Eye-Protecting Sunglasses Are Cool Again This Summer

MONDAY, May 28 (HealthDay News) -- The official start of summer this Memorial Day weekend is a great time to remember the danger to eyes from the sun's ultraviolet rays, say experts at Prevent Blindness America.
"Most of us wouldn't dream of staying outside in the sun without putting on sunscreen lotion. But we also have to remember to wear both UV-blocking lenses and a brimmed hat to protect our eyes as well," Daniel G. Garrett, senior vice president of Prevent Blindness America, said in a prepared statement.
But a recent survey found that only nine percent of respondents were aware that extended sun exposure can damage vision, and only about 16 percent said they wear sunglasses when they're outdoors for long periods of time, according to the Chicago-based organization.
Only about a third of respondents said they wear a hat when they're out in the sun.
UV damage to eyes is cumulative, and the harmful effects may not be evident for years. Extended UV exposure has been linked with a number of eye problems including cataract, age-related macular degeneration, pterygium (a corneal disorder), and photokeratitis.
As part of UV Awareness Month in May, Prevent Blindness America is launching a new Web site to educate people about what they can do to protect their eyes. The site includes a variety of features, ranging from information about risk factors to tips for buying sunglasses.
Sunglasses don't have to be expensive to be effective, which means they block out 99 percent to 100 percent of both UV-A and UV-B radiation.

Trial of Blood Pressure Drug Offers Hopeful Early Results

MONDAY, May 21 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers are reporting what they call promising early results from a major trial that they say may change the basic tactics for controlling high blood pressure in the most vulnerable people.
Over a six-month period, successful blood pressure control was achieved in 73 percent of the more than 11,500 participants in the ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension) trial, the researchers said.
That rate was achieved by use of Lotrel, the most prescribed combination brand for high blood pressure, which currently is not indicated for the initial treatment of high blood pressure. The hope of Novartis, the company that sells Lotrel and sponsored the trial, is that the medication will become an accepted first-line treatment.
There are major health implications linked to the study. Some 72 million Americans have high blood pressure, also known as hypertension, a major risk factor for heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular problems. But blood pressure is not under control in 70 percent of those people, including the nearly 40 percent taking medication.
Early results of the ACCOMPLISH trial, led by Dr. Kenneth Jamerson of the University of Michigan Health System, were to be reported Monday at the American Society of Hypertension annual meeting, in Chicago.
"There are millions on millions of people whose blood pressure is not controlled," said Jamerson, who is professor of internal medicine at Michigan. "Using this strategy, we can expect to double the amount of cases under control. Since the estimated risk of getting high blood pressure at some time in life is 80 to 90 percent, we expect our society will embrace this strategy."
Traditionally, the approach to high blood pressure has been to start with one medication, increase the dose if necessary and then add a second drug, according to a statement issued by Novartis. "We now have significant data which demonstrate the value of treating high-risk hypertensive patients with a fixed-dose combination from the start," the statement said. "This data has the potential to change the current treatment guidelines."
Lotrel combines a calcium channel blocker, amlodipine besylate, with an ACE inhibitor, benazepril. In the trial, the drug was compared with a different combination medication that combined benazepril with a diuretic, which makes the body lose water. Various groups of patients were given different doses of the drugs.
The control rate achieved with Lotrel was lower for people with conditions that put them at higher risk of cardiovascular disease -- 43 percent for those with diabetes and 40 percent for those with kidney disease. But, the report noted, "Of the patients uncontrolled, 61 percent were not on maximum medications, suggesting potential increases in control rates."
Some skepticism has been expressed about the goals of the ACCOMPLISH trial. Those voicing concerns include Dr. Alan B. Weder, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan.
But, in a recent interview, Weder said his criticism, published two years ago in Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, wasn't directed so much at ACCOMPLISH as at clinical trials in general. "In the world of clinical trials, ACCOMPLISH is probably one of the better ones," he said.
Still, Weder said, "without doubt, these trials are done to further the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. But I don't see anything wrong with that."

Calcium Some Help in Preventing Postmenopausal Weight Gain

WEDNESDAY, May 16 (HealthDay News) -- Postmenopausal women who take supplements with calcium and vitamin D gain slightly less weight than women not taking the supplements, researchers report.
While the effect on weight was small, it's another reason women should be taking calcium and vitamin D, which can help prevent osteoporosis, the study authors said.
"There was a small effect in the prevention of weight gain, approximately 5 percent," said lead researcher Bette Caan, a senior research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, in Oakland. "The effect was greatest at three years among women who had been taking less than the daily recommend amount [of calcium] before the trial. They were also more likely to stay stable or lose weight," she said.
For the study, Caan's team collected data on 36,282 postmenopausal women, ages 50 to 79. The women were part of the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial. In the trial, 18,176 women were randomly selected to receive a daily dose of 1,000 milligrams of calcium plus 400 international units of vitamin D, while 18,106 women were given a placebo once a day. Then, their weight was checked each year for seven years.
By the end of the trial, the researchers found that women who took the supplements weighed an average of 0.28 pounds less than those who did not.
Women who received the supplements and were getting less than the recommended amount of calcium daily before the start of the study weighed an average of 0.42 pounds less than those who did not. In addition, these women had a lower risk of putting on weight in both small amounts (2.2 pounds to 6.6 pounds) and moderate amounts (more than 6.6 pounds). And they were more likely to maintain a stable weight (within 2.2 pounds of their starting weight) or losing weight (more than 2.2 pounds), the researchers said.
Caan does not recommend taking calcium and vitamin D for the purpose of slowing weight gain. "However, since 1,200 milligrams of calcium is already recommended for postmenopausal women for bone health, they should continue with that recommendation, and it may be an extra benefit if it also helps reduce the risk of weight gain," she said. "They should not rely on calcium to prevent weight gain. It's not a magic bullet."
The study was published in the May 14 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
One expert thinks calcium's small effect on weight gain is not really an effective part of fighting obesity.
"The beneficial effects on weight gain peaked after just three years, and then plateaued," said Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale University School of Medicine Prevention Research Center. The benefits of supplementation were reduced weight gain, not weight loss. Roughly 70 percent of the women in this trial were overweight at the start, and almost all gained weight throughout, he said.
"Calcium and vitamin D did not cause weight loss, or even prevent weight gain -- they just slowed its relentless march a bit," he said. "In the battle to control obesity and its adverse effects, this has contributed the equivalent of a pea shooter."

11 Featured Nutrients: Why You Need Them

Beta Carotene

What it does:
In the body, beta carotene is converted to vitamin A, a nutrient essential for healthy vision, immune function and cell growth. It also acts as an antioxidant that neutralizes free radicals.

How much you need:
There's no RDA for beta carotene.

Food Sources of Beta Carotene:
Eat plenty of dark green vegetables and orange vegetables and fruits (papaya, mango) weekly to meet your vitamin A needs and reap beta carotene's potential antioxidant benefits.

Is 1 Pill Better Than 2 for Heart-Disease Protection?

FRIDAY, May 11 (HealthDay News) -- When it comes to daily drug therapy for heart patients, less may be more, a new study suggests.
Researchers developed a computer model to predict the cost and benefits of administering two drugs -- one to lower blood pressure and one to lower cholesterol -- either separately, or in a single-pill formulation, to two, 100,000-member groups with hypertension plus other cardiovascular risk factors.
The two medications were amlodipine, a blood pressure medication sold under the brand name Norvasc, and atorvastatin, a cholesterol-lowering medication branded as Lipitor. The combined formulation is called Caduet, and all three are available from Pfizer Inc., which provided funding for the study.
Under idealized, clinical trial conditions, where each individual was presumed to take his or her medication exactly as directed, both groups had the same number of cardiovascular events over four years -- 3,520. But the four-year medical costs were lower in the single pill group ($6,471 vs. $7,665), because the single pill formulation costs less.
When the two groups were "modeled" in "real-world" conditions, in which adherence to medication regimens isn't 100 percent, the number of predicted cardiovascular events jumped to 6,990 for the two-pill group, and to 6,859 for the single pill, with associated four-year medical costs of $6,543 and $4,993, respectively.
In other words, outside of a clinical trial setting, users of the single-pill formulation could expect slightly fewer cardiovascular incidents, and lower associated medical costs, than users of the two pills, said study author Timothy Smith, senior director of health economics and outcomes research at IMS Consulting in Falls Church, Va.
"In the language of cost-effectiveness analysis, this is a case where the two-pill therapy is dominated by the one-pill therapy," Smith said, "because the single pill costs less, and it is more effective because of improved compliance."
The study was expected to be presented May 11 at the American Heart Association's Scientific Forum on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research in Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke, in Washington, D.C.
According to Smith, the findings reflect the anecdotal understanding that the more medications a patient must take, the less likely he or she is to take them all correctly. "It is fairly well accepted that there is a pill burden," he said. "The more medications you take, the worse the compliance."
But, Smith added, the conclusions also are based on a computer model that used data from a former study using slightly different medications. So, the new findings must be validated, he said.
Dr. Paul S. Chan, a cardiovascular fellow at the University of Michigan Medical School, who has published several papers on cost effectiveness in medicine, called the new study "interesting." But, he noted, that besides not having been peer-reviewed, the study's primary conclusion -- that one pill is better than two -- has one "huge caveat."
Even if one pill saves money over two pills at the present time, that would not likely be true once one or both drugs lost patent protection.
"It's a very ingenious marketing ploy," Chan said. "Even though it saves money up front, it also ensures that patients will stay on the combination pill when, in the future, it might be cheaper to buy the meds separately."

Hepatitis C Infection Ups Lymphoma Risk

TUESDAY, May 8 (HealthDay News) -- People with the liver disease hepatitis C face a higher risk of developing lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system, new research suggests.
Overall, the risk is almost 30 percent higher, but for a certain type of lymphoma called Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia, the risk is almost 300 percent higher, according to the study.
"If I had hepatitis C, this would be one more piece of evidence that might make me consider treatment, though hepatitis C treatment can be difficult and is often unsuccessful," said the study's lead author, Dr. Thomas Giordano, an assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
"On the other hand," he added, "the risk of these cancers is so small, I wouldn't panic if wasn't getting treatment either. The overall risk is low."
More than 4 million Americans have hepatitis C, and about 26,000 new cases are diagnosed each year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lymphomas are cancers that originate in the lymphatic system, a part of the body's immune system. The two most common forms of lymphoma are Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. About 8,000 Americans develop Hodgkin's lymphoma and more than 56,000 develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma each year, according to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.
"At least five agents -- four viruses and one bacterium -- are associated with an increased risk of lymphoma, said Dr. Marshall Lichtman, executive vice president for research and medical programs at the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.
But, Lichtman said he couldn't speculate as to why hepatitis C might increase the risk of lymphoma.
Giordano suspects that the chronic stimulation of the immune system caused by hepatitis C might be contributing to the development of certain lymphomas.
For the new study, Giordano and his colleagues reviewed data from the Veterans Administration. First, they found almost 150,000 veterans with a diagnosis of hepatitis C, and then they matched by age and sex four healthy veterans for each person infected with hepatitis C. Nearly all of the veterans included in the study were male, and the average age was 52.
The researchers found that just under 1,400 people included in the study developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and 165 developed Waldenstrom's lymphoma.
The risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was 28 percent higher for those with hepatitis C, and the risk of Waldenstrom's was 276 percent higher, according to the study.
While women only comprised 3 percent of the study population, both Giordano and Lichtman think the results would probably apply to women as well.
The findings are published in the May 9 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Giordano said there aren't any immediate practical implications from the findings, because there's no standard screening tool for lymphoma. He said the findings may help researchers, and they may alert physicians to think of the possibility of lymphoma in their hepatitis C patients.
Lichtman agreed that lymphoma screening isn't feasible at this point. "Lymphoma is not a disease that can be detected early," he said. "Once it's clinically apparent, it's usually advanced."
Another important point, Lichtman added, is that no one yet knows if the treatments for hepatitis C would reduce the risk of lymphoma, too.

TV Use Pervasive Among Tiniest Tots

MONDAY, May 7 (HealthDay News) -- Parents don't seem to be heeding expert pediatrician guidelines that urge a ban on TV watching for their very youngest children.
The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends that children 2 and under watch no TV at all.
However, a new study finds that on a typical day, only 37 percent of children between zero and 2 years old watch no television, and as many as one in five youngsters under 2 even have a television placed in their bedrooms. More than half (54 percent) of these tiny tots could turn on the TV themselves.
"I understand the AAP's stance, because we don't yet know the neurological implications of screen time in young children," said the study's author, Elizabeth Vandewater, associate director of the population research center and an associate professor of human development and family sciences at the University of Texas in Austin.
On the other hand, she said, "I don't think the guidelines are realistic."
The study's findings weren't all bad. Vandewater found that just over half of 3- to 4-year-olds and 70 percent of 5- and 6-year-olds watched no more than the recommended limit of two hours daily. In the 3 to 6 age group, TV in the bedroom became more common, with about one-third having a set in the bedroom.
The findings were published in the May issue of Pediatrics.
To learn more about actual viewing habits in young children, Vandewater and her colleagues surveyed 1,051 parents of young children during 2005. They asked about media use, whether or not there was a TV in the bedroom, and also about other activities, such as reading and playing outdoors, to see if TV use was supplanting other pursuits.
On an average day, three-quarters of children watched at least some television, and about one-third watched videos or DVDs, the study found. The average viewing time was one hour and 20 minutes, which falls within the AAP guideline of no more than one to two hours for children over 3.
The researchers didn't find that TV typically displaced other activities, such as reading or outdoor play. However, Vandewater said that in previous research she's conducted, she has found that TV may replace time spent interacting with parents.
"It's important to remember that if you turn off the TV, the assumption is that the family will spend time together, but that's not always true. They might find other things to do separately," she said. "It's also important that we don't assume all time spent with parents is good, quality time. If parents are under stress, that's not necessarily a good time to be together, and it might not be so bad to pop in a video for a half an hour," Vandewater said.
She also commiserated with parents who might find the "no TV" rule tough to adhere to. "Media and technology are not going away," Vandewater said. "They're part of the backdrop of our everyday lives -- TV stands are now standard living room furniture. So, we need to figure out how to give advice that's workable."
Dr. Christopher Lucas, director of the early childhood service at the New York University Child Study Center in New York City, agreed that it's difficult to keep children under 2 from watching any TV, because TV has become so ubiquitous in American life.
"The guidelines seem out of sync with what the reality is," said Lucas.
Neither Vandewater or Lucas is specifically advocating TV watching for young children. Instead, they're just acknowledging that it does occur and that there's currently no evidence to prove that it's harmful.
Lucas said to be helpful, TV needs to be put into context for children. "Unsupervised, passive watching probably isn't helpful, but educational media -- when watched with parents or another caregiver -- could be helpful," he said.
Both Vandewater and Lucas were concerned about the growing trend of TVs in children's bedrooms. Most often, parents interviewed in the study said they put a TV set in their kid's room because it freed up other TVs in the house for parental use.
"There is a growing body of literature showing that TV in the bedroom is related to a host of negative outcomes. I would strongly urge parents not to put TV in a child's bedroom," said Vandewater.
"There's this belief that TV is helpful to children and may soothe them, but TV activates the brain and actually makes it more difficult to sleep," explained Lucas.
Vandewater's final advice? "Media is a treat. Like any other treat, it's best in moderation."

Too Much on Your Plate?

The moment I hear Law & Order's distinctive two-beat intro, my salivary glands flood. I watch this week's corpse discovery, then take the first commercial break to hustle out to the Sub-Zero. Two huge scoops of Vanilla Swiss Almond Häagen-Dazs in an oversize bowl later, I'm back in the company of police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. Over the next 15 minutes, those voluptuous mounds of ice cream, along with their bustier of chocolate sauce and Reddi-wip, disappear someplace.
Under cross-examination by Jack McCoy, I could probably be witness-badgered into specifying where this someplace is. Right now, however, I'm too distracted to remember or care. Another commercial comes on, and I feel a sudden vague sense that my life needs balance. Something crunchy, perhaps something with salt. Oh, and add something that will make this first combo of somethings easier to swallow.
By the time the jury finds the perp-o'-the-week guilty, an 8-inch stack of Zesta saltines and a 16-ounce Coke have slurried off together, crunch by crunch, sip by sip, in search of the missing Häagen-Dazs. Most men think, if we think about it at all, that the urge to eat is simple. We become hungry, we seek food, we shovel same into our maws, we feel full, we stop. After a suitable interlude, the cycle starts anew.
But hunger (appetite's physiological accelerator) and satiety (its brakes) are not the only reasons we start and stop eating. Researchers in the burgeoning field of food psychology have pinpointed a complex web of cues in the modern environment that all but overwhelm our once-adaptive systems: societal shifts in what constitutes appropriate portion sizes; the colors, embedded scents, and promotional language used in food packaging; the distracting effects of TV viewing during meals. These are just a few of the ubiquitous hidden persuaders that have converted eating from a natural human need into a national hobby.
Part of the problem is the sheer number of times we're confronted with food decisions. According to a University of Illinois study, the average American makes more than 200 choices each day, most executed on a quasi-conscious level. Yogurt or a sticky bun for breakfast? A garden salad or Double Whopper for lunch? Celery sticks or pork rinds with a pilsner or pale ale after work?
Psychologists in labs around the world, to be sure, have an interest in understanding what motivates such decisions and perhaps nowhere more so than in the labs at major food corporations. Whether it's Frito-Lay or Burger King, Dannon or Pillsbury, they're all in business to optimize profits. If tweaking the minutiae of consumer psychology will make their products more tempting than the competition's, you can bet they'll do so.
"Nowadays, companies are investing a lot of money to figure out this kind of information," says Leslie Harrington, Ph.D., founder of LH Color, a Connecticut-based company that advises food manufacturers on ways to leverage color's psychological effects. "You can't change behavior by cognition alone," she says. "You need to engage a consumer's emotions, and color is just one of many ways to do this."
The Science of Appetite
University and government researchers, for their part, approach food psychology from a different perspective. Most here are seeking strategies to steer us willingly, that is toward healthier diets, hoping in the process to not only save lives but also avoid a fortune in future medical costs from today's obesity epidemic.
For Brian Wansink, Ph.D., director of the Cornell University food and brand lab, part of the answer lies in a "know the enemy" approach. In his book, Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think, Wansink condenses years of research into practical lessons for recognizing and circumventing the myriad influences that promote autopilot eating. "The goal," he says, "is to re-engineer your food life so you can enjoy eating without obsessing."
This doesn't just mean eating less junk. The same techniques that push Ho Hos and Häagen-Dazs can also help us eat better-quality fare, from five-a-day fruits and vegetables to soluble fiber and omega-3 fats. By better understanding how food psychology influences us, we can avoid being blinded by a false glow, and simultaneously add more luster to the foods our bodies really need.

The Atmospheres of AppetiteThough it doesn't appear on a list of ingredients, one of a food's most seductive additives is the setting in which it's served.
Restaurateurs from McDonald's to Ruth's Chris Steak House have long understood how critical ambience is to sales. Not surprisingly, the choice of atmosphere will differ dramatically, depending on how an establishment wants to make those sales. In the case of fast-food emporia, profits depend on speed eating, whereas at high-end restaurants, the goal is to keep diners ensconced long enough to "up-sell" them drinks, appetizers, and desserts.
One of the most common techniques used to achieve both ends is color. "Bright red, for example, is the color to stimulate your appetite," says color expert Harrington. "It also increases adrenaline and blood pressure and makes you physically want to move." It's no accident that the benches at every McDonald's are not only bright red but also bruisingly hard on the buttocks. The last thing you want en route to selling 80 billion burgers are loitering customers.
Contrast this approach with a high-end steak house. Managers here want you ravenous, too but they also want you to linger long enough to run up a drink tab and other expenses. "These places still use red to stimulate appetite," says Harrington, "but they tone it down to a softer burgundy or wine color." The soft seating here could be endorsed by post-op hemorrhoid patients.
To further encourage leisurely dining, upscale restaurants also frequently use muted lights and soothing music. Of course, you'll never find candelabra and Chopin anywhere near a bucket of chicken. If such places can't lure clientele onto the drive-thru conveyer belt, they'll at least make their interiors as energizing to the senses as possible.
For reasons that aren't completely understood, men seem particularly vulnerable to such manipulations. "Bright lights, loud noises, and reflective surfaces cause most everyone to eat faster," says Lenny R. Vartanian, Ph.D., lead author of a recent study in Appetite that examined factors influencing food consumption. "But environmental stimulation causes men to really speed up their eating it has a much more exaggerated influence."
Another highly provocative sense is smell. A mere whiff of something delicious increases salivation and the release of pancreatic enzymes, readying our bodies to be fed. Wansink has dubbed this the "Cinnabon Effect" after an aroma credited with generating $200 million in annual sticky-bun sales.
"I've been in food courts where it seems like restaurants are battling," says Armand V. Cardello, Ph.D., a food psychologist at the U.S. Army Natick Labs. "Every 5 feet you walk, you're hit with a different smell."
Short of wearing nose clips, earplugs, and welder's glasses when dining out, there's not much we can do to eliminate this assault on our senses. Still, knowing what we're up against can move such marketing ploys from unconsciousness to awareness, where we have at least a fighting chance of resisting or avoiding them.
At home, where we do have some control over our eating environment, we can use these same marketing strategies to our benefit. For example, "even broccoli tastes better by candlelight," says Wansink. He recommends a few guy-specific tactics, as well. For at least 30 minutes of your meal, turn off the TV and instead play your favorite slow music softly in the background. Use decent china, which sends the message "fine dining ahead!" as opposed to plastic plates and bowls, which proclaim "time to spork down some biomass." Perhaps most important, serve food at a table where you've previously enjoyed celebratory meals not on a TV tray where you've previously celebrated sports victories.
If your goal is simply to eat less, try a more radical approach to ambience. "Blue is the color most associated with mold and decay in food," says Harrington. "The greatest diet tip I know is simply to put a blue lightbulb in your refrigerator."

Pet Food Recall Widens Again on New Threat

THURSDAY, May 3 (HealthDay News) -- Two months after it triggered the largest pet food recall in U.S. history, a key Canadian manufacturer has widened its recall once again on the threat of cross-contamination in some products.
The latest action comes amid reports from U.S. health officials that more than 4,000 dogs and cats may have died from eating contaminated pet food.
And at the same time, U.S. regulators report that the Chinese company accused of exporting wheat gluten that included the toxic chemical melamine had intentionally labeled its shipments as nonfood to avoid inspections.
The newest recall involves any pet food processed at any Menu Food plant during the period in which contaminated wheat gluten was in that plant, according to the recall notice issued late Wednesday. The original recall by the company involved more than 60 million cans and pouches of moist dog and cat food. The new recall, the Streetsville, Ontario company said , includes cuts and gravy and select other products.
The company, which produces pet foods for more than 100 name brands, said the additional recall represents less than 5 per cent of the products that have already been recalled or withdrawn. It did not say what the cross-contamination involved. An updated list of all recalled products is available at the company's website at http://www.menufoods.com.
The news followed reports earlier this week that contaminated pet food leftovers had been fed to hogs and chickens, many of which have been processed for human consumption.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture officials have downplayed any potential human health risk.
But the FDA, which has only ever confirmed the deaths of 16 pets from contaminated food since the recall began March 16, now says that pet owners have reported the deaths of about 1,950 cats and 2,200 dogs. It was not known how many of those were linked to the recalled pet food, the AP reported.
The New York Times reported that FDA officials also say the Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company shipped more than 700 tons of wheat gluten labeled as nonfood products this year through a third-party Chinese textile company.
By listing the goods as nonfood items, the companys shipments were not subject to mandatory inspection by the Chinese government, the newspaper reported.
ChemNutra, the Las Vegas pet food supplier that bought the wheat gluten from Xuzhou and then resold it to pet food makers in North America, said it had received the shipments of wheat gluten through a third party, a company called Suzhou Textiles Silk Light and Industrial Products.
A spokesman for Suzhou Textiles denied that the company exported any wheat gluten to the United States, the Times reported.
The other supplier of contaminated protein is Binzhou Futian Biology Technology, which said that it supplies soy, corn and other proteins and has strong sales in the United States, Europe and Southeast Asia. The company also declined to comment, the newspaper said.
Meanwhile, the Senate voted Wednesday in favor of stricter production and labeling standards on pet foods so consumers are better informed about what they are feeding their pets, the Associated Press reported.
The 94-0 vote was on an amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., which called for a national pet version of the system that now tracks food contamination and outbreaks of illness and death in people.
In a prepared statement, the Humane Society applauded the Senate action.
"The Humane Society of the United States commends Senator Durbin for his fast action to protect the food supply for people and their pets," said Wayne Pacelle, its president and CEO. "The last six weeks have exposed that the safety standards for pet foods are not in place in any significant way and the constant drumbeat, day after day, of recalls has shaken consumers' confidence in the pet food industry's adherence to food safety standards."
Earlier this week, U.S. health officials had reported that up to 3 million broiler chickens were fed tainted pet food and then sold on the U.S. market beginning in early February.
The contaminated pet product made its way into poultry feed at 38 Indiana farms, 30 of which produced broiler chickens destined for restaurants and supermarkets, said FDA and USDA officials.
Approximately 2.5 million to 3 million chickens fed contaminated pet food have already been sold, Kenneth Peterson, assistant administrator for field operations at the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, said during a Tuesday teleconference. "That's out of a total of 9 billion broilers processed in the U.S. each year," he noted.
"We still have no evidence of harm to humans or to swine," added Dr. David Acheson, who began his tenure as the FDA's new assistant commissioner for food protection on Tuesday. Acheson said that the contaminated food constituted only about 5 percent of the total feed at the farms. "The risk to humans is small," he said.
The announcement came on the heels of similar discoveries at hog farms across the United States. The USDA first announced last week that meat from 345 hogs suspected of eating the contaminated feed had entered the U.S. food supply. Some 6,000 hogs suspected of eating the contaminated product have since been quarantined and meat from these animals will be withheld from the food supply, both agencies said.
Last week, China banned melamine from its food products, but rejected the charge that the substance caused the U.S. pet deaths, the AP reported.
U.S. regulators were continuing to investigate how -- or even if -- melamine becomes fatal for pets, because it's not believed to be particularly toxic. But U.S. law bans its presence in any form of food, the newspaper said.

Vets From First Gulf War Show Brain Differences

TUESDAY, May 1 (HealthDay News) -- Veterans of the first Gulf War who developed numerous health complaints have areas of the brain that are measurably smaller than those of healthier vets, a new study found.
The results of the U.S. government-funded study are preliminary but provide some of the first hard evidence that veterans from the 1990-1991 conflict are suffering from a real neurological illness, researchers say.
"Right now, for Gulf War veterans, there is a discounting of there being any physical basis for what might be wrong with them. But I think that what is really important about this brain imaging research is that it suggests that we really need to take their symptoms seriously, that there is a clear neurological basis for their complaints," said study lead researcher Roberta White of Boston University School of Public Health.
Another expert with a long history of research into so-called Gulf War syndrome was more cautious.
"These findings are intriguing, but they do not prove that veterans of the first Gulf War were harmed by wartime chemical exposure," said Dr. Daniel Clauw, professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor.
The study was expected to be presented Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, in Boston.
U.S. and British veterans of the first Gulf War have long complained of a wide array of physical and mental symptoms, which many blame on exposure to biowarfare agents such as toxic pesticides and sarin gas.
"Back when the vets first started returning from the war, they were complaining of symptoms that affected the central nervous symptom, or suggested effects on the central nervous system," White said. Those symptoms included mood swings, personality changes, disordered sleep, joint pain, headaches, skin conditions, chronic fatigue and other effects.
But, it has been tough for experts to pinpoint any "objective evidence" -- for example, anatomical anomalies -- supporting the existence of an identifiable neurological condition, White said.
But recent advances in brain imaging are helping that effort.
In its study, which is ongoing, White's team took detailed MRI images of the brains of 36 veterans of the first Iraq conflict. Half of the veterans have complained of five or more symptoms -- out of a list of 20 -- attributed to Gulf War syndrome, while the other half have listed less than five symptoms.
The brain scans revealed key differences between the two groups.
First, the cortex -- the covering of the brain, highly involved in learning -- was about 5 percent smaller in those veterans with a higher number of symptoms compared with those with a lower number of symptoms. And a second area of the brain, called the rostral anterior cingulated gyrus -- important to emotion, motivation and memory -- was 6 percent smaller on average in the more symptomatic vets, according to the study.
These finds are preliminary and do not confirm that wartime exposures changed the veterans' brains, only that differences exist, White said.
However, the brain differences may be relevant to reported symptoms "because [veterans] complain of fatigue, of changes in their cognitive efficiency, and memory problems," she noted. "We actually have objective evidence that memory performances were worse among the high-symptom complainers and that correlates with the findings in the cingulated gyrus," White added.
Those symptoms also correlate with exposures to a variety of toxins present in the first Iraq conflict, White said. "Things like pesticides, sarin -- chemical warfare agents of the kind that they used in the Gulf -- those kinds of substances do cause these kinds of effects on brain function," she said. However, she added that "much less is known about more subtle effects on brain structure of these chemicals, because they have not been studied in this way."
Another expert in Gulf War syndrome agreed that it's impossible at this point to conclude that wartime exposures led to changes in veterans' brains.
For example, "we know that many psychiatric disorders, such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, cause cognitive problems. And we know that these two can be associated with changes in brain function and metabolism," said Dr. Simon Wessely, a professor of psychiatry at the King's Center for Military Health Research at King's College London.
Until White's group can get a larger number of study subjects and tease out these possible confounding causes, scientists shouldn't get "too excited" about the findings, he said.
"The symptoms of Gulf War illness are very common in people who have not been to the Gulf," Wessely noted. "I would be more interested in comparing Gulf [veterans] vs. civilians with the same symptoms before I jumped to any conclusions about any relation to Gulf War exposures," he said.
Clauw seconded that thought.
"Recent, similar studies have shown decreases in brain volumes in individuals in the general population with chronic pain conditions such as low back pain and fibromyalgia," he said. "Future studies need to compare the results of brain scans of Gulf War veterans with individuals with chronic pain and other symptoms who were not deployed to the Gulf War, before concluding that any changes are due to wartime exposures."
White agreed that it's still too early to draw any definite conclusions. She said the study, which was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, should wrap up by this fall.
"These are preliminary findings, and, with more subjects, we might learn more about which parts of the brain are more affected," she said. Still, she added, "I think this is a very important next chapter in looking at the first Gulf War."
More information
There's more on Gulf War syndrome at the University of Chicago Medical Center.