MSG - more negative eveidence

One of the most ubiquitous additives out there - plenty of evidence for years that MSG causes problems - generally regarded as safe is relative to your notion of the meaning of safe. (I wrote about it in my college senior thesis 30 years ago....) The Surprising Ingredient Causing Weight Gain By Margaret Furtado, M.S., R.D. July 27, 2009 Say it isn't so! A recent study out of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill cites what animal studies have hinted at for years: MSG (aka monosodium glutamate) could be a factor in weight gain. The study focused on 750 Chinese men and women, ages 40-59, living in 3 rural villages in north and south China. Most of the study subjects prepared their meals at home without commercially processed foods and roughly 82 percent used MSG. Those participants who used the highest amounts of MSG had nearly 3 times the incidence of overweight as those who did not use MSG, even when physical activity, total caloric intake, and other possible explanations for body mass differences were accounted for. The positive correlation between MSG and higher weight confirmed what animal studies have been suggesting for years. Maybe you're wondering what monosodium glutamate is exactly, and what you can do to avoid it in your diet. MSG is a flavor enhancer in foods—some believe it may even provide a fifth basic taste sensation (in addition to sweet, sour, salt, and bitter), what the Japanese call "umami" (roughly translated as "tastiness"). MSG is considered an "excitotoxin," since its action in the body is to excite neurotransmitters (important brain chemicals), causing nerve cells to discharge and also exciting nerves related to taste. Perhaps this ability to excite these nerves is a factor in an association between increased MSG usage and weight gain. How prevalent is MSG in the U.S. diet? Americans consumed about 1 million pounds of MSG in 1950, and today that number has increased by a factor of 300! The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) describes MSG as "naturally occurring," and has it on the GRAS ("generally regarded as safe") list. However, not only could MSG be causing us to gain weight, but some studies also reveal that as many as 25 to 30 percent of Americans have adverse reactions to it (e.g., palpitations and migraine headaches), and as many as 30 percent are extra sensitive to it if they consume more than 5 grams at one sitting. OK, if you're an MSG user who could stand to lose a little weight (or know someone who is), what should you do? Unfortunately, eliminating MSG from the diet is much easier said than done, since—given the fact that food processors often change recipes—there's no list of "safe" foods that never contain MSG. A good start is to avoid anything with MSG anywhere in the ingredient list, but there will still be many foods that have MSG hidden inside other ingredients. Likewise, even products labeled "no MSG added" can still contain these hidden sources. Best bets for avoiding MSG Buy organic produce whenever possible. Make things from scratch, avoiding processed ingredients as much as possible. Limit making stews or soups in a crock pot, since slow-cooking tends to cause small amounts of glutamic acid to be released from the protein sources (e.g., meat, chicken) in the recipe. What are your thoughts on MSG? I'd love to hear from you! © 2007 Johns Hopkins University. All Rights Reserved. This article from Johns Hopkins University is provided as a service by Yahoo. All materials are produced independently by Johns Hopkins University, which is solely responsible for its content.

DC Farmers' Markets: Bloomingdale on a Sunday

We went to the Bloomingdale Farmer's Market on Sunday, July 26, to see what we could see. I like the Bloomingdale Farmers' Market but it is not all that organic nor is it cheap. Bloomingdale Farmers' Market is a producer only market, some of the vendors have a boutique feel. The market is not big - one closed off block. A few of the farmers have various meats and there is a farmer with cheeses.


Peaches were around $3.50/lb, cantaloupes were generally about $3.00 each.








Above, the closed off R St. NW, viewed from eastbound Florida Ave NW and in the picture below R St NW from the other end of the block at 1st St. NW.












http://www.facebook.com/pages/Washington-DC/Bloomingdale-Farmers-Market/105873512800

http://marketsandmore.info/

http://www.cityfarmdc.org/

When Is USDA Certified Organic Not Really Organic?

"To paraphrase the prophetic social critic Eric Hoffer: Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and turns into a racket",
from a letter to the editor of the Washington Post from Ms. Kellam of Alexandria, Virginia, reprinted below.

When Is USDA Certified Organic Not Really Organic?


Increasingly through the month of July, various reports and articles have been highlighting the erosion of the term 'organic' as it relates to USDA certified organic food. On July 3 The Washington Post ran an article, "Purity of Federal 'Organic" Label Is Questioned" which in turn motivated Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.) to introduce an amendment to a bill that would authorize extra money for "USDA's inspector general to investigate the department's National Organic Program to determine whether federal standards are being properly observed". I am not sure why more money is needed to determine what has been documented but compared to the way the Bush administration approached things, I guess it qualifies as some sort of change.

Among the various quotes in the articles below, striking to me are the comments and attitudes of Joe Smillie, who is vice president of Quality Assurance International, which is involved in certifying 65 percent of organic products found on supermarket shelves, and is a board member of the USDA's National Organic Standards Board. Mr. Smillie indicates that his interest is to "expand organics" in the market - perhaps he should be clearer and say that his interest is to dilute (expand) the meaning of organics and thus expand the market - he does not seem to be interested in maintaining and increasing the integrity of USDA'a organic label and thus expand the market by growing consumer confidence. Mr. Smillie asks "are we selling health food?" and answers himself "No" while going on about the world being polluted. As someone involved in organics for over 40 years, it may not be "health" food that is being sold but it is very much about health - individual health, collective health, soil health, economic health, to name a few. Countless polls have shown that consumers think organic food is healthier than non-organic and numerous organic food ad campaigns play on this theme. Many of Mr. Smillie's and his firm Quality Assurance International's clients promote their products as healthier than non-organic products. Mr. Smillie seems to adhere to that adage that you can fool most of the people most of the time (and don't worry about the rest).

As for expansion of the organic food market - relaxed regulations are not needed. With little help, consumer interest has made organics one of the few growing segments of the food market in the past twenty years - and without any specific statistics to back me up but many statistics floating through my head, I would venture that in the past twenty years, no other segment of the grocery market can match the percentage growth of organics. So relaxed regulations are not needed. The new secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack, says that the organic label needs to remain "pure". I hope he means what he says - it will take much diligence to hold his feet to the fire.

Purity of Federal 'Organic' Label Is Questioned By Kimberly Kindy and Lyndsey Layton Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, July 3, 2009 Three years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture employees determined that synthetic additives in organic baby formula violated federal standards and should be banned from a product carrying the federal organic label. Today the same additives, purported to boost brainpower and vision, can be found in 90 percent of organic baby formula. The government's turnaround, from prohibition to permission, came after a USDA program manager was lobbied by the formula makers and overruled her staff. That decision and others by a handful of USDA employees, along with an advisory board's approval of a growing list of non-organic ingredients, have helped numerous companies win a coveted green-and-white "USDA Organic" seal on an array of products. Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Organic mock duck contains a synthetic ingredient that gives it an authentic, stringy texture. Relaxation of the federal standards, and an explosion of consumer demand, have helped push the organics market into a $23 billion-a-year business, the fastest growing segment of the food industry. Half of the country's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes, according to a survey last year by the Harvard School of Public Health. But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who at times must pay twice as much for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in a way that is gentle to the environment. The market's expansion is fueling tension over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of "organic" or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to protect the label, even as he acknowledged the pressure to lower standards to let more products in. In response to complaints, the USDA inspector general's office has widened an investigation of whether products carrying the label meet national standards. The probe is also looking into the department's oversight of private certifiers who are hired by farmers and food producers and inspect products to determine whether they can use the label. Some consumer groups and members of Congress say they worry that the program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the law itself. "It will unravel everything we've done if the standards can no longer be trusted," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who sponsored the federal organics legislation. "If we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight." Organic advocates and food marketing experts said the introduction this month of new "natural" products by an organics division of Dean Foods is the latest sign that the value of the USDA label has eroded. The yogurt and milk products will be distributed under the Horizon label and marketed as a lower-priced alternative to organic products. Congress adopted the organics law after farmers and consumers demanded uniform standards for produce, dairy and meat. The law banned synthetics, pesticides and genetic engineering from foods that would bear a federal organic label. It also required annual testing for pesticides. And it was aimed at preventing producers from falsely claiming their foods were organic. The USDA created the National Organic Program in 2002 to implement the law. By then, major food companies had bought up most small, independent organic companies. Kraft Foods, for example, owns Boca Foods. Kellogg owns Morningstar Farms, and Coca-Cola owns 40 percent of Honest Tea, maker of the organic beverage favored by President Obama. That corporate firepower has added to pressure on the government to expand the definition of what is organic, in part because processed foods offered by big industry often require ingredients, additives or processing agents that either do not exist in organic form or are not available in large enough quantities for mass production. Under the original organics law, 5 percent of a USDA-certified organic product can consist of non-organic substances, provided they are approved by the National Organic Standards Board. That list has grown from 77 to 245 substances since it was created in 2002. Companies must appeal to the board every five years to keep a substance on the list, explaining why an organic alternative has not been found. The goal was to shrink the list over time, but only one item has been removed so far. The original law's mandate for annual pesticide testing was also never implemented -- the agency left that optional. From the beginning, farmers and consumer advocates were concerned about safeguarding the organic label. In 2003, Arthur Harvey, who grows organic blueberries in Maine, successfully sued the USDA, arguing that the fledgling National Organic Program had violated federal law by allowing synthetic additives. "The big boys like Kraft realized they could really cash in by filling the shelves with products with the organics seal," Harvey said. "But they were sort of inhibited by the original law that said no synthetic ingredients." His victory was short-lived. The Organic Trade Association, which represents corporations such as Kraft, Dole and Dean Foods, lobbied for and received language in a 2006 appropriations bill allowing certain synthetic food substances in the preparation, processing and packaging of organic foods, creating conditions for a flood of processed organic foods. Tom Harding, a Pennsylvania-based consultant for small local farmers and big producers, including Kraft, said that broadening the law has helped meet demand by multiplying the number of organic products and greatly expanded the amount of agricultural land that is being managed organically. "We don't want to eliminate anyone who wants to be a part of the organic community," Harding said. "The growth we've seen has helped the entire organic food chain." Organics for Babies Today, labels on organic infant formula boast that they include DHA and ARA, synthetic fatty acids that some studies suggest can help neural development. But according to agency records, when the issue came before the USDA in 2006, agency staff members concluded that the fatty acids could not be added to organic baby formula because they are synthetics that are not on the standards board's approved list. The fatty acids in formula are often produced using a potential neurotoxin known as hexane, prompting many organics advocates to conclude that the board would not approve their use if it took up the matter. In a rare move, Barbara Robinson, who administers the organics program and is a deputy USDA administrator, overruled the staff decision after a telephone call and an e-mail exchange with William J. Friedman, a lawyer who represents the formula makers. "I called [Robinson] up," Friedman said. "I wrote an e-mail. It was a simple matter." The back-and-forth, he said, was nothing more than part of the routine process that sets policy in Washington. In an interview, Robinson said she agreed with Friedman's argument that fatty acids were not permitted because of an oversight. Vitamins and minerals are allowed, but "accessory nutrients" -- the category that describes fatty acids -- are not specifically named. As for hexane, Robinson said the law bans its use in processing organic food, but she does not believe the ban extends to the processing of synthetic additives. "We don't attempt to say how synthetic products can be produced," she said. Manufacturers say the fatty acids are safe and provide health benefits to infants. "We test every lot that comes out for hexane, and there is no residue," said David Abramson, president of Maryland-based Martek Biosciences, which produces the fatty acids used by formula companies. Several groups have filed complaints with the USDA saying they think that the inclusion of the fatty acids in organic products violates federal rules and laws. And they say that Robinson did not have the authority to make the decision on her own. "This is illegal rulemaking -- a complete violation of the process that is supposed to protect the public," said Gary Cox, a lawyer with the Cornucopia Institute, an organics advocacy group. Cox and others make the same argument about other decisions by Robinson and several members of her staff. In 2004, Robinson issued a directive allowing farmers and certifiers to use pesticides on organic crops if "after a reasonable effort" they could not determine whether the pesticide contained chemicals prohibited by the organics law. The same year, Robinson determined that farmers could feed organic livestock non-organic fish meal, which can contain mercury and PCBs. The law requires that animals that produce organic meat be raised entirely on organic feed. After sharp protests from Leahy, Consumers Union and other groups, Ann Veneman, then agriculture secretary, rescinded these and two other directives issued by Robinson. The orders were signed by a staff member, but Robinson took responsibility, saying she had made the decisions unwisely without consulting organics experts, certifiers or the standards board. "I failed, and take this as a learning experience and do not want it to happen again," she told board members in 2004. Earlier this year, however, Robinson issued a series of directives without consulting experts, certifiers or the board. She said that because the issues were urgent, including one on food safety, she had to act quickly. In an interview, Robinson said she believes the federal program's main purpose is to "grow the industry," and she dismissed controversies over synthetics in organic foods as "mostly ridiculous." Joe Smillie, a board member, said he thinks that advocates for the most restrictive standards are unrealistic and are inhibiting the growth of organics. "People are really hung up on regulations," said Smillie, who is also vice president of the certifying firm Quality Assurance International, which is involved in certifying 65 percent of organic products found on supermarket shelves. "I say, 'Let's find a way to bend that one, because it's not important.' . . . What are we selling? Are we selling health food? No. Consumers, they expect organic food to be growing in a greenhouse on Pluto. Hello? We live in a polluted world. It isn't pure. We are doing the best we can." Waiting for Standards Under Robinson, the National Organic Program has repeatedly opted not to issue standards spelling out how organic food must be grown, treated or produced. In 65 instances since 2002, the standards board has made recommendations that have not been acted upon, creating a haphazard system in which the private certifiers have set their own standards for what products can carry the federal label. The agency has not acted, for example, on a 2002 board recommendation that would answer a critical question for organic dairy farmers: how to interpret the law requiring that their cows have "access to pasture," rather than be crowded onto feedlots. The result has been that some dairy farms have been selling milk as organic from cows that spend little if any time grazing in open spaces. "This is really a case of 'justice delayed is justice denied,' " said Alexis Baden-Mayer, national political director for the Organic Consumers Association. "The truly organic dairy farmers, who have their cows out in the pasture all year round, are at a huge competitive disadvantage compared to the big confinement dairies." Robinson has blamed the delays on the program's small staff, saying that "we have to prioritize." Without specific standards, the wide discretion given to certifiers has invited producers and farmers to shop around for the certifiers most likely to approve their product, consumer groups say. Sam Welsch, president of the Nebraska-based OneCert, said his company this year has lost as many as a dozen fruit and vegetable farmers seeking other certifiers that allow the use of certain liquid fertilizers, which most organics experts believe are prohibited by organics laws because they are unnaturally spiked with high levels of nitrogen. "The rules should be clear enough that there is just one right answer," Welsch said. Consumer groups and organics advocates are hopeful that the Obama administration will bolster the program. In his proposed budget, the president has doubled resources devoted to organics and installed USDA leaders who support change. Vilsack's deputy, organics expert Kathleen A. Merrigan, told consumer groups three weeks ago that she intends to heighten enforcement. Merrigan helped write the original organics law and get the federal program off the ground in 2002. And Vilsack said he wants to protect the organic label. "That term, 'organic,' needs to be pure," he said in an interview. "You can't allow the definition to be eroded to where it means nothing. . . . We have to fight against that kind of pressure." Still, at the standards board's meeting last month, Chairman Jeff Moyer noted the growing tension. "As the organic industry matures, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find a balance between the integrity of the word 'organic' and the desire for the industry to grow."

Deciphering the 'Organic' Label

Friday, July 3, 2009

What "organic" really means under federal law:

"100 Percent Organic" products must show an ingredient list, the name and address of the handler (bottler, distributor, importer, manufacturer, packer, processor) of the finished product, and the name and seal of the organic certifier. These products should contain no chemicals, additives, synthetics, pesticides or genetically engineered substances.

"USDA Organic" products must contain at least 95 percent organic ingredients. The five percent non-organic ingredients could include additives or synthetics if they are on an approved list. The label must contain a list that identifies the organic, as well as the non-organic, ingredients in the product, and the name of the organic certifier.

"Made With Organic" products must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The label must contain a list that identifies the organic, as well as the non-organic, ingredients in the product, along with the name of the organic certifier.

If a product contains less than 70 percent organic ingredients, it cannot use the word "organic" on the packaging or display panel, and the only place an organic claim can be made is on the ingredient label.

Washington Post letters


When the Label Says 'Organic'

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

While the debate over what constitutes "organic" food is fascinating, it isn't entirely clear why we're having it ["Purity of Federal 'Organic' Label Is Questioned," front page, July 3]. Whether or not a food or additive is ultimately determined to be organic, we know that it is safe -- after all, it can be found elsewhere on our grocery shelves.

Indeed, food is labeled "organic" for the same reason some food is labeled "kosher" -- to meet the preferences of certain consumers. Why then, as with kosher foods, shouldn't the organic label be administered by a private licensing board instead of the government?

ZACHARY DAVID SKAGGS

Washington

--

To paraphrase the prophetic social critic Eric Hoffer: Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and turns into a racket.

Reflecting upon the Agriculture Department's self-inflicted loss of credibility during the mad-cow beef fiasco of a few years ago, it's easy to see that the department spends little time serving as a consumer safety and protection enterprise. Instead, it appears to view its mission as supporting the rackets dreamed up by members of Big Food to expand their sales. Heaven help those of us who just want the food we eat to be untainted, because clearly the USDA isn't going to.

KATHRYN L. KELLAM

Alexandria

House Seeks More Funding for Food Standards Probe
Bill Calls for $500,000 to Investigate Purity of Foods Labeled as Organic

By Kimberly Kindy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009 5:59 PM

A House agriculture appropriations bill has approved $500,000 for the USDA's inspector general to investigate the department's National Organic Program, to determine whether federal standards are being properly observed before farmers and food producers are allowed to use the certified organic label on food products.

The bill's passage Thursday represents the first step in establishing the Agriculture Department's fiscal 2010 budget. The Senate version of the bill does not include the additional funding, but Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), author of the federal law that established the organics program, believes the inspector general needs additional resources for the effort and might propose an amendment to add a similar amount of funding when the appropriations bill comes to the Senate floor.

Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.) proposed the additional funding to the Agriculture Appropriations Act in response to a Washington Post article that revealed how the program's lax and uneven enforcement of organics standards has harmed the integrity of the seven-year-old program.

The inspector general's office has been working for months on a review of the program.

"We want to move ahead aggressively to maintain the integrity of the USDA-certified designation, and the first step is to see what the problems are and where the integrity might have been compromised," Holt said in an interview yesterday.

The additional funding, Holt said, would allow for a "thorough investigation" to determine "whether or not current inspectors are ensuring that the most rigorous standards for certification are honored when determining if a product may bear the USDA Organic label."

The extra funding would also expand the probe to determine whether non-organic substances are inappropriately being allowed in small amounts into certified organic foods. The number of non-organic substances that the USDA allows into certified organic products has increased from 77 to 245 since the program started in 2002.

Officials in Holt's office said they hope to use the results of the investigation to determine what, if any, reforms are needed and whether new legislation is needed to improve the program.

Salt and sodium content in food are big issues in my house. For a long time I generally avoided salt at home as I figured that I was getting plenty of sodium from processed foods that I ate. I have experienced a number of no salt cooking methods / diets. Then I was told that I had rising blood pressure. Not interested in a pharmaceutical solution, I questioned all and every bit of salt and sodium in my life. Working to eliminate my sodium intake, my blood pressure has gone down enough that the doctor does not speak of pharmaceuticals anymore.

Drastically reducing yet alone eliminating sodium inputs when meals are for four to six people is not easy, yet can be done. Basically, cook it yourself and be creative because there are few food products that do not contain sodium. Consumer choice? Make it at home from whole ingredients or fuggedaboutit. No bite out, no snack on the road, avoid packaged food that has been processed or is not whole - items that have no need for massive amounts of sodium are infused with salt - "gives it flavor" and acts as a non-chemical preservative.

Among other points, the article below says that up to 150,000 premature deaths could be avoided if Americans were to halve their salt intake. Whatever way the statistic is played with, certain facts remain: too much salt can make you sick and eventually kill you. Processed foods and restaurant foods have been increasing their sodium content. While processed food in the grocery store has a label so it is possible to "make a choice" (try finding canned tomatoes with no added salt that is in a can bigger than a small over priced can - if you find a brand, please email me) but food on the go, whether at a restaurant, fast food outlet or convenience store has no label so any "choice" is rather limited. While some nutritional info is available on the Internet, there are still major restaurant chains in the US that resist any "infringement" on what they consider to be their proprietary information.

Many brands that claim to be healthy and/or fresh are actually filled with salt, which acts as preservative in addition to contributing to hypertension, heart disease and stroke. For example, check out the Chipotle vegetarian burrito nutritional info at Chipotle's web site - the nutritional info is not available at Chipotle outlets. Chipotle advertises that it's food is fresh and while not saying that their food is good for you, Chipotle uses many marketing techniques to make the consumer feel that the food at Chipotle is healthy. Never mind that the veggie burrito has more salt in it than a grown man needs in a day! Personal choice is important but when restaurants and prepared food providers empahsize marketing while not providing real nutritional / health information, we don't have a level playing field between food providers and food consumers (that's all of us!). Without a level playing field, claims about the power of choice are just hype.

Eating a Bit Less Salt Can Be a Big Health Boon By TIFFANY SHARPLES Tiffany Sharples Fri Mar 13, 3:00 am ET 2009 Over the years, Americans have become inured to salt. Most people have no idea how much salt they consume - on average, about 9 to 12 g (or 3,600 to 4,800 mg of sodium) per person per day, according to the American Heart Association (AHA). That's twice the amount recommended by the government. In the past four decades, Americans' salt consumption has risen 50%, mostly as a result of eating more processed foods and more food prepared in restaurants. "Over time, we have adapted our taste buds and adapted our bodies to crave much, much higher levels of salt than we require to function," says Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco. (See the top 10 food trends of 2008.) Some salt is crucial for good health, of course - to regulate blood pressure and assist with muscle and nerve function - but too much (that is, at the levels we currently consume) can lead to hypertension, heart disease and stroke. If Americans halved their salt intake, as many as 150,000 premature deaths could be prevented each year, according to the American Medical Association. And new research presented March 11 by Bibbins-Domingo at the AHA's annual conference shows that even small reductions - as little as 1 g of salt per day - could have dramatic effects, saving 200,000 lives over the course of a decade. Using a sophisticated computer model to analyze trends in heart disease over time among U.S. adults, Bibbins-Domingo and colleagues discovered that incremental population-wide reductions could drastically improve public health. Cutting out just 1 g of salt (or 40 mg of sodium) per person per day could prevent 30,000 cases of coronary heart disease across the U.S. population by 2019. Reducing consumption by half - a more sizable 6 grams - could prevent 1.4 million cases of heart disease during that same period. (See the top 10 medical breakthroughs of 2008.) While eating less salt would improve the health of the population across the board, researchers found that the benefits would be greatest for African Americans and women. As a group, African Americans tend to have higher blood pressure than the general population, and "many studies suggest that they may be more sensitive to salt," Bibbins-Domingo says. Her analysis found that a reduction of 3 g of salt per day would reduce heart attacks 8% on average; among African Americans, that rate would drop 10%. A similar result was found in women, whose stroke risk dropped 8% with a 3-g reduction in salt intake; in men, the risk fell 5%. The numbers certainly offer compelling incentives to cut salt consumption, but that's no easy task. You can put down the salt shaker and cut back on obviously salty snacks, but there's still so much sodium packed into processed foods that trying to extract it from your diet is a tricky business. "It's so pervasive in an average U.S. diet that it's really hard to tell people, 'You have to avoid salt,' " says Bibbins-Domingo. And there is salt hiding in places you wouldn't think to look. According to a sodium chart from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a single slice of commercially made whole-wheat bread has 148 mg of sodium; white bread has 170 mg. Cheerios contains 213 mg of sodium per cup; Total Raisin Bran, 239 mg. And then there are the big offenders: processed soups and sauces. Chicken noodle soup, for example, even after it has been diluted with water during preparation, has a whopping 1,106 mg of sodium per cup. "I think people don't have a clue," says Bibbins-Domingo. "The recommended daily amount of salt is about a teaspoon," she says. "It's easy to add that much if you're just adding salt," let alone all of the salt that's in food before we break out the shaker. (See pictures of what makes you eat more food.) If you're dining out, all bets are off. According to the British organization Consensus Action on Salt in Health, a three-course meal in a restaurant can contain more than 15 g of salt, almost three times the recommended daily amount. Bibbins-Domingo says it's especially tough for families with limited income, who tend to rely more on processed or packaged foods and canned fruits and vegetables rather than fresh foods. Patients tell her they've cut salted nuts, potato chips and pretzels from their diet and started eating more soup instead. "You realize that they're actually consuming more salt in their attempt to make healthy choices," she says. Any large-scale success in salt-intake reduction would have to involve policymakers and the food industry, say public-health experts. "If you could reduce blood pressure by just a few points, you could reduce hundreds of thousands of deaths," says Dr. Thomas Frieden, commissioner of New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, who recently announced a national campaign to diminish salt intake 20% in the next five years and 40% in the next decade. Frieden, who has in the past targeted trans fats and led the charge to require chain restaurants to list calorie content on menus, has evoked less animosity from the food and restaurant industries with his desalinization efforts than with his previous initiatives. "[Frieden] is looking for voluntary guidelines. It's a national movement, and he's working closely with the industry on developing these re-education guidelines," says Rob Bookman, an attorney for the New York State Restaurant Association, but he adds wryly, "I don't know if it's one big happy family." (See nine kid foods to avoid.) Frieden points to a successful salt-reduction campaign in the U.K. as a kind of proof of principle. Several years after the British government launched an aggressive national campaign, which included voluntary reductions in salt content by food manufacturers, British citizens had reduced their annual sodium consumption roughly 10%. "If you look at what happened in the U.K., at first the industry was very concerned," Frieden says. "But after a few years, they saw that they could drop their salt content 20% to 30% [without losing customers]." For Bibbins-Domingo, the issue is less about mandating food production or proscribing salt consumption than enabling people to make better choices. "This is actually something that we can achieve with very little cost to our personal liberties," she says. But Frieden adheres to a harder line. When asked whether the government should be allowed to influence how or what we eat, he responded with a pointed rhetorical question: "Should industry be allowed to serve us food that makes us sick and kills us?" See pictures of a salt mine in Uganda. See pictures from an X-ray studio. View this article on Time.com Related articles on Time.com: Report: Eating a Bit Less Salt Can Be a Big Health Boon

You Don't Have to Be Ayurvedic to Keep Your Doshas in Balance

Conscious eating.

You Don't Have to Be Ayurvedic to Keep Your Doshas in Balance By Jennifer LaRue Huget, Washington Post Tuesday, May 19, 2009 I'll admit it: I've been avoiding ayurveda. Since I started writing this nutrition column last summer, several of my friends -- mostly yoga buddies -- have suggested I look into this ancient Indian system of medicine. But whenever I tried to read up on ayurveda, my eyes glazed over. It's not the Sanskrit terminology: I've practiced yoga long enough not to be put off by the language in which both disciplines' core texts are written. But to my Western brain, descriptions of ayurveda have seemed, frankly, kind of flaky, at once complicated and simplistic -- and far removed from my own experience. What I really needed was for someone to explain the system to me in straightforward terms that made clear how it might be useful in my life. So I was happy for the chance last week to visit the Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health, in the Berkshire mountains of western Massachusetts, and listen to a presentation by Hilary Garivaltis, dean of curriculum for Kripalu's school of ayurveda. Here are the basics: In the ayurvedic scheme of things ("ayur" being Sanskrit for life, and "veda" for science or knowledge), every aspect of life is governed by five elements: ether (the element of space), air (movement), fire (transformation), water (chemical energy) and earth (structure or form). Those elements combine in different configurations to form doshas, the three life energies that characterize every individual and everything else, from seasons and times of day to the foods we eat and the manner in which we live our lives. Keeping one's doshas in balance is the cornerstone of physical and psychological health, and imbalances can lead to everything from anxiety, grouchiness and exhaustion to serious disease. Balancing those energies (called vata, pitta and kapha) requires daily vigilance, as our doshas shift according to what we are doing and what's going on around us. Although for most people all the life energies are present in varying degrees, one usually dominates. Vata, the combination of ether and air, is all about lightness, dryness, quickness and cold; vata-dominated people are thin and tendon-y, active and restless. Pitta, combining fire and water, is hot, sharp, oily; pittas can be stubborn and tend to be driven, workaholic types. And kapha, comprising water and earth, is cool and damp; kapha is common among people with larger, round body types, who tend to be laid-back, even lethargic. Still with me? Whether you're self-administering ayurveda or following guidance from a pro such as Garivaltis, the practice starts with evaluating your own mix of doshas. Any book or Web site about ayurveda is likely to offer a questionnaire to help pinpoint which dosha is dominant in your makeup at the moment: Are you irritated by loud noise? (That's a vata trait.) Do you anger easily? (That's pitta for you.) Do you feel sluggish? (Your kapha is showing.) Doshas are governed in part by things beyond our control, such as the change of seasons -- vata rules in wintertime, while summer is pitta's season -- or one's stage of life. (Teens tend toward pitta, while post-menopause might be vata time for many women.) But one of the main tools by which doshas are regulated -- and the reason I'm writing about ayurveda here -- is nutrition. As with all else in ayurveda, foods have their own energies. Each of six key tastes -- sweet, sour, salty, bitter, pungent and astringent -- exerts influence on the doshas and can be used to help restore balance among them. Pungent, salty and sour foods ("the bad-American-diet kind of foods," Garivaltis says) aggravate pitta, for instance, while sweet, bitter and astringent ones calm it down. Eat too much of a pitta-promoting food such as fast-food burgers, ayurvedics say, and you might find yourself feeling hot and acting rude and domineering. But if you've got too much vata going, you may be eating too much cold, raw and dry food, and consequently you may experience dry skin, constipation, insomnia and anxiety. You can curb that tendency by eating and drinking moist, warm foods and beverages, those whose qualities are opposite to vata's dryness and cold. The trick, though, is that the labels attached to foods aren't literal, at least not by Western definitions. So these "warm" and "sweet" foods include such things as butter, beef and beets. Ayurvedic practice encourages maintaining a regular schedule, rising before sunrise and going to sleep between 10 and 11 p.m. Lunch, eaten between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., should be your main meal of the day; dinner should be lighter and eaten between 5 and 7 p.m. Sipping lukewarm water during meals and throughout the day helps maintain bowel regularity, one of the key measures of health in ayurveda. Other ayurvedic tips sound remarkably like what many American nutritionists preach: Eat freshly cooked meals. Chew food carefully, being mindful of its tastes, smells and textures. Focus on eating, not on talking, watching TV or reading. Eat only when you feel hungry; allow your last meal to be fully digested before consuming the next one. Like many other practices that we label complementary or alternative medicine, ayurveda has not received conventional medicine's warm embrace. Few physicians trained in Western medicine would explicitly espouse ayurveda because its precepts haven't been researched in such a way that they pass conventional scientific muster. Garivaltis notes that Western scientific research typically demands focus on an isolated aspect of a medical system; in ayurveda, the whole system depends on the interactions between elements, making it a hard protocol to study. Without supporting science, conventional physicians are understandably skeptical. Garivaltis is quick to say that ayurvedic practice is no substitute for Western medicine. When she had to have her appendix removed a few years ago, she told me, she went to a regular hospital for surgery. But she attributes her speedy recovery to her having adopted ayurveda, which she says prepared her body to weather the stress of illness, surgery and recuperation. I can't say I'm ready to give myself over wholeheartedly to ayurveda. But I do find myself thinking about my doshas, which two weeks ago I never knew existed. And this morning as I poured my coffee, I found myself pausing to consider whether it might boost my pitta -- something I don't need, thank you very much. It just might, I concluded. But I drank it anyway.