Latest news with #NationalCenterforHealthStatistics
National Geographic
3 days ago
- Health
- National Geographic
How cutting out certain foods can trigger new allergies
Bagels, which often include gluten, are one of many foods often excluded in elimination diets. But for allergy-prone individuals, cutting out foods for too long may disrupt immune tolerance and trigger dangerous reactions. Photograph by Rebecca Hale, National Geographic Elimination diets are everywhere—from parents managing eczema to influencers cutting out gluten and dairy in pursuit of 'clean eating.' But research shows that removing foods from your diet can subtly change how your immune system reacts when you eat them again. In some people, especially those with conditions like eczema or past food allergies, that loss of tolerance can spark dangerous reactions—even life-threatening anaphylaxis—when the food returns. This risk is often overlooked in the growing popularity of elimination diets. According to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, Americans are cutting more from their plates than ever. Some do it to manage celiac disease or irritable bowel syndrome, others to reduce bloating, fatigue, or joint pain. Social media trends like #cleaneating have only amplified the appeal. By 2024, more than half of Americans reported following a specific diet or eating pattern, compared to just 38 percent in 2019. Yet for the immune system, regular exposure to food proteins helps maintain a state of tolerance—one that can be disrupted when those foods disappear from the menu for too long. Understanding how and why that shift happens is key to knowing when elimination diets help, and when they might put you at risk. The science of oral tolerance and food allergies 'The intestine has an unenviable task,' says Brian Vickery, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the food allergy program at Emory's Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. 'It has to identify and respond to a constant barrage of environmental stimuli that can be both dangerous and beneficial.' (Is gluten really that bad for you? Here's what happens when you stop eating it.) The gastrointestinal tract, which has more immune lymphocytes than any other body part, encounters trillions of microbes and more than 30 kilograms of food proteins each year. Yet, it manages to defend against harmful invaders while ignoring harmless foods and friendly bacteria. This balancing act relies on oral tolerance, a process in which immune responses to ingested food proteins are actively suppressed, which in turn prevents harmful reactions like food allergies. While the underlying immune mechanisms are not entirely understood, the latest studies indicate it begins with specialized antigen-presenting cells that capture food antigens in the gut and instruct nearby T cells to stand down. This signal gives rise to antigen-specific regulatory T cells, which calm the immune response to food proteins. (As food allergies rise, new treatments are on the horizon.) 'The gut is important in the initial establishment of tolerance,' says Michael Pistiner, director of Food Allergy Advocacy, Education and Prevention, Food Allergy Center at the MassGeneral Hospital for Children. 'If you're not already allergic, early introduction to foods can help promote tolerance and protect infants from developing a food allergy.' That protection doesn't end in childhood. Regular, ongoing exposure to foods helps maintain oral tolerance throughout life. Recent research in food allergy patients treated with oral immunotherapy, where gradually increasing doses of the culprit food are given orally, highlights how continued ingestion is often needed to maintain a desensitized state. Conversely, there's evidence that elimination diets for some can disrupt oral tolerance and encourage the immune system to develop allergies. When elimination diets increase allergy risk For parents of children with eczema, it's common to suspect certain foods are worsening flare-ups. Many turn to elimination diets in hopes of finding the culprit. But research has uncovered a hidden risk. Anne Marie Singh, professor and chief of Division of Allergy, Immunology, and Rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and her colleagues evaluated almost 300 children with eczema on elimination diets. (How a tick bite can cause food allergies in humans.) 'We found that if you removed the food from their diet, upon reintroduction there was a significant increase in the risk of allergic reactions, including potentially severe immediate allergic reactions,' says Singh. The results were striking: almost one in five children (19 percent) developed new immediate allergic reactions when the eliminated foods were reintroduced, even though they had no previous history of such responses. Most were mild, but alarmingly, 30 percent of reactions were severe, classified as anaphylaxis. The danger isn't limited to children. In a separate study of 30 adults who developed allergies to foods they had previously tolerated, 70 percent had been on elimination diets beforehand. Half experienced anaphylaxis, and the vast majority (80 percent) had pre-existing allergic conditions such as environmental allergies, asthma, or eczema. For people without a history of allergies, the risk appears much lower. If you're thinking about trying an elimination diet, experts say the safest approach depends on your risk level. If you're at higher risk (children or anyone with pre-existing allergy conditions), consult with a healthcare professional before starting an elimination diet. 'The more allergic you are, an elimination diet could potentially be a problem,' says Singh. Pistiner adds that 'in infants with eczema, elimination diets can be detrimental, especially at this very important time of early introduction.' Experts also recommend that children following elimination diets have close medical supervision to ensure nutritional adequacy and healthy growth. (What scientists are learning about how to prevent allergies in kids.) Duration matters, too. A shorter elimination phase gives less time for oral tolerance to break down. Singh notes that 'two to four weeks of elimination should be enough time to know if it makes a difference and also short enough to not risk an allergic reaction when you try it again.' In some cases, completely cutting out a food isn't necessary. If symptoms are mild, keeping small, tolerable amounts in the diet may help maintain oral tolerance while still easing discomfort, adds Singh.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Ultra-processed foods make up the majority of kids' diet, CDC report finds
Ultra-processed foods make up the bulk of what kids eat — and adults aren't far behind, a report published Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds. About 62% of kids' and teens' daily calories came from ultra-processed foods, the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics found, compared with 53% for adults. The report marks the first time CDC has provided estimates about how much ultra-processed foods make up Americans' diets. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in May cited ultra-processed foods among his list of top issues that need to be addressed to curb what he says is an epidemic of childhood chronic diseases. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services took the first step to formally define 'ultra-processed foods' — a move, experts say, that could open the door to regulation, including what types of food are eligible for food assistance programs. Diets high in ultra-processed foods have been linked to a number of health problems, including depression, Type 2 diabetes and early death. Previous administrations have also tried to take action on ultra-processed foods, but those efforts have focused mostly on labeling and individual ingredients — such as added sugars and trans fats — rather than on regulating or classifying foods based on their level of processing. In January, during the Biden administration, the Food and Drug Administration proposed requiring a new label on the front of most packaged food and drinks that would alert consumers to how much saturated fat, salt and added sugar they contained. Thursday's report was based on findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, from August 2021 to August 2023. The report's lead author, Anne Williams, a researcher with the National Center for Health Statistics, said the agency identified ultra-processed foods using the NOVA classification system — a framework developed by Brazilian researchers that's the most commonly used tool to evaluate processed foods. NOVA defines ultra-processed products as 'industrial creations' made with little — if any — whole foods. The top source of ultra-processed foods for both kids and adults was sandwiches, such as burgers, hot dogs and PB&Js, Williams said. That was followed by baked goods, salty snacks and sugary drinks. The report found that adults with higher incomes tended to eat fewer ultra-processed foods. It also found that intake of ultra-processed foods for both kids and adults dropped slightly from 2017-18 to August 2021–23. For adults, the decline started even earlier, going back to 2013–14. Williams cautioned that the decline so far has been small — a 56-calorie difference over roughly a decade. Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said the CDC's findings align with what outside researchers have found about Americans' eating habits. Nestle said parents tend to gravitate toward ultra-processed foods for their kids because they're easy to throw in a school lunch bag. But, she added, probably the biggest reason kids eat so many ultra-processed foods is that the food industry heavily markets it to them. 'They're the most profitable products in the supermarket, and the companies sell them, they market them directly to kids,' Nestle said. 'They're seen as cool and are iconic and you're lucky to eat them, because that's how they're marketed.' The term 'ultra-processed food' was created around 2009 and has primarily been used for research purposes, said Susan Mayne, who was director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in both the Biden and the first Trump administrations. Mayne said research has shown that eating ultra-processed foods in general is linked to increased caloric intake and weight gain and that it is associated with greater risk of chronic diseases. The problem with defining ultra-processed foods, she said, is that not all of them are linked to greater health risks. In fact, some — like certain yogurts, whole grain breads and cereals — are actually associated with reduced risks of chronic diseases like colon cancer. States like California have tried to address that by coming up with a definition of 'particularly harmful' ultra-processed foods, she added. The NOVA classification system also has limitations, as it doesn't directly measure processing, Mayne said. Rather, it uses additives and specific ingredients as a proxy for the level of processing. 'FDA is engaging in a public process to attempt to define UPF, which is a good first step,' Mayne said in an email, referring to ultra-processed foods. 'But it would be important to repeat studies to demonstrate that the new definition is as or more predictive of chronic disease risk than existing definitions before it could be used for policies.' HHS hasn't said when it plans to formally define 'ultra-processed.' Nestle said she hopes the Trump administration also targets marketing. 'These are highly convenient products, and the kids will eat them because the kids have been trained to eat them,' she said. This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
NBC News
5 days ago
- Health
- NBC News
Ultra-processed foods make up the majority of kids' diet, CDC report finds
Ultra-processed foods make up the bulk of what kids eat — and adults aren't far behind, a report published Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds. About 62% of kids' and teens' daily calories came from ultra-processed foods, the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics found, compared with 53% for adults. The report marks the first time CDC has provided estimates about how much ultra-processed foods make up Americans' diets. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in May cited ultra-processed foods among his list of top issues that need to be addressed to curb what he says is an epidemic of childhood chronic diseases. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services took the first step to formally define 'ultra-processed foods' — a move, experts say, that could open the door to regulation, including what types of food are eligible for food assistance programs. Diets high in ultra-processed foods have been linked to a number of health problems, including depression, Type 2 diabetes and early death. Previous administrations have also tried to take action on ultra-processed foods, but those efforts have focused mostly on labeling and individual ingredients — such as added sugars and trans fats — rather than on regulating or classifying foods based on their level of processing. In January, during the Biden administration, the Food and Drug Administration proposed requiring a new label on the front of most packaged food and drinks that would alert consumers to how much saturated fat, salt and added sugar they contained. Thursday's report was based on findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, from August 2021 to August 2023. The report's lead author, Anne Williams, a researcher with the National Center for Health Statistics, said the agency identified ultra-processed foods using the NOVA classification system — a framework developed by Brazilian researchers that's the most commonly used tool to evaluate processed foods. NOVA defines ultra-processed products as 'industrial creations' made with little — if any — whole foods. The top source of ultra-processed foods for both kids and adults was sandwiches, such as burgers, hot dogs and PB&Js, Williams said. That was followed by baked goods, salty snacks and sugary drinks. The report found that adults with higher incomes tended to eat fewer ultra-processed foods. It also found that intake of ultra-processed foods for both kids and adults dropped slightly from 2017-18 to August 2021–23. For adults, the decline started even earlier, going back to 2013–14. Williams cautioned that the decline so far has been small — a 56-calorie difference over roughly a decade. Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said the CDC's findings align with what outside researchers have found about Americans' eating habits. Nestle said parents tend to gravitate toward ultra-processed foods for their kids because they're easy to throw in a school lunch bag. But, she added, probably the biggest reason kids eat so many ultra-processed foods is that the food industry heavily markets it to them. 'They're the most profitable products in the supermarket, and the companies sell them, they market them directly to kids,' Nestle said. 'They're seen as cool and are iconic and you're lucky to eat them, because that's how they're marketed.' The term 'ultra-processed food' was created around 2009 and has primarily been used for research purposes, said Susan Mayne, who was director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in both the Biden and the first Trump administrations. Mayne said research has shown that eating ultra-processed foods in general is linked to increased caloric intake and weight gain and that it is associated with greater risk of chronic diseases. The problem with defining ultra-processed foods, she said, is that not all of them are linked to greater health risks. In fact, some — like certain yogurts, whole grain breads and cereals — are actually associated with reduced risks of chronic diseases like colon cancer. States like California have tried to address that by coming up with a definition of 'particularly harmful' ultra-processed foods, she added. The NOVA classification system also has limitations, as it doesn't directly measure processing, Mayne said. Rather, it uses additives and specific ingredients as a proxy for the level of processing. 'FDA is engaging in a public process to attempt to define UPF, which is a good first step,' Mayne said in an email, referring to ultra-processed foods. 'But it would be important to repeat studies to demonstrate that the new definition is as or more predictive of chronic disease risk than existing definitions before it could be used for policies.' HHS hasn't said when it plans to formally define 'ultra-processed.' Nestle said she hopes the Trump administration also targets marketing. 'These are highly convenient products, and the kids will eat them because the kids have been trained to eat them,' she said.
Washington Post
28-07-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Overdose deaths declined for 15 consecutive months starting in 2023
Beginning in August 2023, drug overdose deaths declined for 15 consecutive months, according to research published in JAMA. Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the Census Bureau, the analysis of drug overdose death rates was conducted from January 2015 to October 2024. Over 800,000 United States residents — 68 percent of them male with a median age of 42 — died of a drug overdose during the study period.
The Hill
27-07-2025
- Health
- The Hill
The FDA must crack down on dangerous knockoff weight-loss drugs
For the first time, there is real hope in the fight against obesity. New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics shows that adult obesity rates in the U.S. may finally be flatlining after annual increases since at least 2011. Obesity has long been understood to be the second leading cause of preventable death in America. Neither negative cultural attitudes about weight nor government messaging campaigns about diets have helped curb it. Yet like most insurmountable problems, we are innovating our way out of it. Experts believe a significant part of recent progress is due to powerful new medications such as Ozempic and Mounjaro, known as GLP-1 drugs. But just as these drugs are changing lives, a dangerous shadow market is growing alongside them. Compounded versions, which are copies of the original drugs made in smaller pharmacies, are flooding websites, med spas and clinics. These versions are often cheaper and easier to get than the real thing. They are also frequently untested, poorly regulated and, in many cases, illegal. The FDA has received more than 500 reports of serious side effects tied to compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide, the active ingredients in Ozempic and Mounjaro. Some patients have landed in the hospital after taking the wrong dose. That is not surprising when you consider that many of these vials come without proper labels or instructions. In 2023 alone, poison control centers received nearly 3,000 semaglutide-related calls, a huge jump from previous years. Many of those cases involved compounded or mislabeled versions of the medication. There are also serious concerns about what is actually in these products. The FDA has warned that some pharmacies are using different chemical forms of semaglutide, called salt forms, that are not approved for use and may not be safe. In April 2025, the agency seized counterfeit Ozempic from the U.S. supply chain after discovering that some vials contained the wrong ingredients or were contaminated with dangerous bacteria. These are not technical violations. They are real risks to people's health. During earlier shortages, compounding was allowed under special circumstances. But those shortages have ended, and the FDA has ordered most pharmacies to stop making these versions. Despite that, many continue to operate in legal gray zones or offer these drugs online. The harm does not stop with safety concerns. This trend also threatens future breakthroughs in obesity care. Companies like Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly spent years and billions of dollars to develop these treatments. Now, they and others are working on new and even more effective drugs. When unapproved copies flood the market, it becomes harder to fund innovation. If investors cannot count on fair returns, the next generation of such medications may not make it out of the lab. Perhaps the biggest risk is to public trust. When someone has a bad experience with a fake or contaminated version, they may begin to doubt all weight loss innovations. That fear can ripple through the health system, making insurers and doctors more hesitant to support treatments that are helping with the genuine public health emergency of obesity. None of this means that compounding should disappear. It has a place when patients have specific medical needs that cannot be met by the approved versions, such as allergies or special dosing requirements. But what is happening now is not about rare exceptions. The FDA should continue cracking down on compounders that use unapproved ingredients or sell mislabeled products disguised as 'research chemicals.' At the same time, insurers and lawmakers need to make the real thing more affordable by removing middlemen such as pharmacy benefit managers. No one should have to choose between risking their health and going broke. We are finally making progress against a disease that affects nearly half the country and has stumped policymakers and advocates for decades. But progress is fragile. Unregulated versions of GLP-1s cannot be allowed to dominate the market. We risk undoing the progress reported by the CDC in the fight against obesity, and if we get this right, the trend could be reversed. That means longer lives for more people, lived in dignity and to the fullest.
