The Health Today Show

Time to review open-campus lunch policies?

2007-12-29T00:54:00.000-08:00

From The New York Times' Well Blog:

Schools around the country are focusing on serving more healthful food to students to combat childhood obesity. But what about the food served near the schools?

In one of the largest studies of its kind, researchers from the University of Illinois have mapped out the locations of more than 31,000 middle schools and high schools and compared them to the locations of 129,000 fast-food restaurants and convenience stores. The location of fast-food outlets close to schools is important because from 5 percent to 15 percent of high school students leave campus for lunch. And more than two-thirds of students don’t ride school buses, meaning they walk, bike, take public transit or are dropped off from cars, giving them unsupervised access before and after school to nearby eateries.

The study, published in the January issue of Health & Place, found that more than one-third of middle and high schools are located within a half-mile of a fast-food outlet or convenience store. When the study focused on the 20 largest cities, the presence of fast-food chains near schools was even more obvious. Two-thirds of urban secondary schools had at least one fast-food restaurant within walking distance, and more than half had a convenience store within a half-mile.

While previous studies have looked at the proximity of fast-food restaurants to schools in a specific community, no previous study has examined the trend across the United States. A 2005 Chicago study found that 78 percent of all kindergarten, primary and secondary schools had at least one fast-food restaurant within a half-mile, and that fast-food restaurants were clustered disproportionately around schools compared to other parts of the city. A 2007 study of four communities in Atlanta also showed that fast-food restaurants and convenience stores were closer to middle schools compared with the location of sit-down restaurants and grocery stores.

The most recent study is important because it shows that efforts to fight obesity and encourage healthful eating inside school cafeterias is likely undermined by the easy availability of fast food within walking distance of many schools.

“Attention has appropriately focused on food service, à la carte foods, vending machines and stores in schools,'’ write the study authors. “Yet, efforts to change the food environment within schools may be ineffective in reducing adolescent overweight if the surrounding neighborhood food environment is neglected.'’

The researchers focused on fast-food and convenience outlets because those stores typically serve “energy-dense” foods, or foods with a high number of calories per gram, which have been implicated in contributing to obesity. Most junk foods, including French fries, soft drinks, pastries, candy and other items popular with kids, pack a disproportionately high number of calories compared to unprocessed foods like fruits, vegetables and milk.

The data show that schools that focus only on the food served on campus may have less of an impact on kids’ health compared to those that also impose “closed-campus” lunch policies. Communities also may consider revising land use, planning and zoning policies in relation to fast-food restaurants and school location. And for parents, the data show the importance of keeping track of a child’s off-campus eating on the way to and from school.

Coca Cola's latest product launches

2007-12-28T20:12:00.000-08:00

Culled from Marion Nestle's blog, two consecutive posts relating to Coca Cola's latest product launches:
- Coca-Cola’s new health drink?
- Another Coca-Cola Product: Simply Orange

The first launch goes with the current "functional beverages" trend we have described early last month in Debunking Superfoods Beverages.

The second launch is way more interesting: It is a much bolder, "innovative" move coming from such a food giant as Coca Cola; it means going backwards food-technology-wise, and marketing a more "traditional", minimally processed drink.
We also mentioned last month's Mintel 2008 Food Trend report in our Junk-free foods trend post...
Looks like Coca Cola jumped on the trend. Well, as Marion Nestle points out, Coca Cola's and Minute Maid's brand names are conspicuously absent from the labels, ads and websites: Isn't Minute Maid associated with juices processed from concentrates? And Coca Cola with sodas and related sweetened beverages?

Food and Non-Food

2007-12-28T19:56:00.000-08:00

In this climate of so-called "functional foods" -which supposedly offer "added health benefits" thanks to the processed foods industry's ingenuity-, it is refreshing that someone raises his voice, and points out to the core of the problem:

Why since the eighties have we become more overweight, more allergic, more sick?

Michael Pollan gives us an answer, with his upcoming book In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, due this January 1st. Here is an introduction to it. The idea that Pollan develops throughout this book, is that: There has been food (and beverages) -read: Real food/ whole foods-, and ever increasingly since the age of Nutritionism (80s), foodlike substances -read: processed foods, functional foods in packages, techno-foods, franken-foods and beverages, whatever food technologists have invented-.

In fact, these newer "fake foods" have come to make up more than half of our daily calories. Chronic diseases have reached the epidemic level. Schools list more and more kids with severe allergies, etc. Is this mere coincidence?
We don't think so: It literally took decades for the truth about transfats to be told to the public. These man-made fats were first marketed as healthier than the real thing -read butter, lard, chicken fat, etc.-, and although a bunch of skeptical scientists have been showing since the 70s that transfats were actually causing cancer, it took FDA over 30 years to ask manufacturers to list transfats on labels.
How about all these new foodlike substances with outrageous health claims? Look at the full spectrum from refined flours, nonfat milk -always processed to powder, then reconstituted, which means oxidized milk-, dried eggs -read: oxidized eggs-, all the way to the latest fabricated foodlike ingredients we mentioned in our previous post.
All for the juicy "functional foods" business. All at our health's expense.

Science comes up with more functional ingredients for the industry

2007-12-28T02:54:00.000-08:00

From foodnavigator.com, these 2 articles list an alarming array of new techno-ingredients' launches of carbohydrates, fibres, cultures, enzymes, and fats and oils. All for the exploding market of so-called functional foods. Part one and part two.

Where is the food?

Both Sides Cite Science to Address Altered Corn

2007-12-28T02:13:00.000-08:00

From the New York Times, this follow-up story to our earlier post on Europe's ban on Genetically Modified corn. Highlights are ours.

BRUSSELS — A proposal that Europe’s top environment official made last month, to ban the planting of a genetically modified corn strain, sets up a bitter war within the European Union, where politicians have done their best to dance around the issue.

The environmental commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said he had based his decision squarely on scientific studies suggesting that long-term uncertainties and risks remain in planting the so-called Bt corn. But when the full European Commission takes up the matter in the next couple of months, commissioners will have to decide what mix of science, politics and trade to apply. And they will face the ambiguous limits of science when it is applied to public policy.

For a decade, the European Union has maintained itself as the last big swath of land that is mostly free of genetically modified organisms, largely by sidestepping tough questions. It kept a moratorium on the planting of crops made from genetically altered seeds while making promises of further scientific studies.

But Europe has been under increasing pressure from the World Trade Organization and the United States, which contend that there is plenty of research to show such products do not harm the environment. Therefore, they insist, normal trade rules must apply.

Science does not provide a definitive answer to the question of safety, experts say, just as science could not determine beyond a doubt how computer clocks would fare at the turn of the millennium.

“Science is being utterly abused by all sides for nonscientific purposes,” said Benedikt Haerlin, head of Save Our Seeds, an environmental group in Berlin and a former member of the European Parliament. “The illusion that science will answer this overburdens it completely.” He added, “It would be helpful if all sides could be frank about their social, political and economic agendas.”

Mr. Dimas, a lawyer and the minister from Greece, looked at the advice provided by the European Union’s scientific advisory body — which found that the corn was “unlikely” to pose a risk — but he decided there were nevertheless too many doubts to permit the modified corn.

“Commissioner Dimas has the utmost faith in science,” said Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for the environment department. “But there are times when diverging scientific views are on the table.” She added that Mr. Dimas was acting as a “risk manager.”

Within the European scientific community, there are passionate divisions about how to apply the growing body of research concerning genetically modified crops, and in particular Bt corn. That strain is based on the naturally occurring soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and mimics its production of a toxin to kill pests. The vast majority of research into such crops is conducted by, or financed by, the companies that make seeds for genetically modified organisms.

“Where everything gets polarized is the interpretation of results and how they might translate into different scenarios for the future,” said Angelika Hilbeck, an ecologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, whose skeptical scientific work on Bt corn was cited by Mr. Dimas. “Is the glass half-empty or half-full?” she asked.

Ms. Hilbeck says that company-financed studies do not devote adequate attention to broad ripple effects that modified plants might cause, like changes to bird species or the effect of all farmers planting a single biotechnology crop. She said producers of modified organisms, like Syngenta and Monsanto, have rejected repeated requests to release seeds to researchers like herself to conduct independent studies on their effect on the environment.

In his decision, Mr. Dimas cited a dozen scientific papers in finding potential hazards in the Bt corn to butterflies and other insects.

But the European Federation of Biotechnology, an industry group, contends that the great majority of these papers show that Bt corn does not pose any environmental risk.

Many plant researchers say that Mr. Dimas ignored scientific conclusions, including those of several researchers who advised the European Union that the new corn was safe.

“We are seeing ‘advice-resistant’ politicians pursuing their own agendas,” said one researcher, who like others asked not to be identified because of his advisory role.

But Karen S. Oberhauser, a leading specialist on monarch butterflies at the University of Minnesota, said that debate and further study of Bt corn was appropriate, particularly for Europe.

“We don’t really know for sure if it’s having an effect” on ecosystems in the United States, she said, and it is hard to predict future problems. About 40 percent of corn in the United States is now the Bt variety, and it has been planted for about a decade.

“Whether Bt corn is a problem depends totally on the ecosystem — what plants are near the corn field and what insects feed on them,” Ms. Oberhauser said. “So it’s really, really important to have careful studies.”

Bt crops produce a toxin that kills pests but is also toxic to related insects, notably monarch butterflies and a number of water insects. The butterflies do not feed on corn itself, but they might feed nearby, on plants like milkweed. Because corn pollen is carried in the wind, such plants can become coated with Bt pollen.

Ms. Oberhauser said she had been worried about the effect of Bt corn on monarch butterflies in the United States after her studies showed that populations of the insect dipped from 2002 to 2004. But they have rebounded in the last three years, and she has concluded that, in the American Corn Belt, Bt corn has probably not hurt monarch butterflies.

Still, she said there was disagreement about that as well as broader causes for worry. Monarch butterflies may have been saved in the United States, she said, by a fluke of local farming practices. Year by year, farmers alternate Bt corn with a genetically modified soy seed that requires the use of a weed killer. That weed killer, Monsanto’s Roundup, eliminated milkweed — the monarch’s favored meal — in and around corn fields, so the butterflies went elsewhere and were no longer exposed to Bt.

“It’s a problem for milkweed, but it made the risk for monarchs very small,” she said.

Still, she said, other effects could emerge with time and in farming regions with other practices. For example, Bt toxin slows the maturation of butterfly caterpillars, which leaves them exposed to predators for longer periods.

“Sure, time will give you answers on these questions — and maybe show you mistakes that you should have thought about earlier,” she said.

For ecologists and entomologists, a major concern is that insects could quickly become resistant to the toxin built into the corn if all farmers in a region used that corn, just as microbes affecting humans become resistant to antibiotics that are prescribed often. The pests that are killed by modified corn are only a sporadic problem and could be treated by other means.

Scientists also worry about collateral damage because Bt toxin is in wind-borne pollen. Most pollens “are highly nutritious, as they are designed to attract,” Ms. Hilbeck said, wondering how a toxic pollen would affect bees, for example.

Having reviewed the science, insurance companies have been unwilling to insure Bt planting because the risks to people and the environment are too uncertain, said Duncan Currie, an international lawyer in Christchurch, New Zealand, who studies the subject.

In the United States, where almost all crops are now genetically modified, the debate is largely closed.

“I’m not saying there are no more questions to pursue, but whether it’s good or bad to plant Bt corn — I think we’re beyond that,” said Richard L. Hellmich, a plant scientist with the Agriculture Department who is based at Iowa State University. He noted that hundreds of studies had been done and that Bt corn could help “feed the world.”

But the scientific equation may look different in Europe, with its increasing green consciousness and strong agricultural traditions.

“Science doesn’t say on its own what to do,” said Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, executive director of the European Food Safety Authority. She noted that while her agency had advised Mr. Dimas that Bt corn was “unlikely” to cause harm, it was still working to improve its assessment of the long-term risk to the environment.

Part of the reason that science is central to the current debate is that European law and World Trade Organization rules make it much easier for a country or a region to exclude genetically modified seeds if new scientific evidence indicates a risk. Lacking that kind of justification, a move to bar the plants would be regarded as an unfair barrier to trade, leaving the European Union open to penalties.

But the science probably will not be clear-cut enough to let the European ministers avoid that risk.

Simon Butler at the University of Reading in Britain is using computer models to predict the long-term effect of altered crops on birds and other species. But should the ministers reject Bt and other genetically modified corn?

“My work is not to judge whether G.M. is right or wrong,” he said. “It’s just to get the data out there.”

So, from our understanding, BT corn has to be proven harmful in order to be banned in Europe. Which means, long-term, independant scientific studies. Which means access to the seeds for independant researchers.
Now the question is: How come BT corn did not have to be proven safe in the first place? We now know that most corn crops in the US are genetically modified. This phenomenon is relatively recent, so, in effect, North America is the guinea pig to the rest of the world. To Monsanto's mid-term profit.

Book Review: Brian Wansink's Mindless Eating

2007-12-23T02:32:00.000-08:00

Brian Wansink’s Mindless Eating explores the relationship between food intake, psychology/behavior and marketing. This book addresses the psychology of overeating in our culture: How our emotions, and most importantly our environment tend to control what and how much we eat. This is not a diet book, but Wansink offers several ideas for changing your mindset to encourage eating less.

A few facts: we tend to want to eat the same amount of volume of food to feel full. If air or water is added to make the food appear larger, we will eat the same amount and feel just as full. Three year olds will eat until they are sated. Five year olds will eat the amount of food put upon their plate because they assume that it is the appropriate amount. If we are eating with 2 people, we will eat 50% more food than if we were eating alone and 96% more food with 7 or more people. We eat more M&Ms in a bowl with 10 colors than with 7 colors. We eat something just because it's there, even if it doesn't even taste good.
These are just a few examples culled from his behavioral studies.

Wansink says if we add or subtract 100 calories a day to our diet, our body won't really notice, but it will mean the difference between gaining or losing a half pound a week.

Because Wansink has established that culturally, overeating is encouraged by:
-The destructuration of meals (snacking, eating-on-the-go, eating at the desk, TV room dining…)
-The power of food and beverage marketing
-External cues, such as:
o Plates, containers, shopping carts, cupboard sizes
o Packages and food descriptions
o Immediate surroundings (people, lighting, music, etc.)
o Distance to food available, and the downside of convenience,

he offers manageable strategies to work with our American lifestyle, uncover the hidden persuaders that lead to overeating, and eliminate them painlessly: Use smaller plates; eat slowly; don't bring the food container to the table; pay attention to what you're eating and don't read, watch TV, drive or do anything else at the same time; if you buy in bulk, divide the package into smaller mini- packages; keep sinful foods out of sight (like, no candy jar on your desk); stop when you're full and don't feel compelled to finish everything, etc.
In the paperback postscript, he targets personalized strategies to 5 types of overeaters: The Meals Stuffers, the Snack Grazers, the Party Bingers, the Restaurant Indulgers, and the Desktop Diners.

We do have some reservations:
-Calorie and portion size reduction isn't necessarily the answer to rising obesity rates. It does help to cut back on our subliminal eating, but does not look into diet/calories quality. Switching to a healthier lifestyle does require more than painless tricks to control portions. It means weaning from processed convenience foods, among other things. A good, practical, family-oriented book we recommend to step up to better eating is Dr. Ludwig’s Ending The Food Fight.

-In the paperback postscript, Wansink touches the subject of school lunches. While there are definitively some groundbreaking ideas explored about reengineering lunchrooms to help our children make healthier choices, we were shocked to read that school lunches should be put in perspective, as they make only 5 out of 21 weekly meals. We are sorry, Mr. Wansink, but we think that the sound perspective on school lunches is to acknowledge that they happen … at school. School is as important an education place as home. If not more, considering the power of peer pressure in our culture. Besides, food eaten throughout the day by our children goes beyond the lunch room. Think vending machines, open campuses policies, etc…And Junk Food providers sneaking their reward systems within the very classrooms. 5 meals out 21 are just misleading statistics, and in no way account for the larger picture, and all the stakes involved. The entire school food system does need a complete makeover, in order to help educate our children to proper nutrition, instead of sending mixed, confusing messages. Hopefully, Mr. Brian Wansink will get deeper into this problem in his new position as executive director of the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

-Our last reservation concerns Wansink’s follow-up book Marketing Nutrition: Soy, Functional Foods, Biotechnology and Obesity. While the idea that reversing the damages done by junk food marketing by promoting healthy foods marketing has universal appeal, We disagree with Wansink’s definition for healthy foods: Slapping some fractioned, genetically modified soy into more processed foods does not make them healthy: It just enables the food industry to make health claims for what is really healthy-sounding junk food. The same goes for any processed, so-called functional foods. We do hope FDA will be given the means to protect us, consumers, from all these misleading, abusive industry claims.

Alcohol, Energy Drinks and Youth: A Dangerous Mix

2007-12-21T00:09:00.000-08:00

We borrowed the title for this post from the eye-opening report written by our recent guest Michele Simon, of Marin Institute and James Mosher, of Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.

We have been talking a lot lately about energy drinks and other new generations of sodas aimed at our youth. Fact is, as previously mentioned, the energy drink market has been growing at a staggering 12% rate each year.

Unfortunately, the definition for energy drinks is quite vague: Wikipedia defines them as soft drinks advertised as being specifically designed to provide energy. One key word is: advertised as. Note that the claim does not have to be supported by facts, nor does it have to guarantee the drink is safe... What all these beverages have in common is caffeine. For an exhaustive database of caffeine content in energy drinks, check here.
All of them have a sweet taste, either from sugars, or artificial sweeteners. Then, a bunch of processed, "herbal" ingredients, not all regulated by our agencies. In brief, anything that creates the feeling of being boosted. So here comes alcohol. It was Michele Simon who brought these new kinds of cool sodas to our attention last month on air, and ever since, news from the beverage industry has kept ringing alarms:

Today, we learned that Anheuser-Busch Cos. is planning to invest more into digital advertising to attract young, web-savvy "contemporary adults." The brewer is increasingly using the web to spread and fine-tune its advertising, as it allows the company to test edgy material that, in years past, would never have been seen for fear of causing offense on television.
This company is famous for its beer operations, but it sure made its entry into the lucrative, unregulated energy drink market. Although Spykes was withdrawn from the market, a bunch of related beverages are still offered. Here is a list, with products pictures. All-targeted to our youth. Now that Anheuser-Busch is mastering the art of edgy digital advertising -not regulated as TV advertising- we do see why the industry is so confident about the growth of this category.
At our youth' expense.
As Michele Simon states, it is urgent that both scientists and policymakers should focus increased attention on this emerging product category.

The Whole Grain claim

2007-12-18T23:52:00.000-08:00

Here is an interesting entry from the NYT's Well blog. This shows one more time that we should read closely ingredients lists not to be misled by such claims as "100% whole grain". Should we want the full benefits -and taste- from whole grains, all grains ingredients should read "whole". Obvious? Read these labels again...

Soda Tax?

2007-12-18T23:38:00.000-08:00

San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom wants large grocery stores to pay fees on sodas and other beverages they sell in the city to help fight obesity. The proposed law would charge retail chains for stocking drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, reported The Modesto Bee. Here is the New York Times story.

Inside the energy drink machine

2007-12-16T22:48:00.000-08:00

From the online forum Shaping Youth, this post, which exposes all stakes involved, both for the industry, and for our youth -to whom these new kinds of sodas are marketed to:

Two new industry reports today show soda’s rate of decline has tripled since last year. BUT (there’s always a “but”) the marketing machine has replaced the churn with energy jolts of caffeine, sports drinks of sodium and sugar, and ready-to-drink (RTD) teas and coffees.

“Who wants to be seen with a ‘cola’ when Frappuccino is available. And Fruit 20. And Snapple Green Tea with EGCG. And Red Bull. And…whaddya call that stuff nobody used to drink when it was free? Oh, yeah…Water,” quipped Ad Age columnist Bob Garfield.

As fickle folks flock to the next big ‘thang’ Shaping Youth is working hard to ‘idiot proof’ the media messages so parents and kids can discern the caffeine con from the get go, especially with all the unregulated ‘dietary supplements’ and wacky health claims coming onto the scene.

Shaping Youth anticipated kids being blitzed with ‘functional food’ claims of ‘healthier junk’ early on which is why we started counter-marketing sports drinks in 2005, energy drinks in 2006, and ALL ‘performance’ enhanced beverages in 2007 to open kids’ eyes to how industry changes the lens of the scope, while keeping kids in the crosshairs of their target marketing.

Functional claims and dietary supplements are ‘fuzzy’ at best. Products using words like “science blended” and “herbally enhanced” are not remotely regulated by the FDA. One MD has a concise overview called Quack Watch which pops the top on supplements. And CSPI’s “Functional foods: Public health boon or 21st century quackery?” goes deeper into the background.

I double-dog-dare you to TRY to sort out the acronym-laden governmental guidelines of the NLEA, DSHEA, FDA, to see if they’re GRAS or not. (GRAS=”generally recognized as safe”—you get my drift)

This is why I find functional claims to be even more damaging than blatantly bogus ones.

It’s much easier for me to “red flag” key watch words to kids than to deconstruct the elaborate ‘greenwashing,’ nutritional benefits, new age cure-alls and health claims being paraded out in these ‘better for you’ energy concoctions.

Sports and energy drinks are often pumped up as ‘healthier hydration.’ (yet some have the opposite effect since they’re chock full of sodium & sugar; the higher the sugar the slower the absorption and dehydration risk)

They’re sniped with banners of “vitamins, nutrients, calcium fortification” and all kinds of exotic herbal supplements from gingko biloba and ginseng to guarana, the Brazilian, natural plant stimulant akin to caffeine.

Then they’re poured into kids with aspirational marketing using athletes, celebs, and ‘active lifestyle’ packaging.

Here’s the new C1.5 energy drink from the NBA’s Carmelo Anthony that debuted just in time for the All-Stars in Vegas a few weeks ago. Sheesh.

When you figure half the market growth is in this realm, you KNOW where the money’s gonna land as everyone and his uncle comes out with their own version. (yes, even dead rock icons)

I get hyper just hearing the descriptors of “shooters, zips, shots, fizzes, spikes and tonics” that jack up the ‘need’ and zing the newest health craze into kids’ growing, youthful bods.

Beverage Marketing Corp’s CEO confirmed, “Beverages offering functional benefits are growing two to three times faster than conventional refreshment beverages.”

For perspective, though, the big kahuna is STILL soda.

Even after sliding 1.1% it still commands almost 51% of the overall beverage market…all four of the fastest-growing segments still make up just 7.8% of total volume.

Energy drinks grew 49% (to a measly 0.8% share) followed by ready-to-drink teas, which surged 26.2% compared with 9% in 2005, sports drinks grew 11.7% and ready-to-drink coffees grew 10.4%. Interesting.

Seems to me, they’re literally slapping the word ‘energy’ on a label, tossing in a few functional claims, a wee bit of juice or some clever packaging to spike sales without venturing too far away from soda at all…

It’s now ‘healthy soda.’

Example? 7UpPlus. Is the public REALLY this naïve? Um, guess so.

Why else would the giants be rushing to bring new “vitamin-fortified soft drinks” to market, like “Diet Coke Plus” or PepsiCo’s “Tava” (due later this year) in a desperate attempt to put some fizz into flat sales of carbonated soft-drinks?!

Diet Coke Plus will contain niacin, vitamins B6 and B12, magnesium and zinc. Tava will contain vitamins B3, B6 and E, and chromium.

Geez. Grab some leafy greens and call it a day, megadoses of vitamin B are unproven and controversial.

In the monster category of ‘performance’ energy drinks with ‘ergogenic aids’, you’d fail to pass the International Olympic Committee piddle test in a red hot minute. Nevertheless, they’re big…and energy drink vending machines are next.

In 2007 alone, we’ve already seen some pretty toxic fallout of energy drinks as marketers crank out a new brand at the rate of about one a day.

Many are lured by the pitch to make a healthier choice without bothering to see ‘all energy drinks are NOT created equal, and some contain copious quantities of caffeine with adverse effects on kids health…fouling up sleep, creating anxiety, even bed wetting.

Some fall in the “hardcore” caffeine category like the new Spike Shooter targeting teens with ‘six times the kick’ in a ‘bad to the bone’ heavy metal ‘Get Spiked’ campaign that’s already hurt six high school kids making the news in Colorado.

Science Blogs breaks down the “so what” factor by explaining the 300 mg of caffeine that most likely led to the kids’ heart palpitations, nausea and shortness of breath.

Their PhD Pharmacologist also gives a heads up on the dangers of blending caffeine with sympathomimetics like ephedrine, making note of the mortality cases from weight loss supplements that led to the US ditching that drug altogether.

We’re doing a related interview with poison control on teen’s use of energy drinks and alcohol since they’re seeing surges of toxicity among the Red Bull & Vodka set.

Aside from being ‘wide awake drunks’ kids are making impaired decisions ‘feeling’ more sober than they really are and getting behind the wheel…Killer combo, literally. Read full entry here.

Here is a nutrition info sheet on Energy Drinks from the Department of Nutrition, University of California, Davis.

From FoxNews.com, the news that Miller, Anheuser-Busch May Be Illegally Targeting Teens with Energy Drinks containing alcohol.

Last, MedicineNet.com examines how beverages with artificial sweeteners react with alcohol: The low-carb-dieting craze has led to an increased consumption of diet beverages being used in mixed alcoholic drinks. Premixed alcoholic drinks were usually made with sugar-sweetened beverages like juice and soda. The presence of sugar was thought to decrease the rapidity with which alcohol would empty from the stomach and get absorbed in the small intestines, but nothing was known about how artificial sweeteners would impact the absorption of alcohol.

A recent study examined the difference in blood alcohol levels from drinks containing sweetened (regular) versus artificially sweetened (diet) beverages. This study found a significant difference in blood alcohol levels between the two drinks. In fact, the "diet" beverage produced blood alcohol levels that would be considered illegal for driving in many jurisdictions, while comparable quantities of the "regular" beverage did not. This poses a potentially dangerous situation, and it is clear that there should be separate guidelines for the safe consumption of artificially sweetened alcoholic beverages.

A very complex machine indeed. Hopefully regulations will catch up soon with the beverage industry's marketing.

The irony behind the new functional foods

2007-12-16T20:48:00.000-08:00

This outrageous article -mentioned in today's Marion Nestle's blog- shows us an insider's take on the processed functional foods behind-the scene business.FYI.

Calories per dollar to measure U.S. health

2007-12-16T18:54:00.000-08:00

Here is an interesting piece found in today's San Francisco Chronicle.
Written by a doctor, not an economist, it is reminiscent of Michael Pollan's landmark article in the NYT -which made the case to re-visit Farm Bill's subsidies in order to make healthy produce competitive with commodities -corn, soy, etc.- that are staples for junk food.
Another spin on the idea that healthy food access should be a priority to our representatives.

On the dangers of artificial sweeteners

2007-12-12T01:33:00.000-08:00

Here is an extract from a groundbreaking article:

Sugar substitutes and the potential danger of Splenda (& Aspartame, Saccharin, etc.)
by Marcelle Pick, OB/GYN NP

Few of us are really aware of how many new Splenda® products there are in the supermarkets. We’ve been told that this artificial sweetener is different from all the past failures — Sweet’N Low®, NutraSweet®, etc. — and according to the claims, that this Splenda is the perfect sugar substitute: as sweet as sugar, but no calories; as sweet as sugar, but no surge in insulin; as sweet as sugar, but no side effects or long-term health damage.

The wave is coming because “low–sugar” or “sugar–free” is the latest fad — a welcome trend, given the health hazards of all the sugar in the average diet. But of the hundreds of new diet foods that will soon appear, most will use Splenda as a sugar substitute. This is important because for tens of millions of women, their diet soda or artificially-sweetened food is a keystone of what they think are healthy nutrition and food choices — both for themselves and for their families.

On the other side of the argument are responsible experts who say that Splenda is unsafe — the latest in a succession of artificial sweeteners that claim at first to be healthy, only later to be proven to be full of side effects. These authorities say that Splenda has more in common with DDT than with food.

What do we believe? We think that our regulatory system doesn’t do a good enough job ensuring our long-term safety. We’re concerned about the bigger picture, too — the dependence on sweets in the American diet to make us feel good — whether those sweets are satisfied by sugar or artificial sweeteners like Splenda. And we are especially sensitive to the women who can benefit from using artificial sweeteners as a bridge to a better life with healthier nutrition.

What should you think about artificial sweeteners? We want you to be fully informed about the dangers of Splenda (which isn’t what food marketers want!) so you can make the best choices for yourself and for your family. So let’s make sure you are.

Splenda — the public health experiment

“Low–sugar” is the successor to the “low–carb” craze, even though they are essentially the same thing. According to the New York Times, by the end of this summer 11% of the food items on supermarket shelves will be labeled “reduced sugar” — most of those targeted at kids and their health-conscious moms. Sales in granulated sugar have dropped four percent in the past six months. What’s behind this trend? Splenda.

Products featuring Splenda are perceived as “natural” because even the FDA’s press release about sucralose parrots the claim that “it is made from sugar” — an assertion disputed by the Sugar Association, which is suing Splenda’s manufacturer, (McNeil Nutritionals).

The FDA has no definition for “natural,” so please bear with us for a biochemistry moment: Splenda is the trade name for sucralose, a synthetic compound stumbled upon in 1976 by scientists in Britain seeking a new pesticide formulation. It is true that the Splenda molecule is comprised of sucrose (sugar) — except that three of the hydroxyl groups in the molecule have been replaced by three chlorine atoms. (To get a better picture of what this looks like, see this image of a sucralose molecule.)

While some industry experts claim the molecule is similar to table salt or sugar, other independent researchers say it has more in common with pesticides. That’s because the bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most pesticides are chlorocarbons. The premise offered next is that just because something contains chlorine doesn’t guarantee that it’s toxic. And that is also true, but you and your family may prefer not to serve as test subjects for the latest post-market artificial sweetener experiment — however “unique.”

Once it gets to the gut, sucralose goes largely unrecognized in the body as food — that’s why it has no calories. The majority of people don’t absorb a significant amount of Splenda in their small intestine — about 15% by some accounts. The irony is that your body tries to clear unrecognizable substances by digesting them, so it’s not unlikely that the healthier your gastrointestinal system is, the more you’ll absorb the chlorinated molecules of Splenda.

So, is Splenda safe? The truth is we just don’t know yet. There are no long-term studies of the side effects of Splenda in humans. The manufacturer’s own short-term studies showed that sucralose caused shrunken thymus glands and enlarged livers and kidneys in rodents. But in this case, the FDA decided that because these studies weren’t based on human test animals, they were not conclusive. Of course, there are countless examples of foods and drugs that have proved dangerous to humans that were first found to be dangerous to laboratory rats, and then again, countless others that have not. So the reality is that we are the guinea pigs for Splenda.

And now, are our children the next trial group? Thanks to an agreement between McNeil Nutritionals (makers of Splenda) and PTO Today, which provides marketing and fund-raising aid to parents’ associations, your elementary school’s next bake sale may be sponsored by Splenda — complete with baked goods made with the product.

Splenda side effects
Observational evidence shows that there are side effects of Splenda, including skin rashes/flushing, panic-like agitation, dizziness and numbness, diarrhea, muscle aches, headaches, intestinal cramping, bladder issues, and stomach pain. These show up at one end of the spectrum — in the people who have an allergy or sensitivity to the sucralose molecule. But no one can say to what degree consuming Splenda affects the rest of us.

If this sounds familiar, it should: we went down the same path with aspartame, the main ingredient in Equal and NutraSweet. Almost all of the independent research into aspartame found dangerous side effects in rodents. The FDA chose not to take these findings into account when it approved aspartame for public use. Over the course of 15 years, those same side effects increasingly appeared in humans. Not in everyone, of course — but in those who were vulnerable to the chemical structure of aspartame.

As food additives, artificial sweeteners are not subject to the same gauntlet of FDA safety trials as pharmaceuticals. Most of the testing is funded by the food industry, which has a vested interest in the outcome. This can lead to misleading claims on both sides.

But one thing is certain: some of the chemicals that comprise artificial sweeteners are known hazards — the degree to which you experience side effects just depends on your individual biochemistry. Manufacturers are banking on the fact that our bodies won’t absorb very much of these compounds at any one time. And many of us don’t. But what happens when we are ingesting a combination of artificial sweeteners like Splenda dozens of times a week through many different “low–sugar” or “sugar–free” products?

People have been using artificial sweeteners for decades. Some react poorly, some don’t — the problem is, you never know until you’re already sick. Scientists are calling Splenda a mild mutagen, based on how much is absorbed. Right now, it’s anyone’s guess what portion of the population is being exposed to the dangers of Splenda or already suffering from Splenda side effects. Until an independent, unbiased research group conducts long-term studies on humans (six months is hardly long-term!), how can we be certain? With all the new Splenda products on our shelves, it looks as if we are now in the process of another grand public experiment — without our permission. And we may not know the health implications for decades. As with all things, time will unveil truth.

So I urge you to be concerned about the potential dangers of Splenda — as with any unnatural substance you put in your body. And I am especially concerned about its use for children, which I recommend you avoid. But unlike many holistic practitioners, I do think artificial sweeteners can serve a purpose for some women. And that has to do with the old question — which is better, sugar or an artificial sweetener? Let’s start with sugar, where the problems all begin.

Sugar and insulin: the energy rush

Like Pooh Bear and the honey jar, sweet treats are the comfort food of choice for most of us. Usually we’ve had powerful emotional incentives set up in childhood — like getting a lollipop after a doctor’s visit — and most of us unconsciously associate sugar with love, pleasure, and reward. Why else would we call our dear ones “honey,” “sugar,” and “sweetie”?

There’s an equally strong biological urge here that’s hard-wired. We’re predisposed to seek out sugar when we can find it. After all, sugar (sucrose) is a carbohydrate. It’s metabolized directly into blood sugar, or glucose, which fuels our brain and muscles. The purer the source, the faster it gets into the bloodstream, bypassing much of the digestive process.

Eating sugar shoots our blood sugar levels up and triggers a spike in the hormone insulin, which is needed to prep our cells to absorb the sugar. If there are no other nutrients to sustain our blood sugar level, it crashes as quickly as it rises — and we crave another hit. This is how sugar addiction begins.

Moreover, sugar floods us with pleasure by stimulating the release of the neurotransmitter serotonin, and probably other mood-elevating substances. Scientists report that eating chocolate initiates a brain response similar to falling in love.

And so our brains have learned over time to equate the taste of “sweet” with a rapid infusion of energy and pleasure — a good thing when food was hard-won and life a battle to survive. Even now when we eat sweet foods, special taste buds trigger enzymes that prime our brain to anticipate this extra boost. With a balanced diet and a healthy metabolism, a calorie–control mechanism kicks in after a few minutes to regulate the desire for more food, including the satiety hormone leptin. But with too much sugar, we eat and eat and can’t get satisfied.

Another big difference between prehistoric times and now is that sugar back then came solely from complex natural sources that had other nutritional qualities, such as fruit, honey, bark, and leaves. And because naturally sweet food is seasonal, ripening with the sun in the summer or growing almost exclusively in warm climates, it was relatively rare in past times.

The evolution of sugar

Over thousands of years our bodies used naturally sweet food safely and efficiently in this way. But then what happened? As our knowledge evolved, we grew adept at refining pure sugar from its food source. Sugar became its own food group — an empty calorie, devoid of protein, fat, or fiber — but still relatively rare.

As shipping and trade routes grew, sugar became widely available. New refining technology put granulated white sugar on every table, replacing the more nutritionally complex honey, molasses, barley and maple sugars. These had been generally added to food after preparation or to taste during baking and preserving, not pumped into the food itself.

Enter the modern era with its advanced food-processing techniques and competitive food companies, and presto! Refined sugar is everywhere and in everything.

Sugar is a food processor’s fantasy: it’s cheap, it adds bulk and texture, and it makes consumers prefer their product over a less-sweet alternative. So now consumers get sugar everywhere, from simple carbohydrates (so-called white food) to pure granulated sugar, and in other forms like dextrose, fruit juice concentrate, maltodextrin, and high–fructose corn syrup. These empty calories take the place of real nutrients — so while we eat and gain weight, we’re actually starving our cells.

The health effects of sugar
What happens to our metabolism, on all that sugar? Remember, we’re still primitive at a cellular level. What starts out initially as a survival tool quickly becomes a crutch if sugar is easy to procure. A sugar craving (which is really a craving for an energy and serotonin surge) becomes a habit.

We unwittingly reprogram our biochemistry to perpetuate these cravings. What’s more, this process is exacerbated by stress — because that’s when your body needs immediate energy and serotonin. We often put our bodies through the binge–crash cycle several times a day. Your fatigue tells you to have that extra cup of coffee or high–carb snack at mid-morning and again in the afternoon.

When you look at the huge increase in sugar in our diets this past century — particularly in processed foods — you see that it marches in step with the epidemic increase in metabolic diseases. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the average American is supplied with 140 pounds of caloric sweeteners per year. That’s 43 teaspoons for every man, woman and child every day! The USDA recommends an average of 10 teaspoons a day for a healthy adult (still too much for most women, in my book). The biggest sources are the corn sugar and corn syrup found in beverages like juice drinks and soda.

If we really listened to our bodies, we probably wouldn’t consume so much sugar. Our love affair with sugar has enjoyed a slow and subtle evolution — with daily nudges from the food industry. But our bodies simply aren’t equipped to handle such large amounts of sugar on a daily basis. Even in the short term, too much sugar can trigger headaches, tooth decay, and indigestion.

Over time, your body loses the ability to make enough sugar-digesting enzymes to meet the demand, and sugar sensitivity develops. Women tend to notice this more during perimenopause, when excess sugar and other simple carbohydrates trigger symptoms of hormonal imbalance.

Excess sugar consumption also upsets the balance of intestinal flora in your digestive tract and can cause symptoms of intestinal distress such as bloating, cramping, and gas (for more on this, see our section on digestion). Other symptoms of sugar sensitivity are headaches, insomnia, aggression, panic attacks, irritability, mood swings, and depression. Too much sugar can deplete levels of serotonin, the neurotransmitter whose deficiency is linked to depression. What’s worse, low levels of serotonin actually trigger more sugar cravings.

New studies in accelerated aging link elevated sugar intake with a process called glycosylation: proteins in our bodies morph into AGE’s, or advanced glycosylation end-products, a kind of metabolic debris that collects in our organ, joint, and skin tissues.

Long-term sugar intolerance leads to type 2 diabetes and other complications like obesity and inflammation. Drinking more than one soda a day raises your risk of serious weight gain by 80%.

If it’s a natural food, why is sugar so hard to digest? Again, it’s the sheer quantity not the substance itself that causes concern. Studies show that our bodies actually work harder in sugar’s afterburn to restore metabolic homeostasis.

So is it any surprise that we’ve turned to artificial sweeteners for answers? For women trying to stay healthy, artificial sweeteners can seem like the best of both worlds — sugar without calories. But there simply is no free lunch. Artificial sweeteners can be just as troublesome, with one exception: sugar addiction — those of us who simply cannot stop eating sugar once we start. In this case, artificial sweeteners may help short-circuit the dependency.

Aspartame and saccharin: are they safer than Splenda?

Aside from Splenda, the most popular artificial sweeteners are aspartame (and its cousin, neotame) and saccharin. Foods with these additives are marketed to women as low-fat, low-sugar, and low-calorie.

Diet programs like Weight Watchers sell low-calorie foods that trade real nutrients for artificial ingredients, including sugar substitutes. I think it’s great to try and lose unwanted weight, but I question whether these packaged items should be marketed as healthy choices. Good nutrition needs to take more into account than calories and fat content — especially when it comes to how many artificial sweeteners we’re eating and what we’re mixing them with.

Dangers in aspartame
Aspartame, the main ingredient in Equal and NutraSweet, is responsible for the most serious cases of poisoning, because the body actually digests it. Aspartame should be avoided by most women, but particularly in those with neuropsychiatric concerns. Recent studies in Europe show that aspartame use can result in an accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain, which can damage your central nervous system and immune system and cause genetic trauma. The FDA admits this is true, but claims the amount is low enough in most that it shouldn’t raise concern. I think any amount of formaldehyde in your brain is too much.

Aspartame has had the most complaints of any food additive available to the public. It’s been linked with MS, lupus, fibromyalgia and other central nervous disorders. Possible side effects of aspartame include headaches, migraines, panic attacks, dizziness, irritability, nausea, intestinal discomfort, skin rash, and nervousness. Some researchers have linked aspartame with depression and manic episodes. It may also contribute to male infertility.

Saccharin
Saccharin, the first widely available chemical sweetener, is hardly mentioned any more. Better-tasting NutraSweet took its place in almost every diet soda, but saccharin is still an ingredient in some prepared foods, gum, and over-the-counter medicines. Remember those carcinogen warnings on the side of products that contained saccharin? They no longer appear because industry testing showed that saccharin only caused bladder cancer in rats. Most researchers agree that in sufficient doses, saccharin is carcinogenic in humans. The question is, how do you know how much artificial sweeteners your individual body can tolerate?

That being said, some practitioners think saccharin in moderation is the best choice if you must have an artificially sweetened beverage or food product. It’s been around a relatively long time and seems to cause fewer problems than aspartame. I don’t argue with this recommendation, but I encourage you to find out as much as you can about any chemical before you ingest it.

Artificial sweeteners are body toxins. They are never a good idea for pregnant women, children or teenagers — despite the reduced sugar content — because of possible irreversible cell damage. If you decide it’s worth the risks, then go ahead, but pay attention to your body and your cravings. Once you start tracking your response to artificial sweeteners, it may surprise you.

Short-circuiting the insulin spike

Basically, artificial sweeteners confuse your brain. The enzymes in your mouth begin a cascade that primes your cell receptors for an insulin surge, and when it doesn’t arrive your brain feels cheated. That’s why most diet sodas are loaded with caffeine — so you’ll still feel a jolt.

But even if your brain is distracted momentarily, soon enough it wants the energy boost you promised it — and you find yourself craving carbohydrates. In one study, people who used artificial sweeteners ate up to three times the amount of calories as the control group. But again, this is individual. It all comes down to the brain’s perception of calories, which can get thrown off whenever artificial ingredients are substituted for whole foods.

To learn more about the specific dangers of aspartame (Equal, Nutrasweet), you may watch this well-documented movie, or check on this press release related to scientific studies performed on rats. Here is a statement from CSPI on the subject. Last, an article from British Daily Mail announcing how a leading UK grocery chain banned aspartame from their offerings.

Anyone still interested in a diet drink?

Japanese diet threatened by Westernization

2007-12-12T00:12:00.000-08:00

Krispy Kreme will open 30 to 50 more stores in Japan over the next five years, due to the success of its current outlets, according to Takashi Sawada, board director of Krispy Kreme Doughnut Japan Company, reported AllHeadlineNews.com..
Just take a look at this video showing a seemingly neverending line on the opening day of a Krispy Kreme store.
Their "local" competitors are Mister Donut, and other fast food franchises like McDonald's, Cold Stone Creamery and Burger King.
The shifting Japanese taste for sweeter and calorie busting fast food comes at a time when Japanese healthier foods such as tofu and sushi are fast gaining adherents in the U.S. and other western nations.

Weekly food consumption of families: Chad

2007-12-11T23:00:00.000-08:00

Chad: The Aboubakar family of Breidjing Camp
Food expenditure for one week: 685 CFA Francs or $1.23

From our BANPAC connection: Take a good look at the family size & diet of each country, and the availability & cost of what is eaten in one week. Compare the proportion of industrial, processed foods and beverages in the week's groceries, and how healthy the family looks.

Weekly food consumption of families: Bhutan

2007-12-11T22:58:00.000-08:00

Bhutan: The Namgay family of Shingkhey Village
Food expenditure for one week: 224.93 ngultrum or $5.03

From our BANPAC connection: Take a good look at the family size & diet of each country, and the availability & cost of what is eaten in one week. Compare the proportion of industrial, processed foods and beverages in the week's groceries, and how healthy the family looks.

Weekly food consumption of families: Ecuador

2007-12-11T22:56:00.000-08:00

Ecuador: The Ayme family of Tingo
Food expenditure for one week: $31.55

From our BANPAC connection: Take a good look at the family size & diet of each country, and the availability & cost of what is eaten in one week. Compare the proportion of industrial, processed foods and beverages in the week's groceries, and how healthy the family looks.

Weekly food consumption of families: Egypt

2007-12-11T22:53:00.000-08:00

Egypt: The Ahmed family of Cairo
Food expenditure for one week: 387.85 Egyptian Pounds or $68.53

From our BANPAC connection: Take a good look at the family size & diet of each country, and the availability & cost of what is eaten in one week. Compare the proportion of industrial, processed foods and beverages in the week's groceries, and how healthy the family looks.

Weekly food consumption of families: Poland

2007-12-11T22:50:00.000-08:00

Poland: The Sobczynscy family of Konstancin-Jeziorna
Food expenditure for one week: 582.48 Zlotys or $151.27

From our BANPAC connection: Take a good look at the family size & diet of each country, and the availability & cost of what is eaten in one week. Compare the proportion of industrial, processed foods and beverages in the week's groceries, and how healthy the family looks.

Weekly food consumption of families: Mexico

2007-12-11T22:47:00.000-08:00

Mexico: The Casales family of Cuernavaca
Food expenditure for one week: 1,862.78 Mexican Pesos or $189.09

From our BANPAC connection: Take a good look at the family size & diet of each country, and the availability & cost of what is eaten in one week. Compare the proportion of industrial, processed foods and beverages in the week's groceries, and how healthy the family looks.

Weekly food consumption of families: United States

2007-12-11T22:43:00.000-08:00

United States: The Revis family of North Carolina (Sure hope most American families eat more fresh fruits and vegetables and less junk food than this family.)

Food expenditure for one week $341.98

From our BANPAC connection: Take a good look at the family size & diet of each country, and the availability & cost of what is eaten in one week. Compare the proportion of industrial, processed foods and beverages in the week's groceries, and how healthy the family looks.

Weekly food consumption of families: Germany

2007-12-11T22:37:00.000-08:00

Germany: The Melander family of Bargteheide
Food expenditure for one week: 375.39 Euros or $500.07

From our BANPAC connection: Take a good look at the family size & diet of each country, and the availability & cost of what is eaten in one week. Compare the proportion of industrial, processed foods and beverages in the week's groceries, and how healthy the family looks.

Weekly food consumption of families: Sicily

2007-12-11T21:53:00.000-08:00

Italy: The Manzo family of Sicily
Food expenditure for one week: 214.36 Euros or $260.11

From our BANPAC connection: Take a good look at the family size & diet of each country, and the availability & cost of what is eaten in one week. Compare the proportion of industrial, processed foods and beverages in the week's groceries, and how healthy the family looks.

On the probiotics/prebiotics craze

2007-12-10T22:49:00.000-08:00

Probiotics and prebiotics are becoming increasingly popular in foods including yogurt, smoothies, snack bars, cereals, baby formula and chocolate. The "good bacteria" additives have been added to 150 products this year by companies including Dannon and Kraft, reported The Associated Press.

As the article points out, research is needed to back up all these claims... One thing we know: Yogurt, kefir, and all traditionally fermented milk beverages have been around for millenia. The good bacteria thrives in them. Now what really happens to these bacteria when dehydrated, and added to some processed food or supplement? How can they survive in a non-nourishing environment? Aren't these friendly bacteria supposed to work their wonders when alive? While waiting for un-biased scientific studies to give us firm answers, we shall remain skeptical.

Consumption of Sugary Drinks Linked to Alzheimer's Disease

2007-12-10T22:06:00.000-08:00

Excessive drinking of sugary beverages may increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease, according to a new study by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology reported FoxNews.com.

Sweetened beverages leading to obesity, and now Alzheimer' s: Do we need more reasons to demand that all sweetened beverages be removed from our schools' premises?

Sugars in Drinks and Obesity: More evidence of correlation

2007-12-06T23:00:00.000-08:00

According to Marion Nestle's blog today, a new study from U. North Carolina measures soft drink consumption in the U.S. population from 1965 to 2002. The increase is 21%–and a whopping 222 calories per day, close to the reported increase in calorie intake from all sources over that time period. The authors count all sweetened drinks: traditional colas, juice drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, and vitamin waters.
You will also find a bunch of worldwide scientific studies on www.sciencedaily.com showing an overwhelming correlation between intake of sugars from beverages -in particular fructose, which is half of sugar and more than half of high fructose corn syrup- and obesity.

Meanwhile, we just stumbled on this press release from the Energy drink industry, which proudly announces that Energy drinks are expected to grow at an annual rate of 12% -Sales expected to exceed $9 Billion by 2011. Energy drinks are the latest offspring of the sweetened beverages category. Boasting all sorts of claims, unfortunately not regulated by FDA, they tend to make us forget the sugars that go with the other ingredients -safe or not.

Here is a quite comprehensive list of sugar content in soft drinks and energy drinks. Enjoy, and keep in mind that the maximum daily recommended allowance for added sugars is 40g...

This UCSF Children's hospital webpage helps you understand the correlation, and pinpoints which types of drinks to avoid -and they include 100% fruit juices in the list- and which ones to choose.
Another resource is this presentation from CDC, aptly named Rethink Your Drink.

Meanwhile, let's keep in mind that most of these sweetened beverages are still allowed to be sold in schools. Even Paul Harkins's proposed amendment to the Farm Bill plans to keep quite a few offenders available in schools... Drink for thought.

School Nutrition Standards: Marion Nestle's position

2007-12-05T16:17:00.000-08:00

Here is Marion Nestle's position on school nutrition standards.
We all want vending machines out of schools. Why do school districts have to rely on food corporations' junk money in order to provide education for the next generation in the first place? Why can't the education budget be simply prioritized?
Obesity is indeed a political issue.

School Food: Who's got a dog in this fight?

2007-12-05T16:02:00.000-08:00

From Chef Ann's blog -our favorite Renegade Lunch Lady-, an analysis of last week's events -and compromises with Big Food- concerning "food" sold to our children within schools.

Obesity as an economic -and a political- issue: Back to the Farm Bill

2007-12-05T15:29:00.000-08:00

As food prices rise, the costs of lower-calorie foods are rising the fastest, according to a University of Washington study. As the prices of fresh fruit and vegetables and other low-calorie foods have jumped nearly 20% in the past two years, a nutritious diet may be moving out of the reach of some American consumers, noted the UW researchers, who studied food prices at grocery stores around the Seattle area between 2004 and 2006. Meanwhile, prices of very calorie-rich foods stayed stable or even dropped slightly.
"We are an overfed but undernourished nation," said Drewnowski.
Drewnowski and Monsivais argue that the study provides yet another piece of evidence that obesity isn't just a personal problem -- it's an economic one.
"We need to focus on bigger-scale changes, like the farm bill or other policy measures that can address the disparity in food costs," Monsivais said.

Childhood obesity: recommendations

2007-12-05T02:19:00.000-08:00

Culled from Marion Nestle's blog, who mentioned the publication of the December 126-page supplement to the journal Pediatrics.
Here is a summary of recommendations for pediatricians to help prevent or treat childhood obesity:

Prevention through healthy habits:
1. limiting consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages
2. encouraging consumption of diets with recommended
quantities of fruits and vegetables; the current
recommendations from the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) (www.mypyramid.gov) are for 9
servings per day, with serving sizes varying with age
3. limiting television and other screen time (the American
Academy of Pediatrics recommends no television
viewing before 2 years of age and thereafter no
more than 2 hours of television viewing per day), by
allowing a maximum of 2 hours of screen time per
day and removing televisions and other screens
from children’s primary sleeping area (although
a relationship between obesity and screen time other
than television viewing, such as computer games, has
not been established, limitation of all screen time may
promote more calorie expenditure);
4. eating breakfast daily;
5. limiting eating out at restaurants, particularly fast
food restaurants (frequent patronage of fast food
restaurants may be a risk factor for obesity in children,
and families should also limit meals at other
kinds of restaurants that serve large portions of energy-
dense foods);
6. encouraging family meals in which parents and children
eat together (family meals are associated
with a higher-quality diet and with lower obesity
prevalence, as well as with other psychosocial benefits);
and
7. limiting portion size (the USDA provides recommendations
about portions, which may differ
from serving sizes on nutrition labels, and a product
package may contain several serving sizes).
In addition:
1. eating a diet rich in calcium
2. eating a diet high in fiber;
3. eating a diet with balanced macronutrients
4. encouraging exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months of
age and maintenance of breastfeeding after introduction
of solid food to 12 months of age and beyond,
5. promoting moderate to vigorous physical activity for
at least 60 minutes each day
6. limiting consumption of energy-dense foods.

Staged treatment:
1. consume at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables every
day . Families may subsequently increase to 9
servings per day, as recommended by the USDA.
The USDA Web site (www.mypyramid.gov) recommends
the number of cups of fruits and vegetables
per day according to age, ranging from 2 cups per
day for 2-year-old children to 4.5 cups per day for
17- and 18-year-old youths;
according to age, ranging from 2 cups per
day for 2-year-old children to 4.5 cups per day for
17- and 18-year-old youths;
2. minimize sugar-sweetened beverages such as soda,
sports drinks, and punches . Ideally, these beverages
will be eliminated from a child’s diet, although
children who consume large amounts will
benefit from reduction to 1 serving per day;
3. decrease television viewing (and other forms of
screen time) to less than 2 hours per day . If the child is
less than 2 years of age, then no television viewing should
be the goal. To assist with this change, the television
should be removed from the room where the child sleeps;
4. be physically active at least 1 hour each day . Unstructured
play is most appropriate for young children.
Older children should find physical activities
that they enjoy, which may include sports, dance,
martial arts, bike riding, and walking. Activity can be
structured, such as a dance class, or unstructured,
such as dancing to music at home, and children can
perform several shorter periods of activity over the
day;
5. prepare more meals at home rather than purchasing
restaurant food ;
6. eat at the table as a family at least 5 or 6 times per
week ;
7. consume a healthy breakfast every day ;
8. involve the whole family in lifestyle changes ;
9. allow the child to self-regulate his or her meals and
avoid overly restrictive feeding behaviors
10. help families tailor behavior recommendations to
their cultural values

FDA can no longer adequately protect the nation's food and drug supply

2007-12-04T03:00:00.000-08:00

FDA can no longer adequately protect the nation's food and drug supply, according to a new report by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration subcommittee, which lays the blame squarely on inadequate funding that has not kept pace with increasing demands on the agency. The report also calls for better-trained FDA scientists and improvements in the agency's computer technology. The full report will be presented at a meeting of the FDA's Science Board, according to The Washington Post.
Here is Marion Nestle's additional insight. She urges you to let your congressional representative know what you think in order to regain confidence in our food supply. Go to this site.
P.S. The shocking picture we used to illustrate this entry is borrowed from a well-researched, outspoken blog focused on drugs issues. Check it out!

Is It Healthy? Food Rating Systems Battle It Out

2007-12-01T22:30:00.000-08:00

As a follow-up to our Overall Nutrition Index post, here is today's expanded New York Times article covering a full array of competing private Food Rating Systems.
As pointed out: The ratings systems under development all use government dietary guidance as a starting point. Then they consider various nutrients and give them scores to compute a single rating that is supposed to reflect the aggregate nutritional value of a food.
Because so many scientific studies disagree with some of the current official dietary guidelines -just take a look at Gary Taubes' long compilation- we are left wondering at what to do with yet more confusing (and simplistic, as nutrition is graded with a single rating)information, let alone not even standardized.
What all these systems don't seem to take into account is the level of processing undergone by each ingredient in the final product. When highly processed, what is left of the original individual nutrients? Then what does the final rating really mean?

Oversized Portions? Blame the Chef

2007-12-01T22:16:00.000-08:00

Researchers at Clemson University recently surveyed 300 chefs about what goes into their decisions about portion sizes and the food they serve diners. The study, published in the August issue of Obesity, found big differences between what chefs consider a regular portion compared to the standard serving sizes dictated by the United States Department of Agriculture.
Another interesting article in the New York Times. See what you think.

Harkin's federal standards for schools' vending machines

2007-12-01T21:35:00.000-08:00

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, has twice introduced bills to deal with foods other than the standard school lunch, which is regulated by Department of Agriculture. This new measure, which addresses competitive foods, is being proposed as an amendment to Farm Bill:
The nutrition standards would allow only plain bottled water and eight-ounce servings of fruit juice or plain or flavored low-fat milk with up to 170 calories to be sold in elementary and middle schools. High school students could also buy diet soda or, in places like school gyms, sports drinks. Other drinks with as many as 66 calories per eight ounces could be sold in high schools, but that threshold would drop to 25 calories per eight-ounce serving in five years.
Food for sale would have to be limited in saturated and trans fat and have less than 35 percent sugar (Imagine over a third of a snack as sugar -not really a definition for healthy snack: See our earlier posts on effects of sugars on insulin). Sodium would be limited, and snacks must have no more than 180 calories per serving for middle and elementary schools and 200 calories for high schools.
The rules have the support of food and drink manufacturers, including the American Beverage Association: No wonder, it basically represents an alignment to the Clinton Alliance's compromise with the Food and Beverage Industry.
States would not be able to pass stronger restrictions. Full New York Times Story here.

P.S. Dec. 17th, 2007. Here is Marion Nestle's follow-up on this story: Measure dropped. Back to state regulations...

Splenda makers sued by Sugar Companies

2007-12-01T00:58:00.000-08:00

Several U.S. sugar companies are filing a complaint against McNeil Nutritionals, maker of Splenda. McNeil allegedly misled consumers with its "made from sugar, tastes like sugar" advertising campaign for Splenda, reported The Los Angeles Times
Splenda is the brand name for sucralose, which uses a chemical process to alter sugar, eliminating most of its calories, by adding chlorine.

Salt in processed foods reviewed by FDA

2007-12-01T00:43:00.000-08:00

FDA may instate mandatory regulations on salt amounts in processed food. The agency has begun hearing expert testimony on the role excess salt plays in health problems including high blood pressure, heart disease and strokes, reported The Philadelphia Inquirer

Junk-free foods trend

2007-11-30T23:14:00.000-08:00

As consumers continue to want natural and environmentally-friendly products, according to Mintel's 2008 food trend predictions, manufacturers will put more information on their labels, such as where ingredients come from, how they are manufactured, and how they are packaged.
Mintel predicts that even more companies will take steps to remove artificial colors, preservatives flavors and "otherwise unknown ingredients" from their products next year, so as to make junk-free claims and have 'clean' labels.
It expects that ingredients lists "will read more like home recipes than chemists' shopping lists".
Let us hope that this trend, full-fledged in Europe, will reach our shores soon.

Health problems associated with obesity continue to grow

2007-11-28T21:20:00.000-08:00

Health problems associated with obesity continue to grow, for instance, excess body fat is now being linked with poor bone health. The bones of people with high body fat were 8% to 9% weaker than those of normal body fat, according to a study in the November issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Girls on the Run - Lollipop Run

2007-11-28T21:15:00.001-08:00

http://www.gotrbayarea.org/

Girls on the Run of the Bay Area is a unique non-profit organization that aims to educate and build confidence in young girls through a non-competitive curriculum-based running program. Girls ages 8 to 13 sign up for a 10-week training program, where they are exposed to health education, life skills development, mentoring relationships, and physical training. The program culminates with a 5K or 1-mile run called the Lollipop Run. It will be hosted at Crissy Fields in San Francisco on Dec. 8, 2007 at 10:00am. ALL ARE WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE!

I signed up to be a Running Buddy for this program and met with my girl today. On the day of the Lollipop Run, I will be running along her side to support and cheer her on. Today, we ran/walked/skipped/side stepped 1/4 of a mile together. She was very positive and excited about the program and mentioned that some of her best friends participate in Girls on the Run as well! After my time with her, I realized not only is this a program to get kids to be physically active, but that it is truly a safe environment for girls to learn life lessons and make friendships to last. Please support Girls on the Run by volunteering your time or donating to their programs.

States Slow to Ban Restaurant Trans Fats

2007-11-28T20:53:00.000-08:00

Although 14 states have so far proposed a ban or restriction on trans fats in restaurants, not a single bill has been passed as the end of the year is nearing. This month, Ohio became the 15th state to make such a proposal, reported The Associated Press. The legislation has faced strong opposition from the National Restaurant Association and its state-level affiliates.

Overall Nutritional Quality Index: An alternative to FDA's Nutrition Facts?

2007-11-28T20:04:00.000-08:00

Here is another interesting press release today:
Topco Associates LLC introduced the Overall Nutritional Quality Index, a food scoring system. The system allows for at-a-glance comparison of foods on the basis of overall nutritional quality. Topco Associates will join with Griffin Hospital in an effort to introduce the system to grocery stores nationwide by 2008.
OK, so we all know FDA's Nutrition Panels are confusing and incomplete, in part because they are the result of compromises with Big Food lobbies.
So who is behind this much publicized alternative? Here is Wikipedia's entry for Topco Associates LLC.. In brief, an entity owned by grocery stores. So for the moment, let us take the news with a grain of salt, and hope FDA will manage to revamp nutrition facts labels with public health in mind.

Two-thirds of States Get Poor Grades on School Food Report Card

2007-11-28T19:42:00.000-08:00

Kentucky and Oregon top the nation in healthy school foods policies, but two-thirds of states have no or weak nutrition standards to limit junk-food and soda sales out of vending machines, school stores, and other venues outside of school meals, according to a school foods report card from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

strong argument against the idea that saturated fat causes heart disease

2007-11-28T18:33:00.000-08:00

Here is an extract of a groundbreaking entry found on Nina Planck's passionate, well-researched blog:

Uffe Ravnskov is a leader of a loose international network of doctors, scientists, and researchers known as The Cholesterol Skeptics. On November 25, Ravnskov, who is the the author of a terrific and admirably brief book called The Cholesterol Myths, wrote this note. (I put some words in bold.)

'An interesting discussion between Gary Taubes and Ronald Krauss aired on November 2 (Talk of the Nation). Krauss was previously head of the Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association, the organisation that publishes the official US guidelines for prevention of heart disease. Krauss and his group were the first to show that a high level of small, dense LDL was a much stronger risk factor for coronary heart disease than LDL, and also that there is an inverse association between intake of saturated fat and small, dense LDL, thus a strong argument against the idea that saturated fat causes heart disease. Recently I asked Krauss why the AHA still warns against saturated fat. He answered that decisions for guidelines are made by voting and there is still a majority in favor of the traditional view.'

Science, as anyone who has read Thomas Kuhn, or who follows Bush administration policy on environmental and medical issues knows, can be political. And when medical and nutritional advice are decided democratically - that is, by voting - it takes time for the dominant consensus to gain critics and lose proponents. Many have observed that ideological renewal doesn't happen until some critical number of influential proponents die off - literally.

Let's hope they get the good news in time, and don't die of heart disease from eating too much powdered skim milk, spray-dried eggs, corn oil, and whatever new-fangled trans fat-free vegetable oil spread is being advertised on NPR this morning. I've seen one study (Nutrition and Metabolism, January 15, 2007) on the new fake vegetable oil spreads which are trans-free; they increased heart disease risk factors. K.C. Hayes found that these interestified fats reduce HDL and raise blood sugar. The control group ate regular palm oil, a traditional saturated vegetable fat.

Remember the general rule: If your great-grandmother ate it, it's probably okay. Here's my three-point plan: One, eat diverse traditional foods, no matter what your tradition is, Irish, Swedish, Jamaican, or Malaysian. Two, avoid industrial foods, especially corn oil and sugars of all kinds. Three, eat the traditional foods you happen to prefer. Now stop worrying about your diet.

Meanwhile, here are two brief juicy videos explaining what's wrong with the so-called lipid hypothesis. They make a good introduction for friends, family, and doctors you might want to talk to about butter and health.

Big Fat Lies
The McGovern Report

Omega-3 fatty acids claims reviewed by FDA

2007-11-27T23:38:00.000-08:00

FDA found that certain nutrient content claims for foods, including conventional foods and dietary supplements, that contain omega-3 fatty acids, do not meet the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. FDA is proposing to change food labeling in response.
Let us check those food labels closely again.

Starchy foods such as white rice and bread raise the likelihood of diabetes

2007-11-27T23:07:00.000-08:00

Starchy foods such as white rice and bread raise the likelihood of diabetes for both black and Chinese women, but adding some whole-grain foods may reverse the risk, according to individual studies from Boston University School of Public Health and Vanderbilt University.
One more reason to want FDA to update food Nutrition Panels by itemizing carbs into refined carbohydrates and whole grains.

Airline food getting healthier?

2007-11-27T22:35:00.000-08:00

Airline food is getting healthier, but there is plenty of room for improvement, according to Charles Stuart Platkin, a nutritional expert who analyzed nine U.S. airlines' snacks and meals for coach passengers. United Airlines serves the most nutritious food and was given Platkin's highest "health score," 4? stars on a 5-star scale.
Hmm...All we see in this nicely boxed package is just highly-processed food. Hardly anything fresh or natural. If we must eat something when flying for a few hours, maybe our best option is still to bring a few pieces of fruits or anything else that's actually healthy.

The American Heart Association (AHA) updated criteria for its Food Certification Program

2007-11-27T22:18:00.000-08:00

The American Heart Association (AHA) updated criteria for its Food Certification Program, which will include new limits for trans fats. After Jan. 1, 2008, companies seeking to include the AHA's heart-check mark on packages will have to demonstrate the product contains less than 0.5 grams per Reference Amount Customarily Consumed. Individual foods and meat/poultry/seafood items will have to meet additional requirements related to servings...
Somewhat belated on the one hand, and still not addressing the transfat loophole on the other hand - which still allows sizable quantities of transfats per package, should the package contain several serving sizes.

Proposed Ban on Genetically Modified Corn in Europe

2007-11-24T22:42:00.000-08:00

While the proposed ban on genetically modified corn in Europe stems from environmental considerations, this constitutes one more move against the powerful biotechnology industry -and towards our protection- to follow up on.
Already, genetically modified ingredients are mandatorily labeled in Europe, so that Europeans are better informed about what's in their foods.
Which is not the case here in America: Even though 93 percent of Americans support GMO labeling, Monsanto Corp and others in their league have successfully lobbied our government to prevent labeling GMOs. How many of us are aware that 89 percent of soybeans, and 61 percent of corn is genetically modified? Because of the prevalence of corn and soy in processed foods, most Americans have been eating at least some GM foods for years. More on this excellent informative, proactive website.
Here is a link to a campaign to label GMOs.

"No artificial growth hormone" to be banned from milk labels in Pennsylvania

2007-11-24T02:15:00.000-08:00

Monsanto managed to get the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to ban labels on milk and dairy products that say it comes from cows that haven’t been treated with artificial bovine growth hormone, which is sometimes known as rBGH or rBST. Agriculture officials in Ohio are contemplating a similar decision.
Monsanto is the leading purveyor of genetically-modified seeds and other organisms meant for the food supply. As of today, they've successfully lobbied to get our government to prevent labeling GMOs. For some reason, milk producers have so far been allowed to state when they did not use Monsanto's hormones -albeit in a circonvoluted fashion. This allowed us consumers to make informed choices. Is this move in Pennsylvania going to gain momentum, once again at our expense?

More food fraud unearthed by Center for Science in the Public Interest

2007-11-24T00:48:00.000-08:00

Get more enlightment from CSPI: See how claims for common processed foods -such as containing whole grains, yogurt, berries, etc.- are abusively used by food corporations. Also CSPI tackles with Coca Cola's bogus Enviga calorie burning drink...

Chocolate case: Debunking Hershey's health claims

2007-11-23T23:42:00.000-08:00

Found on the blog of a young outspoken lady, this post deconstructs Hershey's Whole Bean Chocolate health claims... By analyzing the ingredient list: Ingredients: Milk chocolate (milk; sugar; cocoa butter; chocolate; cocoa; lactose (milk); milk fat; soy lecithin; PGPR, emulsifier; vanillin, artificial flavor); inulin; calcium carbonate; sucralose)

On a different note -same idea- have fun with this post from epicurean David Lebovitz.

UK alters traffic light labeling system to account for added sugars

2007-11-19T20:44:00.000-08:00

From Marion Nestle's blog, the news that the U.K. Food Standards agency is now requiring food manufacturers to itemize added sugars and naturally-occurring sugars on the nutrition facts panel. FDA, take notice.

Book Review: Ending The Food Fight

2007-11-19T00:51:00.000-08:00

Warning: This is not just another diet book!
Dr. Ludwig pioneered the use of a low-glycemic diet to combat obesity 10 years ago, when he founded the Optimal Weight For Life Program at Children's Hospital Boston. His approach integrates biology (weight control systems), behavior (willpower, parenting skills) and environment to benefit both the overweight child and his family.
Dr. Ludwig begins his book by describing how our environment has become more and more toxic over the past decades: Distorted portions, increased proportion of highly processed foods and beverages in our everyday diet, junk food and beverages sold in schools, reduced PE programs, omnipresence of food commercials, etc. He coins the phrase "fake food" to describe factory food, nutrient-poor processed food. Fake food creates addiction and promotes overeating -the cause for the obesity epidemic. In our toxic environment, kids are fed a steady diet of fake food that has become the norm. We have stopped cooking and have delegated this responsibility to food processors -whose main goal is profit.
In order to reverse the damage, Dr. Ludwig offers 2 key strategies:

1- Developing eating and activity habits:
Eating to feel full is a family affair: Get rid of all fake foods in the pantry; stock up on whole foods: vegetables, beans, fruits, unprocessed grains. Eliminate all sweetened beverages and reduce fruit juice to maximum 1 cup a day. Eat slowly.
Getting physical means play, walk rather than drive, take the stairs instead of the escalator, participate in the household chores, etc.

2- Strenghening the family environment:
Parents must model healthy habits by eliminating junk food from home, limiting TV and internet surfing/chatting, and increasing play, walk, exercise.
Parents and children are taught to be mindful to respond intelligently to the environment: e.g. eating mindfully is about how you eat: Think about what you put in your mouth, its taste while you're eating the food, and where the food comes from.
Parents have to teach children to resist instant gratification to achieve a long-term goal, which leads to empowerment.

Dr. Ludwig develops thoroughly these points into a detailed, practical 9-week program. He includes numerous easy recipes with simple nutrition facts, along with shopping lists for breakfast, lunchboxes and dinner with dessert included, all based on real foods.
This book encompasses sheer health advice: Dr. Ludwig gives a bigger picture of how families can fight the commercial, toxic environment and strenghen their health, and their ties.

Dr. Rob Lustig on Obesity, Refined Carbs & Fructose Addiction

2007-11-07T22:30:00.000-08:00

Dr. Rob Lustig Interview

Dr Lustig: I am a pediatric endocrinologist, which means I study glands and hormones and children. I’m very interested in how the brain controls energy balance; and I’m also interested in signals that come from the body up to the brain. I’m particularly interested in how hormones and behavior interact. A lot of people think that obesity is a behavior; that somehow you’re just too darn fat, you eat too much, you exercise too little, and that it’s your fault. In fact the federal government wants it to be your fault because that way they can deny Medicare payments so there is actual financial incentive to make it your fault. The research that I have done suggests that the behavior (of obesity) is actually secondary to biochemical changes. The hormones that are driving obesity are also driving the behavior. The question is why have the hormones changed? And this is the work that I have been doing over the past 15 years. It has led me to specific thoughts about what has happened and what has changed. It starts even earlier than childhood. It starts in the pregnant mother. The more overweight the mother is when she gets pregnant, the more chance that the child is going to be obese when the child is born.

S: So if your family has a history of obesity, then the chance that the offspring will have obesity also increases.

Dr. Lustig: It’s about a 5-time increase because of that.

S: So in the last 30 years, the influx of sugar in our society has produced even more obesity. And now it’s multiplying?

Dr. Lustig: In fact it’s a geometric progression and that’s what we’re seeing. Despite all of the efforts that the federal government has tried to institute – this thing called Healthy People 2000, well that didn’t work. Now, we have Healthy People 2010 and that’s not working. In fact, the incidence of obesity keeps going up. There’s just a Johns Hopkins study that came out about a month ago that said if things keep going the way they are going, in 2015 41% of America will be obese.

S: Could you estimate the health cost?

Dr. Lustig: It’s going to break the bank.

S: And our federal government is basically saying, “take responsibility for yourself.”

Dr. Lustig: In fact, if the hormonal changes are altering the behavior, which is what I believe based on the research that I’ve done, then you basically can’t control your behavior. It’s not possible. We have to basically get at what the actual cause of the problem is in order to affect change.

S: Would you say of the current obesity epidemic that there are ways of taking care of some of the issues or that the prospects are bleak?

Dr. Lustig: There are the biochemical problems, there are the behavioral issues, and there are the societal issues. My personal feeling is that the behavioral issues are impossible for a population to alter until the societal and environmental issues are dealt with. If you look at any other disorder of addiction which this in fact is, the federal government has three kinds of responses. They have 1) regulation, 2) interdiction, and 3) behavioral modification. For instance, drug programs, they have all sorts of laws, the coast guard and the army to prevent drugs from getting into the country, and we put people in jail for that. For obesity, which is also an addiction, the only thing we have is education. We don’t have regulation or interdiction. And there is nothing on the table. That’s why the fast food suits were being brought to get some regulations. Unfortunately, they have been thrown out by Congress because they have been lobbied to do so. I don’t see any government effort being made to alter the environment to help people with the behavioral aspect of this, the phenomenon of addiction.

S: People don’t think of this as an addiction. That’s part of the education don’t you think?

Dr. Lustig: That’s right. You have to understand what addiction is. Addiction in its simplest molecular form is one biochemical in your brain called dopamine. And dopamine is the addiction neurotransmitter, not a hormone. The more dopamine that one particular area of your brain gets, called the nucleus accumbens, the more the reward is fostered and the more addictive the phenomenon will be. This is how drugs of abuse work, this is how nicotine and alcohol work. Unfortunately, this is also how sugar works. It has been shown in numerous studies that sugar ups your dopamine. The question is why and what can we do about it? Fructose is a particular sugar that is particularly egregious. Fructose is half of sucrose. Sucrose is table sugar, so table sugar is definitely part of the problem. Then, of course there is high fructose corn syrup, which is what every soda is flavored with. It is the first ingredient in BBQ sauce and in ketchup. The question is how did it get there, why is it there, who put it there, and why won’t they take it out?

S: It’s because of the great subsidies in the Midwest for the farm agriculture.

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely. It’s what you do with corn. A lot of people want to turn corn into alcohol, but they won’t because from an economic standpoint, that’s actually not a winner. But it is certainly a winner to turn it into high fructose corn syrup because that increases sales of foods by quite a bit. We have a food industry in this country that currently produces 3900 calories per person per day. We as human beings can only eat 1800 calories per person per day. So the food industry in this country is making more than double what we can eat. Somebody has to eat the rest. Well, who is it? It’s us. Because they have found a way to influence this addiction to make us eat more.

S: The dopamine makes you crave for more.

Dr. Lustig: That’s right. The whole thing keeps going. Food profits are up by 5%. In the old days, before 1980, food profits were up by 1%. So the food companies are seeing a quintupling of their profits since they’ve added high fructose corn syrup to their foods.

K: Do you think they produce more products with high fructose corn syrup, either because it's so cheap or so addictive, to maximize profits?

Dr. Lustig: It’s both. They work together. If the companies made all of these products with high fructose corn syrup but we didn’t eat more, then they couldn’t make more profits then there wouldn’t be more foods on the market. The fact is they are profiting so there is only reason to make more. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy and it’s not going to get better because there is no regulation.

S: Not only is there no regulation, even if there is some regulation, you see a little bit coming into schools where they are not being enforced.

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely. I’ll give you an example. My daughter, who is 8 years old and in 2nd grade last year, came home and said, “Dad, you’re not going to believe this.” She brought home a carton of Berkeley Farms 1% Chocolate Milk compared to 1% Milk (without chocolate). The 1% Milk had 130 calories and 15 grams of carbohydrates (lactose or milk sugar). The 1% Chocolate Milk had 190 calories, so 60 calories more per carton. It’s like getting an extra half glass of orange juice, with 29 grams of sugar per carton, all of which were high fructose corn syrup. Basically, if you drink a Berkeley Farms 1% Chocolate Milk, you’re basically getting a glass of milk and a half a Coke.

S: So why do they sell this at school?

Dr. Lustig: The school nutrition people say it is the only way to get kids to drink their milk. They need their Calcium and their Vitamin D.

S: Let’s talk a bit about fructose and how insulin turns into fat.

Dr. Lustig: Insulin doesn’t turn into fat. Insulin helps drive energy into fat. Most of your audience knows what diabetes is. Diabetes is high blood sugar and it’s bad for you. It hurts your kidneys, eyes, blood vessels and heart. You can ultimately die from it. Let’s take a diabetic off the street. Blood sugar is 300. That is bad. We give the diabetic a shot of insulin. Insulin lowers blood sugar. Blood sugar goes from 300 down to 100. That is good. Blood sugar went down by 200 points. That is good. Where did the 200 points of blood sugar go? They were in the blood, now they’re not. They went to the fat for storage. That is insulin’s job. Insulin takes whatever you aren’t burning and puts it into fat for storage. Insulin turns sugar to fat. Insulin makes fat. More insulin, more fat – body fat. That is what happens when you don’t burn it. Any calorie that you take in has one of three things. Either you convert it (that is good), store it (not good), or it goes out in your urine (which means you are diabetic -- much worse). That is why exercise is so important because it gives you an opportunity to burn it but it also important because it reduces food consumption. People think exercising increases food consumption but it doesn’t. It actually reduces food consumption and actually helps detoxify some of the sugars that are in your liver. Bottomline: when your insulin is high, you are going to gain weight. There is another hormone in your body, called leptin, that is made by fat cells and goes to your brain and tells your brain you don’t need to eat any more. It also tells your body to burn energy properly. I’ll give you an example. Take a 5 year old. Give him a cookie. What happens?

S: He’s bouncing off walls.

Dr. Lustig: Exactly. You call that the “sugar high.” That’s not the “sugar high.” That’s leptin telling the muscles to burn the energy because it’s trying to stay weight stable. That’s a normal physiologic process. Try that with an obese kid. It doesn’t happen. The kid eats the cookies and there’s no bouncing off walls. The reason is because that kid’s leptin isn’t working right. If that kid’s leptin was working right, number one he’d be thin and secondly, he’d be bouncing off walls with that cookie. But instead, what happens is that cookie ends up as fat and he doesn’t bounce off walls. The reason is that his leptin isn’t working. The question is how come the obese kid’s leptin doesn’t work, whereas the thin kid’s leptin does? What makes that difference? The answer, based on the research that I’ve done, is the hormone insulin. Insulin is suppose to make you gain weight. Insulin drives energy to fat. If insulin makes fat and fat makes leptin and leptin is supposed to keep you from gaining more weight, then you have a nice negative feedback cycle. That is good because then you won’t gain the weight. But if your insulin is blocking your leptin, then the insulin is driving the energy storage (fat storage increases) and blocking your brain from seeing the leptin which means that your brain is starving, which means that you are going to eat more and keep gaining the weight. The question is where did the insulin come from? Why is our insulin higher today than it was 25 years ago? That is where the whole sugar question comes from. That is why this whole fructose issue is so huge because fructose is the single worst aggravator of insulin in our bodies.

S: So if you eat a certain level of sugar, and it messes with your insulin, your leptin is not going to tell you to stop eating.

Dr. Lustig: That’s exactly right.

S: Higher body fat correlates with the inability to use the hormone leptin.

M: I’d like to get back at the 29 grams of sugar found in the 1% Chocolate Milk from your daughter’s school. There was a petition from CSPI back in 1999 to set the maximum amount of added sugars per day at 40 grams. Did you find a safe level for ingestion of sugar?

Dr. Lustig: I haven’t actually done those studies. I don’t know if there is a safe level. I think ultimately there is a reason for eating carbohydrates but it’s not the reason that we should be eating carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are a perfectly good energy source if it is balanced by something else called fiber. Fiber is good. Carbohydrates are made with fiber. There is no carbohydrate in nature that doesn’t include fiber. Think about it. Look at a piece of sugar cane. What does it look like? It’s this big fibrous thing. In the ancient times, people would have to suck it to try to get the little bit of sugar out of this very fibrous stalk. Of course, now we have 100 pound bags just lying around waiting to be turned into doughnuts. Another example is orange juice vs. oranges. Oranges have fiber and 20 calories. Orange juice has no fiber and 120 calories. Which do you think is better for you? So what’s good about fiber? Fiber slows sugar absorption from the gut into the bloodstream, thereby keeping your insulin down. A high fiber meal means your insulin doesn’t rise as high because your blood sugar doesn’t rise as high. The second thing that fiber does is it makes the food move through the intestine faster. There is a satiety signal at the end of your intestine, a hormone that comes out into the bloodstream sooner so that you won’t eat that second portion. That is why they say fiber is more filling because it actually makes that satiety signal start earlier. What we tell our patients is that they have to wait 20 minutes for second portions.

S: So if you eat solid whole food, an apple instead of apple juice, that fiber in the apple slows the insulin in your body and also creates the feeling of not being so hungry.

Dr. Lustig: Apples are fine. Apple juice is not. Oranges are fine. Orange juice is not. Smoothies are also not good.

S: You related juice to being just as bad as soft drinks.

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely. In some ways juice is worse. Number one, people think juice is healthy and it’s not. Whole fruit is healthy.

S: What if it says Organic apple juice?

Dr. Lustig: That’s irrelevant. Fiber is the good part and there is no fiber in the juice. The reason why fiber has been taken out of our diet is because you can’t freeze fiber. Go home and try it. Make a pot of brown rice. Put it in a Tupperware, put it in the freezer. Take it out the next day, and try to reheat it and eat it. See what happens. You won’t touch it. It might work in a shock absorber but you won’t eat it. You can’t freeze fiber. Otherwise, there would be frozen pears and plums in your supermarket. Food companies would like nothing better than to decrease the depreciation on the food that goes bad. They would love to freeze it but they can’t, so they extract the fiber from it. When you go out into the field and harvest the wheat, what color is it?

All: Brown.

Dr. Lustig: That’s the fiber. That’s the husk on the outside of the starch granule that’s on the inside. Of course, we mill it and pulverize it to get rid of the bran. We do it on purpose because we are after the starch on the outside. Sadly, the husk and bran is the good part. You want to eat your carbohydrate with fiber and that will actually solve this insulin problem. Unfortunately, that is the antithesis of processed food and big food. Processed and fast food is fiber-less food. This is on purpose because they have to freeze the food and send it all over the world to the different franchises where they have to cook it up fast. That is why there is no fiber in our diet anymore.

Medical anthropologists examined fecal matter of people who died 50,000 years ago found in caves. They extracted DNA material from the bacteria in the fecal matter in people of 50,000 years ago. The researchers found that human beings used to eat 100-300 grams of fiber per day. Now, we eat 12 grams. That has had a huge impact on the insulin problem. The insulin affects leptin and that affects obesity.

S: Is there a percentage in our daily diet that is healthier for us in terms of recommendation for fiber in grams?

Dr. Lustig: The important thing is that fiber is associated with the food rather than added separately. When you see things like Whole grain Lucky Charms, this is just a joke. That just doesn’t work. You also see foods with added fiber. That is added cereal fiber, which doesn’t work because it is not surrounding the starch granule. What you want is something that says whole grain. That means the wheat granule (the fiber or husk) is still intact. That means it will have the good benefits in terms of nutrition that you need.

S: If you eat an apple and you have the natural sugar with the fiber, it slows down the insulin so that it's taken slower in the body and it also helps to stop the craving to eat more. If you juice it, it goes directly into insulin, which goes directly into fat. The phenomenon of being full does not occur at all.

K: What if you had juice with high pulp? That’s fiber, right?

Dr. Lustig: That will help in terms of moving the food through the intestine faster, but once you have dissociated the juice from the fiber itself, your glucose absorption is going to increase and that is going to raise your insulin. You can get one potential benefit, but you’re not going to get both.

S: If you put fruit in a blender and you blend it, are you going to get the same effect of the fiber?

Dr. Lustig: No, smoothies are a problem. If you go to Jamba Juice, there are on average about 600 calories in one of those smoothies.

M: Right now, we tend to buy a lot of processed food because of its convenience. What about functional foods? When the food manufacturers use refined ingredients and add back fiber separated from the original ingredient, is it the same benefit that we get?

Dr. Lustig: There are two phenomenon associated with fiber. One is the rate of sugar rise and the second is how fast the food gets through the intestine. If you add fiber back, you’ll get the food through the intestine but you won’t affect the rate of sugar rise. So the insulin will still rise, the insulin blocks the leptin and it’s still going to force weight gain. It’s not optimal. It’s better to eat the food naturally rather than refined or processed and then added back.

K: Going back to the smoothie example. If you break down the fiber in a beverage like that, it’s the same thing as if you hadn’t had it whole. Why is that?

Dr. Lustig: The data shows it but I don’t know why.

M: Is it the same thing with potatoes when you eat them baked or mashed?

Dr. Lustig: No, because there is no fiber in potatoes. There is some in the skin but it has very little fiber. The clinic over at UCSF called the WATCH clinic, which stands for Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health, advocates four simple messages to deal with childhood obesity. We see patients weekly. Our intake clinic for new patients is once a month where we see 12 new patients all on the same day. We do that for economies of scale because the lifestyle intervention that we advocate is better as a group than individually. We have four messages that we espouse in the clinic. Each one is evidence-based, makes sense, and shown to work. 1) Get rid of every sugar liquid in the house. Look at the side of a bottle and look at the calories. If the number is 5 or less, then you are good. If it is 6 or more, then leave it at the store. 2) Eat your carbohydrates with fiber. Again, look at the side of the package and look at dietary fiber, which is under calories on the label. If it is 3 or more, then you are good. If it is 2 or less, then it is garbage. 3) Wait 20 minutes before second portions. That is trying to take care of that satiety signal and try to get them to stop that second portion before it occurs. This last one is the most difficult for a lot of families. 4) Kids buy their TV time with physical activity. Kids are watching 4-6 hours of TV a day. They could be using that time to be doing some thing more beneficial like walking. We tell parents to go to Sears and buy the cheapest treadmill they have. This is priced at $269. Take the TV out of the kids room and put it in the living room. If the kid is watching, they are walking. If they are watching 2 hours of TV, then they are walking 2 hours. If they get tired of walking, then make them go and read a book.

S: Can you illustrate what one of these 10 year olds are like? Are you really seeing 10 year olds that are over 200 pounds?

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely and quite a few. And they are on their way to Type-2 Diabetes. And for the reasons we’ve talked about, because their insulin is high. You can tell that insulin is high because of this rash on the back of the neck, which is called Acanthosis; it is this velvety, hyper-pigmented rash on the back of the neck and in the under arms and sometimes under the breast cleavage and sometimes on the groin. What that is is excess insulin working on the skin. We can just look at the kid and know that the insulin is high. The insulin drives the fat, the fat keeps growing and growing, until one day in the future they’re going to actually outgrow their insulin supply. At that point, they can’t turn sugar into fat, so whatever they take in stays in the blood and rise and now that kid has Type-2 Diabetes. We have seen this huge epidemic of Type-2 Diabetes in children. It used to be that Type-2 Diabetes was never seen in children. It now accounts for 30% of all of our new diagnosis; that is 30% of all our kid diabetics are now Type-2. That is because of obesity, which is due to fructose and insulin.

S: In the past, it was Type-1, which you were born with. Now, kids are acquiring Type-2 Diabetes, which is a phenomenon.

Dr. Lustig: It’s what happens when you outgrow your insulin. Once you have Diabetes, the clock’s ticking until you die. If you get Diabetes as a teenager, your life expectancy is going to be cut markedly short. We already know from statistical studies that if your BMI (Body Mass Index) is 40 as an adult, then your life expectancy is cut by 20 years if you are Caucasian; and by 40 years if you are African American. As a result, you have decrease productivity and an increase in medical expenses. By 2015, 41% of America will be obese. There goes our economy, army, the entire medical care to take care of the obese. There should be a huge outcry but we are too busy to care about this issue.

S: Besides Type-2 diabetes and obesity, what are some of the other things that happen to a child and adolescent?

Dr. Lustig: Fructose causes fatty liver. The fat in the liver builds up and can cause cirrhosis the same way alcohol does.

S: So coca cola can act like booze.

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely. Fructose is alcohol without the buzz. Drinking a can of soda is like drinking a can of beer in terms of what it does to your liver, the number of calories, and of what it does to your leptin. A can of soda and a can of beer are the same. If you feel good about giving your 13-year-old a can of beer, then go to it.

S: So your liver can’t tell the difference?

Dr. Lustig: There’s no difference as far as the liver can see.

S: Fructose is a major ingredient in soft drinks. It is also in every thing that has sugar in our society. So you are chugging this stuff.

Dr. Lustig: At our obesity clinic, we look at the number of calories in soft drinks and juice that our kids come in with. At UCSF, we see a completely multi-ethnic population; we have Caucasians, Latinos, African Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. We have all five major category groups at UCSF. The one group that we don’t see much of are Native Americans. Interestingly, the Caucasians, Latinos, Asians, and Pacific Islanders drink, on average, 200-calories per person per day. African Americans are consuming 400-calories per person per day.

S: Is that a cultural difference?

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely, there is a cultural difference. The African Americans are drinking double what the other groups are. All are obese, but the African Americans double. The first tenet is to get rid of all the sugary drinks. We explain the effect of fructose on the liver and everything else. Then we bring the patients back in 3 months. The Caucasians, Latinos, Asians, and Pacific Islanders have all reduced their sugared liquid consumption close to zero. The African Americans are still at 400. No change; no change at all.

S: What’s the struggle?

Dr. Lustig: Well, we ask the kid “Why haven’t you been able to make this change?” The answer is always the same. One answer from every kid. “Because water doesn’t taste good.”

S: It’s like the milk and the chocolate milk.

Dr. Lustig: Water is what you’re supposed to drink because that’s what keeps you hydrated. So, why does water have to be sweet? Where did this come from? Well, there’s the addiction that we’re talking about. The fact is it is addictive. The fact is that the kids can’t get off it. They won’t because they need it. This is how that dopamine is being driven. That’s how the insulin is affecting dopamine transmission in the brain and it’s causing these kids to continue to crave this.

K: In addition to this being a physiological addiction, do you think it has anything to do with marketing?

Dr. Lustig: Oh, absolutely; of course it does. Who’s in the schools? Who’s paying for the uniforms? Who’s paying for the shoulder pads? Absolutely. In the bay area, SB 965 was passed as an effort to try to get sodas out of the schools in California. In fact, sports drinks and juice are just taking the place. Well, who owns the sports drinks and juice companies? The soft drink companies do, so it’s only changing the vending machines and not the products.

S: So we have talked about SB 965 and they are trying to reduce the amount of sugar in vending machines. But for the football teams, they’re providing electrolyte replacement beverages, which have high amounts of sugar.

Dr. Lustig: Right. Well the sports drinks companies are very interesting. In 1967, when that electrolyte replacement beverage first came out; it contained glucose, sodium, and water. It’s the same thing we use to re-hydrate kids in India who have cholera. It’s an oral re-hydration solution which is why it was invented, which makes sense. Did it taste good? Not really. Nobody liked it. But it was good if you were an athlete because it was an oral re-hydration solution. In the mid-90’s, a soft drink company bought this electrolyte replacement beverage made a conscious decision that they were going to market this stuff as a sports drink to everyone. They had to make it worth drinking so they added fructose to it, so now it’s sweet. Do you need that? No. For 25-30 years, it did not have fructose in it, but it does now. The reason is to get kids to drink it and to get them addicted. So this problem is well known to the soft drink companies, but they choose to market their product and choose to make a lot of money.

S: If you were to build a new food pyramid, what would it look like to you?

Dr. Lustig: First, I’d put exercise at the bottom of the pyramid and it would be three-quarters of the pyramid. To be honest with you, none of what you eat matters if you are getting exercise. Why is exercise so good for you? Because it burns calories? No. Twenty minutes of jogging is one chocolate chip cookie. I mean, it’s a joke. That’s not why exercise is good. Exercise is good for three reasons: 1) It improves your skeletal muscles insulin sensitivity. This means that your body can work better on less insulin. If your insulin goes down, that means your leptin works better. If you leptin works better, that means you will eat less. By helping your skeletal muscle, you are helping yourself. 2) It is the best stress reducer we have. Kids are stressed today like never before. There are all sorts of stressors that when we were kids we never even imagined. The fact is TV is a stress. It has been shown that TV raises your hormone cortisol, which is your stress hormone; and cortisol makes your insulin go up and cortisol makes you eat more. Exercise is the best stress reducer. By keeping your cortisol down, that helps your weight. 3) It’s the one way to get your liver to burn off the fructose and fat accumulated in your liver. Then, your liver works better, and your insulin also goes down. Those are the reasons why exercise is good. If you exercise, it almost doesn’t matter what you eat. Unfortunately, society actually makes you not want to exercise. For instance, no child left behind. As far as I’m concerned, that’s no child moving forward and no teacher left standing. What is no child left behind saying? It says that we have to get kids to do better in class or we’re going to lose federal funding or replace the school. So we can’t let our kids exercise during school hours. We need kids in the classroom. In fact, physical activity has gone down, not up. There was an interesting study done in East Carolina University two years ago where they went into the schools and got the schools to agree to give the researchers 45 minutes a day in vigorous activity for the kids. The question was not what happened to the kids' weight; the question was what happened to the kids' grades? What do you think happened? The grades went up. They took 45 minutes out for physical activity, so that’s 45 minutes less in class and the kids did better in school. The idea that we should keep our kids in class more because of failing grades makes no sense at all. The first thing I would do is scrap the pyramid and put exercise in the pyramid instead. Everything else is secondary.

S: How does your research get to the public?

Dr. Lustig: It’s very difficult. The fact is most of the public doesn’t want to know about science. They don’t want to understand the science. And since the science says that the policy has to change, it becomes very problematic. I used to live in Memphis, Tennessee. Do you know why fast food is so big in Memphis, Tennessee? Not because it’s cheap, tasty, or fast. It’s because it’s clean and air-conditioned. It’s the only place in town that parents could go to escape their own homes. So we brought this phenomenon to the aldermen of Memphis, Tennessee, of course all of who were African American, and said this is what’s going on. Do you know what the response was? Do you want to take away the one thing in life that gives these people pleasure? And I thought, no, he’s got a point. This is a real problem. This is a much bigger problem than just getting education out to the masses. This is a huge issue. What is it about our society that has made people decide that food was their salvation? I don’t get it. I think we have to work with the churches. I think we have to work with the pastors. I think we have to get this out in new ways rather than just journal articles and TV shows. This has to involve the entire African American and Latino community to really make some headway. We really need to partner with people to make this happen.

S: So are the African American and Latino population hit the hardest in childhood obesity? What’s the percentage obesity among female adolescents?

Dr. Lustig: The obesity prevalence of African American girls is 45%. That’s where we are and we need to do something about it. Unfortunately, my talking doesn’t seem to make much difference. We need to find new avenues and new partners to be able to get this message out in a rational way. It’s going to stay difficult as long as the operative word is behavior. We have to make the operative word environment; environment controls the behavior.

S: You can’t expect an adolescent to have the ability to understand nutrition as well as an adult does?

Dr. Lustig: The fact is they can understand the negative consequences but it’s the environment that drives their behavior. Education isn’t enough.

S: The government right now is saying that this is your personal responsibility.

Dr. Lustig: A lot of people draw a parallel between tobacco and obesity. If you look at the reduction in tobacco consumption, which has occurred in California and less so in other states, it basically started with second hand smoke and non-smokers' rights. Up to that point, things just kept going up. In 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General and all the lawsuits made no difference. It was only when second hand smoke and non-smokers' rights were passed in 1994 that we started to see the decline. In fact, it was the non-smokers that made smoking less palatable. How do we do that in obesity? One way, we could say, you have to pay more money to sit on a plane if you are obese. Now companies are saying you’re going to be charged more money for health insurance if you are obese. This is the stick approach, but nevertheless once we start finding ways to bring the non-obese persons' rights into obesity then maybe there will be some behavioral affect.

S: In one minute, if I had a child that is obese and needs help, where would I go to get help?

Dr. Lustig: Your Pediatrician’s office should be the place to go but the Pediatrician doesn’t know anything about Nutrition and doesn’t have any time to deal with your kid's problem. It’s very difficult. The likelihood is you’re going to have to see a sub specialist, such as a Nutritionist. The Nutritionist, in general, says a calorie is a calorie – eat less, exercise more, which of course isn’t going to work. It’s going to require physician education, community leader education, and politician education first and foremost. Unfortunately, the individual family is really left scrambling. It is awful. They can come see me, but of course our waitlist is 6 months long.

S: Well, thank you so much.

Dr. Lustig: Thank you for having me.

Food Label Saga: Definition for "Natural" gets ugly

2007-11-07T14:33:00.000-08:00

More battle to get FDA to define "natural"...Too bad the impulsion comes from the Food Industry.

Food Label Saga: FDA to revamp Nutrition Facts Panel

2007-11-07T00:08:00.000-08:00

In a first step toward revamping the Nutrition Facts panel on food labels, FDA is seeking comments by Jan. 31, 2008 on what new reference values it should use to calculate the percent daily value in the labels and what factors the agency should consider in establishing new reference values. In addition, FDA is seeking comments on whether it should require that certain nutrients be added or removed from the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels.

It is about time: Daily value reference amounts have not been updated since the late 70s. Why not ask:

- that a max daily value for added sugars be established -% daily value for sugars is conspicuously absent from the current Nutrition Panel, which makes it difficult to monitor sugars consumption -a major contributor for such chronic diseases as metabolic syndrom. Maybe adopt the USDA recommendation for max. 40g /day.

- that carbohydrates be itemized into refined starches, whole grains, naturally occurring sugars, added sugars, and fiber.

- that saturated fats be itemized into natural saturated fats and synthetic saturated fats (the real bad guys), and that a more scientific daily value be established for natural saturated fats -See our Good Calories, Bad Calories entry.

- Finally, how about ending the trans fat less-than-.5g/per serving loophole? We currently can get quite a few grams trans fats per portion in a product that claims zero trans fat per serving. Multiply these portions consumed throughout the day, and there you go: Without you knowing, those hidden grams of trans fats add up. Thanks to the loophole!

Or maybe we, consumers without Lobby power, should start thinking seriously about avoiding foods that come with labels...

Debunking Superfoods Beverages

2007-11-06T22:16:00.000-08:00

Since we have talked about the latest Superfoods fad in our processed foods, Snapple, a subsidiary of Cadbury Scheppes -one of the largest producers of soft drinks in America- has put out 2 press releases addressing this very fad in just a week.
The first one announces: Snapple Squeezes Tropical Flavors and 'Good For You' Benefits into New Line of Super Premium Juice Drinks.. Today, we got a new Snapple launch: Snapple's New Antioxidant Water and LYTeWater Take Hydration to the Next Level.

Well, let us get deeper in this new buzz, starting with the Snapple Super Premium Juice Drinks. We checked Snapple's website, and picked the new Peach Mangosteen (a superfruit)Juice Drink. The webpage for this product starts with the claim that it helps support your immune system. Ahem. OK, what does the ingredient list say then? (the only objective piece of information)

Ingredients:
Filtered water, sugar, juice concentrates (pear, carrot, mangosteen), natural flavors, citric acid, vitamin C, vitamin A palmitat, vitamin E acetate, acacia gum.

So #1 ingredient is water; followed by...sugar, then juice concentrates (which really means more sugars, and one of the worst ones in high concentrations: fructose). Wait let's stop here: So the Mangosteen part of this superfruit drink is really present only in a processed form in this beverage..Uh oh, that is why Snapple has to actually add artificial vitamins in order to be able to boast the immunity-boosting claim!

Looking at the nutrition facts now: So one bottle of this drink means you really get 36g sugars (i.e more than 7 tsp sugars), which is close to the total daily recommended value of added sugars of 40g.

Up to you to decide if this is going to be the only sweet treat of your day...

If we deconstruct the same way Snapple brand new superfruit enhanced waters, such as Antioxidant Water Grape Pomegranate - Defy, we will still find water#1, sugar#2, and some type of processed juice thereafter. You will get 32.5g sugars per bottle (6.5 tsp)..Definitively not a guilt-free thirst-quencher!

FYI, Vitamin Water has the exact same "nutrition" profile, and the stuff is allowed in our schools...

King Corn, the movie

2007-11-06T21:57:00.000-08:00

Just in time for the new Farm Bill (non)event, this poweful movie will take you to the big American corn trip, all the way from field gluts -subsidized by our very taxes- to the ubiquitous presence of corn and its avatars in our food supply.
Corn has been pointed out as one of the major causes for our current metabolic syndrom epidemic. Check out the movie to figure out the hows and whys.

Food Label Saga: What is "natural"?

2007-11-06T20:53:00.000-08:00

USDA defines "natural" when applied to meat and poultry: No artificial or synthetic ingredients, including added hormones, and minimally processed.

Here is FDA's definition for "natural": When the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors or synthetic substances. The loophole is that they don't define synthetic.

So under FDA, High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) can be claimed as natural, because at some point it comes from corn, and does not contain added color, artificial flavors, etc.

As a matter of fact, here is the process involved in making HFCS: Corn refiners are equipped with centrifuges, hydroclones, ion exchange columns and buckets of enzymes in order to modify the molecular structure of corn and turn it into HFCS.

Back in the 80s, FTC came up with this definition for "natural": A food that has no more processing than something which could be made in a household kitchen.
Unfortunately, this definition was never adopted. Does anyone here own a ion exchange column?

Back in February 2006, the Sugar Association -with its own agenda against the Corn Refiners Association- petitioned FDA to restrict claims for "natural" to minimally-processed ingredients, in line with the USDA definition.
The petition was once more rejected: The Corn lobby must be more powerful than the Sugar lobby.

What is our best resource to figure out what is natural then? Flip the package over, as usual, and read the ingredient list: If a child can read any single word of it, explain what it is, and how it is made, it may be a good sign.

Food Label Saga: Who benefits?

2007-11-06T18:39:00.000-08:00

Because FDA and USDA have been so weakened thanks to Big Food intense lobbying, our current food labels are the confusing pieces of information we struggle with every day.
Here is an article that uncovers some of the issues at stake.

Genetically Modified Foods

2007-11-06T17:37:00.000-08:00

"The largest scientific experiment ever performed on the human species".

To learn more about these manipulated foods that do not have to be labeled in the US,
here are a few documentary clips:

-Genetically Modified Food: Panacea or Poison
-Future of Food
-Future of Food Pt.2
-Future of Food Pt.3
-Future of Food Pt.4
-Future of Food Pt.5
-Future of Food Pt.6
-Future of Food Pt.7

Concerned?
Here is a website for a campaign to label GMOs, and The Future of Food movie's website that lists a bunch of its sources and resources.

Meanwhile, our main non-GMO option here in the US is to buy organic as much as we can afford, at least for everything involving corn, soy, wheat, canola, etc., as well as milk from cows not treated with rBST (another creation from Monsanto Corp).

Farm Bill Update and other government/corporations collusions

2007-11-06T16:56:00.000-08:00

Marion Nestle has written a powerful entry on her blog about Farm bill being passed this week. She shows that once again, corporate wealth will prevail over public health -and explains why...
Just read this earlier entry, the revolving door better than ever.
Difficult to stay healthy in a food world regulated by Big Food priorities...

The Case For Real Food

2007-11-06T16:14:00.000-08:00

This article made the headline of the New York Times yesterday.

It shows how nutritionists have been studying isolated nutrients in foods in order to uncover their health benefits in our bodies. Recently however, several vitamin studies have shown that their benefits are not only limited, but also may cancel out each other when taken out of their whole foods context. A case for the nutrition community has been made to re-focus their studies on whole foods, rather than single nutrients, so that nutrient synergies within one food are better understood, and functional claims from the Food Industry are made more cautiously.

Book Review: Appetite For Profit: How the food Industry undermines our health and how to fight back

2007-10-28T21:11:00.000-07:00

In this groundbreaking book, Michele Simon, public health attorney, shows how the Food Industry - fast foods and beverages & processed foods manufacturers - has been undermining our health.
She covers everything from vending machines in schools, marketing to children, the 30-year battle to make restaurants label nutrition information and the collusion with our government officials to prevent food regulations to the co-opting of scientists and the medias to push their profit-making agenda at our expense.
She exposes such ubiquitous phrases as "energy balance" and "personal responsibility" as being devised by Big Food in order to avoid being blamed for the current chronic diseases epidemic, while pretending to be "part of the solution".
She concludes her case with a manual on how to work with school boards, the media & legislature to create a "just food system", which would fix our current corporate-controlled food supply and stop the commercialization of chilhood.
This book should be required reading in schools, government circles and the press.

Restaurant menu labeling laws: Veto in California, new hope in NYC

2007-10-28T16:17:00.000-07:00

3 Americans out of 4 would like to have restaurants label their offerings with nutrition facts in order to be able to make informed choices. Unfortunately, consumers meet strong resistance from the National Restaurant Association throughout all states. As of today, none of the states protect their citizens' health with a menu-labeling law.

Recently, the California Assembly made California the first state in the nation to pass statewide legislation requiring fast-food outlets and chain restaurants to provide nutritional information at the point of purchase by a vote of 42 to 31.
Commonly known as the menu-labeling law, Senate Bill 120 (Padilla/Migden) was seen as landmark legislation to help Californians make healthier choices.
This decision was vetoed on October 14th by Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger with this accompanying statement.

Should you disagree with this decision, like 84% other Californians, you can make it known by signing this petition from the California Center for Public Health Advocacy.

Meanwhile, The New York City Board of Health announced on october 24th that it would seek public comment on its revised proposal to require chain restaurants to post calories where customers can actually see them. The public hearing will take place on November 27.

Crackdown on superfoods rage

2007-10-26T00:01:00.000-07:00

About 3 years ago, started the current fad for superfoods.

These foods supposedly offer health benefits beyond basic nutrition, such as disease prevention.

As of today, about a hundred food ingredients have been put in the superfoods Hall of Fame, eg. pomegranate, acai, goji berries, etc., mostly due to their high antioxidant content in their whole foods original form.

The problem is that food manufacturers have largely capitalized on these superfoods in order to market such unhealthy products as sugary bars, energy drinks, juice blends and supplements, which include some undefined amount of superfoods, mostly processed into powders, concentrates, etc. These additions, along with the multiplication of all sorts of extraordinary health claims have spurred more and more skepticism.

Back in July, the European Commission cracked down on this phenomenon with the new European Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation: Now no food or beverage are allowed to be branded as superfoods without scientific backing. Claims are to be approved by the European Food Safety Authority.

In the US, there is currently no such legislation.

Meanwhile, let us keep checking ingredient lists thoroughly, and figure out what is in our food for real.

Supplements and functional foods and drinks: New evidence of shortcomings

2007-10-25T00:18:00.000-07:00

A new scientific study shows yet another evidence that when you combine some antioxidants and vitamins together, such as ubiquitous Beta Carotene and Vitamin E, proper absorption of these nutrients is compromised.

This is what we get with both supplements and these new "Frankenstein foods or drinks", made with patched-up processed ingredients, and a bunch of fad antioxidants. Food and supplement manufacturers tamper with Nature, while whole foods contain nutrients in the right proportions for correct metabolization. This latest scientific evidence shows again that the food processing and supplements world needs some serious regulations.

Now what do you think when Coca Cola studies Chinese medecine to dig up some new herbal extracts to boost the marketing of their sugary beverages?

Child Obesity

2007-10-20T00:09:00.000-07:00

The situation: Looking at the statistics from the National Center for Health, we see that the proportion of children considered obese (95th percentile of BMI) has almost tripled for ages 2-5 and 2-19, and more than quadrupled for ages 6-11 between 1974 and 2004.

Some of the explanations for this phenomenon are:

Competitive price of nutrient-poor processed foods: As an example, between 1984 and 2000, the price of High Fructose Corn Syrup has decreased by 23% in real terms, while in the same period the price of fruits and vegetables has increased by 40%. A major factor for the competitiveness of cheap, processed foods vs. healthy, whole foods is the government: Indeed, through the Farm Bill, the government heavily subsidizes these very commodities -corn, soy, wheat, rice and cotton- that are the basis for such processed ingredients as HFCS, hydrogenated oils, refined flours and rice. To learn more about the Farm Bill issues, visit Michael Pollan's website, and check out Daniel Imhoff's very accessible book Food Fight.
As Farmer Al summed it up: "Americans have been brainwashed to think food should be cheap. Processed foods have indeed become cheap. Not only dollarwise, but also nutritionwise."
A new Farm Bill has just been passed through the House of Representatives this summer. As is, a staggering $42 Billion of subsidies are planned for commodities, while a mere $1.6 Billion will go to fruits and vegetables. It is currently reviewed by Senate.

Food corporations marketing to kids: When we compare Coca Cola's advertising budget of $250 million, with the National 5 a day program's mere $5 million dollars budget -a public health organization which promotes consumption of fruits and vegetables-, we can see a drastic difference in advertising dollars.
Another recent phenomenon has been the multiplication of pouring contracts that school districts sign with food companies. This allows exclusivity of their products to be sold in the schools' vending machines, sporting events, cafeterias over a period of time, like say 5 or 10 years. They are also then allowed to advertise in their schools as well.
TV and internet. The average child watches 2-5 hours of TV per day, which translates into more TV watching than any other activity, next to sleeping. Kids are exposed to 30,000 to 40,000 ads a year. Of the food ads, 98% of them are advertisements of food items that are high in sugar, salt, and/or fat, like sugary cereals, sweetened beverages, and fast foods. So in addition to advertising done in schools, kids are exposed outside of school to TV and internet ads.

Other lifestyle issues: PE program funding have decreased substantially -as an example, in Walnut Creek school district, elementary school students get only 45 min. PE per week-, so it is up to parents to make sure their children get a decent amount of physical activity daily, at least 30 min., which has become unfortunately difficult for low-income families.
Also, our environment is not always conducive to outdoors activities -lack of sidewalks, public lighting, insecurity in some areas, etc.

Portion sizes have also dramatically increased in the last 20 years. See our What's in a Portion post.

Processed foods: The proportion of processed foods in our diet has increased to over 51% of our daily calories. To know more about the nutrient loss involved, refer to our Whole Foods vs. Processed Foods post.

Increase in carbs intake, especially sugars and refined flours -which raise insulin levels, and create addiction. Refined carbs like sugars increase hunger sensation, which makes us overeat. They also prevent fat stored in adipose tissues from being released for energy. To learn more about the vicious circle leading to obesity and other chronic diseases, read Gary Taubes fascinating, well documented Good Calories, Bad Calories.

An excellent resource for parents is this guide to a healthy weight in a fast food/fake food world by Dr. David Ludwig, Director of the Optimal Weight For Life Program, Children's Hospital, Boston: Ending the Food Fight.

Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories Book Review

2007-10-18T21:01:00.000-07:00

This important book thoroughly dissects over a century of scientific studies about proper nutrition -all meticulously referenced in some 67 pages of bibliography.

First, Gary Taubes questions the conventional wisdom - that fats, and especially saturated fats, cause high cholesterol, heart disease, obesity and other current chronic diseases- that has been spread by Public Health authorities, prominent health associations, as well as the Press for over 50 years.

He demonstrates how this conventional wisdom, turned into an axiom is actually based on thin scientific evidence, analyzing every single flaw in each one of the related studies, and pointing at the lack of underlying scientific method.

He shows how just a handful of "scientists" actually manipulated observational data so that they would fit their personal agenda, ignoring the embarrassing details that would cast any doubt, and spur more research. Then, they would use their personal clout in order to transfer their dogma into what are now our current Public Health diet recommendations.

The fact is, since the 80ies, when the fat hypothesis became fully legitimated into our Public Health policy, such chronic current diseases as the metabolic syndrom have started reaching epidemic level. Meanwhile, a few skeptics in scientific circles around the world have been testing the carbohydrates hypothesis from various angles. Gary Taubes also analyzes some 140 years of studies looking at the harmful effects of all sugars and refined carbs on our hormonal system (i.e. insulin issues), and all their consequences on our health, including coronary heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

The integrity of Gary Taubes' analysis is striking as he raises the very questions a real scientist should ask himself when performing a study, with such sheer objectivity and meticulous attention to details that one cannot help reaching some unsettling conclusions, like : "Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease and other chronic diseases", as long as we are talking about natural fats.

This book makes a serious case for:

- bringing the fat axiom back to a hypothesis that remains to be proven.

- public funding to be provided for long-term clinical studies to validate or reject each hypothesis.

- Food corporation funding for scientific research to be counterbalanced by public funding to test the adverse hypothesis, or at least define an ethics code so that the results are cleared from vested interests before they are taken into account in Public Health recommendations.

- Public Health diet recommendations to be much more cautious before either hypothesis is scientifically validated.

- All scientific specialists to be encouraged to cross the barriers of their sub-specialization field and collaborate with other sub-specialists to work on larger task studies, such as an obesity study, that would involve different angles.

Dr. Lorrene Ritchie on obesity and sugars consumption-interview excerpt

2007-10-17T13:51:00.000-07:00

Dr. Ritchie: You know one of the interesting things if you look at the trends in diet over the time period that obesity has increased; and when I say obesity, I refer to both children and adults. Since as you all know, this is not a child-only issue. Within the last 30 years, child obesity has quadrupled and adult obesity has also increased, such that now almost two-thirds to three-quarters, depending on where you live exactly, are overweight or obese as adults. But what we see is that calorie intake has definitely increased and the intake of most things has increased. So we can’t just pinpoint it on sugar; certainly sugar has increased. When we look at the diet quality of children, we see that very few kids meet the dietary guidelines. Right now, the recommendation is that an average person get 10% or less of their calories from sugar. What we see is most people get one-quarter or one-third, much more than 10%, of calories from sugar.

S: So you’re saying, Dr. Ritchie, that our children, our youth, are actually getting two or three times as much sugar in their diet than they actually should be.

Dr. Ritchie: Yes, 2-3 times more sugar. And that is not only true among kids but of adults also. But what that trend data shows is just that a lot things have changed. It’s not just the sugar intake. So we’re actually eating a little bit more fruits and vegetables than we used to.

S: Really? Without the syrup?

Dr. Ritchie: Well most of those fruits and vegetables if you look at them there’s just a very few fruits that have increased. It’s mostly apples and bananas, not a wide variety of fruits. Vegetables that have increased are mostly potatoes.

M: Which end up fried.

Dr. Ritchie: Exactly. French fries. Certainly the trends are not anywhere near optimal for anything. About the only thing that has decreased during the time period is milk consumption. And that is actually quite well correlated with the increase in soda consumption. So if you see a kid that has a high soda intake; more than likely they will have a low milk intake. If they have a high milk intake, more than likely they have a low intake of sweetened beverages.

S: So it is an inverse relationship.

Dr. Ritchie: So we have kind of switched to replacing what we would call more healthy beverages, the low-fat or non-fat milk; our kids and adults too have switched and replaced those with sweetened beverages.

S: Well, let’s just talk about sugar for a minute as far as the types. You know you look at what you are eating or drinking and there is sugar in there, but that doesn’t mean that is the only word that says how much sugar is in there. They sneak different words in there that are also sugars. So, let us talk about the sugar types and what to look out for. You want to be careful of your nutrition and daily sugar intake.

M: Yes, especially with the increase in proportion of calories coming from sugars. I understand that it should be down to 10% of total calorie intake; and for some kids it goes as high as one-third or 40% of their total calorie intake. So this is something we really have to watch out – sugars in our kids’ diets.

Dr. Ritchie: Let me just add that that is 10% of added sugar. So in milk, in fruits, in various foods there are natural sugars that are present, but we want to avoid the added sugars.

M: Yes. Well, unfortunately, with nutrition facts labels, we are not able to make a difference between those naturally occurring sugars and added sugars, so we have to look closely at the ingredient list. Sugar is not always indicated as ‘sugar,’ so we have to look for words like, high fructose corn syrup, brown sugar, fructose, corn syrup solids, dehydrated cane juice, honey, dextrose, concentrated fruit juice, concentrated fruit, molasses, maple syrup, rice syrup, inverted sugar, malt, etc. Basically, all these words that end in - ose, syrup, juice end up as sugars on the nutrition panel.

Dr. Ritchie: The sugar that we eat from fruit and from natural foods – as part of the natural foods that we eat – contain some of those very same sugars, so it’s not like the body can really tell if you eat a fruit and get some fructose from that fruit versus a drink that has high fructose corn syrup added and has fructose in it. Your body can’t tell that that fructose was added or whether it was a natural part of that food. But what we want to do when we read labels, we want to avoid things that have those sugar and sugar-related ingredients added to them. When you eat a fruit, it has that sugar packaged naturally and comes with a lot of nutrients whereas a soda just has that sugar but no other nutrients; there is nothing else that is redeemable in it. It’s what we call an empty calorie in that it gives you calories from that sugar but doesn’t give you any other nutrients, no other phytochemicals, no dietary fiber -- nothing else to be healthy. And what we are seeing is that people are getting more and more of their calories from empty calories and less of their calories from nutritious, whole foods. And what that leads to is a lot of consumption of calories and not a lot of nutrient intake.

S: Can it also lead to malnutrition?

Dr. Ritchie: So what we call overnutrition is really a form of malnutrition. In the past, when we talk about malnutrition, we always thought about kids that were starving and not getting very much nutrition. But nowadays, kids that are overconsuming on calories but aren’t getting enough nutrients are also malnourished.

S: Do you have any statistics?

Dr. Ritchie: The U.S. has Dietary Guidelines for Americans and The Food Guide Pyramid have guides for certain food groups. On a national basis, and here I am including adults, is that no one is meeting those recommendations. The statistics are that 2% of kids and maybe 3% of adults are meeting those recommendations. So when we are talking about public health and intervening to prevent obesity, what we are really talking about is intervening on the entire population. Some of us are maybe more or less genetically prone to overweight. But all or most of us are not doing a great job of managing our diets. People are very interested in obesity because it is so visual. You can see it and grasp onto it, but some of the other diseases associated with obesity are much less obvious to us, like cancer, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes. So even in the absence of obesity, a healthy diet is important for the promotion of health.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

M: The 1980’s started a low fat period in America. Food with less fat means increased carbs. This translated in an increase in sugars and starch fillers, especially in the form of HFCS, in manufactured processed food in the 1980’s in America. In the 1980’s, 35 pounds of HFCS per person per year was consumed, whereas in 2004, the number more than doubled to 78 pounds per person per year.

K: To tie this to the Farm Bill (last week’s topic), the reason why we might be seeing the increase in consumption. The Farm Bill helps to subsidize some of the commodities (such as corn) that help to produce ingredients like HFCS. Because these commodities are so highly subsidized, it is cheaper for manufacturers to use ingredients such as HFCS, especially if we are talking about using sugar in soda and other junk food.

K: There isn’t a set dietary guideline for a safe maximum amount of sugar intake per day but there are some experts that talk about the recommended maximum added sugar in our diet. So added sugar does not mean sugar we get from fruit and natural foods but only added sugar. It is at about less than 10% of your total calorie intake, so if you are at approximately 2000-calorie diet, that is about 40 grams of sugar per day is the recommended max. This is about 10 teaspoons of sugar per day.

Examples of sugar in 20 ounce bottles of sweetened beverages:
Cola = 17 teaspoons of sugar
Cherry flavored cola = 18 teaspoons of sugar
Lemon lime soda = 17 teaspoons of sugar

Examples of sugar in snacks:
Candy bar (2 ounces) = 7.5 teaspoons of sugar
Lemon fruit pie = 11.5 teaspoons of sugar

We need to be careful about the amount of added sweeteners daily.

Dr. Ritchie: For every man, woman, and child, there are approximately two cans of soda produced. This is not counting all the other sweetened beverages like juices, lemonades, and others, so even without the snacks, we are consuming a lot of sugar in just beverages.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

whole foods vs. processed foods

2007-10-14T16:03:00.000-07:00

Let's start comparing the nutrition of the same weight (100g = 3.5 oz) of raw apple, applesauce, apple juice and apple Pop Tart -based on USDA Nutrient Database-

- Calorie content of the first 3 items are equivalent at around 45 cal. If you multiply this amount by 9, you get the number of calories in 100g of Apple Pop Tart.

- Sugars content in the first 3 items is equivalent at around 10g, while it is multiplied by 3.5 in Apple Pop Tart.

- Fat content for the first 3 items is zero; it comes to 11g in Apple Pop Tart.

- Sodium for the first 3 amounts to 1-3mg at most, compared to 348mg in Apple Pop Tart.

- Fiber content of 100g raw apple is 2.4g. It is divided by 2 in applesauce and the Pop Tart, and comes to zero in the juice.

-Vitamin C content of 100g raw apple is 4.6mg. It is divided by 2 in applesauce, divided by 4 in the juice, and comes to zero in the Pop Tart.

- Folate amount to 3 mcg in the raw apple. You get only a third of it in the applesauce, and none in the juice and the Pop Tart.

- Choline comes to 3.4mg in the raw apple and applesauce, but disappears from both the juice and the Pop Tart.

- Vitamin K comes to 2.2mcg in the whole apple. This amount is divided by 3 in the applesauce, and there's none in the juice and the Pop Tart.

- Phytonutrients (which you don't see on Nutrition Panels): The most important in raw apple, betacryptoxanthin and lutein+zeaxanthin disappear as the apple gets more processed, to amount to zero in the Pop Tart.

This is just an example of the dramatic loss in nutrients as the original whole food gets processed, losing its natural fiber, a bunch of vitamins, and phytonutrients. Processing also concentrates sizably calories, sugars, etc.... And adds a bunch of undesirable ingredients, oftentimes highly processed themselves.

What started as a nutrient-dense food -with the proper balance of nutrients, which won't interfere with each other's absorption and metabolism as intended by Nature- now becomes a nutrient-poor, high-calorie processed food.

Whole foods are what our human bodies are programmed to get nourishment from. Millions of years of evolution got us adapted to eat minimally processed foods: cooked, ground, fermented etc. -any kind of simple physical processing that you can perform in your own kitchen. In the past few decades however, we have been offered a tremendous amount of ever more processed foods, starting with refined carbohydrates like flour and sugar and highly processed hydrogenated oils, high fructose corn syrups, etc. Our bodies clearly haven't had the time to adjust to these new foods. There are more and more scientists who claim that the recent rise in chronic diseases like metabolic syndrom comes from the amount of unnatural processing in our foods.

So, how do you tell apart minimally-processed foods from highly-processed foods (the bad guys)?
Flip the package over, and read the ingredient list. It will tell you sometimes much more than the nutrition facts panel, which is indeed a very incomplete picture of the actual nutrition: Phytonutrients are missing from the picture, carbs are not itemized into whole and refined, sugars are not itemized into naturally-occuring and added sugars, etc.

A whole food is one ingredient, in its natural form. Period.

The more ingredients on the ingredient list, the more highly processed the foods are: e.g Apple Pop Tart ingredient list shows a total of 27 ingredients.

The more scientific-sounding the ingredient name, the more processing is involved.
Example of processing involved in turning corn into high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), courtesy of the Corn Refiners Association:

HFCS is made from corn starch, which is separated from other kernel components through multiple grinding and screening steps, centrifugation and washing. The HFCS refining process utilizes multiple enzymes and consists of numerous steps including: multiple refining using membrane filters, carbon filters and ion-exchange columns; centrifugation; chromatographic separation; and multiple evaporation steps.

...Definitely something you won't be able to perform in your kitchen!

Some ingredients do not have to be mentioned on ingredient lists: All additives belonging to the FDA's list of GRAS additives (Generally Recognized As Safe). You may just read "natural or artificial flavors", which could involve a list of stuff as long as:

Amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate, benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl isobutyrate, cinnamyl valerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate, ethyl Nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerbate, heliotropin, hydroxyphrenyl-2butanone (10% solution in alcohol), a-ionone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl butrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4-methylacetophenone, methyl anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine carbonate, methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl salicylate, mint essential oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin, neryl isobutyrate, orris butter, phenethyl alcohol, rose, rum ether, g-undecalactone, vanillin, and solvent.

These 47 GRAS additives are found in the strawberry flavoring part of a Burger King strawberry milk shake. (Source: E. Schlosser: “Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal”. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 2001).

Now let's take a look at how food companies use ever more refined marketing techniques to sell us more and more highly processed foods, even though we get more health-conscious: They actually capitalize on our wish to eat healthier in a fast-paced world: We now choose convenience foods with a personalized healthy-sounding profile over whole foods because we don't have the time to choose wisely or because we don't prioritize cooking our own food in our culture.

Think of all these new "healthy" segments of the processed foods market, such as "organic", "low-fat", "vegan", "gluten-free", "fortified", "enhanced", you name it...

Let us make a reality check with ingredient lists.

We found in an increasingly popular supermarket chain an "organic apple toaster pie". The ingredient list showed 26 ingredients -only short 1 ingredient from the original non-organic, and most of these processed. On the nutrition panel, the amounts of calories, sugars and other bad guys were equivalent. This product is certified organic, but what does this mean in terms of nutrient-density? Is this really better for you than a conventional raw apple?

Recently, we have seen a tremendous growth for the "functional foods" market: These so-called enhanced foods that claim sometimes amazing amounts of a few fashionable nutrients or herbal extracts. Think probiotics, lycopene, Omega3s, spirulina, etc. What does this really mean in terms of actual balanced nutrition when found in highly processed foods, that come with concentrated amounts of sugars, dense calories, etc.?

Call for action to all angry parents.

2007-10-13T18:36:00.000-07:00

As we were doing field research on what was offered in vending machines in middle and high schools in Walnut Creek, CA, we discovered, among other things: Tropicana flavored juice drinks (68g sugars per 20oz bottle) at the high school -clearly not allowed under SB 965 from July 2009 on- and Glaceau Vitamin waters at the middle school. We proceeded to send e-mails to the principals of both schools to have them remove those beverages from their campuses. While we have yet to receive the high school principal’ s response, we got a reply from the middle school principal.
It stated that "SB 965 allows the sale of “electrolyte replacement beverages” to our age group. Beverages in this category may contain no more than 42 grams of added sweetener per 20-ounce serving."
We checked, and indeed, these types of beverages are the only drinks with added sugars allowed in middle and high schools in California.

Which raises this question:
Is there any legal definition for electrolyte replacement beverages?
Indeed, looking at the nutrition facts of the bottle of FOCUS Vitamin Water, there is no trace of sodium, no mention of potassium, magnesium or calcium, although these last 3 electrolytes are mentioned in the ingredient list. We also read that the first ingredient is deionized water, which means that it has been stripped of minerals/electrolytes.
Besides, we see that ingredient #2 is fructose. In the link below, a study on exercise and fluid replacement,
http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/pt-core/template-journal/msse/media/0196.htm
we single out the following statement:
“fructose should not be the predominant carbohydrate because it is converted slowly to blood glucose not readily oxidized (41,42)
which does not improve performance (8). Furthermore, fructose may cause gastrointestinal distress (59).”

So, officially, Vitamin Waters are allowed in our middle schools on the grounds that they are considered “Electrolyte Replacement Beverages”
even though they have no visible electrolytes on their nutrition facts panels, and the wrong type of carbs is used.
One thing is certain: Our young adolescents get 32.5g sugars per bottle -We had to do the maths-, and they do not get the hours of
intense physical activity that would justify such a replacement drink either.”

Mr Harold Goldstein referred us to Paul Dantzig at the California State Board of Education, who had Phyllis Bramson-Paul reply:

“First, we are in the midst of proposing regulations to further define and clarify areas within the two laws, Senate Bills 12 and 965. As your research has revealed, for example, there is no definition for an Electrolyte Replacement Beverage (ERB) in the law.”

So , until November 20th, we have a chance to help define the only category of beverages containing added sugars allowed in our schools. Please help prevent any sweetened “enhanced waters” or other so-called “functional beverages” call themselves ERBs, and be allowed in our public education places! You may click on the following link: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/rr/FoodandBeverages.asp, and e-mail your comments to: mailto:hregcomments@cde.ca.gov by November 20th.

P.S. Our guest speaker from yesterday's Sugar show, Dr. Rob Lustig, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics at UCSF Division of Pediatric Endocrinology made the following comment:

"Fructose can be converted by the liver to glycogen through a back-door pathway; so a fructose-containing sports drink can replete hepatic glycogen stores once they are depleted by exercise. This is how the sports-drink companies deflect criticism. But if you don’t have depleted glycogen stores (as in no exercise, which is really who drinks these), then all the fructose gets converted to acyl-CoA, which get packaged into VLDL, causing dyslipidemia.
The electrolytes in vitamin water are useless."

What's in a portion?

2007-10-13T17:45:00.000-07:00

We eat far more calories than we think. Take a look at the increase in calories per portion over the last 20 years: Go to: http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/portion/, and have fun with the portion distortion quiz.

Now what's in a serving size? Serving sizes on food labels are really based on consumer surveys dating back to the late seventies - a far cry from food portions actually consumed nowadays...

When we look at a food label to check calories, fat, sugars, etc., let us not forget to multiply all these numbers by the number of serving sizes in the package if it looks like we will eat the whole portion. Think of how many times we underestimate the numbers!

2007-10-05T00:22:00.001-07:00

Welcome to The Health Today Show Blog!

The Health Today Show is an educational radio program that focuses on important topics of nutrition as it pertains to childhood obesity.

The hosts of the The Health Today Show are three passionate women from various backgrounds: Margot is a mother of three who cares deeply about her children's nutritional health; Suzy is a culinary chef who teaches nutrition; and Korin is a public health practitioner who works to bring nutrition education to schools and community youth organizations.

Please tune in to our show at M.O.R.E. Public Radio (Berkeley, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Oakland, Richmond) - 88.1 FM or 97.7 FM or stream live online at http://www.jazzbeatradio.tv

Show airs LIVE every Friday mornings 10:30 - 11:30 AM (PDT)
Previous week's show is re-aired Sunday mornings 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PDT)

Questions? Comments?
E-mail us at: healthtodayshow@gmail.com
Add us to your contacts to avoid our responses from going into your spam folder.