SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

High Fructose Corn Syrup: Dig Deeper Before Believing the New Corn Lobby Ads & Consuming the Stuff

Have you seen any of the TV spots, print and online banner ads that seek to convince us that high fructose corn syrup is fun to consume?

Before you believe the many new ads from the Corn Refiners Association -- which is spending a reported $20 million to $30 million to convince us of its safety -- I urge you to get facts from my recent Gab With The Gurus Radio Show, where I had the following guests:

• Curt Ellis, director and producer for the fascinating documentary "King Corn." (The best way to describe it is to quoteThe Austin Chronicle: "As relevant as Super Size Me and as important as An Inconvenient Truth.") 
• Acclaimed cardiologist Stephen T. Sinatra, M.D., co-author of my book Sugar Shock!
• Nutritionist, author and personal trainer Pedro Bastos, a colleague of Loren Cordain, Ph.D., acclaimed for his Paleo Diet.
• Biochemist and food and beverage formulator Russ Bianchi, who is also chief executive officer and managing director of Adept Solutions.
• Richard J. Johnson, M.D., author of The Sugar Fix: The High-Fructose Fallout That is Making You Fat and Sick (His interview is coming up.)

Before, during or after you listen to the Gab With the Gurus Radio Show about high fructose corn syrup, I recommend that you:

• Check out the full campaign, which includes three TV spots ("Brothers," "Party" and "Two Bites"), print ads in magazines and newspapers, and online banners that are increasingly seen on the Internet.
• Seee the paid endorsement of high fructose corn syrup with cardiologist James M. Rippe, M.D. (Hmm. I wonder just how much he was paid by the Corn Refiners Association to make those pro-corn syrup statements. By the way, it's interesting that he says "our website" when referring  the CRA website.) FYI, listen to Dr. Stephen Sinatra, my favorite cardiologist (he's co-author of my book), give his opposing point of view on my Gab With The Gurus Radio Show.
• Order a copy of the eye-opening documentary, "King Corn."
• Watch the 3 Minute Ad Age news story, A Sour View of Corn Refiners' Sweetener Ads, for which I was recently interviewed.

Remember, you can listen at any time to the Gab  With the Gurus Radio Show about high fructose corn syrup.

Why Did Company Put Sucrose In Its Organic Baby Forumla?

Note from Connie: It's bad enough to always be on the alert for sugar in adult foods, but now baby foods have sugar added. Talk about disappointing news! Kudos to Julia Moskin of The New York Times for dishing the sour scoop about this. Jennifer Moore gives you more details.

Buyer beware: Just because something is labeled organic doesn't automatically make it the best thing for a person's health.

Case in point: Similac, a leading baby formula company, sweetens its line of organic formula with sugar derived from evaporated cane juice, according to an eye-opening article by Julia Moskin of The New York Times. (Full disclosure: In the 1990s, I was a co-worker of Moskin's at a publishing company.)

Why is sugar in baby formula a concern? Because, Moskin informs us, the cane sugar Similac uses is "significantly sweeter" than sugars in other brands of formula. What's more, Moskin found an expert who said research shows animals prefer sucrose to other forms of sugar. (The story didn't cite any specific studies, though).

Similac describes the sugar they use in their organic products as "safe and well established," having been approved by the F.D.A.

But the European Union is sufficiently concerned that sucrose-sweetend formuals will be banned in Europe by the 2009, except for severely allergic tots whose doctors orders these brands, Moskin reports.

So just how sweet in this Similac Organic stuff? The Times convened a panel of testers to taste it along with seven other formula brands, and they concluded that Similac's product was the sweetest of the bunch, "with the sweetness of grape juice or Country Time lemonade." Yikes!

Given our nation's obesity problem, it's really a shame that a company is plying infants with the sweetest sugar they can find. I'd advise parents who are trying to minimize their children's sugar intake to carefully read food labels, even those of organic foods.

Jennifer Moore for SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

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.

CalorieKing/Joslin Internet Tool Makes Healthy Eating Easy

Note from Connie: Let's face it, not only can kicking sugar be tough, but when you're on the run -- which many of us are these days -- eating a healthy diet can be a major challenge. That's why you'll want to know about this easy-to-use nutrition tool created by CalorieKing and the Joslin Diabetes Center at Harvard Medical School. Karen James brings you info about it.

The Internet-based food search toolbar (available for PC and MAC users) not only gives you the nutritional information of more than 50,000 basic and brand name foods, but it also tells you about how many minutes it will take to walk off that double-decker burger covered in sloppy sauce. (Of course, we're not recommending that you have one.)

This CalorieKing-Joslin tool also provides information on the calorie density of various foods using a one- to four-star rating system that signals which foods, calorie-wise, are the best choices.

But this may be the best part yet—the toolbar is also available in a simplified mobile format for those with Internet-enabled mobile or smartphone.

What this means is that no matter where you are (as long as you have cell coverage), you can get the skinny on what you're about to eat.

Karen James for SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

High Fructose Corn Syrup-Sweetened Sodas Contain Compounds that May Raise Risk of Diabetes

Note from Connie: It seems like every couple of months (at least) we keep learning about more alarming news and new research studies relating to the potential dangers of the ubiquitous sweetener high fructose corn syrup. Now Jennifer Moore updates us about a study from Rutgers University.

Rutgers University food scientist Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D. took eleven popular sodas sweetened with HFCS to a lab, and found that they all contain "astonishingly high" levels of compounds called reactive carbonyls. He presented his findings at the recent meeting of the American Chemical Society.

What's so bad about these reactive carbonyls? They are often found in the blood of diabetics and may cause cell and tissue damage linked to the disease, according to Health Day.

Interestingly, Ho says that table sugar doesn't contain reactive carbonyls (though there are plenty of other reasons to avoid it, too, as Connie amply demonstrates in her book SUGAR SHOCK!). Big Soda uses HFCS instead of sugar because it's sweeter and cheaper.

Soda isn't the only drink that concerns Ho.

"I worry about kids in high school," Ho told Health Day.

"They rely on energy drinks to do their homework and stay awake. The level of [HFCS] is so high."

Soda Companies Settle Benzene Lawsuit

Note from Connie: It's bad enough that soft drinks contain so much sugar, but for over a year, we've been hearing that that some soft drinks contain high levels of the carcinogen benzene. In fact, last year I posted here about this sad development and then again here.

To refresh your memory, the EPA says that acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to benzene could cause "drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness" while chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure" has caused "blood disorders, including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia, in occupational settings." What's more, experts reported reproductive problems "for women exposed by inhalation to high levels" and an "increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood cells) have been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene." Today, blog researcher/writer Jennifer Moore brings you the latest development about benzene and soda companies.

PepsiCo and several other beverage companies just settled a lawsuit, which alleged that their drinks contain the carcinogen benzene, Ahmed ElAmin of FoodNavigator.com reports.

The suit claimed that Pepsi's Diet Wild Pepsi soda contained four times the amount of benzene the Environmental Protection Agency deems safe to ingest (which begs the question of why any amount of a possibly cancer-causing substance would be considered safe, but I digress.) The settlement means that the soda makers will reformulate the potentially dangerous drinks, if they haven't done so already.

It's really too bad that it took a class-action lawsuit to get the soda companies to do the right thing. But in my opinion, the bigger problem is that we can't even rely on our so-called public health watchdogs to look out for us, either.

TV Ads for Sugary Taunt & Tempt Our Unsuspecting Kids: More Than 40% of Commercials Push Candies, Snacks & Junk Food

Pity our poor, TV-watching kids. Just about every time they turn on the tube to watch their favorite shows, they're accosted by ads pushing one sugary food after another.

If they're not tormented by commercials trumpeting the scrumptious flavors of certain candies, then they're being nudged to become a fan of the newest sugary cereal.

And if they don't see ads for candies or cereals, then they're teased into submission to chomp some processed-carb crap snacks.

That's my rather casual summation on the largest study ever done of food advertised to children on TV.

The much-needed, landmark study, entitled "Food for Thought: Television Food Advertising to Children in the United States, was just released from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

More specifically, the study -- whose lead author is Walter Gantz, chairman of the Department of Communications at Indiana University -- found that:

• Children aged 8 to 12 (they call them "tweens") see the most food ads on TV, an average of 21 ads a day, or more than 7,600 a year.
• Teens see slightly fewer ads, about 17 a day, or more than 6,000 a year.
• And children ages 2 to 7 see about 12 food ads a day, or 4,400 a year."

Not suprisingly, the study found that food was the top product advertised. Sure enough, of the food ads that target children or teens:

• 34% are for candy and snacks.
• 28% are for cereal.
• 10% are for fast foods.

And we wonder why our kids are becoming moody, depressed, tired, irritable and fat?

Then, the Kaiser Foundation study found that:

• A mere 4% are for dairy products and
• 1% for fruit juices.

And get this: Of the 8,854 ads reviewed in the study, not one sinle ad targeting children or teens urged them to eat fruits or vegetables.

Duh! Small wonder that why our nation's kids aren't getting enough nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables.

But this "tween" category -- aged 8 to 12 -- appears to be the most vulnerable to these influence-generating ads.

The Kaiser Family Foundation issued the following statement:

"Children of all ages see thousands of food ads a year, but tweens see more than any other age group,” said Vicky Rideout, vice president and director of the Program for the Study of Entertainment Media and Health at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Since tweens are at an age where they’re just becoming independent consumers, understanding what type of advertising they are exposed to is especially important.”

You can find all kinds of info about the study, and you can even download an audio file here.

FYI, Walter Gantz the lead author and chairman of the Department of Communications at Indiana University.

I highly recommend that you also check out AP writer Kevin Freking's take on the study.

Also, make sure to read Nanci Hellmich's excellent summation of the study in USA Today. She also cites another major study, released December 2005 from the Institute of Medicine, which found that more than $10 billion each year is spent to market foods and beverages to children, "mostly," as she put it, "for products not considered nutritious." (I discussed the landmark study earlier.)

In particular, check out the quotes Nanci Hellmich got from Margo Wootan of the Center for the Science in the Public Interest and Daniel Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers.

It'll be interesting to see what the industry now does -- other than become defensive -- now that this landmark study was released.

Again, I urge you to listen to the audio file here.

Strong Evidence Links Soft Drinks to Obesity & Type 2 Diabetes,

Wake up, soda drinkers! Even if you crave sweet, sugary, bubbly drinks, it's time to face the sour facts.

If you've been happily swigging soda with no concern about your health, it's time to reassess your habit.

Even if you've paid no heed to previous studies, you need to pay attention to a new, hard-to-ignore sytematic review, which provides strong evidence indicating that it would be wise for all Americans to shun soda -- or at least drastically cut back on it.

After looking at a whopping 88 studies, researchers from Yale University conclude, in the April issue of the American Journal of Public Health, that drinking sugary soda is tied to:

• Weight gain
• Increased consumption of calories, and
• Type 2 diabetes
• Reduced intake of milk and fruit

Bear in mind that we're not just talking about one study. This was a careful look at a whopping 88 studies, and this review flat out concludes:

"Recommendations to reduce population soft drink consumption are strongly supported by the available science."

Meanwhile, this report comes from a very credible source. One review co-author was none other than renowned obesity expert Kelly Brownell, Ph.D., director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

"Nobody claims there is a single cause to the obesity problem, but the existing science certainly puts soft drinks in the list of leading contributors," said Dr. Brownell, who greatly admired within the nutrition and healthy community. (In fact, I was thrilled when Dr. Brownell agreed to be interviewed for my book SUGAR SHOCK!)

If you have diabetes in your family, you'll really want to pay attention to this next bit of information, too.

Perhaps the “most striking link” was between drinking soft drinks and developing type 2 diabetes, according to the reviewers.

That's right -- there's a soda an type 2 diabetes link.

As MedicalNewsToday.com reports, in one study of 91,249 women, who were followed for eight years, those who consumed one or more soft drinks per day were twice as likely as those who consumed less than one per month to develop diabetes.

That's something to consider next time you want to swig one more sodas a day, don't you think?

"This result alone warrants serious concern about soft drink intake, particularly in light of the unprecedented rise in type 2 diabetes among children," the review points out.

The compelling review pointed out other shocking soda facts, too -- ones that we've talked about here previously.

For instance, if you down a soft drink, it just may not satisfy your sweet tooth. It may even do just the opposite.

As pointed out by Laura Kennedy, a contributing writer for Health Behavior News Service "several studies found that the caloric increase is actually greater than that contained in the soda. This then rasies "the possibility that soft drinks increase hunger, decrease satiety or simply calibrate people to a high level of sweetness that generalizes to preferences in other foods,” the review authors say.

As also pointed out in MedicalNewsToday.com, the reviewers also observe that:

"These results, taken together, provide clear and consistent evidence that people do not compensate for the added calories they consume in soft drinks by reducing their intake of other foods."

Of course, whenever you learn about a soda study, you need to look to the funding source. In this case, the review study was supported, in part, by the Rudd Foundation, a private philanthropic organization focusing on obesity and education.

Not surprisingly, the American Beverage Association -- which represents manufacturers of soft drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages -- blasts the study on its website, calling it "bias" and coming from "activists," etc. 

OK, here's what I suggest.

You decide who to believe -- scientists from Yale who looked at 44 different studies or an industry that seeks to continue to sell these sugary soft drinks.

Coke Sales Bubble Up As Company Repositions Diet Sodas as "Healthy": Atlanta Journal-Constitution Article Also Quotes Me

The talented, objective, business reporter Duane D. Stanford of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution offers a thoughtful glimpse at Coca-Cola and discusses its new promotional tactics, which apparently have paid off for the company, whose global soft drink sales grew faster last year than they have since 1998 -- this despite falling sales in the U.S.

Duane also explains how the company is now positioning soft drinks as "healthy." (Read on to see my shocked comments about this new wildly creative marketing approach.)

Perhaps because of the fact that I'm a trained journalist, I do respect Duane's measured approach to the subject when he writes:

"To, sell even more sodas, [CEO Neville] Isdell is pushing back against the stigma surrounding carbonated soft drinks, escalated in part by a debate over childhood obesity. He told stock analysts at a recent convention in Scottsdale, Ariz., that he wants to reframe what defines the category. His argument: The decision to drink a diet soda also can be a health-conscious choice."

Health-conscious? Oh please. But back to Duane's more objective assessment:

The reporter also reveals that:

• Coke plans to unveil a new vitamin-enhanced diet soda, called Diet Coke Plus.
• The company began "dropping the term `carbonated soft drink' from its communications last month in favor of the term `sparkling beverages.'"

I'm sorry, but I think "sparkling" is applies only to the bottled water I had at dinner tonight, not soda.

Duane then covers the other side of the issue, which is where my point of view belongs.

He says that:

"Coke's effort to refresh the image of carbonated soft drinks as healthy has been panned by some, who say it's just window dressing."

Then come my remarks:

"I think it's really laughable to try to pass off diet drinks as healthy," said Connie Bennett, author of the book "Sugar Shock," which details health risks of sugary foods and beverages. "They sell water. Why don't they just market that more."

Duane pretty well captured my sentiments.

He also brings up another valid point, which is that:

"Some consumers also "worry about artificial sweeteners in diet drinks, in part because of studies suggesting links between the sweeteners and cancer and other illnesses. The federal government, which regulates artificial sweeteners, has said there is no clear evidence of such links."

You know, despite the fact that I consider diet drinks anything but healthy, you really have to almost grudgingly admire these absolutely outlandish marketing tactics -- which clearly have been designed to make a buck.

I sure hope no one falls for this absurd concept. Diet drinks are not healthy. End of the story.

So I Slept With 8 Bags of Unopened Candies in the Next Room! The Strange Things Writers Will Do!!

Yesterday, I entertained myself. More specifically, I embarrassed myself, because I just had to buy six bags of candies at my local drugstore.

That's right: I went out and purchased some the stuff I used to eat quite often.

So awkward did I feel about getting the sugary foods that I so often rail about that I felt a need to justify my actions.

I emphatically told the cashier, "I am NOT buying these to eat. I'm getting them to talk about."

She certainly looked at me askance. She thought I was making this up. (Guess she thought I was a "sugar addict"?)

"Honest, I said."

Well, that piqued the curiosity of the woman behind me in line. She wanted to know whatever possessed me to spend all this money on candy, but then not even eat it! I told her I'd written a book and was going to give a talk.

She sweetly grilled me several times over, and so I pleasantly replied.

Then, she said, "Well, if you're going to talk about sugar's dangers, you really need to buy some marshmallow Easter candies." (You know the ones you peer at suspiciously or rapturously! LOL!)

Darn, I realized, she was right!

So I went back to buy two more bags of pink and yellow marshmallow thing-ys. Oh my goodness, the contents are about as nutrient lacking as you can get! (Yuck!)

(By the way, right before I purchased more junk food, I learned that this woman behind me who'd been grilling me was a reporter from Newsweek magazine. Hmm. Well, I'd be happy for a mention or an article in that illustrious publication. After all, TIME saw fit to write about my book SUGAR SHOCK!)

I'll tell you later how my talk with the candies went. Basically, I'm going to offer some tips to people at my book signing so they don't let those sugary foods hold such power over them.

Oh, and P.S. I slept quite well, completely unaffected by the fact that all these candies were sitting in (unopened) bags in the next room.

See, you can maintain a distance from the stuff. Your sugar habit does not have to control you.

Coca-Cola Tries to "Get the Target Off Our Backs" by Persuading the Public That Diet Coke and Other "No-Calorie" Drinks Are Healthy and More Clever Marketing Tactics

Coca-Cola is getting into some very clever, if not misguided marketing tactics to somehow convince John Q. American Public that there's a place in the diet for both empty-calorie, sugary soft drinks and/or chemical-laden "diet drinks."

Not only that, but Coke is "on a mission" to tack on the phrase "health and wellness" onto Diet Coke and other "no-calorie" drinks. You can learn about these marketing ploys, thanks to Duane D. Stanford of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who was in Scottsdale, Arizona recently, where he attended the annual conference of the Consumer Analyst Group of New York.

Mind you, I wasn't in Scottsdale myself, but journalist Stanford heard Coke CEO Neville Isdell share insights into the soft drink company's marketing approaches to offset flat sales of its carbonated soft drinks.

For instance, in his astute article, entitled "Coke tries to shift obesity focus off its drinks," Stanford reportsof the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Isdell announced plans to broaden the debate over the obesity epidemic so Coke can "get the target off our backs."

What?

Yes, according to Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Duane Stanford, Isdell branded millions of us who are health-minded as "targets"! And he wants us to quit revealing the truth about Coke's products, including seemingly innocent ones named "Coke Zero" or "Diet Coke Plus."

Reportedly, one way Coke plans to "get the target off our backs" is to use different terminology for diet drinks. Indeed, rather than rightly referring to them as "carbonated soft drinks," Coke wants us to name them "sparkling beverages." Hmm. Sounds a bit deceptive to me.

Live in the Northeast? Become a Savvy Sugar Sleuth With Me Tuesday Morning When I'm On TV in Philadelphia (CN8)

Live in the Northeast? Wanna learn how not to get duped by those often misleading food labels? And have some fun laughing at Connie, the "Ex-Sugar Shrew"-turned-"Sugar Sleuth"?

Watch me on the "Your Morning" show on CN8, The Comcast Network, when anchor and managing editor Connie Colla interviews me out of Philadelphia at 7:30 a.m. tomorrow (Tues., Feb. 6) about foods with hidden sugars. (Cool, I get to chat with another Connie!)

Tune in to get helpful, juicy pointers so you can choose foods that don't contain all those unnecessary sweeteners.

Don't fret if you don't live in Philly. As the CN8 website explains, this network has a tremendous reach.

In fact, more than 9 million Comcast cable homes in 12 states and 20 TV markets from Maine to Virginia to Washington, D.C., will be able to to catch my interview tomorrow.

CN8, as its website explains, offers "a unique brand of live, interactive television delivered over its own fiber-optic network."

To clarify, you'll be able to watch me on CN8 Tuesday morning in any of the following areas:

• Albany
• Baltimore
• Boston
• Burlington
• Charlottesville
• Hartford-New Haven
• Harrisburg
• Harrisonburg
• Johnston-Altoona
• New York
• Philadelphia
• Pittsburgh
• Portland
• Providence
• Richmond
• Roanoke-Lynchburg
• Salisbury
• Springfield
• Washington, D.C.
• Wilkes Barre-Scranton

We're sure to have an eye-opening segment...

But I'll give you a little hint now though.... Why avoid all these hidden sugars? Well, all those sweeteners can really add up when you're unknowingly consuming them all day long, all week long, and all month long.

Indeed, excess sugars you're unwittingly taking into your wonderful body can lead to a whole host of problems. (I reveal the shocking scooop about sugar in my new book SUGAR SHOCK! from Berkley Books.)

You'll see me talk about buying:

• Yogurt
• Cereals
• Crackers
• Marinara sauce
• Salad dressings
• Peanut Butter
• Energy or snack bars
• And a surprise or two

After my TV appearance on CN8, I invite you to join in the discussion here. And, if you'd like some shopping help, you'll be able to get my Sugar-Free Shopper's Guide, too.

Bear in mind that we only have a few minutes for my interview, but you can get all kinds of helpful info on deciphering those food labels and in dispelling food-label misconceptions in my new book SUGAR SHOCK!, which is available at bookstores and online retailers nationwide.

SUBJECT: Get the Shocking Scoop About Sugar, Gain Energy & More -- Act today, Wed., Jan. 17, to Feel Better and Get Exciting Gifts

My Special Invitation to You: Act on Wed., Jan. 17 to feel better and get exciting gifts.

Dear Friends, Blog Readers, Colleagues and All of You Kind Enough to Pop By:

I'm thrilled, because some really wonderful, cutting-edge experts, whom I greatly admire -- including Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Mark Hyman, Dr. Jonny Bowden, Dr. Fred Pescatore, and Dr. Liz Lipski -- are kind enough to send out special e-mails to their fans on (or before) Wed., Jan. 17, inviting them to purchase my book, SUGAR SHOCK!

These healthy heroes of mine -- plus dozens of other wonderful authors and experts in a variety of fields -- are sharing the fact that I accidentally discovered a wow of a secret that could boost your moods and bring you good health, too.

They're telling their followers about how after my years of needlessly suffering, I discovered one simple change that banished all 44 of my mysterious ailments. As I now happily reveal: My mood swings disappeared. My severe fatigue vanished. My horrible headaches took a hike.

Why? Because I cut out sugar. That's right: I kicked my sugar habit.

And, as my friend Dr. Jonny Bowden -- a hotshot, savvy nutritionist -- points out in his letter to his followers: "If you (or your doctor) still thinks there's no such thing as carbohydrate addiction, then you definitely want to read this book."

These absolutely wonderful supporters also point out that my book SUGAR SHOCK! (Berkley Books) dishes the sour scoop about sweets.

For instance, Jonny kindly observed: "Connie really did her homework. She's interviewed some of the top experts in the field and put together a really compelling, personal story that you need to hear."

My friends and supportive colleagues also point out that SUGAR SHOCK! tells the full sugar story. What's more, they tell their fans, my book "gives you hope and valuable tips so that you, too, can break free, boost your moods, get more energy, and more."

Anyhow, my friends are encouraging those subscribers to their e-mail lists to act on Wed., Jan. 17 (until 11:59 p.m.) to participate in this exciting offer and get a tremendous amount of free gifts from leading experts in the field, including Dr. Mark Hyman, Dr. Fred Pescatore, Dr. Joe Mercola, and many others.

As I've gratefully pointed out previously, SUGAR SHOCK! -- which has a foreword from bestselling author Dr. Nicholas Perricone -- has received praise from a Who's Who of cutting-edge doctors and nutritionists, including medical consultant Dr. Stephen Sinatra.

Just check out what three experts said:

* Frequent Oprah guest Dr. Mehmet Oz, coauthor of the # 1 bestseller, YOU: On A Diet:

"[SUGAR SHOCK!] spills the beans on the shocking impact of simple carbohydrates on aging and
quality of life..."

* Renowned expert, Dr. Joseph Mercola, founder of the wildly popular Mercola.com:

"If you can't say `no' to foods made with sugar or processed, white flour, then you will want to read Connie Bennett's SUGAR SHOCK! ...it is loaded with many practical tools and resources..."

* Dr. Mark Hyman, author of the New York Times bestseller, UltraMetabolism:

"Read this book. It could save your life."

So, I invite you, too, to join the fun. Follow these experts' advice.

Order SUGAR SHOCK! anytime on Wed., Jan. 17, to get the scoop on sugar AND get exciting, special gifts from many authors and health experts.

Just check out the amazing gifts you get -- worth more than $1,377 -- just when you purchase my $10 book. Just visit http://SugarBookPromo.com now.

Warmly,

Connie

P.S. Look: I really like to think that this one book could make a huge difference in your life. You see, I wrote the kind of book that I would have loved to have back in 1998 when I had to kick sugar on doctor's orders.

P.P.S. Get more energy, improved concentration, and better health now. You deserve to feel the best you can feel! Just visit http://SugarBookPromo.com now and then grab your copy of SUGAR SHOCK! today while you can still claim the dozens of valuable gifts.

P.P.P.S. Now share this empowering book this with a friend or loved one, too. Imagine how great you'll feel when your loved one raves about all the benefits she or he received! The rewards you get from sharing this book SUGAR SHOCK! can be greater than the great deal you get on this book.

Again, I invite you to act Wed., Jan. 17, by going to http://SugarBookPromo.com

The Package Claims It's "Healthy," But Is It? New England Grocery Chain Unmasks Food Labels For Processed Foods and More

Read this fascinating New York Times story from reporter Andrew Martin about how the New England chain of Hannaford Brothers rated the nutritional value of nearly all the foods and drinks at its stores using its new "Guiding Stars" system.

Surprise, surprise: Of the 27,000 foods reviewed, a whopping 77 percent received no stars, meaning these foods aren't healthy --- despite claims on the package indicating otherwsie.

Not surprisingly, this "0" ranking goes to many, if not most, of the processed foods that bill themselves as good for you.

As Times reporter Martin observes, the "0" ranking includes:

• V8 vegetable juice (too much sodium)
• Campbell’s Healthy Request Tomato soup (ditto)
• Most Lean Cuisine and Healthy Choice frozen dinners (ditto)
• Nearly all yogurt with fruit (too much sugar).
• Whole milk? Too much fat — no stars.

Fruits and veggies get the thumbs up with three stars, as did salmon and Post Grape-Nuts cereal. (Don't quite agree with the latter ranking, though.)

Hurrah for this grocery store chain for instituting such a program. Wouldn't it be nice if this caught on all around the nation?

Poor unsuspecting consumers definitely need help to make sense of those food labels, because many nutrition claims are basically full of bunk.

Indeed, as The Times points out, it's tough for unsophisticated shoppers to figure out if a product is superior or inferior, especially when a package trumpets certain virtues of a product (example, high fiber) but then ignores the negatives (high sugar or high sodium).

Incidentally, my upcoming book SUGAR SHOCK! includes a chapter that "outs" some common label misconceptions relating to sugars.

Clearly, I'm big on educating people to discern the truth when it comes to nutrition claims on food labels.

Why Does Water Need to Be "Wild" and Sugary For Kids To Drink It?

What's the matter with plain water? Why do kids need to have sugary, flavored water with snazzy sounding names?

Well, according to Brad Barnhorn and Chris Testa, kids find water boring, even if contains "predictable marketing gimmicks like cartoon characters on the labels."

Kids are so ho-hum about water that Barnhorn and Testa launched their own flavored Wild Waters drinks that are allegedly "60 to 70 percent less sugar and calories than the leading sugary juices and soft drinks and free of any controversial artificial sweeteners or high fructose corn syrup." (Well, that's certainly better than most drinks out there.)

Oh, and the beverages are reportedly loaded with "specific nutrients identified by the USDA as lacking in children's diets." (Well, in theory that's really nice, but experts told me that sweets actually deplete you of important nutrients. So is that a complete wash?)

Suffice it to say that I'm just not impressed. The colorful drinks still have sugar in them. Yeah, maybe 60 to 70 percent less sugar, but ingesting sweeteners still can cause problems for you, as I've been learning for the last five years while working on my upcoming book SUGAR SHOCK!

Also, what irks me is that after scouting all around the Wild Waters website, I couldn't find any nutritional information. So just how much sugar are we talking is in each bottle? What other ingredients does this new fangled, brightly colored water contain? Am I going to have to go to the grocery store and find out myself? Is

Is nutritional info offered for the drinks, but I'm geographically challenged on the Internet? If you can find the labelt, please let me know.

(Interestingly though, the Wild Waters website contains a link to the USDA's Food and Nutrition Information Center and another to one about nutrition labels from the Baylor College of Medicine.)

One more thing. I just don't buy into this company's marketing claim that "Kids want flavor and a brand of their own, not just a shrunken version of their parents' drink." Oh, give me a break.

Kids just don't need extra calories and sugar, especially in drinks that purport to be healthy. We just need to teach our kids to appreciate thirst-quenching water. Besides, you can always dress water up with a dash of lemon, lime or even a splash of flavor squeezed from an orange or grapefruit. There are a whole bunch of things you can do with water to give it an extra burst, if that's what kids absolutely have to have, and it doesn't involve adding sugar or other chemicals.

Coca-Cola Co. Sued As Part of Effort to Force Soft Drink Makers to Eliminate Ingredients That Can Form Cancer-Causing Benzene

For those of you behind on the news, sugar isn't the only ingredient that makes soda dangerous these days. There's a new concern percolating bigtime, and it's called benzene. And this substance -- as you can learn here -- can be quite dangerous. In fact, benzene is linked to leukemia and other forms of cancer. 

In the latest round, Coca-Cola Co. was sued today as part of an effort to force soft drink makers to get rid of ingredients in their drinks that can form this cancer-causing benzene, the AP's prolific writer Libby Quaid reported.

Interestingly, the action against soft drink giant Coke comes as two smaller companies settled a lawsuit over benzene, which can form in soft drinks containing vitamin C (also called ascorbic acid), and either sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate. In fact, scientists heat or light exposure or other factors can actually trigger a reaction that forms benzene in beverages.

Forward-Thinking Researcher Suggests That Sugar-Filled "Poisoned" Food Supply May to Blame for Obesity

If you've among the two-thirds of Americans who are overweight or obese, read this first before blaming yourself for being short on self-control when it comes to those tempting, refined carbs that entice you just about everywhere you go.

Instead, our heavily processed, "poisoned," sugar-loaded food supply may be altering your biochemistry and driving you to eat more and more--and making you less inclined to get off your butt and exercise.

So hypothesizes nationally renowned obesity expert Robert Lustig, M.D,, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, in the most recent issue of Nature Cliinical Practice: Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Folks, this is really big news for those of you who've been having challenges saying no to all those sugar-filled, highly refined carbs that you've been consuming -- like crackers, cookies, yogurt, and white bread.

Basically, Dr. Lustig believes that eating large amounts of sugar makes your body produce more insulin, which, in turn, blocks vital hormones that should normally tell your brain to stop eating.

What's more, he theorizes, all that excess sugar makes your brain switch into starvation response mode. That then triggers more eating and activates lethargy (you know, the post-sugar "blahs") so that you can conserve energy. And then those extra unused calories are stored as fat. .

According to Dr. Lustig's hypothesis, "sugar in large quantities drives up insulin secretion," reported in the San Francisco Chronicle.

In one of the more fascinating, well-researched articles I've seen recently about this subject -- and I've seen probably thousands while working on my upcoming book SUGAR SHOCK! -- Chronicle staff reporter Erin Allday explains:

"This insulin floods the brain, and in particular the hypothalamus, which regulates energy use in the body. As a result, leptin, a hormone that tells the brain when the body needs more or less energy, can't get its signal to the hypothalamus because the insulin is blocking the way."

Allday continues:

"The result is that the body is thrown into starvation mode -- the brain thinks it isn't getting enough energy, so it needs more calories and it needs to save energy, he said. People end up feeling the symptoms of starvation, including malaise, depression, a lack of motivation and, of course, hunger."

Sound familiar? And guess what -- all those tempting, culprit carbs sold by major corporations could be what's driving your poor body into confusion and obesity. That's right.

"It's because of the toxic environment that the insulin rises and the problem behavior ensues," Dr. Lustig told Allday.

"That's why all of these diet programs don't work. That's why telling people to diet and exercise alone won't work, unless you improve the toxic environment as well."

Dr. Lustig contends that it's vital to break the pattern of sugar consumption, one that he compares to nicotine addiction. (Hurrah, Dr. Lustig! You're so onto something here! In fact, you just have to read my upcoming book SUGAR SHOCK!, because I discuss some of these same things.)

Folks, I can't tell you how exciting this is to have a cutting-edge pediatric endocrinologist putting forth these fascinating theories. (As you can see, Dr. Lustig's training is impressive and includes a bachelor's degree is from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a medical degree is from Cornell University Medical College, a pediatric residency at St. Louis Children's Hospital, and and a clinical fellowship in pediatric endocrinology at UCSF.)

Sugary Beverages Are Packing On The Pounds, New Scientific Review Finds

For the past four decades, Americans have been gulping or guzzling their way to weight gain by choosing sugar-sweetened beverages, concludes an important scientific review published Tuesday in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Specifically, one extra can of soda a day can pile on 15 pounds in a year, and the "weight of evidence" strongly suggests that this habit is a key reason that more Americans have been becoming overweight or obese, found the researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health.

"We tried to look at the big picture rather than individual studies," and it clearly justifies public health efforts to limit sugar-sweetened beverages, said Dr. Frank Hu, head researcher for the new report, which also found that almost one-third of all carbohydrate calories in the American diet come from added sweeteners, with drinks accounting for half of this amount.

Well, we've certainly heard before from other studies that soda can pack on the pounds, but this new report from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health seems unparalleled in scope and depth.

First off, it reviewed 40 years of nutrition studies, which were selected on the basis of their scientific merit and relevance. Furthermore, the review was funded both by the federal government and the American Heart Association.

As can be expected, the American Beverage Assocation -- which used to be more appropriately called the National Soft Drink Association -- had a rebuttal prepared. 

"Blaming one specific product or ingredient as the root cause of obesity defies common sense," said a statement from the ABA's senior science consultant Richard Adamson. "Instead, there are many contributing factors, including regular physical activity."

Not to sound undignified, but phoeey!

Drinking soda and other sugary drinks in abundance -- especially since they contain high fructose corn syrup (which studies show is processed differently in our bodies) -- can lead to weight gain.

All we have to do is look at the obvious facts, which is what this landmark review did.

Dr. David Ludwig, director of the obesity program at Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told AP that blaming other factors for obesity misses the point.

"Could you imagine somebody saying we should ignore the contribution of hypertension to heart attack because there are many causes? It's ludicrous. Yet this argument resurfaces with regard to obesity," Ludwig told reporters.

When it comes to beverage trends and obesity, "it's like documenting the force of gravity," he said. "There's an overwhelmingly strong case to be made for a causal relationship."

Thank you, Dr. Ludwig and Dr. Hu, for stating the case so succinctly.

Maybe people will listen more to experts' warnings. Let's face it, sugary soda and other high-fructose-laden-drinks add NO nutritive value to people's diets. So what's the point of drinking them if doing so means you'll gain weight and possibly develop other health problems?

Need help kicking sweets? Join my free, online KickSugar support group, which, at present has 1500-plus members from around the world.

Thanks to MSNBC and CNN for help on this story.

Gifted British Children Want to Decide What Foods They Eat

I'm always intrigued when reading about health and nutrition news from Great Britain for a number of reasons. First off, the country has many cutting-edge researchers over there (some of whom I interviewed for my upcoming book SUGAR SHOCK!). Secondly, in many ways, we Americans can learn so much from them, especially when it comes to their more consumer-friendly, common-sense rules and guidelines regarding TV advertising and food.

But this latest bit of news from the BCC entertains me. A new survey of gifted British kids reveals that these youngstgers believe they're smart enough to decide what they want to eat rather than have their food choices dictated to them.

In fact, 68.7 percent of children polled (770 kids in all the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth) felt that they should be responsible for what they put in their mouths.

What's more, the BBC tells us, these young ones say that "they would choose healthy options over junk food."

The timing of the poll is interesting. "The findings come as the government is setting its nutritional guidelines for school meals in England," the BBC explains.

But bear in mind, as I reported here earlier, Great Britain has a wonderful anti-junk-food champion over there -- young, hip TV chef "Naked Chef" Jamie Oliver -- who's thrown his weight behind a campaign to change food in schools and to use more fresh ingredients.

Cool American celebrities, are you listening? You could do so much good if you emulated Oliver even in a small way!

Food Labels May Be Misleading & Inaccurate -- Despite FDA Inspections

Whenever I delve deeper into the world of food labels, I become more frustrated and more determined to buy wholesome foods -- as close to their natural state as possible. Now, here's yet another reason to steer clear of bottled, canned, and packaged foods. 

The Center for Science in the Public Interest -- which has done some wonderful watchdog work to crack down on deceptive food labeling -- claims that a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report to get rid of inaccurate information and misleading health claims on food labels is itself misleading itself.

"The FDA report implies that agency inspectors checked more than 28,000 food labels for inaccurate nutrition information within a recent 14 month period when in reality, the inspectors merely checked to see whether a Nutrition Facts panel was present on the label, not whether it was accurate," the CSPI charged, in a press release on its website.

Just check out the CSPI's confidence-cutting claims about the FDA, which is supposed to be protecting us.

"The FDA’s report to Congress demonstrates that the specific issues of concern to the Committee—the accuracy of Nutrition Facts labels and misleading health-related claims that make it difficult for Americans to comply with federal dietary advice--have been the casualty of not only budget cuts, but a lack of commitment on the part of the Agency to fulfill its mission," wrote CSPI legal director Bruce Silverglade to the Congressional committees responsible for FDA appropriations.

"The FDA should be cracking down on claims for bogus 'whole wheat' products, deceptive '0 trans fat' claims, inaccurate 'Nutrition Facts' labels, and misleading statements like 'made with real fruit' (when the product contains only fruit flavors), not just eyeballing labels to make sure that information is printed in the required format."

The CSPI is absolutely right here! Indeed, I've looked into these claims while working on my upcoming book, SUGAR SHOCK!, and I'm scandalized by some of the misleading label claims in this area.

More to the point, CSPI senior staff attorney Ilene Ringel Heller blamed the FDA for its "abdication of its responsibility to ensure honest food labeling by touting irrelevant statistics concerning routine Agency inspection activities. The FDA has been less than forthright with Congress."

Hurrah to the CSPI for its five recommendations, urging the FDA to:

• "systematically test the accuracy of Nutrition Facts labels";
• "give labeling enforcement higher priority during inspections of manufacturing facilities and distribution facilities," and
• "increase funding to the FDA division responsible for food labeling."

Thanks to Mercola.com for the lead to this news story, which received the lead from FoodIngredientsFirst.com.

Again, as I said before, you're safest when you buy foods that just aren't packaged -- you know, veggies, fruits, organic meats, etc. -- therefore, you won't fall into the labels trap.