Posted by Linda Bonvie -- December 18, 2014
Here at Food Identity Theft, we’ve dedicated a lot of time and effort to making our readers aware of the health risks caused by a number of common food additives, almost all of which are considered to be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration (with the exception of brominated vegetable oil). These include synthetic sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup and aspartame, neurotoxic flavor enhancers such as monosodium glutamate and related forms of free glutamic acid, and deadly trans fats that are said to be responsible for an estimated 7,000 annual heart disease fatalities.
Today, however, we’d like to discuss the problems associated with a supposedly “healthy” food ingredient that’s an actual food source, rather than just an additive –and that is arousing increasing concern because of the large number of processed products of which it’s an integral part.
We’re referring to soy.
Like corn, soy seems to be everywhere in our food supply. And a lot of consumers may still be under the impression that it’s a heart-healthy plant protein (remember the “tofu turkey”?), based on an FDA assessment to that effect made 15 years ago — a “final rule” that allowed foods containing soy protein to make advertising and labeling claims that 25 grams of soy protein a day, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease.
In the years since, an increasing number of experts have challenged that conventional wisdom about the alleged health benefits of soy. But one group, the Weston A. Price Foundation, whose self-described mission involves disseminating accurate, science-based information on diet and health, has taken such concerns a couple steps further.
First, back in August 2008, the group filed a citizen petition “based on the large body of scientific evidence that fails to support the soy protein health claim permitted by the FDA’s Final Rule,” and that raised “scientific evidence showing that soy protein consumption may have adverse health consequences, due to the presence of antinutrients, including protease inhibitors, phytates, lectins, saponins and oxalates, as well as phytoestrogens, in soy protein.
“To prevent consumers from continuing to be misled about the connection between soy protein and heart health,” that petition requested revocation of the FDA’s Final Rule, according to a news release issued by the Foundation. But the FDA failed to answer that petition and has continued to ignore it, despite a rule that within 180 days the agency must either approve or deny the petition, or provide a tentative response indicating why it has been unable to reach a decision.
Finally, this week, the Foundation ran out of patience, and filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that seeks to compel the FDA to provide a substantive response to the Citizen Petition that has remained in limbo for the past six years.
Prisoners sue over soy
But there’s a bit more to the story than that. For in the interim, the Foundation has seen for to sponsor another lawsuit has been instituted over soy used in food – this one filed by prisoners in Illinois who are claiming that the large amount of soy in their diet constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the eighth amendment, as well as a denial of their fourteenth amendment rights to due process.
Consuming excessive amounts of soy (which the plaintiffs claims was used to save money) are alleged to have resulted in a variety of ailments that included chronic gastrointestinal problems and pain, vomiting after eating, passing out, heart palpitations, rashes, acne, insomnia, panic attacks, depression and symptoms of hypothyroidism, such as low body temperature (feeling cold all the time), brain fog, fatigue, weight gain, frequent infections and thyroid disease.
Now, should you think such claims were being invented by convicts with too much time on their hands, they’ve been supported by several prominent experts, including Dr.David Brownstein, a physician, who maintained that the amount of soy fed to the plaintiffs was responsible for causing their health problems, including gastrointestinal distress and bowel dysfunction, vitamin deficiencies and thyroid disorders, and toxicologist Mike Fitzpatrick, PhD, who pointed out that the phytoestrogens in soy depress thyroid function and cause endocrine disruption, and that a mere 50 grams of soy can cause thyroid problems, including thyroid cancer.
Another expert witness, laboratory analysis expert William Shaw, noted that soy protein has the highest oxalate level of any known food and that the prisoners were receiving hundreds of milligrams of oxalates per day. “According to Shaw, virtually all of the plaintiffs’ health problems can be explained by their high-oxalate diet. The toxicity of oxalates is well established; oxalates can deposit sharp crystals not only in the kidneys, but in virtually every tissue and organ of the body, including joints, heart, blood vessels, teeth, gums, eyes, skin, brain, nerves, thyroid and thymus glands. Oxalates also block the absorption of many essential minerals, leading to malnutrition.”
Now, admittedly this can be a controversial topic. But regarding soy, the best advice we would offer our readers is that fermented soy products, such as tempeh, are probably a lot healthier than others – and that organic products containing soy ingredients are far preferable to conventional ones.
But even at best, soy is something that should certainly be consumed in “moderation.” Otherwise, you could conceivably find yourself eating a self-imposed diet similar to that of the Illinois prisoners who claim they have been subject to “cruel and unusual punishment.” And perhaps suffering many of the same reactions – although you may not be aware of the reasons why.
Posted by Linda Bonvie -- December 16, 2014
A couple weeks ago, we talked about how the use of the adjective “natural” has been disappearing from the labels of processed foods containing ingredients that are anything but. This development seems to have corresponded with the settlements of lawsuits over the use of such misleading terminology – most recently one against General Mills for falsely describing its Nature Valley Granola Bars, Crispy Squares and Trail Mix Bars as “100 percent natural.”
But there is one product out there — not a food, actually, but rather a food additive — that continues to describe itself in this manner, even though it’s manufactured by means of a process that’s distinctly unnatural. It’s the “all natural flavor enhancer” marketed as Accent, whose sole ingredient is listed as monosodium glutamate.
But the label hype doesn’t end there. While a serving size, which is about 1/8 of a teaspoon, does contain 80 mg of sodium, Accent still claims to have “60% less sodium than salt” and to actually be “more healthful than salt.” The label also suggests it be used as a way of making “meats, poultry, vegetables, soups and salads taste better.” In other words, sprinkled on foods just like salt (and pepper) – and used on any number of them, perhaps well in excess of a typical “serving.”
Only this isn’t anything like salt, and it’s hardly what one would call “healthful.” It’s an additive long associated with a wide range of ill effects, many far more serious than the “Chinese restaurant syndrome” coined many years ago. These include headaches and migraines, nausea and vomiting, constricted airways, facial numbness and seizures, as noted at the website of the Epilepsy Foundation, as well as rapid heartbeat and atrial fibrillation — a fact cited by the American Heart Association. (Such symptoms, of course, may be especially pronounced in certain individuals who are acutely sensitive to this substance, as a good many people are.) And that’s not to mention its having caused liver inflammation in lab rats.
Monosodium glutamate (also known as MSG, a term that applies as well to other additives that also contain processed free glutamic acid, such as hydrolyzed protein and autolyzed yeast) is also considered an “excitotoxin,” so named because it can literally excite certain brain cells to death. That’s especially true of children, in whom such neurological damage may also cause aggressive behavior.
And in certain highly sensitive individuals, it can also result in Alzheimer’s-like symptoms, as is described in Adrienne Samuels’ book, The Man Who Sued the FDA, about the years-long health crisis suffered by her late husband Jack as a result of the MSG concealed in many processed foods.
Glutamic acid run amok
The reason such symptoms occur is that unlike the natural glutamic acid that is “bound” inside certain protein-rich foods, which is known as L-glutamic acid (and which the industry cites as “proof” that it’s harmless), monosodium glutamate consists mostly of a form known as D-glutamic acid that’s “free” – as in free to wreak havoc on your health. While the monosodium glutamate was originally extracted from seaweed when it was first discovered more than a century ago, according to the company’s website, “the glutamate in Accent is made from corn.”
The MSG manufacturing process is described on the website of Eden Foods, which makes a line of MSG-free organic products, as one in which such bound glutamic acid “…is broken down or made ‘free of protein’ by various processes (hydrolyzed, autolyzed, modified or fermented with strong chemicals, acids, bacteria, or enzymes, which are often genetically modified) and refined to a white crystal powder that resembles salt or sugar.” It goes on to explain that:
This factory made version causes serious reactions. …When pure, manufactured, MSG is ingested a rapid effect occurs from the glutamate. This ‘free of protein’ glutamic acid, or glutamate unlike the naturally occurring ‘protein bound’ glutamate, is not attached to other amino acids. The normal digestive disassembly process does not happen because there are no ‘peptide’ bonds to slow the process. The sudden increase in free glutamic acid is then rapidly absorbed and can raise blood levels of glutamate eight to ten times causing toxicity.
What’s particularly alarming about the way Accent is marketed (complete with a graphic of various veggies and meats on its label) is that it represents an open invitation for any unwary shopper — especially one trying to cut down on salt — to buy it and add it to all kinds of home-cooked dishes that might ordinarily be healthier than the many processed and frozen convenience foods now available.
And, if served with one or more of the various snack foods that are also laced with monosodium glutamate and other forms of MSG (such as the Herr’s Old Bay snacks previously discussed in this blog, which many people may not realize contain it), that could be a real potential health disaster in the making for that person’s family and dinner guests.
Which is why going to someone’s house for a home-cooked meal might end up being just as hazardous to your health (if not more so) as anything that comes from your supermarket’s frozen-food shelf. And which is also why now might be the time to warn family members and friends about the dangers of this supposedly “natural” and healthful” salt substitute.
Posted by Linda Bonvie -- December 11, 2014
Sometimes, we can’t help feeling that consumers are, on the whole, better informed about issues affecting their health than some of the “expert sources” relied on by the media,
This past week, for example, various news organizations including the Associated Press, ABC News, and the Chicago Tribune trumpeted the news: Hershey’s, the 120-year-old chocolate icon, announced its intention to review and reconsider its use of the industrial sweetener high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in its popular syrups and several other products.
The fact that Hershey’s may become the latest company – as well as one of the largest — to ditch HFCS and revert to actual sugar should have been a fairly easy story for a professional journalist to factually report. But unfortunately the media missed the mark on key aspects of it.
The Associated Press story, which was used by other media, including ABC News and the Huffington Post, reflects how easily reporters can be misled. It began its coverage by quoting Will Papa, Hershey’s chief research and development officer, that the company is “moving more toward sugar” because “we take into account what consumers want. And consumers are telling us between the two, they prefer sugar.”
So far, so good. But then the industry spin machine immediately kicked in.
Instead of using the long-accepted way of presenting a news story involving anything controversial – that is, presenting pros and cons from various sources — the article quotes only those whose position is that HFCS in products is really not a problem. It then uses these one-sided opinions to claims that while many people say they avoid HFCS because it has gained a bad reputation for fueling weight gain and diabetes, “health experts says there’s not enough evidence to conclude it’s any worse than regular sugar.” (Here’s a pointer on reading such stories. Whenever an article involving science says “not enough evidence,” that’s usually opinion rather than fact, and a good indicator you’re being misled.)
It then notes that the American Medical Association has maintained “there’s not enough evidence to specifically restrict the use of high-fructose corn syrup.” But restricting the use of HFCS was never the issue. The issue is that large amounts of HFCS—larger than the rules permit or the labels say—are routinely used by food companies and that a number of scientific studies have concluded this is hazardous to our health. It also fails to notes that “fructose” is the problem, as are the amounts of it used in HFCS. (When fructose is free and unbound, as it is in high fructose corn syrup, it goes directly to the liver, causing a number of potential health problems, according to many scientists.)
The article also notes that “The Center for Science in the Public Interest, has said that there’s no evidence that the sweetener is any worse nutritionally than sugar” – a statement that also overlooks significant scientific research and testimony to the contrary. It is one thing for CSPI to be unconvinced by the evidence that exists. It is quite another to write the negative evidence out of the equation altogether, which again misleads consumers (as well as companies reading this).
News or CRA propaganda?
But perhaps the worst aspect of the AP story was its extensive use of the Corn Refiners Association as a source, reflecting how the CRA takes every opportunity to mislead reporters on the subject. In fact, much of it reads like a press release put out by the CRA in response to the Hershey’s statements, with several paragraphs devoted to the corn refiners’ standard talking points, including quotes from CRA President Jack Bode and the results of a market research survey the group had commissioned purporting to show that two-thirds of consumers think “moderation” is more important than types of sweeteners. (Of course, the fact that “moderation” is nearly impossible when it comes to the widespread use of HFCS was never brought up.)
Then there’s the Chicago Tribune, which repeats an all-too-common media misidentification of high fructose corn syrup in both its story and headline as simply “corn syrup,” a much older ingredient that contains no fructose, but which can also be found in Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup — a mistake that’s no doubt pleasing to the CRA, which has been trying for some time to drop “high fructose” from the name. ( In fact, we discussed this common misidentification in a blog back in February. And while a Hershey’s spokesman specifically refers to “high fructose corn syrup” in the second paragraph, the story refers twice more to the wrong product, first noting that “the move … comes at a critical time for the makers of corn syrup, which have been facing more scrutiny from public health officials and nutrition experts and falling demand in the United States.”
At least the Tribune got that latter part right – even if it did show pictures of Hershey’s chocolate bars (which don’t contain any HFCS).
The point is that increasingly over the past decade, consumers have been actively avoiding products containing HFCS – and with good reasons for doing so. This widespread and accelerating change in public perception has prompted a desperate last-ditch effort by the CRA to save its sinking sweetener – and seizing every opportunity to use the news media for that purpose is all part of the strategy. Reporters, who should know better, need to stop relying on trade groups such as the CRA as their primary sources of information.
Consumers already have – and in that sense, are a lot more savvy.
Posted by Linda Bonvie -- December 9, 2014
Bread. It’s as old as civilization, and so fundamental to our diets that it’s long been used as a synonym for food itself – reflected in such sayings as “without bread all is misery,” by British journalist William Cobbett, or the Russian proverb “with a piece of bread in your hand you’ll find paradise under a pine tree.”
Real bread enthusiasts, of course, usually bake their own, which has been made a lot easier by the availability of bread machines. Or if they don’t have time, they probably opt for special artisan breads offered by private or in-store bakeries.
But for most consumers, the bread of choice is probably one of those sliced and packaged loaves found in the bread aisles of supermarkets. So it’s hardly surprising that the leading manufacturers of such products attempt to appeal to the traditional sense of comfort that bread conveys by making them look and sound as homespun and natural as possible.
Take Pepperidge Farm “Farmhouse” breads. “The bakers at Pepperidge Farm have been making great tasting breads for over 70 years…breads baked with care, using the perfect combination of wholesome, flavorful ingredients,” reads the copy on the package, which also includes the assurance that it’s American Heart Association Certified and meets the organizations “criteria for heart healthy food.”
But how “wholesome” and “heart healthy” can a product be that contains high fructose corn syrup, the cheap laboratory sweetener that various studies at leading universities have linked to obesity, diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease … and, yes, heart disease? (For example, a University of California at Davis study which examined 48 adults between the ages of 18 and 40 and found that those who consumed high fructose corn syrup for two weeks as 25 percent of their daily calorie requirement had “increased blood levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, which have been shown to be indicators of increased risk for heart disease.”)
And those aren’t the only Pepperidge Farm bread products with HFCS. It can also be found in the company’s “Swirl” breads and in its “Bakery Classics” 100% Whole Wheat Hamburger Rolls that are described as “timeless and without pretense” and that “stand for quality with premium ingredients perfectly orchestrated with a baker’s touch.”
But oddly enough, if you look at the Pepperidge Farm Whole Grain Oatmeal Bread, displayed prominently on the package is the message that it provides “100% of your day’s worth of whole grain with No High Fructose Corn Syrup.”
It would appear, then, that this company is well aware that a large and growing number of consumers are rejecting any products with HFCS, but hedging its bets in deciding whether to drop it – and advertise the fact – or allow it to quietly remain as a listed ingredient.
Similar ambiguity can be seen when one examines the packaged breads put out by Stroehmann, another commercial baking company that tries to give off a homey image. The message on it’s “Dutch Country” 100% Whole Wheat, for example, while talking about how it compares to other foods in vitamins and calcium and proudly proclaiming that “Whole wheat is our first ingredient,” never mentions that high fructose corn syrup is their third. On the other hand, Stroehmann Honey Wheat bread lets you know right up front that it’s “made with real honey and NO high fructose corn syrup.”
Of the three bread brands that make a point of appealing to consumers looking for a relatively inexpensive “natural” appearing bread, the Arnold Baking Co. is the one that most deserves the award for sincerity – and consistency, in that every one of its products makes a point of having “no high fructose corn syrup.
We’ve said it before, and we’ll keep saying it again – if you wish to avoid HFCS (and a whole bunch of other atrocious additives), you often can’t depend on the brand. You need to look carefully at the ingredients label before you buy bread or any other form of processed food.
What’s in a name? A lot, when the name is ‘fructose’ and the product it’s in claims to have ‘no HFCS’
Posted by Linda Bonvie -- December 4, 2014
By BILL BONVIE
If you’re trying to avoid high fructose corn syrup — as well you should be — one of the products you’d probably gravitate to is General Mills Vanilla Chex with natural vanilla flavor and “no high fructose corn syrup” (one of several additives it claims not to contain on the front of the box).
But before you buy it, confident that it will help protect your family against the various health problems like diabetes and obesity that studies have linked to all that ‘free fructose’ in HFCS, you might also want to check out the list of actual ingredients on the side of the package.
Because one of the things you’ll find on that list is “fructose” – a term that, according to the Corn Refiners Association, is now used to describe something previously known as HFCS-90, meaning that it is 90 percent fructose, as contrasted with regular HFCS, which contains either 42 or 55 percent.
Here’s what the CRA’s website, corn.org, has to say on the subject under the section on “high fructose corn syrups” (something brought to our attention just this week by “Food Babe” Vani Hari):
“A third product, HFCS-90, is sometimes used in natural and ‘light’ foods, where very little is needed to provide sweetness. Syrups with 90% fructose will not state high fructose corn syrup on the label, they will state ‘fructose’ or ‘fructose syrup’.”
And that’s something we here at Food Identity Theft find very, very interesting – the reason being that HFCS-90 is a product that our sponsoring organization, Citizens for Health, has been concerned about for quite some time.
In fact, this past August, CFA amended a petition it had originally submitted back in 2012 to the Food and Drug Administration asking that labeling be required specifying the amounts of fructose in products containing HFCS. The petition was revised to include a request that food companies be notified that “any product containing HFCS sweetener with more than 55% fructose is considered to be adulterated” under federal regulations and “cannot be sold in interstate commerce.”
That petition has received more than 10,000 favorable comments – and only one dissenting one, from the CRA itself, which, as we noted in a subsequent blog, cited outdated data used as the basis for the FDA’s original designation of HFCS as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), and erroneously maintained that there were no limits placed by the agency on the amount of fructose HFCS can contain.
“Our food should not have HFCS with a fructose concentration above 55%,” CFH maintained, adding that if a food company wishes to use a higher amount than that, it must file a food additive petition for the amount it seeks to use and at all times “identify the percent of fructose in HFCS that it is using.”
Apparently, however, the corn refiners had a different idea, simply eliminating the high fructose corn syrup designation for the laboratory sweetener that’s nine-tenths fructose and calling it what it really is: fructose. And that’s how a processed-food product like Vanilla Chex that contains “fructose,” a substance that, according to the corn refiners, used to be called HFCS-90, can now declare itself to be high fructose corn syrup-free.
It’s also why you can safely assume that, until proven otherwise, any product that lists “fructose” as an ingredient actually contains an illicit form of high fructose corn syrup – one with way too high an amount of fructose to allow it to be formally recognized as HFCS.
A growing presence in processed foods
But the cereal aisle isn’t the only place where you’re apt to find products apparently containing the sweetener formerly known as HFCS-90, as a spot check of our local supermarket revealed. In fact, the word “fructose” seems to be popping up with increasing frequency on lists of ingredients for various processed foods.
Take protein bars, for instance. It seems to have been added to just about all of the standard brands — including the entire line of Nature Valley Protein Chewy Bars, Quaker Protein Baked Bars and Kellogg’s Special K Protein Bars.
Another item where we found it was in a bag of sweet-chili-flavored Quaker Popped rice snacks (formerly “Quakes”). Described as a snack choice “you can feel good about,” the product also contains monosodium glutamate, hydrolyzed protein and yeast extract, a trio of excitoxins that, taken together with the fructose, might easily qualify this Quaker product as one of the worst snack choices you could possibly make.
So if you’ve noticed that some product you bought contained “fructose” and were wondering what the manufacturer meant by that, now you know – that is, if the CRA can be taken at its word, Only instead of having to get FDA approval for a name change, as they failed to get last year for HFCS itself when they attempted to rename it “corn sugar,” the corn refiners have simply opted to call it “fructose.”
But don’t be fooled – that’s not the natural fructose found in fruit, which is bound together with fiber. Nor is it the fructose that’s bound with an equal amount of glucose to form sucrose, commonly known as sugar. It’s fructose that’s been converted from the glucose in corn through a complex process of enzymatic transformation – the kind that’s been identified by researchers as a chief culprit in obesity, diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and a host of other health problems.
In other words, the same kind found in high fructose corn syrup – only in a much greater concentration.
Bill Bonvie is the author of “Repeat Offenders,” a collection of previously published essays now available at Amazon.com
Posted by Linda Bonvie -- December 2, 2014
For a long time the word “natural” was perhaps the most overhyped and ambiguous term to be used by the food industry. But it looks like that may be changing, despite the failure of the Food and Drug Administration to give it a clear-cut definition.
The latest indication of that is the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Center for Science in the Public Interest against General Mills for misusing the term in describing its Nature Valley Granola Bars, Crispy Squares and Trail Mix Bars as “100 percent natural.” The company has now agreed to refrain from such terminology if those products contain such highly processed ingredients as high-fructose corn syrup, high-maltose corn syrup and dextrose monohydrate.
The settlement is one CSPI believes will help “nudge” the marketplace away from such ambiguous or shaky claims. And, in fact, the strategy may be working, as indicated by a survey of our local supermarket where most uses of “natural” now seem to be limited to products that list no unnatural-sounding ingredients.
But there are still a few that might be regarded as misleading, as we noted last May in a blog prompted by another such settlement, in which Kellogg’s agreed to stop using such phrases as “all natural” and “nothing artificial” on various products in its Kashi and Bear Naked lines.
One is Minute Maid Premium fruit drinks, which has continued to display the words “100% Natural” on its cartons with the word “flavors” in smaller letters underneath. That might easily lead a customer to assume that it describes the entire product, when these drinks contain the very unnatural laboratory sweetener high fructose corn syrup.
But we did find one that might be considered a far more flagrant example of the misuse of “natural” – or to be more specific, “naturals.” That would be Del Monte Quality “fruit naturals” – the ones with no sugar added, like the red grapefruit variety “in artificially sweetened water.” According to the ingredients list, those synthetic sweeteners include both sucralose and acesulfame potassium (acesulfame K), an insufficiently tested substance containing methylene chloride, a known carcinogen that can cause headaches, depression, mental confusion, nausea and vision problems, and affect the liver and kidneys.
As for sucralose (a.k.a.Splenda), as we reported here back in September, research done at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis found that it had diabetes-promoting effects in human test subjects. It has also been linked to gastrointestinal problems, such as inflammatory bowel disease, and been reported to cause migraines.
But while it may seem obvious that something with artificial sweeteners or high fructose corn syrup hardly qualifies as “natural,’ other uses of the word remain in a gray area – and it’s becoming more and more apparent that industry executives are becoming leery of them.
There is, however, one “all natural” claim being made on the label of a product available in your supermarket that you may find a bit shocking – along with another claim made on the same label. We’ll be talking about that in an upcoming blog – stay tuned.
Posted by Linda Bonvie -- November 27, 2014
Because to really make your holiday’s “merry and bright” you have to toss all those fake and toxic foods out the window. Or better yet, don’t bring them into your house in the first place.
Check out our blogs next week when we dare to venture into that tangled jungle of food labeling called “natural.”
Almost anything goes where “natural” is concerned, even a laboratory concoction like high fructose corn syrup.
Don’t think that makes the “natural” grade? Well General Mills appears to.
Posted by Linda Bonvie -- November 25, 2014
By BILL BONVIE
Okay, we know it’s almost Thanksgiving, and we certainly don’t want to put a damper on the festive Norman Rockwell-type dinner you may be planning.
What we would like to do, however, is help you to avoid certain products that are being promoted as ideal for the occasion, but which can only serve to mar your holiday feast with some very unhealthy and undesirable ingredients.
While there are undoubtedly a number of items fitting that description that are now being sold in your local supermarket, we’d like to “talk turkey” about three in particular that we found being prominently displayed at ours.
So here, in descending order, are what we consider to be the very worst “foods” you could put on your Thanksgiving table – and some suggested alternatives:
Ocean Spray Jellied Cranberry Sauce
“Ocean Spray cranberry sauce has been a tradition at our table for generations,” says the copy on the can. But one thing that was not part of that “tradition” was the high fructose corn syrup this “sauce” contains, which various studies have linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease pancreatic cancer, and other serious health problems.
Instead of ruining something that has so many health benefits, you might want to try a brand with no HFCS – like Woodstock Farms or Pacific Organic Jellied Cranberry Sauce. Or better yet, with just a little extra effort, you can serve “real homemade” cranberry sauce by buying a bag of whole cranberries in the produce section, on which you’ll usually find a recipe. Combine cranberries, sugar and water and cook on a low heat till the berries “pop.” It’s that simple!
Kraft Stove Top Savory Herbs Stuffing Mix
“If it’s not Stove Top, it’s not Thanksgiving,” goes the slogan on a commercial that shows an actor dressed as a pilgrim who “faked an attack of scurvy” to get out of a Thanksgiving dinner that didn’t include Stove Top.
Unfortunately, including this kind of stuffing in your festivities might just cause some guests to suffer symptoms similar to his simulated scurvy attack. That’s because two of its ingredients are the neurotoxic flavor enhancer monosodium glutamate and hydrolyzed soy protein, a related form of free glutamate, which have been associated with a whole range of adverse reactions that include migraines, shortness of breath, nausea and vomiting, seizures, rage reactions and atrial fibrillation (to name just a few). And that’s not the only unsavory stuff this stuffing is made of. It also contains high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil, which the Food and Drug Administration has identified as a cause of heart disease and about 7,000 fatal heart attacks a year (and has now been linked to memory loss), and the petroleum-based preservatives BHA and BHT, which are banned or restricted in other countries.
If you don’t have time to make your own stuffing by following one of the recipes offered on the Internet, try an organic brand like Arrowhead Mills Organic Savory Herb Stuffing .
Betty Crocker Pineapple Upside-Down Cake Mix
This cake mix really takes the cake as a coronary just waiting to happen – especially if one of your dinner guests suffers from a pre-existing heart condition. While the front of the package advertises that it’s made “with real pineapple,” and talks about calories (350 per serving), saturated fat (2.5 grams), sodium and sugars, what you learn by looking at the Nutrition Facts Panel is that it contains enough partially hydrogenated oil to make for a whopping 3 grams of trans fat per serving! (Keep in mind that most products containing PHOs take advantage of the loophole that allows anything with .5 grams or less per serving to be listed as zero.)
And that’s not to mention the aluminum it contains in the form of sodium aluminum phosphate – a substance that has now been linked to Alzheimer’s disease. (And don’t forget that new research linking PHO consumption to memory loss, providing a kind of double whammy for your brain as well.) In short, if we were giving an award for the very worst thing you could put on your Thanksgiving table, the pineapple upside-down cake made from this mix would win hands-down.
If your heart’s set on a pineapple upside down cake for dessert (and, yes, pineapple, like cranberries, has numerous health benefits), you’re best off making one yourself, using organic ingredients whenever possible and following a recipe like the one offered at this site. (And remember, when you buy baking powder, make sure it’s free of aluminum.)
Just remember – by avoiding products with the kinds of atrocious (and unnecessary) additives found in the above troublesome trio, you can help assure that your Thanksgiving celebration will be a far healthier one. And that will make it a lot happier for everyone at your table.
Bill Bonvie’s newly published essay collection “Repeat Offenders” is now available at Amazon.com
Posted by Linda Bonvie -- November 21, 2014
Food Identity Theft Special Report
A lot of coverage was given this week to the University of California at San Diego study that found regular consumption of partially hydrogenated oil (PHO), the major source of trans fat in the American diet, may impair your memory —perhaps even faster than it clogs your arteries.
But there was an important question that the media failed to raise in reporting on this latest research, which was presented Tuesday at the American Heart Association’s annual meeting in Chicago. The question is this: whatever became of that “preliminary determination” made a year ago this month by the Food and Drug Administration that PHO should be removed from the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list and phased out of processed foods?
As we reported back in early September, that proposal seems to have stalled – quite possibly as a result of a backlash from the food industry. In fact, when we contacted the FDA to find out where it stood, we were told in in an email from Marianna Naum, Ph.D. of the Strategic Communications and Public Engagement Staff of the FDA’s Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine, that “We continue to review comments to the proposal and at this time aren’t able to conjecture on date of next action.”
But if the FDA’s own estimate of 7,000 deaths a year from trans fat-induced heart attacks wasn’t enough to prompt it to take further action, maybe the results of this new study will finally provide sufficient fuel to build a fire under the agency.
The UCSD researchers tested more than 1,000 young and middle-aged men who had not yet been diagnosed with heart disease after having them fill out questionnaires about their dietary habits. The amount of trans fat that each subject ordinarily consumed could be estimated from the information they provided.
The subjects were then given a “recurrent word” in which they were asked to remember whether certain words had already been shown to them on a series of 104 flash cards. When the results were compiled, it was found that the ones who ate the most PHOs could recall 11 or 12 fewer words than their peers, even when other factors were taken into account.
Study author Dr. Beatrice Golomb, a professor of medicine at the college, described that as “a pretty big detriment to function,” given that the average number of words accurately recalled was 86. In fact, the researchers were able to estimate that every additional gram a day of trans fat consumed resulted in 0.76 fewer words committed to memory.
Now admittedly, this was only circumstantial evidence – an “association” between trans fat and memory loss, rather than direct proof. But it is Golomb’s hypothesis that trans fats do far more than damage the cardiovascular system. She considers them to be “metabolic poisons” whose energy-sapping oxidative effects can effectively put brain cells that retain memories out of commission and even cause them to die off.
Interestingly enough, what inspired the UCSD team to conduct this study was a finding that eating chocolate actually seems to enhance our ability to remember. Since chocolate is an antioxidant that ‘supports cell energy” in the hippocampus, the part of the brain most associated with memory, it caused the researchers to wonder whether trans fats, which are known to cause oxidation in cells and deplete their energy, might have the opposite effect.
Trans fat still very much a part of our diet
A quick scan of items in the supermarket this week has revealed that many of them still contain PHOs, although most list the amount of trans fat as zero, taking advantage of the FDA loophole that allows .5 grams or less of trans fat per serving to be totally discounted. Those amounts, however, can add up quickly – particularly when multiple ‘servings” are consumed, or several items containing PHO is on the menu.
An example of the latter could well be a Thanksgiving dinner that includes Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom with Roasted Garlic and Stove Top Stuffing, whose ingredients include partially hydrogenated soybean oil (but list zero trans fat) and Marie Callender’s Pumpkin Pie, which has so much partially hydrogenated soybean oil that it actually lists a gram of trans fat (and how about those guests who want a second piece of pie?)
Other PHO-containing items included several varieties of Nabisco cookies, such as Nutter Butter, original Chips Ahoy and “100% Whole Grain Fig Newtons”; Betty Crocker Supreme Brownie Mix and Duncan Hines Chewy Fudge Brownie mix, Hostess Twinkies (of course); several types of fruit-flavored snacks, and Tastykake Donut Holes (which oddly enough, claim to be “made fresh daily,” even though PHO is used primarily to preserve shelf life of products).
Those, and more, could add up to a pretty hefty amount of the stuff on a daily basis– enough to not only bring on heart disease, but to make you pretty forgetful, perhaps even about how much junk food you eat on any given day.
But then, as Dr. Martha Daviglus, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Medicine and executive director of the Institute for Minority Health Research, put it in regard to this latest research: “We have to be careful with what we eat because it has consequences.”
And so does the inaction of the FDA in regard to its own determination that a widely used food additive is a major hazard to the health and the lives of American consumers – one that, according to the agency’s own estimate, will have killed another 7,000 or so of them in the time since it concluded that this particular substance ought to be removed from what we eat.
Posted by Linda Bonvie -- November 20, 2014
As the inventors of corn flakes, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and his younger brother, W. K. Kellogg, both Seventh Day Adventists, were what some might consider “health nuts.” And, in fact, the Kellogg company web site now refers to the fact that W.K. who founded the original company back in 1906, was “motivated by a passion to help people improve their health.”
Of course, W.K. did add a little sugar to make those corn flakes more appealing, a decision thath didn’t sit too well with his older brother, the proprietor of the Battle Creek Sanitarium.
Still, one can only wonder how either Kellogg would have reacted to the sight of supermarket shelves lined with Kellogg’s Pop Tarts, the “toaster pastries” sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, which has been linked by various studies to obesity, diabetes and a host of other health problems. And that’s not to mention the artificial colors and other additives typically listed among their ingredients.
But wait — could it be that the ghostly echoes of the Kellogg brothers’ displeasure are being heard lately at company headquarters? Or is it just the disapproval of consumers who have been increasingly turned off by products containing the laboratory sweetener (such as the one we heard from who reported having complained to the company about the HFCS in those Pop Tarts)?
Whatever the motivation, it recently came to our attention that Kellogg’s is showing signs of having second thoughts about that particular ingredient. At least to the extent of marketing a couple “new” varieties of Pop Tarts – one being Oatmeal Delights, whose box boasts “No High Fructose Corn Syrup.” In fact, the positioning of that claim, just beneath the Pop Tarts logo, could even be interpreted to mean all the products in that category.
There’s also the claim posted on the company’s web site that yet another new product, Pop-Tarts Low-Fat Frosted Strawberry Toaster Pastries “contains no high fructose corn syrup” as well.
So could this mean that the folks at Kellogg’s are finally making a line of Pop Tarts that are more in keeping with the founders’ healthy intentions? Well, not quite.
Nearly all of the various types of Pop Tarts we examined at our local supermarket still contain HFCS, along with those artificial colors that have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. So much for the impression those “No High Fructose Corn Syrup” claims might give to a mom in a hurry that Pop Tarts can now be relied on to contain none of the unnatural sweetener.
And even the Oatmeal Delights Pop Tarts that are touted as HFCS-free contain fructose – along with two synthetic colors, Red 40 and Yellow 6, and the petroleum-derived preservative TBHQ.
Two-and-half-years ago, we endeavored to find out why there was still HFCS in Pop Tarts and other Kellogg’s products. Those popular breakfast treats still contain it, we were informed, because the company hadn’t yet found a replacement ingredient that “gives them the same texture and brown look that customers expect and are accustomed to.”
Not that Kellogg’s wasn’t continuing to search for one – and may or may not have found it in whatever formula it is using to make the new ones that brag about having “no high fructose corn syrup.”
Still, one might think that a company with a “Breakfast Council” made up of “six independent experts dedicated to helping all of us understand nutrition information and how to incorporate nutritious foods and habits into our diets” could do a little better than that.
Especially when its founders were so intent on trying to make the world a healthier place.