We know that the holidays are a time for thoughtfulness and caring, so today we’d like you to be thoughtful and caring about the future of health in this country. So this post is a call to action for you from our friends at Center for Science in the Public Interest. We wrote to our senators this morning, now it’s your turn. In the season of giving, we’re giving our elected officials our input, and the chance to make our voices heard.

As the U.S. Senate prepares to vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Senate health reform bill, we need your help to urge your Senators to champion the prevention provisions! The current provisions have already been cut by almost 75 percent in an attempt to decrease the overall cost of the bill. We cannot afford to lose the remaining funds dedicated to preventing chronic diseases, which account for 75 percent of our health care costs.

Currently in the Senate health reform bill, the prevention funds would increase over time to about $2 billion a year.

It’s time to let Senators know that prevention is not negotiable! For too long, health care has focused on treating people after they have become sick, instead of keeping them well in the first place. The public health investment fund and national prevention strategy would lower disease rates, improve quality of life, and help reduce health care costs for families, businesses, and the government.

The current prevention measures also include a national menu labeling policy. This policy would result in nutrition information on the menus and menu boards at chain restaurants across the country, bringing this popular policy, which has already passed in 16 local and state legislatures, to all Americans.

Please contact your Senators today and urge them to protect and champion the prevention measures currently included in health reform!

Thank you for your support!

Warmly,

Christopher

P.s. If you haven’t pre-ordered our book…do it today! (See the links to retailers on your right)

Want a preview of where our government is taking us? Look no further than across the pond. I read this short snippet in the November 23, 2009 issue of National Review.

“In Scotland, it’s a crime to have fat children. A year and a half ago, authorities ordered a hefty Dundee couple to send three of their children to dancing and soccer lessons to slim them down. When the mambo cure didn’t work, friendly social works pulled two of the “endangered” kids from their home and sent them to foster care; this fall they took away the other five, including a girl who had been born just hours earlier (she was later returned). Speaking of excess pounds, the local government has spent more than £100,000 to save these children from weighing more than its health experts deem appropriate. A bloated state hungry for problems to solve is a much greater threat to its citizens than a few chubby children.”

Don’t think this could happen here? I know that a lot of you have been cheering when smoking is banned in restaurants and other public places. That seems like a no-brainer, right? I don’t disagree that smoking isn’t healthy though I do think that some of the so-called science concerning second-hand smoke is a bit suspect. No, it’s the slippery slope that smoking bans have started that concerns me. Recently our elected nincompoops in Washington have been discussing the possibility of adding a federal tax on soda pop. Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest who is promoting this cause, said, “Soft drinks are nutritionally worthless and are directly related to weight gain, partly because beverages are more conducive to weight gain than solid foods.”

History is not in our favor here. The smoking bans started with more and more taxes being levied against tobacco. Will soft drinks eventually go the same route – heavy taxes and ultimately an outright ban? What about Hostess Twinkies™ or bacon or, God forbid, chocolate? Once the snowball begins rolling will we be able to stop it? When I was growing up we played games on the schoolyard like dodgeball and Red Rover. Today these games are outlawed because children could get hurt or end up touching each other.

Our nanny state has been out of control for a long time. And it’s only going to get worse. Scotland has given us a glimpse of what’s at the end of this long march toward the cliff from which we are about to jump. This is really scary stuff, folks.

This week, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) updated the findings of its historic study about the caloric and fat overload found in many moviegoers favorite treat: popcorn.

Source:
http://www.divinecaroline.com/22178/88352-buttered-up–disturbing-new-facts

This week, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) updated the findings of its historic study about the caloric and fat overload found in many moviegoers favorite treat: popcorn.

Source:
http://www.divinecaroline.com/22178/88352-buttered-up–disturbing-new-facts

Now that the holiday season has begun, the Winter movie season is in full gear. Before you head to the theater, you may want to read this. A couple of weeks ago, the results of a survey from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) revealed the true nutritional content of those bags and buckets of movie theater popcorn. The stats were shocking — if the amount of saturated fat and sodium in the popcorn doesn’t lead to heart failure, seeing the numbers may!

All jokes aside, everyone likes a snack when watching movies, but watching your waistline is just as important. You can find all the results of the survey in the CSPI article, but here are some to give you an idea of what you’d be getting at a Regal theater:

• Small popcorn without butter (11 cups): 670 calories, 34 g saturated fat, 550 mg sodium
• Medium or Large popcorn without butter (20 cups): 1200 calories, 60 g saturated fat, 980 mg sodium

If you remember correctly from the Less Healthy Fat Talk post a few weeks ago, saturated fat should be kept to 7% or less of total calories. You’d have to eat between 4,400 and 7,700 calories to keep your saturated fat levels in the healthy range just from the popcorn alone. That doesn’t sound too healthy to me. No wonder there’s an obesity epidemic going on!

If popcorn is an unhealthy choice at the movies, what should you eat? Find out in tomorrow’s nutritioulicious™ post!

Center for Science in the Public Interest in its report “Most Food Ads on Nickelodeon Still for Junk Food” notes that nearly 80 percent of food ads on the popular children’s network Nickelodeon are for foods of poor nutritional quality.

That represents a modest and not quite statistically significant drop from 2005, when CSPI researchers found that about 90 percent of food ads on Nick were for junk food. Between the 2005 and 2009 studies, the food industry instituted a self-regulatory program through the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI).

CSPI also examined the practices of the food companies that participate in that self-regulatory program. Of the 452 foods and beverages that companies say are acceptable to market to children, CSPI found that 267, or nearly 60 percent, do not meet CSPI’s recommended nutrition standards for food marketing to children.

Food Ads on Nickelodeon Slammed in Report – CBS News

Are you sitting down? Because this news may knock you over. According to a report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, theater popcorn is very bad for you. Who knew?

Those killjoy scientists equate eating a Regal medium popcorn/soda combo to eating three McDonald’s Quarter Pounders topped with twelve pats of butter. That’s 1,610 calories and 60 grams of saturated fat (three days worth the suggested daily intake of saturated fat).

I’m not sure movie patrons would exactly be clamoring for a healthy popcorn alternative, but if more reports come out like this, theater chains (and especially Regal) may feel bullied pressured into offering a healthier option.

A study by Center for Science in the Public Interest shows that some common foods are responsible causing illnesses in thousands of people. You’d be surprised to hear that things like lettuce, eggs and ice cream have made the list of foods that can actually make you sick.  Click here to see the full arcticle at CNN.com. Make sure you read it and learn what other foods you should be careful around.

I know, I know, the Federal government has guidelines for a healthy diet. Formerly called food groups, it’s now called the food pyramid.

While there are many groups doing the same thing, the Center for Science in the Public Interest is the faction that is in the public eye the most frequently and has earned the name the “Food Police.” Founded in 1971 by its current executive director Michael Jacobson (a vegetarian, by the way), CSPI wants to take all the joy out of eating for reasons only they know. This is a case of “do as I say, even though we have been proven wrong a number of times, and because we are good at getting headline attention in the news.” The worse part is people listen to them, go into panic mode and things begin to happen, like the conversion to trans fats in restaurants. These are also the people who told you popcorn and ice cream are deadly.

Well, I have created my own list of food groups. (WARNING: If this gives the Food Police a heart attack just reading it…I am not responsible.)

Let’s start with a meal food group. I love breakfast in it’s thousands of forms: eggs, bacon, sausage patties, sausage links, omelets, pancakes, waffles, biscuits and a whole assortment of other goodies. I think I could eat breakfast three times a day in some variety and not get bored with it anytime soon.

A derivative food group of breakfast: donuts, Danish, pastries—you get the idea. I love a good plain donut that is crispy on the outside, particularly inside the hole, with a slightly greasy interior. Second favorite: chocolate frosted crème filled, glazed or unglazed.

The next major food group is meat, mostly chicken, beef, pork and seafood. I have taken up eating a lot more chicken and less red meat, but that’s a choice I’ve recently made. I wish there was a good seafood market near me with reasonable prices, because there is a whole lot of it I like. But an occasional steak is good.

Another derivative food group is what I call variety meats: bacon cheeseburgers, cheeseburgers, hot dogs, BBQ pork or beef, and fish sandwiches.

In the vegetable group the predominance is peas, corn, green beans, baked beans, potatoes (in a thousand forms, but especially fries, tots and coins—baked at home, fried out in the real world), sweet potatoes, yams—you get the idea…anything starchy. However, I do like salads, especially made with iceberg lettuce and several healthy toppings with a very moderate amount of Thousand Island dressing. Cole slaw, plus potato and macaroni salads are good, too.

Next, comes the dessert category. Brownies (without nuts) are tops and I am fond of pies of just about any type, and tolerant of cakes. Cookies (oatmeal-raisin) are great, and so is pudding.

But the best food group is pizza. This may sound strange but my favorite is a thin-crust double-cheese, double-sauce from Pizza Hut®. After that would be Supreme-type pizzas from just about anywhere. Another favorite is double-pepperoni, with light onion. MMMMMMMMM!

Finally is the miscellaneous group. Again you may be surprised at how limited this is: ice cream snacks (especially ice cream sandwiches), Snickers®, JIF® peanut butter (eaten with a spoon and not on bread), Mounds® bars, xxx

The beverage category is limited to water, 2% milk, and Diet Rite Zero®.

But I have been behaving lately, and it’s making a difference. I am making different and better choices, HOWEVER, I do reserve the right to occasionally take a small, short trip through my groups for a treat. It’s all about choices. I no longer choose to eat certain things, not that I can’t. If you feel you can’t have something, that’s when you want it the most.

(Are you hungry just reading this. No joke, my mouth was watering as I wrote this column.)

Let me know what some of your favorite food groups are. Now if I could just find a good, gooey brownie without nuts I’d be a happy man right about now!

If you take pride in your work...sign it! - © 2009, Ric Morgan and SimpleWords Communications. All rights reserved.

I found this GREAT website that I want to share with you. Please check it out:

http://www.cspinet.org/nah/index.htm

Here is a lil bit about the website and what they do:

ShillWatch was created as my effort to expose corporate front groups on both sides of the political spectrum.

This blog was created to combat other so-called “watchdog” groups which love to expose the funding sources of their political rivals/enemies while giving corporate front groups on their side of the political aisle a free pass.

So whom am I challenging? Namely, activistcash.com and sourcewatch.org.

Activistcash.com is a side project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is a front group funded by the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry, the food industry, and the biotech industry. Virtually every person or organization that Activistcash.com attacks is left-wing. Right-wing front groups are given a free pass. Why? Because CCF founder Richard Berman is a neoconservative lobbyist who donates like crazy to the Republican Party. The only time you will see CCF and Activistcash attack right-wingers is if right-wingers speak out in support of organic foods. Why does Berman’s groups attack right-wing supporters of organic foods? Because CCF has close ties to Monsanto, the king of the biotech empire.

SourceWatch.org is a side project of the Center for Media and Democracy, which is a front group for many NGOs, including – but not limited to – the Rockefeller Foundation and Rockefeller Associates. Why has SourceWatch never attacked the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) for its past sins and transgressions, namely the whitewashing of the health risks of man-made toxins such as trans fats, aspartame, and monosodium glutamate (MSG)? Because CSPI itself is a front for the Rockefeller Foundation as well as the Rockefeller Family Fund, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

Here at ShillWatch, BOTH sides will be exposed. I am not a paid shill for any corporation. I do this work for free. ShillWatch will shatter the false left/right paradigm of corporate shilling.

Left-wing shills and right-wing shills, you’ve just been put on notice.

Bwaahhh?

From this week’s New York Times:

“Froot Loops qualifies for the [Smart Choices] label because it meets standards set by the Smart Choices Program for fiber and Vitamins A and C, and because it does not exceed limits on fat, sodium and sugar. It contains the maximum amount of sugar allowed under the program for cereals, 12 grams per serving, which in the case of Froot Loops is 41 percent of the product, measured by weight. That is more sugar than in many popular brands of cookies.

‘Froot Loops is an excellent source of many essential vitamins and minerals and it is also a good source of fiber with only 12 grams of sugar,’ said Celeste A. Clark, senior vice president of global nutrition for Kellogg’s, which makes Froot Loops. ‘You cannot judge the nutritional merits of a food product based on one ingredient.’”

But can I object to all the artificial colors and trans-fats in the cereal, proven to be unhealthy? Given the standards of this food-industry-run program, soon you’ll see candy fortified with vitamins sporting this stamp. Michael Jacobson, head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said it best in the article: “You could start out with some sawdust, add calcium or Vitamin A and meet the criteria.”

So please ignore this “Smart Choices” seal–it’s just another attempt by the food industry to manipulate us into buying junk food with high profit margins.

Comment: And look who congratulated Frau Nestle for saying that HFCS “is just sugar in liquid form”…the Center for Consumer Freedom, a front for Monsanto, the fast food joints, and the alcohol and tobacco companies. When the food industry shills agree with the “food cops”, you know something is odd in Oddville. But if you have followed this blog, you already know that I have already exposed how the “food cops” and the “food industry shills” are controlled by the Rockefeller banksters.

———————————————-

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/24/FDDS12UH12.DTL&type=printable

The facts about corn sweetener

Marion Nestle

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Editor’s note: Nationally recognized nutrition expert Marion Nestle answers readers’ questions in Food Matters, written exclusively for The Chronicle. E-mail your questions to food@sfchronicle.com, with “Marion Nestle” in the subject line.

Q: What is the difference, metabolically speaking, between high-fructose corn syrup and other carbohydrate-based sweeteners (sucrose, fructose, honey and so on)?

A: From what I hear these days, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is widely perceived as the new trans fat – something to be avoided at all costs. But, stop: HFCS is not poison. It is just sugar in liquid form, differing from common table sugar (sucrose) mainly in how it affects the texture of foods.

I can see why HFCS seems like a nutritional villain: It is a marker for junk foods. Cheaper than sucrose, it turns up in all kinds of processed foods, particularly soft drinks. And there is nearly as much of it in the food supply as sucrose – 56 pounds per year per person versus 62 pounds for table sugar.

In its new advertising campaign, the Corn Refiners Association says of HFCS, “Truth is, it’s nutritionally the same as table sugar.” Truth is, I’d call it almost the same.

Sucrose is a double sugar made of two single sugars – glucose (50 percent) and fructose (50 percent) – stuck together. HFCS also contains glucose and fructose, but the sugars are already separated and their percentages differ slightly. Because sucrose is quickly split by digestive enzymes, the body can hardly tell them apart. For the record, glucose is blood sugar, fructose is fruit sugar, and honey contains both.

The processing of sucrose involves boiling it down from sugar cane or beets, and washing, clarifying, filtering and drying the syrup. HFCS starts out as corn, of course, and you, too, can do what the makers of the indie movie, “King Corn” (2007), demonstrated in my favorite scene.

First, extract the starch. Use enzymes to break down the starch to glucose and to convert some of the glucose to fructose. Then do a bunch of refining, separation and evaporation steps. The resulting syrup is 55 percent fructose, with the rest composed of glucose or undigested starch pieces. The HFCS used in soft drinks has a bit more fructose than sucrose – 55 percent as opposed to 50 percent.

Whether this 5 percent difference matters at all depends on whether you are a metabolic optimist or pessimist.

If you are an optimist, you are happy that fructose – unlike glucose – does not stimulate the release of insulin, and in small amounts can be a useful sweetener for people with diabetes.

If you are a pessimist, you will fret that fructose is preferentially metabolized to fat, raising the possibility that HFCS – or any other source of fructose (but we won’t worry about fruit) – could have something to do with current obesity trends.

HFCS entered our food supply in the mid 1960s, but did not really come into its own until farm subsidies encouraged farmers to grow as much corn as possible. In 1981, at the dawn of the obesity era, the United States food supply provided 23 pounds of HFCS per person per year, along with 79 pounds of sucrose – 102 pounds total.

Today, the balance is 56 to 62 (118 pounds), with the increase entirely due to HFCS. Guilt by association! Glucose corn syrups and honey add up to yet another 18 pounds, but their use has not changed much over time. All told, the food supply provides a third of a pound a day of HFCS and sucrose combined, which works out to about 600 calories a day per person, just from these two sources.

Note that these are available calories, not necessarily those eaten. Availability refers to sugars produced, plus imports, less exports. Even so, people who drink sodas all day long can get a substantial portion of their daily calories from HFCS. Like other sugars, HFCS supplies calories but is devoid of nutrients.

Although only about 6 percent of U.S. corn is used to make corn sweeteners, it is 6 percent of a large number. Corn production is subsidized, and subsidies encourage greater production. Until recently, subsidies drove the cost of corn sweeteners well below that of sucrose, which gets price supports. With corn now going for ethanol, HFCS is more expensive and has less of a price advantage.

Indeed, some food companies have already replaced HFCS with sucrose and are advertising their products as “HFCS-free.” At least one grocery chain has said it will no longer carry products containing HFCS. Such events, along with concerns about the metabolic effects of fructose, saddle the Corn Refiners with a challenge – how to convince the American public that HFCS is no worse than any other sugar.

Their methods? First, they successfully petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to allow HFCS to be labeled “natural.” Despite the many steps required to process cornstarch into HFCS, the FDA granted their request. Why? Because in processing the enzymes are fixed to a column and the sugars do not come in contact with the synthetic fixing agents. I’m not kidding about this.

Next, the Corn Refiners funded a $30 million counterattack. If you missed the full-page newspaper ads, take a look at the Web site, www.sweetsurprise.com.

HFCS has a big public relations problem, but I don’t get this campaign. Since when is insulting the intelligence of critics an effective marketing strategy?

I cannot decide which aspects of the campaign are most offensive: The videos of inarticulate critics insulted by their HFCS-savvy friends? The slogans (“HFCS has no artificial ingredients”)? The quiz questions (“Which of the following sweeteners is considered a natural food ingredient: HFCS, honey, sugar, or all of the above”)? Or the irrelevant take-home message (“As registered dietitians recommend, keep enjoying the foods you love, just do it in moderation”)?

I’m not a registered dietitian and maybe that is why I think moderation doesn’t work for HFCS. Yes, HFCS has a place in the American diet and sometimes has cooking advantages over sucrose. And the research is still out on whether HFCS differs from sucrose metabolically. But the most sensible approach to HFCS and to sugars in general is not moderation. It is, “Eat less.”

Marion Nestle is the Paulette Goddard professor in the department of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. She is the author of “Food Politics,” “Safe Food” and “What to Eat.” Her newest book is “Pet Food Politics” (University of California Press, 2008) about the 2007 pet food recall. E-mail her at food@sfchronicle.com, and read her previous columns at sfgate.com/food.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/24/FDDS12UH12.DTL

This article appeared on page F – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

————————————————

And look who congratulated Frau Nestle for saying that HFCS “is just sugar in liquid form”…the Center for Consumer Freedom, a front for Monsanto, the fast food joints, and the alcohol and tobacco companies. When the food industry shills agree with the “food cops”, you know something is odd in Oddville.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3732

A sample of the bullshit spewed from Consumer Freedom in the article:

While nutrition nannies continue to baselessly assert that high fructose corn syrup, or HFCS, is the bane of humanity — or “the crack of sweeteners” — Nestle has decided that she won’t jump on that bandwagon. In her most recent column for The San Francisco Chronicle, she was forced to admit that HFCS “is not poison. It is just sugar in liquid form.”

It’s true. Decades of scientific research show that HFCS affects our bodies in the same way as regular sugar.

And even CSPI is defending HFCS, totally exposing the “food cops” as food industry shills.

http://www.obesitymyths.com/myth9.1.htm

“The idea that high-fructose corn syrup is more harmful than sugar is an ‘urban myth’ … there would be no health benefit whatsoever if companies switched from high-fructose corn syrup to sugar.”

— Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) press release, February 6, 2008

“There are a number of [HFCS] critics who have not provided a shred of evidence that high fructose syrup is worse than sucrose.”

— CSPI, in QSR Magazine, August 2007

“HFCS has been blamed by a few people for the obesity epidemic, because rates of obesity have climbed right along with HFCS consumption. But that’s an urban myth. There isn’t a shred of evidence that HFCS is any more harmful (or healthier) than sugar.”

— CSPI’s “Food Additives” website, 2007

For the record, I have never been a fan of Denny’s. Generally speaking, lousy food, bad coffee, horrible service.

Still, I find the latest assault from the Food Nazis at the leftwing activist group Center for Science in the Public Interest on Denny’s appalling. The CSPI has filed a class action lawsuit against Denny’s.

Why, you ask?

 … claiming that, because most Denny’s menu items contain a “high” level of sodium, the chain is engaging in consumer fraud and breaching the implied warranty of merchantability.

Says blogger Greg Conko at OpenMarket.org:

[B]y alleging on page 3 of the complaint that “Sodium is the deadliest ingredient in the food supply,” these folks aren’t beyond gross exaggeration.  The gist of the argument seems to be that (1) increasing sodium intake is known to increase blood pressure; and (2) very high blood pressure is known to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke; so (3) Denny’s failure to notify customers of the total amount of sodium in its menu items is putting them at risk.

There’s a bit of sleight of hand here, of course.  Although allegations 1 and 2 are true, there is no clear relationship between the slightly higher blood pressure that results from exceding the recommended daily amount of sodium intake and the very high blood pressure levels that raise the risk of heart attack or stroke.  That’s why scientists have never been able to conclude that high sodium intake itself is associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.  It’s like arguing that mouthwash manufacturers are responsible for thousands of automobile accidents every year because we all know that mouthwash contains alcohol and that drunk driving causes auto accidents.

Hopefully, Denny’s will go to the mat and defeat this frivolous complaint. But it will cost them hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in legal fees to do so. More likely, they’ll pay the extortion, thus encouraging the Food Nazis at CSPI to target another victim to shake down, a la The Reverend Jackson and ACORN.

Why is it that these leftwing individuals and groups practice the same type of legalized extortion, filing lawsuits, staging demonstrations to obstruct legitimate business in exchange for money? It’s extortion, pure and simple.

As I said previously, I am no fan of Denny’s, either the food or the service. But let them compete and fail in the marketplace, not be shut down by a collection of extortionist thugs.

As Conko points out:

Most people won’t bother to see what the facts are, they’ll just hear that Denny’s is being sued for harming customers and it’ll tarnish the chain’s reputation.

In this economy, the last thing we need is more attacks on the private sector. We already have more than we can handle from Our Lord and Savior and His band of Chicago street thugs in Washington.

Is America Ready for a Fat Tax?
July 6th, 2009 at 6:17 pm by Tim Mak

Should junk food and soft drinks be taxed like cigarettes and alcohol?  A new study sheds light on whether the so-called “fat tax” would actually leading to a national shedding of pounds — and a healthier health care system.

Obesity is one of the biggest societal problems of our generation: One-sixth of the adults in the world, and one-third of Americans, are obese, putting them at greater risk for a slew of chronic illnesses–from type-2 diabetes to cardiovascular diseases, to cancer. But some conservatives have come out sternly against the concept of a fat tax, with Rush Limbaugh railing against it as “discrimination against the fat.”

Meanwhile, the cost of health care will increase by 20% over the next decade as a result of the obesity epidemic. Those who favor the fat tax argue that taxpayers should not have to pay for the bad eating choices of others, and that taxing junk food or calories will be able to offset some of the public costs of obesity. In other words, the perverse incentives of the American health care system currently shifts the personal costs of unhealthy decisions onto the healthy, and a fat tax could properly realign those incentives.

But according to a new study of the problem, a fat tax would not necessarily give the American economy–and our overweight populace–the diet it sorely needs.  The study, conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), concluded that taxes on calories may work – but not with any sort of efficiency or rapidity. In fact, the health economists who conducted the report conclude that even a massive 10% increase in the price of a calorie of junk food would only have the potential of reducing average BMI (Body Mass Index, or a measure of body fat based on height and weight) by 1.2 units over twenty years. By comparison, the average American’s BMI increased by 2.7 units from 1980 to 2000. The study’s authors shrewdly note that benefits will “likely post-date the decision-making horizon of an elected official,” and that public policy analysts “will not find a ‘fat tax’ to be a quickly effective solution.”

A fat tax may be the politically faddish diet of the moment, but policy innovators are goin to have to work a lot harder to take the weight off.

————————————–
National Bureau of Economic Research is a front for the Rockefeller Foundation which funds other “fat tax” advocates such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The “fat tax” is not about solving their self-inflicted obesity epidemic. It won’t make people slimmer. As with the “carbon tax”, the “fat tax” is all about robbing taxpayer money and giving it to the banksters who created the crisis in the first place.

Thanks to Jean Wiess, regular contributor to MSN Health & Fitness, for compiling the following list of food additives that should be avoided. Seven of the twelve additives have been linked to an increased risk in cancer.

The best way to avoid these food additives is to avoid packaged foods and make it yourself. Prepared foods provide Questionable Convenience at best. They are more costly and do not provide significant time savings for the money. In addition, you could be exposing yourself and your family to these beauties:

1. Sodium nitrite * – Commonly added to bacon, ham, hot dogs, luncheon meats, smoked fish, and corned beef to stabilize the red color and add flavor. Sodium nitrite is used primarily in fatty, salty foods. Without nitrite, hot dogs and bacon would look gray. Sounds appetizing, doesn’t it?
2. BHA & BHT * -  Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydrozyttoluene (BHT) are antioxidants used to preserve common household foods by preventing them from oxidizing. Both keep fats and oils from going rancid and are found in cereals, chewing gum, potato chips, and vegetable oils. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers BHA to be “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” Nevertheless, the Food and Drug Administration still permits BHA to be used in foods. This synthetic chemical can be replaced by safer chemicals (e.g., vitamin E), safer processes (e.g., packing foods under nitrogen instead of air), or can simply be left out (many brands of oily foods, such as potato chips, don’t use any antioxidant).
3. Propyl gallate * – Prevents fats and oils from spoiling and is often used in conjunction with BHA and BHT. This additive is sometimes found in meat products, chicken soup base, and chewing gum.
4. Monosodium glutamate – An amino acid used as a flavor enhancer in soups, salad dressings, chips, frozen entrees, and restaurant food. It is commonly associated with Asian foods and flavorings. The use of MSG allows companies to reduce the amount of real ingredients in their foods, such as chicken in chicken soup. Ingredients listed as “hydrolyzed soy protein” and “autolyzed yeast” may also contain MSG. Causes headaches and nausea in some people, and animal studies link it to damaging nerve cells in the brains of infant mice.
5. Trans fats – Trans fats are created when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil. These “partially hydrogenated oils” are used most often for deep-frying food, and in baked goods. Margarine and vegetable shortening may also be made with partially hydrogenated oil. Manufacturers have modified processed products to reduce trans fats. Restaurants, particularly fast food chains, still serve foods loaded with trans fats. McDonald’s, Wendy’s, KFC, Taco Bell, Ruby Tuesday, and Red Lobster are some of the large chains that have largely eliminated trans fat or soon will. Trans fats are believed to increase the risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
6. Aspartame * – Additive found in low-calorie desserts, gelatins, drink mixes, and soft drinks. Also known by the brand names Nutrasweet and Equal. Controversial since it was initially approved by the FDA in 1974. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest “lifelong consumption of aspartame probably increases the risk of cancer. People—especially young children—should not consume foods and beverages sweetened with aspartame”.
7. Acesulfame-K * – Artificial sweetener found in soft drinks, baked goods, chewing gum, and gelatin desserts. The Center for Science in the Public Interest recommends that people avoid use of acesulfame-K due to lack of testing concerns.
   
8. Food colorings (Blue, Red, Green, Yellow) * – Blue 1 and 2, found in beverages, candy, baked goods and pet food, are considered low risk but have been linked to cancer in mice. Red 3, used to dye cherries, fruit cocktail, candy, and baked goods, has been shown to cause thyroid tumors in rats. Green 3, added to candy and beverages, though rarely used, has been linked to bladder cancer. Studies have linked the widely used yellow 6—added to beverages, sausage, gelatin, baked goods, and candy—to tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney. Artificial food color is also suspected of causing increased hyperactivity in children.
9. Olestra - A synthetic fat that blocks absorption of fat in your digestive system. It also blocks the absorption of vitamins while in your system. Olestra enables manufacturers to offer greasy-feeling low-fat snacks, but consumers would be better off with baked snacks, which are safe and just as low in calories. Found in some brands of potato chips. Be prepared to wear a diaper if you eat a whole bag.
10. Potassium bromate * – Additive to increase volume in white flour, breads, and rolls. Bromate has been banned virtually worldwide except in Japan and the United States.
11. White sugar – Too much sugar leads to problems with weight control, tooth decay and blood sugar levels in diabetics. It also replaces good nutrition.
12. Sodium chloride (salt) – Excessive amounts of salt can affect cardiovascular function, leading to high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure.

* Linked to an increased risk of cancer.

Resources:

1. Center for Science in the Public Interest: Food Additives
2. Mercola.com: 12 Food Additives to Remove From Your Diet
3. MSN Health & Fitness: 12 Food Additives to Avoid
4. WebMD: The Truth About 7 Common Food Additives

Related Posts:

• Happier Valentine’s Day Without Food Dyes
• Artificial Sweeteners – How Sweet Are They?
• The Dirty Dozen
• Food Additives Cause Hyperactive Behavior

Enjoy this post? Get more like it. Subscribe in a reader or by Email.

Would you like an entrée with your entrée?

“Xtreme appetizers, entrées, and desserts at America’s chain restaurants are making Americans fatter and sicker, and the trendy thing for chains to do is to make already bad foods even worse. Bacon cheeseburgers come nestled inside quesadillas. Half racks of ribs are promoted as side orders to steak. Golf-ball-size blobs of macaroni and cheese are tossed in the deep-fryer and served with creamy marinara sauce and even more cheese.”

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has just come out with its Xtreme Eating Awards 2009, in which the advocacy group “honors” the chain-restaurant dishes with the most calories, fat, and salt. And let me tell you, it is completely shocking just how many calories some of this stuff has. The Cheesecake Factory Chicken and Biscuits? 2,500 calories. That’s more calories than you should be consuming all day.

These awards make it very clear why posting calorie counts on menus is a good thing–would you really order the chicken and biscuits if you knew it was that much of a calorie bomb?

‘Holy Cow’ was my response when I read this list of decadent restaurant dishes put out by the “Center for Science in the Public Interest.” And it seems my reaction might have hit the bullseye – with the amount of calories chocked into some of these recipes, you may as well be consuming an entire cow!

As you’re chewing through this list, keep in mind the US dietary guidelines suggest that Americans consume less than 2,300mg of sodium per day. They also advise that less than 10% of daily calories should come from saturated fat – about 20 grams for a 2,000-calorie a day diet. And ladies, if you’re trying to watch your weight, it’s suggested that you consume between 1,200-1,500 calories a day. Most of these meals will exceed your entire recommended daily caloric intake.

Here are the winners of the Xtreme Eating Awards for 2009:

• Chili’s Big Mouth Bites with French fries (four mini bacon cheeseburgers with fried onion strings): 2,350 calories, 38 grams saturated fat, and 3,940 milligrams sodium.
• Olive Garden’s Tour of Italy (lasagna, chicken parmigiana, and fettuccine alfredo): 1,450 calories, 33 grams saturated fat, and 3,830 milligrams sodium.
• The Cheesecake Factory’s Fried Macaroni and Cheese: 1,570 calories, 69 grams saturated fat, and 1,860 milligrams sodium.
• Chili’s Original Half Rack of Baby Back Ribs: 490 calories, 12 grams saturated fat, and 2,050 milligrams sodium.
• Red Lobster’s Ultimate Fondue (shrimp and crabmeat in a lobster cheese sauce served in a sourdough bread bowl): 1,490 calories, 40 grams saturated fat, and 3,580 milligrams sodium.
• Uno’s Chicago Grill’s Mega-Sized Deep Dish Sundae: 2,800 calories, 72 grams saturated fat.
• The Cheesecake Factory’s Chicken and Biscuits: 2,500 calories.
• Applebee’s Quesadilla Burger with fries: 1,820 calories, 46 grams saturated fat, and 4,410 milligrams sodium.
• The Cheesecake Factory’s Philly Style Flat Iron Steak with fries: 2,320 calories, 47 grams saturated fat, and 5,340 milligrams sodium.

Menu labeling has proven popular and useful in the jurisdictions that have implemented it, according to CSPI. In a survey of New Yorkers, 82% of respondents said that seeing the numbers affected their choices. *Click here if you’re interested in implementing menu labeling in your area.