The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: sugar
Sticking Up For Coke, Sort Of

Sticking Up For Coke, Sort Of

Champions of righteous eating have been saying terrible things of late about Coke. They’re now focusing their wrath on a corporate campaign to place Coca-Cola in the context of a healthy diet.

A New York Times editorial accuses Coke and other beverage makers of forming “innocent-sounding front groups to spread the message that sugary sodas have no deleterious effect on health.” Actually, their paid consultants have said no such thing.

They did say that dieters working on portion control might favor the 7.5-ounce mini-Coke over the traditional 12-ounce size. Also, they said those seeking to lose weight should consider exercising more.

But yes, Coke is guilty — guilty — of saying nice things about its products. “In a particularly brazen move,” the Times fulminates, a dietitian suggested that “a mini-can of Coke would make a good snack food.”

“Refreshing beverage option” was the dietitian’s exact quote.

The standard bearers of chaste eating habits have themselves lost control in apportioning blame for the “obesity epidemic” on sugared drinks. Why is soda taking so much of the rap?

There’s a habitual suspicion of the profit motive as it applies to other people’s businesses. In a similar vein, many harbor an intense disapproval of others’ unhealthy food choices.

Hence the drumbeat demand for a tax on soda. That would be a neat way to extract more money from low-income people, not unlike the stiff sin tax on beer.

But if we’re going in this direction, why not tax the extra-fat “European style” butter you find at Whole Foods? A 1-ounce pat has more calories than a mini-Coke. How about a fat tax on French Brie — and triple the tax for triple-crème?

This is not to dismiss the genuine concern about the huge amount of sugar many Americans ingest. But the remedy should be education. Help citizens understand their sugar intake and, if need be, reduce it. Do note that American consumption of full-calorie soda has plunged 25 percent since the late 1990s, and obesity rates are starting to come down.

The enduring soft drink hysteria comes from places like the recent documentary Fed Up. Produced by Katie Couric and Laurie David, the movie strongly argues that dieting and exercise can’t really help obese kids as long as sugar exerts its evil power.

One of its star “experts” is Dr. Mark Hyman, who asserts: “Your brain lights up with sugar just like it does with heroin or cocaine. In fact, sugar is eight times more addictive than cocaine.”

Hyman is known for spreading the crank theory that vaccines cause autism. And his work has earned a place on Quackwatch’s list of crackpot books.

Anyhow, scientists at the University of Edinburgh decided to investigate the claim that sugar is addictive like a drug and found little evidence for it. “People try to find rational explanations for being overweight, and it is easy to blame food,” researcher John Menzies told BBC News.

In sum, those who believe themselves addicted to sugar need a shrink more than they do a nutritionist.

One last point. Coca-Cola had been on grocery shelves for about a century before there was any “obesity epidemic.” You have to ask, How did we all survive that long?

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Photo: Meena Kadri

The Eight Most Important Things To Look For On Nutrition Labels

The Eight Most Important Things To Look For On Nutrition Labels

By Cathryne Keller, FITBIE.com (TNS)

If you want to fill your grocery cart with foods that’ll keep you satisfied, slim and overall healthy, your smartest strategy is to first look at the ingredients list (or, even better, buy whole foods that don’t have an ingredients list). Words you can’t pronounce? Lots of sneaky names for sugar? Put it back on the shelf.

Your next move: Read the nutrition label. Studies show that label readers make healthier choices at the grocery store and maintain healthier weights, too. But what should you be looking for, exactly?

In her book, Skinny Chicks Eat Real Food, celebrity nutritionist Christine Avanti offers these seven general guidelines for reading a nutrition label right:

Serving size: This tells you what amount of the food or drink the nutritional information is based on. Some nutrition panels will also tell you how many servings are in the package or container. Look carefully at the serving size. There may be two, three, or more servings in the package, which obviously doubles or triples the number of calories and the amounts of the ingredients in the food if you eat the whole thing.

Calories: As a general rule, you should stick to 300 to 500 calories in one meal if you intend to lose weight. That being said, in my opinion the number of calories in a serving of food is not as critical as the amount of protein, carbs, fats, and real-food ingredients. I recommend eating foods that stabilize blood sugar levels, so the focus should not be so much on calories as on how you are balancing your carbs with your protein and fats. If the food has 70 grams of carbs but just four grams of protein, that food will definitely spike blood sugar, so I recommend you avoid it.

Total fat: Total fat tells you how much fat is in a serving. Some labels, like the one shown, do break out saturated and trans fat and give the amounts of each. But just as many do not. The reason is the food industry does not want to call attention to the fact that their products contain trans fat. Therefore, many labels will simply list the total amount of fat and then break out and list the total amount of saturated fat leaving it up to you to do your detective work on the ingredients list to figure out what other kinds of fat the product contains. Avoid foods with more than 15 grams of fat per serving if you would like to lose weight (unless you are sure it is a “good” fat).

Cholesterol: Too much cholesterol means the food is high in fat. Remember, you want to keep your fat intake to a ballpark of 40 grams a day (ten grams per meal) for weight loss.

Sodium: You really need to be diligent in reducing your sodium intake. By the USDA’s reckoning, a food is low in sodium if it contains no more than 140 milligrams per serving. As a rule, the amount of sodium should be less than double the number of calories per serving.

Total carbohydrates: This category includes everything from whole grains to sugar and other refined carbs. Typically, a nutrition panel will break down the carbohydrate total, detailing how much fiber and sugar is included in the total number.

Sugar, Sugar, SUGAR!: This number is super important. In fact, this is one of the major bits of information that I hope will make an imprint on your brain and never go away. When it comes to the sugar count on a nutrition label, the most important information you need to know is that four grams of nutrition label sugar equals one actual teaspoon of sugar. You don’t have to go crazy counting grams of sugar, but if your goal is to lose weight, aim for no more than five teaspoons, or 20 grams, of added sugars per day. Remember that natural sugars are okay to consume in moderation (along with a protein or healthy-fat source, in order to stabilize blood sugar). The villain is too many added sugars, which can be found in even seemingly healthy foods like yogurts.

Protein: On a real-food diet, between 20 percent and 25 percent of your total calories should come from protein. That comes out to about 20 to 22 grams of protein per meal. Remember, it is important to also look at how many grams of carbs and fat your food has. Generally you want your meal to be approximately one part protein to two parts carbohydrates and under 15 grams of good fats.

(c)2015 Fitbie.com

Photo: Benjamin Lee via Flickr

Big Sugar Weasels Out Of Land Deal

Big Sugar Weasels Out Of Land Deal

In Tallahassee, Florida, you can be a gutsy champion for the Everglades, or just another lame shill for Big Sugar.

You can’t be both, though some politicians try to pretend.

Check out Steve Crisafulli, the Republican speaker of the Florida House. He comes from a citrus family, once headed the Brevard County Farm Bureau and has his eye on becoming state agricultural commissioner.

Crisafulli lives in Merritt Island, which is bordered by the Indian River Lagoon, a 156-mile-long body of water whose southern end is being devastated by agricultural pollutants pumped recklessly from Lake Okeechobee.

Right now the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is flushing an average 614 million gallons of nitrogen- and phosphorus-tainted lake water every day into the St. Lucie River, which flows into the Indian River Lagoon through the St. Lucie Estuary.

The idea is to regulate the levels in Lake Okeechobee so it won’t overflow during in the rainy season. However, the water dumping causes massive algae blooms, fish kills and a nightmare for marine and tourist businesses along the Treasure Coast.

Because of where he lives, Crisafulli would seem a likely crusader for the Indian River Lagoon, a person who’d fight for those whose livelihoods depend on it. As House speaker, he can guide funds for the acquisition of key land near Lake Okeechobee to be used for cleaning the polluted farm runoff and sending it south through the Everglades.

One problem: That land is owned by U.S. Sugar, and U.S. Sugar has Crisafulli on a short puppet string.

Crisafulli and his political action committee took $94,500 from company sources during the last two election cycles. U.S. Sugar board directors (and their wives) gave him $500 checks.

He was also one of several Florida politicians, including Governor Rick Scott, who went on secret hunting trips to Texas arranged by U.S. Sugar. Those hunts took place at the King Ranch, also a major holder of cane acreage near Lake Okeechobee.

When a Herald/Times reporter tried to reach Crisafulli last year, he referred all questions about the U.S. Sugar junkets to a media spokesman who also happens to work for the sugar growers’ coalition.

This indicates a troubling lack of independence by Crisafulli, or at the very least, a lack of shame.

Last fall, Floridians in a landslide approved Amendment 1, which calls for the use of existing real-estate stamp taxes to buy lands vital for conservation and improving water quality.

It will generate at least $750 million a year, filling the hole left by the Legislature’s gutting of the Florida Forever program.

The purchase so important to saving the Indian River Lagoon and replenishing the Everglades was agreed to by U.S. Sugar seven years ago — 46,800 total acres near Clewiston, valued at $350 million.

One parcel, 26,100 acres, is well situated to be a reservoir for filtering the dirty water before letting it flow south. A recent University of Florida water study, commissioned by the Senate, endorsed that concept.

U.S. Sugar said it was a terrific idea back in 2008, when the company gave the state an option to purchase the tracts. The option is due to expire in October and, now that Amendment 1 funds are available, U.S. Sugar wants to weasel out of the deal.

Last fall, the company presented a development plan for the acreage that envisions 18,000 homes and 25 million square feet of offices, warehouses and retail space. U.S. Sugar says such a project is years away, but the negative effect of killing the state’s land deal would be immediate.

Voters want the Amendment 1 funds to be spent exactly on projects like the Lake Okeechobee cleanup, but allocating the money is up to lawmakers and the governor. The prospects look grim.

While Crisafulli is a huge beneficiary of U.S. Sugar donations, the company has been generous to practically every major player in Tallahassee. Last year, U.S. Sugar interests donated $2.2 million statewide to GOP candidates.

Governor Scott, who once denounced the taint of Big Sugar’s money, hungrily took millions from the industry for his re-election campaign.

Killing the U.S. Sugar land deal is easy for Scott and lawmakers. All they’ve got to do is leave the Clewiston-area property off the list of conservation purchases until the option lapses.

That’s what U.S. Sugar assumes they’ll do, because that’s the kind of obedience the company expects when they give gobs of money to a politician. No one was under more pressure to roll over than Crisafulli, and no one had more to gain politically by standing up to do the right thing.

Not happening.

In an email to the Palm Beach Post, Crisafulli stated his opposition to using Amendment 1 funds to buy the U.S. Sugar land “at this time,” saying Everglades restoration efforts should focus on pending projects.

This puppet dance, while pleasing to sugar growers, is a kick in the teeth to all the Floridians who supported Amendment 1, especially those who’ve been watching the slow death of the Indian River Lagoon.

Every day 614 million gallons of polluted water are pouring out of Lake Okeechobee toward the lagoon, but Steve Crisafulli has other priorities.

That’s one way to get your name known outside of Brevard County.

Carl Hiaasen is a columnist for The Miami Herald. Readers may write to him at: 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, FL, 33132.

Photo: Lake Okeechobee looking west from Port Mayaca where the St. Lucie Canal meets the lake. (Visit Florida/Peter W. Cross via Flickr)