DIET, UNHEALTHY FOODS AND OBESITY
'Obesity in the U.S. becomes a worldwide epidemic spreading to the developing world'
New York Times
Obesity in the developing world is following right behind the outrageous rate of obesity in the U.S. and other developed countries. As obesity continues to spread, it starts affecting younger populations every year and begins to spread an epidemic of youth diabetes too. In adulthood, this greatly increases the risk of developing heart disease. While this news is extremely alarming, the good news is that we are not powerless to fight this epidemic. By implementing intelligent nutrition and a balanced regimen of daily physical exercise and rest, we can hope to reverse this trend swiftly. Aside from the lack of physical activity, the main culprits for obesity have been identified as sugar, fried food, foods that are loaded with saturated animal fat and cooked proteins. By cutting down on such foods and beginning to replace them with fresh, healthy food, you can turn this around. Without any action taken, the negative consequences of large scale obesity on the health care budget will continue to affect our society for generations to come. For more, read below.
The NY Times reports that 'the rest of the world is following our sad example.' 'Developing countries should act now to head off their own "obesity epidemic"', says a global policy group. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) observes that 'obesity levels are rising fast'. A recent report from the Lancet Medical Journal reports that 'low-income countries cannot cope with the health consequences of wide scale obesity. Rates in Brazil and South Africa already outstrip the OECD average. Increasing obesity in industrialized countries such as the U.K. and the U.S. has brought with it rises in heart disease, cancer and diabetes. However, increasing prosperity in some developing countries has led to a rise in "Western" lifestyles.' The OECD warns that they too are catching up fast in terms of obesity rates, 50% of adults are overweight or obese across all countries represented in the OECD. Childhood obesity rates in the Russian Federation are only just below this, and while fewer than 20% of Indians and fewer than 30% of Chinese people are considered 'obese', the OECD says things are worsening fast and that obesity could become a huge weight to all affected countries.
'Proposed name change for High Fructose Corn Syrup is set to deceit consumers'
New York Times - Wednesday, September 15, 2010 by Tara Parker-Pope
It seems to have become common practice amongst the food industry to simply change the name of a product that has acquired a bad reputation as if that would miraculously resolve the potential health hazard it poses to consumers... This is exactly what the corn industry is attempting to ask the FDA to do with high-fructose corn syrup, which if successful will become 'corn sugar'. When you know that refined sugars like high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy and is directly linked to obesity and diabetes, it puts the maneuver as rather deceitful and misleading and one would hope that the FDA will deny this request. For more, read below.
Would high-fructose corn syrup, by any other name, have sweeter appeal? The Corn Refiners Association, which represents firms that make the syrup, has been trying to improve the image of the much maligned sweetener with ad campaigns promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. Now, the group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to start calling the ingredient “corn sugar,” arguing that a name change is the only way to clear up consumer confusion about the product. “Clearly the name is confusing consumers,” said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, in an interview. “Research shows that ‘corn sugar’ better communicates the amount of calories, the level of fructose and the sweetness in this ingredient.” According to the market research firm NPD Group, about 58 percent of Americans say they are concerned that high-fructose corn syrup poses a health risk. Some scientists over the years have speculated that high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to obesity by somehow disrupting normal metabolic function, but the research has been inconclusive. As a result, most leading scientists and nutrition experts agree that in terms of health, the effect of high-fructose corn syrup is the same as regular sugar, and that too much of either ingredient is bad for your health. Marion Nestle, a professor in New York University’s department of nutrition and a longtime food industry critic, says that Americans consume too much of all types of sugar, but that there is no meaningful biochemical difference between table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. “I’m not eager to help the corn refiners sell more of their stuff,” Dr. Nestle wrote in an e-mail. “But you have to feel sorry for them. High-fructose corn syrup is the new trans fat. Everyone thinks it’s poison, and food companies are getting rid of it as fast as they can.” Dr. Nestle says she thinks the plural “corn sugars” is a better description of high-fructose corn syrup, which is actually a mixture of glucose and fructose. But she agrees that the corn refiners “have lots of reasons to want the change.” “Even I have to admit that it’s not an unreasonable one,” Dr. Nestle said. Michael Jacobson, executive director of the health advocacy group Center for Science in thePublic Interest, said he thought the term “high-fructose corn syrup” had misled many into thinking the sweetener was composed mainly of fructose, a simple sugar found in honey and fruit. “Sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same,’’ said Dr. Jacobson, who has a doctorate in microbiology. “I don’t know if ‘corn sugar’ is the best term, but it’s better than ‘high-fructose corn syrup.’ ” High-fructose corn syrup, which came into widespread use in the 1970s, isn’t particularly high in fructose, but was so named to distinguish it from ordinary, glucose-containing corn syrup, according to a report in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (also known as table sugar) contain about the same amount of glucose and fructose. In fact, one commonly used version of the ingredient known as HFCS-42 actually contains less fructose (42 percent) than table sugar, which has 50 percent fructose, according to the report. “The name is confusing, and consumers don’t understand that it has the same calories as sugar,” said Ms. Erickson, of the Corn Refiners’ Association. “They also think it’s sweeter tasting. That’s why the alternate name provides clarity for consumers when it comes to the ingredient composition and helps them better understand what’s in their foods.” Table sugar comes primarily from sugar cane or sugar beets. High-fructose corn syrup is made
essentially by soaking corn kernels to extract corn starch, and using enzymes to turn the glucose in the starch into fructose. The ingredient is a favorite of food makers for practical reasons. Compared with sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup doesn’t mask flavors, has a lower freezing point and retains moisture better, which is useful in making foods like chewy granola bars. And because the corn crop in the United States is heavily subsidized, high-fructose corn
syrup is also cheap. As a result, it’s now used in so many foods, from crackers to soft drinks, that it has become one of the biggest sources of calories in the American diet. But the public perception of high-fructose corn syrup as unhealthful has prompted many food companies to stop using it in their products, including Hunt’s Ketchup, Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice and Wheat Thins crackers. The F.D.A. has six months to respond to the name-change petition. If the agency accepts it, the decision on whether to allow the name “corn sugar” on food labels may take another 12 to 18 months. Although food label changes aren’t common, the F.D.A. has allowed name changes in the past.
The ingredient first called “low erucic acid rapeseed oil” was changed to “canola oil” in the 1980s. More recently, the F.D.A. allowed prunes to be called “dried plums.” “It’s rare that food ingredient labels are changed, and when they are it’s always been to provide clarity to consumers,” Ms. Erickson said. “This is a classic case for consumers to better understand an ingredient.”
'Nutrition: Risky Additions to a Low-Carb Diet'
New York Times - September 14, 2010
The NY Times reports that Low Carb diets such as Atkins Diet are not safe. This article explains how people who replace their consumption of carbohydrates with that of animal foods (as prescribed in the Atkins Diet) are seriously compromising their health. This should serve as an example to start regulating the market of diets before a large number of people are negatively affected by a "bad" diet. In the end, losing weight should only be done with the objective of getting healthier and never at the expense of one's overall health and well-being. Read below for more.
Atkins-style low-carbohydrate diets help people lose weight, but people who simply replace the bread and pasta with calories from animal protein and animal fat may face an increased risk of early death from cancer and heart disease, a new study reports. The study found that the death rate among people who adhered most closely to a low-carb regimen was 12 percent higher over about two decades than with those who consumed diets higher in carbohydrates. But death rates varied, depending on the sources of protein and fat used to displace carbohydrates. Low-carb eaters who drew more protein and fat from vegetable sources like beans and nuts were 20 percent less likely to die over the period than people who ate a high carbohydrate diet. But low-carb dieters who got most of their protein and fat from animal sources like red and processed meats were 14 percent more likely to die of heart disease and 28 percent more likely to die of cancer, the analysis found. The study, published Sept. 7 in Annals of Internal Medicine, analyzed data from more than 85,000 healthy women aged 34 to 59 who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study, and almost 45,000 men aged 40 to 75 who took part in the Health Professionals’ Follow-Up Study. Participants filled out questionnaires every four years. “If people want to follow a low-carb diet, this provides some guidance,” said the paper’s lead author, Teresa T. Fung, an associate professor of nutrition at Simmons College in Boston. “They should probably eat less meats.”
"'Who Moved My Cheese?': The US Government's Mixed Messages about Cheese'
New York Times, November 6, 2010
Bombarded with marketing campaigns and commercials that claim the health benefits of dairy products, it's often hard for the misinformed consumers to decipher the truth. And the U.S. government is not making it easier for consumers to tell right from wrong with the mixed messages they send about cheese. On the one hand, they are engaged in an anti-obesity drive which suggests that cheese consumption should be drastically reduced, yet on the other they generously support an industry responsible for a myriad of degenerative diseases that plague our society. Read below for more.
Domino’s Pizza was hurting early last year. Domestic sales had fallen, and a survey of big pizza chain customers left the company tied for the worst tasting pies. Then help arrived from an organization called Dairy Management. It teamed up with Domino’s to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese, and proceeded to devise and pay for a $12 million marketing campaign. Consumers devoured the cheesier pizza, and sales soared by double digits. “This partnership is clearly working,” Brandon Solano, the Domino’s vice president for brand innovation, said in a statement to The New York Times. But as healthy as this pizza has been for Domino’s, one slice contains as much as two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended amount of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease and is high in calories. And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting. Urged on by government warnings about saturated fat, Americans have been moving toward low-fat milk for decades, leaving a surplus of whole milk and milk fat. Yet the government, through Dairy Management, is engaged in an effort to find ways to get dairy back into Americans’ diets, primarily through cheese. Americans now eat an average of 33 pounds of cheese a year, nearly triple the 1970 rate. Cheese has become the largest source of saturated fat; an ounce of many cheeses contains as much saturated fat as a glass of whole milk. When Michelle Obama implored restaurateurs in September to help fight obesity, she cited the proliferation of cheeseburgers and macaroni and cheese. “I want to challenge every restaurant to offer healthy menu options,” she told the National Restaurant Association’s annual meeting. But in a series of confidential agreements approved by agriculture secretaries in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Dairy Management has worked with restaurants to expand their menus with cheese-laden products. Consider the Taco Bell steak quesadilla, with cheddar, pepper jack, mozzarella and a creamy sauce. “The item used an average of eight times more cheese than other items on their menu,” the Agriculture Department said in a report, extolling Dairy Management’s work — without mentioning that the quesadilla has more than three-quarters of the daily recommended level of saturated fat and sodium. Dairy Management, whose annual budget approaches $140 million, is largely financed by a government-mandated fee on the dairy industry. But it also receives several million dollars a year from the Agriculture Department, which appoints some of its board members, approves its marketing campaigns and major contracts and periodically reports to Congress on its work. The organization’s activities, revealed through interviews and records, provide a stark example of inherent conflicts in the Agriculture Department’s historical roles as both marketer of agriculture products and America’s nutrition police. In one instance, Dairy Management spent millions of dollars on research to support a national advertising campaign promoting the notion that people could lose weight by consuming more dairy products, records and interviews show. The campaign went on for four years, ending in 2007, even though other researchers — one paid by Dairy Management itself — found no such weight-loss benefits. When the campaign was challenged as false, government lawyers defended it, saying the Agriculture Department “reviewed, approved and continually oversaw” the effort. Dr. Walter C. Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public
Health and a former member of the federal government’s nutrition advisory committee, said: “The U.S.D.A. should not be involved in these programs that are promoting foods that we are consuming too much of already. A small amount of good-flavored cheese can be compatible with a healthy diet, but consumption in the U.S. is enormous and way beyond what is optimally healthy.” The Agriculture Department declined to make top officials available for interviews for this article, and Dairy Management would not comment. In answering written questions, the department said that dairy promotion was intended to bolster farmers and rural economies, and that its oversight left Dairy Management’s board with “significant independence” in deciding how best to support those interests. The department acknowledged that cheese is high in saturated fat, but said that lower milk consumption had made cheese an important source of calcium. “When eaten in moderation and with attention to portion size, cheese can fit into a low-fat, healthy diet,” the department said. In its reports to Congress, however, the Agriculture Department tallies Dairy Management’s successes in millions of pounds of cheese served.
'With Obesity on the rise, U.S. Public Health priorities shift
from Anti-Tobacco to Anti-Obesity Campaigns'
New York Times - July 27, 2010
With 1 in 3 Americans considered obese, it is no surprise that the focus of health campaigns are starting to shift towards Anti-Obesity. The New York Times foresees the focus of big class actions also shifting from Tobacco to Obesity in the very near future. Michelle Obama has started campaigning against childhood obesity, delivering a consistent message of healthy living through rightful eating and exercise. This is a very simple formula, one that only requires a little will power and discipline and can be implemented through a manageable nutrition and fitness program that will lead to a long, healthy and harmonious life. For more, read below.
"As public health priorities shift, anti-tobacco programs are losing out to the campaign against obesity." The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation took on Joe Camel in the 1990s. It is now spending $500 million to battle childhood obesity. But a few years ago, the Johnson foundation, based in Princeton, N.J., added another target to its mission, pledging to spend $500 million in five years to battle childhood obesity. As the anti-obesity financing rose to $58 million last year, a new compilation from the foundation shows, the organization’s antismoking grants fell to $4 million. The steep drop-off in private funds illustrates the competition under way for money as public health priorities shift. In the race for preventive health care dollars, from charities and from federal and state government sources, the tobacco warriors have become a big loser. And the nation’s battle to shed pounds has in its corner the White House, with Michelle Obama leading a new campaign against childhood obesity. Shortly after the first lady kicked off the “Let’s Move” program, the administration awarded more funds to fight obesity than tobacco through two big new money sources for preventive health. The funds, totaling $1.15 billion, came from economic stimulus and health care reform legislation. They still provided more than $200 million for tobacco-use prevention, but much more to grapple with obesity. The changes in financing are also evident across the country. State governments have used tobacco’s billions to balance their budgets while cutting $150 million from anti-tobacco programs over the last two years. On the airways, obesity public service announcements are lining up while a “Truth” campaign about tobacco languishes for lack of money. “Don’t forget tobacco,” pleaded a commentary this month in The New England Journal of
Medicine. One in five Americans still smokes. But one in three is obese!
'Letter to the Editor: Can a Soda Tax save us from ourselves?'
Economic View - June 6, 2010
'If the rational for taxing alcohol and cigarettes follows the economic logic of the huge financial burden it represents on the government's health care budget then wouldn't you think that the next logical step would be to start imposing a tax on sugar?', asks Ron Cronovich Kenosha, an Associate Professor of Economics at Carthage College. For more, read below.
If soda is taxed, N. Gregory Mankiw asks in the column, will products like ice cream and fried foods be next? And his final question — Do you trust government enough to make it your guardian? — seems to suggest that government shouldn’t be in the business of micromanaging what we eat or how we behave. Fine. But there are plenty of other arguments for the soda tax: Soda is often consumed all day long, and is more readily available than fast food. Farm subsidies make high-fructose corn syrup, and therefore most sweetened beverages, artificially cheap, which encourages overconsumption. Soda is more easily defined than fast foods, which vary greatly in nutritional value. It would be hard to determine which fast foods should be taxed. Soda and fast foods are not good substitutes for one another, so taxing soda wouldn’t, for example, make people eat more fried chicken. Finally, it’s better to do something than nothing. The soda tax would be a huge step in the right direction.
