FoodFacts.com is always interested in the latest information available to us regarding the alarming levels of sodium in our food supply. We devote a lot of blog space and Facebook posts to revealing that information and highlighting those products which contain far too much sodium and why we should all be so concerned. There’s some interesting new information coming from the Institute of Medicine that is saying that there is really no reason to limit sodium to under 1500 milligrams per day. This is the current recommended daily intake for healthy adults. They went further and cited a level of 2300 milligrams as the acceptable limit. Unfortunately, Americans are consuming an average of 3400 milligrams of sodium every day – and the majority of that isn’t coming from a salt shaker. Instead it’s coming from processed foods. The American Heart Association has no intention of changing the current recommendation for daily sodium consumption. In fact, they find many problems with this new information from the Institute of Medicine. We tend to agree. And we don’t want to forget a basic premise that really can’t be argued. The more salt we consume, the more salt we want. We crave it. And that seems to be the logical conclusion for why manufacturers put so much of it in processed foods. It seems to keep us coming back for more. It appears that even babies can become addicted to the taste of salt. According to the National Institute of Health, babies who are exposed early to starchy, salty foods develop a preference for the salty taste by as early as six months old. Those babies exposed to salt consumed 55 percent more than their unexposed peers. The preference has been shown to last into the preschool years. These findings indicate the significant role of early dietary experiences in shaping taste preferences that last into childhood and could potentially influence taste preferences in adults. FoodFacts.com Baby & Toddler Nutrition Guide points out some very disturbing sodium levels in products designed specifically for the youngest generations, effectively “hooking” the youngest among us on salty flavors before they’re old enough to know what they are. For adults, it’s been found that people who lower their sodium intake for just two or three months experience a significant decrease in salt cravings. While studies on salt do tend to be conflicting in terms of safe levels of consumption, we do have enough information to understand clearly that high levels of sodium are a contributing factor for many chronic health conditions and can be dangerous to our well-being. We can also clearly understand that salt is pretty addictive – and that addiction seems to originate in our taste buds. It’s something that even babies and toddlers are vulnerable too. FoodFacts.com will continue with the concept that fresh food is the best food. The sodium levels that we find so disturbing aren’t coming from our home kitchens … they’re coming from processed foods that are much too prevalent in our pantries. The healthiest thing we can do for ourselves and our children is prepare foods at home, with the fresh ingredients we know and understand and the sodium levels we can gauge correctly for ourselves. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/05/salt_dietary_guidelines_why_do_food_manufacturers_use_so_much_salt.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/health/panel-finds-no-benefit-in-sharply-restricting-sodium.html?pagewanted=1&hp&_r=0 http://www.nih.gov/news/health/dec2011/nidcd-20.htm

FoodFacts.com has long been of the opinion that artificial sweeteners can’t be good for our health. Artificial ingredients are generally pretty bad. They do nothing for our bodies nutritionally and many have disturbing health effects. Aspartame is one of those ingredients that we caution against. While the FDA considers aspartame to be safe (except for those with phenylketonuria), it’s been linked to side effects such as headaches, rashes, fatigue, irritability, heart palpitations, dizziness, insomnia and seizures. Birth defects and cancers have been associated with the use of aspartame, but the National Cancer Institute has refuted any links between aspartame consumption and cancer. A new study coming out of the University of Life Sciences in Poland reports that aspartame can be metabolized into three different molecules: phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol. All of these can be toxic. Methanol metabolites can cause central nervous system depression, vision problems and other disorders that can lead to coma. The study points out that aspartic acid in high concentrations is a toxin that causes hyperexcitability of neurons and is a precursor of glutamic acid. Phenylalanine can block the transport of important amino acids to the brain which can lower the levels of dopamine and serotonin, important for both mood and sleep. In addition, the study seems to link aspartame with cancer because its metabolites can cause cancers in the central nervous system. There have been a variety of conflicting study results on aspartame. Some have determined that it is safe and others have linked it to a variety of side effects and conditions. Interestingly, of the 166 previous studies on the artificial sweetener, the 74 that were funded by the aspartame industry found no safety issues. 90 percent of the other 92 independent studies found serious health concerned linked to the use of aspartame. FoodFacts.com urges our community to avoid the consumption of aspartame. While none of the research is conclusive, aspartame has been linked to an increased risk for heart disease, cardiac arrest, high blood pressure, obesity and diabetes. It may be linked with cancer and can have adverse neurological effects. That’s a pretty long list of possibilities linked to one artificial sweetener. Overall, it’s just not worth it. As always, FoodFacts.com encourages everyone to rely on real food ingredients. While nothing in excess is a healthy idea, using actual sugar in moderation is the best choice available when looking for a sweetener. We know what it is, we understand what it does and it doesn’t metabolize into the toxic substances that aspartame has been identified with. Let’s stay educated and aware about everything we consume. http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/chemical/aspartame_0511130104.html

FoodFacts.com tries to keep our community informed of any new information regarding the obesity epidemic that’s plaguing not only our own country, but countries around the world. Childhood obesity is especially disturbing as excessive weight in childhood sets the youngest generations up for lifetimes of chronic health problems and serious disease. New research from the Institute of Preventive Medicine at the Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark has now shown a possible link between obesity and height in childhood and adult endometrial cancer. This study used data from a group of 158,000 women from the Copenhagen School Health Records Register that included information on heights and weights at 7 to 13 years of age. These women were born between 1930 and 1989. The BMI and height for each women were translated into age-related z-scores. This is a method for comparing height and weight of a child in comparison to a reference population. They linked these scores via personal identification numbers to the Danish Cancer Registry and the Hospital Discharge Register for hysterectomy information as well as the vital statistics register. Each woman’s records were followed until one of the following occurred: a diagnosis of endometrial cancer, hysterectomy, death, emigration, loss-to-follow-up (discontinuation of treatment) or December 31, 2010. The researchers found a correlation between both weight and height and the later development of endometrial cancer. At age 7 the risk of endometrial cancer in adulthood increased 18% per increase in BMI z-score and by 12% per increase in height z-score. In other words at age 7, a girl of average height (a little over 4 feet tall) weighing about 58 pounds had an 18% higher risk of developing adult endometrial cancer than a girl of the same height who was of average weight (about 50 pounds). Additionally a girl the same age who was a little over two inches taller than that average-sized girl had a 12% increased risk for endometrial cancer. A 13 year old girl born in the late 50s of average height (almost 5 ft., 2 in. tall) who weighed about 113 pounds had a 24% increased risk for endometrial cancer than a girl the same height, but of average weight (about 98 pounds). The study shows a possible association between both weight and height in childhood and adult endometrial cancer. Endometrial cancer diagnoses peak at about age 65. Data from those women who have not reached peak age will continue to be followed in order to obtain further information regarding this association. FoodFacts.com will continue to bring our community new information regarding this study as it continues and on the obesity epidemic and its affect on the health on the worldwide population. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/260448.php

FoodFacts.com is excited to inform our community that Vermont is coming close to being the first state in the nation to require labeling of genetically modified foods! The Vermont House passed the bill by an incredible 107-37 vote! While the measure wouldn’t go into effect for two years if passed by the senate and signed by the governor, this is a groundbreaking moment for all of us who support the labeling of GMO ingredients in our food supply. A little more on the bill – if passed, it would not affect the labeling of meat, milk or eggs from animals that were fed or treated with genetically engineered substances. But it would require that any food product that contains a GMO ingredient (think corn, soy and sugar) would need to clearly state it on its labeling. It was interesting to learn that there was no argument against the idea of transparent labeling for GMO ingredients in food. Those that voiced opposition to the bill stated concerns of likely lawsuits from the biotech and food industries. This appears to be the state’s biggest concern as it would be an exceptionally costly proposition. Many believe that the state would lose such a lawsuit, as the new law could possibly contradict the First Amendment by compelling speech and pre-empting federal authority (since the FDA has not made the labeling of GMO ingredients a federal requirement). A ballot initiative that would have required the labeling of GMO ingredients in California was defeated last year. There was a lot of money spent accomplishing the defeat of that proposition. Since that time though, many states have been considering a bill like the one that just passed the house in Vermont. The legislation of GMO ingredient labeling isn’t dying. Most of the corn, soy, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. are genetically modified. These ingredients are used commonly in the processed foods on our grocery shelves. But consumers can’t know that since they aren’t labeled as such. The labeling requirement would allow consumers a much-needed choice in the products they purchase. 64 different countries – the European Union nations, China and Russia included – have GMO-labeling laws. If this bill passes in Vermont and is signed into law, a new trend may begin here in America. FoodFacts.com is excited to see that new trend begin! We’ll keep following this news and bring you the results as soon as we have them! http://grist.org/news/vermont-house-approves-gmo-labeling-law/

FoodFacts.com has been keeping close watch on the controversial topic of energy drinks during the last year. The issue of caffeine (and hidden caffeine) in those drinks has become a major concern for consumers due to a spate of energy-drink related hospital emergencies and even some fatalities. Sadly, during that same time period, many food companies have been manufacturing and promoting other food products with added caffeine. Wrigley has suspended production on their new Alert Energy Gum … chewing gum with added caffeine, just as the FDA announced that they will be investigating the safety of added caffeine and its effects on children and adolescents. They are already investigating the safety of energy drinks and have now added other food products to their list of caffeine concerns. Caffeine has the regulatory classification of "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, which means manufacturers can add it to products and then determine on their own whether the product is safe. The addition of caffeine to gum and other products is raising questions about whether or not GRAS is working for consumers. Caffeine is not a new an unusual ingredient. It is, however, currently available to consumers in food products in which it is not usually found. The major concern is how easy it is for children and adolescents to consume these products and the effects those products could have on the health of the younger generations. While Wrigley’s has stated that their caffeinated gum is for adult use only, gum is a product that’s pretty popular with kids. And they could be adversely affected by the 40 mg of caffeine in each piece (about the amount found in a half cup of coffee). Caffeine can be found in some jelly beans, trail mix, potato chips and other snack foods. While manufacturers state that the marketing of those products is directed towards adults, it’s pretty obvious that candy and snacks are appealing to children. We already know that too much caffeine can be a danger for kids. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that caffeine has been linked to harming developing neurologic and cardiovascular systems. While one serving of a product with added caffeine wouldn’t be harmful, it is concerning that kids could be consuming an unsafe amount of caffeine over the course of any given day if it is added to products like candy and gum. While the FDA acknowledges that the reports it has received regarding illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths after the consumption of energy drinks do not prove that the drinks caused the injuries or fatalities, it is fairly obvious that they are related in some form. The agency has stated that it would take action if they could link these incidents directly to the consumption of energy drinks. FoodFacts.com likes a good cup of coffee as much as anyone. But we don’t think that adding caffeine to products that are attractive to children and young teens makes sense – especially when we’re talking about gum, candy or other snack products. We’re happy that Wrigley’s halted the production of its “energy gum.” It was the right thing to do. The disturbing reports regarding energy drinks are frightening enough. We look forward to the results of the FDA investigations of added caffeine and its harmful effects. http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=oRg3unhn

FoodFacts.com knows that feeling! Suddenly at about 3 p.m., you find your eyes beginning to close while you’re trying to focus on your computer screen. You begin to yawn – more than once and can’t seem to stop. You probably find yourself going to grab a coffee or taking a walk around the office. If you can get out into the fresh air, you know that will help out a little. Sooner or later after any combination of those things, you begin to feel a little more awake and you’re ready to deal with the rest of the work day. Sound familiar? Today we found a new study that links that mid-day slump to the foods we eat. Coming out of the Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, researchers followed 31 healthy, non-obese normal sleeping (no sleep apnea) adults ranging in age from 18 to 65 years old. Participants spent four consecutive nights in a sleep lab. On the fourth day, objective sleepiness was assessed and participants were given five meals in order to assess diet. Results show that higher fat consumption was associated with increased daytime sleepiness, while higher carbohydrate intake was associated with increased alertness. There was no relationship between protein consumption and sleepiness or alertness. These findings held true regardless of the subjects' gender, age, and body mass index as well as the total amount of sleep they were getting and their total caloric intake. So even if one participant got less sleep the night before than another, but consumed more fat during the day, that participant felt the effects of mid-day slump. Fat consumption had a noticeable and significant affect on alertness. The authors noted that previous studies had found a link between diet and subjective sleepiness. This new study adds to those prior findings linking fat consumption to objective sleepiness. They also noted that excessive daytime fatigue is on the rise worldwide and that fatigue can have a negative effect on the level at which an individual is capable of functioning as well as presenting concerns for public safety. So the next time you’re sitting at your desk in the afternoon sensing the drooping of your eyelids and looking longingly towards the office coffee machine, FoodFacts.com suggests that you take silent inventory of your daily diet. There are many good reasons to be aware of our fat consumption. Maybe mid-day slump is trying to help us take care of our health by telling us to cut down on the fat. It’s good for our weight, it’s good for our heart and it will help us stay more alert for more hours during what we all hope will be a productive day! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130507164632.htm

FoodFacts.com loves the idea that there are some old-fashioned pieces of advice that can actually prove to be true over time. Some of the things your grandmother told you really can help you live a better life. Old sayings like “Early to bed, early to rise make a man healthy, wealthy and wise,” certainly have their merit. And, as it turns out some of the advice given to us by others concerning how our habits can affect our weight hold more truth than previously thought! How many times have you heard that you shouldn’t go to the grocery store hungry? A new study out of Cornell University suggests that people who go grocery shopping when they are hungry are purchasing higher calorie foods than those who shop on a full stomach. The study tracked consumer food choices in a simulated supermarket depending on how hungry they were feeling. 62 people were paid to participate in the first part of the study. Half of the group was told to go without eating anything for five hours before their shopping trip. The other half were given a plate of Wheat Thins prior to shopping.  The follow-up study looked at purchasing habits at different times of the day for 82 people. The results clearly showed that the participants who were hungry while shopping were more apt to buy high calorie products. The difference in the total number of products purchased was marginal. The follow-up study showed that consumers shopping for groceries at times when they were most likely to be hungry purchased fewer low-calorie foods. These were people shopping between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. Those who shopped between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. were more likely to buy lower-calorie products. The study’s authors noted that even a short period of time without food before grocery shopping can influence food choices. So the advice is “Don’t go grocery shopping when you’re hungry.” It really will change your purchasing habits. FoodFacts.com thinks this is great advice. Consider a light snack before you venture out to the grocery store. Give more thought to the time of day you shop. Don’t fall into the trap that has now been illustrated by research. Even healthy shoppers can be influenced by their hunger. Some old advice really does make sense. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/260226.php

FoodFacts.com likes nothing better than learning that a simple, natural, fresh food contributes even more than we had previously realized to our good health and well being! Today we learned more about grapes and their health benefits. A new study from the University of Michigan Health System shows that grapes can reduce the risk of heart failure from chronic high blood pressure. It appears that they can increase the activity of a number of genes responsible for antioxidant defense in heart tissue. Grapes are a natural source of antioxidants and polyphenols. The study involved rats with high blood pressure who were prone to heart failure. The rats were fed a grape-enriched diet for 18 weeks. The grape consumption reduced the occurrence of enlargement of the heart muscle and improved the diastolic function of the heart. But in addition, the study revealed that grape consumption turned on the antioxidant defense pathways by increasing the activity of the specific genes that produce glutathione, the most abundant antioxidant in the heart. While prior studies had shown that grapes could protect against heart failure due to high blood pressure, this study was able to illustrate exactly how that is accomplished. The study will be extended, continuing into 2014. The research team is looking to further define the mechanisms of grape action. They currently believe that the consumption of the whole grape is important to realizing these benefits. The whole fruit contains hundreds of individual components and they suspect that those components work together to provide the beneficial effects. It is estimated that about 1 billion people worldwide suffer from high blood pressure, which increases their risk of heart failure. We know that antioxidant-rich diets, high in fruits and vegetables help to reduce hypertension. FoodFacts.com will follow this great news about grapes and keep our community informed of any new information that further reveals how these tasty, small globes of goodness can help us improve and maintain our health. In the meantime, let’s remember that grapes are an easy snack, a great tasting addition to salads and even to main dishes. It’s definitely well worth the effort to find ways to increase grape consumption in our diets. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/260045.php

Everyone in the FoodFacts.com community understands our position on added sugars in our food supply. Sugar is everywhere and takes many forms. Unless we’re preparing meals from scratch at home and using fresh ingredients, we are bound to be consuming more sugar than we’re even aware of. It’s just that prevalent in all kinds of food products. The latest report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has now stated that Americans are definitely consuming too much sugar – about 13% of the average adult’s total caloric intake is coming from sugar and high fructose corn syrup. This report included data collected on added sugar consumption between 2005 and 2010 for U.S. adults. These shockingly high levels of sugar consumption were far greater than what would be considered typical for adults. The American Heart Association has been urging consumers to cut the amount of added sugar they are consuming. They’ve reported on the evidence that has accumulated that too much sugar is associated with obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke. The new CDC report shows that men are consuming more sugar per day than women. But gender differences fall away when looking at sugar consumption as a percentage of daily caloric intake. On average, men consumed 12.7% of daily calories from added sugar as compared to 13.2% for women. Those between the ages of 20 and 39 consumed the highest amount of added sugar – with over 14% of daily calories coming from sugars. It was also found that calories consumed from sugars decreased with age, with men and women over the age of 60 having the lowest percentage of daily calories from sugar intake. Researchers noted that most of the added sugars consumed came from foods rather than beverages. In addition, added sugars are not those that occur naturally from foods like fruit or milk. If you’re a FoodFacts.com member, it’s likely you read ingredient lists and nutrition labels before you purchase products. And it’s also likely that you’re already aware of the copious amounts of sugar that can be found in products that most wouldn’t assume contain them. We can’t emphasize the importance of reading lists and labels for so many reasons. Added sugars are a tremendous concern for our population. Read the labels before you buy. And understand that there really isn’t any reasonable substitute for meals you prepare yourself, in your own kitchen from whole, fresh foods that weren’t processed before they reached your table. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/260083.php