SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

FDA Finds Fault With Diet Coke Plus's "Misbranded" Label & Nutrition Claims

It's a given that diet soda isn't a healthy drink.

But the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has finally woken up.

The governmental agency -- which allows nutrient-lacking, potentially harmful diet drinks on the market in the first place -- is now berating Coca-Cola's new Diet Coke Plus because it's "misbranded."

The governmental agency, which posted a warning letter on its website, finds fault with the soda company's use of the word "Plus" as part of its name and label. What's more, Diet Coke Plus doesn't meet the FDA's criteria to make a nutrient content claim.

I generally don't applaud FDA actions -- after all, I'm nowhere near a fan of synthetic, nutrient-lacking diet drinks containing aspartame, Splenda, etc. -- but this time I'm behind the FDA for its smart move to berate Diet Coke Plus for being marketed as "a good source of vitamins B3, B6, and B12 and the minerals zinc and magnesium."

It's about time the FDA called Coca-Cola to task for boldly claiming on its website that each 8-ounce serving of the soft drink "provides 15% of your RDI for niacin and vitamins B6 and B12, and 10% for zinc and magnesium."

Anyhow, I appreciate the FDA's stand that it's just not "appropriate to fortify snack foods such as carbonated beverages."

Let's call soft drinks what they are -- nutrient lacking. Besides, can your body even process these so-called added nutrients?

In fact, one expert tells me that "the phosphoric acid and pH alone would prevent ANY absorption whatsoever" of these nutrients. Besides, the expert adds, "the vitamins or minerals are pure synthetics."

Coca-Cola now has has 15 days to correct its violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Thanks to WebMD, Scientific American and the OC Weekly for their interesting stories about this.

Incidentally, my diet soda days have long gone bye-bye, and after doing research about artificial sweeteners for my book SUGAR SHOCK!, I now religiously steer clear of the stuff. Just give me some water and some fresh vegetables and fruits and supplements if I want extra B vitamins and magnesium.

High Fructose Corn Syrup Can Harm You, Like Sugar

I continue to be alarmed by the onslaught of so-called "information," which suggests that high-fructose corn syrup is not responsible for obesity and that it's not as bad as sugar.

In fact, I'm worried by the idea that "the tide of research, if not public opinion, has shifted," as Elizabeth Weise suggests in a USA Today article, "New data: High-fructose corn syrup no worse than sugar."

Get the truth, please, about the potential harms of high-fructose corn syrup, which you can learn from my two recent Gab With the Gurus Radio Shows -- including this radio show, which featured several experts, and this radio show (listen to the last 15 minutes), which presented another well known expert, Dr. Richard Johnson, author of The Sugar Fix: The High Fructose Fallout That Is Making You Fat and Sick.

If you dig even a little bit into this subject, you'll find that the average American does NOT consume moderate amounts of high-fructose corn syrup. If you're eating or drinking prepared, processed or fast foods -- which is what most Americans do -- you're taking in high amounts of the stuff. And all that HFCS can lead to numerous health problems, including heart disease, cancer, obesity and much more. (For that matter, too much sugar (or sucrose) is dangerous, too, as I reveal in my book SUGAR SHOCK!)

It's understandable that USA Today's reporter would come to the conclusion that HFCS is "no worse" than sugar since its article came out after the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published five articles, which were part of a December supplement, "High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS): Everything You Wanted to Know, but Were Afraid to Ask."

[Thankfully, USA Today reporter Elizabeth Weise does point out that according to endocrinologist Peter Havel, Ph.D. (who wrote one of the new papers), if you consume high levels of fructose -- whether from high-fructose corn syrup or from table sugar -- you'll get increased triglycerides (fat) in the bloodstream, and that could be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.]

But the all-important question is this: Can we really believe the findings of these five studies, which were presented on April 30, 2007 in Washington, D.C. at the American Society for Nutrition Public Information Committee symposium for 2007, titled "High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS): Everything You Wanted to Know, But Were Afraid to Ask"?

For instance, how can we trust findings research about high-fructose corn syrup that's paid for by a company using HFCS? Take for example, this study, "High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation," that was supported by PepisoCo North America. Of course, PepsiCo, in turn, uses huge quantities of high fructose corn syrup to put into its sodas.

And should we believe results of this study, "Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't," which was supported by the American Society of Nutrition?

You see, the American Society for Nutrition invites members of the industry to be involved with the organization.

In fact, American Society for Nutrition's Sustaining Members include companies that regularly use high fructose corn syrup, sugar or artificial sweeteners -- Cadbury Schweppes; Campbell Soup Company, Global Nutrition & Research; ConAgra Foods, Inc.; Kellogg Company; Kraft Foods; Mars, Inc.; McNeil Nutritionals; Monsanto Company; National Dairy Council; Nestle Nutrition Institute of Nestle USA; PepsiCo; The Sugar Association, Inc.; and Unilever Bestfoods.

FYI, I'll write more later about these new high-fructose corn syrup studies. Look for a future post -- I can't spend much more time on this now, because I'm still settling into my new place, getting organized and preparing for the holidays.

Stevia Approved for Use in Soft Drinks, Etc.... But How Safe & Natural Will It Be?

After years of only allowing it to be sold as an herbal supplement and deeming it unsafe for foods and drinks, the FDA changed its mind and approved the use of the naturally sweet herb Stevia in various beverages from Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as you can learn from NaturalNewscom, CBS and TreeHugger.

In other words, drinks sweetened from Reb A, derived from the stevia leaf, now have GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status.

This FDA action, according to The New York Times, will allow Cargill to market Truvia from Coca-Cola and PureVia from PepsiCo -- both products using rebiana, an extract from the stevia plant.

But the Center for Science in the Public Interest thinks the decision was rushed and does not take into account that it was inadequately tested for cancer and other potential health problems.

In fact, the CSPI blasts this FDA action as "Bush's parting gift to the soda industry." 

Over the years, hundreds of you have asked me where I stand on stevia. In fact, my position has changed as I've learned more about it.

Actually, years ago, I stopped using a clear stevia extract after one company faxed me a list of the many steps required to transform the herb into a white powder or clearish liquid. For instance, for this company, here's what the stevia leaves go through to become a powder or liquid:

Stevia Extract Process

• Stevia Leaves
• Extraction
• Foculation -- that's where they put the stevia through sieves to break out the particles
• Ultrafiltration -- that's a chemical process, which couuld involve adding harsh chemicals, as one insider revealed to me
• Ion Exchange Column
• Concentration
• Drying (Spay Dryer)
• Stevia Extract

This process leads me to wonder just how natural the extract is, despite claims to the contrary.

Thus, I'm not a fan anymore of the liquid or powder form. As one expert pointed out to me, this process sounds similiar to the lengthy process to turn sugar cane to sugar.

However, I have no objection to using stevia in a more natural state such as steeping one or two naturally sweet leaves or even crushed leaves in your tea. You can find it from companies such as this and this.

Stevia tea even tastes pretty good, too. If you're inclined, you can even grow stevia yourself.

As for the newly approved, concentrated stevia from the soda companies, I'm wary of it, too. Obviously, I'm eager to learn more about these processes. I just can't help keep but wondering: Just how natural is it? Will this be close to what you find from the earth or will it, like sugar, barely resemble the original herb?

High Fructose Corn Syrup: Industry Fights Back With Misleading Ad Blitz

Please, dear readers, do NOT get taken in by the two new TV ads (dubbed "Party" and "Two Bites") and two print ads (in newspapers and magazines) from the Corn Refiners Association, which claim that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is fine in moderation.

When you watch both TV ads, you'll be amused -- I'm assuming -- at how the person avoiding high fructose corn syrup is portrayed as an inarticulate, tongue-tied, unknowledgeable person, who's silly for staying away from the sweet stuff.

On the other hand, the woman (in both ads) who offers the popsicle or the punch is presented as a smart consumer, who quickly rattles off that high fructose corn syrup is "made from corn, doesn't have artificial ingredients and like sugar, it's fine in moderation."

Please don't take these ads as license to go dash off and buy popsicles or fruit punch.

About the only thing I agree with in this media blitz is that yes, you should get the facts. But when you do, you'll learn a sour surprise -- not a "sweet surprise," as the corn industry would have you believe.

Here are some facts that the corn industry flat out ignores in their ads.

Firstly, even if you had only two bites of a HFCS-laced popsicle (as one ad implies), that's not the only high fructose corn syrup you're getting over the course of a day or week.

Most Americans do NOT take in just a little bit of HFCS. If you're eating processed foods, you are NOT consuming high fructose corn syrup in moderation. The sweetener is used in just about any refined products you can find on the market -- frozen pizza, baked breads, spaghetti sauce, hot dogs, hamburgers, crackers, you name it, etc.

What this means is that if you had just two bites of a popsicle, over the rest of day you, as a typical, processed-foods-loving American (forgive me if I offended you) are swallowing lots of the sweet substance. And such sugar overloading -- whether it comes from corn or cane -- can lead to a plethora of health ailments, including heart disease, cancer and diabetes, as I explore in my book Sugar Shock!

In fact, over the course of the year, the average American doesn't know the meaning of moderation. In 2005, for instance, she or he consumed at least 77 pounds of corn-based sweeteners. And I suspect the numbers are even higher now -- I still need to check them though.

Now bear in mind that this is only part of the sugar story, because our typical American is taking in another 65.6 pounds of cane or beet-based sugar and other sweeteners.

Secondly, one glass of fruit punch doesn't even approach the concept of moderation. For instance, an 8-ounce glass of Tropicana punch has 29 grams of sugar, which comes to about 7.25 teaspoons of sugar. Does the corn industry really think that this is moderation? You've got to be kidding.

Stop by soon for another angle on this new misleading HFCS media blitz.

FTC Praises Big Food for Changing Marketing Tactics Aimed at Kids, But Do They Deserve It?

From Jennifer Moore

Yikes! A total of 44 major food and beverage companies spent a whopping $1.6 billion dollars in 2006 marketing their products to kids 17 and under, according to a report released by the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC says in a press release that "although there is room for improvement, the food and beverage industries have made significant progress" in marketing more responsibly to children since 2005 when the FTC and the Department of Health and Human Services convened the Workshop on Marketing, Self-Regulation & Childhood Obesity to address the issue.

Oh, really? I'm not so sure about that.

For starters, the food makers promised to either stop targeting ads at kids or to advertise only "better-for-you products" to them.

One product that apparently meets these guidelines, devised by the food corporations themselves, is Kellogg's Apple Jacks cereal, which was specifically reformulated so that it's "better for you" (notice that they didn't say "good for you"), according to Stephanie Clifford of The New York Times.

But a look at Kellogg's website shows that Apple Jacks contains 12 grams of sugar per serving.

In fact, the very first ingredient listed on the Apple Jacks package is sugar. If that's an example of something that's supposedly better for kids, I shudder to think what was worse.

Big Food also issued its own report and press release congratulating themselves on meeting its own guidelines.

The food makers' report notes that companies used varying criteria to determine the sugar content of "better for you" food, such as food that has no more than 12 grams of sugar per serving (which doesn't count sugars found naturally in fruits, vegetables, or dairy).

So, by my calculations, Kellogg's did the absolute least they could, using their own lax standards, to make their Apple Jacks less unhealthy.

The companies also decided for themselves what exactly advertising aimed at children means, so the standards vary.

Interesting. Don't you think Coca-Cola was well aware that kids watch shows that aren't primarily aimed at them such as "American Idol," which appeals to some 2 million youngsters, according to Clifford's New York Times article?

The FTC and Big Food will have to forgive me for being none too impressed with this so-called progress.

I'm not the only one who isn't bowled over. The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood issued its own press release on the FTC's report, which concludes this way:

"Given the concerning picture of food marketing’s infiltration of children’s lives painted by the FTC               report, it is disappointing that they continue to perpetuate the myth that self-regulation can effectively rein in an industry whose profits rely on commercializing childhood."

The Center for Science in the Public Interest also weighed in with some strong words of their own, saying that Big Food's pledges to be more responsible are "carefully tailored with loopholes" and arguing that there's a "disconnect between the food industry’s talking points and what we actually see on television during children’s programming."

Given the crisis of childhood obesity in the U.S. and the seemingly endless ways food manufacturers have found to push their products on children, I completely understand why the CFCC and CSPI feel so strongly.

As a mother to a five-year-old, I also strongly believe that Big Food isn't doing nearly as well as they should be.

From Jennifer Moore

L.A. May Slow Onslaught of Fast Food

Jennifer Moore for SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

The Planning and Land Use Committee of the Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved a proposal that would keep new fast food places from opening in several neighborhoods in South L.A. for at least a year, according to Molly Hennessy-Fiske of The Los Angeles Times.

It's easy to see why Councilwoman Jan Perry, who represents south L.A., proposed the measure. A chart linked to Hennessy-Fiske's article shows that 45% of all restaurants in the South L.A. area are fast food establishments, which is the highest concentration of such places in the city.

What's more, the percentages of south L.A. adults with diabetes and adults who are obese are the highest of all areas in Los Angeles, at 11.7% and 30% respectively, according to a report issued by the city's public health department.

Councilwoman Perry is also working to bring more grocery stores and sit-down restaurants to her area, according a press release on her website.

I imagine some will oppose Perry's idea, because they think it impedes people's freedom to eat as they please.

But she isn't proposing to make it illegal for people to go to McDonald's if they wish, or even to remove any fast food outlets from her district.

She simply wants to provide more choices about where to eat to her constituents, choices that residents of other L.A. residents apparently already have, and choices that will enable people to eat more healthfully.

This proposal must be approved by the entire L.A. city council and signed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in order to become law. Clearly South L.A. residents don't need any more fast food joints in their backyard, so I hope the city council and mayor do the right thing and enact this moratorium.

FDA: Foods Containing High Fructose Corn Syrup Shouldn't Be Called "Natural"

Citing synthetic "fixing agents" used to manufacture it, an FDA official in charge of product evaluation and labeling said that "we would object to the use of the term 'natural' on a product containing HFCS," according to Lorraine Heller of FoodNavigator-USA.com.

This could be good news for people trying to eat well if it means that more food corporations will back off from labeling HFCS-sweetened foods as "natural," as Cadbury Schweppes and Kraft have already done.

Health blogger Rebecca Scritchfield provided the tip about this development.

Super Bowl Star Endorses Sugary Oreos, and Mike Adams Doesn't Like It

While I was busy spending the day dashing back and forth to Philadelphia for a taping of the popular Comcast TV show, "Seeking Solutions With Suzanne" -- which you'll hear more about later -- my research assistant and blog contributor Jennifer Moore came up with this item about another athlete pushing sugary foods. What gives with these ball players?  Can't they find something more healthy to promote? Here's Jennifer's post:

The ever-provocative Mike Adams, editor of the informative, opinionated health website NewsTarget, recently wrote an article that takes another celebrity sugar-endorser to task.

You see, Adams -- whom Connie interviewed recently on her Stop SUGAR SHOCK! Radio Show -- isn't pleased that Eli Manning, quarterback of the just-crowned Super Bowl champion New York Giants, appears in numerous commercials peddling Oreos.

"While Manning's on-the-field victory was monumental, his off-the-field promotional choices have so far been nothing short of shameful," Adams fumes.

"He may be a football hero today, but until Manning decides to more carefully choose which products to promote to his fans, he will only be a shamed junk food promoter playing a highly influential role in the continued destruction of the health of the very people who made him famous: His fans."

Wow! Adams isn't shy about letting us know what he thinks, is he?

As a mother to an impressionable five-year-old girl, I am concerned about commercials on television influencing her desires (though I worry more about her wanting more and more toys as opposed to sugary snacks -- thankfully, she's not a huge fan of most sweets). So she doesn't watch any commercial TV programs, and I'm sure I'm not the only parent with that rule in my home.

More Than One-Third of Schools in the U.S. Are Near Fast Food Joints, Study Finds

Note from Connie: Even if schools get their acts together and start serving more healthful foods, fast-food joints near these schools may lure in the kids anyhow to eat their nutrition-bereft food.

Alas, more than one-third of middle and high schools in the U.S. are within a half-mile of a fast-food restaurant or convenience store, according to from researchers from the College of Nursing at the University of Illinois.
 

Thanks to Tara Parker-Pope of the New York Times for alerting us to these unfortunate findings, which were published in the January issue of Health Place. SUGAR SHOCK! Blog researcher/writer Jennifer Moore brings you more information.

This study -- one of the largest of its kind -- also revealed that two-thirds of urban high schools had at least one fast food outlet within walking distance, Parker-Pope of the New York Times tells us. What's more, over half of schools were no more than half a mile away from a convenience store, which, of course, are more likely to be stocked with junk food rather than fresh fruits or vegetables.

NewsTarget's Editor Mike Adams and Nutritionist Jonny Bowden Featured on Stop SUGAR SHOCK! Radio

Have you heard today's Stop SUGAR SHOCK! Radio Show? Today, my guests were Mike Adams, editor of NewsTarget.com and renowned nutritionist Jonny Bowden.

We had a great time chatting about the misleading term, "all natural"; how we came to become so fervent about nutrition and nutrition education; the importance of reading food labels; and much more.

Listen now to today's Stop SUGAR SHOCK! show.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom Takes the Lead: Urges Retailers To Charge Extra for HFCS-Sweetened Soda

Hurrah to trim, health-minded San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for taking a stand against soda by proposing a controversial idea to charge major retailers a fee when they sell high fructose corn syrup-laden soft drinks.

Mayor Newsom is singling out sugary soda to help combat obesity among the residents of San Francisco, given the growing body of evidence, which blames HCFS-laden soft drinks for helping to pack pounds on Americans.

This proposal is being hailed as the first in the nation.

But, as reporters Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross point out in their popular San Francisco Chronicle column, this tax-on-soda idea "has been roiling around in health circles for some time," even with backing from the American Medical Association.

In making his announcement, Mayor Newsom reportedly said: "The bottom line is that there is a direct nexus between high-fructose corn syrup drinks like colas and Big Gulps and obesity among schoolkids."

"Beverages sweetened by high-fructose corn syrup are standing in the way of our efforts to combat obesity," Newsom said in a press release. "With all of the mounting evidence showing that children are increasingly at risk for poor health because of these drinks, it's time for us to explore every avenue and examine every innovative idea, in the hopes of making obesity a thing of the past."

This move to tax soda was bound to happen at some point, given the increasing amount of talk and research linking Americans' consumption of sugar-filled soda with our obesity crisis.

And what better place for this to happen than in forward-thinking San Francisco? In fact, savvy San Francisco Chronicle journalist Kim Severson outlined the HFCS problem back in 2004.

What's more, Mayor Newsom wants this fee -- not a "tax," according to columnists Matier and Ross -- to help fund the comprehensive anti-obesity initiative "Shape Up San Francisco."

In addition, as the Chronicle's Matier and Ross point out, Mayor Newsom wants additional funds allocated to media campaigns to discourage soda use. (Now that's a cool idea! This sure sounds like what the cigarette companies are now doing. You can learn more about how some see Big Sugar as the next Big Tobacco in my book SUGAR SHOCK!)

Salt: The "Forgotten Killer" -- The AMA & CSPI Urge Crackdown On the White Powder, But What About The-More-Dangerous Substance, Sugar?

Salt is on the minds lately of the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

But should salt -- the so-called "forgotten-killer" -- be the prime focus of governmental and medical attention and potential regulation rather than even-more-forgotten-and deadly sugar?

Yes, salt can lead to fatalities, but the other white powder, sugar, and its relatives (other refined sweeteners) can kill way more people than salt.

Let me bring you up to date on salt's heated debate.

The FDA is considering limiting salt content in processed and restaurant foods, because the white substance is harmful and reportedly prematurely kills 150,000 people each year, as you can learn about in the Los Angeles Times.

More specifically, the "CSPI, backed by several health groups, wants the FDA to beef up labeling, require manufacturers to cut salt in packaged foods, and revoke salt’s `generally recognized as safe' [GRAS] status, subjecting it to stricter regulations as a food additive," as MSNBC reported.

Now, the American Medical Association has joined the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has worked for years to call for government intervention.

The FDA, AMA and CSPI are ganging up on salt, because too much sodium has been linked in scientific studies to high blood pressure, which, of course, is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

The AMA's Stephen Havas, M.D., M.P.H., M.S. (vice president for the organization's Science, Quality, and Public Health division) even publicly worried that "most Americans consume two to three times the amount of sodium that is healthy, with an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the daily intake of sodium coming from processed and restaurant foods."

Dr. Havas even relied on a vivid analogy to describe salt's health hazards:

"The deaths attributed to excess salt consumption represent a huge toll – the equivalent of a jumbo jet with more than 400 passengers crashing every day of the year, year after year."

“I am sure no one would tolerate so many deaths from airline crashes, so why tolerate it from food?” Dr. Havas added.

While I applaud calling for a crackdown on salt in processed foods and restaurant meals, why zero in only on the "forgotten killer" salt when sugar poses much greater danger?

Way more than 150,000 are dying each year due to their excess sugar consumption, as my book SUGAR SHOCK! reveals.

We're not just talking about one jumbo jet with 400 passengers crashing. Instead, the numbers are much more astronomical.

Sugar's dangers amount to a sky filled with thousands of jumbo jets crashing! In fact, it's tough to fathom just how many jets.

Just look at some of the millions of people, whose sugar overloading and subsequent sugar shock may hurtle them towards disease and premature death.

• 191 million overweight or obese adult Americans (or about 65 percent of all Americans). These people, especially the 31 percent, who are obese, are prone to devastating consequences and a host of deadly diseases.
• Nearly 21 million (20.8 million people) with diabetes, in particular the 90 to 95 percent of people with type 2 diabetes, which is largely preventable by diet (kicking sugar and refined carbs), exercise and other lifestyle changes. It's imperative for these millions of people properly manage their blood sugar, which can swing wildly by over-consuming sweets and refined carbs. Some complications of diabetes include increased risk of fatal heart disease, stroke and kidney failure. (Not taking care of the disease also could lead to nerve damage (neuropathy), blindness (retinopathy), erectile dysfunction, depression and amputation.)
• 54 million people with pre-diabetes, who are headed towards diabetes and possibly early death if they don't make lifestyle improvements such as cutting back on sugar intake. (Some estimates are that between even more people -- up to 95 million Americans -- have pre-diabetic conditions such as metabolic syndrome, also known as Syndrome X and insulin resistance syndrome.)

Fast Food Nightmare: Kids With Good Grades "Win" McDonald's Happy Meals in Florida

In school, kids are supposed to learn reading, writing and arithmetic. Is it too much to ask that children also begin to get some nutrition basics from at least one of their teachers?

Apparently, in Florida's Seminole County, the notion of teaching kids about healthy eating and good food is a foreign one.

The school board there struck the most ill-conceived, nutritionally horrific, jaw-droppingly bad deal with McDonald's restaurants in Seminole County: For the 2007-2008 school year, elementary school kids with good grades and near-perfect attendance are rewarded with Happy Meals.

That's right. If you're one of the 27,000 school kids from kindergarten through fifth grade who does well in school and comes all but one or two days to classes, you get a "food prize" -- nutritionally lacking, fatty, sugar-or-culprit-carbs laden, calorie-packed junk food.

As if that wasn't bad enough, as part of this so-called "report card incentive" program, the Seminole County schools also are allowing McDonald's to turn report cards into advertising vehicles. In fact, Stuart Elliot of the New York Times so aptly puts it, the Florida schools are "using children's report cards to help stimulate sales [at McDonald's]."

Organizations Kick Off "Global Dump Soda" Campaign

Note from Connie: Now this is absolutely fascinating news. Wow! Check out this revolutionary proposal to squash the marketing of soda and other sugary drinks. Jennifer Moore gives you the details.

Alarmed by the worldwide increase in childhood obesity, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations recently kicked off an initiative to seriously curtail the marketing of sodas and other sugary drinks to kids, according to a press release on CSPI's website.

Among other smart solutions, CSPI and IACFO want Coca-Cola and PepsiCo to stop all marketing of sugar-packed drinks to kids under 16. This means no print or broadcast ads, no internet marketing, no using kids' cell phones to push the stuff, nothing.

The groups also called for soda companies to stop selling all sugary drinks, including sports drinks, fruit-flavored beverages, sweetened teas and sodas to all schools, whether public or private.

One of the ideas will certainly be controversial: The organizations also propose a modest tax on soft drinks, with the resulting revenue to be used for nutrition education and exercise programs and to subsidize the costs of healthy fare like fresh fruits and vegetables.

If the point of the tax is to make people think soda costs too much to buy, I'm not convinced it'll work. But after reading the startling stats on how the increase in consumption of sugary drinks mirrors the rise of obesity and diabetes, I can understand the impulse to give such a plan a try.

The Dumpsoda.org website is chock-full of information about the rising rates of obesity worldwide, the dangers of soda, what you can do to fight back against sugary drinks in your community, and more. Kudos to CSPI and IACFO for undertaking this initiative, and let's hope it works!

Jennifer Moore for SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

Obesity: Will A Bill to Ban Obesity-Related Lawsuits Ever Pass?

Note from Connie: I'm not sure if you’ve heard about the Common Sense Consumption Act of 2007 (H.R. 2183), but if you haven't, you should read this intriguing editorial about it from Virginian-Pilot columnist Kerry Dougherty. SUGAR SHOCK! Blog researcher Karen James tells you about it while I continue relaxing during my long-needed vacation.

The Virginian-Pilot columnist Kerry Dougherty humorously argues against Common Sense Consumption Act of 2007 (H.R. 2183), which was introduced in the House in May by Rep. Dan Boren, D-Ok. (Boren, incidentally, counted the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union among his top 20 contributors since 2004, according to The Center for Responsive Politics.)

“Why should fast-food joints be immune to frivolous lawsuits? Let them be at risk like everyone else,” Dougherty writes.

But seriously, the bill would make it impossible to sue food manufacturers, restaurants, distributors, advertisers, etc. for claims of injury regarding weight gain, obesity or other health conditions associated with them.

If food were intentionally mislabeled, a suit could proceed, however.

In her book SUGAR SHOCK!, Connie offers a fascinating account of the lawsuits filed thus far, in a chapter, entitled, "Is Big Sugar the Next Big Tobacco?"

Obesity: Cheap, Sugary, Processed Foods Make People Around the World Fat

As we all know, the United States isn’t the only country that needs to go on a diet.

People in countries around the planet are getting fatter and at a mind-boggling speed, and, sure enough, the reasons appear to be the same worldwide, the Chicago Tribune pointed out. 

The culprits?

• Diets rich in sweeteners and saturated fats
• Sedentary lifestyles
• Ready supply of cheap processed foods

A couple of the scariest statistics include Mexico, where 71 percent of women are overweight, and China, where 20 percent of adults are obese, up from less than one percent in 1990.

Karen James for the SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

NBC Universal Boosts Junk Food Ad Ban During Kids' TV

Note from Connie: I'm on vacation this week so, thanks to Karen, she'll tell you about this story from TV Week. 

NBC Universal Television Group recently announced that it will expand the junk food advertising ban it currently maintains for its Qubo block of children’s informational programming to include similar programming on the 26 local NBC and Telemundo television stations it owns and operates.

This is all supposed to take effect June 1, 2008.

TV Week speculates the move will cause other networks to follow suit.

Should be interesting to see how this develops.

Karen James for the SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

Sweeter Tomatoes to Replace Corn Syrup in Heinz Ketchup

Note from Connie: I absolutely adore tomatoes and think they're sweet enough, thank you -- especially when they're organic -- but listen to this fascinating news item that Karen James found.

The H.J. Heinz Company is pushing its suppliers to produce tomatoes that are five to 10 percent sweeter than those currently used in its famous Heinz Tomato Ketchup, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The reason?

The corn syrup used to sweeten the condiment is costing the company 25 percent more than before. Heinz hopes the new tomatoes will help offset some of those costs.

Karen James for the SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

Note from Connie again: Wait a minute. Did I get this right? They want sweeter tomatoes to offset costs, not to steer clear of high fructose corn syrup? No comment.

Sugar: The High Cost Many Pay So You Can Consume the Sweet Stuff

Note from Connie: Thanks to a new documentary, "The Price of Sugar," Americans will now have a chance to get the real scoop about their beloved, but destructive sweetener.

This film gives people a shocking, horrifying, inside look at the many hardships workers endure just so the sweet white powder makes it to our supermarket shelves. For a sneak preview, watch the trailer now. SUGAR SHOCK! Blog researcher/writer Jennifer tells us about this eye-opening film, which I'm hoping to catch very soon.

People already have a chance to learn about sugar's many health dangers by reading Connie and Dr. Sinatra's book, SUGAR SHOCK!

Now Americans need to learn the sour truth about sugar-growing and gathering, because if they did, I believe that they'd be a lot less likely to buy this sweetener.

Now, thanks to the new documentary "The Price of Sugar" -- which has been reviewed by New York Times and a number of other publications -- people are discovering the harrowing conditions workers endure just to gather sugar cane.

The film -- which is directed by filmmaker Bill Haney and narrated by Oscar-winning acting legend Paul Newman -- teaches us, for example, that Haitian workers are basically forced into indentured servitude in the sugar cane fields in neighboring Dominican Republic.

These Haitian workers are snatched from their homes, herded into barracks and forced to do the back-breaking work of harvesting sugar cane 14 hours a day, seven days a week, for less than $1 a day.

"Healthy" Diners Eat More Than Fast Foodies, Study Shows

Note from Connie: You'd think that healthy restaurants would lead you to eat better foods, right? Well, check out the results of this surprising study, which indicates otherwise. Karen James brings you the scoop.

People who dine at so-called “healthy” restaurants often consume more calories that those who dine at fast food restaurants, according to a recent study that will appear in the October issue of the Journal of Consumer Research.