SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

Michelle Obama Gets Food Companies to Act

Thank to Michelle Obama's crusade to combat children's obesity, major food companies such as PepsiCo and Kraft Foods are changing their products.

She is, in fact, "defining defining her role as first lady by taking on the $600 billion food and beverage industries in a quest to end childhood obesity within a generation," observes Kate Andersen Brower of Bloomberg Business Week, in an artticle entitled, “Michelle Obama’s ‘Spotlight’ on Obesity Enlists Kraft, PepsiCo."

"Her lobbying of companies to make products healthier, labels easier to read and limit marketing of unhealthy foods to kids is paying off," Brower observes. 

A month after she began her campaign, "PepsiCo Inc., the world’s second-largest food and beverage company, pledged to stop selling full-sugar soft drinks in schools by 2012." In addition, Kraft Foods Inc., the maker of Oreo cookies and Oscar Mayer lunch meats, jumped on board, announcing that it would further reduce the sodium content of its products..

Reporter Brower points out that the first lady's efforts are part of a “movement to recast what the food industry is selling,” according to David Kessler, who was Food and Drug Administration commissioner from 1990 to 1997. “She puts the spotlight on the issue like few others can,” Kessler told Brower.

The American Beverage Association -- which represents soda companies -- has now joined Michelle Obama's effort by running a national ad, which claims that the industry is committed to reducing beverage calories in schools by 88 percent.

Things started happening after a well-publicized meeting in Washington on March 16 when the first lady addressed members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents major food companies such as Kraft and PepsiCo. At that GMA meeting, Obama urged the companies to reduce sugar, fat and salt in their products and “to move faster and to go farther” to make them healthier.

The first lady has “accelerated our focus,” Kraft’s president of health and wellness, Rhonda Jordan, told the Bloomberg Business Week reporter Brower, who then quotes Patrick Basham, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based research group that promotes libertarian policies.

Basham believes that the first lady's anti-obesity efforts are "in sync with public skepticism about `the motives of big business' in the wake of the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression." He also believes that the recent moves by the companies may be an effort to prevent government crackdown.

“The food industry is terrified of being either legislated out of business or so regulated they won’t be able to do what they want,” Basham told Brower.

What's intriguing is that Michelle Obama became concerned about child nutrition for personal reasons.

She told audiences at a National PTA Conference in Arlington, Virginia, on March 10, that she got a “wakeup call” when her pediatrician voiced concern about her family’s eating habits.

While I applaud the first lady's efforts, as always, no matter what changes the large food companies institute, I encourage people to reduce or even eliminate their consumption of processed foods.

Vegetables and fruits that come courtesy of Mother Nature are best for our bodies. Plus, they taste better -- something you'll discover after you cut back on processed carbs.

We just don't need to consume large quantities of packaged foods that usually have been extensively processed, with sugar, fat and salt added.

Children Are Likely Watching Junk Food Ads on Nickelodeon

Whenever children watch the popular children's network Nickelodeon, nearly 80 percent of food ads they see are promoting foods of poor nutritional quality, according to an analysis conducted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

This is only "a modest and not quite statistically significant drop from 2005, when CSPI researchers found that about 90 percent of food ads on Nick were for junk food," CSPI announced.

The watchdog organization points out that between the two studies (in 2005 and 2009), the food industry instituted a self-regulatory program through the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI).

Listen to what else CSPI discovered with advertising from food companies that participate in the "self-regulatory program."

Of 452 foods and beverages that companies claim are acceptable to market to children, 267, or nearly 60 percent, do NOT meet CSPI's recommended nutrition standards for food marketing to children, such as General Mills' Cookie Crisp and Reese’s Puffs cereals, Kellogg Apple Jacks and Cocoa Krispies cereals, Kellogg Rice Krispies Treats, Campbell's Goldfish crackers and SpaghettiOs, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, and many Unilever Popsicles.

"While industry self-regulation is providing some useful benchmarks, it's clearly not shielding children from junk food advertising, on Nick and elsewhere," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan.

"It's a modest start, but not sufficient to address children’s poor eating habits and the sky-high rates of childhood obesity."

"Nickelodeon should be ashamed that it earns so much money from carrying commercials that promote obesity, diabetes, and other health problems in young children," Wootan said. "If media and food companies don't do a better job exercising corporate responsibility when they market foods to children, Congress and the FTC will need to step in to protect kids’ health."

Wootan makes some valid points. Nick should be embarrassed by the fact that so many TV ads pitch junk foods that can lead to obesity, diabetes and more. 

It's time, I believe, for the government to step in to prevent junk food advertising to kids.

Michelangelo's David Returns to Italy After Touring the U.S.

This clever, fictional visual spoof -- posted by a variety of bloggers such as the Director Blue Blog, the Democratic Underground and British reporter Daniel Hannan (The Telegraph) -- aptly portrays the terribly tragic, ever-widening, health-harming effect that certain American food companies have on the waistlines of people living or visiting here.

This satiric photo essay is sad but also funny, isn't it?

Now, read the brief commentary that goes with this satiric transformation.

"After a two-year loan to the Smithsonian Museum in the United States, Michelangelo's David has returned to Italy."

Where did David's vava-voom appeal go? Well, just look at the fictional sponsors.

"The visit was generously funded by:

What a brilliant, but horribly depressing commentary on our epidemic of obesity.

What do you think of this clever commentary? Share your thoughts.

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.

TV Ads Make Kids Fatter: Ban Those Junk Food Ads Targeted at Children

Parents have been complaining about this for years, but now a study confirms that watching too much TV can make kids fat.

But, specifically, watching those food commercials for junk aimed at them that makes them wider. Not only that, but if there was a ban on fast food TV advertising, you'd see a big move to reverse childhood obesity trends, according to a new study from researchers from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). 

In fact, just getting rid of those enticing TV spots for fast food could lead to 18 percent fewer overweight kids aged 3 to 11 and it would reduce the number of overweight adolescents ages 12 to 18 by 14 percent.

Of course, this study, published in this month in the Journal of Law and Economics, certainly adds to the ongoing debate in the food industry about whether or not child-directed food and beverage advertising should be allowed.

So why don't the government step in and do something about this? President-Elect Obama, are you listening?

Thanks to Food Navigator for tipping me off to this study.

Check out the Seattle Post Intelligencer story, too.

“How Many Licks” Sweepstakes

From Gerry Pugliese for Connie's SUGAR SHOCK! Blog.

Lick your way to a sugar rush!

Don't worry: I'm not urging you to do that. Rather, Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pops is giving you the chance to win $50,000 by answering Mr. Owl’s 38-year old question, “How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?"

Of course, any kid knows the answer, “A One...A.two-HOO...A three…” But I guess that’s the problem. I’d rather youngsters figure out how many bites it takes to get to the center of an apple.

Anyway, according to Slashfood, the prize for guessing the licks is 27 POUNDS of assorted Tootsie Roll goodies. Makes my teeth rot and puts me inso Sugar Shock! just thinking about it!

I'm not recommending you take action on this offer, but to get awestruck by this contest, check out the official entry form at AskMrOwl.com. And lest you get tempted, remember, sugar highs inevitably lead to sugar lows.

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

Dunkin' Donuts: Is the Company Becoming "Smart," As Announced? And Why is Rachel Ray Promoting Coffee for This Donut Chain?

Is Dunkin' Donuts becoming "smart," as hoopla surrounding its new DDSmart Menu (being rolled out on August 6) would have you believe?

Well, according to Dunkin' Donuts, this new "healthier" menu will include items that are either at least 25% lower in calories, fat, saturated fat, sodium, or sugar "compared to a base product or other appropriate reference product" and/or contain ingredients that are "nutritionally beneficial."

Gotta hand it to the company for its clever marketing moves. At first blush, this new development, which we learned about, thanks to Lauren Shepherd of the AP, sounds interesting and even promising.

But, let's face it, when you examine nutritional data a couple of the supposedly healthier items featured on the menu, the phrase "not smart" may come to mind. (At least to mine.)

Put it this way: The "healthier" medium-sized, 24-ounce Reduced Calorie Berry Smoothie still contains lots of calories (370 to be exact) and massive amounts of sugar (62 grams or about 15 1/2 teaspoons). No idea how much of that is naturally occurring sugar. (The entire drink has 73 grams total carbs or 18.25 tsp. of sugar.) 

But this allegedly better-for-you beverage has, according to Dunkin' Donuts, at least 25% less sugar than its full-calorie Strawberry Banana Smoothie. (This 24-ounce, 550-calorie regular version has 118 grams of carbs, of which 103 grams are sugar or about 25.75 teaspoons.)

Meanwhile, ingredients in this "improved" concoction aren't anything I'd put in my body these days. The drink still contains sugar as one of the first ingredients, plus sugar in various guises (such as blackberry concentrate, blueberry concentrate, oligofructose and high fructose corn syrup). What's more, it includes an artificial sweetener such as sucralose (the artificial sweetener sold by market-leading Splenda). .

Jennifer Moore, my research assistant and blogger here put it cleverly. She wrote to me: "Seems to me that saying the Reduced Calorie Berry Smoothie is better for you than the full-calorie Strawberry Banana Smoothie is like saying a light cigarette is healthier than a regular one."

Now, let's look at another ostensibly healthier breakfast item on the DDSmart menu: The nutritious-sounding Multigrain Bagel. Are you ready to dash over to Dunkin' Donuts now to get it?

Well, I invite you to check out the ingredient list first: First off, it has still has 380 calories. Then look at what's included: Enriched flour is its primary ingredient and high fructose corn syrup is fourth on the list. (When items are listed first, it means there's lots contained.)

Now let's peek at the much-touted, new DDSmart Egg White Veggie Flatbread Sandwich. Just how "smart" is this dish? You decide.

(To help you out, note that the dish has 39 carbs, that means they convert quickly to 10 tsp. of sugar; it has 290 calories; and only egg whites. What's the matter with the yolks -- many health experts, who've now seen the light of day point out that the yellow part of the egg is very beneficial.)

Look, I'm all for restaurants -- especially fast food chains -- to finally realize that more people want healthier foods to eat.

But unfortunately, many large companies still don't "get it," in my opinion. After all, the gulf between what companies such as Dunkin' Donuts assume is "beneficial" and what is truly beneficial is still pretty big, if the new DDSmart menu is any indication.

One more thing: I've quietly held my tongue for way too long.

Why did Rachel Ray -- the adorably, chirpy poster child for quick, healthy meals -- team up with Dunkin' Donuts, a collaboration she began in March 2007? I was sooo disappointed when I first started seeing these ads, because I happen to like Rachel and had hoped she'd become eventually sugar savvy.

You see, even though Rachel -- winner of the Emmy for Outstanding Talk Show-Entertainment -- speaks about Dunkin' Donuts coffee, by signing on with the company, she is, in effect, promoting their sugar-filled, morning "treats" such as this Chocolate Glazed Cake Donut. (It has 340 calories and 39 grams of carbs, which translates into 9.75 teaspoons of sugar, because refined carbs are converted into sugar quickly. Most people look at just the sugar content -- which is 16 grams or 4 tsp. of sugar.)

Back to Rachel. After all, isn't she pointing out that American Runs on Dunkin'? (Actually, I think a more accurate way of putting it would be that: America Runs for a Few Minutes on Dunkin' and Then May Soon Poop Out on Dunkin' -- because of the sugar-shock reaction.)

By allying herself with the donut company, it sure seems that Rachel isn't hip to sugar's dangers. (She obviously never read -- or even glanced at -- my book SUGAR SHOCK!, which I one of publicists sent to previously to her production company.

She seems very smart. Doesn't she realize that by pushing Dunkin' Donuts coffee, she's also promoting their sugar-filled donuts?

By the way, did you hear about the TV star's alleged remark about the DD coffee she's pushing?

Reportedly, after taking a sip of her Dunkin’ Donuts coffee, she yelled ‘What is this shit? Get me MY coffee.’ Rumor has it, she wouldn't continue the ad til given "her" coffee, which reportedly comes from Starbucks.

FYI, the Internet and mainstream media were buzzing about Rachel's reported unflattering remarks about the company's coffee, which she later brushed off as ridiculous.

I sure hope I didn't I ruin my chances of being on the Rachel Ray Show because I was so outspoken. After all this time, I just had to say something.

This just in: At least, Rachel Ray is more into feeding America's pets well dogs well (or at least better than Americans who run on Dunkin' Donuts, because the cheerful chef just launched a new line of dog food, as Rachael Ray Nutrish (like nutritious, "only not," claims Calorie Lab's Sarah E. White, who got the news from Portfolio.com, which picked it up from PR NewsWire

The dog food -- which is touted as having "no fillers, no junk" -- includes doggie treats named after her favorite furry friend, Isaboo, including “booscotti” (sure sounds like "biscotti' to me) in bacon and peanut butter flavors. The nice news is that Rache's decided to devote proceeds to Rachael’s Rescue, a charity that helps at-risk animals.

Jennifer Moore contributed to this SUGAR SHOCK! Blog post.

Calorie Counting: Are New Yorkers Skipping Sweets & Other Foods Now Because Of the High Calorie Count?

Stephen J. Dubner, co-author of the bestselling book Freakonomics, raises an interesting topic in today's Freakonomics blog, hosted on the New York Times.

He wonders if people in New York are picking lower-calorie foods that calorie counts are posted in restaurants with more than 15 oulets.

Noting that the new regulations present a "great opportunity for obesity researchers," Dubner recommends delving into whether or not calorie-sensitive behavior occurs at certain times of day, days of the week or even types of days (holiday vs. workday, bad weather vs. good, etc.)

He also encourages discovering if these calorie counts "shock people into buying/eating differently" and if so how long their shocked state lasts.

Intriguing questions, but I'd like to recommend that New Yorkers take matters in their own hands and put this info to good use.

In other words, don't leave the studying up to the obesity researchers. Instead, Big Apple residents (or visitors), study your behavior. See what you do with this caloric information.

Take these regulations as an opportunity to learn more about what you put into your mouth. After all, the better foods you eat, the better you feel.

Calorie Counting: Are New Yorkers Skipping Sweets & Other Foods Now Because Of the High Calorie Count?

Stephen J. Dubner, author of the bestselling book Freakonomics, raises an interesting topic in today's Freakonomics blog.

He wonders if people in New York eating any differently now that calorie counts are posted in restaurants with more than 15 oulets.

Noting that the new regulations present a "great opportunity for obesity researchers," Dubner recommends delving into whether or not calorie-sensitive behavior occurs at certain times of day, days of the week or even types of days (holiday vs. workday, bad weather vs. good, etc.)

He also encourages learning about whether or not these calorie counts "shock people into buying/eating differently" and if so how long that shock lasts.

Intriguing questions, but I'd like to recommend that New Yorkers take things personally.

In other words, don't leave the studying up to the obesity researchers? Instead, Big Apple residents (or visitors), study your behavior and see just how these calorie counts affect you.

Rather than get upset with the city for taking such a bold stance, regard this as an opportunity to learn more about what you put into your mouth, because the better foods you eat, the better you feel.

Judge Upholds NYC Rule That Restaurant Chains Put Calorie Counts In Menus

U.S. District Judge Richard Holwell agreed with the New York City's health department that requiring restaurant chains to post calorie counts on their menus would help lower the obesity rate and upheld the city regulation requiring they do so.

So reports Colleen Long of the AP.

The New York State Restaurant Association, a lobbying group for New York's restaurant industry, argued that the regulation forced "convey the government's message regarding the importance of calories," violating the First Amendment. But apparently Judge Holwell didn't find that argument persuasive.

The rule requires restaurants with more than 15 outlets nationwide to post calorie information. This will now take effect on Monday, April 21.

Reporter Long reports that the restaurant association plans to ask the judge to stay his ruling pending an appeal, though.

Jennifer Moore for SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

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.

McDonald's Will Stop Pushing Its Food on Report Cards, Thanks to Grass-Roots Campaign

Note from Connie: Parents, I urge you to pay attention to this inspiring story. It shows the power of rallying people together to fight to toss junk-food ads out of your children's schools. Jennifer Moore brings you this report.

The onslaught of junk-food advertising aimed at kids sometimes seems unstoppable.

But thanks, in part, to one spirited mom in Seminole County, Florida, fast food giant McDonald's will stop using the report cards to push their products to 27,000 impressionable kids.

This positive development was reported by Stuart Elliot in the New York Times, Dave Weber in the Orlando Sentinel, and Emily Bryson York in Advertising Age magazine.

Things began when mother Susan Pagan was shocked when her fourth-grade daughter came home with a report card plastered with Ronald McDonald, the golden arches, and photos of Happy Meal items like Chicken McNuggets. (Being a mom to a young girl myself, I shudder to think how I'd react if my daughter arrived home with such a blatant ad, along with her grades.)

Hurrah for Pagan, because she wasn't content to take this lying down. The furious mother sounded the alarm by calling the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood (CFCC), who rounded up thousands of complaints from other angry parents.

Junk Food Manufacturers Unhappy About U.K.'s New Rules on TV Advertising of Unhealthy Foods to Kids

Over in the U.K., food companies that make sugary, less-than-healthy snacks and beverages are predictably unhappy about the idea that their ads won't be shown on television before 9 p.m. as part of phase two of the new British rules that restrict advertising unhealthy foods to children, FoodNavigator.com reports.

What intrigues me is how Great Britain even went so far as to restrict foods high in fat, sugar and salt. Clearly, our British brethen are way ahead of us Americans in limiting junk-food ads that children will see.

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.

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]."

Fitness Coach Peter K on Stop SUGAR SHOCK! Radio Today

Today's Stop SUGAR SHOCK! Radio Show at 2 p.m. EST on Blog Talk Radio will feature an interview with health and fitness coach Peter K.

Peter will share with you:

• 5 secrets you may not know about exercise.
• 5 best exercises  to do anywhere.

And we'll also chat about sugar and exercise --  do they mix?

FYI, Peter K also does his own show on BlogTalkRadio, which hosts my show. In fact, Peter recently interviewed me for his show. So now it's my turn to interview him.

Remember, you don't need to listen live. You can listen afterwards, at your convenience. Just click here to listen to any of my shows after they run.

American Schools Cut Back on Sugary, Fatty Foods, But Is There Enough Progress?

American schools are cutting back on sugary, fatty, unhealthy foods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

The survey -- which Will Dunham of Reuters and Kevin Sack of the New York Times covered -- found changes in school health policies from 2000 to 2006 that:

• 19% of schools served French fries in 2006, down from the 40% in 2000. This means 25,000 schools nationwide are no longer selling the fast-food fare.
• 30% of schools kicked junk food from vending machines, up from just 4% in 2000.
• 46% of schools now sell bottled water, up from 30% in 2000. (Curiously, though, 100% of schools aren't selling H20. Why not?).

However, schools certainly could be doing better:

• 12% percent of elementary schools, 19% of middle schools, and 24% of high schools still offer fast food from the likes of Taco Bell and Pizza Hut.
• 75% of high schools still sell soda, and 61% still offer potato chips or other processed snacks to high schoolers.
• Only 4% of elementary schools, 8% of middle schools and 2% of high schools follow the CDC's recommendation to provide daily gym class. And 20% of schools don't require any physical education at all.

Although progress has certainly been made, it's still disappointing that less-nutritious food still finds its way into schools.

But at least schools are starting to do take steps to improve food in the schools.

Jennifer Moore of the SUGAR SHOCK! Blog contributed to this post.

Tiger Woods & Gatorade Plan to Join Forces

I absolutely love Tiger Woods. I admire just about everything about him -- his poise, his physique, his talents, his sense of dignity, etc.

But now he's fallen off the pedestal for me. I just don't look up to him the way that I once did.

That's because of an article I read from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, in which AP reporter Doug Ferguson revealed that Gatorade and Tiger Woods are going to bed together, so to speak.

Evidently, Tiger Woods and Gatorade have teamed up to launch a new line of drinks called "Gatorade Tiger," which are scheduled to hit stores in March 2008.

And the arrangement offers Tiger Woods one hefty price tag: The golf hero could get as much as $100 million for promoting the drink, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

So, here's what I'm wondering. Just how much sugar will these drinks contain? As it is, no matter which drink you select, Gatorade already contains its share of sugar, whether it's sucrose, glucose or fructose.

I'm wondering: Why would Tiger Woods -- who little kids, teens and us adults admire and seek to emulate -- agree to push a sweet, sugary concoction, which his fans may then gulp in abandon, but they won't be exercising the way Tiger does?

Anyhow, if the current Gatorade is any indication, this new Tiger line of beverages will be plenty sweet, too.

Bummer.

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