As someone with an insatiable sweet tooth, I was fascinated when I found out that hormones in our body affect how we perceive and crave sweetness. They do this according to our body's nutritional needs. Since I have a pretty bad sweet tooth, does this mean my body needs more of it? Not exactly. A recent article in The Economist explains that scientists have done the first step; they've isolated hormones that affect our palate's sensitivity to sugar.

The reason why this study is so important is because it may lead doctors and nutritionists to find a solution for ways of reducing the desire for sugar-heavy foods, and thus reduce calorie-intake. Yuzo Ninomiya, a neuroscientist at Kyushu University in Japan, researched the effects of leptin, a hormone that regulates appetite and metabolism. His results show that when leptin levels are low, we are more sensitive to sugar, which means something tastes sweeter than when our leptin levels are low. The level of the hormone increases over the day. This might explain why we tend to eat lots of sugar in the morning ('cause it tastes so good!).

So, it seems, if scientists can figure out how to raise leptin levels (or at least keep them steady) throughout the day, then all of us sweet-tooth types might have a chance at eating less cake!

In a world full of sweets, it's not easy to avoid them. What are some ways you control your sugar intake?

After a decision earlier this month by Pennsylvania lawmakers to remove all mention of hormone-treated cows on milk containers, Governor Ed Rendell vehemently disagreed and reversed the issue, allowing the references to stay. The decision was initially enacted because State Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff said the labels might cause consumers to think the treated milk was somehow inferior to non-treated milk, therefore slowing sales.

Why the sudden change? Rendell, along with the Consumers Union, dairy farms, and even Ben and Jerry's representatives thought that consumers deserved the right to know how their drinks were being produced. However, dairies that do choose to label their milk as "hormone-free" also have to list a disclaimer that their milk is no safer than milk that does contain hormones. This is because, despite rumors that hormones cause girls to hit puberty earlier or cause certain types of cancer, no research has proven either of these statements.

However, this hasn't stopped Canada from banning use of the hormone, which is used because it supposedly boosts milk production by 10%. Canada's reasoning? They say it causes mastitis, or udder infection, and reduces the number of pregnancies.

What do you think? Do you want to know whether or not your milk comes from hormone-treated cows? And how much does this fact - whether or not the cows were treated - affect what kind of milk you buy?

Ask the barista how much milk they go through in one day then next time you go into Starbucks for a latte. At some stores, the baristas probably far to busy to take note of the number of gallons used, but it is safe to say that it is a lot. And with over 5,500 stores in the US, Starbucks must be one of the largest consumers in the country, so the dairy industry will feel the effects of Starbucks decision to drop all dairy containing the artificial growth hormone RBGH. So far, the coffeehouse has hormone free milk at stores on the west coast (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, New Mexico and Northern California) and in New England, or roughly 37% of all of their dairy products. The company is still developing their plan to phase out the milk from the rest of their stores and it is safe to say that it will be a gradual process when it begins.

Representatives from the dairy industry who support the use of the hormone say that it is only a matter of time before Starbucks passes increased costs onto consumers, but supporters of the switch say that more dairy farmers will stop using the hormone as consumers and businesses look for dairy produced without it, keeping prices under control. Starbucks has not said how this change has affected their operating costs, but will say that they are not planning to raise drink prices as a result of the switch.

Although many consumers are concerned with the standard of living of the cows, one of the primary reasons that people buy organic milk is because they are concerned about drinking milk from cows that have been treated with hormones, specifically the growth hormone rBST. The hormone has been in use since 1993 and estimates say that about 22% of cows are regularly treated with it. Only about 3% of the milk market is covered by organic milk and, due to demand and the higher operating costs of organic farms, organic milk can cost consumers twice as much as conventional milk.

For both consumers and producers, there is a middle ground: hormone free milk. Dairies do not have to meet the standards for organic milk, which is good from a time/cost perspective, but they can charge more for the hormone-free milk than for conventional. The non-rBST milk is usually priced right between conventional and organic, so shoppers can save and still get milk they feel comfortable drinking.

No additives, no hormones. no chemicals... do these phrases mean what you think they mean? The Diet Detective has a little guide to help you figure out what these designations mean, and it isn't always what you think.

• No antibiotics - Some antibiotics are given to treat sick animals, and given to the whole herd when one animal is ill. The "subtheraputic" use of drugs to boost animal growth is the main concern here, and labeling usually differentiates between the two. Organic farmers cannot use any animal for organic products that has been treated with antibiotics, so they are simple separated from the herd if they must be treated.
• No chemicals - This label means nothing (or anything at all), since there is no USDA or FDA definition of the term.
• No additives - There are 2,800 potential additives for meat in the US and the labeling applies to what was added to the meat, such as colorings and flavorings - not what was fed to the animal in the first place.
• No hormones - Hormones are not allowed in the production of pork and poultry. Period. Cows can be given hormones to speed their growth, though, so if the label specifies that "No hormones [were] administered," the cow probably lived a healthy and natural life.

The Detective notes that because the regulations are in place, doesn't mean that they are always followed. In many cases, there is little in the way of follow-up to prove that all producers are living up to their labels. Many suppliers, however, do live up to the standards set by law, if not to a higher standard of their own. Labeling may not be fail-safe, but it's still more reliable than the alternatives of no labels or completely unsanctioned ones.

The Guardian recently featured a piece about the increasing amounts of soy in European and American diets. While many associate soy with centuries-old Eastern traditions, The Guardian article points out that soy products like tofu and soy sauce differ from the soy milk and soy burgers of today in that the older foods have been tempered by fermentation. Several sources in the piece voice concerns about phyto-estrogen levels in unfermented soy products and their possible links to cancer and unusual hormonal development. Some experts warn that the newness of such products is a cause for caution as their longterm effects have yet to be studied in depth.

Since the time I read that the growth hormones given to  cows seeped into their milk and meat, I have been a little more particular about the food I put in my shopping basket. When I later learned that children are reportedly entering puberty earlier and earlier, due in part to their diets, I made a solemn vow to buy as much organic food as possible. This is a somewhat selfish act on my part, I have an overbearing, precocious 8 year-old daughter and the longer I can stave off her pubescent years, the safer my sanity .

That said, it is quite expensive to buy organic. Our weekly food tab for a family of five is astronomical, due in no small part to all the products without additives. So in an effort to eat healthily and impart a good work ethic on my kids, we are purchasing a flock of chicks from a nearby ranch family. We will feed them, clean their cages, watch them live a happy eight or ten weeks in the mountain air and then we will chop off their heads, pluck their feathers and make them into soup and cordon blu. I am looking forward to seeing the little peepers, feeding them and eating fresh chicken dinners, but I am somewhat hesitant about that middle death-by-beheading part. My mother and my daughter, Cassidy, had a practice outing several weeks ago where they caught up a rooster and a couple of old hens. The owner did the chopping deed and my mother and daughter plucked the beasts. The next day we enjoyed fabulous chicken soup and dumplings, made all the better by my daughter's blow by blow account of the previous day's efforts.