on reducing total fat, saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol for CHD prevention.

Although the contribution of dietary sugars to CHD is still debated, what is clear is that the sugar industry, led by the Sugar Association, the sucrose industry’s Washington, DC–based trade association,5 steadfastly denies that there is a relationship between added sugar consumption and CVD risk.6,7 This Special Communication uses internal sugar industry documents to describe how the industry sought to influence the scientific debate over the dietary causes of CHD in the 1950s and 1960s, a debate still reverberating in 2016.


The Sugar Association evolved from the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), founded in 1943.8 We located correspondence between the SRF and Roger Adams, a professor who served on the SRF’s scientific advisory board (SAB) between 1959 and 1971, in the University of Illinois Archives9 (319 documents totaling 1551 pages). We located correspondence between the SRF and D. Mark Hegsted, professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and codirector of the SRF’s first CHD research project from 1965 to 1966,10 in the Harvard Medical Library11 (27 documents totaling 31 pages).

We collected additional SRF materials through a WorldCat search including annual reports, symposium proceedings, and internal reviews of research. We reviewed historical reports and statements contextualizing scientific debates in the 1950s and 1960s on dietary factors causally related to CHD published by the National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council (NAS-NRC), US Public Health Service, the American Heart Association (AHA), and American Medical Association (AMA). Findings were assembled chronologically into a narrative case study.


     SRF’s Interest in Promoting a Low-Fat Diet to Prevent CHD

Sugar Research Foundation president Henry Hass’s 1954 speech, “What’s New in Sugar Research,”12 to the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists identified a strategic opportunity for the sugar industry: increase sugar’s market share by getting Americans to eat a lower-fat diet: “Leading nutritionists are pointing out the chemical connection between [American’s] high-fat diet and the formation of cholesterol which partly plugs our arteries and capillaries, restricts the flow of blood, and causes high blood pressure and heart trouble… if you put [the middle-aged man] on a low-fat diet, it takes just five days for the blood cholesterol to get down to where it should be… If the carbohydrate industries were to recapture this 20 percent of the calories in the US diet (the difference between the 40 percent which fat has and the 20 percent which it ought to have) and if sugar maintained its present share of the carbohydrate market, this change would mean an increase in the per ca-pita consumption of sugar more than a third with a tremendous improvement in general health.”12

The industry would subsequently spend $600 000 ($5.3 million in 2016 dollars) to teach “people who had never had a course in biochemistrythat sugar is what keeps every human being alive and with energy to face our daily problems.”12

     Growing Evidence That Sucrose Elevates Serum Cholesterol Level

In 1962, the SRF became concerned with evidence showing that a low-fat diet high in sugar could elevate serum cholesterol level. At its November 1962 SAB meeting,13 the SRF considered an AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition report, The Regulation of Dietary Fat,14 that, according to the SRF, “indicate[d] that, in low fat diets, the kind of carbohydrate ingested may have an influence on the formation of serum cholesterol.”13 The SAB concluded, “that research developments in the [CHD] field should be watched carefully.”13 The SRF’s vice president and director of research, John Hickson, started closely monitoring the field.15

In December 1964, Hickson reported to an SRF subcommittee15 that new CHD research was a cause for concern: “From a number of laboratories of greater or lesser repute, there are flowing reports that sugar is a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates, eg,—Yudkin.”15 Since 1957, British physiologist John Yudkin16 had challenged population studies singling out saturated fat as the primary dietary cause of CHD and suggested that other factors, including sucrose, were at least equally important.17,18

Hickson proposed that the SRF “could embark on a major program” to counter Yudkin and other “negative attitudes toward sugar.15 He recommended an opinion poll “to learn what public concepts we should reinforce and what ones we need to combat through our research and information and legislative programs” and a symposium to “bring detractors before a board of their peers where their fallacies could be unveiled.”15 Finally, he recommended that SRF fund CHD research: “There seems to be a question as to whether the [atherogenic] effects are due to the carbohydrate or to other nutrient imbalance. We should carefully review the reports, probably with a committee of nutrition specialists; see what weak points there are in the experimentation, and replicate the studies with appropriate corrections. Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors.”15

In 1965, the SRF asked Fredrick Stare, chair of the Harvard University School of Public Health Nutrition Department19 to join its SAB as an ad hoc member.20 Stare was an expert in dietary causes of CHD and had been consulted by the NAS,1 National Heart Institute,21 and AHA,22 as well as by food companies and trade groups.19Stare’s industry-favorable positions and financial ties would not be widely questioned until the 1970s.23

     Link Between Sucrose and Elevated Serum Triglyceride Level

On July 1, 1965, the SRF’s Hickson visited D. Mark Hegsted, a faculty member of Stare’s department,24,25 after publication of articles in Annals of Internal Medicine in June 196526– 29 linking sucrose to CHD. The first 2 articles26,27 reported results from an epidemiological study suggesting that blood glucose levels were a better predictor of atherosclerosis than serum cholesterol level or hypertension. The third28(p210)demonstrated that sucrose, more than starches, aggravated carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia and hypothesized that “perhaps fructose, a constituent of sucrose but not of starch, [was] the agent mainly responsible.” An accompanying editorial29(p1330) argued that these findings corroborated Yudkin’s research and that if elevated serum triglyceride levels were a CHD risk factor, then “sucrose must be atherogenic.”

On July 11, 1965, the New York Herald Tribune ran a full-page article on the Annals articles stating that new research “threatened to tie the whole business [of diet and heart disease] in a knot.”30 It explained that, while sugar’s association with atherosclerosis was once thought to be theoretical and supported by limited studies, the new research strengthened the case that sugar increased the risk of heart attacks.

     SRF Funds Project 226: A Literature Review on Sugars, Fats, and CHD

On July 13, 1965, 2 days after the Tribune article, the SRF’s executive committee approved Project 226,31 a literature review on “Carbohydrates and Cholesterol Metabolism” by Hegsted and Robert McGandy, overseen by Stare.10 The SRF initially offered $500 ($3800 in 2016 dollars) to Hegsted and $1000 ($7500 in 2016 dollars) to McGandy, “half to be paid when you start work on the project, and the remainder when you inform me that the article has been accepted for publication.”31 Eventually, the SRF would pay them $650032 ($48 900 in 2016 dollars) for “a review article of the several papers which find some special metabolic peril in sucrose and, in particular, fructose.”31

On July 23, 1965, Hegsted asked Hickson to provide articles relevant to the reviews.33 Most of the articles Hickson sent34– 40 contained findings that could threaten sugar sales, which suggests that the industry expected the review authors to critique them. Hickson also sent the Tribune article30 and a letter to the editor that criticized findings questioning the therapeutic value of corn oil.41,42

On July 30, 1965, Hickson emphasized the SRF’s objective for funding the literature review to Hegsted: “Our particular interest had to do with that part of nutrition in which there are claims that carbohydrates in the form of sucrose make an inordinate contribution to the metabolic condition, hitherto ascribed to aberrations called fat metabolism. I will be disappointed if this aspect is drowned out in a cascade of review and general interpretation.”34

In response, Hegsted assured Hickson that “We are well aware of your particular interest in carbohydrate and will cover this as well as we can.”43

Nine months into the project, in April 1966, Hegsted told the SRF that the review had been delayed because of new evidence linking sugar to CHD: “Every time the Iowa group publishes a paper we have to rework a section in rebuttal [emphasis added].”44 The “Iowa group” included Alfredo Lopez, Robert Hodges, and Willard Krehl, who had reported a positive association between sugar consumption and elevated serum cholesterol level.45

It is not clear whether the SRF commented on or edited drafts of the review. However, on September 6, 1966, Hickson asked Hegsted, “Am I going to get another copy of the draft shortly?”40 suggesting Hickson had been involved. Hegsted responded on September 29, “I expect to get it down to you within a week or two.46 Hickson received the final draft on October 25, 1966, a few days before Hegsted intended to submit it for publication.47 On November 2, Hickson told Hegsted, “Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print.”47

     Publication of Project 226

Project 226 resulted in a 2-part literature review by McGandy, Hegsted, and Stare “Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Disease,” in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1967.48,49 Industry and non-industry funding of the review authors’ experimental research was disclosed, but the SRF’s funding and participation in the review was not. Evidence reported in the review was relevant to 2 questions: (1) Does the high sucrose content of the American diet cause CHD? and (2) What is the comparative effectiveness of interventions modifying the sucrose or saturated fat content of the diet for the prevention of CHD? The review concluded there was “no doubt” that the only dietary intervention required to prevent CHD was to reduce dietary cholesterol and substitute polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat in the American diet.49(p246)

     High Sucrose Content of the American Diet and CHD

The review summarized findings from epidemiologic, experimental, and mechanistic studies examining the role of sucrose in CHD (see eTable 1 in the Supplement). It reported that epidemiologic studies showed a positive association between high sucrose consumption and CHD outcomes48(pp187-189)and that experimental studies showed that sucrose caused serum cholesterol and serum triglyceride levels to rise in healthy individuals,48(pp190-192) and serum triglyceride levels to rise in those with hypertriglyceridemia.49(pp242-243) Finally, it reported that mechanistic studies demonstrated the biological plausibility of (1) sucrose affecting serum cholesterol level mediated through changes to the intestinal microbiome,49(p243) and (2) fructose, a component of sucrose, affecting serum triglyceride levels mediated through endogenous lipogenesis in the liver, adipose tissues, and other organs.49(pp244-246)

The review evaluated the quality of individual studies, including the work of Yudkin and the Iowa Group48(pp187-188) (see eTables 1 and 2 in the Supplement), investigators whom the SRF had identified as threatening before initiating the review15 and in correspondence while it was being prepared.34,44 The review discounted these studies on the grounds that they contained questionable data or incorrect interpretation.48(pp187-189)49(pp242-243) (WHAT???? that what they said in 2003 to the WHO) It questioned whether entire classes of evidence were relevant (see eTables 1 and 3 in the Supplement). It discounted epidemiologic evidence for identifying dietary causes of CHD because of multifactorial confounding 48(p188) and experimental evidence from short-term studies using large doses of sucrose because they were not comparable with amounts typically consumed in the American diet.48(pp191-192) It discounted mechanistic studies conducted with fructose or glucose, not sucrose, (HELLO!!! Fructose + Glucose = Sucrose) 49(p244) and animal evidence because of species differences and because people rarely consumed low-fat diets typically fed to rats.49(pp243-244) Overall, the review focused on possible bias in individual studies and types of evidence rather than on consistency across studies and the coherence of epidemiologic, experimental and mechanistic evidence.

     Comparative Effectiveness of Dietary Interventions for the      Prevention of CHD

The NEJM review summarized findings from human randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of sucrose interventions on serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels in healthy and hypertriglyceridemic individuals, and the effect of fat interventions on serum cholesterol levels in healthy persons (see eTable 4 in theSupplement). Regarding sucrose interventions, it argued that substituting fat for sucrose caused a large improvement in serum triglyceride levels in healthy individuals,48(p190) substituting starch for sucrose caused a large improvement in serum triglyceride levels in patients with hypertriglyceridemia,49(pp242-243) and that substituting leguminous vegetables for sucrose caused a large improvement in serum cholesterol levels in healthy individuals.48(pp190-191) Finally, it reported that substituting starch for sucrose caused a small improvement in serum cholesterol levels in healthy individuals.48(pp190-191) Regarding fat interventions, the review reported that reducing dietary cholesterol and substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat caused a large improvement in serum cholesterol level in healthy persons.48(pp189-190)

The review discounted RCTs that had shown that substituting starch for sucrose had a large effect on improving serum triglyceride levels and implied that only studies that had used serum cholesterol level as a biomarker of CHD risk should be used to compare the efficacy of sucrose interventions to fat interventions (see eTable 4 in theSupplement). The review then discounted RCTs that had shown that substituting fat or vegetables for sucrose had a large effect on improving serum cholesterol level, by arguing this intervention was infeasible48(p191) (see eTables 4 and 5 in theSupplement). Substituting refined starches (sweetened with artificial sweeteners) for sucrose, despite being feasible, was dismissed because the magnitude of effect on serum cholesterol level was minimal compared with reducing dietary cholesterol level and substituting polyunsaturated for saturated fat.48(pp190-191)

Unlike its summary of sucrose intervention RCTs, the review reported few study characteristics and no quantitative results in its summary of fat intervention RCTs.48(pp189-190) Consulting the original fat intervention RCTs reveals that the review overstated the consistency of studies (see eTable 6 in the Supplement). Only 1 RCT, conducted by Hegsted et al,50 concluded that reducing dietary cholesterol and substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat substantially improved serum cholesterol levels. Consulting the original clinical studies cited to substantiate reducing dietary cholesterol and substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat reveals that they were not well controlled. Despite arguing earlier in the review that epidemiologic evidence was irrelevant to determining dietary causes of CHD,48(pp187-189) the review implied that the epidemiologic evidence pointed to dietary cholesterol and saturated fat as the primary dietary causes of CHD.49(p246) The review argued that the lack of mechanistic evidence confirming the biological plausibility that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat raised serum cholesterol levels was unimportant.49(p246)Finally, the review emphasized that polyunsaturated fats were readily available and would be well accepted as substitute for saturated fats in the American diet.49(p246)


These internal documents show that the SRF initiated CHD research in 1965 to protect market share and that its first project, a literature review, was published in NEJM in 1967 without disclosure of the sugar industry’s funding or role. The NEJM review served the sugar industry’s interests by arguing that epidemiologic, animal, and mechanistic studies associating sucrose with CHD were limited, implying they should not be included in an evidentiary assessment of the CHD risks of sucrose. Instead, the review argued that the only evidence modality needed to yield a definitive answer to the question of how to modify the American diet to prevent CHD was RCTs that exclusively used serum cholesterol level as a CHD biomarker. Randomized clinical trials using serum cholesterol level as the CHD biomarker made the high sucrose content of the American diet seem less hazardous than if the entire body of evidence had been considered.

Following the NEJM review, the sugar industry continued to fund research on CHD and other chronic diseases “as a main prop of the industry’s defense.”51 For example, in 1971, it influenced the National Institute of Dental Research’s National Caries Program to shift its emphasis to dental caries interventions other than restricting sucrose.8 The industry commissioned a review, “Sugar in the Diet of Man,” which it credited with, among other industry tactics, favorably influencing the 1976 US Food and Drug Administration evaluation of the safety of sugar.51 These findings, our analysis, and current Sugar Association criticisms of evidence linking sucrose to cardiovascular disease6,7 suggest the industry may have a long history of influencing federal policy.

This historical account of industry efforts demonstrates the importance of having reviews written by people without conflicts of interest and the need for financial disclosure. Scientific reviews shape policy debates, subsequent investigations, and the funding priorities of federal agencies.52 The NEJM has required authors to disclose all conflicts of interest since 1984,53 and conflict of interest disclosure policies have been widely implemented since the sugar industry launched its CHD research program. Whether current conflict of interest policies are adequate to withstand the economic interests of industry remains unclear.54

Many industries sponsor research to influence assessments of the risks and benefits of their products.55– 57 The influence of industry sponsorship on nutrition research is receiving increased scrutiny.58 Access to documents not meant for public consumption has provided the public health community unprecedented insight into industry motives, strategies, tactics, and data designed to protect companies from litigation and regulation.59 This insight has been a major factor behind successful global tobacco control policies.(I did not make that up)60 Our analysis suggests that research using sugar industry documents has the potential to inform the health community about how to counter this industry’s strategies and tactics to control information on the adverse health effects of sucrose.

Study Limitations

The Roger Adams papers and other documents used in this research provide a narrow window into the activities of 1 sugar industry trade association; therefore, it is difficult to validate that the documents gathered are representative of the entirety of SRF internal materials related to Project 226 from the 1950s and 1960s or that the proper weight was given to each data source. There is no direct evidence that the sugar industry wrote or changed the NEJM review manuscript; the evidence that the industry shaped the review’s conclusions is circumstantial. We did not analyze the role of other organizations, nutrition leaders, or food industries that advocated that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol were the main dietary cause of CHD. We could not interview key actors involved in this historical episode because they have died.


This study suggests that the sugar industry sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965 to downplay early warning signals that sucrose consumption was a risk factor in CHD. As of 2016, sugar control policies are being promulgated in international,61federal,62,63 state, and local venues.64 Yet CHD risk is inconsistently cited as a health consequence of added sugars consumption. Because CHD is the leading cause of death globally, the health community should ensure that CHD risk is evaluated in future risk assessments of added sugars. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies, and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.65



by Robert Zito 10/12/2015


My apologies for not writing for a while, my priorities have been focused on expanding BUT…

Sometimes you hear something that forces you to speak out. This morning in Dallas, it was the news loop that kept running about a local college football coach that had come back from a quadruple bypass. The news said he had led a healthy lifestyle and he attributed his condition to a family history of heart disease. I was very glad for his successful outcome. He even gave out a good message about listening to your warning signs and not to put off going to the doctor to have them checked out. Now, without knowing his family’s health history, I cannot say for certain that he has a genetic predisposition, but what too many people believe is that heart disease, like obesity, is out of their control.  I was a little saddened for all those who struggle daily, that this again was the message being promoted through the media. The great news is the media has it wrong. It is not out of your control. Genetics may be a precursor, but it is not your fate.

But the story went on with the coach attributing exercise for his fast recovery. Well, I thought maybe he should attribute a little to the doctors who opened up all the major arteries around his heart which allowed his blood to flow properly. It is a common statement among patients to say that they have not had this much energy in years.

What finally got me was the last and most resonating statement that everyone should exercise more. He said that, “obesity is a large problem in America and more people should get active, stop playing video games and they would lose weight. Then I felt really sad.  There again is that incorrect message  – exercise can combat calories and induce weight loss. Let me just say, again – WRONG!  


Where do I start? Oh, STOP EATING SUGAR!  Just, ONE can of soda or sugary drink with 44 grams of sugar has 1.5 times the suggested daily allotment. It’s worse if you are a women and doubles again for a child. But you probably don’t know that because the Sugar Industry in America has fought to keep the percentage number off the nutritional labels. That is right! Go Look! Check your Cereal box, your bread, your salad dressing, your Coke can, your Gatorade.

How are you supposed to know how much sugar is too much?

It’s the big secret the food industry does not want you to know! 

According to the American Heart Association (AHA), the maximum amount of added sugars you should eat in a day are (1):

Men:  150 calories per day (37.5 grams or 9 teaspoons).

Women:  100 calories per day (25 grams or 6 teaspoons).

Children 4-8:  48 calories per day (12 grams or 3 teaspoons).

Teens:  80 calories per day (20 grams or 5 teaspoons).

(The one soft drink alone is above your limit with 11 teaspoons of sugar.) I bet if you added your daily sugar intake you be shocked. Average Adults consumes 22 teaspoons or 88 grams of added sugar and the average child consumes 32 teaspoons of added sugar.  Forbes. The sad truth is we are hurting our children by giving them over 10 times the amount of sugar they should have.

A good source of information is the Movie FED UP . I wanted to see it when it came out in the theaters, but it was in very few cities and I could not find show times when it was to be in Dallas. (It was not for the lack of looking). Go to: released September 9, 2014 on video

Note: This film addresses the issue of sugar and obesity on the most basic, basic, did I say basic level?  My seven year old son gets it. Still, it is loaded with some alarming facts. One of which… is to what extent the food giants and the sugar industry have gone to cover up just how bad sugar is harming you. Also, how the Sugar Industry used extortion tactics to bully the World Health Organization (WHO), from lowering their recommend level, for the consumption of sugar.

I wanted to see it because it has all the leading medical doctors that I have been quoting on the subject of over consumption of sugar and disease, for the past few years. Among a few are (Robert H Lustig MD, Neuroendocrinologist – Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at University of California, San Francisco, and Director of the Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health (WATCH) Program at UCSF); (Mark Hyman MD  (Chairman of the Institute for Functional Medicine awarded its 2009 Linus Pauling Award for Leadership in Functional Medicine& currently medical editor at the Huffington Post); David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD (pediatrician & endocrinologist at Children’s Hospital, Boston. Holds the position of Professor in Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Professor in Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health.); are just a few of many of the highest qualified people who speak out.  All of who will state that:


Let’s do the math: 1 gram of sugar equals 4 calories. Walking a 20 minute mile will burn around 58 calories (burning 14.5 grams). I say walk, because a 400 pound child cannot and should not run the mile. An average child is consuming 128 grams of sugar and the more severely obese consume twice that amount. There are not enough hours in the day to ever burn, “through exercise” just the added sugars being consumed.


They need education about diet and nutrition and school’s to take back their food programs from the big food companies who are feeding our future generation sugar loaded garbage. Aerobic Exercise is very important in the growth of new neurons in the brain. It is most important to help protect these kids from brain disorders like Dementia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, depression and schizophrenia later in life. Once they become diabetic, their risk can increase more than 200 percent for getting these disorders. It is the inflammation caused by sugar that does the damage to our organs. Glycation will occur when blood sugar is elevated. Sugar interferes and bonds with proteins that are need by organs such as the brain. In turn, those damaged protein attach to the neurons. Your body recognizes something is wrong and sends out an immune response. (inflammation) Please read Dr. David Perlmutter’s Grain Brain and Dr. Robert H Lustig’s; Fat Chance – Beating the Odds Against Sugar and watch his video The bitter truth about Sugar  to understand the full scope of this epidemic.

When I heard the coach say for people to stop sitting around and eating. I obviously knew he does not understand that this is the effect of the disease. Sugar, and the inflammation that follows, highjacks the hormones and robs you of energy while at the same time inhibits the production of chemicals which tells the brain to turn off the hunger sensation. Not to mention insulin resistance. Also, their microbiome has been hijacked due to the over consumption of sugar. The balance of good and bad bacteria in their guts is completely out of balance which creates a cascading and devastating series of heath issues.

Have you heard the term Skinny – Fat? The Huffington Post is one of many articles quoting studies.

  • 68 percent of the American population is overweight.
  • One-third of kids are overweight or obese in America.
  • If you are a skinny fat person and get diagnosed with diabetes, you have twice the risk of death.
  • Almost 4 out of 10 normal-weight kids are pre-diabetic.
  • Only about 20 percent of children in America are healthy.
  • 8 out of 10 children in America are overweight or have pre-diabetes or Type 2 diabetes.

Too often people think they are healthy because they look fit.  GET YOUR (RESTED) INSULIN LEVEL CHECKED. Doctors always have you fast the night before and then measure for blood sugar. Wrong test. Get measured for your RESTED insulin. That tells you how hard your Pancreas is working. The Pancreas is what produces insulin, regulates blood sugar and can compensate for high blood sugar. Thus a false assumption may be made from the result. Overworking the Pancreas is a not a good thing. Also, read up on Insulin Resistance, it not only shuts down your muscles, but impedes brain function. While you are at the doctor, get tested for Gluten Allergies, too.

A little over one year ago, while reading Dr. Perlmutter’s – Brain Grain, I decided to go Gluten Free. I was already on a low carb eater, but once I cut out Gluten, my life long battle with Dyslexia disappeared in under two weeks. More to come about my Gluten epiphany. Thank you Dr. Perlmutter for helping me understand that the proteins that react to Gluten are different for everyone.  I then spent a lot of time trying to come up with good gluten free options for things like cakes and pizza crusts. But I quickly learned that these flours are even higher on the Glycemic Index. About three month after that I read Dr. William Davis’s second book, Wheat Belly, Total Heath. This helped connect the dots that GRAINS are the true culprit. In the year since I have manged to lose almost all my visceral (belly and kidney) fat, by going grain free. Once off grains I found little hunger cravings and general overall sense of well being was heightened.

Also, read Dr. David Perlmutter’s – Brain Maker. It compiles noted research data from the past 20 years, and illustrates just how powerful the effect of gut bacteria has on your overall health.

A special thanks to:                                                                                                                              FED UP experts: Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D; Pres. Bill Clinton; Senator Tom Harkin; Dr. Mark Hyman; Dr. David Kessler; Risa Lavizzo-Mourey; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Dr. Robert Lustig; Michael Pollan; Margo Wootan; Michele Simon, JD, MPH, Eat Drink Politics; Katie Couric & Laurie David

Also, !!!!!  : for making all my points


We would like to re-post this information about sugar as a reminder for parents not to go overboard on that Easter candy. Learn why sugar was substituted for fat in processed foods. Also, see the correlation of sugar to diseases such as Hypertension, Diabetes, Obesity, Gout and Metabolic Syndrome.

COMING MAY 9th, 2014    FED UP

This film received a lot of attention at the Sundance Film Festival, it focuses on the sugar industry and its effect on the health of Americans. Experts Dr. Lustig, Dr. Kessler, Dr. Hyman and Dr. Ludwig all speak to this epidemic. Narrated by Katie Couric.

Is Sugar Toxic?
Is Sugar Toxic? 4/2012
60 Minutes2
Is Sugar Toxic? 8/2012
Sugar the Bitter Truth Dr. Robert H. Lustig
original pub 4/3/2012 last revised 4/8/2014

Please remember It All Adds Up. Take steps to reduce your sugar consumption. Beginning to educate yourself and understand how it effects your body. Please watch the 60 Minutes segment that aired a few months ago: Is Sugar Toxic? It is a great introduction to Dr. Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology: Sugar the Bitter Truth.

Understand just how bad Fructose and Sucrose are for our bodies.

A single bond links Fructose and Glucose to form Sucrose

Here are some Facts:

  • Adult women consume 335 more calories than just 10 years ago.
  • Sucrose is Fructose linked to Glucose.
  • All Calories are NOT equal
  • 100% of the calories from Fructose pass into the liver compared to 20% for Glucose.
  • The Liver is the only organ in our body that can process Fructose.
  • 30% of all Fructose consumed is converted into fat.  Glucose is almost none.
  • Fructose is (by definition) a toxin to your system.

For any parent who has handed their child a 20 ounce bottle of Gatorade, this is a must watch.  You need to understand that it is the equivalent of 5 servings for a child and contains 50% sucrose.

You may also view these videos in’s  Video library.

BPA FREE Plastics Are Not Safe…………. WAKE UP FDA.

posted by:  Robert Zito

We at Nuegreen have been writing about the hazards of parabens, that mimic estrogens, being used as preservatives  in cosmetics for the past several years. Calling on the FDA to re-investigate their 2005 findings. Almost every study (all 90) over the past several years have shown synthetic estrogens to be harmful and have also called the FDA ruling into question.  Since 2005, much more has been written on the study of free radical effects of estrogens and mutagenic activities, not just focusing on the estrogen receptor activity.

Regardless of your political ideology, the FDA needs the proper funding to become a relevant and trusted agency. Unsafe chemical additives are a risk to the health of Americans and have a direct impact on the rising cost of Health care. Whether it is High Fructose Corn Syrup causing Obesity or Plastics causing Cancer, this is definitely something that is  adversely effecting the productivity of the United States as a whole. An ounce of funding – would be a pound of cure.

The recent story by Mariah Blake of Mother Jones throws more light on what could be called a shell game of truth. The outcome of this game is your health. If re-posting her story gets one more person to read it, then we did our job.

This is a real issue. Dr. OZ’s video 3/5/14:  Everyday Foods the Experts Won’t Touch pt1; Everyday Foods the Experts Won’t Touch pt2

Photographs by Evan Kafka
Photographs by Evan Kafka

The Scary New Evidence on BPA-Free Plastics

And the Big Tobacco-style campaign to bury it.

Update (3/3/14): After this story went to press, the US Food and Drug Administration published a paper finding that BPA was safe in low doses. However, the underlying testing was done on a strain of lab rat known as the Charles River Sprague Dawley, which doesn’t readily respond to synthetic estrogens, such as BPA. And, due to laboratory contamination, all of the animals—including the control group—were exposed to this chemical. Academic scientists say this raises serious questions about the study’s credibility. Stay tuned for more in-depth reporting on the shortcomings of the FDA’s most recent study.

Each night at dinnertime, a familiar ritual played out in Michael Green’s home: He’d slide a stainless steel sippy cup across the table to his two-year-old daughter, Juliette, and she’d howl for the pink plastic one. Often, Green gave in. But he had a nagging feeling. As an environmental-health advocate, he had fought to rid sippy cups and baby bottles of the common plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA), which mimics the hormone estrogen and has been linked to a long list of serious health problems. Juliette’s sippy cup was made from a new generation of BPA-free plastics, but Green, who runs the Oakland, California-based Center for Environmental Health, had come across research suggesting some of these contained synthetic estrogens, too.

He pondered these findings as the center prepared for its anniversary celebration in October 2011. That evening, Green, a slight man with scruffy blond hair and pale-blue eyes, took the stage and set Juliette’s sippy cups on the podium. He recounted their nightly standoffs. “When she wins…every time I worry about what are the health impacts of the chemicals leaching out of that sippy cup,” he said, before listing some of the problems linked to those chemicals—cancer, diabetes, obesity. To help solve the riddle, he said, his organization planned to test BPA-free sippy cups for estrogenlike chemicals.

The center shipped Juliette’s plastic cup, along with 17 others purchased from Target, Walmart, and Babies R Us, to CertiChem, a lab in Austin, Texas. More than a quarter—including Juliette’s—came back positive for estrogenic activity. These results mirrored the lab’s findings in its broader National Institutes of Health-funded research on BPA-free plastics. CertiChem and its founder, George Bittner, who is also a professor of neurobiology at the University of Texas-Austin, had recently coauthored a paper in the NIH journal Environmental Health Perspectives. It reported that “almost all” commercially available plastics that were tested leached synthetic estrogens—even when they weren’t exposed to conditions known to unlock potentially harmful chemicals, such as the heat of a microwave, the steam of a dishwasher, or the sun’s ultraviolet rays. According to Bittner’s research, some BPA-free products actually released synthetic estrogens that were more potent than BPA.

Estrogen plays a key role in everything from bone growth to ovulation to heart function. Too much or too little, particularly in utero or during early childhood, can alter brain and organ development, leading to disease later in life. Elevated estrogen levels generally increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

Estrogenic chemicals found in many common products have been linked to a litany of problems in humans and animals. According to one study, the pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs female. DES, which was once prescribed to prevent miscarriages, caused obesity, rare vaginal tumors, infertility, and testicular growths among those exposed in utero. Scientists have tied BPA to ailments including asthma, cancer, infertility, low sperm count, genital deformity, heart disease, liver problems, and ADHD. “Pick a disease, literally pick a disease,” says Frederick vom Saal, a biology professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia who studies BPA.

sippy cupBPA exploded into the headlines in 2008, when stories about “toxic baby bottles” and “poison” packaging became ubiquitous. Good Morning America issued a “consumer alert.” The New York Times urged Congress to ban BPA in baby products. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) warned in the Huffington Post that “millions of infants are exposed to dangerous chemicals hiding in plain view.” Concerned parents purged their pantries of plastic containers, and retailers such as Walmart and Babies R Us started pulling bottles and sippy cups from shelves. Bills banning BPA in infant care items began to crop up in states around the country.

Today many plastic products, from sippy cups and blenders to Tupperware containers, are marketed as BPA-free. But Bittner’s findings—some of which have been confirmed by other scientists—suggest that many of these alternatives share the qualities that make BPA so potentially harmful.

Those startling results set off a bitter fight with the $375-billion-a-year plastics industry. The American Chemistry Council, which lobbies for plastics makers and has sought to refute the science linking BPA to health problems, has teamed up with Tennessee-based Eastman Chemical—the maker of Tritan, a widely used plastic marketed as being free of estrogenic activity—in a campaign to discredit Bittner and his research. The company has gone so far as to tell corporate customers that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejected Bittner’s testing methods. (It hasn’t.) Eastman also sued CertiChem and its sister company, PlastiPure, to prevent them from publicizing their findings that Tritan is estrogenic, convincing a jury that its product displayed no estrogenic activity. And it launched a PR blitz touting Tritan’s safety, targeting the group most vulnerable to synthetic estrogens: families with young children. “It can be difficult for consumers to tell what is really safe,” the vice president of Eastman’s specialty plastics division, Lucian Boldea, said in one web video, before an image of a pregnant woman flickered across the screen. With Tritan, he added, “consumers can feel confident that the material used in their products is free of estrogenic activity.”

“A poison kills you,” says biology professor Frederick vom Saal. “A chemical like BPA reprograms your cells and ends up causing a disease in your grandchild that kills him.”

Eastman’s offensive is just the latest in a wide-ranging industry campaign to cast doubt on the potential dangers of plastics in food containers, packaging, and toys—a campaign that closely resembles the methods Big Tobacco used to stifle scientific evidence about the dangers of smoking. Indeed, in many cases, the plastics and chemical industries have relied on the same scientists and consultants who defended Big Tobacco. These efforts, detailed in internal industry documents revealed during Bittner’s legal battle with Eastman, have sown public confusion and stymied US regulation, even as BPA bans have sprung up elsewhere in the world. They have also squelched debate about the safety of plastics more generally. All the while, evidence is mounting that the products so prevalent in our daily lives may be leaching toxic chemicals into our bodies, with consequences affecting not just us, but many generations to come.

The fight over the safety of plastics traces back to 1987, when Theo Colborn, a 60-year-old grandmother with a recent Ph.D. in zoology, was hired to investigate mysterious health problems in wildlife around the Great Lakes. Working for the Washington, DC-based Conservation Foundation (now part of the World Wildlife Fund), she began collecting research papers. Before long, her tiny office was stacked floor to ceiling with cardboard boxes of studies detailing a bewildering array of maladies—cancer, shrunken sexual organs, plummeting fertility, immune suppression, birds born with crossed beaks and missing eyes. Some species also suffered from a bizarre syndrome that caused seemingly healthy chicks to waste away and die.

While the afflictions and species varied widely, Colborn eventually realized they had two factors in common: The young were hardest hit, and, in one way or another, all of the animals’ symptoms were linked to the endocrine system, the network of glands that controls growth, metabolism, and brain function, with hormones as its chemical messengers. The system also plays a key role in fetal development. Colborn suspected that synthetic hormones in pesticides, plastics, and other products acted as “hand-me-down poisons,” with parents’ exposure causing affliction in their offspring. Initially, her colleagues were skeptical. But Colborn collected data and tissue samples from far-flung wildlife populations and unearthed previously overlooked studies that supported her theory. By 1996, when Colborn copublished her landmark book Our Stolen Future, she had won over many skeptics. Based partly on her research, Congress passed a law that year requiring the EPA to screen some 80,000 chemicals—most of which had never undergone any type of safety testing—for endocrine-disrupting effects and report back by 2000.

Around this time, the University of Missouri’s vom Saal, a garrulous biologist who previously worked as a bush pilot in Kenya, began studying the effects of synthetic estrogens on fetal mouse development. The first substance he tested was BPA, a chemical used in clear, hard plastics, particularly the variety known as polycarbonate, to make them more flexible and durable. (It’s also found in everyday items, from dental sealants and hospital blood bags to cash register receipts and the lining of tin cans.) Naturally occurring estrogens bind with proteins in the blood, limiting the amount that reaches estrogen receptors. But vom Saal found this wasn’t true of BPA, which bypassed the body’s natural barrier system and burrowed deep into the cells of laboratory mice.

Vom Saal suspected this would make BPA “a hell of a lot more potent” in small doses. Working with colleagues Susan Nagel and Wade Welshons, a professor of veterinary biology, he began testing the effects of BPA at amounts 25 times lower than the EPA’s safety threshold. In the late 1990s, they published two studies finding that male mice whose mothers were exposed to these low doses during pregnancy had enlarged prostates and low sperm counts. Even in microscopic quantities, it seemed, BPA could cause the kinds of dire health problems Colborn had found in wildlife. Before long, other scientists began turning up ailments among animals exposed to minute doses of BPA.

These findings posed a direct threat to plastics and chemical makers, which fought back using tactics the tobacco makers had refined to an art form. By the late 1990s, when tobacco companies agreed to drop deceptive marketing practices under a settlement agreement with 46 states, many of the scientists and consultants on the industry’s payroll transitioned seamlessly into defending BPA.

Plastics and chemical interests worked closely with the Weinberg Group, which had run Big Tobacco’s White Coat Projectan effort to recruit scientists to create doubt about the health effects of secondhand smoke. Soon Weinberg, which bills itself as a “product defense” firm, was churning out white papers and lobbying regulators. It also underwrote a trade group with its own scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, which published studies finding BPA was safe.

The industry also worked hand in glove with the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, a think tank affiliated with the university’s school of public health that has a history of accepting donations from corporations and then publishing research favorable to their products. In the early 1990s, its founder, John D. Graham—who was later tapped as George W. Bush’s regulatory czar—lobbied to quash an EPA finding that secondhand smoke caused lung cancer, while soliciting large contributions from Philip Morris.

tooth brushIn 2001, as studies on BPA stacked up, the American Chemistry Council enlisted the center to convene a panel of scientists to investigate low-dose BPA. The center paid panelists $12,000 to attend three meetings, according to Fast Company. Their final report, released in 2004, drew on just a few industry-favored studies and concluded that the evidence that low-dose BPA exposure harmed human health was “very weak.” By this point, roughly 100 studies on low-dose BPA were in circulation. Not a single industry-funded study found it harmful, but 90 percent of those by government-funded scientists discovered dramatic effects, ranging from an increased breast cancer risk to hyperactivity. Four of the 12 panelists later insisted the center scrub their names from the report because of questions about its accuracy.

Chemical interests, meanwhile, forged deep inroads with the Bush administration, allowing them to covertly steer the regulatory process. For decades, the Food and Drug Administration has assured lawmakers and the public that BPA is safe in low doses. But a 2008 investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed that the agency had relied on industry lobbyists to track and evaluate BPA research, and had based its safety assessment largely on two industry-funded studies—one of which had never been published or peer reviewed.

The panel, the EPA appointed to develop guidelines for its congressionally mandated endocrine disruptor screening was also stocked with industry-backed scientists. It included Chris Borgert, a toxicology consultant who had worked closely with Philip Morris to discredit EPA research on secondhand smoke. He later served as the president of the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, the Weinberg Group-sponsored outfit, which met in the offices of a plastics lobbyist.

Members of the EPA panel say Borgert seemed determined to sandbag the process. “He was always delaying, always trying to confuse the issue,” recalls one participant. And the screening approach the EPA settled on came straight from the industry’s playbook. Among other things, the chemicals would be tested on a type of rat known as the Charles River Sprague Dawley—which, oddly, doesn’t respond to synthetic hormones like BPA.

“Like the tobacco companies, they want to set up a standard of proof that is unreachable,” says Stanton Glantz. “If they set the standard of proof, they’ve won the fight.”

How best to test for estrogenic activity would become a key front in the fight over plastic safety. The American Chemistry Council joined forces with an unlikely ally, PETA, to fight large-scale chemical-safety testing on animals. At the same time, Borgert and other industry-funded scientists made the case that the other common method for testing—using cells that respond in the presence of estrogen—did not necessarily tell us how a substance would affect animals or humans. In fact, a massive, ongoing NIH-run study has found that cell-based tests track closely with animal studies, which have accurately predicted the effects of synthetic estrogens, particularly DES and BPA, on humans.

Stanton Glantz, who directs the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California-San Francisco, argues the chemical industry’s real aim in challenging specific testing methods is to undermine safety testing altogether. “Like the tobacco companies, they want to set up a standard of proof that is unreachable,” he says. “If they set the standard of proof, they’ve won the fight.”

During the height of the battle over BPA, vom Saal periodically traveled to Texas and huddled around the dining table with his old friend George Bittner, whose home overlooks a walnut grove on the outskirts of Austin. Bittner, who holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Stanford, is quirky and irascible. But he has a brilliant mind for science and an interest in applying it to real-world problems—in his lab at UT-Austin, he had developed a nerve-regeneration technique that had helped crippled rats walk within days. And he had taken a keen interest in vom Saal’s research on endocrine disruption. “It struck me as the most important public health issue of our time,” Bittner told me when we met at his lab. “These chemicals have been correlated with so many adverse effects in animal studies, and they’re so pervasive. The potential implications for human health boggle the mind.”

In the late 1990s, Bittner—a squat, ruddy man with thinning red hair and Napoleon Dynamite glasses who had made a tidy sum investing in real estate and commodities—began mulling the idea of launching a private company that worked with manufacturers and public health organizations to test products for endocrine disruptors. He believed this approach could help raise awareness and break the regulatory logjam—while also reaping a profit.

In 2002, armed with a $91,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health, Bittner launched a pair of companies: CertiChem, to test plastics and other products for synthetic estrogens, and PlastiPure, to find or develop nonestrogenic alternatives. Bittner then enlisted Welshons to design a special test using a line of breast cancer cells, which multiply rapidly in the presence of estrogen. It features a robotic arm, which is far more precise than a human hand in handling microscopic material.

plastic bottleBut before long Bittner began butting heads with Welshons and vom Saal. Bittner wanted the researchers to sign over the rights to the test Welshons had developed, while they insisted it belonged to the University of Missouri. Eventually, they had a bitter falling out. Welshons and vom Saal filed a complaint with the NIH, alleging that Bittner had misrepresented data from Welshons’ lab in a brochure. (Bittner maintains that he merely excluded data from contaminated samples; the institute found no evidence of wrongdoing.) Bittner, meanwhile, enlisted V. Craig Jordan, a pharmacology professor at Georgetown University with an expertise in hormones—he discovered a now-common hormone therapy that blocks the spread of breast cancer—to refine the testing protocol. By 2005, Bittner had opened a commercial lab in a leafy office park in Austin. He managed to attract some big-name clients, including Whole Foods, which hired CertiChem to advise it on endocrine-disrupting chemicals and test some of its products.

At this point, BPA was among the most studied chemicals on the planet. In November 2006, vom Saal and a top official at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences convened a group of 38 leading researchers from various disciplines to evaluate the 700-plus existing studies on the subject. The group later issued a “consensus statement” that laid out some chilling conclusions: More than 95 percent of people in developed countries were exposed to levels of BPA that are “within the range” associated with health problems in animals, from cancer and insulin-resistant diabetes to early puberty. The scientists also found that there was “great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans,” especially given the steep uptick in these same disorders.

At the same time, a new body of research was finding that BPA altered animals’ genes in ways that caused disease. For instance, it could switch off a gene that suppresses tumor growth, allowing cancer to spread. These genetic changes were passed down across generations. “A poison kills you,” vom Saal explains. “A chemical like BPA reprograms your cells and ends up causing a disease in your grandchild that kills him.”

Scientists were also uncovering links between endocrine-disrupting chemicals known as phthalates and health problems, including genital abnormalities and infertility in humans. These chemical additives were commonly found in soft, pliable plastics, such as those used in pacifiers and baby bottle nipples. In 2008, Congress passed a law banning six types of phthalates in children’s products. As concerns about BPA hit the mainstream, Congress also launched an investigation into the industry’s efforts to manipulate science and regulation, and a number of states proposed BPA bans.

In 2009, the BPA Joint Trade Association—which included the American Chemistry Council, Coca-Cola, and Del Monte, among others—gathered at the Cosmos Club, a members-only retreat in Washington, DC’s Dupont Circle. According to meeting minutes leaked to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the group explored messaging strategies, “including using fear tactics (e.g., ‘Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?’).” The “‘holy grail’ spokesperson,” attendees agreed, was a “pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.”

Even as the industry crafted defensive talking points, some companies began offering BPA-free alternatives. But they often didn’t bother testing them for other potentially toxic compounds or synthetic hormones. Nor did they have to: Under US law, chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise, and companies are rarely required to collect or disclose chemical-safety data. Michael Green, the Center for Environmental Health director who worried about his daughter’s sippy cup, says this results in a “toxic shell game”: Corporations that come under pressure to root out toxins often replace them with untested chemicals, which sometimes turn out to be just as hazardous. “It’s an unplanned science experiment we’re doing on our families,” Green told me when I visited him at his Bay Area home, where Juliette, now 5, was padding around in a pink princess costume.

One of the most popular BPA-free options, especially among companies catering to families and health-conscious consumers, was Tritan, a clear, sturdy, heat-resistant plastic that Eastman rolled out in 2007. (Eastman also produces the chemical that sullied the drinking water of 300,000 West Virginians in January.) A company founded by alternative medicine guru Dr. Andrew Weil launched a line of Weil Baby bottles made from Tritan, which it touted as “revolutionary” and “ultra-safe” material. Thermos began churning out Tritan sippy cups, decorated with Barbie and Batman. With more and more consumers demanding BPA-free products, Nalgene, CamelBack, Evenflo, Cuisinart, Tupperware, Rubbermaid, and many other companies also worked Tritan into their production lines.

sippy cup kid fullEastman, a $7 billion company that was spun off from Eastman Kodak in the 1990s, assured its corporate customers that it had done extensive safety testing on Tritan. But its methods were questionable. According to internal Eastman documents, in 2008 Eastman signed a two-year contract with Sciences International, another product defense firm that had played a key role in the tobacco industry’s scientific misinformation campaign. On Sciences’ advice, Eastman then commissioned a study that used computer modeling to predict whether a substance contains synthetic estrogens, based on its chemical structure. The model suggested that one of Tritan‘s ingredients—triphenyl phosphate, or TPP—was more estrogenic than BPA.

Eastman, which never disclosed these findings to its customers, later commissioned another study, this one involving breast cancer cells. Again, the initial results appeared positive for estrogenic activity. In an email to colleagues, Eastman’s senior toxicologist, James Deyo, called this an “oh s*#t moment.

Oh s*#t moment p.1

Cell culture tests for estrogenic effects generally involve soaking plastic in alcohol or salt water, then exposing cells to various concentrations of the chemicals that seep out. After Deyo informed the lab that its findings must “be worded very well relative to the lack of” estrogenic activity, it issued a report that only counted data from the lowest concentrations—even though this violated the lab’s testing guidelines, and made the results appear negative when they weren’t. “The lab ignored its own criteria and misrepresented its findings,” says Michael Denison, a professor of toxicology at the University of California-Davis who evaluated the document.

Eastman wasn’t the only company testing Tritan. In 2009, Bittner’s PlastiPure, which was searching for nonestrogenic alternatives to recommend to clients, began vetting products made with it and found that some had even more estrogenic activity than their BPA-laden counterparts. PlastiPure’s CEO, Mike Usey, says CertiChem disclosed this to clients, but many chose Tritan anyway.

“It’s an unplanned science experiment we’re doing on our families,” Michael Green says.

This was part of a broader pattern of indifference. According to Usey, hundreds of manufacturers—including most of the big baby bottle makers—contacted CertiChem to inquire about testing their BPA-free products for estrogenic chemicals, but few actually followed through. “Their position was: Until consumers are demanding nonestrogenic products, there’s no reason to be an early adopter,” Usey explains. “They want to delay as long as they can, because they know any transition will cost them.” In some cases, manufacturers paid for testing, then never collected the findings. “They didn’t want to know the results because there’s liability in knowing,” Usey says. “They’re right in the sense that you don’t want to know if you’re not going to fix the problem.”

Despite its “oh s*#t” findings, by 2010 Eastman began to produce marketing materials claiming that Tritan was free of all synthetic estrogens. One section of its website featured the tagline “Safety is our key ingredient” along with photos of smiling children eating and drinking out of plastic containers. The site claimed “third-party research” had shown Tritan to be free of estrogenic activity, but when corporate customers tried to verify this information, Eastman grew cagey. In early 2010, Philips Avent, a top producer of baby bottles and sippy cups, inquired about having an outside lab run testing on Tritan. Eastman’s senior chemist Emmett O’Brien fired off an email to colleagues, saying, “We need to [do] everything possible to convince the customer NOT to do EA [estrogenic activity] testing.” Philips was persuaded. But, according to testimony from Eastman executives, that same year Nestlé vetted Tritan, and found it leached synthetic estrogen. (Frédérique Henry, a spokeswoman for Nestlé, acknowledges the company tested Tritan but denies the results were positive.) Nestlé has nevertheless continued using Tritan in some of its water bottles.

Bittner and Usey, meanwhile, decided to go public. “As long as the consumer demand wasn’t there, product manufacturers felt we were selling them a problem rather than a solution,” Usey explains. “We saw this as the only way forward.” Bittner’s companies, which have received more than $8 million in NIH funding, began working with Jordan, the Georgetown professor, on a paper for publication. In the fall of 2010, Usey attended the ABC Kids Expo, a children’s product extravaganza in Las Vegas, and handed out flyers with a graph showing how various products that were marketed as nonestrogenic stacked up in CertiChem’s tests. The most estrogenic among them, Weil Baby bottles, were made from Tritan. (The company referred Mother Jones to a press release on its website stating that it “remains confident that Tritan is safe.”)

Soon Eastman’s customers began inquiring about CertiChem’s findings. For the most part, Eastman convinced them to disregard Bittner’s claims. At one point, O’Brien met with Whole Foods executives. They were considering replacing their polycarbonate bulk food bins with ones made from Tritan, even though Bittner had previously informed them that the product was estrogenic. According to a memo O’Brien later wrote, when the subject came up, he responded by attacking Bittner, whom he called “shady,” and  test results, which he alleged were “very questionable.” The Whole Foods executives later pressed O’Brien about the other tests carried out on Tritan.

O’Brien’s memo on Eastman’s meeting with Whole Foods (p. 3)

The chemist claimed, falsely, that they were performed by independent scientists with no funding from Eastman and hadn’t turned up any evidence that Tritan leached synthetic estrogens. Whole Foods—which declined to comment for this story—plowed ahead and installed Tritan bins in many of its 270 US stores.

Eastman refused to answer questions for this story, but it released a written statement saying that it had “paid the labs for their time and expertise and not for a particular conclusion,” and remained “confident in the testing and safety of Tritan.”

In March 2011, the Environmental Health Perspectives paper by Jordan and researchers from CertiChem and PlastiPure appeared online. They’d tested 455 store-bought food containers and storage products, including several made from Tritan. The results? Seventy-two percent leached synthetic estrogens. And every type of plastic commonly used in food packaging (polypropylene and polystyrene, for example) tested positive in some cases, which suggested there was no surefire way to avoid exposure.

Other scientists have also found evidence of estrogen-mimicking chemicals in BPA-free plastics. In 2009, two German environmental toxicologists tested PET, a plastic commonly used in water bottles, on a strain of mud snails that produce more embryos when exposed to synthetic estrogen. Snails reared in PET bottles produced twice as many as those reared in a glass culture dish.

These studies don’t identify which estrogenic chemicals are leaching from BPA-free plastics, but many of these products are known to contain phthalates or bisphenol S (BPS), a chemical cousin of BPA that plastic makers frequently use in its place. Cell-culture tests suggest that BPA and BPS have similar effects.

In other cases, little may be known about the specific health effects of the chemicals involved, but a 2012 literature review by 12 prominent scientists found there is “substantial evidence” that endocrine-disrupting chemicals generally harm human health. “We know that there’s a cost when we mess with the levels of these hormones in our bodies, regardless of how we do it,” says the study’s lead author, Laura Vandenberg, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. “Even small changes early in life can alter brain and organ development and set us up for disease later on.”

Every type of plastic commonly used in food packaging tested positive in some cases, which suggested there was no surefire way to avoid exposure.

The month after Bittner’s study appeared, the American Chemistry Council contacted Chris Borgert, the former tobacco industry scientist who stymied the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. According to internal emails, the council and the Society of the Plastics Industry offered to pay him $15,000 to write a brief letter to the journal’s editor refuting CertiChem’s study, and to enlist another scientist to sign on. Their letter argued that CertiChem’s findings were “unconvincing”; just because a substance behaved like estrogen in a culture dish didn’t mean it would do so in animals or humans.

At the same time, Eastman laid plans to sue CertiChem and PlastiPure for false advertising. Expecting that Bittner would lash out after being served papers, the company launched a preemptive PR blitz. “By proactively promoting Tritan safety,” an internal memo noted, “it will put PlastiPure in a position to have to prove Eastman wrong.” The company also paid a scientist named Thomas Osimitz $10,000 to author a research paper on Tritan. While Osimitz was ostensibly working independently, Deyo, the Eastman toxicologist, micromanaged the process, from designing the study to writing the introduction. Deyo’s study design virtually guaranteed estrogenic activity wouldn’t be found. For example, he opted to use the hormone-insensitive Charles River Sprague Dawley lab rat. Rather than testing Tritan itself, he instructed Osimitz to test only some Tritan ingredients—TPP, the one that had raised red flags in the computer-modeling study, was not included. (The European Union has since classified the compound as a suspected endocrine disruptor.)

In June 2012, Osimitz’s paper—finding that Tritan was not estrogenic—appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology, an industry-friendly journal. Its editor, A. Wallace Hayes, was previously vice president of biochemical and biobehavioral research at R.J. Reynolds, which led the attack against science linking secondhand smoke to human health problems.

Scientific journals generally require authors to disclose any conflicts of interest. But the Food and Chemical Toxicology article made no mention of Eastman’s role in the study. According to internal Eastman emails, the company was also aiming to hire Osimitz to author a second paper, again with “no…mention of Eastman.” As Deyo noted, “credibility is somewhat enhanced if it is not ‘Eastman’ authors.”

Deyo’s “credibility” email (p. 1)

Once its own data had been published, Eastman set out to bury Bittner’s findings. In August 2012, the company sued CertiChem and PlastiPure, which it claimed were spreading false information about Tritan to generate demand for their own services. Eastman’s lawyers asked the judge to bar both firms from ever claiming Tritan was estrogenic—or saying that cell-based tests could detect estrogenic activity, even though scientists routinely use them for this purpose. For decades, scientists have relied on the same breast cancer cell line Bittner’s lab uses, MCF-7, to screen for estrogenic activity. According to UMass’ Vandenberg, these cells have proven “remarkably good at telling us if compounds found in plastics and personal care products mimic estrogen” and their “failure rates are minuscule.”

On July 15, 2013, Bittner squared off against Eastman at a federal courthouse in Austin. The company’s attorneys went in hard. Specifically, they claimed running a company that tested products for estrogenic activity, as well as one that helped companies find nonestrogenic alternatives, created a conflict of interest. (Bittner counters that he’s no more conflicted than a doctor who both diagnoses and treats patients.) But they didn’t directly challenge the validity of Bittner’s findings. Instead, they leaned on the questionable industry claim that tests based on human cells aren’t sufficient to establish estrogenic activity.

Eastman’s star witness, Chris Borgert, made the case that animal studies—which the industry had also fought to undermine—were a more telling indicator. But even they were not “in and of themselves” definitive. For the result to be relevant, the effects had to be demonstrated “in an animal, at least, and then on to humans.” There was no mention of the ethical and legal barriers to testing on humans. And the judge barred Bittner’s lawyers from mentioning Borgert’s tobacco industry ties, which Eastman argued were “prejudicial.” This left the jury ill-equipped to gauge his credibility.

Borgert’s testimony may have done less damage than other factors. Bittner’s lawyers struggled to explain the science to jurors, and Bittner grew testy on the stand. Welshons, who’d designed CertiChem’s tests, testified in a deposition—just as he’d told the NIH—that Bittner had misrepresented some data in a brochure. Bittner’s attorneys managed to block his testimony from being introduced. But, Bittner says, his attorneys balked at presenting key evidence, such as figures on CertiChem’s NIH funding, because it might have made Welshons’ testimony admissible. Bittner also maintains that his rift with vom Saal and Welshons made it difficult to recruit witnesses.

Still, several prominent scientists testified for CertiChem, including UC-Davis’ Michael Denison, who coinvented a widely used test for estrogenic activity using human ovarian cells. Denison testified that he’d tested 27 samples of Tritan for estrogenic activity using this method and registered positives across the board.

But the most remarkable data might have come from none other than Wade Welshons. In the run-up to the trial, the University of Missouri scientist, who expected to prove Bittner wrong, began testing Tritan products in his lab. To his surprise, he wound up confirming CertiChem’s findings. “It doesn’t matter what I think of them personally,” Welshons told me. “If they’re right, they’re right, and many of my objections no longer matter.”

Welshons’ findings never made it into court, however, and when the jurors returned their verdict in late July, they found against Bittner’s companies on counts of false advertising and unfair competition. They also concluded Tritan was not estrogenic. Their rationale, according to postverdict interviews, echoed Eastman’s claims that estrogenic activity could not be established solely through cell-based tests. In his final ruling, the judge also noted that the “jury was likely unimpressed with Dr. Bittner’s combative demeanor.” And he upbraided both sides for failing to explain the science in terms jurors could understand. In the end, he barred Bittner’s companies from ever talking about their Tritan findings, at least in a commercial setting. But he refused to stop the companies from asserting that their tests could detect synthetic estrogens.

The long legal battle has depleted CertiChem and PlastiPure’s coffers—”We’ve laid off half of our staff,” Usey told me. “It has pretty much crushed us”—and emboldened Eastman. After I began raising questions about Tritan, Rick W. Harrison, an attorney for the chemical giant, inadvertently copied me on an email about Eastman’s damage control strategy. “If this somehow gets picked up by mainstream media—Oprah or NY media—Eastman sends Lucian [Boldea, the vice president of Eastman’s specialty plastics division] or whoever on the show prepped with the verdict, order and judgment and express surprise and indignation that these issues are still being raised after three years of litigation,” he wrote. “The court/jury has spoken and spoken loudly.”

The industry, meanwhile, has revived its campaign to downplay the dangers of BPA. A month after the Eastman case concluded, the American Chemistry Council relaunched its pro-BPA website, The section on infant health suggests that BPA isn’t harmful, even to premature babies. “They’re reverting back to exactly the arguments they were making in 1998,” says vom Saal. “It’s as if the last 15 years didn’t happen.”

US regulators also have continued to ignore the mounting evidence linking BPA and similar chemicals to human disease, even as bans have cropped up around the world. Although more than 90 studies examining people with various levels of exposure suggest BPA affects humans much as it does animals, the FDA recently announced that its research “supports the safety of BPA” in food containers and packaging. And the EPA program that was supposed to screen some 80,000 chemicals for endocrine disruption hasn’t fully vetted a single substance. In 2010, the agency sought White House approval to add some endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are commonly found in plastic—among them BPA, phthalates, and a class of compounds known as PBDEs—to its “chemicals of concern” list because it found they “may present an unreasonable risk to human health.” This would have required chemical makers to share safety-testing data with federal regulators. The proposal languished until last September, when the EPA quietly withdrew it, along with a proposed rule requiring manufacturers to disclose safety data on chemicals in their products.

Still, Bittner isn’t giving up the fight. When I visited CertiChem’s office in Austin recently, he was sitting barefoot at a conference table surrounded by sippy cups and heaps of lab notebooks. CertiChem and PlastiPure were planning to appeal the Eastman ruling (they’ve since done so) and were working with Denison on data for new papers, one on estrogenic activity in plastic resins, which are used to make plastic products and contain fewer additives that can skew results. Bittner called up a series of graphs on the overhead projector, showing the results for several new BPA-free plastics that he had tested for estrogenic activity. He raked his laser pointer over a graph displaying the results for Tritan. The line curved up steeply. “Eastman won the battle,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean it will win the war.”

Full Circle Glass Water Bottle
Full Circle Home – Glass Water Bottle –

The Dark Side of Kale (and How to Eat Around It)

Feburary 25, 2014                                                                                           by: Robert Zito

FILED UNDER: BostonMedicine/SciencePersonal Healthdietkalenutritionthyroid


If you have watched the media lately, you may have noted some pretty sensationalized headlines with regard to KALE.  Even Dr. Oz used the title, “The Dark Side of Kale“.  Which, also came from an article written over a month ago by Rachel Zimmerman. I will tell you up front that I have not written any of these findings. I only wanted to present a collection of information to help direct you to form your own opinion. What I will recommend is: Use moderation with anything you do & Always consult your physician if you have any underlying medical condition, before making any radical changes to your normal diet.

Can Kale Cause Kidney Stones?

What is an Oxalate and what is it found in? 
Oxalic acid is a naturally occurring colourless organic crystal that is found plants. Foods high in oxalic acids include spinach, chard (silverbeet), watercress, leeks, okra, purslane, parsley, beets & the leaves (beetroot), cacao, nuts such as almonds and cashews, buckwheat, some fruits such as starfruit, rhubarb, plums, figs, most berries and KALE. Most of the foods that contain oxalates are very important for good health. The root and leaves of rhubarb contain dangerously high concentrations of oxalic acid and should not be consumed raw. *kale-thyroid connection from the Oregon State University Micronutrient Information

Many charts show varying levels of oxalic acid in vegetables, fruits and other plant based foods. It has been shown that growing conditions will affect the amounts of oxalic acids found in plant foods.

Oxalic acid has been shown to bind with calcium and other minerals in the intestines and form an insoluble complex (oxalate) that is excreted via the stool (at least 70-90%), while research studies confirm the ability of oxalic acid in foods to lower availability of calcium and other minerals, the decrease is relatively small. This is also outweighed by the fact that there is so much more calcium, magnesium and iron in oxalate rich vegetables like spinach than the average vegetable in the first place that there will still be plenty of these minerals available to be absorbed! Claire Georgiou, Reboot Naturopath, B.HSc ND on July 26th, 2012


Can Kale Cause Hypothyroidism?

Very high intakes of cruciferous vegetables…have been found to cause hypothyroidism (insufficient thyroid hormone) in animals (68). There has been one case report of an 88-year-old woman developing severe hypothyroidism and coma following consumption of an estimated 1.0 to 1.5 kg/day of raw Bok Choy for several months. Two mechanisms have been identified to explain this effect. The hydrolysis of some Glucosinolates found in cruciferous vegetables (e.g., progoitrin) may yield a compound known as Goitrin, which has been found to interfere with thyroid hormone synthesis. The hydrolysis of another class of Glucosinolates, known as Indole Glucosinolates, results in the release of Thiocyanate ions, which can compete with iodine for uptake by the thyroid gland. Increased exposure to Thiocyanate ions from cruciferous vegetable consumption or, more commonly, from cigarette smoking, does not appear to increase the risk of hypothyroidism unless accompanied by iodine deficiency. One study in humans found that the consumption of 150 g/day (5 oz/day) of cooked Brussels sprouts for four weeks had no adverse effects on thyroid function.

Teresa Fung, Sc.D., M.S.. an adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and a professor at Simmons College in Boston, confirms the Kale-Thyroid link. But, she says, “normal, reasonable amounts of eating should not be a problem. A regular person [with no thyroid issues] who eats several servings of cruciferous vegetables a week should not have problems.”

Fung adds: “It’s the dose that makes a poison. If people have Hypothyroidism or they’re taking thyroid medication, then they should check with their doctor. But even in this case, reasonable amounts shouldn’t be a problem. Now, if people have a tall glass of kale juice every single day, then it gets into the unknown territory.”

1. Lightly Cook Your Kale

The goitrogenic properties of kale become dramatically lessened when kale — or any other cruciferous vegetable — is cooked. (Other veggies in this category include: broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, collard greens, kohlrabi, mustard, rutabaga, turnips, bok choy and Chinese cabbage. Arugula, horseradish, radish, wasabi and watercress are also cruciferous vegetables.)

2. Eat Seaweed

Kale on its own does not increase the risk of thyroid problems. It’s a combination of factors; including potential iodine deficiency. (One of the most common causes of goiters is iodine deficiency.) Adding seaweed or another iodine rich food to your diet may, in some cases, help you get adequate iodine.

3. Throw a Brazil Nut Into Your Smoothie

Selenium can support normal iodine levels which in turn will support a healthy thyroid. A Brazil nut or two in your daily smoothie or as a topping to any dish might help keep selenium levels strong.

4. Switch Up Your Greens

Vary your greens. If you’re going to eat kale one day choose a non-cruciferous, non-goitrogenic veggie dish the next, like a simple cucumber and tomato salad, or beets. There are many highly nutritious vegetables that aren’t goitrogenic, including celery, parsley, zucchini, carrots and more. Our bodies need many nutrients and by eating a variety of vegetables you’ll ensure that you don’t overload on one and skip another.

January 10, 2014 | 2:36 PM | Rachel Zimmerman

See Dr. Oz’s suggestions to: Combat a Sluggish Thyroid


Possible Interactions with: Vitamin K


If you are currently being treated with any of the following medications, you should not take vitamin K without first talking to your health care provider.

Antibiotics — Antibiotics, particularly a class known as cephalosporins, reduce the absorption of vitamin K in the body. Long-term use (more than 10 days) of antibiotics may result in vitamin K deficiency because these drugs kill not only harmful bacteria but also beneficial, vitamin K-activating bacteria. This is mot likely to occur in people who already have low levels of vitamin K or are at risk for deficiency (such as those who are malnourished, elderly, or taking warfarin). Cephalosporins include:

  • Cefamandole (Mandol)
  • Cefoperazone (Cefobid)
  • Cefmetazole (Zefazone)
  • Cefotetan (Cefotan)

Phenytoin (Dilantin) — Phenytoin interferes with the body’s ability to use vitamin K. Taking anticonvulsants (such as phenytoin) during pregnancy or while breastfeeding may deplete vitamin K in newborns.

Warfarin (Coumadin) — Vitamin K reduces the effects of the blood-thinning medication warfarin, rendering the medication ineffective. Vitamin K should not be taken while taking warfarin, and foods containing high amounts of vitamin K should be avoided.

Orlistat (Xenical, alli) and Olestra — Orlistat, a medication used for weight loss, and olestra, a substance added to certain food products, prevent the absorption of fat and can reduce the body’s absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. The Food and Drug Administration now requires that vitamin K and other fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, and E) be added to food products containing olestra. In addition, physicians who prescribe orlistat add a multivitamin with fat soluble vitamins to the regimen.

The fact that vitamin K is now added to olestra-containing foods is important to know if you should not be taking vitamin K (if you are on the blood thinner warfarin, for example).

Bile acid sequestrants — These medications, used to reduce cholesterol, reduce the overall absorption of dietary fats and may also reduce absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. If you take one of these drugs, your doctor may recommend a vitamin K supplement:

  • Cholestyramine (Questran)
  • Colestipol (Colestid)
  • Colsevelam (Welchol)

Drug Interactions

  • Doxorubicin
  • Orlistat
  • Phenytoin
  • Warfarin

Alternative Names:   Menadione; Menaphthone; Menaquinone; Phylloquinone; Vitamin K

University of Maryland Medical Center 9/2007

Nature's Way Selenium
Nature’s Way Selenium



February 17, 2014                                                                                                                                by: Robert Zito   This is a story that goes out to We had made the decision years ago to not to publish our findings on the Ill Effects of Supplements.  It is clear that your everyday Herbal Supplements and Vitamins are safe. I’m afraid we held back on publishing because our research was leading to a much bigger battle. Our excuse being – limited resources and time to properly present the full story. Heath Impact New’s articles on Big Phara’s War on Supplements, made us reconsider the decision.  This is our very ruff draft of:  Should We Be Afraid of Vitamins?

August 11, 2012                                                                            Should We Be Afraid of Vitamins?                                         According to several reports that the networks have run…. WE SHOULD BE!

I myself was shocked when I heard a 10 second blurp on CBS channel 11 KTVT Dallas about a five year study done by the FDA that showed 115 deaths due to vitamins and countless others who were harmed or hospitalized.  At first I thought this was another attack on Vitamins and Supplement being pushed by big pharma, but after days of trying to locate this FDA report I was only able to uncover the following information.

After doing several searches for this study and combing the FDA’s own database, I was unable to find anything remotely close to what I heard on the news. The FDA does have several warnings of varying degrees about different individual vitamins, but no comprehensive study. I then thought maybe I miss heard the story. So I went to find it on KTVT’s website, but found nothing.

I expanded my search and found a story from the same day, that ran on WEAR channel 3 Pensacola: Well, there it was, 115 deaths, 2100 hospitalizations. This was too close to be just a coincidence. I guess big news companies don’t have to quote their source. So, I had do some more of my own searching.  Then it started to make sense.

The only other relevant story that kept rising to the top of my searches was one written by This story was also stating, 115 deaths, 2100 hospitalizations and 10 unkown dangers??? It appeared that this was the source of the  information that channel 11 and Channel 3 put on their news. So what if the Networks picked up on an early release of the September issue for Consumer Reports?  If you only read the first few paragraphs you will might believe there is a problem. Please look for the words “reports” and “our own analysis of reports” (plural)

         10 Surprising Dangers of Vitamins and Supplements        Don’t assume they’re safe because they’re ‘all natural’   _________ Consumer Reports_magazine: September 2012.________    More than half of American adults take vitamins, minerals, herbs, or other nutritional supplements. Some of those products aren’t especially helpful, readers told us in a recent survey, but that aside, don’t assume they’re safe because they’re “all natural.” They may be neither.
  Here are 10 hazards that we’ve distilled from interviews with experts, published research, and our own analysis of reports of serious adverse events submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, which we obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Read and be warned. 1. Supplements are not risk-free – More than 6,300 reports of serious adverse events associated with dietary supplements, including vitamins and herbs, streamed into the FDA from supplement companies, consumers, health-care providers, and others between 2007 and mid-April of 2012. The reports by themselves don’t prove the supplements caused the problems, but the raw numbers are cause for some concern. Symptoms included signs of heart, kidney, or liver problems, aches, allergic reactions, fatigue, nausea, pains, and vomiting.
  The reports described more than 10,300 serious outcomes (some included more than one), including 115 deaths and more than 2,100 hospitalizations, 1,000 serious injuries or illnesses, 900 emergency-room visits, and some 4,000 other important medical events.

I think I highlighted enough for everyone to see that Consumer Reports feels there is “cause for concern” even though,” the reports do not prove supplements caused the problems”. Also, there are no reference notes or links to FDA findings.  Is anyone fact checking???  Fine, but if you had clicked the earlier link to channel 3’s story, you would have scene they clearly stated that an FDA report stated the information when in fact it was Consumer Reports findings and no mention that the reports themselves do not prove supplements caused the problems.

A new report says vitamins and supplements could do more harm than good. Consumer Reports investigated ten unknown dangers associated with taking supplements.  Between 2007 and April 2012, the FDA reported 115 deaths and more than 2100 hospitalizations because of events linked to vitamins and herbs. The report also cautions that the FDA doesn’t require supplements to have warning labels unless they contain iron. Experts warn supplements should only be taken when there is a true deficiency determined by a doctor.    Monday, August 6 2012, 06:10 PM CDT

Is this the hidden agenda of big pharmaceutical companies to push to restrict access to natural remedies or is it just a lazy summer intern trying to get a headline before going back to school?      WHO CARES!

What I did find was good information from the FDA: Fortify Your Knowledge About vitamins has good info & a video.

When it comes to your health you must seek the best information from as many quality sources as possible. You will then be able to see through the conjecture and bias and understand the basic principles of what your body needs. Do your homework and consult with your physician to prevent any possible complications.

Here is was another link which offers good information about supplements:

If there is an FDA Announcement you’ll find it here:

Also, consider the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) as a good source of information. In 2010, U.S. poison centers answered more than 3.9 million calls, including nearly (2.4 million calls or 61%) about human exposures to poisons. The top substance involved in exposure calls was painkillers; about (320,000 exposures or 8%) to painkillers were reported in 2010. Other medicines involved in exposure calls to poison centers included sedatives/ hypnotics/ antipsychotics (168,000 exposures or 4.3%), antidepressants (103,000 exposures or 2.6%), topical preparations (110,000 exposures or 2.8%), cardiovascular drugs (98,000 exposures or 2.5%), antihistamines (96,000 exposures or 2.5%), cold and cough preparations (78,000 exposures or 2%) and (72,000 exposures or 2%) for vitamins. Given the US population is currently 312,780,968, that means only .00002301% of the population called Poison Control due to the use of vitamins. Most of which were due to capsules logged on throat.

Meanwhile: “Emergency Department visits resulting from adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals increased 84 percent in the long term, rising from about 1.3 million visits in 2005 to about 2.3 million visits in 2011.”**

** What is also found in this 100 page report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Heath Services Administration are the horrific number case from Alcohol and Prescription Drugs. The report covers everything from Caffeine and Aspirin to Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, but no cases of Vitamins. Perhaps Big Pharma should worry more about helping to reduce the 2.3 million cases they contributed to, rather than fearing lost revenue to the Herbal industry.

Another related story : Google Brings EU Ban to America Responds To Recent Consumer Poll, a leading online retailer of All Organic Products, responds to recent consumer poll. As part of their  “12 Days of Savings” leading up to Christmas, Nuegreen is now offering FREE SHIPPING.  “It’s  clear what matters to people and we understand it is our job to meet their needs,” said Robert Zito, director of Member Services.

12 Day of Saving
Click here for Free Shipping Code
STAMFORD, Conn., November 18, 2013 – 

80% Percent of Shoppers Say Shipping Really Matters When Making a Purchase

49% of consumers have walked away from a purchase due to shipping costs last year

Among Americans who purchased a product that required shipping this year, 80 percent consider shipping options, including free shipping, to be an important factor in their overall shopping experience, according to a recent survey commissioned by Pitney Bowes Inc. (NYSE:PBI). The survey polled consumers on attitudes toward shipping through all channels, including in store, online, catalog, and phone.

Retailers hoping to win sales this holiday season should prepare to accommodate the new set of parameters that add up to delivering a satisfying customer experience for today’s consumer.

“Shipping has become a considerable factor in consumers’ buying choices. In fact, there’s now a blurred line between the decision on a shipping method and the selection of a product when comes to the overall buying decision and customer experience and free shipping is just table stakes today,” said Jim Hendrickson, vice president and general manager of shipping solutions, Pitney Bowes. The survey found Free Shipping is by far more important to Americans surveyed over fast shipping (77 percent vs. 19 percent). That number spikes further among those who’ve shipped a purchase in the last year (82 percent vs. 16 percent, respectively).

View infographic.

The National Retail Federation forecasts holiday sales will rise 3.9 percent to $602.1 billion – a slight improvement from last year. eMarketer projects 2013 U.S. retail ecommerce holiday season sales will to grow about 15.1 percent to $61.8 billion, up from $53.7 billion in 2012. With that, the Pitney Bowes survey found nearly half of Americans (47 percent) are paying more attention to shipping as part of the overall shopping experience now compared to three years ago.

With access to goods from many sources, consumers are prepared to walk away from a purchase if presented with excessive shipping costs. And, they do.

Among those surveyed, half (49 percent) have at some time abandoned their shopping cart, whether online, in store, or over the phone, due to shipping costs. On average, the threshold for abandoning a purchase occurs when shipping fees are $20 or more. Men have a higher threshold for cost, with $24 for shipping being the average tipping point.

“For retailers, how they leverage and manage their shipping costs and returns process and how they use that in creating an experience for their client is going to be a big factor in their sales this holiday season,” said Hendrickson. “Retailers need to be thinking: How do I manage my shipping costs out of ecommerce so I can ultimately give my client a lower cost for shipping or give it to them for free? The entire purchase experience is what matters to the buyer today.”

While 9 in 10 (89 percent) of Americans have made an online purchase at some point this year, only half (46 percent) those surveyed have returned a package through the mail. “Simplifying the return process with enclosed return mailing envelopes, free shipping, prepared labels and generous return policies are all part of what the consumer now expects,” Hendrickson added.

The survey found that 81 percent of consumers who made a purchase requiring shipping in the last year have tracked a package, with 30 percent tracking once or twice, 21 percent tracking 3-5 times and 30 percent tracking 6 or more times.

About the Study

Pitney Bowes conducted a survey to learn more about consumer shopping and shipping habits leading up to the holiday season. The survey results are based on the findings of a telephone survey conducted with 1,005 adults 18 years of age and older, living in the continental United States. Interviewing for this survey was completed by ORC International in October 2013. Margin of error for total respondents is +/- 3.1 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.

The survey overview is available at: