A study published today in the Journal of Pediatrics says that one type of pesticide commonly used on fruits and vegetables may be contributing to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD.
Exposure to pesticides may be linked to attention deficit disorder.
Researchers took urine from over 1,000 participants ages 8 to 15 and analyzed it for pesticides. 119 of the children had symptoms of ADHD. Those with the highest concentration of pesticides were more likely to have the disorder, according to the study.
"It's consistent with other studies that have looked at organophosphate pesticides and have found that exposure of children to organophosphates in early life can cause brain injury. This study builds on those other studies," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, chairman of the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.
-ABC News
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
American Cancer Society Trivializes Cancer Risks: Blatant Conflicts of Interest
CPC CHICAGO, IL, May 7, 2010 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- The May 6 report by the President's Cancer Panel is well-documented. It warns of scientific evidence on avoidable causes of cancer from exposure to carcinogens in air, water, consumer products, and the workplace. It also warns of hormonal risks from exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA) and other toxic plastic contaminants, says Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC).
Concerns on avoidable causes of cancer have been summarized in a January 23, 2009 Cancer Prevention Coalition press release, endorsed by 20 leading scientists and public policy experts, who urged that President Obama's cancer plan should prioritize prevention. These concerns were further detailed in a June 15, 2009 press release. Warnings of the risks of BPA are also detailed in a May 6, 2010 CPC release.
Some of the more startling realities in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) and the "non-profit" American Cancer Society's (ACS) long-standing failure to prevent a very wide range of cancers are illustrated by their soaring increases from 1975 to 2005.
These include:
* Malignant melanoma of the skin in adults has increased by 168 percent due to the use of sunscreens in childhood that fail to block long wave ultraviolet light;
* Thyroid cancer has increased by 124 percent due in large part to ionizing radiation;
* Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has increased 76 percent due mostly to phenoxy herbicides; and phenylenediamine hair dyes;
* Testicular cancer has increased by 49 percent due to pesticides; hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; and estrogen residues in meat;
* Childhood leukemia has increased by 55 percent due to ionizing radiation; domestic pesticides; nitrite preservatives in meats, particularly hot dogs; and parental exposures to occupational carcinogens;
* Ovary cancer (mortality) for women over the age of 65 has increased by 47 percent in African American women and 13 percent in Caucasian women due to genital use of talc powder;
* Breast cancer has increased 17 percent due to a wide range of factors. These include: birth control pills; estrogen replacement therapy; toxic hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; diagnostic radiation; and routine premenopausal mammography, with a cumulative breast dose exposure of up to about five rads over ten years.
Criticisms by the American Cancer Society that the President's Cancer Panel's report exaggerates avoidable cancer risks, reflect reckless indifference, besides narrow self-interest, warns Dr. Epstein.
In 1993, the nation's leading charity watch dog, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, warned against the transfer of money from the public purse to the private hands of the American Cancer Society. The Chronicle also warned that, "The ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives."
These warnings are fully supported by the track record of the ACS for well over the last four decades.
* 1971: The ACS refused to testify at Congressional hearings requiring FDA to ban the intramuscular injection of diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogenic hormone, to fatten cattle, prior to their entry into feedlots prior to slaughter, despite unequivocal evidence of its carcinogenicity, and the cancer risks of eating hormonal meat. Not surprisingly, U.S. meat is outlawed by most nations worldwide.
* 1977: The ACS opposed regulating black or dark brown hair dyes, based on paraphenylenediamine, in spite of clear evidence of its risks of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, besides other cancers.
* 1978: Tony Mazzocchi, then senior international union labor representative, protested that "Occupational safety standards have received no support from the ACS." This has resulted in the increasing incidence of a wide range of avoidable cancers.
* 1978: Congressman Paul Rogers censured ACS for its failure to support the Clean Air Act in order to protect interests of the automobile industry.
* 1982: The ACS adopted restrictive cancer policies, rejecting evidence based on standard rodent tests, which are widely accepted by governmental agencies worldwide and also by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
* 1984: The ACS created the industry-funded October National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to falsely assure women that "early (mammography) detection results in a cure nearly 100 percent of the time." Responding to question, ACS admitted: "Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business." Also, the Awareness Month ignores substantial information on avoidable causes of breast cancer.
* 1992: The ACS supported the Chlorine Institute in defending the continued use of carcinogenic chlorinated pesticides, despite their environmental persistence and carcinogenicity.
* 1993: Anticipating the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) Frontline special "In Our Children's Food," the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer and charged PBS with "junk science." The ACS went further by questioning, "Can we afford the PBS?"
* 1994: The ACS published a highly flawed study designed to trivialize cancer risks from the use of dark hair dyes.
* 1998: The ACS allocated $330,000, under 1 percent of its then $680 million budget, to claimed research on environmental cancer.
* 1999: The ACS trivialized risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers from consumption of rBGH genetically modified milk. Not surprisingly, U.S. milk is outlawed by most nations worldwide.
* 2002: The ACS announced its active participation in the "Look Good...Feel Better Program," launched in 1989 by the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association, to "help women cancer patients restore their appearance and self-image following chemotherapy and radiation treatment." This program was partnered by a wide range of leading cosmetics industries, which recklessly, if not criminally, failed to disclose information on the carcinogenic, and other toxic ingredients in their products donated to unsuspecting women.
* 2002: The ACS reassured the nation that carcinogenicity exposures from dietary pesticides, "toxic waste in dump sites, "ionizing radiation from "closely controlled" nuclear power plants, and non-ionizing radiation, are all "at such low levels that cancer risks are negligible." ACS indifference to cancer prevention became further embedded in national cancer policy, following the appointment of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, ACS Past President-Elect, as NCI Director.
* 2005: The ACS indifference to cancer prevention other than smoking, remains unchanged, despite the escalating incidence of cancer, and its $ billion budget.
The ACS's indifference to cancer prevention also reflects major conflicts of interest with regard to public relations, Dr. Epstein emphasizes.
PUBLIC RELATIONS
* 1998-2000: PR for the ACS was handled by Shandwick International, whose major clients included R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.
* 2000-2002: PR for the ACS was handled by Edelman Public Relations, whose major clients included Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, and the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, Kraft, and fast food and soft drink beverage companies. All these companies were promptly dismissed once this information was revealed by the CPC.
INDUSTRY FUNDING
The ACS's indifference to cancer prevention reflects major industry funding. ACS has received contributions in excess of $100,000 from a wide range of "Excalibur Donors," many of whom continue to manufacture carcinogenic products, points out Dr. Epstein.
These include:
* Petrochemical companies (DuPont; BP; and Pennzoil)
* Industrial waste companies (BFI Waste Systems)
* Junk food companies (Wendy's International; McDonalds's; Unilever/Best Foods; and Coca-Cola)
* Big Pharma (AstraZenceca; Bristol Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Company; and Novartis)
* Biotech companies (Amgen; and Genentech)
* Cosmetic companies (Christian Dior; Avon; Revlon; Elizabeth Arden; and Estee Lauder)
* Auto companies (Nissan; General Motors)
Nevertheless, warns Dr. Epstein, in spite of this long-standing track record of flagrant conflicts of interest, as reported in the December 8, 2009 New York Times, the ACS responded that it "holds itself to the highest standards of transparency and public accountability."
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; The 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medalist for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; and author of over 270 scientific articles and 20 books on the causes and prevention of cancer, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979), Cancer-Gate: How To Win The Losing Cancer War (2005, Baywood Publishing), and Toxic Beauty (2009, BenBella Books).
To read Dr. Epstein's columns in the Huffington Post, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein
CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
Tel: 312-996-2297
Email: epstein@uic.edu
http://www.preventcancer.com
Please join CPC on Facebook
CPC CHICAGO, IL, May 7, 2010 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- The May 6 report by the President's Cancer Panel is well-documented. It warns of scientific evidence on avoidable causes of cancer from exposure to carcinogens in air, water, consumer products, and the workplace. It also warns of hormonal risks from exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA) and other toxic plastic contaminants, says Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC).
Concerns on avoidable causes of cancer have been summarized in a January 23, 2009 Cancer Prevention Coalition press release, endorsed by 20 leading scientists and public policy experts, who urged that President Obama's cancer plan should prioritize prevention. These concerns were further detailed in a June 15, 2009 press release. Warnings of the risks of BPA are also detailed in a May 6, 2010 CPC release.
Some of the more startling realities in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) and the "non-profit" American Cancer Society's (ACS) long-standing failure to prevent a very wide range of cancers are illustrated by their soaring increases from 1975 to 2005.
These include:
* Malignant melanoma of the skin in adults has increased by 168 percent due to the use of sunscreens in childhood that fail to block long wave ultraviolet light;
* Thyroid cancer has increased by 124 percent due in large part to ionizing radiation;
* Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has increased 76 percent due mostly to phenoxy herbicides; and phenylenediamine hair dyes;
* Testicular cancer has increased by 49 percent due to pesticides; hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; and estrogen residues in meat;
* Childhood leukemia has increased by 55 percent due to ionizing radiation; domestic pesticides; nitrite preservatives in meats, particularly hot dogs; and parental exposures to occupational carcinogens;
* Ovary cancer (mortality) for women over the age of 65 has increased by 47 percent in African American women and 13 percent in Caucasian women due to genital use of talc powder;
* Breast cancer has increased 17 percent due to a wide range of factors. These include: birth control pills; estrogen replacement therapy; toxic hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; diagnostic radiation; and routine premenopausal mammography, with a cumulative breast dose exposure of up to about five rads over ten years.
Criticisms by the American Cancer Society that the President's Cancer Panel's report exaggerates avoidable cancer risks, reflect reckless indifference, besides narrow self-interest, warns Dr. Epstein.
In 1993, the nation's leading charity watch dog, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, warned against the transfer of money from the public purse to the private hands of the American Cancer Society. The Chronicle also warned that, "The ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives."
These warnings are fully supported by the track record of the ACS for well over the last four decades.
* 1971: The ACS refused to testify at Congressional hearings requiring FDA to ban the intramuscular injection of diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogenic hormone, to fatten cattle, prior to their entry into feedlots prior to slaughter, despite unequivocal evidence of its carcinogenicity, and the cancer risks of eating hormonal meat. Not surprisingly, U.S. meat is outlawed by most nations worldwide.
* 1977: The ACS opposed regulating black or dark brown hair dyes, based on paraphenylenediamine, in spite of clear evidence of its risks of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, besides other cancers.
* 1978: Tony Mazzocchi, then senior international union labor representative, protested that "Occupational safety standards have received no support from the ACS." This has resulted in the increasing incidence of a wide range of avoidable cancers.
* 1978: Congressman Paul Rogers censured ACS for its failure to support the Clean Air Act in order to protect interests of the automobile industry.
* 1982: The ACS adopted restrictive cancer policies, rejecting evidence based on standard rodent tests, which are widely accepted by governmental agencies worldwide and also by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
* 1984: The ACS created the industry-funded October National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to falsely assure women that "early (mammography) detection results in a cure nearly 100 percent of the time." Responding to question, ACS admitted: "Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business." Also, the Awareness Month ignores substantial information on avoidable causes of breast cancer.
* 1992: The ACS supported the Chlorine Institute in defending the continued use of carcinogenic chlorinated pesticides, despite their environmental persistence and carcinogenicity.
* 1993: Anticipating the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) Frontline special "In Our Children's Food," the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer and charged PBS with "junk science." The ACS went further by questioning, "Can we afford the PBS?"
* 1994: The ACS published a highly flawed study designed to trivialize cancer risks from the use of dark hair dyes.
* 1998: The ACS allocated $330,000, under 1 percent of its then $680 million budget, to claimed research on environmental cancer.
* 1999: The ACS trivialized risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers from consumption of rBGH genetically modified milk. Not surprisingly, U.S. milk is outlawed by most nations worldwide.
* 2002: The ACS announced its active participation in the "Look Good...Feel Better Program," launched in 1989 by the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association, to "help women cancer patients restore their appearance and self-image following chemotherapy and radiation treatment." This program was partnered by a wide range of leading cosmetics industries, which recklessly, if not criminally, failed to disclose information on the carcinogenic, and other toxic ingredients in their products donated to unsuspecting women.
* 2002: The ACS reassured the nation that carcinogenicity exposures from dietary pesticides, "toxic waste in dump sites, "ionizing radiation from "closely controlled" nuclear power plants, and non-ionizing radiation, are all "at such low levels that cancer risks are negligible." ACS indifference to cancer prevention became further embedded in national cancer policy, following the appointment of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, ACS Past President-Elect, as NCI Director.
* 2005: The ACS indifference to cancer prevention other than smoking, remains unchanged, despite the escalating incidence of cancer, and its $ billion budget.
The ACS's indifference to cancer prevention also reflects major conflicts of interest with regard to public relations, Dr. Epstein emphasizes.
PUBLIC RELATIONS
* 1998-2000: PR for the ACS was handled by Shandwick International, whose major clients included R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.
* 2000-2002: PR for the ACS was handled by Edelman Public Relations, whose major clients included Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, and the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, Kraft, and fast food and soft drink beverage companies. All these companies were promptly dismissed once this information was revealed by the CPC.
INDUSTRY FUNDING
The ACS's indifference to cancer prevention reflects major industry funding. ACS has received contributions in excess of $100,000 from a wide range of "Excalibur Donors," many of whom continue to manufacture carcinogenic products, points out Dr. Epstein.
These include:
* Petrochemical companies (DuPont; BP; and Pennzoil)
* Industrial waste companies (BFI Waste Systems)
* Junk food companies (Wendy's International; McDonalds's; Unilever/Best Foods; and Coca-Cola)
* Big Pharma (AstraZenceca; Bristol Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Company; and Novartis)
* Biotech companies (Amgen; and Genentech)
* Cosmetic companies (Christian Dior; Avon; Revlon; Elizabeth Arden; and Estee Lauder)
* Auto companies (Nissan; General Motors)
Nevertheless, warns Dr. Epstein, in spite of this long-standing track record of flagrant conflicts of interest, as reported in the December 8, 2009 New York Times, the ACS responded that it "holds itself to the highest standards of transparency and public accountability."
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; The 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medalist for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; and author of over 270 scientific articles and 20 books on the causes and prevention of cancer, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979), Cancer-Gate: How To Win The Losing Cancer War (2005, Baywood Publishing), and Toxic Beauty (2009, BenBella Books).
To read Dr. Epstein's columns in the Huffington Post, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein
CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
Tel: 312-996-2297
Email: epstein@uic.edu
http://www.preventcancer.com
Please join CPC on Facebook
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Russia says genetically modified foods are harmful
Apr 16, 2010 17:26 Moscow Time
Vegetables. © Flickr.com/marcusjroberts/CC-BY-NC
Russia has started the annual Days of Defence against Environmental Hazards from the 15th of April to the 5th of June with the announcement of sensational results of an independent work of research. Scientists have proved that Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful for mammals. The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce. Campbell hamsters that have a fast reproduction rate were fed for two years with ordinary soya beans, which are widely used in agriculture and those contain different percentages of GM organisms. Another group of hamsters, the control group, was fed with pure soya, which was found with great difficulty in Serbia because 95 percent of soya in the world is transgenic.
Concerning the experiment carried out jointly by the National Association for Gene Security and the Institute of Ecological and Evolutional Problems, Dr. Alexei Surov has this to say. “We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always,” says Alexei Surov. “We did not add anything for one group but the other was fed with soya that contained no GM components, while the third group with some content of Genetically Modified Organisms and the fourth one with increased amount of GMO. We monitored their behavior and how they gain weight and when they give birth to their cubs. Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly. When we got some of their cubs we formed the new pairs of the third generation. We failed to get cubs from these pairs, which were fed with GM foodstuffs. It was proved that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs,” Dr. Alexei Surov said.
Another surprise was discovered by scientists in hamsters of the third generation. Hair grew in the mouth of the animals that took part in the experiment. It’s unclear why this happened. The researchers cannot understand why a programme of destruction is launched when animals take GMO foodstuffs. They say that this can be neutralized only by stopping to eat these foods. Consequently, scientists suggest imposing a ban on the use of GM foods until they are tested for their bio-security. The results of Russian scientists coincide with those of their colleagues from France and Austria. For one, when scientist proved that GM maize was harmful for mammals, France banned immediately its production and sale. The scientists who carried out the experiment say that it’s too early to make far-reaching conclusions about the health hazards of the GMO. They insist that there is a need to carry out comprehensive research. They suggest implementing the project, “Safety Gene Technology” at the innovation centre, “Skolkovo” which is being set up near Moscow.
Vegetables. © Flickr.com/marcusjroberts/CC-BY-NC
Russia has started the annual Days of Defence against Environmental Hazards from the 15th of April to the 5th of June with the announcement of sensational results of an independent work of research. Scientists have proved that Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful for mammals. The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce. Campbell hamsters that have a fast reproduction rate were fed for two years with ordinary soya beans, which are widely used in agriculture and those contain different percentages of GM organisms. Another group of hamsters, the control group, was fed with pure soya, which was found with great difficulty in Serbia because 95 percent of soya in the world is transgenic.
Concerning the experiment carried out jointly by the National Association for Gene Security and the Institute of Ecological and Evolutional Problems, Dr. Alexei Surov has this to say. “We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always,” says Alexei Surov. “We did not add anything for one group but the other was fed with soya that contained no GM components, while the third group with some content of Genetically Modified Organisms and the fourth one with increased amount of GMO. We monitored their behavior and how they gain weight and when they give birth to their cubs. Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly. When we got some of their cubs we formed the new pairs of the third generation. We failed to get cubs from these pairs, which were fed with GM foodstuffs. It was proved that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs,” Dr. Alexei Surov said.
Another surprise was discovered by scientists in hamsters of the third generation. Hair grew in the mouth of the animals that took part in the experiment. It’s unclear why this happened. The researchers cannot understand why a programme of destruction is launched when animals take GMO foodstuffs. They say that this can be neutralized only by stopping to eat these foods. Consequently, scientists suggest imposing a ban on the use of GM foods until they are tested for their bio-security. The results of Russian scientists coincide with those of their colleagues from France and Austria. For one, when scientist proved that GM maize was harmful for mammals, France banned immediately its production and sale. The scientists who carried out the experiment say that it’s too early to make far-reaching conclusions about the health hazards of the GMO. They insist that there is a need to carry out comprehensive research. They suggest implementing the project, “Safety Gene Technology” at the innovation centre, “Skolkovo” which is being set up near Moscow.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Shocking Sugar Content of Common Food Products
By: Dr.Mercola
This Summer Tomato blog offers many eye-opening facts on the sugar content of common foods.
She writes:
"Refined sugars and high-fructose corn syrup are considered by many experts to be the biggest contributors to obesity and poor health in Western civilization.
In her book What To Eat, Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at NYU, suggests that any food that contains more than 15 grams of sugar per serving is closer to dessert than anything else."
Here is a partial list of the foods Summer Tomato posted:
1.
Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut -- 10 grams
2.
Ben & Jerry’s vanilla ice cream -- 16 grams
3.
Starbucks caffè latte grande (16 oz) -- 17 grams
4.
Subway 6″ sweet onion teriyaki chicken sandwich -- 17 grams
5.
Yoplait original yogurt -- 27 grams
6.
Vitamin Water (20 oz bottle) -- 33 g
7.
Oscar Mayer Lunchables crackers, turkey & American cheese -- 36 grams
8.
Coca-Cola Classic 12 oz can -- 39 grams
9.
California Pizza Kitchen Thai chicken salad -- 45 g
10.
Jamba Juice blackberry bliss 16 oz -- 49 g
11.
Odwalla SuperFood 450 ml bottle -- 50 g
12.
Starbucks caffe vanilla frappuccino grande (16 oz) -- 58 g
Sources:
Summer Tomato March 25, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Modern science has shown that the obesity epidemic isn’t simply about lack of self-control, but rather a phenomenon driven by biochemical changes that have altered the way your body regulates energy.
What has caused these biochemical changes to occur on such a mass scale?
Well, the list above is a big part of the explanation.
It’s hard to imagine, but a vast array of modern processed foods contain more sugar than a glazed doughnut! Sugar in some form is present in nearly every packaged product, from spaghetti sauce, salad dressing, and peanut butter, to mayonnaise and ketchup, just to name a few.
This outrageously excessive sugar consumption has caused people’s appetite regulation system to go awry. Leptin, the hormone responsible for satiety, isn’t working properly anymore in a majority of people.
It has now become clear that limiting sugar – and fructose in particular -- in your diet is a key to longevity for a number of reasons.
For example, according to Dr. Richard Johnson, author of The Sugar Fix, about 25 percent of all Americans consume over ½ a pound of added sugars a day, and this statistic dovetails nicely with the statistics showing that one in four Americans is either pre-diabetic or has type 2 diabetes.
Diabetics have, on average, a reduced lifespan of about 15 years.
How Sugar Can Make or Break Your Health
Your blood glucose levels rise slightly every time you eat. This is natural. However, excessive sugar consumption will typically cause your blood glucose levels to become excessively elevated and then stay that way.
It is a well proven fact that sugar increases your insulin and leptin levels and decreases receptor sensitivity for both of these vital hormones. This can lead to:
* High blood pressure and high cholesterol
* Heart disease
* Diabetes
* Weight gain
* Premature aging
One of the puzzle pieces you need to understand in order to really see the correlation between heart disease and sugar consumption is that dietary sugar raises your small, dense LDL cholesterol levels. This is the type of cholesterol that correlates with heart disease. Dietary fat, on the other hand, raises your large, buoyant LDL, which is harmless.
Turns out the “conventional wisdom” to avoid dietary fat to avoid heart disease has led millions astray by focusing on the entirely wrong food. If you want to reduce your risk of heart disease, you simply must curb your sugar consumption.
And today, this dietary vigilance needs to begin more or less from birth. Even infant formulas and jarred baby food contains excessive amounts of sugar and high fructose corn syrup!
As your child grows, savvy marketing wizards would have you believe that feeding your child cereal each morning is a recipe for good health. But nothing could be further from the truth… On average, just one serving of a typical children’s breakfast cereal equates to more than 90 percent of the daily sugar intake for sedentary girls aged 9 to 13.
Regardless of the “healthy fiber” content of the cereal, consuming that much sugar is not going to promote good long-term health.
For adults struggling with weight- and health problems, the anti-fat craze has created an entire new breed of high-risk diet foods.
Reducing fat content in food tends to make it taste bland, and so sugar was added to low-fat foods to improve palatability -- in the form of either HFCS or sucrose. This is one of the absolute worst combinations for your health…
Please understand, the health dangers of sugar on human physiology are certain, and the evidence that fructose is the WORST of the bunch is growing. (For an in-depth review of the particulars that make fructose even more damaging than regular sugar, please review this recent article.)
Simple sugars have been observed to aggravate asthma, exacerbate mental illness, cause mood swings, provoke personality changes and aggression, nourish nervous disorders, cause diabetes and speed up heart disease, grow gallstones, cause hypertension and arthritis, and that’s just the beginning.
In short, excessive sugar consumption, and fructose in particular, will kill you prematurely, one way or another.
Avoiding sugar, on the other hand, will help you control your insulin and leptin levels, which will help you to feel and look younger, longer.
What Can You Do About Those Sugar Cravings?
Interestingly, and well worth remembering, is that cravings for candy, junk food or fast food, and excessive hunger are likely connected and caused by the near identical mechanisms.
Refined sugar is in and of itself more addictive than cocaine, but that does not fully explain the phenomenon of being hungry or having food cravings even though you’ve just eaten.
This is where the hormone leptin – also known as the “obesity hormone” -- comes into play again.
Leptin appears to reduce cravings for sweet foods by targeting taste receptors on the tongue. Therefore, it is possible that a lack of leptin, or your body's failure to respond to the hormone due to leptin-resistance or defects in your leptin receptors, may contribute to the so-called 'sweet tooth' that affects so many people.
Leptin, which is produced by your fat cells, is an integral part of your weight regulation. When fat cells are “full,” leptin sends signals to your brain to reduce hunger so you can stop eating.
However, once you become leptin-resistant, your brain can no longer hear these signals, and so the sensation of hunger is not shut down. This typically leads to overeating and gaining excessive amounts of weight.
How to Right Your Biochemistry Again
You become leptin resistant in the same way you become insulin resistant, meaning most people do not have insufficient amounts of leptin, but rather too much.
So, how do you reduce your leptin levels and regain your leptin sensitivity?
As discussed above, limiting your sugar intake is a given. But in addition to that, one of the most effective ways to reduce your leptin levels is through physical exercise. It’s true, diet and exercise really do go hand-in-hand if you want to get your body back into homeostasis and optimize your health.
Sugar Guidelines and Acceptable Sugar Alternatives
Ideally, I recommend that you avoid sugar as much as possible. This is especially important if you are overweight or have diabetes, high cholesterol, or high blood pressure.
I realize you don’t live in a perfect world, and following rigid dietary guidelines is not always practical or even possible. However, cutting out sodas, sweetened beverages of all kinds, and limiting your consumption of processed foods will take you a very long way, and is something most people can do.
These are the most common sources of more or less hidden sugar, so by avoiding them, you can significantly reduce your sugar consumption.
As a standard guideline, I strongly recommend you limit your fructose consumption to 25 grams per day, and limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams per day. This is to account for the inevitable hidden sources of sugar or fructose you will consume during an average day.
For a convenient list of the fructose content of various fruits, please see this previous article that also discusses fruit consumption in more detail.
Lastly, if you want to use an added sweetener occasionally, this is what I recommend:
1. Use the herb stevia, flavored versions are particularly helpful and tend not to have the bitter aftertaste. French vanilla and English toffee are two of my favorites.
2. Use organic cane sugar in moderation
3. Use organic raw honey in moderation
Avoid ALL artificial sweeteners, which can damage your health even more quickly than sugar and HFCS.
I also do not recommend agave syrup since most forms are a highly processed sap that is almost all fructose. Your blood sugar will spike just as it would if you were consuming regular sugar or HFCS. Agave has gained meteoric popularity due to a great marketing campaign, but any health benefits present in the original agave plant are typically processed away.
For more information about agave, please see my previous in-depth report on this topic.
Likewise, honey is very high in fructose. Although its fructose content varies, it typically contains about the same amount as HFCS, or more. So even though honey contains many other beneficial nutrients, you’ll want to use honey very sparingly.
Aside from the herb Stevia, perhaps your safest sugar alternative is to use pure glucose.
You can buy pure glucose (dextrose) as a sweetener for about $1 a pound. It is only 70 percent as sweet as sucrose, so you’ll end up using a bit more of it for the same amount of sweetness, making it slightly more expensive than sucrose—but still well worth it for your health as it has ZERO grams of fructose. Remember, glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is far safer than the metabolic poison fructose.
It should be apparent by now that if you want to be healthy, you simply must get used to reading labels, which I’ve addressed in many previous articles, and become familiar with the sugar and fructose content of everything you eat.
This Summer Tomato blog offers many eye-opening facts on the sugar content of common foods.
She writes:
"Refined sugars and high-fructose corn syrup are considered by many experts to be the biggest contributors to obesity and poor health in Western civilization.
In her book What To Eat, Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at NYU, suggests that any food that contains more than 15 grams of sugar per serving is closer to dessert than anything else."
Here is a partial list of the foods Summer Tomato posted:
1.
Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut -- 10 grams
2.
Ben & Jerry’s vanilla ice cream -- 16 grams
3.
Starbucks caffè latte grande (16 oz) -- 17 grams
4.
Subway 6″ sweet onion teriyaki chicken sandwich -- 17 grams
5.
Yoplait original yogurt -- 27 grams
6.
Vitamin Water (20 oz bottle) -- 33 g
7.
Oscar Mayer Lunchables crackers, turkey & American cheese -- 36 grams
8.
Coca-Cola Classic 12 oz can -- 39 grams
9.
California Pizza Kitchen Thai chicken salad -- 45 g
10.
Jamba Juice blackberry bliss 16 oz -- 49 g
11.
Odwalla SuperFood 450 ml bottle -- 50 g
12.
Starbucks caffe vanilla frappuccino grande (16 oz) -- 58 g
Sources:
Summer Tomato March 25, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Modern science has shown that the obesity epidemic isn’t simply about lack of self-control, but rather a phenomenon driven by biochemical changes that have altered the way your body regulates energy.
What has caused these biochemical changes to occur on such a mass scale?
Well, the list above is a big part of the explanation.
It’s hard to imagine, but a vast array of modern processed foods contain more sugar than a glazed doughnut! Sugar in some form is present in nearly every packaged product, from spaghetti sauce, salad dressing, and peanut butter, to mayonnaise and ketchup, just to name a few.
This outrageously excessive sugar consumption has caused people’s appetite regulation system to go awry. Leptin, the hormone responsible for satiety, isn’t working properly anymore in a majority of people.
It has now become clear that limiting sugar – and fructose in particular -- in your diet is a key to longevity for a number of reasons.
For example, according to Dr. Richard Johnson, author of The Sugar Fix, about 25 percent of all Americans consume over ½ a pound of added sugars a day, and this statistic dovetails nicely with the statistics showing that one in four Americans is either pre-diabetic or has type 2 diabetes.
Diabetics have, on average, a reduced lifespan of about 15 years.
How Sugar Can Make or Break Your Health
Your blood glucose levels rise slightly every time you eat. This is natural. However, excessive sugar consumption will typically cause your blood glucose levels to become excessively elevated and then stay that way.
It is a well proven fact that sugar increases your insulin and leptin levels and decreases receptor sensitivity for both of these vital hormones. This can lead to:
* High blood pressure and high cholesterol
* Heart disease
* Diabetes
* Weight gain
* Premature aging
One of the puzzle pieces you need to understand in order to really see the correlation between heart disease and sugar consumption is that dietary sugar raises your small, dense LDL cholesterol levels. This is the type of cholesterol that correlates with heart disease. Dietary fat, on the other hand, raises your large, buoyant LDL, which is harmless.
Turns out the “conventional wisdom” to avoid dietary fat to avoid heart disease has led millions astray by focusing on the entirely wrong food. If you want to reduce your risk of heart disease, you simply must curb your sugar consumption.
And today, this dietary vigilance needs to begin more or less from birth. Even infant formulas and jarred baby food contains excessive amounts of sugar and high fructose corn syrup!
As your child grows, savvy marketing wizards would have you believe that feeding your child cereal each morning is a recipe for good health. But nothing could be further from the truth… On average, just one serving of a typical children’s breakfast cereal equates to more than 90 percent of the daily sugar intake for sedentary girls aged 9 to 13.
Regardless of the “healthy fiber” content of the cereal, consuming that much sugar is not going to promote good long-term health.
For adults struggling with weight- and health problems, the anti-fat craze has created an entire new breed of high-risk diet foods.
Reducing fat content in food tends to make it taste bland, and so sugar was added to low-fat foods to improve palatability -- in the form of either HFCS or sucrose. This is one of the absolute worst combinations for your health…
Please understand, the health dangers of sugar on human physiology are certain, and the evidence that fructose is the WORST of the bunch is growing. (For an in-depth review of the particulars that make fructose even more damaging than regular sugar, please review this recent article.)
Simple sugars have been observed to aggravate asthma, exacerbate mental illness, cause mood swings, provoke personality changes and aggression, nourish nervous disorders, cause diabetes and speed up heart disease, grow gallstones, cause hypertension and arthritis, and that’s just the beginning.
In short, excessive sugar consumption, and fructose in particular, will kill you prematurely, one way or another.
Avoiding sugar, on the other hand, will help you control your insulin and leptin levels, which will help you to feel and look younger, longer.
What Can You Do About Those Sugar Cravings?
Interestingly, and well worth remembering, is that cravings for candy, junk food or fast food, and excessive hunger are likely connected and caused by the near identical mechanisms.
Refined sugar is in and of itself more addictive than cocaine, but that does not fully explain the phenomenon of being hungry or having food cravings even though you’ve just eaten.
This is where the hormone leptin – also known as the “obesity hormone” -- comes into play again.
Leptin appears to reduce cravings for sweet foods by targeting taste receptors on the tongue. Therefore, it is possible that a lack of leptin, or your body's failure to respond to the hormone due to leptin-resistance or defects in your leptin receptors, may contribute to the so-called 'sweet tooth' that affects so many people.
Leptin, which is produced by your fat cells, is an integral part of your weight regulation. When fat cells are “full,” leptin sends signals to your brain to reduce hunger so you can stop eating.
However, once you become leptin-resistant, your brain can no longer hear these signals, and so the sensation of hunger is not shut down. This typically leads to overeating and gaining excessive amounts of weight.
How to Right Your Biochemistry Again
You become leptin resistant in the same way you become insulin resistant, meaning most people do not have insufficient amounts of leptin, but rather too much.
So, how do you reduce your leptin levels and regain your leptin sensitivity?
As discussed above, limiting your sugar intake is a given. But in addition to that, one of the most effective ways to reduce your leptin levels is through physical exercise. It’s true, diet and exercise really do go hand-in-hand if you want to get your body back into homeostasis and optimize your health.
Sugar Guidelines and Acceptable Sugar Alternatives
Ideally, I recommend that you avoid sugar as much as possible. This is especially important if you are overweight or have diabetes, high cholesterol, or high blood pressure.
I realize you don’t live in a perfect world, and following rigid dietary guidelines is not always practical or even possible. However, cutting out sodas, sweetened beverages of all kinds, and limiting your consumption of processed foods will take you a very long way, and is something most people can do.
These are the most common sources of more or less hidden sugar, so by avoiding them, you can significantly reduce your sugar consumption.
As a standard guideline, I strongly recommend you limit your fructose consumption to 25 grams per day, and limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams per day. This is to account for the inevitable hidden sources of sugar or fructose you will consume during an average day.
For a convenient list of the fructose content of various fruits, please see this previous article that also discusses fruit consumption in more detail.
Lastly, if you want to use an added sweetener occasionally, this is what I recommend:
1. Use the herb stevia, flavored versions are particularly helpful and tend not to have the bitter aftertaste. French vanilla and English toffee are two of my favorites.
2. Use organic cane sugar in moderation
3. Use organic raw honey in moderation
Avoid ALL artificial sweeteners, which can damage your health even more quickly than sugar and HFCS.
I also do not recommend agave syrup since most forms are a highly processed sap that is almost all fructose. Your blood sugar will spike just as it would if you were consuming regular sugar or HFCS. Agave has gained meteoric popularity due to a great marketing campaign, but any health benefits present in the original agave plant are typically processed away.
For more information about agave, please see my previous in-depth report on this topic.
Likewise, honey is very high in fructose. Although its fructose content varies, it typically contains about the same amount as HFCS, or more. So even though honey contains many other beneficial nutrients, you’ll want to use honey very sparingly.
Aside from the herb Stevia, perhaps your safest sugar alternative is to use pure glucose.
You can buy pure glucose (dextrose) as a sweetener for about $1 a pound. It is only 70 percent as sweet as sucrose, so you’ll end up using a bit more of it for the same amount of sweetness, making it slightly more expensive than sucrose—but still well worth it for your health as it has ZERO grams of fructose. Remember, glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is far safer than the metabolic poison fructose.
It should be apparent by now that if you want to be healthy, you simply must get used to reading labels, which I’ve addressed in many previous articles, and become familiar with the sugar and fructose content of everything you eat.
MPs listen to Canadians ahead of industry on GM Crops
Groups applaud MPs for moving Bill C-474 to Committee for study
Ottawa. Thursday, April 15, 2010 – Last night, Parliament passed Private Members Bill C-474 through second reading, in spite of intense pressure from the biotech industry. The Bill, which would require analysis of potential harm to export markets before the sale of new genetically modified (GM) seeds, will now be studied by the House of Commons Agriculture Committee.
“Finally MPs are taking steps to protect farmers from the economic chaos that GM crops can cause,” said Terry Boehm, President of the National Farmers Union, “GM contamination has already seriously damaged major export markets for Canadian flax farmers and would threaten the markets for our alfalfa and wheat growers."
The NDP and Bloc Quebecois supports the Bill and last night Liberal Party MPs voted to allow the Bill to go to this next stage. The Conservative Party strongly opposes the Bill, though two B.C. Conservative MPs voted in favour. The Bill was introduced by Alex Atamanenko, NDP Agriculture Critic and MP for B.C. Southern Interior.
“Last night, the majority of MPs listened to Canadians instead of the biotech industry,” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, “MPs will now have the opportunity to study and debate this Bill. We are witnessing the first substantive debate in Parliament over the negative impacts of GM crops.”
The biotech industry lobbied vigorously to stop the upcoming debate at Committee. Yet the strength of public and farmer concern over GM crops was apparent to MPs. Over 9000 thousand letters were sent from constituents in the past month asking MPs to support the Bill. At least 6 MPs were also presented with petitions.
Bill C-474 was supported by the National Farmers Union, which urged Parliamentarians and all Canadians, to support the Bill. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture took a cautious stance in favour of moving the Bill forward, to encourage debate at Committee.
“The current GM flax contamination crisis shows the value of this Bill. And the threat of GM alfalfa has made the Bill an urgent necessity,” said Sharratt. Canadian flax export markets closed in October 2009 when GM contamination was detected.
“We will not stand by and watch farmers struggle alone against the corporate juggernaut of biotechnology,” said Sharratt, “The time when Canadians are expected to accept GM crops without question, is over.”
For more information: Terry Boehm, National Farmers Union, 306 255 2880; Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 613 241 2267 ext.6. C
Ottawa. Thursday, April 15, 2010 – Last night, Parliament passed Private Members Bill C-474 through second reading, in spite of intense pressure from the biotech industry. The Bill, which would require analysis of potential harm to export markets before the sale of new genetically modified (GM) seeds, will now be studied by the House of Commons Agriculture Committee.
“Finally MPs are taking steps to protect farmers from the economic chaos that GM crops can cause,” said Terry Boehm, President of the National Farmers Union, “GM contamination has already seriously damaged major export markets for Canadian flax farmers and would threaten the markets for our alfalfa and wheat growers."
The NDP and Bloc Quebecois supports the Bill and last night Liberal Party MPs voted to allow the Bill to go to this next stage. The Conservative Party strongly opposes the Bill, though two B.C. Conservative MPs voted in favour. The Bill was introduced by Alex Atamanenko, NDP Agriculture Critic and MP for B.C. Southern Interior.
“Last night, the majority of MPs listened to Canadians instead of the biotech industry,” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, “MPs will now have the opportunity to study and debate this Bill. We are witnessing the first substantive debate in Parliament over the negative impacts of GM crops.”
The biotech industry lobbied vigorously to stop the upcoming debate at Committee. Yet the strength of public and farmer concern over GM crops was apparent to MPs. Over 9000 thousand letters were sent from constituents in the past month asking MPs to support the Bill. At least 6 MPs were also presented with petitions.
Bill C-474 was supported by the National Farmers Union, which urged Parliamentarians and all Canadians, to support the Bill. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture took a cautious stance in favour of moving the Bill forward, to encourage debate at Committee.
“The current GM flax contamination crisis shows the value of this Bill. And the threat of GM alfalfa has made the Bill an urgent necessity,” said Sharratt. Canadian flax export markets closed in October 2009 when GM contamination was detected.
“We will not stand by and watch farmers struggle alone against the corporate juggernaut of biotechnology,” said Sharratt, “The time when Canadians are expected to accept GM crops without question, is over.”
For more information: Terry Boehm, National Farmers Union, 306 255 2880; Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 613 241 2267 ext.6. C
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
ANH-USA Victory! Supplements Are Exempted From Codex Language in Food Safety Bill
Alliance for Natural Health
The FDA Food Modernization Act (S. 510), also referred to as the “Food Safety” bill, has been modified to exempt dietary supplements from language that otherwise creates a slippery slope toward U.S. harmonization with Codex Alimentarius. ANH-USA worked to protect the natural health community from this dangerous provision that threatened access to high quality, therapeutic supplement doses by working with key senators to modify the language, now for the second time.
The most worrisome provision of the bill initially required the Food and Drug Agency (FDA) to recommend that U.S. foreign Herbal supplementstrading partners harmonize with Codex. This odd language was no doubt very intentional. How could we recommend harmonization to other countries if we rejected it for the U.S.? So in effect we were committing ourselves to a much more restrictive regulatory regime for supplements.
As the Senate moved forward with the Food Safety bill, Senator Harkin (D-IA), committee chair, working closely with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), promised to see what could be done to make absolutely clear this legislation was not intended to impact our access to dietary supplements. At that time, Senator Harkin modified the Codex provision, asking the FDA to consider “whether and how” to recommend U.S. foreign trading partners harmonize. This was a very important change and a tremendous show of support from both Senators, but we were still concerned that the inclusion of Codex language in the bill could be used to support future U.S. harmonization with Codex standards on dietary supplements.
ANH-USA worked with our allies in the Senate over the past several months to include additional language providing stronger protection for supplements. New language has now been added specifically stating, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the regulation of dietary supplements.”
The Codex Alimentarius was initially developed to establish international food safety standards and regulate ingredients of food products. However, there is great concern that if the U.S. harmonizes with Codex standards, which are expected to follow Europe’s increasing ban on supplements, our access to supplements will be lost and even our food standards may be compromised. Although ANH-USA considers the new exemption a huge victory, it only applies to dietary supplements. The U.S. is still at risk of harmonization with other Codex food standards.
ANH-USA is especially grateful to Senators Harkin and Hatch for their leadership, continued dedication to the natural health community, and most recently, their show of support protecting our supplements from Codex harmonization. The Senate is expected to take up the Food Safety bill any day now. As the legislative process moves forward we will keep our members up to date on our efforts and where appropriate, we’ll ask for your help to protect supplements from increased government intrusion. The House version of the Food Safety bill, already passed, is especially worrisome. We will continue to make every effort, with your help, to ensure that the House version does not become law.
The FDA Food Modernization Act (S. 510), also referred to as the “Food Safety” bill, has been modified to exempt dietary supplements from language that otherwise creates a slippery slope toward U.S. harmonization with Codex Alimentarius. ANH-USA worked to protect the natural health community from this dangerous provision that threatened access to high quality, therapeutic supplement doses by working with key senators to modify the language, now for the second time.
The most worrisome provision of the bill initially required the Food and Drug Agency (FDA) to recommend that U.S. foreign Herbal supplementstrading partners harmonize with Codex. This odd language was no doubt very intentional. How could we recommend harmonization to other countries if we rejected it for the U.S.? So in effect we were committing ourselves to a much more restrictive regulatory regime for supplements.
As the Senate moved forward with the Food Safety bill, Senator Harkin (D-IA), committee chair, working closely with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), promised to see what could be done to make absolutely clear this legislation was not intended to impact our access to dietary supplements. At that time, Senator Harkin modified the Codex provision, asking the FDA to consider “whether and how” to recommend U.S. foreign trading partners harmonize. This was a very important change and a tremendous show of support from both Senators, but we were still concerned that the inclusion of Codex language in the bill could be used to support future U.S. harmonization with Codex standards on dietary supplements.
ANH-USA worked with our allies in the Senate over the past several months to include additional language providing stronger protection for supplements. New language has now been added specifically stating, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the regulation of dietary supplements.”
The Codex Alimentarius was initially developed to establish international food safety standards and regulate ingredients of food products. However, there is great concern that if the U.S. harmonizes with Codex standards, which are expected to follow Europe’s increasing ban on supplements, our access to supplements will be lost and even our food standards may be compromised. Although ANH-USA considers the new exemption a huge victory, it only applies to dietary supplements. The U.S. is still at risk of harmonization with other Codex food standards.
ANH-USA is especially grateful to Senators Harkin and Hatch for their leadership, continued dedication to the natural health community, and most recently, their show of support protecting our supplements from Codex harmonization. The Senate is expected to take up the Food Safety bill any day now. As the legislative process moves forward we will keep our members up to date on our efforts and where appropriate, we’ll ask for your help to protect supplements from increased government intrusion. The House version of the Food Safety bill, already passed, is especially worrisome. We will continue to make every effort, with your help, to ensure that the House version does not become law.
Monday, April 12, 2010
KFC set to unleash bunless Double Down sandwich on America
Michael Bolen
Yahoo! Canada
First there was the Double Big Mac. Then came the Baconator. Now KFC is triumphantly laying claim to the World's meatiest and - in our opinion - most nutritionally-challenged sandwich. Their recipe? Two strips of bacon, two slices of cheese and a healthy dollop of the Colonel's Sauce all sandwiched between (insert drum roll please) two thick and juicy filets of deep-fried chicken.
ADVERTISEMENT
That's right, this sandwich is so serious it doesn't need a bun. But don't think the lack of carbs means this sandwich will be slimming.
Weighing in at 540 calories the fast-food innovation packs 32g of fat and nearly 1400mg of sodium. Too be fair, that's barely half of the Baconator's 970 calories and 60g of fat, but what the Double Down lacks in calories it makes up for in sheer audacity. To sandwich three types of fat between two slabs of fat required an almost heroic disregard for the current trend toward healthy eating. That said, KFC isn't trying to market this artery-clogger to the health conscious.
The ad for the Double Down features hungry young men complaining about the lack of filling fast-food fare on the market - as if longing for a new chicken champion. The product was originally tested on a select midwestern audience - so the fast food purveyor clearly isn't expecting to find fans amongst the L.A. hot yoga crowd. But for those who do want to try the new creation, but lack the requisite death wish, KFC is offering a grilled version.
If you're wondering how one goes about consuming the double down, have no fear, KFC has thought of everything. Both versions come lovingly wrapped in a paper sheath. Not everybody, however, is concerned with making the sandwich easy to eat. Some adventurous fast foodies have already begun experimenting with the bunless burger. Behold: the Double Double Down.
In an attempt to garner goodwill ahead of the Sandwich's April 12 U.S. release, KFC is donating "unneeded" buns to food banks around the nation. Although this seems dangerously reminiscent of donating muffin stumps, it would probably be even more vindictive to force the actual sandwich upon America's homeless and hungry. Unfortunately, there is still no word on whether the Double Down is coming to Canada, but considering the hype it seems likely we won't have to wait long.
Regardless of the danger the Double Down poses to our arterial well-being, the sandwich is generating unprecedented buzz on both sides of the border. KFC doesn't usually advertise a product ahead of release, but the fast-food giant made an exception because it wanted "fans to have time to arrange their schedules in advance" in order to try the "legendary sandwich." And while the "legendary" moniker may be a bit hasty, it does seem safe to say that this culinary trailblazer will be sparking conversation, and indigestion, for months to come.
Yahoo! Canada
First there was the Double Big Mac. Then came the Baconator. Now KFC is triumphantly laying claim to the World's meatiest and - in our opinion - most nutritionally-challenged sandwich. Their recipe? Two strips of bacon, two slices of cheese and a healthy dollop of the Colonel's Sauce all sandwiched between (insert drum roll please) two thick and juicy filets of deep-fried chicken.
ADVERTISEMENT
That's right, this sandwich is so serious it doesn't need a bun. But don't think the lack of carbs means this sandwich will be slimming.
Weighing in at 540 calories the fast-food innovation packs 32g of fat and nearly 1400mg of sodium. Too be fair, that's barely half of the Baconator's 970 calories and 60g of fat, but what the Double Down lacks in calories it makes up for in sheer audacity. To sandwich three types of fat between two slabs of fat required an almost heroic disregard for the current trend toward healthy eating. That said, KFC isn't trying to market this artery-clogger to the health conscious.
The ad for the Double Down features hungry young men complaining about the lack of filling fast-food fare on the market - as if longing for a new chicken champion. The product was originally tested on a select midwestern audience - so the fast food purveyor clearly isn't expecting to find fans amongst the L.A. hot yoga crowd. But for those who do want to try the new creation, but lack the requisite death wish, KFC is offering a grilled version.
If you're wondering how one goes about consuming the double down, have no fear, KFC has thought of everything. Both versions come lovingly wrapped in a paper sheath. Not everybody, however, is concerned with making the sandwich easy to eat. Some adventurous fast foodies have already begun experimenting with the bunless burger. Behold: the Double Double Down.
In an attempt to garner goodwill ahead of the Sandwich's April 12 U.S. release, KFC is donating "unneeded" buns to food banks around the nation. Although this seems dangerously reminiscent of donating muffin stumps, it would probably be even more vindictive to force the actual sandwich upon America's homeless and hungry. Unfortunately, there is still no word on whether the Double Down is coming to Canada, but considering the hype it seems likely we won't have to wait long.
Regardless of the danger the Double Down poses to our arterial well-being, the sandwich is generating unprecedented buzz on both sides of the border. KFC doesn't usually advertise a product ahead of release, but the fast-food giant made an exception because it wanted "fans to have time to arrange their schedules in advance" in order to try the "legendary sandwich." And while the "legendary" moniker may be a bit hasty, it does seem safe to say that this culinary trailblazer will be sparking conversation, and indigestion, for months to come.
Friday, March 26, 2010
To Any of my Devoted Readers
Thank you for following my blog, I am in the middle of a home renovation/new job so I will not be posting too much for the next few weeks. Please check back at a later date for new posts.
Thanks again everyone!
Thanks again everyone!
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Fury as Brussels authorises GM potatoes
BRUSSELS (AFP) - The European Commission on Tuesday approved the cultivation of genetically-modified potatoes, prompting an angry response from environmental campaign groups and two EU member governments.
ADVERTISEMENT
Austria said it was planning an immediate ban on the potatoes' cultivation, while Italy's agriculture minister slammed the commission's decision and vowed to defend "traditional agriculture and citizens' health".
The first approval of genetically modified foods in Europe for 12 years was criticised by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth as a threat to human health, though the Amflora potatoes developed by German chemical giant BASF will not be for human consumption.
A spokeswoman for Austria's health ministry told AFP: "(Health) Minister Alois Stoeger is preparing a document banning the cultivation of genetically-modified potatoes."
The minister was going to "immediately issue a national cultivation ban," according to the ministry.
The EU Commission also allowed three GM maize products to be placed on the European market, though not grown in Europe.
Modified vegetables and cereals have long been a matter of fierce debate in Europe and the commission stressed that the Amflora would only be for "industrial use" including animal feed.
Italian Agriculture Minister Luca Zaia said he opposed the Commission's ruling.
"Not only are we against this decision, but we want to underscore that we will not allow the questioning of member states' sovereignty on this matter. On our part, we will continue to defend and safeguard traditional agriculture and citizens' health," he said.
Before the potato, only MON 810, a strain of genetically modified maize made by Monsanto, has been authorised for cultivation in Europe since 1998.
The EU Commission said its latest decision was "based on a considerable volume of sound science" and stressed the GM potatoes would be cultivated at a distance from ordinary crops.
"Responsible innovation will be my guiding principle when dealing with innovative technologies," EU Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli said.
"After an extensive and thorough review of the five pending GM files, it became clear to me that there were no new scientific issues that merited further assessment," he added.
The EU's food safety agency has said the Amflora potato, designed to produce industrial starch for use in areas such as paper making, is safe for all uses.
But the potato contains a marker gene which is resistant to antibiotics, fuelling fears over the risks of contamination for conventional varieties.
Greenpeace said Dalli's decision flew in the face of science, public opinion and EU law.
"It is shocking that one of the Commission?s first official acts is to authorise a GM crop that puts the environment and public health at risk," Greenpeace spokesman Marco Contiero said.
Friends of the Earth said there was no guarantee the antibiotic-resistant element would not enter the good chain.
"The new commissioner whose job is to protect consumers has in one of his first decisions ignored public opinion and safety concerns to please the world?s biggest chemical company," said spokeswoman Heike Moldenhauer.
BASF, on its website, said it was "delighted" by the decision "after waiting for more than 13 years," for EU approval.
"We hope, that this decision is a milestone for further innovative products that will promote a competitive and sustainable agriculture in Europe," said board member Stefan Marcinowski.
ADVERTISEMENT
Austria said it was planning an immediate ban on the potatoes' cultivation, while Italy's agriculture minister slammed the commission's decision and vowed to defend "traditional agriculture and citizens' health".
The first approval of genetically modified foods in Europe for 12 years was criticised by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth as a threat to human health, though the Amflora potatoes developed by German chemical giant BASF will not be for human consumption.
A spokeswoman for Austria's health ministry told AFP: "(Health) Minister Alois Stoeger is preparing a document banning the cultivation of genetically-modified potatoes."
The minister was going to "immediately issue a national cultivation ban," according to the ministry.
The EU Commission also allowed three GM maize products to be placed on the European market, though not grown in Europe.
Modified vegetables and cereals have long been a matter of fierce debate in Europe and the commission stressed that the Amflora would only be for "industrial use" including animal feed.
Italian Agriculture Minister Luca Zaia said he opposed the Commission's ruling.
"Not only are we against this decision, but we want to underscore that we will not allow the questioning of member states' sovereignty on this matter. On our part, we will continue to defend and safeguard traditional agriculture and citizens' health," he said.
Before the potato, only MON 810, a strain of genetically modified maize made by Monsanto, has been authorised for cultivation in Europe since 1998.
The EU Commission said its latest decision was "based on a considerable volume of sound science" and stressed the GM potatoes would be cultivated at a distance from ordinary crops.
"Responsible innovation will be my guiding principle when dealing with innovative technologies," EU Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli said.
"After an extensive and thorough review of the five pending GM files, it became clear to me that there were no new scientific issues that merited further assessment," he added.
The EU's food safety agency has said the Amflora potato, designed to produce industrial starch for use in areas such as paper making, is safe for all uses.
But the potato contains a marker gene which is resistant to antibiotics, fuelling fears over the risks of contamination for conventional varieties.
Greenpeace said Dalli's decision flew in the face of science, public opinion and EU law.
"It is shocking that one of the Commission?s first official acts is to authorise a GM crop that puts the environment and public health at risk," Greenpeace spokesman Marco Contiero said.
Friends of the Earth said there was no guarantee the antibiotic-resistant element would not enter the good chain.
"The new commissioner whose job is to protect consumers has in one of his first decisions ignored public opinion and safety concerns to please the world?s biggest chemical company," said spokeswoman Heike Moldenhauer.
BASF, on its website, said it was "delighted" by the decision "after waiting for more than 13 years," for EU approval.
"We hope, that this decision is a milestone for further innovative products that will promote a competitive and sustainable agriculture in Europe," said board member Stefan Marcinowski.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Amaranth Porridge Recipe
After reading Dirty Secrets of the Food Processing Industry, I stopped buying even organic cereal and started looking for alternative breakfast choices. I bought some Red Mill 7 grain cereal, have been making smoothies and the latest Amaranth Porridge. I bought some amaranth from the bulk store to try it because we will be including it in the garden this summer. The recipe turned out great so here it is:
1 1/2 cups water
1/2 cup amaranth
one organic apple, peeled and chopped
one teaspoon cinnamon
Bring to boil all four ingredients. Reduce heat, cover and simmer for 20 minutes. Serve topped with milk, hemp seed, slivered almonds, or your choice of toppings.
Yields two servings.
1 1/2 cups water
1/2 cup amaranth
one organic apple, peeled and chopped
one teaspoon cinnamon
Bring to boil all four ingredients. Reduce heat, cover and simmer for 20 minutes. Serve topped with milk, hemp seed, slivered almonds, or your choice of toppings.
Yields two servings.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Another Victory- GM Wheat Rejected in 26 Countries
E-mail
GM Wheat rejected by 233 Consumer, Farmer Groups in 26 Countries
CNW Group, 9 February 2010
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2010/09/c8060.html
OTTAWA, MONTREAL, WASHINGTON, TOKYO and SYDNEY - 233 consumer and farmer groups in 26 countries have joined the "Definitive Global Rejection of GM Wheat" statement to stop the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) wheat and remind the biotechnology corporation Monsanto that genetically modifying this major crop is not acceptable to farmers or consumers. (1)
The 233 groups signed the rejection statement first launched by 15 Australian, Canadian and U.S. farmer and consumer groups in June 2009.
"Canadian farmers have just lost their export sales to Europe and other markets because of GM flax contamination from a GM variety deregistered a decade ago and never even sold. Our current experience with GM flax contamination clearly illustrates the crippling losses Canadian farmers will suffer if GM wheat is introduced," said Terry Boehm, a flax and wheat farmer and President of the National Farmers Union in Canada. "Flax is yet another warning that once a GM crop is introduced, contamination is inevitable."
In July 2009, Monsanto announced new research into GM wheat and industry groups kicked their promotion of GM wheat into high gear. "Widespread farmer and consumer resistance defeated GM wheat in 2004 and this global rejection remains strong, as demonstrated by today's statement," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.
"In 2004, a coalition of Japanese consumer and food industry groups delivered a petition to the Governments of Canada and the U.S. urging them not to introduce GM wheat. Today, consumer rejection of GM wheat in Japan is just as strong as ever. 80 organizations in Japan have already signed the rejection statement," said Keisuke Amagasa of the Tokyo-based No! GMO Campaign. "A large majority of consumers here in Japan are voicing their strong opposition to the cultivation of GM wheat. We see strong opposition from all sectors of society."
Japan's flour companies are also rejecting GM wheat, echoing consumer opposition. In a statement released today, the Flour Miller's Association of Japan wrote to the No! GMO Campaign indicating its opposition.
"Under the present circumstances, with all the doubts about safety and the environment that the consumers in Japan have, including the effect on the human body from GM foods, GM wheat is included among the items that are not acceptable for the Japanese market," Kadota Masaaki, senior managing director of the Flour Miller's Association wrote to the No! GMO Campaign.
In the U.S., a recent report from the Western Organization of Resource Councils, a network of seven community farmer, rancher and consumer organizations, shows that U.S. wheat prices could fall by 40 percent or more if industry efforts to develop GM wheat succeed. (2)
"U.S. family farmers will do everything to protect our wheat from Monsanto and we do not accept that any corporation has the right to patents on life, including seeds," said Dena Hoff from the National Family Farm Coalition in the U.S. "GM wheat would contaminate our crops and food supply, and put an end to organic grain production. Farmers in the U.S. have already rejected GM wheat and Monsanto is sorely mistaken if they think farmers will ever accept GM wheat."
"The big push is on from Monsanto to pave the way for GM wheat but the reality is that strong and widespread opposition from farmers and consumers in Australia and across the world is here to stay," said Laura Kelly from Greenpeace Australia Pacific.
Notes
(1) The list of signatories to the "Definitive Global Rejection of Genetically Modified Wheat" statement can be viewed at http://www.cban.ca/globalstopGMwheat
(2) "A Review of the Potential Market Impacts of Commercializing GM Wheat in the U.S." January 2010, Western Organization of Resource Councils, http://www.worc.org/GM-Wheat
For further information:
In Canada:
Terry Boehm, National Farmers Union Canada, (in Paris) 33 144 84 7250; Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, (613) 241-2267 ext. 6, info@cban.caThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ;
In Tokyo:
Michiyo Koketsu, NO! GMO Campaign, 81 3 5155 4756, office@gmo-iranai.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; Ryoko Shimizu, Policy Research Institute for the Civil Sector, 81 90 6001 0495, ryoko-s@prics.netThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ;
In the US:
Kathy Ozer, National Family Farm Coalition, (202) 543-5675;
In Australia:
Laura Kelly, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, (61) 040741 4572
GM Wheat rejected by 233 Consumer, Farmer Groups in 26 Countries
CNW Group, 9 February 2010
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2010/09/c8060.html
OTTAWA, MONTREAL, WASHINGTON, TOKYO and SYDNEY - 233 consumer and farmer groups in 26 countries have joined the "Definitive Global Rejection of GM Wheat" statement to stop the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) wheat and remind the biotechnology corporation Monsanto that genetically modifying this major crop is not acceptable to farmers or consumers. (1)
The 233 groups signed the rejection statement first launched by 15 Australian, Canadian and U.S. farmer and consumer groups in June 2009.
"Canadian farmers have just lost their export sales to Europe and other markets because of GM flax contamination from a GM variety deregistered a decade ago and never even sold. Our current experience with GM flax contamination clearly illustrates the crippling losses Canadian farmers will suffer if GM wheat is introduced," said Terry Boehm, a flax and wheat farmer and President of the National Farmers Union in Canada. "Flax is yet another warning that once a GM crop is introduced, contamination is inevitable."
In July 2009, Monsanto announced new research into GM wheat and industry groups kicked their promotion of GM wheat into high gear. "Widespread farmer and consumer resistance defeated GM wheat in 2004 and this global rejection remains strong, as demonstrated by today's statement," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.
"In 2004, a coalition of Japanese consumer and food industry groups delivered a petition to the Governments of Canada and the U.S. urging them not to introduce GM wheat. Today, consumer rejection of GM wheat in Japan is just as strong as ever. 80 organizations in Japan have already signed the rejection statement," said Keisuke Amagasa of the Tokyo-based No! GMO Campaign. "A large majority of consumers here in Japan are voicing their strong opposition to the cultivation of GM wheat. We see strong opposition from all sectors of society."
Japan's flour companies are also rejecting GM wheat, echoing consumer opposition. In a statement released today, the Flour Miller's Association of Japan wrote to the No! GMO Campaign indicating its opposition.
"Under the present circumstances, with all the doubts about safety and the environment that the consumers in Japan have, including the effect on the human body from GM foods, GM wheat is included among the items that are not acceptable for the Japanese market," Kadota Masaaki, senior managing director of the Flour Miller's Association wrote to the No! GMO Campaign.
In the U.S., a recent report from the Western Organization of Resource Councils, a network of seven community farmer, rancher and consumer organizations, shows that U.S. wheat prices could fall by 40 percent or more if industry efforts to develop GM wheat succeed. (2)
"U.S. family farmers will do everything to protect our wheat from Monsanto and we do not accept that any corporation has the right to patents on life, including seeds," said Dena Hoff from the National Family Farm Coalition in the U.S. "GM wheat would contaminate our crops and food supply, and put an end to organic grain production. Farmers in the U.S. have already rejected GM wheat and Monsanto is sorely mistaken if they think farmers will ever accept GM wheat."
"The big push is on from Monsanto to pave the way for GM wheat but the reality is that strong and widespread opposition from farmers and consumers in Australia and across the world is here to stay," said Laura Kelly from Greenpeace Australia Pacific.
Notes
(1) The list of signatories to the "Definitive Global Rejection of Genetically Modified Wheat" statement can be viewed at http://www.cban.ca/globalstopGMwheat
(2) "A Review of the Potential Market Impacts of Commercializing GM Wheat in the U.S." January 2010, Western Organization of Resource Councils, http://www.worc.org/GM-Wheat
For further information:
In Canada:
Terry Boehm, National Farmers Union Canada, (in Paris) 33 144 84 7250; Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, (613) 241-2267 ext. 6, info@cban.caThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ;
In Tokyo:
Michiyo Koketsu, NO! GMO Campaign, 81 3 5155 4756, office@gmo-iranai.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; Ryoko Shimizu, Policy Research Institute for the Civil Sector, 81 90 6001 0495, ryoko-s@prics.netThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ;
In the US:
Kathy Ozer, National Family Farm Coalition, (202) 543-5675;
In Australia:
Laura Kelly, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, (61) 040741 4572
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
