Study Claims People Could Lose 5lbs a Year with Junk Food Tax
March 10, 2010
ABC News
By Kristina Fiore
Taxing junk food may help reduce obesity and improve health, researchers have found.
Patients got significantly less of their calories from soda or pizza when there was a 10 percent increase in the price of either, Penny Gordon-Larsen of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues reported in the March 8 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
“Policies aimed at altering the price of soda or … pizza may be effective mechanisms to steer U.S. adults toward a more healthful diet and help reduce long-term weight gain or insulin levels over time,” the researchers wrote.
Talk of a soda tax has sparked debate across the country, particularly in New York and Philadelphia, where such legislation is currently under consideration. However, not much research has been done to study how price changes would affect health outcomes.
So the researchers looked at data from 5,115 patients enrolled in the longitudinal Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study from 1985 to 2006.
During that time, the inflation-adjusted price of soda and pizza actually decreased, with the largest drop observed for soda, falling from $2.71 to $1.42 for a 2-liter bottle — a 48 percent decline.
In their analyses, the researchers found that changes in the price of soda and pizza were associated with changes in the probability of consuming those foods, as well as in the amounts consumed.
A 10 percent increase in the price of soda was associated with a 7.12 percent decrease in calories consumed from it, while the same increase in the price of pizza led to an 11.5 percent drop.
Price was also significantly associated with total caloric intake and body weight. A $1.00 increase in soda prices, for example, was tied to a mean of 124 fewer total daily calories, which amounted to an average weight loss of 2.34 pounds.
The researchers noted that similar trends were seen for pizza, adding that a $1.00 increase in the price of both soda and pizza together was associated with even greater changes in total energy intake, body weight, and insulin resistance.
“Our results provide stronger evidence to support the potential health benefits of taxing selected foods and beverages,” they wrote. “Similar taxation policies have proven a successful means of effectively reducing adult and teenage smoking.”
They calculated that an 18 percent tax on junk food would result in a 56-calorie decline in total daily energy intake. At the population level, that would translate to about five pounds per patient per year, along with significant reductions in the risks of most obesity-related chronic diseases, they said.
Since their study looked at only a small number of foods, they called upon researchers to assess more in future studies.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Mitchell H. Katz and Dr. Rajiv Bhatia of the San Francisco Department of Public Health wrote that taxing is “an appropriate method of correcting for health and other social costs not accounted for in the private market cost.”
However, they added, in addition to taxing unhealthy foods, policymakers should consider ways to reward healthy behaviors.
“Sadly, we are currently subsidizing the wrong things, including the production of corn, which makes the corn syrup in sweetened beverages so inexpensive,” they wrote. U.S. agricultural subsidies should instead “be used to make healthful foods such as locally grown vegetables, fruits, and whole grains less expensive.”
“In the end,” Katz and Bhatia concluded, “putting our money where our mouth is means aligning our economic incentives so that we always serve up the healthful choice.”
Click here for the full report.
Snacks Make Up 27% of Kids Calories
March 2, 2010
Reuters
Children snack so often that they are “moving toward constant eating,” Carmen Piernas and Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina reported.
More than 27 percent of calories that American kids take in come from snacks, Piernas and Popkin reported in the journal Health Affairs. The researchers defined snacks as food eaten outside regular meals.
The studies will help fuel President Barack Obama’s initiative to fight obesity in childhood, something Obama’s wife, first lady Michelle Obama, notes could drive up already soaring U.S. healthcare costs.
Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wrote a commentary calling for taxes on sugary drinks and junk food, zoning restrictions on fast-food outlets around schools and bans on advertising unhealthy food to children.
“Government at national, state, and local levels, spearheaded by public health agencies, must take action,” he wrote.
Piernas and Popkin looked at data on 31,337 children aged 2 to 18 from four different federal surveys on food and eating.
“Childhood snacking trends are moving toward three snacks per day, and more than 27 percent of children’s daily calories are coming from snacks. The largest increases have been in salty snacks and candy. Desserts and sweetened beverages remain the major sources of calories from snacks,” they wrote.
“Children increased their caloric intake by 113 calories per day from 1977 to 2006,” they added.
CONSTANT EATING
“This raises the question of whether the physiological basis for eating is becoming deregulated, as our children are moving toward constant eating.”
In a second study in the journal, Christina Bethell of the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland and colleagues analyzed data from the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health to find the rate of obesity for children 10 to 17 rose from 14.8 percent in 2003 to 16.4 percent in 2007.
The percentage of children who are overweight stayed at around 15 percent, they found.
“While combined overweight and obesity rates appear to be leveling off, our findings suggest a possible increase in the severity of the national childhood obesity epidemic,” Bethell said in a statement.
Parents, educators and policymakers all hold responsibility for this, Michelle Obama told the School Nutrition Association conference in Washington on Monday.
“Our kids didn’t do this to themselves,” Obama said.
“From fast food, to vending machines packed with chips and candy, to a la carte lines, we tempt our kids with all kinds of unhealthy choices every day.”
Other studies have shown that obese children are more likely to stay obese as adults, and they develop chronic conditions at younger ages, burdening the healthcare system.
“You see kids who are at higher risk of conditions like diabetes, and cancer, and heart disease — conditions that cost billions of dollars a year to treat,” Michelle Obama said.
The administration has launched an initiative to tackle the issue by improving nutritional standards, getting food companies to voluntarily improve nutrition standards, help kids exercise more and educating parents.
The effects extend beyond health. Bethell’s study found that overweight or obese children were 32 percent more likely to have to repeat a grade in school and 59 percent more likely than normal weight kids to have missed more than two weeks of school.
Click here for the full report
Food Labels May Mislead You
February 17, 2010 by KT
Filed under Kevin's Blog
A very common question I get….
Dear Kevin,
How come you don’t talk about calories, fats, protein, or carbohydrates?
Everyone talks about calories, fats, protein, carbohydrates, sodium, and things of this nature. The fact of the matter is they are important, but not very important when compared to the chemicals and poisons put into the food. If you get your food here like me, you don’t have anything to worry about.
What is more important than calories or fats and carbohydrates is the chemical fertilizers used in the food, the pesticides used in the food, the fact that the food is picked early and then gassed, the fact that the food is genetically modified and manufactured in an unnatural way, the processing methods that are used, the irradiation that was used, the actual thousands of chemicals that are put in processed food to make it taste better and give it certain textures, preserve it, or specifically designed to get you chemically and physically addicted to the food, increase your appetite and make you fat.
This is what is more important than the amount of calories, or the amount of fat, or the amount of carbohydrates. That’s what everyone is missing.
Yours in Health,
KT
Toddler Snatched By Social Workers For Not Eating Junk Food
February 9, 2010 by Andrew
Filed under Government
December 3rd, 2009
Daily Mail
By Chris Brooke
Like many toddlers, Zak Hessey was a fussy eater who refused his mother’s healthy home cooking.
Concerned about his falling weight, his parents sought the advice of doctors. That simple act triggered a shocking chain of events that led to the youngster being put into foster care for four months.
Paul and Lisa Hessey believe in the long-term benefits of healthy eating and rejected advice to feed their two-year-old son high-calorie snack food such as chocolate, crisps and cakes.
To their horror, social workers put Zak into foster care ‘to assess his needs’ and allegedly threatened the couple with the loss of their parental rights if they fought the decision in court.
‘I was absolutely devastated, I broke down in tears,’ recalled Mrs Hessey, 48. ‘I was scared out of my wits. I phoned Paul to tell him and he just broke down on the phone.’
But they went to court and, after four months, Zak returned home with the blessing of social services, who accepted he had good and caring parents.
Zak is now putting on some weight, but his eating problems were not cured by his time in the care of ‘experts’ and, much to the annoyance of his parents, he has acquired a taste for junk food.
Mrs Hessey, of Bolsover, near Chesterfield, said: ‘I thought I was doing the right thing going to the best people for advice when Zak began to lose weight.
‘Instead they basically accused me of neglecting him and implied it was all my fault. I have four other children and they are perfectly healthy, it was just that Zak was refusing food for some reason. They said I should just feed Zak chocolate, cakes and junk food just to get calories into him. But I objected, saying that was only a short-term answer and not a proper solution.
‘The Government and doctors are always drumming into parents the importance of healthy eating – yet they were telling us to feed Zak all the wrong things.
‘That is obviously what they were doing when he was in foster care so now it is hard to get him to eat anything else.’
Mrs Hessey and her 48-year-old husband, a lorry driver, took Zak to see a paediatrician at Chesterfield Royal Hospital in July. He was 20 months old and weighed 1st 3lb.
Mrs Hessey, whose four other children are under ten, said she was happy for Zak to be admitted for a two-week hospital assessment and was hit by a thunderbolt when she went to collect him on July 24.
She was taken into a room with a nurse and social worker who apparently told her: ‘We would like Zak to go into foster care to assess how he feeds. You have legal rights but be warned if you oppose this we will go straight to court and have all your parental rights taken away.’
Mrs Hessey said: ‘They kept saying, “If you love Zak and you want the best for him then you’ll agree to this”. They said we had been negative about eating. That was because they had been telling us we should feed Zak crisps, chocolate and cakes to get calories into him.
‘I was questioning that approach. We eat proper home-made food at our house and just have chocolate and cakes as a treat.’
She agreed to Zak going into care after hearing to the possible repercussions if she objected. Initially she and her husband couldn’t see Zak for six days.
After hiring a solicitor, they were allowed three hours a day with him during the week in the company of a social worker.
The first hearing before the family court in Derby was on September 2 and the case was adjourned for two weeks. Interim care orders were imposed and Zak returned home following a third court hearing on November 18. By this stage social workers had lifted their objections – and he had put on only 1lb.
Mrs Hessey said: ‘Social services did a complete about turn. They admitted that in foster care Zak was exactly the same with his food as he was at home.
‘They said we were very good parents. I still find it hard to come to terms with how we have been treated.’ Derbyshire County Council said: ‘We only take a child into our care either with the consent of the parents or following very careful consideration by a court.’
A spokesman for Chesterfield Royal Hospital said: ‘While we understand Mr and Mrs Hessey’s distress, Zak’s welfare was paramount and we believe we acted in his best interest.’
Click here for the full report
Fast Food Linked to Diabetes
February 5, 2010
Natural News
By Ethan A. Huff
A report recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that black women who consume fried chicken or fast food burgers at least twice a week are between 40 and 70 percent more prone to develop type 2 diabetes over the course of a decade than those who do not. Not only black women but all people who consume high calorie, low nutrient fast foods on even a moderate basis are susceptible to developing the disease.
Dr. Julie Palmer and her colleagues from Boston University analyzed over 44,000 black women who were instructed to complete questionnaires that they were given beginning back in 1995. Once concluded, researchers compared the results with another group of women who claimed never to eat fast food. The result was that not only were the women who ate fast food more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than the non-fast food group, they also were generally heavier with many falling into the overweight range.
The standard measuring tool for determining healthy body weight is the Body Mass Index (BMI). A healthy BMI is somewhere between 18.5 and 24.9. Most of the participants in the fast food group were somewhere between 28 and 29 when they started the study, which according the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is overweight. Those in this group also continued to gain more weight during the course of the study.
Interestingly, the two foods that played the largest role in blood sugar disorder were fast food hamburgers and fried chicken. These foods were implicated in causing the most weight gain which resulted in more cases of diabetes. Nearly 3,000 women in the fast food eating group developed type 2 diabetes by the time the study concluded.
A previous fast food study conducted in 2004 by researchers from Boston Children’s Hospital found similar results. After tracking more than 3,000 young adults for over 15 years, researchers found that people who ate at fast food restaurants more than twice a week gained an average of almost 10 pounds more than those who went only once a week. The twice a week group also had a 200 percent increase in insulin resistance compared to the once a week group.
Experts also concluded that those who ate the most fast food lived the most unhealthy lifestyles in general and were the most prone to developing other serious diseases throughout the course of their lives.
While some experts suggest consuming smaller portion sizes and less overall calories, a better option would be to make better food choices. Eating less fast food is good, but changing one’s lifestyle to include whole, living foods is even better.
Click here for the full report
Missing DNA Tied to Obesity
February 3rd, 2010
HealthDay Reporter
By Randy Dotinga
Adding more evidence to theories linking DNA to weight, European scientists report that a genetic variation seems to virtually guarantee that a person will become obese.
The genetic variation in question robs people of about 30 genes and appears to be found in seven of every 1,000 severely obese people, the researchers report. The same variation also may be linked to mental retardation and learning disabilities.
“Obesity is definitively a genetic trait, and it is very likely that additional small chromosomal abnormalities exist that may dramatically increase the risk of obesity and may also be linked to brain developmental problems,” said Dr. Philippe Froguel, co-author of a study published in the Feb. 4 issue of the journal Nature and head of genomic medicine at Imperial College London.
In the new study, researchers examined the genes of teens and adults who had learning difficulties and developmental delays. Thirty-one people were missing the genes in question, and all were obese.
The researchers then looked at the genomes of 16,053 people who were either of normal weight or obese. Nineteen people had the same genetic deletion, and all were severely obese.
“We feel that this is a major advance — the first paper to convincingly demonstrate that a relatively rare genetic variant can also be an important cause of common obesity,” said study co-author Alexandra Blakemore, a senior lecturer at Imperial College London.
“Although the percentage of severely obese people with this (variation) is just under one person, that adds up to an awful lot of people in total,” Blakemore said. “The effect on carriers is very strong.”
But what are the missing genes doing to the body to make people become obese? That remains to be determined.
“The mechanism by which this genetic defect unveils itself may give us insight into how other conditions lead to obesity. There may be an enzyme or a protein that is involved in the development of obesity,” said Dr. Stuart Weiss, an assistant clinical professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, who is familiar with the study findings.
Finding the cause “will allow us to investigate medications and therapies” that could turn something in the body on or off, he said.
Not all obese people can get skinnier by eating less and exercising more, Weiss said. “The bottom line is that they may be able to eat less, but their bodies may be so efficient that they can extract calories from food much more effectively and may not be burning energy as efficiently as others,” he said.
This fact leads to unhappy news for some obese people, he said. “If you’re eating just one pea and you’re gaining weight, you’ll have to cut the pea in half.”
Still, the future could bring genetic tests for patients that could allow doctors to tailor treatments to their particular bodies, he added.
Click here for the full report
Processed Soy Products Are Bad for You
January 06, 2010
Naural News
By Mike Adams
One of the strangest behaviors I’ve ever seen in the natural health crowd is something I call “Soy Rage.” It’s an angry reaction that wells up in some people every time they hear me recommend natural, non-GMO, home-made soy milk.
People get angry about it. Downright nasty at times. They insist all soy is bad for you and there’s no such thing as “healthy soy.” To that, I say stop blaming the plant.
Blame the processing. (And the slash-and-burn farming…)
Processed soy is atrociously bad for you
Based on everything I’ve learned over the last decades or soy, I believe that processed soy products are atrociously bad for you. I wouldn’t touch a carton of Silk with a ten-foot straw. Processed tofu is a nutritious joke, and when it comes to soy protein, I’ve already published numerous articles exposing the toxins found in conventional processed soy protein.
Processed soy, like lots of processed things, is quite bad for your health.
But natural soy, grown organically (and locally, where possible), can actually be quite good for you. Natural soy milk, made right at home, has been part of the healthy traditional Chinese diet for thousands of years. Some of its plant-based nutrients have very powerful anti-cancer elements that can help prevent both prostate and breast cancers. Natural, non-GMO soy has some very positive properties and can play an important role in a healthy disease-preventing diet.
But the Soy Rage people don’t see it that way. To them, all soy is bad for you, end of discussion.
It’s an ignorant belief. It’s like saying “all sugar is bad for you.”
Well, not really. When I take a machete and cut some living sugar cane stalks here in Ecuador, and I take them to a sugar cane juicing machine and squeeze out all the green juice, with all its minerals and phytonutrients, and then I enjoy that amazing beverage, it’s very good for me! Drinking raw sugar cane juice is a lot like drinking wheat grass juice (sugar cane is actually a grass) except it tastes way better.
Sugar is a lot like soy: When it’s unprocessed and natural, it’s quite good for you. When it’s processed and modified, it’s bad!
Lots of things are good for you BEFORE they’re processed
Many people in the natural health arena need a better understanding of this: There are lots of things that are quite good for you in their unprocessed form. It’s the processing that makes them bad for you.
For example:
Processed sugar cane is bad. Raw sugar cane is good.
Processed salt is bad. Unprocessed, full-spectrum sea salt is good.
Processed cow’s milk is bad. Fresh, raw cow’s milk is good.
Processed chocolate can be a junk food. Raw, natural cacao is a superfood!
Processed wheat is bad for you. Stone-ground whole wheat can be good for you.
Processed soy milk is bad. Natural, home-made soy milk is good.
Processed cheese is bad. Natural, home-made cheese is far less so.
Processed (canned) fruits are bad. Raw, fresh fruits are good for you.
You see, it’s not the food itself that’s good or bad — it’s the processing! And sadly, virtually all the foods consumed by most consumers today are highly processed.
What happens when you “process” food
So what’s the problem with processing food anyway? When you process food, five very bad things happen:
#1 – Minerals are stripped out, such as 98% of the magnesium being stripped out of wheat when it’s milled and bleached into white flour.
#2 – Phytonutrients are destroyed. As much as 90% of the phytonutrient content is lost during processing. (And remember, phytonutrients are the disease-fighting medicines found in foods.)
#3 – The physical properties of foods are artificially altered in a way that makes them dangerous. The homogenization of milk, for example, alters the fat molecules in milk, giving them properties that contribute to heart disease and clogged arteries. Partially-hydrogenated oils are also the result of a physical alteration that makes food dangerous for your health.
Man Drinks ‘Glass Of Fat’ In NYC Anti-Soda Video
December 15, 2009
CBS News
By Scoot Rapoport
There’s a controversial new video ad on the Internet aimed at curbing people’s cravings for sugary soft drinks.
The message has been presented in perhaps the most “tasteless” way possible.
It’s the latest skinny on those high-calorie, sugary sweet soft drinks.
“That’s nasty. That’s horrible,” one woman told CBS 2 HD on Monday night.
It’s a 30-second video released Monday showing globs of fat being gulped from a soft drink can.
“I don’t want any soda again,” said Patsy Callymore of Brooklyn.
It’s a graphic depiction from the New York City Department of Health of the potential effects of over consuming sugary beverages.
The Health Department says over the course of a year drinking one non-diet soda a day can make you 10 pounds heavier.
“We wanted to call attention to this problem of people drinking too many sugar sweetened beverages and the risk of obesity that’s associated with that,” said the Health Department’s Cathy Nonas.
CBS 2 HD showed the video to stunned soda drinkers in Times Square.
“I drink soda and I ain’t drinkin’ it anymore,” said Brenda Sinclair.
The video is part of the Health Department’s anti-obesity campaign, targeting sugary drinks like soda, sports drinks and energy drinks, among others.
But in response the American Beverage Association called the campaign irresponsible, saying in a statement: “If the goal is to reduce obesity among New Yorkers, then this public education campaign should be based in fact, not simply sensationalized video that inaccurately portrays our industry’s products, products that are fat-free.”
In the meantime, the Health Department is urging people to reach for alternative beverages like seltzer or plain old NYC tap water.
According to a Health Department survey, more than 2 million New Yorkers drink at least one sugar sweetened beverage each day, adding as much as 250 empty calories to their diets.
Click here for the full report
Reduce Your Calories and Extend Your Life
November 25, 2009
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
Monkeys fed a calorie-restricted diet were significantly less likely to die from cancer, heart disease or diabetes than monkeys fed a standard lab diet, in a study conducted by researchers from Washington University and published in the journal Science.
Researchers observed 76 adult rhesus monkeys for as long as 20 years. Half the monkeys were fed standard lab chow, while the others were fed a diet with 30 percent fewer calories and a higher concentration of vitamins and minerals. The researchers found that monkeys fed the standard lab diet were three times more likely to die of age-related diseases than the monkeys on the calorie-reduced diet. They were twice as likely to develop heart disease or pre-cancerous growths. While five monkeys on the standard lab diet developed diabetes and 11 became pre-diabetic, none of the monkeys on the reduced calorie diet developed blood sugar problems.
Brain scans revealed that there was less atrophy in the gray matter of monkeys on the reduced calorie diet, leading the researchers to state that monkeys on the restricted diet “appear to be biologically younger than the normally fed animals.”
Studies in yeast, worms, flies, spiders, fish, mice and rats have all previously shown that animals on calorie restricted diets tend to live longer, while one study found that humans practicing the diet had the heart function of a people an average of 16 years younger.
Much remains unknown about the mechanisms behind the observed effects, as well as potential side effects, researchers warned. One popular hypothesis is that the diets lengthen age because they put the body into crisis mode, causing it to shut down processes such as reproduction, which accelerate aging. No studies have been carried out on the psychological or social effects of the diet.
Further, a UCLA researcher concluded from a meta-analysis that humans restricting their calorie intakes by 30 percent would extend their life spans only two years, on average.
People should not practice calorie restriction without consulting a physician to make sure they are getting enough of the right nutrients to remain healthy.
Read Those Food Labels
October 23, 2009
The New York Times
By Elizabeth Rosenthal
Shopping for oatmeal, Helena Bergstrom, 37, admitted that she was flummoxed by the label on the blue box reading, “Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product.”
A dairy farm near Uppsala is among the Swedish companies now focusing on the carbon dioxide emitted in food production.
“Right now, I don’t know what this means,” said Ms. Bergstrom, a pharmaceutical company employee.
But if a new experiment here succeeds, she and millions of other Swedes will soon find out. New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.
People who live to eat might dismiss this as silly. But changing one’s diet can be as effective in reducing emissions of climate-changing gases as changing the car one drives or doing away with the clothes dryer, scientific experts say.
“We’re the first to do it, and it’s a new way of thinking for us,” said Ulf Bohman, head of the Nutrition Department at the Swedish National Food Administration, which was given the task last year of creating new food guidelines giving equal weight to climate and health. “We’re used to thinking about safety and nutrition as one thing and environmental as another.”
Some of the proposed new dietary guidelines, released over the summer, may seem startling to the uninitiated. They recommend that Swedes favor carrots over cucumbers and tomatoes, for example. (Unlike carrots, the latter two must be grown in heated greenhouses here, consuming energy.)
They are not counseled to eat more fish, despite the health benefits, because Europe’s stocks are depleted.
And somewhat less surprisingly, they are advised to substitute beans or chicken for red meat, in view of the heavy greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising cattle.
“For consumers, it’s hard,” Mr. Bohman acknowledged. “You are getting environmental advice that you have to coordinate with, ‘How can I eat healthier?’ ”
Many Swedish diners say it is just too much to ask. “I wish I could say that the information has made me change what I eat, but it hasn’t,” said Richard Lalander, 27, who was eating a Max hamburger (1.7 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions) in the shadow of a menu board revealing that a chicken sandwich (0.4 kilograms) would have been better for the planet.
Yet if the new food guidelines were religiously heeded, some experts say, Sweden could cut its emissions from food production by 20 to 50 percent. An estimated 25 percent of the emissions produced by people in industrialized nations can be traced to the food they eat, according to recent research here. And foods vary enormously in the emissions released in their production.
While today’s American or European shoppers may be well versed in checking for nutrients, calories or fat content, they often have little idea of whether eating tomatoes, chicken or rice is good or bad for the climate.
