Category : Uncategorized

Home/Archive by Category" Uncategorized" (Page 2)

Take Action to Ensure Your Right to Access Compounded Medications

Note: Following information is from College Pharmacy, a fully licensed compounding pharmacy.

Why Is The FDAs MOU A Threat To Your Access To Compounding Pharmacies and Compounded Medications? 

The FDA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a guidance document that was created by the FDA to explain the regulatory framework that it plans to use in enforcing the Drug Quality and Security Act that was passed in November 2013.

In the current draft form, the MOU would regulate the interstate filling of compounded prescriptions by 503(a) compounding pharmacies. As the majority of compounding pharmacies in the U.S. are 503(a) compounding facilities, the impact would be one felt throughout the nation by patient and practitioner alike.

Take Action:

Comment on FDA MOU Docket

IMPORTANT Deadline: July 20, 2015 at 11:59pm

Unprecedented Expansion of FDA Oversight

The intent of the original MOU was to prevent compounding pharmacies from becoming manufacturers and limited office use prescriptions. The FDA has since taken that intent and expanded it into unprecedented areas of oversight and regulation to include interstate commerce.

The current draft MOU would restrict compounding pharmacies to no more than 5% of interstate sales per month unless their respective state agrees to enter into a MOU agreement with the FDA. If the state agrees to bear the burden for any adverse events or quality issues, then those pharmacies may increase their interstate sales to 30%.

This is supposed to translate into patient safety. So, 5% interstate sales per month is safe. 30% interstate sales per month is only safe if a state bears the burden of adverse events. 35% of interstate sales is not safe and shall not be allowed. The proposed regulation of interstate commerce has no scientific or evidence basis. These are arbitrary numbers with no tie to patient safety.

The MOU would leave state boards of pharmacy with an unfunded mandate to investigate and report pharmacies in violation of the FDA’s interpretation of federal law. It would place significant economic burdens on a state without providing appropriate funds for required reporting activities. There is no benefit to the state to enter into the MOU.

The MOU would reduce patient access to medically necessary treatments, restrict interstate commerce, and punish successful pharmacies that already adhere to all existing state and federal regulations.

We take exception to the FDA’s expansion of oversight, not because we are a compounding pharmacy that ships throughout the U.S., but because as citizens we believe in the right of choice and access and that the following points should be part of the discussion now before the MOU is adopted:

  1. The Right to Choose: Every patient and practitioner should have the right to choose the compounding pharmacy of their choice.Compounding pharmacies are not interchangeable. Patients should have the right to easily access compounded medications from a compounding pharmacy in another state. They currently do. And the DRAFT MOU does not lend itself to an increase in patient safety by regulating interstate commerce.
  2. As mentioned above, compounding pharmacies are not interchangeable. The MOU would severely restrict patient access to and choice of compounding pharmacies offering the services that they require. While most compounding pharmacies can produce capsules and topical preparations, specialty dosage forms and sterile compounds often come from pharmacies throughout the U.S. that are expertly trained to meet the compounding needs of specific patient groups. For instance: Are you a current patient or practitioner that uses our sublingual tablets or fused pellet implants? If you are outside of Colorado, your access will be severely limited.
  3. Doors will close. If a compounding pharmacy is currently shipping out more than 30% of monthly sales through interstate channels, it does not mean they are participating in illegal manufacturing practices. It means that patient and practitioner alike have chosen to do business with them because of expertise, because of specialty compounding services, because of exclusive formulations…because it is a free-market and they have the right to do so. It is the law abiding, experienced, comprehensive compounding pharmacies that will feel the brunt of the MOU if it is adopted in the current form. Why? Supply and demand. While there is a demand nationwide that keeps our doors open, that same demand does not exist in a single state.

Take Action:

Comment on FDA MOU Docket

IMPORTANT Deadline: July 20, 2015 at 11:59pm

We put patient safety above all else. The MOU fails to increase patient safety and would severely regulate compounding pharmacies to the point of scaling back services and closing doors.

There should be no limit to the interstate shipping of prescriptions as long as 503(a) compounding pharmacies follow both state and federal regulations.

It is not just about keeping our doors open. It is about keeping an industry alive. It is about ensuring that patients and practitioners have access to the integral services that compounding pharmacies provide.

Read the entire message from CollegePharmacy.com

New Book Reveals Deception Behind GE Foods

 NEW BREAKTHROUGH BOOK EXPOSES THE FRAUDULENT FOUNDATION OF THE GE FOODS INDUSTRY –

LET’S MAKE IT A NATIONAL BESTSELLER

“Druker’s brilliant expose catches the promoters of GE food red-handed: falsifying data, corrupting regulators, lying to Congress. He thoroughly demonstrates how distortions and deceptions have been piled one on top of another, year after year, producing a global industry that teeters on a foundation of fraud and denial. This book is sure to send shockwaves around the world.”   –Jeffrey Smith

*** IMPORTANT NOTE: If you buy more than one book, you need to do so in separate transactions in order to have maximal effect – because five books bought in a single transaction will only register as one purchase in the way the bestseller list is tabulated. Also note that you can have the e-book edition delivered to someone by providing their email address when you purchase.

Most of you are already concerned about the risks of genetically engineered (GE) foods, and should be. Regardless how much you know, or think you know, there is a new book is being released that demonstrates why everyone should be concerned:

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth

How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public

It was written by public interest attorney Steven Druker, who initiated a lawsuit that forced the FDA to divulge its internal files on GE foods – thereby exposing how the agency had covered up the extensive warnings from its own scientists about their risks, lied about the facts, and then ushered them onto the market in blatant violation of U.S. food safety law.

But Steven’s book does far more than expose the FDA’s fraud. It reveals how the entire GE food venture has been chronically and crucially dependent on fraud – and how the key misrepresentations have been dispensed by eminent scientists and scientific institutions such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the U.K. Royal Society.

Furthermore, the book’s factual and logical soundness – and its importance – have been recognized by several scientists who have unstintingly praised it. For instance, the world-famous (and well-beloved) primatologist Jane Goodall has written the foreword, in which she not only hails it as one of the most important books of the last 50 years but states: “I shall urge everyone I know who cares about life on earth, and the future of their children, and children’s children, to read it. It will go a long way toward dispelling the confusion and delusion that has been created regarding the genetic engineering process and the foods it produces. . . . Steven Druker is a hero. He deserves at least a Nobel Prize.”

Moreover, Dr. Goodall is not alone in urging people to read and heed this book. Dr. Joseph Mercola, creator of the world’s most popular natural health website, has posted two interviews with Steven and has strongly recommended that the book be purchased. He also declared: “Truly, Steven has given the world a phenomenal gift through this work, and his book is really an indispensable resource on the topic of GMOs.”

And Mike Adams, on his widely viewed Natural News website, has extolled the book as a global game-changer and called on people to buy it so it can become a New York Times bestseller.

We’re asking all of you to do the same – for several good reasons:

  • First, by pushing this book to the NY Times bestseller list, we will be making people pay attention to it. Monsanto and its allies are desperately hoping that it will be ignored so that the fraudulent foundation of the GE food venture will stay hidden. But if it’s on the bestseller list, and remains there for many weeks, it can’t be ignored – and Steven will be increasingly interviewed by key media outlets, which will bring the startling revelations in his book to the attention of a large portion of the population and to influential individuals, disclosing how they’ve been systematically deceived by those whom they had a right to trust.
  • Second, you owe it to yourself and your loved ones to become more fully informed about this vital issue, not only so you can protect yourself and them more effectively, but so you won’t be taken in by the misleading propaganda to which you’re regularly subjected.
  • Third, by reading this book, you can intelligently push back against the false claims you routinely encounter from people who have been taken in by the propaganda. Moreover, we recommend that besides buying a book for yourself, you buy several to give to friends and relatives who regard you as unscientific or unreasonable for being concerned about GE foods. Ask them to read it and then have a discussion with you based on the actual facts. You will most likely find that their minds have been changed.

Praise for Altered Genes, Twisted Truth

“A fascinating book: highly informative, eminently readable, and most enjoyable. It’s a real page-turner and an eye-opener.”

Richard C. Jennings, PhD Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge

“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.”

David Schubert, PhD molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

“A great book. The evidence is comprehensive and irrefutable; the reasoning is clear and compelling. No one has documented other cases of irresponsible behavior by government regulators and the scientific establishment nearly as well as Druker documents this one. His book should be widely read and thoroughly heeded.”

John Ikerd, PhD Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri

“Steven Druker’s meticulously documented, well-crafted, and spellbinding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us. In particular, his chapter detailing the deadly epidemic of 1989-90 that was linked with a genetically engineered food supplement is especially significant. . . . Overall his discussion of this tragic event, as well as its ominous implications, is the most comprehensive, evenly-balanced and accurate account that I have read.”

Stephen Naylor, PhD Professor of Biochemistry, Mayo Clinic (1991-2001)

“A landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course.”

Joseph Cummins, PhD Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, Ontario

“Steven Druker has done a beautiful job of weaving a compelling scientific argument into an engaging narrative that often reads like a detective story, and he makes his points dramatically and clearly. The examination of genetic engineering from the standpoint of software engineering is especially insightful, exposing how the former is more like a ‘hackathon’ than a careful, systematic methodology for revising complex information systems. I will recommend this book to my friends.”

Thomas J. McCabe  Developer of the cyclomatic complexity software metric, a key analytic tool in computer programming employed throughout the world

“A remarkable work. If the numerous revelations it contains become widely known, the arguments being used to defend genetically engineered foods will be untenable.”

Frederick Kirschenmann, PhD Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University

So please act promptly. Your purchases will be part of an important process that can topple the entire GE food venture.

Safe Eating!

 

What’s in a Name? A Lot When the Name is ‘Fructose’

If you’re trying to avoid high fructose corn syrup — as well you should be — one of the products you’d probably gravitate to is General Mills Vanilla Chex with natural vanilla flavor and “no high fructose corn syrup” (one of several additives it claims not to contain on the front of the box).

But before you buy it, confident that it will help protect your family against the various health problems like diabetes and obesity that studies have linked to all that ‘free fructose’ in HFCS, you might also want to check out the list of actual ingredients on the side of the package.

Because one of the things you’ll find on that list is “fructose” – a term that, according to the Corn Refiners Association, is now used to describe something previously known as HFCS-90, meaning that it is 90 percent fructose, as contrasted with regular HFCS, which contains either 42 or 55 percent.

Here’s what the CRA’s website, corn.org, has to say on the subject under the section on “high fructose corn syrups” (something brought to our attention just this week by “Food Babe” Vani Hari):

“A third product, HFCS-90, is sometimes used in natural and ‘light’ foods, where very little is needed to provide sweetness. Syrups with 90% fructose will not state high fructose corn syrup on the label, they will state ‘fructose’ or ‘fructose syrup’.”

And that’s something we here at Food Identity Theft find very, very interesting – the reason being that HFCS-90 is a product that our sponsoring organization, Citizens for Health, has been concerned about for quite some time.

In fact, this past August, CFA amended a petition it had originally submitted back in 2012 to the Food and Drug Administration asking that labeling be required specifying the amounts of fructose in products containing HFCS.  The petition was revised to include a request that food companies be notified that “any product containing HFCS sweetener with more than 55% fructose is considered to be adulterated” under federal regulations and “cannot be sold in interstate commerce.”

Read more on our sister site: FoodIdentityTheft.com: http://foodidentitytheft.com/whats-in-a-name-a-lot-when-the-name-is-fructose-and-the-product-its-in-claims-to-have-no-hfcs

Don’t Let PopTarts ‘No HFCS’ Claims Fool You

The Pop Tart wouldn’t exactly qualify as the sort of thing the Kellogg brothers originally had in mind.

As the inventors of corn flakes, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and his younger brother, W. K. Kellogg, both Seventh Day Adventists, were what some might consider “health nuts.” And, in fact, the Kellogg company web site now refers to the fact that W.K. who founded the original company back in 1906, was “motivated by a passion to help people improve their health.”

Of course, W.K. did add a little sugar to make those corn flakes more appealing, a decision thath didn’t sit too well with his older brother, the proprietor of the Battle Creek Sanitarium.
Still, one can only wonder how either Kellogg would have reacted to the sight of supermarket shelves lined with Kellogg’s Pop Tarts, the “toaster pastries” sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, which has been linked by various studies to obesity, diabetes and a host of other health problems.  And that’s not to mention the artificial colors and other additives typically listed among their ingredients.

But wait — could it be that the ghostly echoes of the Kellogg brothers’ displeasure are being heard lately at company headquarters? Or is it just the disapproval of consumers who have been increasingly turned off by products containing the laboratory sweetener (such as the one we heard from who reported having complained to the company about the HFCS in those Pop Tarts)?

Whatever the motivation, it recently came to our attention that Kellogg’s is showing signs of  having second thoughts about that particular ingredient. At least to the extent of marketing a couple “new” varieties of Pop Tarts – one being Oatmeal Delights, whose box boasts “No High Fructose Corn Syrup.” In fact, the positioning of that claim, just beneath the Pop Tarts logo, could even be interpreted to mean all the products in that category.

There’s also the claim posted on the company’s web site that yet another new product, Pop-Tarts Low-Fat Frosted Strawberry Toaster Pastries “contains no high fructose corn syrup” as well.

So could this mean that the folks at Kellogg’s are finally making a line of Pop Tarts that are more in keeping with the founders’ healthy intentions? Well, not quite.

Nearly all of the various types of Pop Tarts we examined at our local supermarket still contain HFCS, along with those artificial colors that have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. So much for the impression those “No High Fructose Corn Syrup” claims might give to a mom in a hurry that Pop Tarts can now be relied on to contain none of the unnatural sweetener.

Read more at our sister site, FoodIdentityTheft.com: http://foodidentitytheft.com/dont-be-fooled-by-those-no-hfcs-claims-on-new-pop-tarts/

Continue Reading

Help Make An Impact on Global Malnutrition

You know we are dedicated to increasing access to the truthful, non-misleading health information everyone needs to make informed decisions about maintaining health and wellness.

But what if the basic resources to act on that information were simply unavailable to you?

Sadly, that is the daily reality for 2 billion people around the world. And children, whose bodies are still developing and whose futures can be irrevocably affected by malnutrition, feel the greatest impact. In fact, every 6 seconds malnutrition claims the life of a child under the age of 5, and 7,600,000 people will die from hunger this year.

em-squaredThat’s why we invite you to check out EM Squared, an initiative through which you can have a personal impact in the fight to Eliminate Malnutrition through the purchase of nutritionally-dense food bars. You can also expand the reach of your efforts by sharing the word about the initiative and earn income for yourself in the process. The level of participation is up to you. Every box of 30 Hope Bars purchased generates a donation of a box of food bars from EM Squared to children in need.

Sharing this initiative with others multiplies how many children can be fed every day. The bonus: For every three people who sign up via the link below, CFH will receive a $75.00 donation.

Join Citizens For Health in our mission to make a significant difference in our world by expanding access to the information – and resources – necessary for leading a healthy life. Please visit http://em2d.com/connect/JCFFES to learn more. For specific questions, email jim.illick@citizens.org.

Thank you, as always for making a difference.

Continue Reading

A little knowledge can make food labeling claims a lot less confusing

supermarket2By BILL BONVIE

An article in The Wall Street Journal Monday headlined “The Gluten-Free Craze: Is It Healthy” makes an interesting point about food manufacturers trying to get in on a health craze that actually only affects a small minority of consumers.

In reality, the only people who need be concerned about gluten, the article points out, are those with celiac disease – a condition affecting less than one percent of the population – although, according to the National Foundation for Celiac Awareness, another 18 million Americans suffer from “gluten sensitivity” that may cause feelings of discomfort.  Yet “gluten-free” claims have proliferated, and have been a driving force in the sales of many products, including some that never even contained gluten.

And that, some experts charge, could be causing consumers to make choices that aren’t necessarily in their best interest – for example, by buying “gluten-free” items that actually have fewer nutrients than their gluten-containing counterparts.

Of course, “gluten-free” is only one of a number of health claims used on product labels, as the article also points out.  Here at Food Identity Theft, our job is to help consumers sort them all out, identifying those that are actually “part of the solution” to food-related problems and others that are problematic in themselves.

A good example of the latter are trans-fat free labels,” which the Journal notes are being used on products such as milk, “even though milk never contained the artificial kind of trans fats that clog arteries.”

Read more at: http://foodidentitytheft.com/a-little-knowledge-can-make-food-labeling-claims-a-lot-less-confusing/

Continue Reading

Do You Always Read the Labels on the Products You Buy?

CFH Chairman Jim Turner notes: “The majority of us don’t check the list of ingredients on food package labels. The big food manufacturers are counting on this. If we don’t read or understand the ingredients in their products, they can put pretty much whatever they want to into our food.

“We sponsored the first ‘Read Your Labels Day’ this last April to help Americans to be aware of how many chemicals are used in processed foods and beverages,” Mr. Turner added. “The response was tremendous. We had stories on TV stations around the country, and the news was covered by major grocery publications. Even some of the biggest supermarkets, including Whole Food Markets, hosted ‘Read Your Labels Day’ events in their stores. We’re expecting an even bigger success in 2014.”

What can you do to help make Mr. Turner’s prediction come true?

  1. For years CFH has tirelessly advocated for truth in labeling – re-acquaint yourself with our efforts to inform consumers about what’s really behind the flashy slogans and deceptive packaging. There’s the food coloring carmine, made from ground-up insects. Or the campaign by Mio to convince you that you need a colored stream of artificial ingredients to dress up your drinking water. Or tech and data company Vestcom’s in-store information program “healthyAisles” that does more to obfuscate than to enlighten.
  2. Sign the petition to accurately label products containing the artificial goop high fructose corn syrup, or HFCS.
  3. While you shop, look for the “Top 10 Ingredients to Avoid,” a list of questionable sweeteners, preservatives, and industrial chemical additives, such as HFCS, aspartame, and monosodium glutamate.
  4.  Take photos of products containing these awful ingredients and share them via Twitter, on Facebook, or Instagram (using the hashtag #ReadYourLabels).
  5. And, of course, share the “411” with friends, family, or the person in front of or behind you in the check-out line. An informed consumer is a force to be reckoned with.

Keep an eye out for more on this as “Read Your Labels Day” — April 11, (4/11) nears.

Is 2014 the Year to Put a “Dent In” Water Fluoridation?

If you are a regular reader of this blog and a passionate supporter of natural health initiatives, the issue of water fluoridation is probably on your radar. Fluoridation is imposed upon us even while there is substantial evidence supporting its potential negative health effects.

The argument that proponents of fluoridation cite claims that fluoride is necessary for healthy teeth because it repairs and re-mineralizes exposed “dentin”. However, there is significant evidence that it can be detrimental if swallowed daily.

There are reasons to be concerned about water fluoridation:

  • The main chemicals used to fluoridate water are industrial byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry and can contain elevated levels of arsenic and lead.
  • Dr. Philippe Grandjean, chair of environmental medicine at the University of Denmark and adjunct professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, shared the results of decades of researching chemicals capable of damaging the developing brain in a paper published earlier this month. On the list with PCBs, toulene and ethanol: fluoride.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) own National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory says that fluoride is a chemical with “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity”.

The good news is the tide may be starting to turn. Already in 2014 a small community in Florida has gotten the ball rolling by following the lead set by nine states proposing anti-fluoridation bills last year. On January 28 the Wellington Village Council voted 3-2 to end 14 years of fluoridating their water.

It has been said that “it takes a village” – and we applaud the Wellington Village Council for taking the lead on this important issue – but it will take much more to raise awareness across the country. You can do your part by becoming informed and sharing that information with friends and family.

Stay tuned for more on this issue, and for opportunities to take action.

Experts Advise Taking Those Sodium Intake Recommendations With a Grain of Salt

Morton Satin wants you to eat your vegetables. He wants you to consume broccoli, carrots, cabbage – all the good-for-you greens, reds and yellows out there. But most importantly, he wants you to enjoy them so you will eat them every day. And that means you must add salt. Bring that salt shaker out of hiding and start enjoying your food again, is Satin’s advice.

Who is this maverick whose concepts on salt fly in the face of years of advice handed out by most all public health institutions?

You probably won’t be surprised to learn Satin is the vice president of science and research of the Salt Institute, the Virginia-based, nonprofit, salt-promoting trade association. But before you say “no wonder this man is promoting salt’” and go about your merry, low-sodium day, you should hear the rest of the story. It’s a tale that includes a large, isolated tribe of Indians in South America, some fancy footwork involving figures and the dire consequences of consuming too little sodium — which can include a significantly increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.

Satin, who was seemingly alone in his quest to set the record straight about salt, has recently been joined by other doctors and scientists who appear to have come “out of the closet” in response to a report issued this spring by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Almost all studies on salt up to a few years ago were myopically focused on a slight blood-pressure drop achieved by a low-sodium diet of “two to four points systolic,” says Satin, adding, “they don’t give you the numbers, they just say it reduces blood pressure.”

But the recent conclusions of this IOM expert committee that there is no scientific basis for the majority of people to work at keeping sodium intake below 2,300 milligrams a day, and that salt intake of, or below, 1,500 milligrams a day is a risk proposition for many, has pretty much thrown everything we’ve been told up to now about salt consumption out the window.

Dietary sodium expert Dr. Michael H. Alderman with the Einstein College of Medicine, called the conclusions “earth-shattering,” and was quoted by The New York Times as saying the health consequences of low-sodium levels are “…all bad things” and that “(a) health effect can’t be predicted by looking at one physiological consequence.”

Satin agrees, telling Food Identity Theft in a phone interview that “what’s happening is that a reduction in salt is ending up with more sickness and death than (for) people who are not on low-salt diets.”Hypertension myopia

What we’ve repeatedly been told, and what the American Heart Association still preaches, is that we should eat no more than 1,500 milligrams of sodium each day, with an upper limit being bandied about of 2,300 milligrams a day.

Now admittedly, there are some people – a minority of the population – who are adversely affected by sodium and ought to be limiting their intake. But, according to Satin, there’s a specific test for that condition, and it’s not something on which to base recommendations for how a majority should eat.

So just where did the numbers on salt consumption originate? According to Satin, they are nothing more than mystical, contrived numbers picked by an IOM committee that, in effect, “made up a myth” about sodium consumption.

Those unsubstantiated figures are what’s known as the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) for sodium — a set of documents for nutrients “that basically establish what should be the reference amount the average person should eat,” as Satin puts it. These DRI numbers for all major nutrients “morph” into the better known Recommended Dietary Allowances, or RDA, that you find on the Nutrition Facts panel that appears on every processed food product.

However, not having any “dose response studies” for sodium on which to base the RDA, the committee went by a rule allowing it to use what’s called an “adequate intake” – that is, one determined by analyzing a “healthy population” and seeing what it consumes.

And here’s where the story starts heading to bizarro land.

The low-sodium tribe with low longevity

It turns out that “healthy population” was a tribe of Indians living in the Amazonian Rain Forest called the Yanomami. Now these Yanomami, they don’t eat much salt at all, only around 500 milligrams a day, and they also have no problems with high blood pressure.

So in a decision Satin describes as “not based on any evidence,” an official RDA was set for sodium based on the habits of the Yanomami, but not at the 500 milligram level, as that was a ridiculously low number. Since “everything is better in threes, (they) arbitrary tripled it,” said Satin. “They didn’t make one single reference to a study to justify that figure, they just tripled it.”

For the upper limit amount of 2,300 milligrams, Satin’s guess is that the committee took the molecular weight of sodium, which coincidentally is 23, “a nice round figure” and used that.

While the Yanomami may not have high blood pressure issues, that’s not to say they are the picture of health. “What they don’t acknowledge is that there is no age-related rise in blood pressure because there is not much of a rise in age,” Satin said, pointing out that the Yanomami only “have a life span of 45 to 48 years.”

Those numbers, now firmly set in our minds as being the healthy way to eat, were immediately and widely accepted as they came from “one of our prestigious, great institutions,” said Satin. “So the World Health Organization throws their hat in, and all the other health institutions accept it. Nobody ever questioned it; it became entrenched. The people who did this thought they were doing good. The problem is that they are incompetent.”

When Satin first came to the Salt Institute in 2002 “knowing nothing” about the issue, he asked the ‘experts’ the $65,000 question: “Don’t we have any data on the historical usage and consumption of salt?” No, he was told, being further assured that never in history have people consumed so much of it. But Satin said he was going to find out. And he did.

The war on sodium from a military history perspective

Searching military records going back to the war of 1812, Satin found that rations for both soldiers and POWs contained twice the amount of sodium we now consume. Other data Satin has uncovered reveals that just about everybody in the world, with the exception of the Yanomami, are consuming a range of approximately 3,000 up to 5,500 milligrams a day of sodium – “regardless of culture, geographical location or economic status.”

Despite all the new findings the Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies have continued their war on sodium, especially related to the national school lunch program, although Satin says “they have slowed down a bit…they need to find an exit strategy.”

Satin describes what is going on in the school lunch program as ludicrous – “should you have this child eat a nutritious vegetable or salad with a touch of salt to make it palatable, or say ‘don’t eat salt’ and the kid doesn’t eat it at all.”

Satin, who says he is not fond of our processed-food-heavy U.S. diet or lifestyle, feels that if the government abandoned its narrow focus on the supposed evils of salt, it might be able to do more good addressing our miserable eating habits in general.

This whole issue, he adds, is much bigger than salt. It’s about “the way we manage science in this country.”

Continue Reading