Few Americans recognize the population is being re-programmed metabolically to be fat. It’s like Americans are a bunch of lab rats being programmed to overeat.

Actually, biologists have an experiment where they use bisphenol A, an endocrine gland disruptor, to breed rodents who eat all day and end up looking like bowling balls. Biologists now call chemical like bisphenol A obesogens. Exposure to bisphenol A can affect future generations of Americans who never consumed this molecule. Bisphenol A can re-program humans to overeat.

Bisphenol A is a chemical that is found in plastic baby bottles and lines tin cans to keep the tin taste away. Americans consume about 7 pounds of bisphenol A annually and who knows why the FDA continues to allow it to be used even if it is only suspect in the diabesity epidemic now underway in America.

Bisphenol A is altering the behavior of animals at low doses, typical of what human infants are exposed to.

Bisphenol A is just one of many synthetically-made chemicals in our modern environment that can disrupt normal metabolism. While one study dismisses the effect of bisphenol A in obesity, no one has fully studied the total effect of all of these molecules upon human obesity.

A number of environmental pollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates, bisphenol A, pesticides, alkylphenols and heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury), have been shown to disrupt endocrine function. These compounds can cause reproductive problems by decreasing sperm count and quality, cause male breast cancer, cryptorchidism, hypospadias, miscarriages, endometriosis, impaired fertility, irregularities of the menstrual cycle, and infertility.

The point here is that something the FDA allows to be used in foods has not been fully tested. The tide is changing against bisphenol A.

But let’s fast forward to the gist of this report – about a beverage called Sunny Delight, or Sunny-D as it is sometimes called in advertising jingles. The Sunny-D story is reported on outside the U.S. better than it is inside.

As the British-based online paper The Guardian says, Sunny-D is about “corporate power,” about a “manufacturing giant having to come to terms with a new world in which the consumer is increasingly smart.” Maybe so, but Sunny-D wreaked it metabolic havoc for years before it product lifespan began to dwindle.

Sunny-D hit Britain in April of 1998 and became the country’s third-best selling soft drink. It debuted in the U.S. in 1964. With sales of 160-million British pounds it began to rival Pepsi in sales. Three years later Sunny-D was in deep trouble. Even with price reductions by Proctor & Gamble, Sunny-D’s manufacturer, sales slumped by over 30%.

Sunny-D had seduced the taste buds of young children the world over. It was paraded as if it were a health drink, a healthier version of orange juice. Its ingredients – citric acid, sugar, water, vegetable oil, thickeners and a smattering of vitamins and colorings to make it look like fresh orange juice. There was nothing natural about Sunny-D, it was made in a frankenfoods laboratory somewhere.

British health authorities saw through the millions of advertising dollars and declared it “the unreal thing.” Placing Sunny-D in coolers as if it were orange juice is what misled many mothers who buy drinks for their children. The extra vitamins were a ploy – better than orange juice was the message.

Then the tide turned against Proctor & Gamble when a young girl with liver problems suddenly turned yellow after drinking a lot of Sunny-D. It was the beta carotene in the drink, which was a harmless side effect, but enough to coin it “Sunny-D Syndrome.”

So Sunny-D’s manufacturer decided to describe it as “an orange-flavored citrus punch” instead of “real fruit beverage.”

On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean the Center for Science in the Public Interest condemned Sunny Delight as “junk juice.” It was, in fact, expensive sugar water masquerading as a vitaminized version of citrus juice. Surveys showed consumers though it was in fact fruit juice.

There is no question that P&G was out after Florida’s orange juice market and created a man-made beverage, sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, to take market share away from prepared orange juice. One variety of Sunny Delight even advertised itself as a “Florida Style” Tangy Citrus drink.

Sunny Delight Fact Sheet

Ingredients: Water, High Fructose, Corn Syrup and 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Concentrated Juices (Orange, Tangerine, Apple, Lime, Grapefruit). Citric Acid, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Beta-Carotene, Thiamin Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Natural Flavors, Food Starch-Modified, Canola Oil, Cellulose Gum, Xanthan Gum, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Sodium Benzoate To Protect Flavor, Yellow #5, Yellow #6

All this is old news. Sunny-D was eventually sold off to another company. P&G, after hundreds of millions of dollars in sales, moved on to develop other illustrious products like Olestra – fake fat. Sunny-D today contains a number of artificial sweeteners in addition to high fructose corn syrup.

The point here is to see how a major food maker has such clout to deceive. Did the FDA take on Sunny-D’s maker? No. Did any major grocery store chain, working on behalf of the public, refuse to sell this Franken-beverage? It must be OK, after all, the TV stations accepted the advertising and the grocery stores saw nothing wrong with it.

The processed food diet of Americans is what is breeding obesity and diabetes. Current estimates predict that a tax that raises the cost of sugar-sweetened beverages by 20 percent could lead to an average reduction of 3.8 pounds of sugar per year for adults, causing the prevalence of obesity to decline from 33 to 30 percent. Sweetened beverages amount to about 10% of the calories in the American diet.

Proposed taxation to inhibit consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is beside the point. The manufacturers should be shamed and sanctioned. Labeling laws should be enforced at the very least. The public is being seduced while public health authorities and retailers “delight” in the problem. They give a false sense of approval by their inaction.

Pogo said it well: “We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.” Consumers beware of processed foods. Their labels are designed to deceive even the most adept consumer. For example, can you really tell which products have MSG in them when MSG goes by so many different names? Consumers can’t even determine whether soy products are derived from genetically-modified soybeans. The powerful food makers lobby to confuse consumers. Bottom line, you can’t trust trusted names in the food business, nor can you trust your grocer to screen for products that are deceptively labeled. – © 2011 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc. Not for posting on other websites.

According to the latest authoritative report, published in the most recent issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the less salt people consumed the more likely there were to die of heart disease.

More specifically, those people who consumed 2.5 grams (2500 milligrams, or about a teaspoon) of salt were more likely to die than people who consumed 6.0 grams of salt (6000 mg, or a little less than a level tablespoon).

Blood pressure did rise in the high-salt group, but not much – systolic blood pressure increased by just 1.71 points (systolic pressure is the 1^st blood pressure number) for every 2.5 grams increase in sodium consumption per day. But that certainly can’t be called hypertension (high blood pressure). Among 2096 participants followed up for 6.5 years, the risk of hypertension did not increase with increasing salt intake.

But health authorities are weighing in on this study and openly disagree with the science. They claim the study was flawed and too small. Yet it involved 3681 adult subjects who were studied for a period of ~8 years. Naysayers even wrote an editorial that advised doctors and the public to “take this study with a grain of salt.” So what are we to make of science-based medicine?

Sodium intake was measured by sodium concentration in excreted urine. The lowest sodium group (2.5 grams) experienced just 10 deaths versus 24 deaths in the mid-range of salt intake (3.9 grams) and 50 deaths in the group with the highest intake (6.0 grams. The mortality risk was just 0.8% in the highest sodium group, 1.9% in the mid-range, and 4.1% in the lowest-intake group. That’s not just a weak statistical difference. We’re talking a 500% relative difference here!

An article in The New York Times cites Dr. Michael Alderman, a blood pressure researcher at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and editor of the American Journal of Hypertension, whose own study, published in 2007 showed that “there was no data to support an association of sodium intake with mortality.”

Following the dictum of Paracelsus, a German-Swiss physician who 500 years ago said “the dose makes the poison,” Dr. Alderman’s study found over 4 grams of salt intake per day or under 2 grams per day might pose an increased risk, “with no measurable effect for the widely prevalent intakes in between,” which is the broad middle intake range for most of the world’s population. Dr. Alderman writes that for most people who consume about 3 grams of salt a day, “the likelihood that most people would benefit from reduced salt consumption seems remote.”

Dr. Alderman is saying this in the face of over 60 years of recommended low-salt diets by modern medicine. Dr. Alderman goes on to say: “Evidence suggests that persons with normal kidney function can maintain stable blood pressure by appropriate alteration in sodium excretion in response to wide variation in intake.” Interpretation: the body can handle a wide range of sodium intake and excrete excesses.

One of the good things about online publishing is that it gives readers an opportunity, via embedded links, to check on the science for themselves. There is other science that corroborates with the idea that more salt is not harmful and may be helpful.

For example, researchers report that for every 100 millimolar rise in 24-hour urinary sodium concentration there is a 28% lower risk for death among adult diabetics. Science also says low-salt diets also increase the risk for insulin resistance in healthy adults.

Salt restriction only modestly reduces arterial blood pressure by approximately 4 and 2 points for the first and second blood pressure numbers. But any reduction in risk for heart disease is assumed, not proven.

Modern medicine takes its eye off the target when it controls numbers rather than outcomes, or what are called end points. The bottom line is mortality risk. Modern medicine monitors numbers – cholesterol, blood pressure, PSA – to treat conditions, not diseases. Are we any healthier or do we live longer because our sodium intake is lower or higher?

Indeed, a review of 43 studies shows that restriction of salt below 6 grams per day does reduce the need for blood pressure medications by as much as 30%, but the absolute reduction in the risk for strokes and heart attacks over a period of 10-20 years is just 2-3%.

Since salt intake is largely controlled by food producers, maybe it would be more beneficial to promote greater consumption of potassium-rich foods than salt reduction. For every 600 milligrams of potassium increase in the daily diet there is a 0.5 to 1.0 point reduction in blood pressure. Studies show 4700 mgs of potassium per day would typically produce an 8-point drop in blood pressure.

Certainly dietary measures can have as much control over blood pressure as medicines do.

Home measurement of urinary sodium excretion helps patients to control their own salt intake, and has been found to significantly lower blood pressure numbers. Also, filling the home salt shaker with a mix of sodium-potassium-magnesium rather than pure sodium has been shown to reduce blood pressure by about 7.6 points (1^st blood pressure number). But again, any reduction in mortality is assumed.

It is true that high blood pressure is “virtually absent in populations that consume natural foods low in sodium,” whereas in other countries where the intake of sodium in at least 10 times greater, the prevalence of hypertension is about 40% in the adult population. High sodium levels in arteries inhibit the release of nitric oxide, a transient molecule that dilates (widens) blood vessels and controls blood pressure. Arteries then become mechanically stiff. However, only blood plasma changes of sodium concentration rise above 139 millimole is arterial stiffness promoted.

If the objective is to relax arteries and control blood pressure, the provision of red wine molecules appears to restore nitric oxide levels and do just that. Modest consumption of dark red wine (1-2 glasses per day) was shown to work in animal studies. For tea-totalers, pills which provide red wine solids would work in a similar fashion. And of course, there IS, contrary to salt reduction or even use of blood pressure pills, unequivocal data showing red wine reduces mortality rates for coronary heart disease. © 2011 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc. Not for posting on other websites.

With an increased risk for liver problems including liver failure, the FDA-approved weight loss drug ALLI, and its prescription version XENICAL, have come under FDA review. Warnings are expected to be added to product labels. A report in US NEWS & WORLD REPORT says it cannot be assumed that any weight-loss drug is risk free. The reported liver problems with this drug are added to the more commonly reported diarrhea and fecal incontinence.

It cost over $415 million and took over eight years, in what was called the “Rolls Royce of studies,” to conclude that low-fat diets do not reduce health risks for breast or colon cancer or heart disease. The study involved 49,000 women aged 50-79, the age group that typically experiences post-menopausal weight gain. Fat intake was reduced to 20% and at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables were consumed over the 8-year study period, following the National Institutes of Health food pyramid and National Cancer Institute guidelines. One expert said this study is the final word on fat and age-related disease. An article in the New York Times said “The results do not justify recommending low-fat diets to reduce heart disease or cancer.“