Is Eating Too Little Salt Risky? New Report Raises Questions

Enlarge image i

<#comment hash="0bb0d33c2c00473a600f00d54e35519b" />

Eat less salt, but not too much less.

<#comment hash="123c7b910e9e1605a9f1840d137d8506" />

<#comment hash="6015d5c76ee66925f42857ef9eceebd4" /> iStockPhoto.com

Americans are repeatedly told to cut back on salt to reduce the risk of heart disease. But there are new questions being raised about the possible risks of reducing sodium too much.

So, how low should we go? Currently, the government recommends that Americans should aim for 2,300 milligrams per day. And people older than 50, as well as those with high blood pressure, diabetes or kidney disease are advised to reduce sodium even further, down to 1,500 mg per day.

But a panel of experts convened by the Institute of Medicine concludes in a new report that "the evidence on direct health outcomes does not support recommendations to lower sodium intake ... to or even below 1,500 mg per day."

Why? We asked the committee chairman, Brian Strom, a dean and professor of public health at the University of Pennsylvania, to summarize the panel's findings for us. "The net conclusion is that people who are eating too much sodium should lower their sodium, but it is possible that if you lower it too much you may do harm."

Strom says a lot more research is needed to better understand how ultra-low-sodium diets may be beneficial or harmful. Strom pointed to an Italian study of people with congestive heart failure as an example of research that has hinted that diets too low in sodium may be problematic for certain people.

"The people on the low-sodium diet actually did worse [compared to those on medium-sodium diets]," says Strom. "They had more hospital re-admissions and they had a higher mortality rate." He says it's unclear if the results would be the same for Americans with congestive heart failure, since treatments here are different than they are in Italy. But, he says, the findings raise questions.

The American Heart Association, which recommends a low-sodium (1,500 mg) diet for all Americans, released a statement stating that it disagrees with the key findings of the new report.

And some preventive health experts are critical, too. The World Health Organization has concluded that elevated blood pressure is the leading cause of preventable death, which suggests that staving off high blood pressure with low-sodium diets is an important strategy.

"Sodium reduction remains a critically important component of public health efforts designed to ... prevent cardiovascular disease," Lawrence Appel of Johns Hopkins University writes in an email.

Appel points out that the studies that suggest that low-sodium diets are harmful tend to focus on "sick populations in which illness leads to low sodium intake rather than the reverse."

Some groups of Americans, including older adults and African-Americans, are especially sensitive to the blood-pressure lowering effects of cutting sodium, Appel says. So the strategy of aiming for low-salt diets has "tremendous potential to reduce racial disparities in blood pressure-related cardiovascular disease."

The bottom line, according to Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, is that Americans are eating way too much salt, on average about 3,400 milligrams a day.

"And we know that much is harmful," she says. "It increases blood pressure, which increases the risk of heart attack and stroke."

And she says focusing on the potential risks of a very-low-sodium diet distracts from the more important conversation about how to get Americans to start consuming less.

To better understand just how much salt is found in the typical lunch out, I met Liebman at a food court.

Our first stop was McDonalds, where it turns out burgers have about twice as much salt as the fries: 1,000 mg, and up to 2,000 if you get the Angus bacon burger, Liebman says.

Put the burger and fries together and you've already reached the recommended daily sodium intake. Liebman says it's a similar story at every chain, from Subway to Chipotle to Pizzeria Uno. (McDonalds has pledged to reduce sodium 15 percent across its menu by 2015.)

So even though the new study raises questions about potential harms of ultra-low-sodium diets, with a food supply like ours, most of us consume way too much salt, not too little.

Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Last week, Monster Beverage filed an unusual lawsuit against the San Francisco City Attorney’s office to stop an attempt to place restrictions on the company’s highly caffeinated and potentially harmful products aimed at youth. This aggressive move is a form of backlash against using the legal system to hold the food and beverage industry’s accountable for deceptive marketing practices.

With the federal government all but ignoring the numerous ways food companies deceive shoppers with dubious health claims, the courts are becoming a more popular alternative for action.

As you may recall from civics class, we have three branches of government, and when two of them – the executive and the legislative – have essentially checked out, that leaves only one place to turn for a legal remedy: the judiciary. Despite years of brainwashing by the right wing about the evils of trial lawyers, litigation is a critical and yet underutilized tool for obtaining justice under a broken and compromised political system.

Under both federal and state law, it’s illegal to engage in deceptive marketing. This is a broad concept that applies to any entity that advertises. The idea is that consumers should not be swindled into buying a product; they deserve the straight facts to make informed purchasing decisions. And while such laws do help deter shady activities, deceptive marketing statutes get violated all the time, mostly due to lack of enforcement.

It may be unsettling to realize that on grocery store shelves right now are likely hundreds of food products that contain illegal deceptive claims. While the federal government does have specific definitions for some phrases such as “low fat” or “low salt,” otherwise almost anything goes on the front of a food package because the feds have turned a blind eye. Without proper government oversight, the only recourse is for private law firms to set these companies straight.

Here are some examples of deceptive food marketing cases currently gaining traction. (Full disclosure, I am a consultant for Reese Richman, one of the law firms bringing such cases.)

Natural Claims

The Food and Drug Administration is unwilling to provide useful guidance on the definition of “natural,” resulting in ubiquitous use of the word by marketers, no matter how nutritionally deficient the product. Factor in the growing interest in organic along with consumer confusion over that label’s meaning and you have a marketing bonanza in “natural” food.

Some lawsuits are being filed over products sporting the natural label that contain genetically-engineered ingredients. Two such examples are ConAgra’s line of Wesson cooking oils and Frito-Lay’s snack products. To back up their claims, lawyers are even relying on Monsanto’s own definition of genetically-modified organisms: “Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs.”

In a positive development in the ConAgra case last November, the judge found that that the plaintiffs adequately described “why genetically-modified products cannot be considered natural” and “they understood that the phrase ‘100% Natural’ meant that Wesson Oil was not made from genetically modified organisms, and that they purchased the product based on this false understanding.” This is a huge step forward for these types of cases.

In a similar action against Frito-Lay, the court recently made a preliminary ruling in favor of the plaintiff allowing the case to move forward. In its defense, Frito-Lay argued that no reasonable consumer would expect the phrase “all natural” to actually refer to all of the ingredients in the product. The court disagreed, since a reasonable consumer could interpret “all natural” to mean, um, all natural.

Such cases have tremendous potential to rock the processed food world, given how many products containing GMO ingredients are currently touting the meaningless natural label. Moreover, with increasing calls for mandatory GMO labeling at both the federal and state levels, along with voluntary retailer actions from the likes of Whole Foods, this issue is not going away anytime soon.

Other cases challenging the natural label are over products containing ingredients that are obviously not natural. One such lawsuit is against the Kellogg-owned Kashi GoLean brand of products. From the complaint:

For example, Kashi’s ‘All Natural’ GoLean Shakes are composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients, including sodium molybdate, phytonadione, sodium selenite, magnesium phosphate, niacinamide, calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, calcium pantothenate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, thiamin hydrochloride, potassium iodide, and other substances that have been declared to be synthetic substances by federal regulations.

Not sounding very natural. The judge has allowed this case to move forward.

Products Aimed at Children

Marketing to children qualifies as illegal deception because a child cannot understand how marketing works. What could be more deceptive than taking advantage of a child’s emotional vulnerability? Unfortunately, we have zero enforcement of this obvious legal violation due to weak-kneed government officials, once again leaving it up to the court system.

To date only one lawsuit has been filed directly challenging marketing to children— against McDonald’s over Happy Meals—an obvious target. The case was brought by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the only nutrition advocacy group with a litigation department. (This helps explain why this tool is so underutilized.) Unfortunately, the judge dismissed the case last year. While suing over marketing to children does face certain procedural challenges, with the right venue and strategy, I am hopeful we can gain traction in time.

In lieu of directly challenging food makers for targeting children, another strategy emerging is suing over child-oriented products that make deceptive health claims. One such example is the General Mills’ product, Fruit Roll-Ups.

Also filed by Center for Science in the Public Interest, this case took the company to task for its claims their products were “fruit flavored,” “naturally flavored,” a “good source of vitamin C,” and low in calories, fat, and gluten. (Seriously, low in gluten?) In December, this case was settled when General Mills agreed to stop using the most egregious practices; for example, no longer putting images of strawberries on a product that contained none. Duh.

Chutzpah Claims

Taking the prize in the chutzpah line of cases is Coca-Cola’s vitaminwater brand. This lawsuit alleges deceptive marketing for positioning the product as a health tonic, when some varieties contain a whopping 33 grams of sugar (in 20 ounces), among other unhealthful ingredients such as dyes. That case has also been allowed to move forward, despite Coca-Cola’s desperate argument that “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage,’ a claim that was skillfully ripped apart by John Robbins and as well as hilariously pilloried by Stephen Colbert.

Another product deserving a chutzpah award is Chobani yogurt, a brand that has taken on near-iconic status in the most health-washed category of all. Chobani is being sued over its “all-natural” claim (among other statutory violations) because the label lists “evaporated cane juice,” which is just a fancy way of saying sugar. This, despite the FDA’s explicit warning to food makers not to use the phrase because the accurate description of the ingredient is actually “dried cane syrup.” But juice sounds so much more “natural” than syrup.

In a recent Twitter exchange, I had some fun with the poor social media person at Chobani. Despite the lawsuit, the company continues to use the phrase “evaporate cane juice.” When I asked why not just call it sugar, the reply was: “It’s specifically the form we use. Not all sugars are created equal.” But I got no response when I next tried to ask exactly how their sweetener was any different from sugar. (Maybe the lawyers got hold of the Twitter account.)

Rounding out the chutzpah category is Nutella, which got in legal trouble for advertising its dessert-like product as healthy breakfast. Although the case was settled for $3 million, it was also the subject of some ridicule by those who thought it was obvious that Nutella is a treat. But that critique misses the point: Under the law, companies are not allowed to market its junk food products as healthful. In a seminal case against Gerber for deceptively marketing children’s “fruit snacks,” the company tried to use the Nutrition Facts label as a defense, since the ingredients and amount of sugar are clearly listed there. But the judge explained that information being available elsewhere (like on the back of the package) does not make it OK for a company to deceive consumers in other ways, such as on the front of the package or in ads.

Litigation Challenges

While litigation represents an important tool for holding food companies responsible, there are also numerous challenges. For example, the strategy requires targeting one product or line of products at a time, which is not the most efficient approach for sweeping change. However, strategic selection of the worst (and largest) offenders can send a strong message to an entire industry.

Another limitation is how long the court process can take: often several years just to get through the preliminary phase. And, corporate defense lawyers are skillful at dragging out the process in hopes the plaintiffs will give up. Finally, the results are sometimes less than ideal. Most cases end in settlement because they are too costly to bring to trial, and negotiation necessitates compromise.

But given the widespread health-washing by a desperate food industry at a time when the American public is starting to realize that actual fruit may be a healthier option than Fruit Loops, litigation is a critical, if imperfect, tool.

Why Get Involved in Litigation?

Advocacy groups engaged in the good food movement should take notice. While major foundations may be too skittish to fund litigation, organizations can still team up with private lawyers to bring more of these sorts of cases. Nonprofits can play different roles such as: 1) offering specific expertise as consultants; 2) asking their members to serve as plaintiffs; 3) being a named plaintiff themselves in certain types of actions; or 4) serving as co-counsel.

Perhaps the best motivator for a nonprofit group to get involved in litigation is the potential for being awarded part of a “cy pres” fund: money set aside in a settlement for nonprofits doing good work that is sufficiently related to the case. Several good projects got their start with cy pres money, including a California-based group called CANFIT, which works with adolescents around health and nutrition. That settlement fund was from a deceptive marketing case against Kraft Foods, and some 20 years later the group is still going strong.

We have our work cut out for us with so much deception in the marketplace, but with better coordination and teamwork, we can make real progress through the legal system. It’s a shame that we have to turn to the courts at all, but that’s the political reality right now. Someone has to hold the food industry accountable.

The "relaxation response," a term coined by Harvard Medical School Professor and Body Mind Medical Institute founder Herbert Benson, M.D, is defined as a physiologic state of deep rest that alters the physical and emotional response to stress. The relaxation response is the opposite of the body's "fight-or-flight" response to stress, and can be achieved by centering practices like yoga, prayer, meditation and deep breathing exercises.

Previous studies have shown that the relaxation response can alleviate anxiety and lower the heart rate, among other health benefits. And in this new study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, researchers are able to actually measure bodily changes induced by the relaxation response by examining alterations in gene expression.

"Many studies have shown that mind/body interventions like the relaxation response can reduce stress and enhance wellness in healthy individuals and counteract the adverse clinical effects of stress in conditions like hypertension, anxiety, diabetes and aging," study researcher Dr. Herbert Benson, M.D., director emeritus of the Benson-Henry Institute, said in a statement. "Now for the first time we've identified the key physiological hubs through which these benefits might be induced."

The study included 26 adults who had never done a relaxation response practice before. At the start of the study, researchers had these people take a blood test before and after doing a "control" session where they listened to a a health information CD for 20 minutes. Then, they had the participants take an eight-week relaxation response training course. After this course, the participants took a blood test before and after listening to a relaxation CD for 20 minutes.

To really see the effects of relaxation on the body, researchers also took blood tests before and after listening to the relaxation CD from people who were considered "long-term" relaxers -- that is, 25 other people who had been doing relaxation practices for four to 25 years.

Researchers found differences in gene expression from the blood samples taken before the relaxation course, and the blood samples from after the relaxation course and the "long-term" relaxers. Specifically, they found that changes in gene expression of the energy metabolism, insulin and stress-related pathways.

"People have been engaging in these practices for thousands of years, and our finding of this unity of function on a basic-science, genomic level gives greater credibililty to what some have called 'new age medicine,' " Benson said in the statement.

This is hardly the first study to show that relaxing has actual benefits for the physical body. A Georgetown University study published in March pinpointed how acupuncture, for instance, is able to effectively relieve stress by blocking the stress-induced elevation of certain hormones in certain brain pathways.

And another relaxation-inducing practice, mindfulness meditation, has been shown to lower stress levels, reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety in adolescents, and improve emotional stability and sleep quality.

Click here for a video guide to simple relaxation response techniques.

Vilified Coconut Oil

Several decades ago, coconut oil was vilified. It was made to look like the “bad guy” in comparison with its competitors from the corn and soy industries. They were successful in their campaign to squash the coconut oil competition by highlighting it’s saturated fat content and tying that to heart disease. Now, however, coconut oil and its medium chain triglycerides (saturated fats) are back on top and being recognized for numerous health benefits.

The health benefits of coconut oil are amazing; the oil possesses antimicrobial, antifungal, anti-bacterial, and antioxidant properties. The lauric, capric and caprylic acids within the oil are credited with many of these benefits. It’s the lauric acid, for instance, that is converted into monolaurin which in in turn fights the bugs associated with herpes, giardia, listeria, influenza, and even HIV.

Coconut oil benefits truly are many, and it doesn’t take much. Just a tablespoon or so a day could make significant differences in your health. Coconut oil for Alzheimer’s and dementia has been proven especially beneficial.

Coconut Oil Benefits – Topical Applications

Topically, coconut oil can be used on the skin and hair. For your skin, it’s great for soothing dryness and even irritation from rashes. It is also good for fighting wrinkles and signs of aging. Common skin disorders like psoriasis and eczema can be taken care of, along with simple chores like removing eye makeup without the use of chemicals.

Used on your hair, coconut oil can increase shine and reduce static electricity. It can also be used as a scalp massage to eliminate flaking and itchy dry scalp.

Taken Internally

Most people use coconut internally. And it’s here we see the majority of its benefits. Potential internal benefits of coconut oil include:

• Anti-cancer
• Alzheimer’s treatment
• Dental health including cavity prevention and reversal
• Diabetes management
• Weight loss aid
• Improved digestion
• Increased immune function
• Heart disease prevention
• And more…

Best of all, coconut oil is easy to add to your daily regimen. Use it in sautéing vegetables, raw in smoothies and juices, and in your baking and cooking. It’s flavor goes well with sweeter dishes but can temper a spicy dish just as well.

(NaturalNews) For years experts have been warning against the dangers of sodium fluoride, but that awareness has grown in recent years, as cities like Portland, Ore. have angered residents with plans to add fluoride, and voters in Wichita, Kan. voting against adding it to their water system for …

Continue reading »

Promoted for decades as a "safe" sugar alternative, presumably to prevent or reduce symptoms of diabetes, Splenda (sucralose) has been found to have diabetes-promoting effects in human subjects.

The artificial sweetener sucralose, which is approximately 600 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar), and marketed under a variety of brand names, such as Splenda, Cukren, Nevella and SucraPlus, has recently been found to have diabetes-promoting effects in human test subjects, despite containing no calories and being classified as a 'nonutritive sweetener.'

A new study published in the journal Diabetes Care, lead by researchers at the Center for Human Nutrition, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, set out to test the metabolic effects of sucralose in obese subjects who did not use nonnutritive sweeteners.

Seventeen subjects underwent a 5-hour oral glucose tolerance test on two separate occasions preceded by consuming either sucralose (experimental condition) or water (control condition) 10 min before the glucose load in a randomized crossover design.

read more

Doug Bartlett, the teacher, has sued the school, and attorneys at Rutherford Institute have a pending civil rights case against the school district. Most of us hope he wins that case, but with recent Monsanto victories in federal courts, how will this poor teacher fair? This case is not unlike the school district that got sued in Encinita for having yoga classes, only in reverse. It seems the programs that help society get poo-pooed and the benevolent acts of wise teachers in Chicago are labeled violent.

It’s clear that Mr. Bartlett did nothing wrong. The tools were even kept locked up when not in use (just in case some thug wanted to wield a garden spade against the principal). He was suspended without pay, and charged with possession and carrying of a ‘weapon’. He was embarrassed and humiliated. It’s only four days, but it’s the principle of the matter. The gross overreaction by the school district is just indicative of the indelible mark corporatism has made on the masses.

Watch out kids, learning anything of use that will help you become self-sufficient, including the ways and means to grow your own organic, non-GMO food are hazardous. Imagine what that school district would do to LA’s guerilla gardener who plants edible crops in all the unused green space in Los Angeles, California? Surely, arming children with proactive and non-violent ways to bring sustainability to the world is pure criminality!

“This school district’s gross overreaction to a simple teaching demonstration on basic tools such as wrenches and pliers underscores exactly what is wrong with our nation’s schools,” said Rutherford Institute Pres. John Whitehead.

For Chicagoans and school-aged students, here are some more garden tools you can use to grow stuff with:

• Dutch Hoe
• Spade
• Potting Soil
• Old dead leaves for making compost
• A watering can
• Garden gloves (just be careful not to use the one OJ Simpson used back in 1994.
• Scissors for clipping leaves and stems
• Organic, Heirloom seeds – they sell tons of these on ebay for super cheap, or you can do a seed swap at local horticultural and gardening society and get some for free.
• Weeders
• A soil knife (it looks like a really fat butter knife) with one serrated edge and markings like a ruler to measure soil depth
• Pruning shears
• Old milk jugs to be used as watering devices
• A loop hoe
• Small saws, for cutting tree limbs and thick stalks of larger plants

Additional Sources:

CNS News

CBS8

Need another reason to kick your soda habit for good? In a study published in Europe, researchers have shown that drinking just one 12 ounce can of sugary soda per day increases the chance of diabetes by over 20%. Download the study here.

Reminder – a can of soda contains 140 calories and absolutely no nutritional benefit, just 10 teaspoons of sugar. But massive advertising by Coca Cola and PepsiCo keep us guzzling down these beverages. In fact, as we wrote just 2 days ago, pop is the #3 source of calories for kids, and #4 for adults.

Every year, another million people become diabetic. Type 2 diabetes is a terrible disease that is irreversible and heavily burdens both individuals and the healthcare system. Does anyone still think public health measures, such as taxing soda, limiting serving sizes, or other innovative steps to reduce consumption are such a bad idea?

Before you chime in with usual “free choice” and “adults,” consider the billions of dollars spent annually marketing and advertising soft drinks, getting our kids hooked from a very young age. If this wouldn’t work, beverage companies would not spend so much on advertising. So NO, it’s not really a free country. NO, we don’t really have a choice. Not most of us.

You want healthcare reform? Start with soft drinks…

Read more...

Asparagus is traditionally a spring vegetable, with April being the most common month of harvest. Growing asparagus takes effort and time, as it takes three years from the planting of seeds before the first stalks are ready. Then, each stalk must be hand-picked. Although most people know asparagus by its green color, it is also available in white and purple varieties.

read more

But that doesn't mean eating fish can't also be fraught with concerns. Many fish species have high levels of the metal mercury -- a dangerous contaminant that can affect the nervous system. Mercury from pollution and that naturally occurs in the atmosphere both settle in our oceans, lakes and streams, where they are consumed by fish and then converted to the toxin, methylmercury. Fish that are high on the food chain consume other contaminated fish, compounding their mercury levels. The primary concern with fish and mercury is in infants and young children, whose developing nervous systems are particularly vulnerable to mercury's effects, but adults who have high exposure levels (an unlikely outcome from eating a few servings of fish) can experience significant central nervous system damage as well. Pregnant and nursing women are advised to be extremely careful about choosing the types of fish to eat.

Methylmercury poisoning is just one environmental concern among many. Fish can also contain the toxicant, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and our taste for fish has led to fishery collapse, decimating many species' populations. Climate change has also had an affect on fish population levels.

So how do you pick fish that are good for you and good for the environment? Several organizations keep track of which fish are low in mercury and other toxicants, aren't endangered and still manage to benefit your heart and brain health. Healthy Living surveyed several of these lists, including National Resources Defense Council, Monterey Bay Aquarium and Environmental Working Group. We asked our friends at HuffPost Taste to round up healthy recipes for these healthy, sustainable fish. Here's our list:

• Anchovies
• Butterfish
• Clams
• Domestic Crab
• Hake
• Herring
• Mackerel
• Oyster
• Perch
• Sardine
• Shad
• Squid
• Tilapia
• Freshwater Trout
• Whitefish
• Whiting

Read on for some healthful recipes, containing the best fish you can eat -- for yourself and for the planet. And tell us in the comments: How do you prepare your favorite fish?