Re: Iodine content on food lables

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

I realize that this is probably the last thing that people want to here, but

aren't thyroid cell made from iodine? I mean both healthy and cancerous

ones? Would it be prudent to eliminate all iodine from our diet and prevent

any possibility of recurrence. I was under the impression that thyroid cells

need iodine in order to be grown? 4 to 1 is what was described to me at my

last surgery visit. I guess what I am asking here is this...does it make

sense to be on a low iodine/no iodine diet forever...whether hypo or

suppressed? I would appreciate any information about this. Thanks...just

food (iodine free of course as I am hypo) for thought. Thanks Daria

[Guest guest]

Michele--

> I am again writing about the LID.

> I was wondering why they dont list ingredients on lables as " iodized

> salt " instead of salt.

Because they don't have to do so, at least in this country. Food labeling

is a hugely complex & political issue. Manufacturers only report what is

required by law.

There are many areas that could use improvement--such as exact & full

disclosure of animal content (which can currently hide behind terms like

" natural flavoring " ), allergy issues, standardized reporting for ALL edible

products regardless of type & source, etc. I would love to see " iodized

salt " be required on food labels, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

> Anyone know how we might me able to change

> this with the food manufacturers and/or the FDA or whatever???

If you come up w/ anything on this, let us know. I'd be happy to get behind

this issue.

Nina

geiger@...

[Guest guest]

To add to Nina's comments, I think that, nutritionally speaking, iodine is just

not considered to be an issue in this country.

Also, since food manufacturers frequently change the source of their

ingredients, it is easier for them to give as little information as possible.

This also leads to ingredients such as " one or

more of the following: palm oil ..... " (etc). This is also why we must treat

with caution any information we get by calling them regarding the use of iodized

or plain salt.

BTW - In spite of what I just wrote, I once called a small food manufacturer who

listed " salt " as an ingredient. When I asked if it was iodized, they said that,

in fact, they only used sea salt,

but that state regulations (Oregon, I think) prevented them from specifying that

on the package, because it implied some sort of nutritional superiority which

they (the FDA) did not condone.

I had a brief correspondence a few years ago with the FDA, trying to get

information on iodine content. I was hoping that they would either have the

information for basic foods, or might

recommend a reference source. I got back a rather curt letter saying that they

" don't provide medical or nutritional advice to consumers/patients " , and

suggested I consult a nutritionist or

registered dietitian.

I also agree that it will be a long time before there are enough of us to

pressure the powers that be to include iodine in nutritional labeling, or even

to clarify some of the many of the

loopholes in the existing laws.

Now, what would be really great is if someone came up with a low-iodine liquid

meal replacement (good tasting, of course). For those of us who just cannot

summon up the kind of thinking power

required to prepare 2 weeks' worth of LID meals, that would be just the thing.

- katie

Geiger wrote:

> Michele--

>

> > I am again writing about the LID.

> > I was wondering why they dont list ingredients on lables as " iodized

> > salt " instead of salt.

>

> Because they don't have to do so, at least in this country. Food labeling

> is a hugely complex & political issue. Manufacturers only report what is

> required by law.

>

> There are many areas that could use improvement--such as exact & full

> disclosure of animal content (which can currently hide behind terms like

> " natural flavoring " ), allergy issues, standardized reporting for ALL edible

> products regardless of type & source, etc. I would love to see " iodized

> salt " be required on food labels, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

>

> > Anyone know how we might me able to change

> > this with the food manufacturers and/or the FDA or whatever???

>

> If you come up w/ anything on this, let us know. I'd be happy to get behind

> this issue.

>

> Nina

> geiger@...

>

> For more information regarding thyroid cancer visit www.thyca.org. If you do

not wish to belong to this group, you may UNSUBSCRIBE by sending a blank email

to thyca-unsubscribe

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> for persons such as my neice who have iodine allergy, it could

> be life or death.

As I understand it, people who are allergic to iodine generally only have a

problem w/ the massive amounts in something like CT contrast material & the

lesser but still significant amounts in some seafood. I've never heard of

anyone who couldn't tolerate iodized salt or processed food/restaurant food

containing iodized salt. Likewise, people w/ an iodine allergy tolerate

RAI, because the amount of iodine is very small, relatively. So, I'm not

sure that people w/ an iodine allergy really need an iodized salt warning on

food labels. Can't you niece tolerate iodized salt? Dairy products?

I'll copy below list posts from Dr. & Dr. Ain on this.

> We recently had a

> death in a local restaurant r/t a peanut allergy (The food had

> been cooked in peanut oil.)

That's a huge problem. From what I've read, people w/ such allergies

probably shouldn't eat at restaurants--just too many ways for a deadly (for

them) ingredient to end up on their plates. Even buying basic ingredients &

cooking everything from scratch has its pitfalls for them. Their problem

makes LID look easy!

Nina

geiger@...

--It is not uncommon for people to be allergic to the high quantities of

iodine found in radiographic contrast dye and sometimes in seafood. On the

other hand, the physical quantities of iodine in the radioactive I-131 used

for thyroid cancer scans or treatments are exceedingly small, although quite

radioactive. For this reason, people with known iodine allergies do not

typically have a problem with allergies to radioactive iodine. In fact,

despite having treated many patients with known " iodine allergies " with

radioactive iodine, I have never personally seen (or heard of) any patient

having an allergic response to the radioactive iodine.

Dr. Ain, thyca 10-99

--People are allergic to iodine when it is bound to a carrier molecule, like

iodinated contrast used for CT scanning. In my opinion there is no routine

indication for the use of antihistamines (like benadryl) and steroids (like

cortisone or prednisone) in radioiodine therapy, even in people with known

allergies to shellfish or iodinated contrast. There is more dietary iodine

in a low iodine meal than there is in a single 100 mCi dose of I-131. An

allergy to iodine at such low levels would be incompatible with life. When

the rare patient does have an allergic reaction to radioiodine therapy (I

have had only one patient in over 15 years), it is almost certainly related

to a preservative or contaminant in the dose, not the radioiodine itself.

That one patient is the only patient I have ever needed to pretreat with

steriods and antihistamines. One use of steriods before radioiodine therapy

is in the treatment of patients

with brain metastases. The steriods are given to prevent life-threatening

complications of brain swelling, not to prevent an allergy.-- A.

, MD

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/28/2001 5:12:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

geiger@... writes:

> . Manufacturers only report what is

> required by law.

>

Having had kids with allergies, I've found that even all ingredients listed

on the label doesn't necessarily mean that things are 'clear' of offending

ingredients. I suppose that's why they now put 'this has been processed on

machines with nuts' or whatever.

I once (maybe around 1992) called a major cereal company to check on the

ingredients because it looked okay -- no corn. The consumer affairs

department informed me that no, that particular cereal was not on their

'corn-free' list. I asked, " well, where is the corn? " They replied they

couldn't tell me {they probably don't know!} and that only the ones they had

on their 'corn-free list' were corn-free.

Thankfully, my kid's allergies aren't so severe that she'd die if she ate it.

Kathy

[Guest guest]

Michele

I agree with Nina on this, there is a massive political issue here, and

iodine is not a major contender (but guess what would happen if a US

president got THYCA...)

Another major problem is that of consistency. With few exceptions, iodine is

not a constituent of the food, it was in the ground water of the plant

crops, or in the food supplement given to the livestock, or in the

disinfectttant that the cow's udders were washed with. This means that the

exact iodine content of each ingredient will vary - from place to place, from

month to month and from year to year. An 'average' or 'typical' content would

be of no value since it's the occasional high value that you want to avoid,

and that would entail analysis of each batch of product, and overprinting the

packaging with the current value like they do with 'Use by' dates. I don't

see it happening.

What could be more useful is a simple testing strip for iodine, like the ones

that diabetics use. It wouldn't have to be terribly sophisticated - 3 colour

bands would do:

<5ug/100g = 'OK',

5-10ug/100g = 'caution/reduce intake',

>10ug/100g = 'avoid'.

Anyone got any contacts?

Ian

> Michele--

>

> > I am again writing about the LID.

> > I was wondering why they dont list ingredients on lables as " iodized

> > salt " instead of salt.

>

> Because they don't have to do so, at least in this country. Food labeling

> is a hugely complex & political issue. Manufacturers only report what is

> required by law.

>

> There are many areas that could use improvement--such as exact & full

> disclosure of animal content (which can currently hide behind terms like

> " natural flavoring " ), allergy issues, standardized reporting for ALL edible

> products regardless of type & source, etc. I would love to see " iodized

> salt " be required on food labels, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

>

> > Anyone know how we might me able to change

> > this with the food manufacturers and/or the FDA or whatever???

>

> If you come up w/ anything on this, let us know. I'd be happy to get behind

> this issue.

>

> Nina

> geiger@...

>

>

>

> For more information regarding thyroid cancer visit www.thyca.org. If you do

not wish to belong to this group, you may UNSUBSCRIBE by sending a blank email

to thyca-unsubscribe

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ian said:

>What could be more useful is a simple testing strip for iodine, like the ones

>that diabetics use. It wouldn't have to be terribly sophisticated - 3 colour

>bands would do:

><5ug/100g = 'OK',

>5-10ug/100g = 'caution/reduce intake',

>>10ug/100g = 'avoid'.

>

>Anyone got any contacts?

I tried to do this years ago - with negative results.

The standard test for Iodine is Starch - it turns it a nice dark blue.

Unfortunately it is just not sensitive enough for the microgram

quantities that we need to test for.

I attach my post of October '97 that details the test that we did.

You may take this as a challenge to do better !!

Alan

====

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:49:12 +0100

To: thyca@...

Subject: No easy test for Iodine :-(

Sender: thyca-approval@...

Reply-To: thyca@...

On the basis that even a negative contribution is still a contribution.

With all this iodine diet stuff going on and with me preparing to go on my

first iodine free diet I thought:-

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a simple test for Iodine in food

So I contacted my industrial chemist friend and we played at laboratories

in my kitchen over the weekend.

I am sorry to report that there is a nice simple starch test for Iodine but

it does not seem sensitive enough to detect the trace amounts present in

food.

Details below for the curious and for for anybody who wants to take

research further. This is a challenge to do better than we did.

Now does anybody have access to a mass spectrograph - maybe that would be

more sesntive!

Alan

P.S. By Industrial chemist friend works for a distillery company that makes

spirits. He does bring some work home occasionally which I help him test

<g> So we are still on good terms even after this failure!

Details.

The test for Iodine is starch. Iodine in starch turns a nice dark shade of

blue which is easy to see. Iodine is normaly a part of an Iodide group so

you have first seperate it out into free Iodine by oxidiseing it.

What we did:

1) take your test sample (food or whatever) and oxidise it. We used sodium

hypochlorate - but household bleach should work as this is the main

ingredient.

2) Add some starch. We used liquid starch - but you can make starch in the

kitchen by heating plain flour and water.

3) Look for the dark blue color. If present it shows that there is Iodine

there.

Our results:

a) On a test sample of potassium iodide - even at the most extreme

dilutions - this test was effective.

On any food sample - no matter what we tried - we could not detect the

iodine.

We tested iodized salt solution, a piece of fish, some milk.

All our food results were negative.

Our conclusion:

Iodine is such a small trace element in food that this test is not

sensitive enough for our purposes.

--

London, England

dx 9/97, tt 10/97; pap/fol with spine and rib mets; RAI(100 mCi

12/97, 244mCi 10/98); 150ug T4; -ve scan, +ve Tg; bilateral neck

dissection 7/99; EBR (60 Gray) to neck 10-11/99; 5AZA trial 9/2000;

Retinol trial 2/2001; Tg 238

ICQ# 67445221

[Guest guest]

Ian said:

>What could be more useful is a simple testing strip for iodine, like the ones

>that diabetics use. It wouldn't have to be terribly sophisticated - 3 colour

>bands would do:

><5ug/100g = 'OK',

>5-10ug/100g = 'caution/reduce intake',

>>10ug/100g = 'avoid'.

>

>Anyone got any contacts?

I tried to do this years ago - with negative results.

The standard test for Iodine is Starch - it turns it a nice dark blue.

Unfortunately it is just not sensitive enough for the microgram

quantities that we need to test for.

I attach my post of October '97 that details the test that we did.

You may take this as a challenge to do better !!

Alan

====

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:49:12 +0100

To: thyca@...

Subject: No easy test for Iodine :-(

Sender: thyca-approval@...

Reply-To: thyca@...

On the basis that even a negative contribution is still a contribution.

With all this iodine diet stuff going on and with me preparing to go on my

first iodine free diet I thought:-

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a simple test for Iodine in food

So I contacted my industrial chemist friend and we played at laboratories

in my kitchen over the weekend.

I am sorry to report that there is a nice simple starch test for Iodine but

it does not seem sensitive enough to detect the trace amounts present in

food.

Details below for the curious and for for anybody who wants to take

research further. This is a challenge to do better than we did.

Now does anybody have access to a mass spectrograph - maybe that would be

more sesntive!

Alan

P.S. By Industrial chemist friend works for a distillery company that makes

spirits. He does bring some work home occasionally which I help him test

<g> So we are still on good terms even after this failure!

Details.

The test for Iodine is starch. Iodine in starch turns a nice dark shade of

blue which is easy to see. Iodine is normaly a part of an Iodide group so

you have first seperate it out into free Iodine by oxidiseing it.

What we did:

1) take your test sample (food or whatever) and oxidise it. We used sodium

hypochlorate - but household bleach should work as this is the main

ingredient.

2) Add some starch. We used liquid starch - but you can make starch in the

kitchen by heating plain flour and water.

3) Look for the dark blue color. If present it shows that there is Iodine

there.

Our results:

a) On a test sample of potassium iodide - even at the most extreme

dilutions - this test was effective.

On any food sample - no matter what we tried - we could not detect the

iodine.

We tested iodized salt solution, a piece of fish, some milk.

All our food results were negative.

Our conclusion:

Iodine is such a small trace element in food that this test is not

sensitive enough for our purposes.

--

London, England

dx 9/97, tt 10/97; pap/fol with spine and rib mets; RAI(100 mCi

12/97, 244mCi 10/98); 150ug T4; -ve scan, +ve Tg; bilateral neck

dissection 7/99; EBR (60 Gray) to neck 10-11/99; 5AZA trial 9/2000;

Retinol trial 2/2001; Tg 238

ICQ# 67445221