True Nutrition Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Milk in Whey Protein Isolate, Whey Protein Concentrate and Hydrlolyzed Whey Products

SAFETY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – August 24, 2012 – True Nutrition is announcing a recall of Whey Protein Isolate, Whey Protein Concentrate and Hydrolyzed Whey Protein, because their labels fail to declare milk as the source of the whey. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk and milk derivatives run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Whey Protein Isolate, Whey Protein Concentrate and Hydrolyzed Whey Protein was distributed through the website www.truenutrition.com1.

These products can be identified by the following names and lot numbers:

Whey Protein Concentrate (1lb) – Batch/lot: 0120712, Exp. Date: 05/2015

Whey Protein Isolate Cold-Filtration (1lb) – Batch/lot: 0030812, Exp. Date: 07/2015

Whey Protein Isolate MicroFiltrated (1lb) – Batch/lot: 0040812, Exp. Date: 07/2015

Whey Protein Isolate Cross-Flow Microfiltration (1lb) – Batch/lot: 0730712, Exp. Date: 07/2015

Hydrolyzed Whey Protein High Grade (1lb) – Batch/lot: 0680512, Exp. Date: 05/2015

As most customers know whey protein is derived from milk. True Nutrition shipped the above whey protein products beginning May 2nd 2012 without stating: whey is derived from ‘milk’ on their labels through a company printing mistake. This product recall notice has been initiated because said products contain milk ingredients but do not list on the labels that the ingredients are derived from milk.

If you are allergic or have extreme sensitivity to milk, you should discontinue use. In addition, if you may have further distributed this product, please identify these individuals and notify them at once of this product recall.

If you have any questions, call Carl Manes at 760-433-5376 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE 760-433-5376 end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Monday through Friday 8am to 4pm (Pacific Standard Time).

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration.

###

RSS Feed for FDA Recalls Information2 [what’s this?3]

Photo: Product Labels

Advertisements

Women who snack on nuts during pregnancy are less likely to have children with asthma and allergies, according to Danish research.

After studying more than 60,000 mothers and children, the researchers found that children born to mothers who eat nuts in pregnancy were 25 percent less likely to suffer asthma when they were 18 months old and 34 percent less likely to suffer asthma at seven years, compared with mothers who didn’t eat nuts.

The children of mothers who ate tree nuts (almonds, brazils, cashews, hazelnuts) were also 20 percent less likely to have other allergies.

In the past, pregnant women were told to avoid nuts because health authorities believed they could increase an unborn child’s risk of allergy. Asthma in childhood is often caused by allergies.

But in recent years the advice has changed, with experts believing there is no clear evidence that nut consumption during pregnancy and breastfeeding has any impact on a child developing an allergy.

This results of the study, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, suggest eating nuts could have a protective effect on babies.

“We found that maternal peanut and tree nut intake one or more times per week during pregnancy decreases the risk of allergic disease in childhood. These results do not support avoidance of nuts during pregnancy,” study author Ekaterina Maslova, from Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen, wrote in the report.

Professor Katie Allen, a paediatric gastroenterologist and allergist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, told MSN NZ the study is good news for mothers.

“This is highly relevant data for mothers with decisions about what they do when they are pregnant,” she said.

“The guidelines in the past have been based on a lack of evidence. This is really good, robust evidence that it’s safe to eat peanuts during pregnancy – you won’t increase your child’s risk of peanut allergy.”

But Professor Allen said more studies are needed to confirm whether eating peanuts and tree nuts in pregnancy can have a protective effect.

“What we need is randomised control trials where we use something to try to prevent something happening,” she said.

This comes after recent research from the Australian National University last month found children who are solely fed breast milk in the first six months of their life are more likely to develop a nut allergy than children who were exposed to other foods and fluids.

“Our results contribute to the argument that breast feeding alone does not appear to be protective against nut allergy in children –– it may, in fact, be causative of allergy,” Marjan Kljakovic, professor of General Practice at the ANU Medical School, said in a media release.

“Over time, health authorities’ recommendations for infant feeding habits have changed, recommending complementary foods such as solids and formula be introduced later in life. Despite breast feeding being recommended as the sole source of nutrition in the first six months of life, an increasing number of studies have implicated breast feeding as a cause of the increasing trend in nut allergy.”

People With Allergies May Have Lower Risk of Brain Tumors

New research adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that there’s a link between allergies and reduced risk of a serious type of cancer that starts in the brain. This study suggests the reduced risk is stronger among women than men, although men with certain allergy profiles also have a lower tumor risk.

The study also strengthens scientists’ belief that something about having allergies or a related factor lowers the risk for this cancer. Because these tumors, called glioma, have the potential to suppress the immune system to allow them to grow, researchers have never been sure whether allergies reduce cancer risk or if, before diagnosis, these tumors interfere with the hypersensitive immune response to allergens.

Seeing this association so long before tumor diagnosis suggests that antibodies or some aspect of allergy is reducing tumor risk.

“It could be that in allergic people, higher levels of circulating antibodies may stimulate the immune system, and that could lower the risk of glioma,” said Schwartzbaum, also an investigator in Ohio State’s Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The current study also suggested that women whose blood samples tested positive for specific allergy antibodies had at least a 50 percent lower risk for the most serious and common type of these tumors, called glioblastoma. This effect for specific antibodies was not seen in men. However, men who tested positive for both specific antibodies and antibodies of unknown function had a 20 percent lower risk of this tumor than did men who tested negative.

Glioblastomas constitute up to 60 percent of adult tumors starting in the brain in the United States, affecting an estimated 3 in 100,000 people.

The researchers measured the blood samples for levels of two types of proteins called IgE, or immunoglobulin E. This is a class of antibodies produced by white blood cells that mediate immune responses to allergens. Two classes of IgE participate in the allergic response: allergen-specific IgE, which recognizes specific components of an allergen, and total IgE, which recognizes these components but also includes antibodies with unknown functions.

In each sample, the scientists determined whether the serum contained elevated levels of IgE specific to the most common allergens in Norway as well as total IgE. The specific respiratory allergens included dust mites; tree pollen and plants; cat, dog and horse dander; and mold.

For men and women combined, testing positive for elevated total IgE was linked to a 25 percent decreased risk of glioma compared with testing negative for total IgE.

This work was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health and a Research Enhancement and Assistance Program grant from Ohio State’s Comprehensive Cancer Center.