Groups Push For FDA To Require Specific Labeling Of Added Sugars In Foods
March 12, 2012 by admin
Filed under News Stories
March 13, 2012
Natural News
By Jonathan Benson
“Processed white sugar is bad news. You really should do everything to avoid it. It’s just as bad as high fructose corn syrup. You want to see Organic Cane Sugar or Raw Honey on the label.” –KTRN
A coalition of consumer advocacy groups, health organizations, and food and nutrition groups has officially called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enact new labeling requirements for foods that contain added sugars. The Environmental Working Group (EWG), the American Heart Association, and 12 other organizations all undersigned a recent letter petitioning the FDA to require that food labels differentiate between natural sugars and added, processed sugars like high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
The petition appears to be specifically aimed at food products like fruit juices, children’s cereals, and snacks that may contain natural, fruit-based sugars in addition to added sugars. Since current labeling requirements list all sugars in one generic category, shoppers are not privy to the actual amount of added sugars contained in the food products they buy, which makes it difficult for many to monitor their processed sugar intake.
“While current regulations stipulate what foods can be labeled ‘No Sugar Added’ or use a similar phrase, there is currently no requirement that added sugars be shown separately on the ‘Ingredients List,’” wrote the group to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg in a recent letter. “We recommend that FDA require that added sugars be listed on the ingredients section of food labels so that consumers can make healthier choices when they shop.”
The letter, which is addressed specifically to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, notes that the American Heart Association (AHA), which is one of its under-signers, recommends that adult males consume less than 150 calories a day from processed sugars, and females less than 100 calories a day from processed sugars. In order to abide by these recommendations, consumers must have full disclosure of added sugar content in the foods they buy.
Click here for the full report.
All Hype? Gluten-Free Diets May Not Help Many
February 22, 2012 by admin
Filed under News Stories
February 22nd, 2012
TIME
By: Sora Song
Gluten-free products are all the rage these days, but many health-conscious eaters who buy them may be wasting their money, the authors of a new commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine suggest.
Going gluten-free is necessary for people with celiac disease, an autoimmune condition triggered by gluten, which is found in wheat, barley and rye. The disease causes inflammation in the small intestine and can lead to malnutrition.
Yet many others without celiac disease have also adopted gluten-free lifestyles — no doubt inspired in part by athletes and celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow and Victoria Beckham — in hopes of losing weight, boosting energy and resolving any number of potentially gluten-related symptoms like diarrhea, bloating, gas, headache, ADHD and mouth sores.
Many such adopters have been diagnosed by their doctors with “nonceliac gluten sensitivity,” a condition that by some estimates affects as many as 18 million Americans. But the authors of the commentary, celiac researchers Dr. Antonio Di Sabatino and Dr. Gino Roberto Corazza of Italy’s University of Pavia, question that figure, noting that there’s no official data on the prevalence of nonceliac gluten sensitivity, nor is there any consensus among doctors about how to diagnose it. Unlike with celiac disease, which can be identified through blood tests and bowel biopsies, there’s no good test to determine gluten sensitivity.
What there is, however, is a lot of hype surrounding the supposed benefits of gluten-free eating. Such claims “seem to increase daily, with no adequate scientific support to back them up,” the authors write. “This clamor has increased and moved from the Internet to the popular press, where gluten has become ‘the new diet villain.’”
It’s possible that people who have bad reactions to common gluten-containing foods — pasta, breads, baked goods and breakfast cereal — may actually be sensitive to something else in wheat flour or to other ingredients in the foods, the authors suggest. It’s also possible that some people develop gastrointestinal or other symptoms simply because they believe they’re food-sensitive.
That’s not to say that nonceliac gluten sensitivity doesn’t exist. But the authors say that more clinical research is needed to help define it and to prevent a “gluten preoccupation from evolving into the conviction that gluten is toxic for most of the population.”
In the meantime, until researchers figure out the best way to diagnose gluten sensitivity, the authors discourage people from cutting out gluten entirely, which could lead to a diet that’s lacking in fiber — and put serious dent in your wallet — and suggest that doctors use an “oral challenge,” a test in which a patient drinks a gluten beverage to see if symptoms arise, to help identify likely cases of sensitivity.
Click here for the full report
Arsenic Found In Infant Formula, Cereal Bars
February 17, 2012 by admin
Filed under News Stories
February 17th, 2012
CBS News
By: Monica DyBuncio
Is arsenic in your breakfast? A new study suggests that might just be what you – or your children – are having each morning.
Researchers at Dartmouth College already knew that rice can be a major source of inorganic arsenic. This includes rice products, such as organic brown rice syrup, an alternative sweetener to high fructose corn syrup. Exposure to high levels of inorganic arsenic over time has been tied to increased risk for cancer.
For the study – published in the Feb. 16 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives – the researchers investigated levels of arsenic in commercially available brown rice syrups, and in products containing the syrups, including infant formula, cereal and energy bars, and high energy foods used by endurance athletes.
What did they find? Surprising levels of arsenic in these products containing organic brown rice syrup.
Out of 17 infant formulas tested, 15 did not contain organic brown rice syrups – and had relatively low levels of arsenic. As for the two formulas that listed organic brown rice syrup as the primary ingredient – those contained 20 times as much arsenic as ones without the rice ingredient. One had a total arsenic concentration that was six times the federal limit of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for total arsenic in bottled or public drinking water.
Out of 29 cereal or energy bars tested, 22 contained at least one rice product in the top five ingredients. The seven that didn’t had the lowest levels of arsenic, while those that did contained levels of arsenic ranging from 23 to 128 ppb. The energy shots contained between 84 and 171 ppb arsenic.
Study author Dr. Brian Jackson, an environmental chemistry researcher at Dartmouth’s Superfund Research Program, told Consumer Reports, ” I would certainly advise parents who are concerned about their children’s exposure to arsenic not to feed them formula where brown rice syrup is the main ingredient.”
There are currently no U.S. regulations for arsenic in food. But the new study shows some food products bring significant amounts of arsenic to an individual’s diet, so researchers conclude “there is an urgent need for regulatory limits on [arsenic] in food.”
This study isn’t the first to put arsenic in the spotlight. Levels of arsenic have previously been found in apple and grape juice.
For The Full Report Go To CBS News
CDC Says Gardasil Shots Should Be ‘Routine’ For Boys
February 6, 2012 by admin
Filed under News Stories
February 6, 2012
Natural News
“The CDC is out of control. One has to wonder how much money they are making by recommending Gardasil.” –KTRN
Every male between the ages of 11 and 21 should get a Gardasil vaccine for cervical cancer, and those between the ages of 13 and 21 should also get “catch-up” shots later down the road. This is only the opinion of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), of course, which recently announced its final recommendations for the controversial vaccine.
CBS News reports that, as a followup to its earlier, but incomplete, recommendation back in the fall that boys be given HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines in addition to girls, the CDC has now formalized its position in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, as well as in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The agency is basically now recommending that all young men and women get the Gardasil vaccine.
The CDC announcement comes just days after Canadian health officials made a similar announcement recommending that all boys between the ages of nine and 26 in that country be jabbed with Gardasil. Together, the two announcements could potentially double profits for the vaccine, that is if enough members of the public are foolish enough to actually comply with these new recommendations.
ACIP heavily influenced by Big Pharma
Many of ACIP’s members are nominated directly by the drug industry, and often have significant financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. So it is really no surprise that ACIP has made such egregious recommendations without considering the fact that Gardasil has been shown to be medically useless for its stated purpose, and a significant threat to health in many cases.
Click here for the full report.
Don’t Be Fooled By GMO-Laden ‘Natural’ Cereals That Pose As Organic
December 2, 2011 by admin
Filed under News Stories
December 2, 2011
Natural News
By Ethan A. Huff
“You mean to tell me Cocoa Pebbles aren’t organic?” –KTRN
The term “natural” has virtually no standardized definition when used on food labels in the US, but manufacturers are increasingly interchanging it with “organic” in order to save money and fool customers. And it turns out that many health-conscious consumers actually prefer the term “natural” over “organic,” which is why many food manufacturers are making the switch without incident.
By definition, certified organic food products are grown without chemical pesticides or herbicides, they do not contain genetically-modified (GM) ingredients, they are not fumigated with toxic chemical gases, and they are not processed with chemical solvents. “Natural” products, on the other hand, are not necessarily any different than chemical-ridden conventional products since there are no laws governing the use of the term in conjunction with food.
But according to the recent Cornucopia Institute (CI) report Cereal Crimes: How “Natural” Claims Deceive Consumers and Undermine the Organic Label — A Look Down the Cereal and Granola Aisle, 50 percent of consumers polled in a 2009 and 2010 study preferred the term “natural” over “organic,” and falsely believed it to imply a healthier product. Another similar study found that consumers prefer the term “natural” as the “most desirable eco-friendly product label claim” (http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/10/n…).
As a result, many food manufacturers have jumped on the “natural” bandwagon, including some healthier brands that used to produce only certified organic products. Many NaturalNews readers will recall the Silk soy milk saga, for instance, when the Dean Foods-owned company quietly switched from certified organic to “natural” (http://www.naturalnews.com/027450_f…) — this is a growing trend of which you need to be aware.
Click here for the full report.
Which Cereal Brands Are Truly Organic? Sadly, No Cocoa Puffs.
October 24, 2011 by admin
Filed under News Stories
October 24, 2011
Natural News
By Ethan A. Huff
The non-profit family farm advocacy group Cornucopia Institute (CI) recently released its Organic Cereal Scorecard, a comprehensive analysis of many popular “natural” and organic breakfast cereal brands that highlight both the best and worst players in the industry.
In the report, CI provides not only a detailed listing of the many companies producing phony “natural” products, but it also outlines those that are committed to producing and selling only clean, organic food to their customers.
Some health food stores and even conventional grocery stores continue to sell “natural” cereal brands that secretly contain chemical pesticide and herbicide residues, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and various other deadly toxins. These products are often marketed as being more “natural” than conventional brands, and are even priced at a premium — but in reality, they are often no different than less expensive conventional brands.
In order to better assist NaturalNews readers in making smart food choices and help them to avoid the “natural” product trap, we have provided a detailed listing of some of the best cereal brands available. These brands are considered to be fully trustworthy and committed to organics, and tests of their products have revealed that their labels truly do match their content. As a result, CI has awarded them top scores in each category, and they all have a full “Wheat Rating.”
Brands that are fully committed to producing organic, GMO-free cereal and granola
• Ambrosial (Ambrosial Organic Inc. / Independent Company)
• Country Choice Organic (Country Choice Organic / Independent Company)
• Farm to Table (Farm to Table Foods, Inc. / Independent Company)
• Go Raw (Freeland Foods / Independent Company)
• Grandy Oats (Grandy Oats / Independent Company)
• Great River Organic Milling (Great River Organic Milling / Independent Company)
• Kaia (Kaia Foods / Independent Company)
• Laughing Giraffe (Laughing Giraffe Inc. / Independent Company)
• Lydia’s Organics (Lydia’s Organics / Independent Company)
• Nature’s Path (Nature’s Path / Independent Company)
• Tierra Farm (Tierra Farm / Independent Company)
• Two Moms in the Raw (Two Moms in the Raw / Independent Company)
Each one of these brands scored full points in all seven rating categories, including the organic status of their products; commitment by their corporate owner(s) to organics; policies against GMOs as a brand; policies against GMOs by corporate owner; level of hexane found in products; stance over use of agrichemicals by brand and product; and stance over use of agrichemicals by owner(s).
Some of the largest and most well-known brands in this category include Country Choice Organic, Kaia Foods, and Nature’s Path.
Other companies that scored slightly less than perfect, but that deserve a mention for their commitment to organics, include Eco-Planet, Grawnola, Green Barn Organics, Food for Life, and Erewhon. Each one of these brands sells only 100 percent organic cereal and granola products (except for Grawnola and Erewhon).
To view the entire CI Cereal Scorecard and learn more about the criteria used to rate each brand, visit:
http://cornucopia.org/cereal-scorecard/
Click Here For The Full Report From Natural News
Which Cereal Brands Are Truly Committed To Producing Clean, Organic Food?
October 21, 2011 by admin
Filed under News Stories
October 21, 2011
Natural News
By Ethan A. Huff
The non-profit family farm advocacy group Cornucopia Institute (CI) recently released its Organic Cereal Scorecard, a comprehensive analysis of many popular “natural” and organic breakfast cereal brands that highlight both the best and worst players in the industry.
In the report, CI provides not only a detailed listing of the many companies producing phony “natural” products, but it also outlines those that are committed to producing and selling only clean, organic food to their customers.
You can view our first announcement about the report here: (http://www.naturalnews.com/033838_b…).
Some health food stores and even conventional grocery stores continue to sell “natural” cereal brands that secretly contain chemical pesticide and herbicide residues, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and various other deadly toxins. These products are often marketed as being more “natural” than conventional brands, and are even priced at a premium — but in reality, they are often no different than less expensive conventional brands (http://www.naturalnews.com/033838_b…).
In order to better assist NaturalNews readers in making smart food choices and help them to avoid the “natural” product trap, we have provided a detailed listing of some of the best cereal brands available. These brands are considered to be fully trustworthy and committed to organics, and tests of their products have revealed that their labels truly do match their content. As a result, CI has awarded them top scores in each category, and they all have a full “Wheat Rating.”
Brands that are fully committed to producing organic, GMO-free cereal and granola
• Ambrosial (Ambrosial Organic Inc. / Independent Company)
• Country Choice Organic (Country Choice Organic / Independent Company)
• Farm to Table (Farm to Table Foods, Inc. / Independent Company)
• Go Raw (Freeland Foods / Independent Company)
• Grandy Oats (Grandy Oats / Independent Company)
• Great River Organic Milling (Great River Organic Milling / Independent Company)
• Kaia (Kaia Foods / Independent Company)
• Laughing Giraffe (Laughing Giraffe Inc. / Independent Company)
• Lydia’s Organics (Lydia’s Organics / Independent Company)
• Nature’s Path (Nature’s Path / Independent Company)
• Tierra Farm (Tierra Farm / Independent Company)
• Two Moms in the Raw (Two Moms in the Raw / Independent Company)
Each one of these brands scored full points in all seven rating categories, including the organic status of their products; commitment by their corporate owner(s) to organics; policies against GMOs as a brand; policies against GMOs by corporate owner; level of hexane found in products; stance over use of agrichemicals by brand and product; and stance over use of agrichemicals by owner(s).
Some of the largest and most well-known brands in this category include Country Choice Organic, Kaia Foods, and Nature’s Path.
Other companies that scored slightly less than perfect, but that deserve a mention for their commitment to organics, include Eco-Planet, Grawnola, Green Barn Organics, Food for Life, and Erewhon. Each one of these brands sells only 100 percent organic cereal and granola products (except for Grawnola and Erewhon).
To view the entire CI Cereal Scorecard and learn more about the criteria used to rate each brand, visit:
http://cornucopia.org/cereal-scorecard/
Click Here For The Full Report From Natural News
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 6-11-11
Today, Kevin welcomes Chicago radio legends, Wendy Snyder and Bill Leff, as special guest hosts of The Kevin Trudeau Show! Find out how swearing in public could be the next excuse for the government to take your money, why Cadbury is being called racist, and why dead bodies are rising to the surface of New York’s harbor!
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 5-31-11
Today, Kevin welcomes Chicago radio legends, Wendy Snyder and Bill Leff, as special guest hosts of The Kevin Trudeau Show! Find out why cereal should never be mixed with milk and why it’s dangerous for a New Jersey woman to watch comedies or listen to jokes.
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!
High-Fructose Corn Syrup Prompts Considerably More Weight Gain
March 28, 2011 by admin
Filed under News Stories
March 28th, 2011
Princeton.edu
By: Hilary Parker
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.
“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests,” said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. “When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese — every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.”
In results published online Feb. 26 by the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, the researchers from the Department of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute reported on two experiments investigating the link between the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity.
The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.
The second experiment — the first long-term study of the effects of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on obesity in lab animals — monitored weight gain, body fat and triglyceride levels in rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup over a period of six months. Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet.
“These rats aren’t just getting fat; they’re demonstrating characteristics of obesity, including substantial increases in abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides,” said Princeton graduate student Miriam Bocarsly. “In humans, these same characteristics are known risk factors for high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes.” In addition to Hoebel and Bocarsly, the research team included Princeton undergraduate Elyse Powell and visiting research associate Nicole Avena, who was affiliated with Rockefeller University during the study and is now on the faculty at the University of Florida. The Princeton researchers note that they do not know yet why high-fructose corn syrup fed to rats in their study generated more triglycerides, and more body fat that resulted in obesity.
High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars — it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose — but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.
This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles.
In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported. High-fructose corn syrup is found in a wide range of foods and beverages, including fruit juice, soda, cereal, bread, yogurt, ketchup and mayonnaise. On average, Americans consume 60 pounds of the sweetener per person every year.
“Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic,” Avena said.
The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse.
In the future, the team intends to explore how the animals respond to the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in conjunction with a high-fat diet — the equivalent of a typical fast-food meal containing a hamburger, fries and soda — and whether excessive high-fructose corn syrup consumption contributes to the diseases associated with obesity. Another step will be to study how fructose affects brain function in the control of appetite.
The research was supported by the U.S. Public Health Service.
