As the U.S. Congress prepares to vote on health reform, we need your help to urge members of Congress to preserve the prevention provisions! While the current provisions show a strong commitment to preventing chronic diseases, which account for 75 percent of our health care costs, policy makers could slash these provisions as they try to decrease the overall cost of the bill.

Currently in the health reform bills, the prevention funds would increase over time to about $10 billion a year. Congress is discussing slashing that by more than 75 percent.

It’s time to let Congress 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 strategywould lower disease rates, improve quality of life, and help reduce health care costs for families, businesses, and 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 and Representative today and urge them to protect the prevention measures currently included in health reform!

To make it REALLY easy, click here.

- Christopher

(This is a repost of an email sent to us from the Center for Science in the Public Interest)

[2009-10-09] In response to the release of a list of the “Top 10 Riskiest Foods” by the Center for Science in the Public Interest this week, United Fresh and the Produce Marketing Association issued a joint statement urging CSPI to clarify multiple inaccuracies contained in the report.

The letter to the CSPI states: “As you know … the produce industry is committed to ensuring the fresh fruits and vegetables we produce provide consumers with a safe and healthy eating experience every bite, every time.”

The joint letter emphasized industry initiatives to increase food safety accountability, including the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, United and PMA’s participation in the non-profit Partnership for Food Safety Education, and both associations’ call for mandatory regulation to help ensure the safety of the food supply.

“By focusing your ‘Top Ten’ release solely on the food products listed, you are presenting a misleading picture to the American public,” the letter says. “As you well know, food handling is often the cause of such outbreaks. And while you do provide some clarification in the full report, the reality is that most consumers and reporters will not go to the website for more complete information.”

Upon release of the list, CSPI staff attorney Sarah Klein commented that “consumers can only do so much to make sure they are not getting sick.”

Both associations took special exception to Klein’s characterization of the consumer’s role in ensuring a safe food supply as small.
“That’s simply not accurate. Consumers and other food handlers play a huge role in preventing illnesses, and they do need more information on safe handling,” the letter says.

United Fresh president and CEO Tom Stenzel and PMA president and CEO Bryan Silbermann, authors of the letter, expressed worry that the CSPI’s list could further discourage Americans from getting the healthy amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables they need.

“The lack of clarity and misleading way the information was presented could very well discourage consumers from eating healthy fruits and vegetables. That is unfortunate considering that obesity is at epidemic proportions and so few Americans consume the recommended amounts already.”

Leafy greens, eggs, and tuna are on the top of a list of the 10 riskiest foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The Center for Science in the Public Interest authored the report, no one need pass up tomatoes, sprouts, and berries, even though those foods are also on the list.

More than 1,500 separate, definable outbreaks were associated with the top 10 riskiest FDA-regulated foods, causing nearly 50,000 reported illnesses. Since most foodborne illnesses are never reported, these outbreaks are only the tip of a large, hulking iceberg.

CSPI identified 363 outbreaks linked to iceberg lettuce, romaine, spinach, and other leafy greens, variously contaminated with E. coli, Norovirus, or Salmonella, and causing 13,568 cases of illness. Manure, contaminated irrigation water, or poor handling practices are all possible culprits in those outbreaks. The FDA does not currently require farms and processors to have written food safety plans, nor does it provide specific safety standards for even the largest growers to meet.

Eggs were linked 352 outbreaks and 11,163 illnesses; tuna to 268 outbreaks and 2,341 cases of illness, and oysters—despite their limited consumption—to 132 outbreaks causing 3,409 illnesses. Outbreaks involving potatoes don’t seem to make headlines, but nevertheless they are linked to 108 outbreaks and 3,659 cases of illness. Cheese, ice cream, tomatoes, sprouts, and berries round out the top 10 list. The data come from CSPI’s Outbreak Alert! Database, which includes outbreaks from 1990 to 2006, using data collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other sources.

“As consumers, we don’t have the power to check on these products,” said Kathleen Chrismer, whose 9-year-old daughter Rylee Gustafson was hospitalized for a month after becoming seriously ill from eating spinach salad contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. “Without a better system to protect us, we are totally at the mercy of the next outbreak.”

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.

Publicerad 30 november 2008.
Publicerad 19 januari 2009

/Fröken Sverige

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.

Lawsuits and advocacy groups’ attacks on the food industry are nothing new. They involve a battle of words, PR strategy, research and ultimately responsibility. We’ve been through the sugar wars, pesticide protests, cancer risks, claims on lowering cholesterol, trans fat bans and fighting obesity, to name a few. Recently the first sodium-related law suit was filed against a national restaurant chain by The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) who acknowledged that while it filed against Denny’s, there were several other restaurants that also would be appropriate targets.

After CSPI negotiations with Denny’s broke down and the menu modifications Denny’s made didn’t satisfy CSPI, it filed suit to force the chain to disclose sodium content on each meal and to put warning alerts on meals containing the highest levels of sodium.

Denny’s might be a logical target because its reputation was tarnished with racial discrimination lawsuits in the 1990s. It could be a target because it is the largest full-service family restaurant chain. It also could be a target because its food contains a lot of salt. Some examples: the Meat Lover’s Scramble, a breakfast choice, has 5,690 milligrams (mg) of sodium, while a lunch or dinner of clam chowder and Spicy Buffalo Chicken Melt with seasoned fries contains 6,700 mg.

Considering that the recommended daily amount of sodium a healthy adult should have is generally considered to be 1500 mg, these mg levels are off the chart. It means that one Denny’s breakfast could consume nearly four times the total daily recommended sodium level for all meals. Eat at Denny’s regularly and you could turn into Lot’s wife. Well maybe not, but you get the picture.

Denny’s calls the CSPI suit frivolous, promising to fight it aggressively, and says it offers customers a wide variety of choices to appeal to different lifestyles and dietary needs. CSPI says it wants to get the attention of the National Restaurant Association and wants restaurants to lower the amount of sodium in food served customers.

The National Restaurant Association, which talks about the strides restaurants have made over the years to lower sodium, offers a “Healthy Diet Finder” on its website. Member restaurants list qualifying menu items. The criteria for “healthy” seem to be options with relatively modest calories which may be the fruits of earlier battles won by advocates for reduced calorie menu options. However, in the “Healthy Diet Finder” sodium level isn’t on the radar.  Some examples: Ruby’s Diner’s egg white omelet has 930 mg sodium (if you request no added salt); Kentucky Fried Chicken’s southern style green beans have 570 mg sodium, while their tender roast sandwich has 1,180 mg sodium; and Burger King offers a veggie burger with 1,100 mg sodium.

So what is next in the battle of salt?  A good guess is legal arguments on why Denny’s did perpetrate fraud (CSPI’s view) or did not (Denny’s view) for not disclosing salt content in its menu options. A PR campaign demonstrating Denny’s commitment to health or nutrition is also a predictable strategy. Next would be presenting medical evidence to link high sodium content to strokes, heart attacks and death on one hand, while on the other hand, not finding evidence of conclusive links. And let’s not forget the debate on whether listing sodium content would have any impact on the public’s preferences for certain menu choices.

But at the heart of it all is a question. Whether it is Denny’s, Wendy’s, Burger King or any restaurant chain, how important is the concept of do no harm? Some of these companies are involved in the CSR movement – Corporate Social Responsibility – in which they enhance their reputation by demonstrating they are a good citizen. How will their leadership come down on the ethics of salt?

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

Comment: When Bush was the President, it was “fashionable” amongst the liberal left to speak out against junk food and aspartame and MSG and GMOs. Now that Obama is the President, it is no longer “fashionable” amongst the liberal left to speak out against junk food. By attacking a man for offering a REAL solution to the manufactured healthcare crisis (manufactured by Rockefeller-funded liberal food activists, nonetheless), the liberal left has shown that it opposes junk food only when a Republican is President.

Bottom line, the liberals may as well say “Say NO to junk food…unless a Democrat is president.”

—————————————————–

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1

Health Care Stirs Up Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, Customers Boycott Organic Grocery Store
Branding Experts Say CEOs Should Stay Quiet When It Comes to Politics
By EMILY FRIEDMAN

Aug. 14, 2009 —

Joshua has been taking the bus to his local Whole Foods in New York City every five days for the past two years. This week, he said he’ll go elsewhere to fulfill his fresh vegetable and organic produce needs.

“I will never shop there again,” vowed Joshua, a 45-year-old blogger, who asked that his last name not be published.

Like many of his fellow health food fanatics, Joshua said he will no longer patronize the store after learning about Whole Foods Market Inc.’s CEO John Mackey’s views on health care reform, which were made public this week in an op-ed piece he wrote for The Wall Street Journal.

Michael Lent, another Whole Foods enthusiast in Long Beach, Calif., told ABCNews.com that he, too, will turn to other organic groceries for his weekly shopping list.

“I’m boycotting [Whole Foods] because all Americans need health care,” said Lent, 33, who used to visit his local Whole Foods “several times a week.”

“While Mackey is worried about health care and stimulus spending, he doesn’t seem too worried about expensive wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and big businesses such as his own that contribute to the deficit,” said Lent.

In his op-ed, “The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare,” published Tuesday, Mackey criticized President Barack Obama’s health care plan.

Mackey provided eight “reforms” he argued the U.S. can do to improve health care without increasing the deficit. He suggested that tax forms be revised to “make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance.”

Mackey also called for a move toward “less government control and more individual empowerment” instead of “a massive new health care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits.”

He added that many of the country’s health care problems are “self-inflicted” and are preventable through “proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.”

In the op-ed, Mackey outlines Whole Foods’ employee health insurance policy. According to Mackey, Whole Foods pays 100 percent of the premiums for all employees who work 30 hours or more per week — about 89 percent of his workforce.

Additionally, the company gives each employee $1,800 per year in “health-care dollars,” says Mackey, that they can use at their own discretion for health and wellness expenses. This money can be put toward the $2,500 annual deductible that must be covered before Mackey says the company’s “insurance plan kicks in.”

Whole Foods Shoppers Weigh In

The op-ed piece, which begins with a Margaret Thatcher quote, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money,” has left some Whole Foods loyalists enraged. Many say Mackey was out of line to opine against the liberal base that has made his fortune possible.

Christine Taylor, a 34-year-old New Jersey shopper, vowed never to step foot in another Whole Foods again.

“I will no longer be shopping at Whole Foods,” Taylor told ABCNews.com. “I think a CEO should take care that if he speaks about politics, that his beliefs reflect at least the majority of his clients.”

Countless Whole Foods shoppers have taken their gripes with Mackey’s op-ed to the Internet, where people on the social networking sites Twitter and Facebook are calling for a boycott of the store.

A commenter on the Whole Foods forum, identified only by his handle, “PracticePreach,” wrote, “It is an absolute slap in the face to the millions of progressive-minded consumers that have made [Whole Foods] what it is today.”

“You should know who butters your hearth-baked bread, John,” wrote the commenter. “Last time I checked it wasn’t the insurance industry conservatives who made you a millionaire a hundred times over.”

While Mackey reduced his annual salary to one dollar in 2007, after explaining to employees he was “no longer interested in working for money,” Mackey is still the head of the 10th largest food and drug store in the U.S.

Whole Foods Market Inc. reported that sales for the last quarter rose by 2 percent to $1.878 billion. It is consistently ranked a Fortune 500 company.

And not all Whole Foods customers were upset by Mackey’s op-ed.

Many posted online that they agreed with his message and would try to shop at the chain more often.

Frank Federer wrote ABCNews.com, expressing fatigue with the knee-jerk reaction of other shoppers.

“You can count me as one vote FOR Whole Foods’ CEO,” wrote Federer. “At a time when most folks are more inclined toward rancor than discussion of facts, I applaud John Mackey.”

Despite his financial success, this is not the first time Mackey has become fodder for criticism. In 2007, it was discovered that Mackey had been using a pseudonym to post blogs lambasting Whole Foods’ competitor, Wild Oats Market, and questioning the worth of the company’s stock.

The postings were made public when Mackey announced his desire to buy Wild Oats Market, and a lawsuit was filed by the Federal Trade Commission over concerns that the purchase would violate antitrust laws.

The FTC eventually let the sale go through, provided that Mackey sold 31 of the Wild Oats stores, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had launched an investigation into the online postings, did not press charges.

Libba Letton, a Whole Foods spokeswoman, told ABCNews.com that Mackey was unavailable for an interview and said that the op-ed “stands on its own.” Letton offered no further comment regarding customers’ threats to boycott the store.

When a CEO Speaks Out…

According to Robert Passikoff, the founder of Brand Keys, a N.Y.-based consulting firm, what a CEO says or does can often have a direct impact on consumers’ pocketbooks.

“You can have a tremendous effect as a CEO, but it’s a double-edge sword in that you’ll have people who will support your position and feel better about your brand because of what you say,” said Passikoff. “But equally so, you’ll have people who think you’re crazy and because they can’t take it out on you, the CEO, they’ll take it out on the company.”

It is the risk of losing customers, said Passikoff, which more often than not leads CEOs to keep their mouths shut, at least when it comes to polarizing issues such as health care.

Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino’s Pizza who was outspoken in the pro-life movement, ostracized many of his consumers who weren’t sure how much of the money he earned making pizza was then going to support the pro-life movement.

Lynn Upshaw, a brand marketing consultant at Upshaw Brand Consulting in Kentfield, Calif., said that more often it is the actions of an entire company, and not just of a CEO, that lead to boycotting by consumers.

For example, Upshaw remembers when, in the late 1970s, Nestle angered consumers with a baby formula product it claimed to be a healthy alternative to breast-feeding.

“It’s relatively unusual for a CEO to be as outspoken as Mackey has been,” said Upshaw. “Because any time you weigh in to something political, you’re bound to have loyal customers who will question [your] point of view, and that can have a very negative effect.”

Upshaw added that Mackey’s op-ed may have done more harm than might be typical because of the unique makeup of his clientele.

“You have more activist consumers going to Whole Foods than other stores,” said Upshaw. “They’re not just simply expressing an opinion, they do something about it.

“These are people who have already gone out of the way to find a place that is more expensive to buy certain types of food,” he said. “So in theory, they might be more willing to take the action to go somewhere else if they don’t agree with Mackey.”
___________________________________________________________________
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

AUGUST 11, 2009, 7:30 P.M. ET

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

By JOHN MACKEY

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people’s money.”

—Margaret Thatcher

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

•  Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

Often in our daily lives, we use the color red to symbolize “warning” or “stop.” Well, if you weren’t already aware, there’s also a reason to pause when you see the color red in your food. It may be that the color is derived from insects. The cochineal or Polish cochineal to be precise. While not all red dyes are derived from the cochineal, as of now, it is extremely difficult to tell which products contain this dye. Products can vary significantly  and they include additives in food, yogurt, cosmetic products and coloring for synthetic products. The good news is that, in response to consumers with allergies to the cochineal food coloring and a petition by the CSPI,  the FDA passed a regulation on January 5, 2009 requiring food and cosmetics containing this dye to list the ingredient on the labeling (the dye goes under several names: carmine, carminic acid, C.I., C.I. 75470, crimson, cochineal extract, and Natural Red 4). The bad news is that this regulation won’t go into effect until 2011. Until then, beware the obvious red.

Have you been concerned about the plethora of E. coli and salmonella outbreaks that have affected everyday foods like spinach and tomatoes, and yummy treats like cookie dough?  Well, hopefully your fears will soon be allayed, as tonight the House of Representatives passed legislation to reform the food safety system.  Earlier this evening I received an email from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a non-profit organization that has been an advocate for nutrition and health and other issues related to the sciences, saying the following:

Great news on the food safety front!  Tonight the House of Representatives took the first step toward improving the safety of the foods we eat by passing the Food Safety Enhancement Act.

After countless Salmonella and E. coli outbreaks prompting recalls of spinach, tomatoes, peanuts, and, most recently, cookie dough, consumer confidence is at an all-time low while industries and farmers suffer major financial losses.  But if passed by the Senate and signed by the President, the Food Safety Enhancement Act would dramatically increase the frequency of inspections of the farms and processing facilities that produce our foods.  Passing this bill in the House is a huge victory for public health.

This is great news, especially after reading news that 22 percent of New York restaurants had not been inspected by the city’s health department in 2008.  That’s about one in five restaurants.  Gross!  According to the NY Times article, beginning next July all NY restaurants will need to post a sanitary grade in their windows.  That should be interesting!

It’s good to know that something is being done about the recurring food safety issues in our country.  Let’s hope the Senate feels the same way.

FYI: The CSPI’s newsletter, Nutrition Action Healthletter is great!  It’s filled with wonderful nutrition and health information, and you don’t have to be an RD to read it.  Check it out!

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.