Could This Simple Habit Actually Reduce Cancer and Diabetes by 50%?

Vitamin D influences more than 200 genes. This includes genes related to cancer and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis. Vitamin D affects your DNA through the vitamin D receptors (VDRs), which bind to specific locations of the human genome.
Reuters reports:

“Vitamin D deficiency is a well-known risk factor for rickets, and some evidence suggests it may increase susceptibility to autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 diabetes, as well as certain cancers and even dementia.”

Sources:

  Reuters August 23, 2010

  Genome Research August 23, 2010; [Epub ahead of print]

Reuter’s information is actually a bit misleading as other scientists have identified a total of nearly 3,000 genes that are upregulated by vitamin D. The particular study referenced above identified 200 genes affected, but it’s not clear if that is in addition to the ones already identified, or if they simply confirmed many of the ones found by others.
One thing’s for sure: Vitamin D is one of the major keys for disease prevention and for optimal health.

The Astonishing Power of Vitamin D to Transform Your Health

In recent years vitamin D has emerged as a star of the “vitamin” world. For example, there are currently over 800 studies showing vitamin D’s effectiveness against cancer. Optimizing your vitamin D levels can literally cut your risk of several cancers by 50 percent!
Further, middle aged and elderly people with high levels of vitamin D could reduce their chances of developing heart disease or diabetes by 43 percent.

How Does Vitamin D Do What it Does?

Vitamin D is actually a “prohormone,” which your body produces from cholesterol. Because it is a prohormone, vitamin D influences your entire body -- receptors that respond to the vitamin have been found in almost every type of human cell, from your brain to your bones.
So what modern science has now realized is that vitamin D does more than just aid in the absorption of calcium and bone formation, it is also involved in multiple repair and maintenance functions, touches thousands of different genes, regulates your immune system, and much, much more.
Just one example of an important gene that vitamin D up-regulates is your ability to fight infections, as well as chronic inflammation. It produces over 200 anti microbial peptides, the most important of which is cathelicidin, a naturally occurring broad-spectrum antibiotic.
This is one of the explanations for why it’s so effective against colds and influenza.
In addition, since vitamin D also modulates (balances) your immune response, it can prevent an overreaction in the form of inflammation, which can lead to a variety of autoimmune disorders, such as Crohn’s disease for example.
When you consider the fact that you only have about 25,000 genes in your body, and vitamin D has been shown to influence nearly 3,000 of them, the bigger picture of its true impact on your health can be easily understood.
It may, in fact, have literally thousands of health benefits!
However, it’s also very clear that unless you have taken specific measures to address it, the odds are overwhelming that you are deficient in this important nutrient.

"Healthy" Fast Food Is No Better for Your Heart

Research by the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany found so-called “healthy” fast food alternatives to have the same effect on the cardiovascular system as standard fast food meals.

Twenty-four healthy volunteers with an average age of 32 years, ate one of three fast food meals during one week, a different meal the second week, and the remaining meal the third week. The fast food meals consisted of:

1. Beef burger, fries, ketchup, lemon-flavored carbonated drink
2. Vegetarian burger, fries, ketchup, lemon-flavored carbonated drink
3. Vegetarian burger, salad, fruit, yogurt, orange juice

Surprisingly, according to lead investigator Dr. Tanja K. Rudolph, endothelial function was adversely affected within 2 to 4 hours after eating any of these three meals, with no statistically significant differences between them.

All three meals also had negative impact on other cardiovascular disease markers.

Endothelial cells line the inside of your blood vessels. These cells control blood flow by regulating the dilation of the blood vessels. When these endothelial cells are impaired, it can lead to high blood pressure or atherosclerosis (clogging of the arteries), which increases the risk of heart disease and stroke.

According to Dr. Rudolph, "You can not prevent the harmful effects of fast food to the vascular system if you only add 'healthy components.'”

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition August, 2007 ;86(2):334-340
Reuters August 15, 2007

The Danger of Ignoring High Fructose Corn Syrup
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is the main ingredient in most soft drinks, and is one of the most commonly used sweeteners in processed food products (including fruit juices like orange juice) in general. The only way to avoid it is by focusing your diet on whole foods and, if you do purchase packaged foods, become an avid label reader.
High-fructose corn syrup increases your triglyceride levels and your LDL (bad) cholesterol. Even though they don’t specify all the ingredients in the three fast food meals provided during this study, I believe it’s fair to assume they included plenty of HFCS.
Fructose is absorbed differently than other sugars, which may have nutritional consequences. When glucose (sugar) is consumed, it increases production of insulin, which enables sugar in the blood to be transported into cells where it can be used for energy. It also increases production of leptin, a hormone that helps regulate appetite and fat storage, and suppresses production of ghrelin, a hormone made by the stomach that helps regulate food intake. Because of this reaction, it has been suggested that after eating glucose, hunger declines.
Fructose, on the other hand, does not stimulate insulin secretion, or increase leptin production, or suppress production of ghrelin. This is the mechanism explaining how consuming a lot of fructose may contribute to weight gain.
Fructose is also converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides more efficiently than glucose, and elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease.
Since it has become such a large part of Americans’ diets -- consumption of beverages containing fructose has risen 135 percent from 1977 to 2001 -- HFCS has been linked to:

• Diabetes
• Obesity
• Metabolic Syndrome
• Cardiovascular disease

It’s unfortunate that this study made no mention of HFCS, as it may be partly to blame for why the “healthier” fares didn’t provide any protection against vascular damage.

LGMedSupply - Muscle Stimulators and TENS Unit

For those who are in pain, whether back pain, knee pain, or any type of muscle pain, LGMedSupply offers TENS Units, Muscle Stimulators, and Ultrasound Units. These LG-TEC Dual Combo TENS Unit and Muscle Stimulator will give you the benefits of both units all in one. For old or new injuries you can reduce muscle pain while increasing muscle tone. This is a lot better than taking pain killers, muscle relaxers, or even over-the-counter drugs like Tylenol and Excedrin which can harm your liver, kidneys, and stomach over time. Patients all over the globe are using the TENS Pain Relief and the Muscle Stimulator for relief of pain. You can visit LGMedSupply Online any time of the day or night. They have all items in stock, and if you find that you need more information you can simply visit their online customer blog.

How to Brand a Disease - and Sell a Cure

The manner in which prescription drugs are marketed today can be readily understood if you read the 1928 book "Propaganda," by Edward Bernays, the father of PR.

Bernays knew that public relations business was less about selling things than about creating the conditions for things to sell themselves.

Pharmaceutical marketers, following in his footsteps, sell drugs by selling diseases -- a system known as "disease branding." Illnesses such as panic disorder, restless legs syndrome, bipolar disorder, and ADHD were once considered rare until a marketing campaign transformed the brand in order to sell more drugs.
According to CNN:

"If all drugs were harmless, disease branding would be relatively harmless, too. But no drug is completely benign ... Detrol can make elderly people delirious and may cause memory problems. Paxil is associated with sexual dysfunction and dependence ... Side effects like these are a part of every drug. But they are never part of the brand."

Sources:

  CNN October 11, 2010

Drug companies are master marketers and they fully embrace the ideology that Edward Bernays' -- the father of PR -- is most known for. Instead of trying to sell their drugs on their own merit, they invest untold amounts of money into creating diseases their drugs are meant to treat.
By doing this, they create instant patients, patients who will likely go to their physicians and request the said drug by name.
It's an ingenious model and one that the PR industry has won awards over … the only problem is that it's detrimental to your health.

The Fine Art of Disease Mongering

Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than research -- almost twice as much. Part of these costs often go toward hiring expensive PR firms, celebrity spokespeople, and physicians and academics to pedal their wares.
As CNN reported, in order to market its antidepressant Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline hired a PR firm to create a "public awareness campaign" about an "under-diagnosed" disease.
The disease? Social anxiety disorder … previously known as shyness.
You may have seen this campaign firsthand; ads stating "Imagine being allergic to people" were distributed widely, celebrities gave interviews to the press and psychiatrists gave lectures on this new disease in the top 25 media markets.
As a result, mentions of social anxiety in the press rose from about 50 to over 1 billion in just two years … social anxiety disorder became the "third most common mental illness" in the U.S. … and Paxil skyrocketed to the top of the charts as one of the most profitable and most prescribed drugs in the United States.
Clearly there was not a rapid rise in the number of people suffering from extreme shyness during this time … there was just a masterful marketing campaign that successfully whispered into enough people's ears, "If you're shy or nervous around others, you need to take this drug."
And that's just what millions did.

Drug Companies are Seeking to Medicalize Society … and You

Drug companies would like you to believe that for every symptom you experience, there's a pill you need to treat it. This includes symptoms you might not have thought twice about, had you not seen the very same ones advertised on television in relation to an "underdiagnosed" and "undertreated" disease.
As authors of Selling Sickness: The Pharmaceutical Industry and Disease Mongering wrote in the British Medical Journal:

"There's a lot of money to be made from telling healthy people they're sick. Some forms of medicalizing ordinary life may now be better described as disease mongering: widening the boundaries of treatable illness in order to expand markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.
Pharmaceutical companies are actively involved in sponsoring the definition of diseases and promoting them to both prescribers and consumers. The social construction of illness is being replaced by the corporate construction of disease."

This practice has resulted in the creation of unholy alliances between drug companies, health care providers and supposed consumer groups, all working in concert to convince people they're sick and in need of drug treatment. As the British Medical Journal continued:

"Within many disease categories informal alliances have emerged, comprising drug company staff, doctors, and consumer groups. Ostensibly engaged in raising public awareness about underdiagnosed and undertreated problems, these alliances tend to promote a view of their particular condition as widespread, serious, and treatable.  
Because these "disease awareness" campaigns are commonly linked to companies' marketing strategies, they operate to expand markets for new pharmaceutical products.
Alternative approaches—emphasizing the self limiting or relatively benign natural history of a problem, or the importance of personal coping strategies—are played down or ignored."

What the drug companies don't want you to know is that ALL of their drugs carry risks of serious side effects, some worse than the alleged diseases they're meant to treat. They also don't want you to know that, more often than not, you can overcome problematic symptoms yourself by making positive dietary and lifestyle changes.
And, in fact, this latter form of "treatment" is virtually the only way to actually cure an illness, as drugs typically do absolutely nothing but temporarily mask your symptoms.

You Needn't Live in Fear …

One of the key strategies that drug companies depend on to make medicalization of society work is targeting your news media with stories designed to create fears about a condition or disease, and draw attention to the latest treatment. This has led to problems on several key levels:

• People with benign, normal symptoms end up taking dangerous drugs. Once you're convinced that natural signs of aging and common conditions are diseases or treatable symptoms, you take drugs for such things as balding, anxiety, mild bone loss and indigestion, which puts your health at risk over issues that were not true illnesses or risks in the first place.
  
  Further, many of these conditions are entirely treatable with diet and lifestyle modifications.
  
• People who are tested regularly end up undergoing unnecessary treatments with drugs and invasive surgery. Very few people after middle age can pass standard medical tests without being told that they have some sort of "risk."
  
  This risk is then turned into a pseudo-disease leading to such things as dangerous breast and colon surgery and "preventive" medications, instead of outlining natural strategies that would actually help a person's health to thrive.
  
• As a result of "disease mongering," the more the medical industry influences a nation, the sicker that nation "considers itself to be." It eats away at your self-confidence and teaches you that you're weak and incapable of staying well, and that all signs and symptoms are potentially dangerous conditions and diseases.
  
  Truly, this sort of marketing has blurred the lines of what drugs and surgery you really need to save your life, and which may end up killing you faster.
  Rather than focusing more time and attention on your health as you age, or as you see degeneration setting in, you might settle for a "diagnosis" and the latest medications. The only winners in this grand scheme are the ones who profit financially.
  

Ugly Story Proves the Media is Lying to You About Vaccines

By Barbara Loe Fisher

On October 17, 2009 I was at the Atlanta airport on my way back to Washington, D.C. when I stopped at a newsstand.

Like most weary travelers waiting for a plane, I was looking for something to read that would give me a break from my work, which included, two weeks earlier, hosting the large Fourth International Public Conference on Vaccination ¹ for an audience of 700 concerned scientists, health care professionals, journalists, legal experts, ethicists and parents from around the world.
Suddenly, my eye caught the distorted, photo-shopped image of a baby with the word FEAR in bold letters imprinted on the baby's chest.

I paged through Wired magazine ² to find out who wrote the article and discovered it was a woman named Amy Wallace, one of the many journalists I had talked with in 2009, who had contacted the National Vaccine Information Center ³, a non-profit, educational organization I co-founded with parents of vaccine injured children in 1982.

As I scanned the article to find out why it was entitled "An Epidemic of Fear: One Man's Battle Against the Anti-Vaccine Movement," I quickly realized it was a puff piece for vaccine patent holder, Dr. Paul Offit, who alleges that vaccine injuries and deaths are largely a myth.
Then, I saw my name. And then, I saw the words, "She lies."

When All Else Fails, the Name of the Game Becomes Character Assassination...

I felt a knot in the pit of my stomach as I read the unsubstantiated, unchallenged slur made by Offit against me. And in those two words "SHE LIES," I knew that the propaganda tactic of character assassination was being used to attack the credibility of my nearly 30 years ⁴ of work as a vaccine safety consumer advocate.

1. Now, I have never met Amy Wallace. We have never shaken hands or shared so much as a cup of coffee together. We had one interview on the telephone in 2009. In a sworn statement ⁵ she stated that she did not use any quotes from our telephone interview in her Wired article. No, she didn't.
2. She also did not tell Wired readers what I told her, which is that I have always encouraged everyone to become educated ⁶ about the risks of diseases and risks of vaccines and consult one or more trusted health care professionals before making an informed decision - just like every intelligent person should do before using any pharmaceutical product.
3. Instead, Ms. Wallace said she based her description of me on a speech I gave at a conference, a speech that she did not attend.
4. Nobody at Wired magazine called me while they were presumably fact checking Wallace's article to ask me point blank, "Dr. Offit said that you lie. Do you have a response?" Wouldn't a responsible journalist or editor have made some attempt to verify such a serious attack on another person's character? No, Dr. Offit's defamatory statement remained in the article, unchallenged.
5. I was left with two options: 1) I could ignore it; or (2) I could take action to defend my integrity.

Suing for Libel or Slander is Not for the Faint of Heart...

After consulting Jonathan Emord ⁷, a constitutional and libel law attorney, I selected option number two. I sought justice in a civil court, which is my constitutional privilege as an American citizen and my responsibility as the president of a non-profit organization, whose supporters depend upon the accuracy, honesty and integrity of what I say and do, as does everyone I know.

Requesting a jury trial in a U.S. civil court to sue for slander or libel is not for the faint of heart. You have to review and be prepared to defend the truthfulness of every statement you have ever made and every action you have ever taken in your life. You, your family, friends and colleagues could be subpoenaed and drawn into a potentially very public, drawn-out battle, especially if those you are suing are wealthy, influential and politically connected.

I had never sued anyone before and I certainly never thought I would find it necessary to sue a journalist. The majority of journalists I have worked with over the years have been honest men and women, who have taken care to do their research and fairly report the facts without prejudice, including accurately describing who I am and what I do.

This was different. I had never been defamed before and I knew I had no choice but to take steps to defend my integrity.

I was confident that, if my case was presented to a jury of my peers, I would win. I had no doubt I would win on the facts because I did not lie and there was no evidence that could be produced to substantiate the defamatory statement made by Offit, amplified by Wallace, and printed by Wired magazine published by Conde Nast.

After Mr. Emord filed a Complaint with Demand for a Jury Trial ⁸ on Dec. 23, 2009 in a Virginia U.S. District Court asking for one million dollars in damages, we waited for a response from the defendants. When I read the Motion to Dismiss brief filed on Jan. 22, 2010 ⁹ by the defendants attorneys, I could not believe what I was reading.

That CYA brief is better reading material than anything I can write or say here.

Instead of providing one piece of solid evidence to support Offit's defamatory statement, Wallace claimed I could not sue her because she is a resident of California. And Offit, who has no trouble keeping a straight face when he states flatly that it is absolutely safe for a child to get 10,000 vaccines at once and 100,000 vaccines in a lifetime, claimed he was simply having an emotional meltdown when he hysterically told Wallace "flatly" that I lie. And to draw attention away from the seriousness of engaging in libel per se, the defendants' attorneys argued that "the quoted remark 'she lies' is not capable of being proven true or false" because the civil court system cannot prove whether vaccines do or do not cause harm.

In my Opposition to Motion to Dismiss brief filed on Feb. 3, 2010 ¹⁰, Jonathan Emord and his associates brilliantly outlined why it is inconceivable that the self characterized "dispassionate, objective" Dr. Offit described by Wallace in her article as a "mild mannered" rational man of "science," suddenly would have lost his mind when maliciously calling me a liar. Mr. Emord points out that it is far more logical to conclude that Dr. Offit knew exactly what he was doing.
Mr. Emord also makes a compelling argument that Ms. Wallace knew exactly what she was doing when she wrote an article "void of balanced criticism" that set me up for ridicule as a person "unworthy of any professional association."

Mr. Emord rightly stated that the libel lawsuit we filed was not about "the intellectual debate surrounding vaccination," it was about proving before a jury of my peers that Offit and Wallace defamed me in order to discredit my long, successful public record of consumer advocacy to defend the informed consent ethic in medicine ¹¹.

Did They, or Did They Not, Mean what They Said?

On February 12, 2010, the case was argued in front of Judge Claude Hilton, a Ronald Reagan federal court appointee. On March 10, 2010, a Memorandum Opinion ¹² was issued by Judge Hilton granting the defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

In his opinion, Judge Hilton explained why he would not allow me to face my accusers in a court of law in front of a jury of my peers. First, Hilton said that protection of First Amendment free speech rights are "at their zenith" in this case because Paul Offit and I are public figures debating an issue of "substantial public concern." Second, he said there would have to be a discussion about "which side of this debate has 'truth' on their side" and that would be impossible to prove based upon a "core of objective evidence."

Third, Hilton offered the opinion that Offit's allegation "cannot be reasonably understood to suggest" that I am "a person lacking honesty and integrity" and that Wallace and Wired magazine were only reporting Offit's "personal opinion" about my "views" and none of the defendants intended to make a "literal assertion of fact" that I lie. In other words, they really didn't mean it.
Seriously.

That was the substance of their main defense – they really didn't mean it – and Hilton bought it.
However, if all three defendants really didn't mean it, as they claim in their legal brief, then, ethically, all three defendants should have stated so publicly in a clarification published in Wired magazine to correct the public record. That has not happened.

I weighed the option of taking the case to the federal Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel would have reviewed Hilton's opinion and had the opportunity to overturn it, as has happened in the past. However, if Hilton's opinion were overturned on appeal, my case would have gone back to Hilton's court for a jury trial and he would have been the presiding judge with an obvious bias. So I did not appeal and moved on.

Where Did All the REAL Journalists Go?

However, Ms. Wallace continues to paint herself as the innocent victim of an unprovoked libel lawsuit, even as she becomes the shameful face of yellow journalism ¹³, a nasty, lowbrow kind of tabloid reporting that "exploits, distorts or exaggerates" to create "sensation and attract readers."

In an August 30, 2010 article ¹⁴ published on the Internet, Wallace addressed fellow journalists about the difficulties of being sued for libel and complained about being called bad names by grieving parents of vaccine injured children, whom she had cruelly demonized in her article. Casting herself as a martyr with Offit for the cause, she said "The beast doesn't tire, it seems, of taking whacks at those who dare to describe it" and suggested that she had been vindicated by Hilton's opinion and the inclusion of her Wired article in an upcoming book on Best American Science Writing edited by a doctor with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including vaccine manufacturers.

Sadly, Wallace is looking into a mirror when she describes the "beast." She, Offit and Wired magazine have feasted on the shattered lives of vaccine injured children and their parents to sell magazines.

They have taken delight in belittling vaccine victims and those who are trying to help them, while defending bad science and one-size-fits-all vaccine policies that create more vaccine damaged children every day.

Amy Wallace, who wrote an article full of factual errors and silly quotes from a doctor hyping vaccine mandates like a used car salesman, is a classic example of the bully who can dish it out but sure can't take it.

During the 1980's, 1990's and early 2000's, I worked with award winning,¹⁵,¹⁶ truly professional print and broadcast journalists,¹⁷,¹⁸,¹⁹,²⁰,²¹ who were committed to maintaining high journalistic standards and intelligently covering all sides of the multi-faceted vaccine safety issue. They did not sensationalize and dumb down the conversation to a black and white, "pro" and "anti" slugfest that is the hallmark of tabloid journalism.

There are fewer smart, responsible investigative journalists writing about the science, policy, law, ethics and politics of vaccination in America today. Perhaps that is because, today, health journalists are being warned by those in positions of authority to only report one side of the vaccine safety story.²²

The Need to Stand Up for What's Right

Do I regret my libel lawsuit, even though I didn't get my day in court in front of a jury of my peers to prove who is lying and who is not? Not at all.

I know I did the right thing when I stood up to those who are desperately trying to shut down all public discussion about vaccine risks, a subject that public opinion polls reveal concerns more than 50 percent of Americans today.²³ Perhaps that is because, today, nearly everybody knows somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated, and then became sick or disabled for the rest of their life.

Doctors, journalists and judges in denial cannot change that harsh reality. It is a reality that the American people are not going to tolerate for much longer before they rise up, break free, and take back their health and their choices.

One of the Worst Parenting Mistakes You Can Make

No matter how physically active a child is, time spent in front of the computer or television screen is associated with psychological problems.
In other words, children can't make up for TV time by spending extra hours exercising.
The findings also suggest that the way children spend their sedentary time, in addition to how much time they spend being sedentary in the first place, matters for their mental health.
According to Live Science:

"... [R]esearchers asked 1,013 British 10- and 11-year-olds how much time each day they spent in front of a computer or TV. The children also wore accelerometers around their waists for a week to track their physical activity and sedentary time ...
The study found that ... more than two hours a day in front of a TV or computer was associated with more emotional and behavioral difficulties."

Sources:

  Live Science October 11, 2010

  Pediatrics October 11, 2010 [Epub ahead of print]

 

Many 'All Natural' Foods Are Actually Heavily Processed

If you think a food is "all natural" just because the label says it is, think again. So which foods really aren't as natural as they claim they are?

When it comes to ice cream, as reported by Change.org, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has outed Ben & Jerry's as having ingredients that are hardly natural, but Edy/Dreyers, Breyers, and Turkey Hill do, too.

"And it's not just ice-cream makers who mislead consumers with an 'all natural' label," Change.org said.

"Food products from cookies to yogurts to sauces to cereals come with glowing, 'all natural' labels, but actually contain ingredients that are decidedly man-made in a weird science-type of way."

While CSPI has asked Ben & Jerry's to remove the "all natural" from their labels, Change.org has gone one step further, with an online petition that it's asking visitors to sign.

Sources:

  Change.org September 29, 2010

Ben & Jerry's ice cream was recently singled out by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) for listing "all-natural" on their labels, even when the product contained ingredients like corn syrup and maltodextrin, which are not natural.
The company responded quickly and decided to voluntarily remove the all-natural label from ice creams that contain processed or artificial ingredients, but many other manufacturers have not followed suit.
The news likely came as a surprise to many Ben & Jerry's devotees, however, as they're a company with a decidedly green and natural image.

Even "Green" and "Natural" Companies Use Highly Processed Ingredients

In all fairness, Ben & Jerry's is leaps and bounds ahead of other companies in terms of its corporate responsibility. They support family farmers, make their containers from paper that comes from sustainably managed forests, and get all their milk from dairies that have pledged not to inject their cows with Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH).
Plus, most people know when picking up a pint of Ben & Jerry's that it's meant to be a treat, not a health food (and with upwards of 16 grams of sugar per serving, it's more like a health disaster). Still, that doesn't change the fact that they were passing their ice cream off as all-natural when at least 36 of their flavors are not.
It just goes to show you that just as you can't judge a book by its cover, you often cannot judge a food solely based on its label claims. Even Ben & Jerry's, which is again one of the more forward-thinking companies out there, is owned by parent company Unilever, a food giant that also sells margarine and MSG-ridden bouillons.
So you've got to be a bit of a sleuth when it comes to deciphering what food labels really mean … especially if you value your health.

The FDA Does Not Check Food Label Accuracy

Food labels fall very closely into the realm of "anything goes" in the food-processing world. While the FDA does check food labels, they only check to see whether or not the Nutrition Facts panel is present, rather than whether or not it is true and accurate.
They do not look for deceptive "0 trans-fat" claims and misleading "made with real fruit" or "all natural" statements.
The FDA estimates that roughly one out of every 10 food product labels contain inaccuracies. Additionally, you need to be aware of the fact that a food label must be more than 20 percent off in order for it to violate federal law, and government food labs have a 10 percent margin of error.
This means that an item labeled as having 400 calories can legally have up to 480 calories, and the 10 percent margin of error can bring it up to over 500.
Likewise, blueberry muffins can be called "blueberry muffins" even if they do not contain actual blueberries, but rather artificial blueberry-flavored bits. Other products that list milk on their label may actually contain non-fat powdered milk, palm oil, sugar and additives -- the chemical "equivalent" of milk -- instead.
This is true even when a food claims to be "all natural" …

What Does an "All Natural" Label Claim Really Mean?

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip.
The natural food label on a processed food has no standard definition and really no meaning at all. The term is only regulated on meat and poultry, for which an item labeled natural may not contain any artificial flavors, colors or chemical preservatives.
But in the processed food arena, a "natural" product can be virtually anything -- genetically modified, full of pesticides, made with corn syrup, additives, preservatives and artificial ingredients. Most are also heavily processed.
It is because of this very vagueness that 7-Up is able to claim it's "100% natural" and still be within its legal rights. It's also due to this misleading nature that many consumers are fooled into buying foods labeled as "natural" in the belief they're better for their health, when in reality they can be complete junk.
But you can expect that food manufacturers will continue to use natural label claims for as long as possible. Products labeled as "natural" or "sustainable" account for $50 billion annually, or 8 percent of total retail grocery sales, so don't expect them to disappear from your grocery store anytime soon.