Time to review open-campus lunch policies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.