Earlier this week, The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) published an open letter to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) asking the government organization to stop its affiliation with The Coca Cola Company. From CSPI’s press release:

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute should not partner with Coca-Cola to raise awareness of heart disease among women…overweight and obesity are prime risk factors for heart disease, and the agency shouldn’t be bolstering the dismal reputation of the Coca-Cola Company, the world’s biggest manufacturer of obesigenic soft drinks

…Supermodel Heidi Klum is described on the government web site as the “Diet Coke heart health ambassador.”

…”Coke has long sought to affiliate with or co-opt health groups, and associate its brand with athletes and models. I fervently hope that NHLBI officials understand that letting Coke bask in their agency’s good reputation does American hearts far more harm than good.” read more…

What you need to know:

This is not the first nor last sponsorship of health organizations by the Coca Cola company. Just a few months ago we wrote about the $600,000 contribution to the American Association of Family Physicians, to be used “to  educate consumers about the role their products can play in a healthy, active lifestyle.” Yeah, right.

If you’re thinking, this is OK, Diet Coke does not contribute to obesity and heart disease, you may want to reconsider:

1. Our body gets confused by artificial sweeteners that may actually promote weight gain.
2. We’re “Infantilizing” our taste sense and as a result natural sweets like fruit aren’t as appetizing.
3. The long term health effects of artificial sweeteners are unclear.

While Coke is just one example, what we’re seeing is a generally accepted norm. Non-profit organizations, and even government bodies, have to accept money from the very corporations that contribute to the maladies they are trying to prevent. Crazy no?

You may argue and say that unlike cigarettes, no one food can kill you, and what about fun factor. Sure thing, but a company that deals in good vibes and lifestyle should stick to sponsoring music events and beach parties, not health and diet related associations.

Consider that even this country’s ultimate food and nutrition advisor – the American Dietetic Association – is sponsored by the likes of Coke and Mars. When I asked dietitians about this, some were agnostic while others pragmatically explained that there is no other way to fund research and educational activities that will ultimately benefit consumers.

Such is the state of affairs in America,  2010.

What to do at the supermarket:

It’s hard to quantify the compound effect of all these sponsorships, but you certainly can do your share to show you know better. Ignore the marketing messages on cans and boxes. Stick to the nutrition facts panel and ingredient lists of products you are considering. And specifically referring to soft drinks, whether sugary or non-caloric, did you know that you can save $500 for a family of four, just by switching to tap water?

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Minute Maid, a subsidiary of the Coca Cola Company best known for its lines of fruit juices, has been reprimanded, albeit lightly, by the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB). NAD found that commercials for it’s “Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored 100% Juice Blend” made memory boosting claims which are not scientifically supported.

The commercials (see above an example) are actually quite cute, but are they truthful? And what exactly is in this confusingly-long-and-hard-to-remember-product-name blend? Read more…

Taxing soda pop, which seemed like a crazy idea just 12 months ago, is gaining traction with academics and politicians.

Recently, President Obama said a soda tax is “an idea that we should be exploring.” And in a research paper published yesterday by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a team of 7 scientists recommend taxing every fluid ounce of sugary soft drink by one penny. Those pennies add up to $15 billion annually that the federal government can spend on consumer education and healthcare.

The recommendations are based on research that shows:

1. consumption of sugary drinks has directly contributed to obesity in the US.

2. raising the price of soft drinks will reduce its consumption.

Of course the beverage industry is all over this, and in it multimillion dollar campaign, including a website nofoodtaxes.com, states:

Discriminatory and punitive taxes on soda and juice drinks do not teach our children to have a healthy lifestyle and have no meaningful impact on child obesity or public health. They just further burden working families already struggling in this trying economy.

Muhtar Kent, CEO of the Coca Cola Company calls a soda tax “outrageous” and likens the very thought of it to a communist conspiracy:

“I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink. It if worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.”

Mr Kent is right, the government shouldn’t decide for consumers what to eat or drink.

But it should protect consumers from unscrupulous corporations who are literally shoving junk food and drinks down our throats. Everywhere we turn, soft drink machines, snack dispensers, candies, chocolate bars, more soda, more snacks. Not to mention the endless commercials, advertisements, and other branding brainwashing activities all aimed to increase our consumption and their profit.

However, as we have suggested in the past, taxing the consumer is not the way to go.

What the government should do is to tax these corporations, big time. This, through mechanisms similar to carbon offsets in the industrial sector. Let’s call these calorie offsets for now.

Here’s how calorie offsets would work:

for every ton of added sweetener (sugar or corn syrup), a company would contribute $3000 to government programs aimed at obesity reduction. Three thousand dollars is equivalent to the penny per ounce tax suggested by the NEJM.

This suggestion will likely infuriate Mr. Kent and his friends at the ABA even more than taxing consumers. So what. Coca Cola and PepsiCo are among the most profitable companies in the food industry. The Coca Cola company, worth $120 Billion, had a net profit of $6 billion last year on sales of $30 billion. Not bad for a company that sells water and fizz mixed with high fructose corn syrup and artificial colors.

What are the advantages of Calorie Offsets?

1. They reduce the profitability of sugary drinks and encourage manufacturers to shift to healthier products.

2. If a company chooses to raise prices of soft drinks to maintain margins, that’s perfectly fine. Market forces will work for the benefit of the consumer. Shoppers will now revolt against said company by buying from its competitor. The government won’t be the scapegoat. We’ll see then who’s accused of discriminatory and punitive taxes.

3. The offset money will be marked and used, of course, to undo the the damage to the public health and to educate the public.

To summarize, as their customers are getting fatter and sicker, beverage industry shareholders are getting richer and richer. The government should require these companies to directly foot the bill for the damage that they are causing to the public.

What to do at the supermarket:

A suggestion for those of you concerned about a potential soda tax – A family of 4 can save $500 a year just by switching from soft drinks to tap water.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

A bit of good news this week. 16 million less Americans are drinking sugary soft drinks now compared to 6 years ago (68% of adults vs 76%). This, from a report published by Mintel, a marketing research firm.

What are we drinking instead?
That’s the bad news:
1. 7.8 million switched to diet soft drinks.
2. 24 million added bottled water to their shopping carts. (the healthiest choice, but oh so many plastic bottles…)
3. 17 million more gulped down energy drinks. (the caffeine, the calories…)
4. 11 million additional future Olympians opted for sports drinks. (the broken dream of  enhancement…)

The study also found that 16% of Americans are concerned about high-fructose corn syrup, while 15% are worried about artificial sweeteners in diet drinks.

At the same time, an academic research report affirms what dietitians have been telling us for quite some time: cutting calories from sugary drinks may be more effective for weight loss than reducing the same amount in solid foods.

The study was  conducted by Liwei Chen, M.D., Ph.D., M.H.S., assistant professor of epidemiology, School of Public Health, LSU Health Science Center, New Orleans and published this week in  the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

One reason for this [finding] is that the body is able to self-regulate its intake of solid food. For example, if you eat too much solid food at lunch, you’ll tend to eat less at dinner. But the same self-regulation is not there for what you drink, experts say. Your body does not adjust to liquid calories, so over time, you gain more weight, Chen explained.

Thestudy “supports what many have suspected — liquid calories don’t satisfy,” said Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis. “In addition, the identification that [sugar-sweetened beverages] can impact weight gain more than other liquids is an important message as Americans continue to work to lower their calories.”

more details…

What you need to know:

Soft drinks are a very lucrative market for the food industry. The raw materials are dirt cheap (water, sugar, food coloring), and the returns are very high.

The top 2 players in the US, The Coca Cola Company and PepsiCo, are well aware of shifting trends in consumer preferences and have plenty to continue to offer us from their quiver of brands picked up over years of consolidation.

What to do at the supermarket:

Here’s a radical idea. Why not skip the beverage aisle next time you go shopping?

Tap water in the US is clean, refreshing, and of negligible cost.

In fact, a family of 4 will save over $500 in grocery bills by just quitting soft drinks.

What are you waiting for?

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

vitamins + water + sugar + hype = soda – bubbles

A consumer advocacy group has filed a class action lawsuit against the Coca-Cola Company for:

deceptive and unsubstantiated claims on its Vitamin Water line of beverages. Coke markets Vitamin Water as a healthful alternative to soda by labeling its several flavors with such health buzz words as “defense,” “rescue,” “energy,” and “endurance.” The company makes a wide range of dramatic claims, including that its drinks variously reduce the risk of chronic disease, reduce the risk of eye disease, promote healthy joints, and support optimal immune function.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) further points out:

1. Sugar, suagr. The 33 grams of sugar in each 20 oz bottle of Vitamin Water cause more damage by promoting obesity, rather than good through their vitamin content.
2. Where’s the fruit? Although the different bottles have fruity names such as “endurance peach mango”, they actually contain less than 1% fruit juice.
3. False claims. The health statements on Vitamin Water labels are fraudulent and not in line with structure/function claims allowed by the FDA.

Read the entire press release...

What you need to know:

Beverage manufacturers know that their consumers are shifting away from soda pop and looking for healthy alternatives.  Selling expensive water can still generate healthy profits, they’ve learned. Especially if you add some nutrition. Vitamins are naturally bitter, and the 6 teaspoonfuls of sugar in each bottle help to mask the awful flavor. But all those empty calories, along with unsubstantiated health claims, create an artificial health halo.

This just goes to teach consumers, once again, not to trust a product’s health claims. Rather, be vigilant and check the product’s full nutrition label.

What to do at the supermarket:

CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson sums it up nicely, “My advice to consumers is to get your vitamins from real food.” To which we add, get your water from the tap, or buy bottles with nothing but H20. just don’t forget to recycle all those plastic bottles.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Stevia has received the coveted GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status from the FDA. The New York Times reports:

Federal regulators have approved two versions of a new zero-calorie sweetener developed by the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo, paving the way for new products.

Cargill, which is marketing the sweetener Truvia from Coca-Cola, said on Wednesday that it had received notification from the Food and Drug Administration that it had no objection to the product, calling it “generally recognized as safe.”

PepsiCo said it also had received a no-objection letter and the same designation from the agency related to its sweetener, PureVia.

Read more…

This further establishes rumors from Tuesday that Coca Cola will introduce 3 stevia sweetened juices later this week. In parallel, Cargill is launching an ad campaign to start educating the public about their branded product, Truvia.

What you need to know:

Stevia is a South American Plant from the sunflower family, grown and used by locals for its sweet tasting leaves. Stevia Extracts are 200-300 times sweeter than sugar, but contain no carbohydrates (calories). This has made stevia a possible alternative to sugar and artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and saccharine.

By receiving GRAS status, stevia has gotten a substantial endorsement from the government. While not considered as dangerous as some artificial sweeteners, stevia still needs more research, claim consumer groups such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

There are some challenges ahead for stevia, reports The Wall Street Journal:

Not every beverage tastes good with it: Citrus-flavored products work well, but scientists are still trying to find a way to create the iconic cola taste. The new sweetener is also about three times more expensive than commonly used artificial sweeteners, partly because of its small scale.

What to do at the supermarket:

If you want to switch to diet drinks, but have been holding off due to fear of aspartame (Nutrasweet, Equal brands), stevia sweetened beverages may be the answer you have been waiting for. You’ll start seeing them in the beverage aisle very soon.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Rumors are flying that later this week Coca Cola will introduce to markets three Odwalla brand juices, sweetened with stevia. This despite the fact the the FDA has yet to recognize stevia as GRAS (generally regarded as safe). Why would a fruit juice need any extra sweetener in the first place? But that’s besides the point. There is a lot of money to be made in non-caloric sweeteners (ask the Nutrasweet folks).

What you need to know:

Stevia is a South American Plant from the sunflower family, grown and used by locals for its sweet tasting leaves.
Stevia Extracts are 200-300 times sweeter than sugar, but contain no carbohydrates (calories). This has made stevia a possible alternative to sugar and artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and saccharine.

Studies so far have shown stevia to be safe for use, but some consumer groups, such as CSPI, warn that research in incomplete.
The FDA, which banned stevia products in the early 90’s, later allowed it to be marketed as a dietary supplement, but not as a food additive. There is mounting pressure from the food industry to grant stevia a GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) status; this will surely help manufacturers in their marketing. Coke just couldn’t wait any longer. Pespi, with several stevia sweetened drinks of its own, though,  is waiting for the FDA’s blessing.

Internationally, stevia is currently banned for use in food in the EU, Hong Kong and Singapore, but it is allowed in New Zealand and Australian soft drinks.

Stevia Glossary:

Cargill – International food conglomerate headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn. Launching Truvia this week.

Erythritol – a sugar alcohol, a carbohydrate found naturally in various fruits and vegetables. Used in both Purevia and Truvia. It helps them mimic the texture and mouthfeel of table sugar.

Rebiana – the trade name for a stevia-derived sweetener developed jointly by the Coca Cola Company and Cargill. According to Cargill, rebiana is “the best tasting part of the stevia leaf”.

Rebaudioside A - is a chemical compound foudn in the stevia leaf that is responsible for the sweet tatse.

From Purevia.com

PureVia – PepsiCo’s brand name for stevia-based sweetener packs.

From Truvia.com

Truvia – Cargill’s consumer brand of Rebiana-based sweetener packs.

Whole Earth Sweetener Company – A subsidiary of the Merisant Corporation, developed PureVia with Pepsi. Merisant markets Equal, an aspartame artifical sweetener.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription