The last couple weeks were 'bad news' weeks for the controversial chemical BPA (bisphenol A) used in products such as baby bottles, polycarbonate water bottles (e.g., Nalgenes) and the lining of canned goods. The National Toxicology Program and the Canadian government have raised red flags over its safety, and many large retailers are pulling BPA-laden products from shelves. Then came the big surprise -- Nalge Nunc International Corp. backed down from strong consumer/market pressure and officially announced they would remove BPA from their Nalgene water bottles,.

After this move, I figured somebody would slap the maker-of-everything-Nalgene with a lawsuit. This past Tuesday, the first consumer class action lawsuit was filed -- by a California mom. Lani Felix-Lozano, mother of two daughters ages 11 and 13, alleges Nalgene continues to claim BPA is safe after a multitude of animal studies have linked the chemical to hormone disruptions, infertility, early puberty and cancer.

The lawsuit focuses on the premise Nalgene dowplayed the risks of BPA. On the company's website, Nalgene cites the Food and Drug Administration's stance that BPA is safe, but fails to cite many other studies revealing BPA's risks. Could you just imagine Nalgene's tremendous liability if Felix-Lozano wins this lawsuit? I'd hazard a guess a large majority of teens, young adults and middle-aged fitness fans own more than one colorful Nalgene made with BPA. I already recycled my evidence and have opted for BPA-free hydration instead -- but I think there's one lone, never-used Nalgene soldier rolling around the corner of my bedroom.

Source

Is the FDA underprepared to protect the American public from the overwhelming growth in processed food products and other products that seem to clutter food retailer's shelves these days?

According to come congressional critics and consumer advocates, the FDA is incapable of adequately protecting the safety of the food supply. The FDA almost echoes that fact as well, stating that the agency's system needs to be overhauled to meet today's demands.

Sounds fine to me -- things change rapidly over time, and agencies that regulate certain industries need to grow along with the changes. But getting any federal agency to react to the level of private enterprise is wishful thinking way (way) beyond reality.

The solution is that private consumers have to look out for themselves. This means being familiar with what you eat and drink all the time and making healthy choices when possible. A challenge I give to friends and family: type in the ingredients of a standard processed food package into your favorite search engine and read about every single ingredient. Be prepared for some shock, though -- because you'll get it.

Some of my favorite research words for shock effect?

• Aspartame
• Sodium Nitrite
• High Fructose Corn Syrup
• Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils

Source

I don't know about you, but the recent rash of food borne illnesses in fresh produce have me thinking every time I pick up my bag of baby spinach or baby carrots at the store. I continue to eat these products, because I believe the benefit of eating them is far greater than the risk of getting sick, but I have to admit that I have concerns.

So does the FDA, apparently, and this week they handed out guidelines to fresh-cut produce providers to follow on a voluntary basis to help cut down the risk of food contamination. Though theoretically, any produce can be contaminated, fresh cut produce (think bags of salad, pre-cut veggies, and broccoli florets, for example) have been implicated in 25% of illnesses caused by fresh produce in the last 10 years. Though industry leaders can't say for sure why that is, they believe it may be because the natural protective barrier is removed when a fruit or vegetable is cut open. It also may be because more processing means the product gets handled more, or simply be that we're eating more fresh produce than before.

The good news is that, though we've heard a lot about them, illness outbreaks caused by produce are not on the rise. And most manufacturers are already following the guidelines the FDA released this week. Fresh fruit and veggies are the cornerstone of a healthy diet, and no one should have to feel afraid when they eat them.

Source

Trans fats have taken hold of the headlines recently: cities are banning them, restaurants are banning them, and we're all supposed to be avoiding them...but if you aren't a label reader and you're new to eliminating this cholesterol raising ingredient from your diet, you may be thinking, "What kinds of foods have trans fats?"

Here's a list to get you started. Commercial baked goods top the list of culprits, as do french fries, fast foods, and chips. But there are a few surprises on the list as well, food that you may not think contain large amounts of trans fats. For instance, flavored coffee drinks, which my husband adores, are a big offender. So are soups, even ramen noodles.

Thankfully, the FDA changed food labeling guidelines last summer. So if you're out shopping and you just aren't sure if your favorite food is trans-fat free or not, take a minute to look at the label. The number of grams of trans fats per serving should be listed there, helping you to make better decisions about your food.

Source

It's amazing how much advertising I see on television these days regarding the various prescription drugs that give the appearance of treating any condition under the sun -- when I watch commercials for research purposes, anyway.

Should the FDA release more specific detail on the trials prescription drugs go through and make those results available to the public? I say yes -- patients and doctors should have unfettered access to this information as a way to make the best and most informed decision about possible treatments. Any patient should be suspicious of prescription drugs that have not had data released on how these drugs worked (or did not) in all the trial testing each must go through before being allowed for sale (here in the U.S., anyway).

It's really a shame and a disservice to the population that current rules allow drug companies to keep data secret. Side effects can sometimes be worse that the condition that they are intended to treat -- but if patients don't know this, an informed decision cannot possibly be made.

It really seems to be a complete smokescreen in that the FDA and pharmaceutical companies say drug information needs to be protected so that competing manufacturers can't use the data to produce competing versions of drugs. This is the response to allowing your customers to know about your products, ones that directly affect the most cherished thing we can every have -- our health? Sounds like political nonsense to me. You?

Source

Despite serious concerns from serious people, the FDA is apparently planning to approve a new antibiotic for cattle. It's called cefquinome, and the reason for all the controversy is the fact that it belongs to the same class of antibiotics that are commonly used to treat many human infections, including diseases in children and meningitis. We are already dealing with a growing number of mutating drug-resistant bacterial strains and varieties, and this move is anticipated to make that problem even worse.

At this point the FDA plans to move forward and approve the medication, against the advice of its panel. In reading the article it sounds like a whole lot of politics and red tape to me. Ugh.

Source

With all of the recent headlines dealing with contaminated food, I've been wondering whether there really is a food safety issue in this country, or whether we were just hearing about it more often. I thought maybe it was the "shark attack" phenomenon. Do you remember that year when we were hearing about a shark attack every other week or so in the summertime, and just when you thought it was no longer safe to go in the water, we learned that there were no more shark attacks that summer than any other? I do, and I thought that might be part of what was happening here.

It turns out, that's not the case. Cuts to the Food and Drug Administration have reduced food safety inspections by 47% since 2003. Not only that, food safety tests have fallen as well, to 75% of the amount completed in 2003. The problem is well-known among industry leaders, but the FDA's budget isn't set to get any additional money until 2008, and even then experts fear it's only a fraction of what they need. Until then, the FDA is struggling to manage the influx of imported foods coming into the country, and to focus their efforts on high-risk foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables.

Despite this news, the FDA says it is aggressive when a problem is found and works diligently to correct the problem immediately, and in retrospect we'll never really know whether more inspectors in the field would have prevented those most recent outbreaks. Looking for more information? The FDA website has a comprehensive list of frequently asked questions for consumers who want to know more.

Source

When the Consumer Product Safety Commission safety tested soft vinyl lunch boxes in 2005, they found that 20% contained dangerous levels of lead -- so they changed the way they did their test. They claimed that cutting the lunch boxes apart and testing them, as they did the first time around, did not reflect the way the soft, vinyl boxes would be treated by children and adults in real life. So they did a second test where they wiped the outside of the lunch boxes, and got much lower results.

The CPSC decided not to release the results of the first tests to the public, but then last year the FDA got a hold of them and had a very different reaction. Claiming that lead would be considered a "food additive" if it rubbed off on to enclosed food, the FDA warned lunch box manufacturer's that they may have to pull their products from store shelves and revamp the production of the bags. Lead is used as a stabilizer in vinyl, but there are other stabilizers that can be used. Many stores and companies have complied, but the CPSC stands by it's original test results, saying that children would have to ..."rub their lunch box and then lick their hands more than 600 times every day, for about 15 to 30 days..." for their lunch boxes to post a risk.

Numerous studies have shown that lead, even in low doses, can cause learning and neurological problems in children. If you want to test your or your child's lunch box for lead, go here, or if you want to dodge the issue completely, you can always pick up a lead-free lunch bag. I'm curious to hear your take on this, though. Do you think the CPSC should have published the results of both tests and let consumers decide for themselves whether it was a risk they were willing to take? Or is the risk so small that this is a non-issue to you?

Source

As you probably know, obesity is considered a national epidemic in the US -- it's the second leading cause of preventable death, with about 127 million adults considered overweight and 9 million considered grossly obese (that's two-thirds of the country). But did you know our dogs are getting fatter, too?

In response, Pfizer has created a doggy diet drug called Slentrol that has recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Twenty to thirty percent of dogs are overweight or obese, and the problem seems to be on the rise, according to Stephen Sundlof, head of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. Like humans, dogs can develop diabetes, heart trouble, and joint problems if they're not maintaining a healthy weight.

You could, incidentally, also walk the dog from time to time -- as, just like with humans, exercise is far healthier than dieting or pills when it comes to losing weight. It might even help you shave a few pounds.

Source

After what has been deemed suitable testing, the FDA is ready to to give the green light and allow meat and milk from cloned animals into the food supply. Two separate studies found no nutritional differences between the meat and milk from cloned animals and animals bred conventionally. Since the FDA can not address ethical or moral concerns, they appear to have no reason to say no.

But ethical and moral reasons are just one issue that opponents are raising. Citing that cloning poses significant risk to mother and newborn, as well as food safety issues, the Center for Food Animal Safety filed a petition this week seeking regulation of cloned animals. I think this is an important point, because if FDA approval goes forward as planned, products from these animals won't be labeled and consumers will have no way of knowing if they are eating them or not.

Speaking of consumers, a survey found that 60% of Americans were opposed to using cloned animals for food. That's probably why the International Dairy Foods Association is one of the biggest opponents of the issue. Concerned the wholesome image of milk and other dairy products will be tarnished, the association represents some of the biggest names in dairy -- Kraft, Dannon, and General Mills among them.

Source

You've seen all the knocks against sweeteners by now. Refined sugar is causing a diabetes epidemic. Aspartame is a toxic manmade chemical and people are finding it's better used as ant poison than as a sweetener. And Splenda is proving to be as problematic as other artificial sweeteners, because it contains chlorine.

So are we stuck? Must we go through our lives without anything sweet ever again? I certainly don't plan to.

I found a sweetener that is not only completely natural (comes from the leaf of a plant) but it also stabilizes blood sugar and acts as an antiviral agent, in that it can stop the onset of cold or flu. It's called stevia (pronounced STEE-vee-uh or STEH-vee-uh).

Source

If controversy truly sparks sales, then the makers of the Plan B morning-after pill should see sales skyrocket after today's decision by the Food and Drug Administration. The regulatory agency just announced they will allow the controversial pill to be available without a prescription to women (or their partners) 18 and older, most likely by the end of the year. The pill will be dispensed only at pharmacies and purchasers must show ID to prove their age.

Plan B has been sold in the US via prescription sales since 1999. After a seven-year battle to make the pill available to women of any age without a prescription, this ruling seems to be a compromise Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. is willing to live with -- for now. Barr said it will continue to lobby for the pill to be available to minors. According to today's decision, minors must still obtain a doctor's prescription to get the pill, which doesn't end pregnancy but rather prevents it from happening. If a woman takes Plan B while already pregnant, it will have no effect. In other words, this is not an abortion pill.

Source

Get ready to add a new word to your health vocabulary. Bacteriophages are the new buzzword, and they've just been approved by the Food and Drug Administration as the first mix of bacteria-killing viruses to be termed a food additive. Sounds a little homeopathic, no?

According to virus manufacturer Intralytix Inc., the bacteriophages (Greek for "bacteria eater") are designed to be sprayed on ready-to-eat meat and poultry products including sliced luncheon meat -- a high-risk product because it is rarely heated or cooked after purchase. The "phages' " -- as they're nicknamed -- number-one job is to kill off strains of Listeria monocytogenes bacterium which cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily attacks pregnant women, newborns and adults with weakened immune systems. Of the 25,000 people stricken with listeriosis each year, 500 die of it.

I'm torn on this one, I really am. On the one hand, if modern science allows us to harness something like a virus for the greater good, I'm for it. In the article, both the FDA and consumer advocacy group the Center for Science in the Public Interest assure us that the most stringent guidelines have been followed and the phages wouldn't be used if otherwise.

Source