What’s New

Request an Appointment

“Dropping Acid” Blog

Reflux Science You Can Digest

re·flux n [ L re- back + fluxus flow ] 1: a flowing back  2: a process of refluxing

This may come as a surprise, but reflux is more complicated and controversial than almost any other common disease.1-3 Reflux is like the elephant in the famous tale of the three blind men and the elephant:

The first blind man, feeling the leg of the elephant, exclaims, “I can see it clearly; the elephant is like a tree.” The second blind man holds the trunk and says, “No, the elephant is like a very large snake.” The third blind man grasps an ear. “Aha, you are both wrong,” he says. “The elephant is rather like a giant leaf.” Each of the blind men embraces a part of the truth, but none understands its entirety.

In this chapter, I will attempt to describe the whole elephant, drawing in large measure from my almost thirty years of basic scientific and clinical research into reflux disease.1-59

In the case of reflux, the three blind men might be represented by three medical specialties, each one focusing on a different part of the aerodigestive tract: (1) The otolaryngologist (ENT physician) specializes in the ears, nose, and throat; (2) the gastroenterologist (GI physician) specializes in the esophagus (the swallowing tube that connects the throat with the stomach); and (3) the pulmonologist (PUL physician) specializes in the lungs. Many other medical specialties encounter patients with reflux as well, including internists, family practitioners, pediatricians, and critical care specialists.

Reflux remains controversial. Part of the problem is that each medical specialty has its own language and set of diseases related to reflux. While “acid reflux” is the most common lay term for the disease, GERD and LPR are the terms widely used by GIs and ENTs, respectively. See Table 1 for a list of common terms for reflux. That there are so many different terms for reflux suggests fragmentation within the medical community with regard to the mechanisms and manifestations of disease. To make matters worse, most medical specialists remain unaware of the literature and research from other specialties. At least the three blind men in the fable shared their findings with each other—because medical specialists don’t.

Table 1: Most Common Medical Terms for Reflux

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD)

Reflux esophagitis, esophageal erosions

Extraesophageal reflux disease

Supraesophageal reflux disease

Atypical reflux disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR)

Silent reflux

The History of Reflux

In its most elemental form, reflux is the backflow of gastric (stomach) contents into the esophagus (the muscular swallowing tube between the throat and stomach). The term for this is gastroesophageal reflux. Reflux was not actually described until the twentieth century, but severe burning chest pain after eating, known as heartburn, was recognized in antiquity as a predictable outcome of gluttony.1

Reflux as a disease was first reported in 1935 by Winkelstein,60 who described “peptic ulcer of the esophagus.” He postulated that the esophageal injury was due to the backflow of the contents from the stomach. Prior to that, physicians had recognized diseases of the esophagus such as erosions, inflammation, and stricture (narrowing because of scarring), along with the symptom heartburn. However, they believed that those esophageal findings were attributable to diseases such as tuberculosis and gall stones.1

In the 1940s and 1950s, x-ray imaging of the esophagus became popular (using the barium swallow), and the finding of a hiatal hernia became synonymous with a diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (hiatal hernia is the name for an anatomic finding seen during a barium swallow; it is a kind of deformity of the stomach valve, known as the lower esophageal sphincter, in which the uppermost portion of the stomach slides upward into the chest).

At that time, the only effective anti-reflux medication was Tagamet (an H2-antagonist, similar to today’s Zantac), and for a person with severe heartburn and a hiatal hernia, anti-reflux surgery was often recommended.61,62 We now know that it isn’t that simple; that is, people can have reflux without a hiatal hernia, and people can have a hiatal hernia without having reflux. What is true is that many people with reflux do have such a hernia, which implies a relatively weak lower esophageal valve. However, the presence of a hiatal hernia is not an indication for surgery. Today, laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (“fundoplication”) is still the treatment of choice for many patients with severe or recalcitrant reflux, especially LPR.41,62,63

In the 1960s and 1970s, clinical (diagnostic) technology matured, including the growing use of esophageal manometry (to assess and measure swallowing and esophageal function),64,65 flexible endoscopes and endoscopy,66 and pH (acid) monitoring systems.67-69 With these diagnostics and some new treatments, a better understanding of managing GERD began to emerge.70-87 LPR, however, was still in the shadows.

Meanwhile, remember those three blind men? It is worthwhile to consider the history of reflux in terms of who discovered what and when. The fragmentation of the understanding of reflux as a disease is in large measure because of turf battles in academic medicine and ignorance of the research from other specialties.

In recent history, otolaryngology (ENT) and gastroenterology (GI) have been sharing the reflux pie, but the father of modern endoscopy was an ENT surgeon named Chevalier Jackson.88 In 1890, Jackson invented the distal-lighted esophagoscope—a hollow, rigid metal instrument for examining the esophagus.1 For most of the twentieth century, Jackson and his disciples in ENT were the ones performing endoscopy of the breathing and digestive passages.

In the late 1960s, with invention of the flexible endoscope,66 many of the specialists in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) became gastroenterologists. In the early 1980s, there was cooperation and collaboration between GI and ENT,3,5-7 but with the discovery of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), reflux into the larynx (voice box) and pharynx (throat), and with the advent of transnasal esophagoscopy24,33,45,58,89,90 (TNE), cooperation broke down. The problem was one of perception—each group witnessed different reflux manifestations and syndromes in their patients.

LPR Is Different Than GERD

Many reflux patients are frustrated because their doctors only understand classical GERD, so if their symptoms differ, they’re out of luck. While I was writing this book, I gave a preview chapter to a patient who shared it with her local doctor. She then reported to me that her local doctor insisted that her barium swallow showed no signs of reflux, and, that my chapter was “a lot of bunk.” “But he didn’t even read it,” she said. I tell this story here to emphasize that there is still a wide schism between specialties.

Prior to my work on LPR (silent reflux), there were a few brave pioneers who suggested that reflux was not just GERD; 91-100 however, the literature on it was sparse and most of the reports anecdotal. Some of those who deserve credit for seminal thinking on LPR and who most influenced me were Nels Olson,96 Don Cherry,91 Paul Ward,100 Paul Chodosh,94 and Bob Toohill.101 I remember Dr. Olson warning me that LPR was a hot potato subject, and that some of his academic contemporaries had tried to discredit him over his belief that LPR was ubiquitous and caused a myriad of airway diseases. Of course, when Dr. Olson talked about reflux, he referred to it as GERD. In the past two decades, there have been many reports linking reflux to diseases of the ears, nose, throat, and lungs.95-124

In 1991, the year my Triological Society thesis was published,1 I coined the term laryngopharyngeal reflux. I felt we needed a new way to describe the type of “silent” reflux seen in many of our patients. I chose that particular term to call attention to how the symptoms and manifestations were laryngeal and pharyngeal, not esophageal. I also believed that the diagnosis and treatment of LPR were different than for GERD. The idea was to intentionally create a nosological distinction between the specialties so that ENT physicians would consider ideas that did not yet have credibility among GI colleagues.

Incidentally, it was Dr. Walter Bo, chair of the anatomy department at Wake Forest University, who first uttered the term “silent reflux.” In 1988, Walter was my patient. After I explained how one could have reflux without also having heartburn, he rolled his eyes and said, “I get it. I have the silent kind of reflux.” “Yes, Walter,” I said. “That’s it; you have SILENT REFLUX.”

Although I was trained as an ENT (ear, nose, and throat) doctor, I began limiting my practice to laryngology (voice, throat, and swallowing disorders) in 1981, the same year I began noticing patients with laryngeal manifestations of reflux without heartburn. At the time, I was at Wake Forest University, and I went to gastroenterologists there to discuss my patients.

The head of the department was initially skeptical that reflux could actually affect the larynx. So I convinced one of his fellows to help me study my patients with hoarseness using pH devices that were available for monitoring GERD in the GI department.

In 1984, we began to study patients with laryngeal inflammation, whether or not they had GI symptoms; most of them didn’t. The patients actually wore two separate pH monitors—small, soft catheters, one of which went into the esophagus, the other into the throat. Both tubes were connected to minicomputers that continuously measured acidity. The computers recorded any reflux events that occurred and stored the information for subsequent analysis.

Thus was born ambulatory 24-hour double-probe (simultaneous pharyngeal and esophageal) pH monitoring.

We reported our first pH testing results in 1986.5 Yes, the patients with hoarseness had reflux into the throat. By 1987, I had my own reflux-testing laboratory and we were beginning to accumulate data suggesting that LPR patients typically had reflux patterns that were qualitatively and quantitatively different from patients with classic GERD.1,6,7,15,17

Sadly even today, quality reflux testing is only performed in a few places.  At the Voice Institute of New York, we routinely employ complete high-definition manometry, ambulatory (simultaneous pharyngeal and esophageal) pH monitoring with ISFET technology and new software that analyzes the data at every pH level,3 and transnasal esophagoscopy. This combination of technologies defines the patterns, mechanisms, and severity of disease so that treatment can be customized for each patient. That is the state of the art.

By 1989, we already understood that the mechanisms and patterns of reflux in LPR were different than those of GERD.1,3-7,23,27,33 Most GERD patients had heartburn, esophagitis, dysmotility, and a supine (nocturnal) reflux pattern with prolonged periods of acid/pepsin exposure.1-3,5-7,10,17,27,32,33 Conversely, LPR patients usually did not have heartburn or esophagitis, and an upright (daytime) reflux pattern predominated.1-3,5-7,32,33 A summary of the typical differences between LPR and GERD is shown below.

Table 2: Summary of the Typical Differences Between GERD & LPR

GERD                   LPR


Heartburn and/or regurgitation                                          ++++                        +

Hoarseness, cough, dysphagia, globus                                  +                          ++++


Heartburn and/or regurgitation                             ++++                     +

Hoarseness, cough, dysphagia, globus                   +                           ++++

Test Results

Erosive esophagitis or Barrett’s                            +++                        +

Abnormal esophageal pH monitoring                    ++++                     ++

Abnormal pharyngeal pH monitoring                    +                            ++++

Esophageal dysmotility                                         +++                        +

Abnormal esophageal acid clearance                    ++++                     +

Pattern of Reflux

Supine (nocturnal) reflux                                      ++++                     +

Upright (daytime) reflux                                       +                            ++++

Both (abnormal upright and supine reflux)    +       +++

Response to Treatment

Effectiveness of diet & lifestyle modifications          ++                        +

Successful treatment with single-dose PPIs*          +++                      +

Successful treatment with twice-daily PPIs           ++++                     +++

PPIs = Proton pump inhibitors (such as Nexium, Protonix, Prilosec, Prevacid, and Zegerid)

Pepsin, Not Acid, Causes Reflux Disease (LPR and GERD)

One of the key differences between LPR and GERD is that the thresholds for laryngeal and esophageal damage are quite different.1,39,42,49 Based on normative pH monitoring data, one can have up to 50 esophageal reflux (pH <4) events, occurring mostly after meals, and that is considered normal. In the larynx, as few as three episodes a week may be too many.1 In addition, pepsin, and not acid, is the primary injurious component of the refluxate.1,28,39,125-128 From animal experiments, we know that acid and pepsin in combination (i.e., activated pepsin) produces more tissue damage than any other combination of enzymes. Adding bile salts to the mix, for example, reduces the potency of the refluxate.1,127,128

The GI and ENT literature both agree that it is pepsin and not acid that produces tissue damage.1,127,128 Unfortunately, some of the GI literature suggests that pepsin is inactive above pH 4; however, those experiments were done using pig pepsin.126 Our laboratory has unequivocally demonstrated that human pepsin is active up to pH 6.54 See the pepsin activity curve in “What You Eat Could Be Eating You,” page 24.

Most of the important bench research including reflux-related cell biology was performed in my laboratory at Wake Forest University and with collaborators in the United Kingdom.28,39,42,47-49,51,53-57 The papers were reported in prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journals, yet it would seem that this robust scientific literature has gone largely unnoticed outside the specialty of ENT.

Here is a summation of the most important findings and their implications for understanding reflux disease:

• Pepsin, the main digestive enzyme of the stomach, can attach (bind) to tissue and destroy protein, gain access to the cell, and disrupt normal cellular function.39,42,48,49,53-55,124,129

•  Pepsin requires some acid for its activation, and human pepsin is active across the pH range from 1–6, with 100 percent activity at pH 2 and 10 percent activity at pH 6.54

•  Patients with reflux laryngitis (LPR) have pepsin on and within their laryngeal tissue, and that pepsin can remain attached for a long time, which may be reactivated by acid from any source, including acidic foods and beverages.42

•  In studies to date, the tissue-damage protein profiles for reflux laryngitis and for laryngeal ­­cancer are similar;3,39 see Table 4.

•  Reflux is associated with the development of Barrett’s Esophagus, a precursor of esophageal cancer; it occurs as frequently in patients with LPR symptoms as it does in patients with classical GERD.131-135

•  Clinically, patients with reflux symptoms improve when the amount of acid in the diet is limited.136 Dr. Koufman reported results of a clinical trial of a series of patients with recalcitrant LPR. (Recalcitrant was defined as failed treatment on high-dose anti-reflux medicines.) These patients were treated with the Induction Reflux Diet (nothing below pH 5) for a minimum of two weeks; and 95 percent improved significantly, and notably some became completely symptom free.136

•  Finally, the prevalence of all forms of reflux is increasing, especially among the younger population in the United States.137

Integrated Aerodigestive Medicine

In attempting to describe the whole elephant, I must reiterate that the three blind men exemplify the fragmentation of the medical community. In 2009, I spoke on “Specialization: When Being the Best Isn’t Good Enough,” in a presidential address to the American Broncho-Esophagological Association. In that speech, I urged that the specialties of otolaryngology, gastroenterology, and pulmonology might be merged to form a new “specialty,” Integrated Aerodigestive Medicine. The problem with specialists, I argued, is that they only know about a defined anatomic zone; however, reflux is a disease of the entire aerodigestive tract, the components of which are shown in the
Table 3.

These anatomic zones are all connected to each other and it is preposterous to presume that reflux disease respects the boundaries of our medical specialties. It is puzzling, for example, why pulmonary doctors have been slow to embrace reflux as an important cause of pulmonary disease.8,15,106,107 In my opinion, LPR is responsible for up to 70 percent of lung disease.

I am an expert on LPR and silent reflux. I actually coined both terms. I recognize, however, that I am still one of the blind men in spite of my desire to take care of whole patients. This work points to the urgent need for collaborative research, particularly in translational cell biology that crosses specialty lines.

In a later section of this chapter, “The Missing Link,” you will see that there is another gaping hole in our knowledge: We know almost nothing about environmental medicine and about the health risks of what we eat. I fear that within our lifetimes we have all been part of an appalling scientific experiment in which unintended and unforeseen consequences of well-intentioned scientists—whose focus was to make food safe from bacterial contamination—might have led us to a national public health crisis. Reflux is ubiquitous and its consequences are serious, even deadly.

Table 3

Components of the Aerodigestive Tract

Nose and sinuses

Mouth (oral cavity)

Throat (pharynx)

Voice box (larynx)

Swallowing tube (esophagus)

Stomach and upper intestines

Breathing tube (trachea) and lungs

Reflux and Cancer

One of the most frequent questions patients ask is whether reflux can cause cancer. I believe the answer is an emphatic yes. That is part of the reason this book is so concerned about the acidity of today’s typical diet.

We have not yet proven that reflux causes laryngeal and vocal cord cancer, but there is strong circumstantial clinical evidence along with bench research to support it.1,7,9,39,114,119-124 We believe that one can get laryngeal cancer without smoking, but not without the presence of reflux.4,39 This section presents six arguments to support this concept.

1. Many patients with laryngeal cancer are non-smokers or ex-smokers. We prospectively studied 50 adult patients with early vocal cord cancer.9 Of them,
44 percent (22/50) were active smokers, 42 percent (21/50) were ex-smokers with a median duration of smoking cessation of eight years, and 14 percent (7/50) were lifetime non-smokers. Using pH monitoring, we found that 68 percent of the patients had reflux, almost twice as many as those who were actually smokers. And remember, in the study group, there were seven lifetime non-smokers.9

2. Some people get recurrent, small, reflux-related vocal cord cancers that are periodically removed with a surgical laser. We’ve seen many such cases over the years. Significantly, almost half of those patients stop making cancer when their reflux is controlled. The same is true for patients with pre-cancers called dysplasia and leukoplakia.1,114

3. When different groups of patients are tested for reflux, including those with cough, sore throat, etc., the highest proportion of those demonstrating reflux are the cancer patients. In 1991, we reported abnormal reflux testing in 84 percent (21/25) of patients with laryngeal cancer, five of whom were lifetime non-smokers.1

4. We compared the reflux (pH) testing results of smokers and non-smokers and found that smokers had twice as much reflux, both in the esophagus and the throat. Cigarette smoking is specifically associated with relaxation of the upper and lower esophageal valves within two minutes, and reflux episodes occur with two-thirds of cigarettes smoked.55,138

5. Our laboratory has examined the impact of reflux on a cellular level in human patients and in animal models and found tremendous similarities in the larynx between patients who have LPR and patients who have cancer. Of those studies, the most important was an analysis of biopsies for the presence of pepsin within the laryngeal tissue. Pepsin was found in 5 percent (1/20) of normal controls without reflux. On the other hand, 95 percent of LPR patients with reflux into the throat had pepsin in their laryngeal biopsy tissue, and 100 percent (5/5) of laryngeal cancer patients tested had pepsin within the cancerous tissue.39,47,55 In addition, extraordinary landmark experiments in cell biology by Nikki Johnston et al. 42,47,48,51.53,54,124 showed that pepsin up-regulates the genes that cause cancer in a way that suggests that pepsin is actually the cause of laryngeal cancer.124

6. There are similarities between laryngeal cancer and esophageal cancer. Figure 1 below shows the presence of pepsin in reflux laryngitis by a special staining technique (Figure 1A), and within a Barrett’s Esophagus biopsy specimen (Figure 1B).

The table below summarizes the cell biology findings. As you can see, reflux and laryngeal cancer have the same protein profiles except for one stress protein, HSP70.4,39,47-49

Table 4

Tissue Profile of LPR, Carcinoma, and Controls

Controls           LPR            Cancer

Pepsin                     None +              +

CAIII ↔                    ↓                ↓

E-Cadherin ↔                    ↓                ↓

SEP70                   ↔                    ↓                ↓

SEP53                   ↔                    ↓                ↓

HSP70 ↔                    ↔               ↓

+ = Positive (present)

= Normal (baseline) level

= Decreased compared to normal controls

As previously mentioned, esophageal cancer is one of the fastest growing cancers in the United States, and we are finding Barrett’s Esophagus, a known reflux-related form of pre-cancer, in approximately 7 percent of our LPR reflux patients.33,44,52 It is striking and significant to note that Barrett’s Esophagus is found just as often in ENT patients with silent reflux (symptoms of coughing and hoarseness) as in GI patients with heartburn.134

In summary, there is clinical and scientific evidence that reflux, mainly pepsin, may cause cancer of the larynx and esophagus.

The brown material in biopsy specimens shown in Figure 1A & 1B is pepsin stained by a special technique. It’s easy to see how dietary acid from above could stimulate that pepsin the same way as could acid from below.

One of our biggest concerns is that a huge population of Americans is potentially at risk to develop cancer, and that we have no methodology for identifying the most susceptible. As clinicians, we can certainly say that we are seeing increasingly more and more reflux in increasingly younger patients; and this in our opinion, is an ominous warning sign.

We recognize that we may be criticized as alarmists, and we regret that we cannot prove all of our assertions and beliefs just yet. However, our data and clinical impressions deserve to be in the public domain so that other researchers and clinicians can investigate the relationships we’ve presented. We believe that diet is the missing link and that our diet may be killing us, and it is time for us to aggressively explore these variables and fix them.

By the way, people who are rightfully worried about cancer deserve to be checked. The technology has changed. Doctors can now look inside while patients are awake, comfortable, and without pain, using a technique called transnasal esophagoscopy.29,33,58,134 The idea that you can only be checked for cancer in a special facility and under anesthesia is archaic.

The Missing Link

Why is reflux epidemic? Why is esophageal cancer one of the fastest growing cancers in America? Why are so many people with reflux failing medical treatment? We believe that the answer is related to high levels of dietary acid. How and when did this happen?

While this story of the reflux epidemic focuses on acid, we should point out that since WWII there have been four significant dietary trends, counting the increased acidification of prepared foods and beverages, there are: Increased saturated fat; increased sugar (low-glycemic index carbs); and increased use of preservatives, stabilizers, thickeners, and artificial sweeteners. Here’s the story.

Table 5

Landmarks and Milestones in the American Diet

1886          Coca-Cola invented; Pepsi Cola invented in 1893

1919          American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages formed

1952          First diet soda pop sold (Kirsch No-Cal Ginger Ale)

1955          McDonald’s Corporation formed; fast food is born

1962          Instant foods become common in American homes

1963          McDonald’s begins marketing meals for families

1965          Canned soda first distributed in vending machines

1966          The National Soft Drink Association is formed

1967          High-fructose corn syrup is introduced

1973          Title 21: Law is in response to outbreak of botulism

1985          “New Coke” introduced with high-fructose syrup

1990          Nutrition Labeling and Information Act passed

2003          Report: Junk food represents 1⁄3 of American calories

How and When the American Diet Changed

Coca-Cola was invented in 1886 by a pharmacist in Atlanta, and Pepsi Cola came along a few years later.140 These were fountain drinks and weren’t actually bottled until the twentieth century. Coca-Cola rose to prominence as America’s drink during and after WWII. While the recipe and ingredients have changed over the years, this drink and others like it have always been very acidic. The current pH (acidity) of Coca-Cola is 2.8, as acidic as stomach acid itself.

The American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages was formed in 1919. After many years and a few name changes, they became a national lobby.

The first diet soda pop made its debut in 1952. This represented a new potential market for the soda industry, but it also introduced a host of additives and chemicals. Today, some diet drinks are more acidic than their non-diet counterparts.

In 1955, Roy Kroc started the McDonald’s Corporation. Most baby boomers can remember when they first encountered McDonald’s. (Personally, I recall buying a hamburger in Dedham, Massachusetts, in the early 1960s for 19 cents.)

By 1962, instant foods, such as instant milk and instant pudding, were common in almost every American household. These products were essentially carryovers from WWII rations made palatable for the consumer. Incidentally, it was also around then that I believe the term “mystery meat” was first invented.

In 1963, McDonald’s began advertising meals for families. It was a milestone for marketing and public relations, as well as a paradigm shift—the idea that this type of fast food was appropriate for family dining, that you could get an inexpensive meal outside the home in a fast-food restaurant. Until then, people looked on fast food as inferior, but through this marketing coup, fast food became integral to the American diet. This meant more soda pop, more beef, more fries, and more saturated fat for the nation’s consumers.

By 1965, canned soda pop was available in vending machines, and diet and regular soda came in many flavors. No longer just soda-fountain drinks, these beverages were available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for anybody who had a dime and a nickel.

In 1966, the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages changed its name to the National Soft Drink Association and went on to become a powerful lobby, successfully fighting consumer groups that attempted to limit access to soda pop in venues such as public schools. In 2004, it changed its name again, this time to the American Beverage Association. In 2009, the ABA spent over $19 million on marketing, promotion, and lobbying, with 25 lobbyists at seven different firms on its payroll—an increase in spending of 1000 percent over the previous election cycle.141 Recently, they have helped defeat laws to raise taxes on high-sugar drinks. You can read more about this online at the Center for Responsive Politics—“Lobbying 2009: American Beverage Association.”141

When high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was introduced in the late 1960s, our food supply really changed. Within two decades, it found its way into use in American soda products and other sweetened beverages, as well as other food products. HFCS is more fattening (more calories, ounce per ounce, than sugar) and less expensive than sugar. Since the introduction of HFCS, the public’s consumption of it has grown to equal that of cane and beet sugar. It has recently become a target in America’s battle against the obesity epidemic. Once HFCS became an ingredient in soda, soda became more fattening and higher in low-glycemic sugar.

In response to an outbreak of botulism in 1973, Congress passed Title 21, a law giving the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate canned and bottled goods that crossed state lines.

The introduction of “New Coke” in 1985 was met with loud boos and great disdain by angry “Coke-aholics,” who complained that it was a syrupy drink without any kick. Coke lovers called it “worse than Pepsi.” At the time, I knew that the “new” Coke was simply a ruse to substitute high-fructose syrup for sugar. Indeed, when “Coke Classic” returned to the market and “New Coke” disappeared, corn syrup had been successfully substituted for real sugar, completing one of the most brilliant cost-savings ploys in manufacturing and marketing history.

In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Information Act to help guide consumers in making healthy choices about the food they purchase, and to encourage manufacturers to produce healthier products. It suggests a dawning realization that consumers have a right to know what, exactly, they are eating.

By 2003, the obesity epidemic was national news, with a focus on saturated fat and low-glycemic sugar. Meanwhile, despite all the labeling efforts, Americans continued to consume a large portion of their calories from “junk food.”

In 2009, the average annual sugar intake per person was a staggering 142 pounds, the average sodium intake per day was 4500 mg, and the average daily saturated fat intake was approximately 20 grams.142

The FDA’s “Good Manufacturing Practices”

Title 21 underwent major revisions and was expanded in 1979 with the creation of “Good Manufacturing Practices.” These practices set higher levels of certain food additives and acidity levels in pre-packaged food to discourage bacterial growth and reduce the likelihood of bacterial contamination. The idea that acidification of the food supply might have adverse consequences was not considered in any of the documented discussions about food safety.143

The acidification of food has long been used as a means to preserve it, but it wasn’t until the modern era that the process evolved to prevent and regulate bacterial growth in food traveling long distances to sit on a store shelf. The FDA’s system of “Good Manufacturing Practices” through Title 21 regulations does not regulate what acids and preservatives within a broad group are used; it only requires the pH to be below 4.6, a level low enough to discourage most bacteria. In fact, Title 21 encourages acidification of foods and beverages to pH 4.0 and below:

“Acidified foods shall be so manufactured, processed, and packaged that a finished equilibrium pH value of 4.6 or lower is achieved . . . If the finished equilibrium pH is 4.0 or below, then the measurement of acidity of the final product may be made by any suitable method.”

[April 1, 2002; U.S. Government Printing Office, 21CFR114.80]

That sentence implies that the FDA is incentivizing manufacturers to acidify their product to pH <4.0. “Any suitable method” would presumably allow testing with just a pH meter to show that the pH was less than 4.0.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approved Food Additives

A corollary question to consider is what kind of food additives are being used to achieve these FDA-regulated acidity levels. It turns out there are 333 substances that are FDA approved—they are affectionately referred to as GRAS, for “Generally Recognized as Safe.”144, 145

In February 2010, the Government Accountability Office146 (GAO), a non-partisan group appointed by Congress to investigate federal agencies, published a scathing report to Congress.

Here is the first paragraph of  “Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).”147

“FDA’s oversight process does not help ensure the safety of all new GRAS (“Generally Recognized as Safe”) determinations. FDA only reviews those GRAS determinations that companies submit to the agency’s voluntary notification program—the agency generally does not have information about other GRAS determinations companies have made because companies are not required to inform FDA of them. Furthermore, FDA has not taken certain steps that could help ensure the safety of GRAS determinations, particularly those about which the agency has not been notified. FDA has not issued guidance to companies on how to document their GRAS determinations or monitored companies to ensure that they have conducted GRAS determinations appropriately. Lastly, FDA has yet to issue a final regulation for its 1997 proposed rule that sets forth the framework and criteria for the voluntary notification program, potentially detracting from the program’s credibility.”

This states that not only was there inadequate oversight of the approval process, but that food manufacturers themselves and not the FDA were left to determine the “safety” of the additives they chose to employ in their products. For all intents and purposes, this process is industry self-regulated, providing the food additives comply with the list of approved GRAS substances. This is like asking tobacco manufacturers to tell us whether cigarette smoke is harmful or not.

Throughout the scientific community and in the literature and published reports dealing with food safety and food additives, we have not seen concerns raised about the possible adverse health consequences of food acidification. By the way, 13 percent of the GRAS substances are acids, including hydrochloric acid, which is considered a safe food additive.

An interesting report in September 2009 from the Ohio State Medical Center found that the age-adjusted incidence of all cancers among Amish adults in Ohio was 60 percent that of other adults, and only 37 percent of the control group for “tobacco-related” cancers139—including of the pharynx, larynx, and esophagus. In addition to the fact that the Amish drink and smoke less, the authors never specifically discussed the role of diet. We suggest that one possible explanation for the favorable cancer rates among the Amish is that they don’t eat highly acidified and preservative-laden food.139

It is important to remember that reflux causes many different symptoms other than heatburn and indigestion. Silent reflux affects the voice box, throat, and lungs, and causes symptoms of cough, sore throat, hoarseness, and asthma, among others. Those are the most common symptoms for which people see doctors in America. Therefore, it is important for both doctors and patients to recognize that reflux is not always classic reflux (gastroesophageal disease, GERD). Based upon the author’s experience, it is likely that reflux is grossly under-diagnosed and under-treated. For a review of the symptoms, see “How Do I Know if I Have Reflux?” on page 31.

Summary and Conclusions

Why is reflux epidemic and why are esophageal cancer rates soaring? The cell biology (basic science) of reflux in conjunction with clinical experience has shown that a highly acidic diet is harmful for people with reflux. Amazing as it may seem, until now no one has investigated this problem, but even more amazingly no one has ever considered the possibility that there might be adverse health consequences of systemic acidification of America’s food.

We believe that acidic food is indeed the reason reflux is epidemic and the reason that esophageal cancer (and pre-cancer, i.e., Barrett’s esophagus) is increasing in prevalence so dramatically. From our point of view, we try to eat fresh, organic, non-processed foods and generally avoid acids.  For most people, there is probably a middle road—having a glass of orange juice or soda pop once in a while doesn’t cause reflux disease—but if that’s all you drink day in and day out, it’s likely to be a problem. For people with known reflux disease, a period of “acid/pepsin detox” makes good sense.

People will ask if we have proven these claims beyond a reasonable doubt —that dietary acid causes disease. We respond that we have cited here sound scientific evidence and the state of the art of clinical medicine. We believe that our data are compelling and speak for themselves. It is likely that we are dealing with an important public health issue. Yes, we are worried about the implications of all this, aren’t you?


  1. 1.            Koufman JA. The Otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): A clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring and an experimental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in the development of laryngeal injury. Laryngoscope 101 (Suppl. 53):1–78, 1991.
  2. 2.            Koufman JA, Aviv JE, Casiano RR, Shaw GY. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: Position statement of the Committee on Speech, Voice and Swallowing Disorders of the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 127:32–35, 2002.
  3. 3.            Koufman JA. Perspectives on laryngopharyngeal reflux: From silence to omnipresence. In Classics in Voice and Laryngology. Branski R, Sulica L, Eds. PP 179–189, Plural Publishing, San Diego, 2009.
  4. 4.            Little FB, Koufman JA, Kohut RI, Marshal RB. Effect of gastric acid on the pathogenesis of subglottic stenosis. Ann of Otol Rhinol Laryngol 94:516–519, 1985.
  5. 5.            Wiener GJ, Copper JB, Wu WC, Koufman JA, Richter JE, Castell DO. Is hoarseness an atypical manifestation of gastroesophogeal reflux? Gastroenterology 90:A1691, 1986.
  6. 6.            Koufman JA, Wiener GJ, Wu WC, Castell DO. Reflux laryngitis and its sequelae: The diagnostic role of 24-hour pH monitoring. J Voice 2:78–89, 1988.
  7. 7.            Weiner GJ, Koufman JA, Wu WC, et al. Chronic hoarseness secondary to gastroesophageal reflux disease: Documentation with 24-H ambulatory pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 84:12, 1989.
  8. 8.            Koufman JA. Aerodigestive manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux. What we don’t yet know. Chest 104:1321-1322, 1993.
  9. 9.            Koufman JA, Cummins MM. Reflux and early laryngeal carcinoma. Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Section of the Triological Society. Key West, FL. January 6, 1995.
  10. Koufman JA, Sataloff RT, Toohill R. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: Consensus report. J Voice 10:215–216, 1996.
  11. Loughlin CJ, Koufman JA. Paroxysmal laryngospasm secondary to gastroesophageal reflux. Laryngoscope 106:1502–1505, 1996.
  12. Loughlin CJ, Koufman JA, Averill DB, Cummins MM, Yong-Jae K, Little JP, Miller Jr. IJ, Meredith W. Acid-induced laryngospasm in a canine model. Laryngoscope 106:1506–1509, 1996.
  13. Koufman JA. Methods and compositions for the diagnosis of extraesophageal reflux. United States Patent 5,879,897, 1996.
  14. Koufman JA, Burke AJ. The etiology and pathogenesis of laryngeal carcinoma. Oto Clin N A 30:1–19, 1997.
  15. Little JP, Matthews BL, Glock MS, Koufman JA, Reboussin DM, Loughlin CJ, McGuirt Jr. WF. Extraesophageal pediatric reflux: 24-hour double-probe pH monitoring of 222 children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 169: 1–16, 1997.
  16. Matthews BL, Little JP, McGuirt Jr. WF, Koufman JA. Reflux in infants with laryngomalacia: Results of 24-hour double-probe pH monitoring. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120:860–864, 1999.
  17. Koufman JA, Amin M, Panetti M. Prevalence of reflux in 113 consecutive patients with laryngeal and voice disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123:385–388, 2000.
  18. Reulbach TR, Belafsky PC, Blalock PD, Koufman JA, Postma GN. Occult laryngeal pathology in a community-based cohort. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 124:448–450, 2001.
  19. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms improve before changes in physical findings. Laryngoscope 111: 979–981, 2001.
  20. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS). Laryngoscope 111:1313–1317, 2001.
  21. Amin MR, Koufman JA. Vagal neuropathy after upper respiratory infection: a viral etiology? Am J Otolaryngol 22:251–256, 2001.
  22. Duke SG, Postma GN, McGuirt Jr. WF, Ririe D, Averill DB, Koufman JA. Laryngospasm and diaphragmatic arrest in the immature canine after laryngeal acid exposure: A possible model for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 110:729–733, 2001.
  23. Amin MR, Postma GN, Johnson P, Digges N, Koufman JA. Proton pump inhibitor resistance in the treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:374–378, 2001.
  24. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Daniels E, Koufman JA. Transnasal esophagoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:588–589, 2001.
  25. Johnson PE, Koufman JA, Nowak LJ, Belafsky PC, Postma GN. Ambulatory 24-hour double-probe pH monitoring: The importance of manometry. Laryngoscope 111:1970–1975, 2001.
  26. Smoak BR, Koufman JA. Effects of gum chewing on pharyngeal and esophageal pH. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 110:1117–1119, 2001.
  27. Postma GN, Tomek MS, Belafsky PC, Koufman JA. Esophageal motor function in laryngopharyngeal reflux is superior to that of classic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 110:1114–1116, 2001.
  28. Axford SE, Sharp S, Ross PE, Pearson JP, Dettmar PW, Panetti M, Koufman JA. Cell biology of laryngeal epithelial defenses in health and disease: Preliminary studies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 110:1099–1108, 2001.
  29. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125: 588–589, 2001.
  30. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Subglottic edema (pseudosulcus) as a manifestation of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126:649–652, 2002.
  31. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI). J Voice 16:274–277, 2002.
  32. Koufman JA. Laryngopharyngeal reflux is different from classic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Ear Nose Throat J. 81:7–9 2002.
  33. Koufman JA, Belafsky PC, Daniel E, Bach KK, Postma GN. Prevalence of esophagitis in patients with pH-documented laryngopharyngeal reflux. Laryngoscope 112:1606–1609, 2002.
  34. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Hiatal hernia. Ear Nose Throat J. 81:502, 2002.
  35. Koufman JA. Laryngopharyngeal reflux 2002: A new paradigm of airway disease. Ear Nose Throat J 81(9 Suppl 2) 2406, 2002.
  36. Cohen JT, Bach KK, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Clinical manifestations of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Ear Nose Throat J. 81:14–23, 2002.
  37. Postma GN, Johnson LF, Koufman JA. Treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Ear Nose Throat J. 81:24–6, 2002.
  38. Holland BW, Koufman JA, Postma GN, McGuirt Jr. WF. Laryngopharyngeal reflux and laryngeal web formation in patients with pediatric recurrent respiratory papillomas. Laryngoscope 112:1926–29, 2002.
  39. Johnston N, Bulmer D, Gill GA, Panetti M, Ross PE, Pearson JP, Pignatelli M, Axford A, Dettmar PW, Koufman JA. Cell biology of laryngeal epithelial defenses in health and disease: Further studies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 112:481–491, 2003.
  40. Cohen JT, Postma GN, Enriquez PS, Koufman JA. Barrett’s Esophagus. Ear Nose Throat J. 82:422, 2003.
  41. Westcott CJ, Hopkins MB, Bach KK, Postma GN, Belafsky PC, Koufman, JA. Fundoplication for laryngopharyngeal reflux. J American College of Surgeons 199:23–30, 2004.
  42. Johnston N, Knight J, Dettmar PW, Lively MO, Koufman J. Pepsin and carbonic anhydrase isoenzyme III as diagnostic markers for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Laryngoscope 114:2129–34, 2004.
  43. Halum SL, Butler SG, Koufman JA, Postma GN. Treatment of globus by upper esophageal sphincter injection with botulinum toxin A. ENT J Ear Nose Throat J 84:74, 2005.
  44. Postma GN, Cohen JT, Belafsky PC, Halum SL, Gupta SK, Bach KK, Koufman JA. Transnasal esophagoscopy revisited (over 700 consecutive cases). Laryngoscope 115:321–3, 2005.
  45. Carrau RL, Khidr A, Gold KF, Crawley JA, Hillson EM, Koufman JA, Pashos CL. Validation of a quality-of-life instrument for laryngopharyngeal reflux. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131:315–20, 2005.
  46. Halum SL, Postma GN, Johnston C, Belafsky PC, Koufman JA. Patients with isolated laryngopharyngeal reflux are not obese. Laryngoscope 115:1042–5, 2005.
  47. Knight J, Lively MO, Johnston N, Dettmar PW, Koufman JA. Sensitive pepsin immunoassay for detection of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Laryngoscope 115:1473–8, 2005.
  48. Johnston N, Dettmar PW, Lively MO, Postma GN, Belafsky PC, Birchall M, Koufman JA. Effect of pepsin on laryngeal stress protein (Sep70, Sep53, and Hsp70) response: Role in laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 115:47–58, 2005.
  49. Gill GA, Johnston N, Buda A, Pignatelli M, Pearson J, Dettmar PW, Koufman JA. Laryngeal epithelial defenses against laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR): Investigations of pepsin, carbonic anhydrase III, pepsin, and the inflammatory response. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 114:913–21, 2005.
  50. Koufman JA, Johnston WC, Wright SC. Laryngopharyngeal reflux is worse in smokers than non-smokers. (Unreported data 2005).
  51. Johnston N, Dettmar PW, Lively MO, Koufman JA. Effect of pepsin on laryngeal stress protein (Sep70, Sep53, and Hsp70) response: Role in laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 115:47–58, 2006.
  52. Halum SL, Postma GN, Bates DD, Koufman JA. Incongruence between histologic and endoscopic diagnoses of Barrett’s Esophagus using transnasal esophagoscopy. Laryngoscope. 116:303–6, 2006.
  53. Johnston N, Dettmar PW, Lively MO, Koufman JA. Effect of pepsin on laryngeal stress protein (Sep70, Sep53, and Hsp70) response: Role in laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 115:47–58, 2006.
  54. Johnston N, Dettmar PW, Bishwokarma B, Lively MO, Koufman JA. Activity/stability of human pepsin: Implications for reflux attributed laryngeal disease. Laryngoscope. 117:1036–9, 2007.
  55. Koufman JA, Lively MO, Rubin M, Nelson D, Johnston N, Bishwokarma B, Wright SC. Use of a sensitive ELISA for the detection of pepsin in the airway secretions of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and healthy controls. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Broncho-Esophagological Association. Orlando, FL. May 2, 2008.
  56. Rees LE, Pazmany L, Gutowska-Owsiak D, Inman CF, Phillips A, Stokes CR, Johnston N, Koufman JA, Postma G, Bailey M, Birchall MA. The mucosal immune response to laryngopharyngeal reflux. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 177:1187–93, 2008.
  57. Birchall MA, Bailey M, Gutowska-Owsiak D, Johnston N, Inman CF, Stokes CR, Postma G, Pazmary L, Koufman JA, Phillips A, Rees LE. Immunologic response of the laryngeal mucosa to extraesophageal reflux. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 117:891–5, 2008.
  58. Amin MR, Postma GN, Setzen M, Koufman JA. Transnasal esophagoscopy: A position statement from the American Bronchoesophagological Association (ABEA). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 138:411–13, 2008.
  59. Koufman JA, Block C. Differential diagnosis of paradoxical vocal fold movement. American Journal of Speech and Hearing 17:327–34, 2008.
  60. Winkelstein A. Peptic esophagitis: A new clinical entity. JAMA 104:906-909, 1935.
  61. Allison PR. Reflux esophogitis, sliding hiatal hernia, and the anatomy of repair. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1951: 92:419–431.
  62. Nissen R. Gastopexy and “fundoplication” in surgical treatment of hiatal hernia. Am J Dig Dis 6:954–961, 1961.
  63. Hunter J. Laparoscopic fundoplication. Ann Surg 223:673–687, 1996.
  64. Fyke FE, Code CF, Schlegel JF. The gastroesophageal sphincter in healthy human beings. Gastroenterologia [Basel] 86:135–150, 1956.
  65. Gerhardt DC, Shuck TJ, Bordeaux RA, Winship DH. Human upper esophageal sphincter. Response to volume, osmotic and acid stimuli. Gastroenterology 75:268–274, 1978.
  66. Burnett W. An evaluation of the gastroduodenal fibrescope. Gut 3:361–365, 1962.
  67. Miller FA, Dovale J, Gunther T. Utilization of inlying pH probe for evaluation of acid-peptic diathesis. Arch Surg 89:199–203, 1964.
  68. Spencer, J. Prolonged pH recording in the study of gastroesophageal reflux. Br J Surg, 56:912–914, 1969.
  69. DeMeester TR, Johnson LF, Joseph GJ, Toscano MS, Hall AW, Skinner DB. Patterns of gastroesophageal reflux in health and disease. Ann Surg 184: 459–470, 1976.
  70. Helm JF, Dodds WJ, Riedel DR, et al. Determinants of esophageal acid clearance in normal subjects. Gastroenterol 85:607–12, 1983.
  71. Rogers E, Goldkind S, Isri O, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus. A disease primarily of white men with Barrett’s Esophagus. J Clin Gastroenterol 8:613–618 1986.
  72. Vitale GC, Cheadle WG, Patel B, et al. The effect of alcohol on nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux. JAMA 258:2077–2079, 1987.
  73. Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SG. Treatment of reflux oesophagitis resistant to H2-receptor antagonists. Digestion (Supplement 1):47–53, 1989.
  74. Korsten MA, Rosman AS, Fishbein S, et al. Chronic xerostomia increases esophageal acid exposure and is associated with esophageal injury. Am J Med 90:701–706, 1990.
  75. Peghini PL, Katz PO, Bracy NA, Castell DO. Nocturnal recovery of gastric acid secretion with twice daily dosing of proton pump inhibitors. Am J Gastroenterol 93:763–767, 1998.
  76. Korsten MA, Rosman AS, Fishbein S, Shlein RD, Goldberg HE, Biener A. Chronic xerostomia increases esophageal acid exposure and is associated with esophageal injury. Am J Med. 90:701–706, 1991.
  77. Chiverton SG, Howden CW, Burget DW, Hunt RH. Omeprazole (20 mg) daily given in the morning or evening: A comparison of effects on gastric acidity, and plasma gastrin and omeprazole concentration. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 6:103–111, 1992.
  78. Jones AT, Balan KK, Jenkins SA, et al. Assay of gastricsin and individual pepsins in human gastric juice. J Clin Pathol. 46:254–258, 1993.
  79. Leite LP, Johnston BT, Just RJ, Castell DO. Persistent acid secretion during omeprazole therapy: A study of gastric acid profiles in patients demonstrating failure of omeprazole therapy. Am J Gastroenterol 91:1527–1531, 1996.
  80. Ho KY, Kang JY, Seow A. Prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in a multiracial Asian population, with particular reference to reflux-type symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol 93:1816–1822, 1998.
  81. Peghini PL, Katz PO, Bracy NA, Castell DO. Nocturnal recovery of gastric acid secretion with twice daily dosing of proton pump inhibitors. Am J Gastroenterol. 93:763–767, 1998.
  82. Maton PN, Orlando R, Joelsson B. Efficacy of omeprazole versus ranitidine for symptomatic treatment of poorly responsive acid reflux disease—a prospective, controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 13:819–826, 1999.
  83. Jansen JB, Van Oene JC. Standard-dose lansoprazole is more effective than high-dose ranitidine in achieving endoscopic healing and symptom relief in patients with moderately severe reflux oesophagitis. The Dutch Lansoprazole Study Group. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 13:1611–1620, 1999.
  84. El-Serag HB, Petersen NJ, Carter J, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux among different racial groups in the United States. Gastroenterology 126:1692–1699, 2004.
  85. Tambankar AP, Peters JH, Portale G, Hsieb C-C, Hagen JA, Bremner CG, DeMeester TR. Omeprazole does not reduce gastroesophageal reflux: New insights using multichannel impedance technology. J Gastroenterol Surg 8: 888–895, 2004.
  86. Kawamura O, Aslam M, Rittmann T, et al. Physical and pH properties of gastroesophagopharyngeal refluxate: A 24-hour simultaneous ambulatory impedance and pH monitoring study. Am J Gastroenterol. 99:1000–10, 2004.
  87. Lam P, Wei WI, Hui Y, Ho WK. Prevalence of pH-documented laryngopharyneal reflux in Chinese patients with clinically suspected reflux laryngitis. Am J Otolaryngol 27: 186–9, 2006.
  88. Jackson, C. The Life of Chevalier Jackson: An Autobiography. Macmillan Co., New York, p. 229, 1938.
  89. Aviv JE, Takoudes TG, Ma G, et al. Office-based esophagoscopy: A preliminary report. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:170–5, 2001.
  90. Jobe BA, Hunter JG, Chang EY, et al. Office-based unsedated small caliber endoscopy is equivalent to conventional sedated endoscopy in screening and surveillance for Barrett’s Esophagus: A randomized and blinded comparison. Am J Gastroenterol 101:2693703, 2006.
  91. Cherry J, Margulies SI. Contact ulcer of the larynx. Laryngoscope 78:1937–1940, 1968.
  92. Delahunty JE, Ardan G. Globus hystericus—a manifestation of reflux oesophagitis? J Laryngol Otol 84:1049–1054, 1970.
  93. Delahunty JE. Acid laryngitis. J Laryngol Otol 86:335–342, 1972.
  94. Chodosh PL. Gastro-esophago-pharyngeal reflux. Laryngoscope 87:1418–1427, 1977.
  95. Fearon B, Bram I. Esophageal hiatal hernia in infants and children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 90: 387–391, 1981.
  96. Olson NR. Effects of stomach acid on the larynx. Proc Am Laryngol Assoc 104:108–112, 1983.
  97. Bain WM, Harrington JW, Thomas LE, Schaefer SD. Head and neck manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux. Laryngoscope 1983: 93:175–9.
  98. Ossakow SJ, Elta G, Colturi T, Bogdasarian R, Nostrant TT. Esophageal reflux and dysmotility as the basis for persistent cervical symptoms. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 96:387–392, 1987.
  99. Gaynor EB. Gastroesophageal reflux as an etiologic factor in laryngeal complications of intubation. Laryngoscope 98:972–979, 1988.
  100. Ward PH, Berci G. Observations on the pathogenesis of chronic non-specific pharyngitis and laryngitis. Laryngoscope 92:1377–1382, 1988.
  101. Toohill RJ, Kuhn JC. Role of refluxed acid in pathogenesis of laryngeal disorders. Am J Med 103:100S–106S, 1997.
  102. Kuhn J, Toohill RJ, Ulualp SO, et al. Pharyngeal acid reflux events in patients with vocal cord nodules. Laryngoscope 108:1146–1149, 1998.
  103. DelGaudio JM. Direct nasopharyngeal reflux of gastric acid is a contributing factor in refractory chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 115:946–57, 2005.
  104. Gaynor EB. Gastroesophageal reflux as an etiologic factor in laryngeal complications of intubation. Laryngoscope 98:972–979, 1988.
  105. Smit CF, Mathus-Vliegen LM, Devriese PP, et al. Monitoring of laryngopharyngeal reflux: influence of meals and beverages. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 112: 109–12, 2003.
  106. Eryuksel E, Dogan M, Golabi P, Sehitoglu MA, Celikel T. Treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux improves asthma symptoms in asthmatics. J Asthma 43:539–42, 2006.
  107. Sweet MP, Patti MG, Leard LE, Golden JA, Hays SR, Hoopes C, Theodore PR. Gastroesophageal reflux in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis referred for lung transplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 133: 1078–84, 2007.
  108. Wetmore RF. Effects of acid on the larynx of the maturing rabbit and their possible significance to the sudden infant death syndrome. Laryngoscope 103:1242–54, 1993.
  109. Ross JA, Noordzji JP, Woo P. Voice disorders in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. J Voice 12:84–88, 1998.
  110. Rothstein SG. Reflux and vocal disorders in singers with bulemia. J Voice 12:89–90, 1998.
  111. Grontved AM, West F. pH monitoring in patients with benign voice disorders. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 543:229–231, 2000.
  112. Noordzij JP, Khidr A, Desper E, et al. Correlation of pH probe-measured laryngopharyngeal reflux with symptoms and signs of reflux laryngitis. Laryngoscope 112: 2192–5, 2002.
  113. Tokashiki R, Nakamura K, Watanabe Y, Yamaguchi H, Suzuki M. The relationship between esophagoscopic findings and total acid reflux time below pH 4 and pH 5 in the upper esophagus in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD). Auris Nasus Larynx 32:265–8, 2005.
  114. Garcia I, Krishna P, Rosen CA. Severe laryngeal hyperkeratsosis secondary to laryngopharyngeal reflux. Ear Nose Throat J 85:417, 2006.
  115. Park KH, Choi SM, Kwon SU, et al. Diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux among globus patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 134: 81–5, 2006.
  116. Payne RJ, Kost KM, Frenkiel S, Zeitouni AG, et al. Laryngeal inflammation assessed using the reflux finding score in obstructive sleep apnea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 134: 836–42, 2006.
  117. Fenton JE, Kieran SM. Re: Nasopharyngitis is a clinical sign of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Am J Rhinol 21:135, 2007.
  118. Tsunoda K, Ishimoto S, Suzuki M, et al. An effective management regimen for laryngeal granuloma caused by gastro-esophageal reflux: Combination therapy with suggestions for lifestyle modifications. Acta Otolaryngol 127:88–92, 2007.
  119. Ward PH, Hanson DG. Reflux as an etiological factor of carcinoma of the laryngopharynx. Laryngoscope 98:1195–1199, 1988.
  120. Morrison MD. Is chronic gastroesophageal reflux a causative factor in glottic carcinoma? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 99:370–373, 1988.
  121. Geterud A, Bove M, Ruth M. Hypopharyngeal acid exposure: An independent risk factor for laryngeal cancer? Laryngoscope 113:2201–5, 2003.
  122. Dagli S, Dagli U, Kurtaran H, Alkim C, Sahin B. Laryngopharyngeal reflux in laryngeal cancer. Turk J Gastroenterol 15:77–81, 2004.
  123. Ozlugedik S, Yorulmaz I, Gokcan K. Is laryngopharyngeal reflux an important risk factor in the development of laryngeal carcinoma? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 263:339–43, 2006.
  124. Johnston N, Yan J, Samuels TL. Pepsin, at pH7 in non-acidic laryngopharyngeal refluxate, significantly alters the expression of multiple genes implicated in carcinogensis. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Broncho-Esophogological Association, Las Vegas NV, April 28, 2010. (Submitted for publication to The Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology.)
  125. Piper DW, Fenton BH. pH stability and activity curves of pepsin with special reference to their clinical importance. Gut 6:506–508, 1965.
  126. Goldberg HI, Dodds WJ, Gee S, et al. Role of acid and pepsin in acute experimental esophagitis. Gastroenterology 56:223–230, 1969.
  127. Lillemoe KD, Johnson LF, Harmon JW. Role of the components of the gastroduodenal contents in experimental acid esophagitis. Surgery 92:276:–284, 1982.
  128. Johnson LF, Harmon JW. Experimental esophagitis in a rabbit model. Clinical Relevance. J Clin Gastroenterol 8 (Suppl 1):26–44, 1986.
  129. Samuels TL, Johnston N. Pepsin as a marker of extraesophageal reflux. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 119:203–8, 2010.
  130. Barrett NR. The lower esophagus lined by columnar epithelium. Surgery 41:881–894, 1957.
  131. Conio M, Blanchi S, Lapertosa G, et al. Long-term endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett’s Esophagus. Incidence of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma: A prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 98:1931–9, 2003.
  132. Rogers E, Goldkind S, Isri O, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus. A disease primarily of white men with Barrett’s Esophagus. J Clin Gastroenterol 8:613–618, 1986.
  133. Lagergren J, Bergstrom R, Lindgren A, Nyren O. Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. NEJM. 340:825–831, 1999.
  134. Reavis KM, Morris CD, Gopal DV, Hunter JG, Jobe BA. Laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms better predict the presence of esophageal adenocarcinoma than typical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Ann Surg 239:849–56, 2004.
  135. Wong A, Fitzgerald RC. Epidemiologic risk factors for Barrett’s Esophagus and associated adenocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatology 3:1–10, 2005.
  136. Koufman JA. Therapeutic benefits of strict low-acid diet on recalcitrant laryngopharngeal reflux: Preliminary data. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Broncho-Esophagological Association, April 28, 2010, Las Vegas NV. (Submitted for publication to The Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology.)
  137. Koufman JA. The changing pattern of reflux in America: Disease prevalence is increasing and the typical laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patient is getting younger. (Unreported data 2010).
  138. Stanciu C, Bennett JR. Smoking and gastroesophageal reflux. Br Med J 3:793–95, 1972.
  139. Westman JA, Ferketich A, Kauffman R, et al. Low cancer incidence rates in Ohio Amish. Cancer Causes Controls 211: 69–75, 2010.
  140. Bellis M. Introduction to pop: The history of soft drinks timeline. About.com (http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinventions/a/soft_drink.htm)
  141. Lobbying 2009: American Beverage Association. Center for Responsive Politics. (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?year=2009&lname=American+Beverage+Assn&id) March, 2010.
  142. United States Average Annual Sugar Intake. USDA Economic Research Service.(http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/app/availability.aspx) January, 2008.
  143. “Acidified Foods.” Code of Federal Regulations—Title 21—Food and Drugs Chapter I, Department Of Health And Human Services Subchapter B—Food for Human Consumption Part 114. United States Food and Drug Administration. Arlington, VA, Washington Business Information, 2010.
  144. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Frequently Asked Questions About GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) Food Additives. (http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodIngredientsandPackaging/ucm061846.htm)
  145. “Generally Recognized as Safe Food Additives: FDA Database of Selected GRAS Substances.” United States Food and Drug Administration. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 2009.
  146. 146. Walker D. GAO Answers the Question: What’s in a Name? United States Government Accountability Office. (http://www.gao.gov/about/rollcall07192004.pdf/) July, 2004.
  147. Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).” GAO-10-246: United States Government Accountability Office, February 3, 2010.