But you'll believe a "Dr" who makes money off sensationalism?

These are the same people who take medical advice about immunization from an actress.

If "Dr" Oz wanted to draw needed attention, he should've discussed how much sugar and naturally occurring fructose are in all juices, not just apple, and that, as with most things, moderation is probably fine but we all probably need a bit more water and less juice/soda/coffee/whatever else in our diets.

Oh wait, that makes sense... yeah, wouldn't fly for a TV show at all.

Perhaps telling us why its legal to label a drink 100% cranberry juice and then read the label and seeing its 90% apple or grape.

This is what people lean on when they have no evidence otherwise, or they lack the educational background to understand the evidence - "conspiracy theories".

Look at what happened with that CONVICTED FELON Kevin Trudeau for example. People still glom to his "give me all your money and I'll tell you my secrets that BigPharma don't want you to know." spiel.

There's a sucker born of ignorance and credulousness every minute. Not saying that BigPharma are saints mind you...

Oz is a medical Dr. who realized he could make alot more money by trying to sensationalize everything he does. He also gives a platform to "Alternative Medicine " quacks but that is another story.

FDA takes so much money for food and drug companies

The FDA takes money from nature to allow naturally occurring arsenic in apples? Didn't know that but is good to know. Thanks.

Perhaps telling us why its legal to label a drink 100% cranberry juice and then read the label and seeing its 90% apple or grape.

Who does that? I imagine the bottle you saw says "100% juice" and you threw the word "cranberry" between them in your own mind.

TV advice for your medical needs? You deserve what you get if you follow that!

Not that I am a fan of the FDA. But I'll take the FDA over some pinhead on TV any day of the week.

Apples are sprayed with "FDA approved" pesticides so they look pretty when we buy them. Just don't eat the peeling. Curious though, when they make apple juice for our kids, do they peel the apple first or just squeeze it peel, pesticides and all?

Most people wash their produce. I can't imagine any industrial process that skips this step especially when it is so flipping easy to do.

The FDA makes most of its mistakes either when you put an industry insider at its head, deprive it of funds needed for enforcement, or both. We have a both situation now. But I still trust their judgement over what Dr. Oz says. Of course, I have the education and background to know how these tests are done. Most people don't have that.

Dr. Oz should be taken off the air. He is unnecessarily alarming people with incorrect statements and incomplete information. He is looking at total arsenic instead of inorganic arsenic levels. Organic arsenic is not a problem and is an almost anything that grows in the ground. It is not harmful and passes through the system. It is inorganic arsenic that can cause cancer. The levels of inorganic arsenic is what they should be looking at, not total arsenic. Dr. Oz is creating hysteria to up his ratings at the expense of providing complete, correct information to his audience.

T.V. personalities make me nervous.

Daytime T.V. is dumbing America.

Oddly enough, we were talking about this show last night. Those who watched it couldn't tell me what Oz considered unsafe levels. I was well aware the arsenic occurs naturally, and this was confirmed by a nurse present. But then I asked them....why are you feeding your little kids apple juice? I wasn't allowed to when the kids were young as it was mainly sugar water, with little nutritional value. Everyone looked at me like deer in the headlights.......

While we do not know of any cases of poisonings, we do know that arsenic is a substance that shouldn’t be in food...

Duh! He also probably neglected to inform the audience that if wells are the sources for their water, it's possible that they are already consuming more arsenic in their drinking water than his tests revealed in apple juice or than the FDA allows in municipal drinking water.

Neither Dr. Oz or Dr. Phil would be on TV if it weren't for the fact that Oprah liked them and decided to expand her media empire by pulling strings to get shows for them. Much if his information is inconsistent, incorrect and/or incomplete. He is there so sensationalize, draw viewers to increase ratings and sell products. Take anything he says with a grain of salt.

The organic arsnic is from the seeds.

Come on guys he is a Doctor and he's on TV, he's gotta be tell'n the truth? I mean that explains all those mysterious deaths and a rise in cancer rates of those who were found to have a container of apple juice in the fridge or regularly drink it...it all makes sense now.....

Give me a break, someone needs to kick this guy in his juice box!

Anyone watching shows like this and a not taking what they say with a grain of salt or doing their own research to verify it (ie use that invention called the internet) is a twit. Someone with half a brain should see that his main goal is to attract viewers and make himself more money, end of it. If that means stretching a truth or ignoring certain facts to create some sensationalism, so what, more coin in his pocket. Senstationalism is the name of the game nowadays. Real integrity (assuming this clown had any to start with) is getting harder to find these days since most people seem to have a price, at least to an extent. I'm sure the same people who heeded his advice, poured out or tried to return all the apple juice (and apples, juice comes from them right??) they had. Same people who would believe other medical advice given out by actresses or other public figures about vacination, nutrition, pills and vitimans, ect. regardless of their qualified medical background.

The FDA is far from having a squeaky clean record, yes, but I trust them in this case. It is time people start to use a little common sense and quit buying into the nonsense from people like this. No wonder PT Barnum's quote will never die.

#1.18- you're thinking of cyanide, not arsenic.

Apple seeds don't contain arsenic, they contain cyanide.

Arsenic occurs naturally in the soil. It's left over from volcanoes, so getting your produce locally isn't going to help matters.... That's just silly. Dr. Oz isn't a scientist, he's an ex surgeon..... Surgeons should stick to anatomy lessons and that's it.

This is like finding that one doctor or scientist that said there is no such thing as global warming, then basing an entire political environmental policy on that one guy!

Hey leave New York out of this!

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/mbl-sli052009.php

Scientists link influenza A (H1N1) susceptibility to common levels of arsenic exposure

This research was funded by the Dartmouth Toxic Metals Research Program Project by a grant from NIH-NIEHS and its Superfund Basic Research Program (grant P42 ES007373).

Robert, you forget to mention in your post that the decreased immune response was in mice not humans. You need to be cautious in directly equating findings in animal research to humans. The increased incidence of H1N1 infection in Mexico could have been for many reasons (such as closer living quarters) and not necessarily reflective of the effect of higher arsenic levels. Correlation does not equal causation. The authors of the article also indicate that the higher levels of arsenic found in Mexico (100 ppb) are found in several areas of the United States, but made no effort to correlate the higher levels of arsenic in these areas with higher levels of H1N1 infection in the same areas. This study constitutes an interesting statistical finding in need of much more research before a human connection between arsenic level and flu rates can be substantiated.

Correlation does not equal causation

Does causation have correlation? Yes!

Dismissing causation with a rhetorical line is not very responsible. Following the precautionary principle, it's prudent to avoid known sources of arsenic whenever possible.

Well so much for science. I assume then that you will not be drinking water in the future? Good luck with that. The most common error the public, and many researchers, make is thinking that one thing causes another just because a correlation between the two is found. Sorry to have questioned your obvious overinterpretation of basic animal research.

Robert - joemike is correct. His post is a good critical analysis of the paper to which you refer. One must always read scientific papers with a critical eye because not all experiments or surveys are well designed.

You also forgot to mention that arsenic has medical uses, even today. In 2000, the FDA approved arsenic trioxide for the treatment of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia. Recently, new research has been done in locating tumours using arsenic-74 (a positron emitter). The advantages of using this isotope instead of the previously used iodine-124 is that the signal in the PET scan is clearer as the body tends to transport iodine to the thyroid gland, producing a lot of noise.

Don't assume arsenic on/in apples is nothing to worry about.

@ Robert

I did a study where I went to the hospital and looked at what people were wearing and compared that to their mortality rate. It turns out that people wearing hospital gowns were much more likely to die than those wearing lab coats or scrubs. Clearly people should stop wearing hospital gowns because they cause death!

Did that paragraph make sense? No, it didn't because correlation does not equal causation. Joemike had it right, until further studies are done that study is just an interesting bit of statistics that warrants further research.

Scubasteve - thanks for my laugh for the day!

Does causation have correlation? Yes!

Robert, I'm glad to see you're no smarter than when I last talked with you. You point out that causation has correlation, but the point here is that correlation does not equal causation. Akin to saying that all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. You have MANY examples in today's world of correlation without causation, such as increased Internet access and increased cancer rates in this country. They're correlated, but not causative. You just don't understand what you're talking about. Read the book Freakonomics. Then maybe you'll understand.

Dismissing causation with a rhetorical line is not very responsible.

Nobody's dismissing causation, stupid. We're dismissing the correlation. Many things are correlated without being causative. NO ONE has shown causation here, merely correlation. YOU took the step to call it causation. And for that, we're ridiculing you. As joemike404 stated, "obvious overinterpretation". You think it's causative based on correlation alone. That's YOUR error, not ours.

No, it didn't because correlation does not equal causation. Joemike had it right, until further studies are done that study is just an interesting bit of statistics that warrants further research.

I agree and invoke the precautionary principle. Avoid all know sources of arsenic when possible.

Then don't drink water, Robert. As the FDA and EPA stated, organic arsenic is perfectly safe. Inorganic is linked to problems. That's like you saying you're going to avoid oxygen (O2) because ozone (O3) is hazardous.

I don't drink tap water whenever possible, silly penquin.

Didja happen to think that the arsenic levels apply to purified water too? Silly Robert. Brita and PUR, etc. all have to meet this requirement. Their filters do not eliminate all arsenic, Bobby.

I like Robert's precautionary principal. Avoid all known causes of ignorance.... Starting with the Wizard of Oz.

I'm glad to see some people on this forum that know how science works. It really baffles me how so many people think science is some magical thing and scientist must be omnipotent. They don't realize the scientists are people and in order to try to prevent mistakes and bias, science take a long time and involves many people. Just because someone publishes an article in a scientific journal doesn't mean that the findings are accurate. Peer reviewed journals are there for people to look over your work and argue with you about it. lol

You should never take ANYTHING anyone says as truth unless you've looked at what is being presented and you agree with it. So believe what you want, but please be well informed about the subject first.

Scubasteve - <3 Thanks for that! That was funny.

Yeah, really. The FDA is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY. They take NOTHING from the food and drug companies.

Dr. Oz is a self-aggrandizing, advertising supported PUBLICITY HOUND and, to my ears, a BLATHERING IDIOT. Just because he managed to get through med school does not mean he has one IOTA of sense. That he DID NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between ORGANIC and INORGANIC arsenic leads me to believe he IS A MORON. I am a BSME and I knew the difference.

You know I've actually found a lot of MD's rather lacking in basic scientific reasoning. They know a lot of anatomy, physiology, metabolism, chemistry, biology, etc. But the scientific method is not part of this type of education. It is one thing to know how a cell works, and another thing to know the experimental process that acquired that knowledge.

That said, I don't excuse Dr. Oz for this. I'm sure he had experts working for him who did know what they were doing and he fraudulently reported false information to make money. He should lose his license to practice medicine. Then his show would be called "Oz" and everybody's TiVo's would become completely confused over reruns of Oz from 1998.

#4, the anti-vaccine scare started when a drug company asked a research scientist to find something wrong with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. The brilliant idea what to seperate this vaccine into three different ones and charge people three times as much. Not only was it a complete fraud, it's had unintended consequences and I would argue has been the biggest disaster in public health since the Thialomide babies with the possibility to become the biggest disaster in public health in history. Way to go, junk science.

the FDA approved Vioxx... and some 35,000 dead people later, the FDA realized they made a mistake. Ten times the people who died on 9/11 died as a result of the FDA's shoddy work... why should we EVER trust them?

Vioxx is a completely different issue. It passed all initial safety tests, after it's release it entered into what we call in the pharmaceutical industry the "fourth phase" of testing. All drugs are monitored for issues after they are released. There are many medications out that would never be approved today that were released before the FDA formed, including Aspirin, due to the side effects and multiple deaths they have caused. (aspirin causes GI bleeding and kills more idiots who believe TV over their MD or Pharmacist, than it saves from heart attacks). There are few examples of the FDA failing, but many of their successes. Google Thalidomide for an excellent example, although I don't recommend Wikipedia as an accurate reference, you'll see the FDA is there to protect us, and they do a pretty good job of it.

1. Thalidomide was never approved for use by the FDA back during the "flipper babies" scare. All the US women who took the drug obtained it from abroad.

It actually was not approved for use in the US until 1998 for people with leprosy. It requires special precautions such as enrollment in a program that tracks negative pregnancy tests and such.

So, the FDA made the right call and protected the public. But, the public decided to second-guess the FDA and take the drug anyway.

2. Vioxx was not a problem drug. Millions took Vioxx with no problems.

I had a patient who had been wheelchair bound who was able to come to the pharmacy sans wheelchair when taking the medication. It was a wonder for many.

The problem with Vioxx was the doctors prescribing it.

No doctor in their right mind would prescribe high-dose ibuprofen to a 90 year old man with heart disease or kidney failure.

However, doctors only heard that "Vioxx was safer", and they assumed they could prescribe the medication to anyone, even those who shouldn't get traditional NSAIDs.

Vioxx was only safer in that it was less likely to cause gastrointestinal ulceration and bleeding. It still had the exact same side effects in the cardiovascular and nephrovascular system as ibuprofen and naproxen, two drugs that are available OTC.

So, the same people who had heart and kidney problems from Vioxx would have the same problems if they had been taking ibuprofen or naproxen. In fact, they would have had more problems. But the point is they should never have been prescribed the medication to begin with.

Pragmatic,

Doctors are taught the scientific method in their undergrad biology and chemistry courses, but I think some do tend to forget those methods. Why? Not sure. Maybe because there's so much medical research to keep up with that they take a lot of it at face value, instead of reading the studies with a critical eye. Maybe because their med school education is focused more on clinical information than on research, and they get out of the habit of critiquing study design and analysis.

Anyway, Dr. Oz SHOULD be aware of the scientific method, but has either forgotten, or is wilfully ignoring it.

Did the FDA smell the Applejuice? Because that is the process they used to determine that the fish in Gulf were/are safe to eat after being poisoned with corexit and oil. The FDA is bought by Corporations.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) was the agency using the "sniff test" to find oil. The FDA had nothing to do with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071204245.html?sid=ST2010071203454

If you've ever smelled crude oil, you would realize this is a very accurate way of determining the presence of oil.

Perhaps instead of making the FDA your personal Satan, you could actually educate yourself as to what the FDA does, and what powers you as a member of this republic have actually granted to the FDA.

Otherwise, you come across as an uneducated parrot, simply repeating back gibberish you don't understand.

Agreed. Once a person takes their profession to the TV, they have to attract viewers. A good way to do that is to appeal to the base emotions in us all. This guy just tried to instill fear. "Dr." Phil seems to be like Jerry Springer, trying to appeal to people's desire to feel like they are better than someone else.

In the final analysis, these guys are all just bottom feeders, trying to build up as much cash as they can at the expense of misleading the public.

I just met a guy from the FDA for my kids Food Safety Lego project and he was saying it's about tolerating levels, most things have levels of all kinds of things, it is how much we can tolerate and the FDA regulates the levels. I agree these guys are doing it for tv but I wouldn't call them bottomfeeders, I think they are like most people in our society also making mistakes in their high profile jobs (I don't know about Dr. Phil, I stopped watching him long ago just boring to watch therapy type shows but the Anthony interview is interesting). I go with the FDA and I hope Dr. Oz is more careful with his warnings, his cell phone warning is also a bit overboard in my opinion.

Coming up next, we will tell you which common chemical in your home can kill your children. Stay tuned for a panic inducing 3 minute commercial break telling you that you are too fat and depressed to function in society!

And we're back, this deadly chemical goes by many names: oxidane, hydron hydroxide, hydrogen oxide, and hydroxic acid. It is found in every kind of food and drink and the government does nothing about it! Are you at risk? 1 in 4 children who died in 2006 were killed by oxidane. Are you panicking yet? Scientists call it the most powerful solvent known to man! It can even be used to make meth. Stay tuned and we'll tell you how to rid yourself of this dangerous chemical and protect your home from meth addicts.

...

...

I was talking about water.

...the Anthony interview is interesting.

R.L. - what happened to all the hype about not watching TV interviews or reading books and articles written by or about anyone in the Anthony family? You are helping to make the Anthony family rich for the coverup of the murder of a child.

Dr. Phil is a bottom feeder. He was the first to rush in to get an interview with Octomom and is the first to scramble for interviews over any other high profile story. He even sunk so low as to use his influence to bring his son into the business. Dr. Oz is no better. Notice how most of trailers for his show include either something about weight loss or the most recent medical scare. Tune in to watch the show and you will get little to no information about whatever was hyped. They are both about money and ratings.

Then he should go back to his day job of cracking open chests and saving lives instead of being a fearmonger.

Did you know the letters after Dr Oz.s name are MD? He's a cardiac surgeon.

That means absolutely nothing. There are qualified, well-trained physicians and there are those who shouldn't be dispensing aspirin. Are you aware that students entering medical school only have minimal training in chemistry? A history major can go to medical school if he can pass the prerequisite courses and do well enough on the MCAT. Dr. Oz probably doesn't have a clue that arsenic exists in multiple valences. That concept is only covered in general chemistry, a med school prerequisite, for a brief period of time. Most students are too busy cramming and trying to pass the course to bother to understand the concepts.

Yes, Jean, I know he's a cardiac surgeon. But what he is discussing is more in the realm of Internal medicine. As a chemist, I feel more qualified to talk about the effects of arsenic than a heart surgeon. Maybe I'm just being arrogant though......:)

Medical doctors, for the most part, stink at real science. As a practical matter, they are TRAINED....as opposed to educated.

Compared to say, engineering, the problem solving algorithm doctors use is more related to superstition than to science.

Hey, he's Oprah's boy, so you know most women will believe anything he says.

Good one, Hugh! It's amazing to see those women who get called to the stage for a demonstration. Some are so excited that they are about to pass out. It's really quite sad to think that the lives of these women are so pathetic and that they are so ignorant that this passes as a major event.

As a practical matter, they are TRAINED....as opposed to educated.

People for get that there was a time when doctors didn't attend medical school. They were trained by other doctors in an apprenticeship type relationship.

LOL

dear god i hope you are being sarcastic lol

Watch out for dihydrogen monoxide as well. Can be fatal in multiple ways. Clearly, it should be banned.

Here I thought that you were serious until I got to "Big Salt"!! lol.

Wow, chlorine?? Did you know that you've been drinking Chlorine all your life every day in water?

Maybe Doctor Oz should stop breathing too as it is dangerous, OH NOES!!! hold your hands over your kids mouths!!!

The first thought I had when I saw the commercial for this show was "So? Apples naturally have cyanide in them as well. Who hasn't eaten an apple seed?"

It is a shame that the demographic for these shows (Oprah, Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil) is so uneducated that they cannot determine when they are being taken advantage of.

Oprah herself has done more damage to women's and children's health than anyone I can think of.

Not to mention the damage she did to industry such as beef.

It is really a shame that people give someone like Oprah such power over themselves.

bought out by Big Salt most likely

Big salt? We do understand the formal name for salt is sodium chloride? We do also understand that the chloride part can be avoided by only eating the sodium part of the crystal?

I'm not sure we are eating too much plain sodium in our diets as it generally explodes when it is exposed to air or water.

Watch out for dihydrogen monoxide as well. Can be fatal in multiple ways. Clearly, it should be banned.

Absolutely right! After all, look at what happened to the Hindenburg when a volatile mixture of H and O was exposed to a spark from somewhere.

Now that's funny.

Nibor, I think the OP was being sarcastic

@Cassivella: Sodium does not explode in its elemental form when exposed to air. Sodium will react with water vapor in air to create a surface layer of sodium hydroxide (lye). Additionally, when sodium metal is placed into water, it reacts fully to result in a solution of sodium hydroxide and a release of H2 gas. I have worked with quite a bit of sodium (notably doing the "sodium fusion test" to determine the identity of halogenated organic compounds.)

Cesium, on the other hand... watch out.

D Gerrow...

Best. Comment. Ever.

...

At least on this post...

"Big Salt." Ha!

pathfinder69 - you find it funny that people died in the explosion of the Hindenburg?

subtle sarcasm is wasted on some people

Expanding on Matt's comment, Sodium doesn't explode on water either. The reaction can be quite vigorous and is exothermic. Under certian conditions, the heat generated can ignite the released H2 gas. But that isn't really an explosion either. Note I said "on water" Sodium is less dense than water so it floats, for the short amount of time it takes for it to react. This makes the reaction appear even more violent because the sodium dances across the surface of the water.

Be careful with "explode" A lot of things that the general public thinks of as exploding are really just burning very fast.

And Matt, don't mention Cesium, Oz doesn't need any ideas.

Matt - Cassivella is correct, to a degree. A common demonstration performed in general chemistry labs to compare the reactivity of alkali metals is to drop a small piece of sodium metal into water and compare it to the response of potassium when dropped in water. If done properly, the sodium will rapidly spin along the surface of the water while fizzing and crackling. If the piece is too large, the sodium reacts so violently that it catches fire and "explodes". This is why sodium metal is stored in oil, so that it doesn't have contact with water vapor in the atmosphere.

Give Cassivella credit for at least knowing that sodium metal and water are a dangerous combination.

UMGator, potassium reacts more strongly with water than sodium. The reaction is actually exothermic enough that when a piece of potassium is placed into water, the evolved H2 gas is burned as it evolves, such that it looks like there is a floating "fire" as the K spits around on the surface.

As you go down the alkali metals in the periodic table, the reaction gets stronger...

Let me rephrase then,

The hydrogen gas that is released when elemental sodium reacts with water (even water in the air) is likely to explode when not handled in a controlled environment.

The point being, if you give a housewife like one of Dr. Oz's listeners a lump of pure sodium, an explosion is going to happen.

Not to mention that we don't fill our salt shakers with pure sodium, nor do we eat pure sodium, which was the point of my comment.

...potassium reacts more strongly with water than sodium.

Matt - please reread my post. I did not compare the reactivity of potassium and sodium. I stated that a common demonstration performed in general chemistry labs to compare the reactivity of alkali metals is to drop a small piece of sodium metal into water and compare it to the response of potassium when dropped in water. I did not comment on which is more reactive. Students observing the demonstration note that both metals spin along the surface of the water while emitting a vapor, which, depending on the amount of metal added, might catch fire. This demonstration is usually performed during the second lab session each semester to coordinate with the students' first exposure to the periodic table. You are merely nitpicking over semantics. When the hydrogen gas begins to burn, one can correctly state that it explodes into flame because it is a fast, violent reaction.

If you don't believe that a large enough piece of sodium will produce a flame when added to water, give it a try to see what happens. After repeated warnings to my students not to touch the sodium and potassium plus the multiple printed warnings in the lab manual, one of my students refused to heed the warnings. When my back was turned for an instant while I was helping another student, he plopped a large chunk of sodium into a beaker of water. It caught fire that resulted in an explosion, breaking the beaker and scattering bits of sodium across half the lab, producing scores of tiny fires on the countertops and floors that had to be extinguished with a fire extinguisher. Believe me, an explosion does occur if a large enough piece of freshly cut sodium on which a protective layer of NaOH has not had a chance to form comes in contact with water.

I'm also well aware of the order of reactivity within chemical groups. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and teach at a major Mid-Western university. I've done this demonstration multiple times during the 15 years that I've been teaching. As I stated above, my previous post did not make any reference to which metal is more reactive nor did I comment on the order of reactivity in periodic groups. The point was to describe why people might interpret the reaction of sodium and water as an explosion.

Exactly. These people go on and on about "hi fructose corn syrup" like it's poison...but "real cane sugar" is "natural".

The only difference between the snake oil salesman of the past and the current manifestation thereof is that somehow the contemporaries are widely respected...and therefore make lots of dough of a science-ignorant public.

I choose to take my advice from Dr. House.

He also did a terrible piece on diet drinks claiming they were worse for weight gain that sugary drinks with absolutely NO empirical evidence.

Actually, Dan, there is empirical evidence. Do a Google search or visit your local university science library and do a journal article search.

These people go on and on about "hi fructose corn syrup" like it's poison...but "real cane sugar" is "natural".

GEllis - do you actually know how real cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup are made? Real cane sugar is essentially the juice of sugar cane or sugar beets from which the water has been removed. It is composed of sucrose, which is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose linked together in a one-to-one ratio by a glycosidic bond. It is, indeed, natural.

High-fructose corn syrup is manufactured by milling corn to produce corn starch, then processing that starch to yield corn syrup, which is almost entirely glucose, and then adding enzymes that change some of the glucose into fructose. The resulting syrup (after enzyme conversion) contains approximately 42% fructose and is HFCS 42. Some of the 42% fructose is then purified to 90% fructose, HFCS 90. To make HFCS 55, the HFCS 90 is mixed with HFCS 42 in the appropriate ratios to form the desired HFCS 55. The end product does not contain a one-to-one ratio of fructose to glucose.

HFCSis far from natural. It is theorized that HFCS contributes to obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Trace amounts of mercury have been found in some samples of HFCS. It is thought that the mercury has leached into the solution during the manufacturing process.

If you are buying the information given in commercials that HFCS is as natural as cane sugar, then consider the source of the funding for the commercials...the Corn Refiners Association. HFCS has essentially been forced upon the American consumer due to governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar,all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications. You can thank your government and the vested interest of corn growers for the deteriorating health of Americans.

Very few Americans are eating any type of natural sweetener.

Most people use table sugar, which is just as processed as HFCS. Plus, it is bleached.

People think, "oh, I'll eat this Sugar in the Raw, it is less processed!", when actually Sugar in the Raw is simply table sugar that is processed more to add materials back to the sugar.

Unless you are literally buying sugar cane and juicing it yourself (which is a thankless process as it takes significant amounts of sugar cane to produce the equivalent sweetness of table sugar), then you are eating processed sweeteners.

Most people use table sugar, which is just as processed as HFCS.

Cassivella -As I explained in my post, table sugar is not as processed as HFCS. Do a Google search and educate yourself. You will find that golden coloured natural brown sugar is produced by extracting the juice from sugar cane, heating it to evaporate water and crystallise the sugar, then spinning in a centrifuge to remove some impurities and further dry the sugar. That is hardly processed in the sense that HFCS is processed using enzymes and other chemicals.

People obviously use table sugar to sweeten their coffee or tea, but if you think that processed foods are sweetened with table sugar, then you need to go to the grocery store and read a few labels. There are very few processed foods available that are not sweetened with HFCS. Do you drink non-diet sodas? Then you are drinking HFCS. Coca Cola began sweetening non-diet Cokes in the USA with HFCS in the 1980s. Want to buy a bottle of barbecue sauce? The first ingredient in virtually all brands on the shelf is HFCS. Etc., etc., etc. You are consuming much more HFCS than you realize.

I know very well how sugar is produced. I am very clear as which products contain HFCS.

You can get some table sugar that is not as processed.

But the granulated white sugar you buy in a 5lb bag from the grocery store is processed significantly more than the white sugar people purchased at the beginning of the century.

You can produce sugar in the method in which you state. However, sugar isn't produced in that manner now.

Sugar cane juice or sugar beet juice is usually treated with lime (OMG! A chemical!). Then, bleaching agents are used.

Unless you look very hard, you will not find any natural brown sugar. Most brown sugar in the grocery store is simply white sugar that has molasses added back to it.

You might be able to find Demerara sugar, which is similar to evaporated cane juice (which, if you have the connections, you can purchase as well). I generally use evaporated cane juice as I like the taste better.

As I understand how HFCS is created, it doesn't scare me. It is frankly a more natural process than bleaching sugar. It simply uses two natural enzymes and a natural, harmless mold to increase the ratio of fructose to to glucose in the product.

I don't like sticky-sweet things, so I rarely consume HFCS, even in processed foods. But, I am certainly not scared of it. And, I have a large bottle of it in my kitchen cabinet.

My point is simply that by far most sweeteners sold in the US are chemically processed. It is bad to eat too much of either of them. There are no confirmed studies that have shown that eating HFCS is worse than eating the same sweetness-equivalent of white sugar.

It's very easy for people to go, "OMG! We've started getting much fatter since 1980. What happened to food in 1980? OMG! The soft drink companies switched to HFCS! That must be the reason!"

But, until we have confirmed studies (which is the basis of the scientific method - repeatability), I am going to keep my mind open. I don't eat enough of any sweetener to make a difference.

Most of the work that the FDA has done for the food industry has been done after the fact and not before the items are sold. Their inspection program of food manufacturing facilities is very sporadic on a plant basis.

The work they do to really protect us is on the Drug side. They hold up approving drugs and therapies until Canada and most of the EU have already approved the drugs and we see what the results are. This results in the drug manufacturers having a real reason to charge US purchasers a premium for the product - they spend significantly longer to get a drug approved and that's the premium.

at least we will have our choice of toxins.

Arsenic or Democrats.

Don,

This results in the drug manufacturers having a real reason to charge US purchasers a premium for the product - they spend significantly longer to get a drug approved and that's the premium

Not true. The reason for high prices is lack of price control, which every other country has. You can only charge X amount for so-and-so chemical. Would you rather have the FDA approve quickly and have more Vioxx and Celebrex examples, or have them take their time to review all safety and efficacy studies conducted? I'm in the pharma industry, and I would rather them hold off if there's any potential safety concerns until they're sure.

Actually when I was back in High school in 1984, my science teacher told us the same thing. He didn't just stop at microwave. He also said that harmful rays also are in televisions.

Knowing is half the battle!

I don't think so..Dr. Oz could have not said anything about the arsenic in apples and we would not have known the difference. I applaude his efforts in letting the public know!!. Besides, he did ask the FDA to appear on the show and they would not. Therefore I believe him..because he answer appear to be logical.

They probably did not want to show up an crack... Dr Oz is nothing more than a little Hype Media boy.....Not only did he fail to mention how he did the tests, he lied...so You Caroline would rather believe someone who likes hype versus an agency that actually is out there protecting us...yeah they might be slow and prone to issues but i believe them over a TV Star.....

Don't be too hard on Caroline, AJS. She is one of the undereducated masses who believe anything she hears on TV and who would probably give her right arm to be called to the stage on Dr Oz's show for a demonstration.

Truth is... For all we know Dr. Oz was probably threatened and now has to take back what he said or pay the consenquences and further more discrediting Dr. Oz and anyone who believes or knows the truth in hopes that no one will believe them is a good tactic sold by so called proffessionals pretending to be smarter and more educated than the rest of us so that they will seem more credible and the people who are dumb enough to believe them is why there are millions of stories of so called proffessional educated people getting away with decieving people just because they went to school and read a book, you can call me ignorant but at least I'm smart enough to know that just because you are what you say you are doesn't mean that you are right, we have to be our own advocates, use common sense and practice balance, (a little of everything and not too much of anything), Its sad that we can't trust any one and we don't know who or what to believe, I guess the other tactic they are using is confusion. The people that go to school don't even know if half of what they are learning is true, don't know everything and are only human (not any better than anyone else) so think before you believe and trust your own instincts. The only reason any one would try to discredit me when they don't even know me or know what I know is the same reason they try to discredit everyone else and the people that agree with them either choose to out of fear that they will be laughed at, are not smart enough to make their own decisions, Don't want to know, learn or believe the truth, are just going along with what they think others think, don't know what to believe or just don't care but whatever the reason that is your choice and your right just like it is mine to not be a sucker!!!

You read it on the internet, so it must be true...genius

Repeating false information doesn't make it more true.

It makes it propaganda.

As you are the one making the claim outside of the accepted paradigm, it is your responsibility to "Google it" and provide your evidence to us, not the other way around.

Actually, Coke and Pepsi are pulling aspartame out of their diet drinks later this year and replacing it with Stevia. I can't speak for anyone else, but aspartame gives me a massive headache, so I avoid it at all costs. I'll be happy when it's replaced and hope more products follow suit.

I kind of doubt they are pulling it. It'll change the current taste of Diet Coke too much.

Proof please

JC, He is partially correct. Both Pepsi and Coke are going to stevia. Now I do not know if they are going to swap stevia with aspartame or market a whole new drink with it and keep the traditional versions of their diet drinks as well, but both companies are going to start using it.

New ideas and valid proof are good things. Oz's claims here do not qualify as either.

I am so happy that you post this information. Most people do not want to believe that the arsenic in apples can be poisonious, because they do not want to think they maybe poisioning their children. The facts are: The FDA has stated, the do not have a set standard for apple juice imported at this time. Bottom line!!. I think people should thank Dr.Oz for bringing the subject matter to life. And the FDA should bring those jobs they have created for Chinese citizens back to America and give our farmers and citizen a chance to get back to work.

Again Caroline you spouting misinformation IDIOT... Dr. Oz is a major moron, he is not a researcher just a wannabe TV star, no one with a good background would spout the crap he does...

If he truly wanted to inform he would USE proper scientific process, followed up lots of evidence, not just conjecture....Which means doing the tests RIGHT, labeling everything to normal standards not saying organic and inorganic as one, they should be seperated....

He said the EPA doesn't differentiate between the 2. They look at total levels for water. He also said that they don't differentiate for pears either.

His questioning is valid. His hypothesis is valid and his preliminary testing confirmed his hypothesis. High levels of arsenic in 30% of apples.

He's using the precautionary principle.

I can understand why the fruit trade industry is mad. It hurts business. But why has the FDA gone bat@!$%# crazy?

And why has the media IMMEDIATELY come out in defense of the FDA? What happened to objectivity for the public?

How does anyone know the amount of toxins we get in food and drink imported from other countries?

And why has the media IMMEDIATELY come out in defense of the FDA? What happened to objectivity for the public?

Because it's clear that he misled the audience. Just like the media immediately reacted to Michelle Bachmann and her "mental retardation" lapse. Anytime you're proven to be ignorant or hiding behind phony data, people will notice and react.

Which is worse, Robert...apples that have 100 ppb of arsenic with 99 ppb organic (safe) and 1 ppb inorganic (unsafe), or apples with 60 ppb of all inorganic arsenic? You'd say it's the former, but it's actually the latter. More inorganic means more potential harm.

That's why there's the distinction between organic and inorganic...one's safe, the other's not...otherwise, it would just be reported everywhere as just plain arsenic. Which is what "Dr." Oz did...and got hammered for it, rightly so.

You should demand we be able to spray American apples with arsenic then.

Your precautionary idea has been proven to be fallible. As long as they meet the FDA and EPA levels, I have no problem with apples. But you refuse to answer my question...which is worse, Robert....99 ppb of organic arsenic or 60 ppb of inorganic? Avoiding the question because you know you're wrong?

Robert

We do spray apples with arsenic.

Most pesticides for fruit are arsenic-based.

The water that irrigates the orchards also contains arsenic naturally.

But, guess what? Arsenic is water soluble. The pesticide simply washes off.

except the testing that Dr.OZ's independent lab showed that it didn't "just wash off". He says the levels were above EPA standards.

Robert, you continue to astound me. The testing Oz 1) did not reveal that levels were above EPA standards, and 2) didn't show anything about "not being washed off".

Robert, the EPA standards relate to a SPECIFIC FORM of arsenic (namely, inorganic, i.e. the dangerous kind). Oz tested for TOTAL arsenic (both inorganic AND organic, without differentiating the two). Both the EPA and FDA have stated that he could not assess the level of danger from this test, and that all studies have shown that the apple juice contained LESS than the EPA standards.

Staphylococcus aureus is a bad bug, and some strains are MRSA (Methycillin Resistant Staph aureus). Most Staph bugs are harmless skin bacteria. Same thing with Bacillus...only a few strains, like Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) are dangerous. You don't want ANY of these bugs in your product.

What you're doing is akin to testing for generic Staph or Bacillus and any level of these bugs that comes up, you label as dangerous, even though only some strains are dangerous, and your test didn't differentiate them. NEEDLESS WORRY.

Oz tested the wrong thing, either out of ignorance or to purposely mislead, and now the FDA called him on his gaffe. Why can't you just admit that?

Your facts are WRONG! You should have listened to Dr. Oz's rebuttal here on this website.

Robert, here are the facts:

EPA levels apply to INORGANIC arsenic only. Organic arsenic (naturally occurring, not pesticide-related) is SAFE.

Oz tested TOTAL arsenic (read: inorganic AND organic TOGETHER).

Oz reported the TOTAL and compared it to the EPA acceptable levels, which is an incorrect usage of data. The fact that you cannot accept this is ridiculous.

Btw, Oz concedes that his test measured both and didn't differentiate between the safe and unsafe arsenic levels...he just contends that any arsenic is bad (with no data to support this claim). This DOES NOT mean that Oz didn't test and compare the wrong things (kinda funny that he compared apples and oranges, almost literally). He's a heart doctor, not a nutritionist. Only after the FDA came out with the facts did he concede his error. But you can't even admit you made a mistake, Robert.

Tell me again that Oz tested the arsenic levels correctly. And be laughed at AGAIN. When everyone, including Oz, can admit that the test was flawed, but you can't...maybe you should think about the correctness of your "facts".

EPA levels apply to INORGANIC arsenic only. Organic arsenic (naturally occurring, not pesticide-related) is SAFE.

Your facts are wrong. Again you didn't watch the rebuttal or do any research.

Did YOU do any research into apple juice? Didn't think so.

Again you didn't watch the rebuttal

Oh, so in his rebuttal he spoke the truth? Not. CYA -- you know what that stands for. You cannot conclude that the apple juice is tainted by doing the tests he did, Robert.

Give me a quote from his rebuttal that says that his "research" is accurate and shows that the arsenic is above EPA levels. YOU CAN'T. Get a life, dude. You can't admit defeat...just like your precious Dr. Oz can't even admit his testing was flawed.

His rebuttal: Yes, I read it. He doesn't claim that his testing is valid...he is instead shifting the conversation toward foods produced in other countries (i.e. avoiding the question because he knows he's wrong). Nothing in his rebuttal states that his testing is valid. Nice try though.

"China is the world’s largest producer of arsenic. We outlawed arsenic in pesticides in the US, but we don’t know what happens in other countries’ apple orchards. Those apples can be sprayed with pesticides that contain inorganic arsenic. Our show found that one box of American apple juice can come from apple concentrate from China and six other countries. That’s how arsenic can get into the US juice supply. We have the right to know how safe that concentrate is."

So because China uses pesticides with arsenic, and we found arsenic in our juice, it must have come from China. Nevermind the fact that arsenic is found in apples NATURALLY. Cover Your A$$. That's what he did. NOTHING states that his test does what he said it initially showed. Arsenic levels are below EPA standards. Period.

One ironic statement from "the great Oz":

"The FDA should not allow more arsenic in our apple juice than we allow in our drinking water."

Oz says he's concerned with the comprehensive effect of arsenic in our drinks, so over time, not in the short run, he's worried about too much arsenic. Yet, he complains that a substance that naturally has arsenic (apple juice) has a higher limit than a drink that doesn't (water). And, considering the fact that we drink WAY more water than apple juice, the cumulative effect of the water arsenic will far outweigh the effect of apple juice arsenic, especially since there's more of the dangerous kind of arsenic in drinking water.

He's leading you astray from the actual facts by diverting you to the acceptable levels of arsenic in water and apple juice and by talking about importing from China, primarily because he can't admit his tests were flawed.

And you bought it, hook, line, and sinker. How dumb are you?

Your facts are wrong. Nothing you've said refutes that your facts are wrong.

Do you agree that pesticide used on imported apples contain arsenic?

Robert,

Simply saying that our facts are wrong do not make them so.

If you wish to contribute to this discussion, then show evidence as to why you believe we are wrong.

Otherwise, you are simply spouting lies and propaganda.

Why would you expect anyone to listen to you when you are not giving any proof? You've said "Your facts are wrong" over 3 times just in this thread.

EPA levels apply to INORGANIC arsenic only.

He's wrong! He made the erroneous claim. He needs to provide reference and citation to prove the statement that EPA only measures INORGANIC arsenic.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/basic-information.cfm

Is the maximum contaminant level of 10 parts per billion based on total arsenic or inorganic arsenic?
The MCL for arsenic in drinking water is based on total arsenic including both organic and inorganic forms.

Peguin is stubbornly wrong a lot. If you hitch your waggon to his horse you will be wrong a lot also.

Robert, this is because water does not contain arsenic naturally, it only gets it from other sources. Apples have natural arsenic in them. Holding apple juice to water standards is not valid. Everyone disagrees with you Robert. When is enough enough?

I spelled it out for you right there. You were wrong about the arsenic testing. Don't try and rationalize WHY you were wrong. You were just wrong.

Can I say it any clearer: Arsenic is not supposed to be found in water, it IS supposed to be found in apples. Had Oz done ANY research he would've known this ahead of time. The FDA told them before and after the show that their research was incomplete, and yet you defend it. WHY??? You yourself said it was incomplete, so why do you defend him proclaiming that what he found was dangerous, when it's proven to be safe??? Anything to add on the suspiciously high test results from that one lab, when all other labs show low results? Outlier anyone?

From the FDA letter sent to Dr. Oz BEFORE the show:

As we have previously advised you, the results from total arsenic tests CANNOT be used to determine whether a food is unsafe because of its arsenic content. We have explained to you that arsenic occurs naturally in many foods in both inorganic and organic forms and that only the inorganic forms of arsenic are toxic, depending on the amount. We have advised you that the test for total arsenic DOES NOT distinguish inorganic arsenic from organic arsenic...The analytical method for inorganic arsenic is much more complicated than the
method for total arsenic...The FDA believes that it would be irresponsible and misleading for The Dr. Oz Show to suggest that apple juice contains unsafe amounts of arsenic based solely on tests for total arsenic. Should The Dr. Oz Show choose to suggest that apple juice is unsafe because of the amounts of total arsenic found by EMSL Analytical, Inc.’s testing, the FDA will post this letter on its website.

I love how the FDA has to try to converse with the Dr. Oz representative like he/she is a child.

Perhaps that is our problem, penguin. We are giving people like Robert too much credit by trying to interact with them as adults.

Since they obviously aren't rational people, perhaps treating them like children or pets would work better.

Can YOU or the FDA assure us that the ARSENIC found in the apples that were randomly tested by Dr. OZ was inorganic or organic? NO! ABsolutely 100% no!

At this point the FDA is covering it's A$$. The testing that you think has been done hasn't. If you think otherwise please link to citation proving different.

Can YOU or the FDA assure us that the ARSENIC found in the apples that were randomly tested by Dr. OZ was inorganic or organic? NO! ABsolutely 100% no!

The FDA tested those exact lots, and found no problems. Considering it's a solution, it's homogenous, and arsenic would not be found in one bottle but not another. So, yes, 100% yes.

The testing that you think has been done hasn't. If you think otherwise please link to citation proving different.

Test results are right here, Robert: http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm271632.htm

I'd like to know how you can show that "the testing that you think has been done hasn't". It's right here in black and white:

FDA Sample Total Arsenic Result (Average)
Sample 659595 Lot #1157515791 2.0 ppb
Sample 659596 Lot #1125515762 4.0 ppb
Sample 659597 Lot #1125515761 6.0 ppb
Sample 710623 Lot #1059515761 5.0 ppb
Sample 710624 Lot #1059515762 5.0 ppb
Sample 710625 Lot #1157515761 2.0 ppb
Sample 710626 Lot #1157515762 3.0 ppb

Your ignorance isn't an excuse anymore. Please provide proof to show that these tests "haven't been done". I just gave you the results!!! Putting your head in the sand in denial isn't a good way to go through life.

Didn't Oz simply test apple juice, and not whole apples?

Dr. Oz could have told us for sure the ratio of organic to inorganic arsenic in the apple juice tested, but he chose not to because that wouldn't be good TV.

The FDA did test apple juice from at least one of the same lots as appeared on Dr. Oz's show, and the results for the tests for that juice came out safe.

So, the only evidence that we have is that the apple juice is safe.

We have no scientific evidence AT ALL that any apple juice has unsafe levels of arsenic.

Here's the citation: http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm271746.htm

Now, I trust the scientists at the FDA who for OVER 20 YEARS have tested apple juice arsenic concentrations.

I would much rather trust them than a production assistant using a try-at-home test.

After the show aired, the FDA tested all of the lots in question. No juice lot came back with more than 6 ppb TOTAL arsenic, which means the amount of inorganic (i.e. dangerous) arsenic was at most 6 ppb. Same lots, multiple labs...confirmed low levels. Methinks this lab Oz used needs to brush up on their methods. Unless Oz just sent out these samples to multiple labs and used whatever results came out the highest (no matter how suspicious the results were).

Samples of apple juice will have the same concentration of arsenic if you're sampling the same lots, but Robert will try it anyway, saying "well the FDA didn't test the EXACT samples Oz received". But the apple juice is a mixture, and is not going to widely vary in terms of arsenic concentration within the same lot. That's why they're SAMPLES. Testing every bottle from every lot would leave us with no apple juice.

ptsd?

I trust evidence and what Dr. Oz generally puts our does not qualify. I am more than willing to listen to him but just because he contradicts the government or Big Agri-Business does not make his faulty science any better.