NaturalWellbeing.com - 1.800.536.9353

It has recently been discovered that oil that is naturally found on a person’s skin, has the ability to ensnare substantial amounts of indoor ozone, which it then is able to emit it in the form of chemicals that can cause a skin and lung irritation.

An assistant professor of pharmaceutical sciences at Texas A&M; Health Science Center’s Irma Lerma Rangel College of Pharmacy in Kingsville, Rajat Sethi, explains:

“They are saying that compounds on the skin react to the ozone and cause more irritation to the skin. They have identified those compounds.”

The Study

The discussed study, which was published in the journal entitled ‘Proceedings of the National Academies of Science’, maintains that the findings are not cause for alarm just yet.

The co-lead author of the study and an adjunct professor at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey in Piscataway and a member of the faculty of the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, Charles J. Weschler, address this as follows:

“I would say this is not very alarming at this point. This chemistry has been going on since the dawn of man. As long as humans have existed, they’ve existed with ozone, and this chemistry has been occurring.”

Although there is has been a multitude of studies done and reports written on the dangerous health effects of the ozone outside, hardly any studies have been conducted to address inside ozone.

Wescheler explains: “We’re talking about ozone that people breathe, that people come in contact with, as opposed to ozone up in the stratosphere that protects us from the sun.”

Indoor Ozone

Little do people realize that ozone has the ability to travel inside through an open window or other type of ventilation, it can also seep into the inside air through the sweat that falls off of office equipment that has not been serviced lately, such as laser printers, computers and photocopier machines.

Sethi presented the study during the meeting of the American Heart Association, in which he attempted to establish a link between ‘outdoor ozone an increased risk of ischemic attack and angina’, by stating that:

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has claimed that indoor ozone exposure may be 100 times more than outdoor exposure.”

In another study conducted by Weschler, “proton transfer reaction-mass spectrometry” was used in an attempt to evaluate compounds that were released into the air via the contact between the ozone and human skin oil.

The most universal fat and antioxidant that is found on human skin is called Squalene. When this particular antioxidant from a single person, comes into contact with ozone, together they are able to reduce the ozone concentration in a small by nearly 10 – 25%.

Once this interaction has occurred, by-products are then released back into the indoor environment.

“Some of these products are benign, something like acetone or fingernail-polish remover. Some of these compounds have not been identified before in terms of this chemistry, but we don’t expect them to pose much of a health concern simply because of their structure,” explains Weschler. Then again, “some of these compounds may be a health concern, but toxicity studies have yet to be done,” he added.

Squalene

Reactions can also occur on items where squalene was automatically left after someone had recently touched the item, such as a computer keyboard or counter top.

It was previously believed that vitamin E was the primary antioxidant that protected a person’s skin from ozone. However this study has proven that it is in fact squalene.

“Squalene has been doing the heavy lifting when it comes to protecting us from the ozone. Some of these products [resulting from the interaction] we inhale and some stay on our skin. Toxicologists will be looking more closely at what some of the potential health effects are,” noted Weschler.

The Assistant vice president of national policy and advocacy at the American Lung Association, Janice Nolen, also believes that this latest study does indeed demonstrate exactly how harmful the ozone can be:

“Ozone by itself is harmful straight out, and we’ve known for some time that ozone indoors reacts with a variety of things. This study tells us more about how ozone can affect us and reinforces why we don’t want ozone indoors,” she said.

In light of this study, Nolen does not recommend using any product, such as an air purifying device, that actually produces ozone.

“If it’s a mechanism with a filter of some kind, then you’re not going to be producing ozone,” she said. “If you’re using something that uses electric static or a chemical process, the odds are that you’re going to be producing ozone.”

But even filtering, she added, “is limited in its ability to help clean up indoor air.”

Photo Credit: Savara Gallery

These days everyone wants to eat healthier and most people do that by eating organic fruits, vegetables and meats that they purchase from their local supermarket. This is all quite fine, but, how do you know whether or not the produce you pick is really organic? Can you really trust what the shopkeeper is advertising?

It is very difficult to ascertain whether those lovely apples or those delicious oranges that are stocked high on the shelves in your grocer’s produce department, are organic, conventionally produced or genetically modified.

In case you are wondering why you would need to know the difference in the origins of your produce, consider this:

* Food that is grown using organic methods have been scientifically proven to be more nutritious than foods that are grown either conventionally or that have been genetically modified.

* Foods that have been genetically modified have not been around for as long a time as conventionally grown food or organically grown food. These foods only started to appear on store shelves in the early 1990′s and, therefore, scientists and nutritionists have not had enough to time to evaluate their long-term health risks. Eating genetically modified foods is quite similar to unknowingly being a participate in a science experiment of sorts.

* Some environmentalists are concerned with the possibility that genetically modified foods, and the seeds from which they are sprouted, will have a serious impact on native vegetation in the long run. Perhaps by eradicating them completely or altering their own genetic makeup.

* Concerns have also been raised over conventional farming methods as well. Nutritionists claim that mass farming has caused produce that contains fewer and fewer nutritional value. The soil that is used to plant the seeds has, over the many years of over-farming, become depleted of their natural nutrients and minerals. The pesticides that are used on these crops have been scientifically proven to cause various cancers and other diseases, yet are still being continually sprayed onto the fruit and vegetables that you will putting in your mouth!

* Organic farming methods involve creating healthy food by maintaining healthy soil. This is accomplished by using crop rotation methods and other such organic farming techniques that work towards improving the quality of the soil instead of mindlessly apply harsh chemicals over everything.

Both large supermarket chains and small grocery stores usually keep the organic food that they sell separate from the conventionally grown produce.

Therefore, it should fairly easy to spot the organic produce over produce that has either been genetically modified or conventionally grown.

But not all grocers keep to this layout and sometimes produce can become inadvertently added to the wrong pile. Therefore, you will need to take it upon yourself to make sure that the produce that you are purchasing is truly organic. How do you do this?

The solution is simple. Just check the PLU numbers!

PLU stands for the international price look up system that every grocery chain has in place to help them make the grocery check-out as well as their inventory control a much easier process to handle.

Every produce item, including every apple or orange, will have a small sticker on them. On the sticker will be the letters PLU that are followed by numbers. Some produce, however, will not have stickers on them but will have a tag wrapped around them instead. Those numbers are codes that are used to replace actual pricing amounts as well as the names of the produce. Surprisingly, these numbers can also help you by revealing which produce is grown organically, grown conventionally or genetically modified.

Here is what you should look out for when reading the PLU numbers on the stickers:

* Organically grown produce usually has a 5 digit number that begins with the number 9.

* Conventionally grown produce will have a 4 digit number that will start with either the number 3 or the number 4.

* Genetically Modified produce will usually have a 5 digit number beginning with the number 8.

When you are choosing meats and other products for their organic properties, look on the product label for the USDA Certified Organic seal.

In April 2001, the USDA created very strict labeling requirements in order to assist consumers in purchasing organic products. By choosing products contain the USDA Organic seal you will know that the product is at least 95% organic.

However, bear in mind that the use of the USDA’s Certified Organic seal is voluntary and so, therefore, not every organic product will contain the seal.

Photo Credit: Tim Psych

A recent study has shown that there were 610,171 breast cancer survivors in 2005 in the United States of America. This same study has forecasted that the survivor number will increase up to 1 million women by the year 2016!

Current breast cancer cases are made up of 20% of newly diagnosed breast cancers, which is the early stage. This is the time when the cancer is limited to cells that are found in the ducts or lobules of a woman’s breast.

However, even though there were nearly 2.5 million breast cancer survivors in the USA in 2005, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Brian L. Sprague and Amy Trentham-Dietz, have taken notice of the fact that breast cancer in situ survivor numbers are not known and documented this research in a report that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Executive director of the advocacy group Breast Cancer Action, Barbara A. Brenner, explains:

“A lot, but not all, of the increase in in situ breast cancers is a consequence of screening for breast cancer. This is leading to a lot of over-diagnosis, and hence, over-treatment.”

Sprague and Trentham-Dietz used data retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registries, to approximately calculate the number of surviving women with breast cancer in situ and based on that they were then able to calculate the development over the next few years.

Their research indicated that 610,171 of women that were diagnosed with breast cancer in situ during the past 30 years were still alive in 2005.

Ductal and lobular are the two different types of breast cancer in situ; because of this, women who have either of these types of breast cancers are four times more likely to develop invasive breast cancer compared with the general female population in the USA, as noted by the researchers.

Sadly, there is no scientific method in existence today that can help in determining which women will actually develop invasive breast cancer. So, these women are given the same type of treatment as women who have localized invasive cancer which results in a lower life expectancy.

Brenner says, “There is currently no way to tell women with ductal breast cancer in situ or lobular breast cancer in situ whether their condition, untreated, will develop into invasive disease. So, knowing you have either condition just puts you in a world of ‘What to do now.’”

In comparison to women who were diagnosed with lobular breast cancer in situ, women with ductal breast cancer in situ were actually five times more likely to become breast cancer survivors, according to Sprague and Trentham-Dietz.

The Wisconsin researchers also noted that out of the different racial groups, white women were more prone to being breast cancer survivors than any other female race.

The best results of their research indicated that the survival statistics for women diagnosed with breast cancer, actually improved and increased over a time. In 1975, 21,654 women who were diagnosed with breast cancer, were still alive and well in the year 2005. The research showed that the number of breast cancer survivors quadrupled for those women were diagnosed in 1985, and the number doubled again for women who were diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995.

In the report, Sprague and Trentham-Dietz wrote:

“Assuming constant incidence and survival rates, the estimated prevalence of breast cancer in situ will exceed 1 million cases by 2016.”

Sprague and Trentham-Dietz believe that the increase in the breast cancer survival rate is most probably due to improved breast cancer screening which would then lead to an early diagnosis. Breast cancer in situ, prior to 1995, consisted of about 4% of all breast cancer diagnosed during that year.

“If there is an underlying increase in in situ breast cancers that is not the result of screening, and there seems to be, we should be looking for the causes, very likely environmental, of that increase,” Brenner said.

The Wisconsin researchers, Sprague and Trentham-Dietz, both agree that in situ breast cancer is a vastly unknown diagnosis and, as such, there is still plenty to learn about this particular type of breast cancer.

Sprague and Trentham-Dietz wrote in their report:

“Current epidemiologic evidence regarding predictors of subsequent invasive breast cancer after breast cancer in situ is limited. Guidelines are necessary to help the increasing number of breast cancer in situ survivors choose the best treatment and lifestyle strategies while still maintaining high quality of life.”

Photo Credit: Amy Guth

There are many different facets to holistic and natural health. One of the oldest is the belief that your astrological sign can help you determine which foods to eat and which body parts or organs to keep a watchful eye over.

Capricorn

People who are born under this sign should focus their attention on their knees more than any other body part. Capricorns are more susceptible to arthritis and stress, so you relax by watching a movie with popcorn for the antioxidant effects. Foods that contain omega-3 fatty acids are also necessary for Capricorns to consume in order to keep themselves healthy.

Aquarius

For most Aquarians their Achilles tendon is their weakest part of their body, with the lower part of their leg (from the knee down) being the next body part that is prone to injuries such as muscle spasms, ankle problems, and shin splints. Most of these can be avoided by eating magnesium and potassium rich foods like bananas and papayas. Also remembering to stretch properly before and after exercising can prevent muscle spasms from occurring.

Pisces

The feet are the focal point of a Pisces person’s health, and often become battered and bruised by tripping over things and generally not being too quick on their feet to begin with. To combat this make sure to wear shoes that are comfortable and offer great support. Eating foods such shellfish and seafood will also do you good as they are filled with Omega-3.

Aries

Ironically, an Aries person is very much like the Ram in that they are constantly using their head. This over-thinking and over-analyzing can lead to headaches and migraines. It is best to remain as relaxed as possible at all times and not to allow the littlest of things to go to your head. Aries is also ruled by the color red and is therefore a fire sign, as such eating tomatoes and peppers will help to keep headaches at bay whilst keeping the body healthy.

Taurus

This astrological sign rules over the throat and Taurus people are prone to sore throats and loss of their voices. Drinking lots of water daily can help prevent a sore throat, but if it does occur then drinking lots of Vitamin C will help.

Gemini

Gemini’s can succumb to both muscle pains and have lung issues, like asthma or other respiratory problems. Consuming fruits and vegetables that contain beta-carotene, such as carrots and squash, can be most beneficial to support the lungs. As for muscle pains, these are usually caused by a Gemini person stressing too much. Learn to relax and the pain will ease off.

Cancer

Digestive issues and problems with the esophagus are common causes of concern for Cancer people. Eating plenty of cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower can help keep your digestive system running smoothly. Avoid caffeine as it can wreak havoc on your digestive system.

Leo

Make sure that you take extra precautionary measures and insist on having regular heart scans and blood pressure tests because the heart falls under the ruling of Leo. As with the other astrological signs, avoiding stress is best way to stay healthy, along with a regular exercise regime. Eating antioxidant rich foods, such as grapes, can also help keep your heart strong.

Virgo

Virgo’s should make sure that they eat a wide variety of grains and plenty of them too! Since Virgo’s can also have issues with their digestive tract, eating wheat and fiber on a daily basis can benefit them greatly.

Libra

Most Libra’s like to do physical labor and will often complain of a back ache as a result. Holistic therapies such as chiropractic services, massage and acupuncture can help ease the pain. Eating plenty of berries will help reduce inflammation as well.

Scorpio

The good news is that eating dark chocolate is very valuable to a Scorpio. The bad news is that Scorpio’s usually suffer from irregular bowel movements which can lead to weight loss, low energy, constipation and other intestinal issues. However, this can easily be remedied by eating plenty of fiber rich foods.

Sagittarius

Sagittarians love to be always on the go and do not like being still for too long; because of this they usually have very well defined muscles, especially their hamstrings. The problem, however, is that these muscles can sometimes be too tight and a muscle injury can occur. This can be prevented by having regular massages to help the blood to circulate properly around the body. The best food to eat for a Sagittarian is an olive. Olives are full of antioxidants and promote the absorption of good fats within the body.

Photo Credit: Remko van Dokkum

Television commercials for the General Mills cereal, ‘Cheerios’, abound. Besides being on television the cereal is also advertised in most major magazines and newspapers as well.

The cereal is touted as being a good helper in lowering a person’s cholesterol, with claims written on the box of cereal itself stating: “diets rich in whole grain foods can reduce the risk of heart disease.” These statements can also be found on the website of General Mills.

However, once again the government has stepped in to interfere. A warning letter was sent to General Mills on 5 May 2009, by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The letter stated that the healthy claims that General Mills has placed on its Cheerios cereal box were ‘serious violations’ of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as well as other applicable regulations.

Therefore, based purely on General Mill’s health claims, the FDA is now recognizing that Cheerios cereal is an unapproved drug and will now need to surrender to the FDA’s new drug approval process.

This is not the first time that the Food and Drug Administration has sent such warning letters to other food producers, in an attempt to prohibit them from revealing the true healthy nature of their products to their loyal consumers.

In one instance, cherry growers were under fire by the FDA for using references to peer-reviewed scientific articles in order to prove that cherries were indeed helpful in dealing with gout and arthritis.

In another example of FDA intervention, the health benefits of fish oil for a person’s heart health, depression treatment, cancer prevention and arthritis pain were once barred by the FDA.

This ban was only lifted once one particular drug company paid a lot of money so that the FDA could run the fish oil through its stringent approval process.

Since the time it was FDA approved, that specific fish oil retails for much more than any other non-FDA approved fish oil.

The problem this interference causes is that it restricts a general customer’s ability to have total access to scientific studies that can provide the customer with beneficial information as it also censors such scientific information. Another drawback of such an intrusion is that it causes the cost of public healthcare to skyrocket.

Tami Wahl, the Legislative Director of the American Association for Health Freedom, explained the FDA’s stance:

“FDA is not questioning the validity of the claims made by General Mills. Instead, FDA is saying General Mills cannot tell consumers that Cheerios may have beneficial health effects. The policy behind FDA’s action is government censorship, plain and simple. For General Mills not to be able to inform the public about the scientific evidence that Cheerios can help lower cholesterol, a rising health concern for Americans, serves no purpose. American consumers want to take charge of their personal health, and need as much valid information as possible to help them make responsible choices.”

So considering all these points above what exactly is the motive behind the meddling affairs of the Food and Drug Administration? It actually seems that the Food and Drug Administration does not want the general public to eat foods that are beneficially healthy for them. People are becoming more and more suspicious of the FDA’s involvement in their choices of supplements, food and drinks, believing that the Food and Drug Administration has a hidden agenda in that they do not want the public to eat healthy foods so that they can seek medical help for their ailments and be treated with expensive FDA-approved drugs and other medicines.

However, the Food and Drug Administration’s approval process for drugs and other supplements is a very lengthy and expensive process, and as such, is usually unsuitable for a food product.

Another aspect of the control that the Food and Drug Administration strives to have over all medications, supplements, drinks and food products is that they wish to have power over all of the scientific information that is made available to the general public concerning public health.

However, every consumer in the United States has the right to be educated regarding claims about food products that are scientifically based, and should therefore, be allowed to appear on food product labels.

The American Association for Health Freedom strongly believes that the general public should have the right to have access to every single scientific study that was, and is, ever done concerning food and food products that they are likely to eat or drink. At this time, it appears that the only scientific studies that are available for consumers to view are those studies that have already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, usually after a manufacturer has paid big money to be approved.

Photo Credit: bpende

A currency bill has a lifetime of approximately 20 months. During these months in circulation, the bill is fed into ATM machines, Vending Machines, folded into wallets and, of course exchanged for a variety of goods and services throughout the USA. Needless to say, each time a US bill changes hands it carries with it a myriad of dirt, germs, food and drug residue. Yes, you read that correctly: drugs!

Professor of Chemistry and BioChemistry at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Yuegang Zuo, headed up a research study that found that 90% of all monetary paper bills that are currently being circulated around the US, tested positive for trace amounts of cocaine.

“When I was a young kid, my mom told me the dirtiest thing in the world is money,” he said. “Mom is always right.”

Although the research indicates that the amount of cocaine that is found on the paper bills is not large enough that it would cause immediate health risks, it is still a cause of concern.

The amount of paper bills that actually contained cocaine proves that cocaine use is still a major problem in the major cities of the USA. Paper bills can easily become contaminated with cocaine when a drug user snorts using the bill or when the money is being used to purchase the drug.

Ironically, a paper bill does not necessarily have to be used as part of a drug use, to become contaminated with cocaine. Paper bills that do carry trace elements of cocaine can contaminate other bills whilst being housed together in a person’s wallet or even inside a currency counting machine at a bank.

Professor Zuo explains: “When the machine gets contaminated, it transfers the cocaine to the other bank notes.”

As can be expected, these paper bills usually have smaller amounts of cocaine on them. In fact, a few of the paper bills utilized in Professor Zuo’s research actually contained .006 micrograms of cocaine. This amount is several thousand times smaller than one little grain of sand.

During the American Chemical Society’s annual meeting last week, Professor Zuo stated that those bills that were more likely to contain cocaine were $5, $10, $20 and $50 bills. Most of the $1 bills tested, did not contain cocaine.

Professor Zuo explained:

“Probably $1 is a little too less to purchase cocaine. I don’t know exactly. It’s an educated guess.”

Professor Zuo’s recent research has simply re-emphasized what health agencies have been touting for many years by advising citizens to immediately wash their hands with anti-bacterial soap after handling, cold, hard, cash for sanitary reasons.

Besides trace elements of cocaine and other drugs, organisms that are widely known to cause a variety of illnesses and diseases, such as staphylococcus aureus as well as pneumonia-causing bacteria, have also been discovered in paper bills.

The Southern Medical Journal published a study in 2002, stating that nearly 94% of papers bills that were tested contained disease-causing organisms.

However, an associate professor of forensic sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Adam Negrusz, believes that there is no real cause of alarm regarding the unclean state of monetary affairs.

“I never think about this as a source of danger. We have more things which can be potentially harmful,” said Negrusz, explaining that cocaine binds to the green dye on the paper bills.

Negrusz is concerned that the cocaine tainted money could cause a false positive drug test, especially involving a policeman or bank teller who regularly handles such cocaine contaminated money.

Negruzs explained further:

“Imagine a bank teller who’s working with cash-counting machine in the basement of the bank. Many of those bills, over 90 percent, are contaminated with cocaine. There is cocaine dust around the machines. These bank tellers breathe in cocaine. Cocaine gets into the system, and you can test positive for cocaine. That’s what’s behind this whole thing that triggered testing money for drugs.”

Professor Zuo is hoping to use his research to form a regional drug use map, as the amount of cocaine contaminated bills varied greatly according to the area in which it was found.

For example, 100% of all bills that came from Miami, Florida; Boston, Massachusetts; and Detroit, Michigan, all tested positive for cocaine; whereas 87% to 67% of paper bills originating from Salt Lake City, Utah; Niagara Falls, New York; and Dearborn, Michigan, contained cocaine.

When compared with monetary bills from Canada, China, Japan and Brazil, the bills from the USA contained the highest amount of cocaine with an average of 90% out of 234 US bank notes contaminated.

Canada followed suit with 85% and next with 80% was Brazil. China had 20% and Japan had the lowest amount of cocaine contaminated money with only 12%.

Photo Credit: dslrninja

In 2007, Stacy Holk, filed a law suit in the New Jersey state court against Snapple manufacturer Cadbury Schweppes. Mz Holk’s case stated that the company willingly defrauded its consumers by stating that Snapple was ‘all natural’, even though there was an artificial sweetener amongst the list of ingredients.

Eventually the case evolved into a class action law suit and was brought to the federal court later in 2007.

However, in May 2008, Snapple fell under the new manufacturing name of Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. and not only sold and manufactured Snapple iced teas and juices but also Dr. Pepper, a popular soda that was originally manufactured by the Coca-Cola company.

A New Jersey federal judge threw out the case in June of 2008, ruling that the law suit was preempted by FDA regulations. These regulations, set forth by the FDA, provide a rough idea to companies about what they are allowed and not allowed to place on their food labels.

According to the preemption argument, the judge, Judge Mary Cooper, cited that the Food and Drug Administration’s product labeling regulations actually prohibited the plaintiffs from arguing such a case as it was based on state laws rather than federal laws, stating that the regulations “so thoroughly occupy the field of the beverage labeling at issue in this case that it would be unreasonable to infer that Congress intended states to supplement this area.”

In November 2008, Snapple introduced a new beverage line with a revised formula and a new bottle design. The new recipe focused on the drinks’ black and green tea leaves and actually replaced the man-made high fructose corn syrup with real sugar.

The company cited that their decision to makeover their drink recipes and bottles was due to increased competition by other tea and juice makers. Their sales figures from previous years seem to prove this statement, especially in consideration of the fact that more and more tea and juice beverages are being introduced on the market.

However, even though Snapple refrained from using high fructose corn syrup in 2008, it did not help in preventing the class action lawsuit from being revisited.

Now, almost two years later, this same consumer-fraud lawsuit has been revived in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, based on the finding that it was not, in fact, excluded from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations that cover food labeling rules. The revived law suit still argues that Snapple’s iced tea contained an artificial sweetener, high fructose corn syrup, even though the label stated that the drink was ‘all natural’. The law suit will now be on behalf of all consumers who purchased ‘all natural’ Snapple prior to the conversion in November 2008.

High fructose corn syrup is a man made ingredient composed of fructose and glucose. It is commonly used in a variety of foods and beverages and is behind one of the nation’s worst epidemics of all time – obesity. Unfortunately, high fructose corn syrup is cheaper to make, purchase and use than natural sugar. This is partly due to corn subsidies which are provided by the US government.

It is interesting to note that the the Corn Refiners Association immediately filed an amicus curaie brief on behalf of Snapple.

A panel of three judges concluded that “neither Congress nor the FDA intended to occupy the field of food and beverage labeling and juice products” in such a way that would prevent suits that are filed in a state court from challenging the truthfulness of product labels.

The judges further stated: “It does not appear that Congress has regulated so comprehensively in either the food and beverage or juice fields that there is no role for the states.”

A spokesman for Snapple, Greg Artkop, was quoted as saying: “We believe Snapple is all-natural and we’re confident we’ll ultimately prevail.”

The Plano, Texas based company, Dr Pepper Snapple, has actually reported a second-quarter profit that overcame analysts’ dim estimates and increased its 2009 forecast. The company’s net income was reported as rising to 46% to $158 million, equaling out to be roughly 62 cents per share from $108 million (42 cents per share) last year.

It seems that the company’s stock increased after a statement that predicted that the company’s earnings would soar to $1.96 per share this year.

To learn more about this class action law suit against the Snapple manufacture, you can search the court documents for Stacy Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp, 08-3060, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Philadelphia).

Photo Credit: justinlai