ArchiveArchive
sugar

Sugar study aimed at discrediting new restrictions tied to Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s and Monsanto

A newly-released study that questions current global health advice regarding sugar has been exposed as a propaganda piece financed by the food and sugar industry and authored by industry insiders.

The study, published this week in The Annals of Internal Medicine, was immediately criticized by The New York Times and others for its blatant attempt to shift the blame away from the sugar industry for its contribution to the global obesity crisis and a range of other diet-related health issues.

From The New York Times:

“The review was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, a scientific group that is based in Washington, D.C., and is funded by multinational food and agrochemical companies including Coca-Cola, General Mills, Hershey’s, Kellogg’s, Kraft Foods and Monsanto. One of the authors is a member of the scientific advisory board of Tate & Lyle, one of the world’s largest suppliers of high-fructose corn syrup.”

A textbook example of the fox guarding the hen house

With financial backing from sources like these, it’s not too surprising that the researchers reached the conclusion that current sugar guidelines “do not meet criteria for trustworthy recommendations and are based on low-quality evidence.”

But sugar industry meddling within the scientific research community is nothing new. In September, the journal JAMA Internal Medicine published recently discovered documents revealing how the industry had managed to “derail the discussion about sugar for decades.”

The food industry has been manipulating scientific research for five decades

The documents, which were discovered by a researcher at the University of California, showed how this was accomplished by the Sugar Research Foundation (now called the Sugar Association) when it paid a trio of Harvard professors during the 1960s to publish reviews based on cherry-picked clinical studies that played down the link between sugar and heart health, while shifting the blame to saturated fats.

This sort of manipulation of the scientific community by the food industry has continued over the past five decades, and – as many have noted – closely resembles the deceptive tactics of the tobacco industry, which also secretly backed research that produced results favoring its interests.

Coca-Cola was exposed last year by the NYT for having poured millions into research that played down the role sugary drinks play in causing obesity, and this year, the Associated Press published reports of candy makers funding studies that concluded that “children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who do not.”

One of the lead authors of the new study, Bradley C. Johnston, was quick to defend the research, saying that he and the team expected criticism for their ties to the sugar industry, but that he hoped people would not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” by disregarding their conclusions, and that their goal was not to encourage people to consume more sugar.

Industry-backed study ‘ignored the real data, created false scores’

Other experts, however, disagree that the research is sound. Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina, said that he was astounded that the study was published at all.

“They ignored the real data, created false scores, and somehow got through a peer review system,” he said.

The sugar industry is obviously feeling threatened by initiatives aimed at fighting the global obesity crisis. Sugar taxes and new government guidelines might cut into the vast profits that companies like Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s and General Mills have come to feel entitled to.

They’ll stop at nothing to keep Americans uninformed – their only goal is to keep on selling as many of their addictive and toxic products as possible.

Sources:

NYTimes.com

NYTimes.com

BusinessInsider.com

prenatal exposure

Plastic commonly used in food manufacturing can make your baby prone to obesity before they’re even born

Plastic isn’t fantastic. According to a recent study, published online in Environmental Health Perspectives, exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA), a common chemical found in plastic bottles, during pregnancy can increase the risk of obesity in children.

BPA is one of the most commonly used products found in everyday goods, including plastic water bottles, metals and thermal receipt paper. A host of health problems have been associated with BPA, including asthma, premature puberty in girls, heart disease and diabetes. However, the recent study was the first to unearth a link between fetal exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA) and body fat in children at age seven.

“This study provides evidence that prenatal exposure to BPA may contribute to developmental origins of obesity as determined by measures of body fat in children as opposed to the traditional indicator of body mass index, which only considers height and weight,” said lead author of the study Lori Hoepner, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, in a press release.

The team reviewed urine samples and children body sizes of approximately 369 mother-child pairs in New York City. BPA exposure was dictated by measuring concentrations of total BPA and its metabolites in urine concentrations during the third trimester of pregnancy and from children at ages three and five.

BPA and obesity

The researchers also measured the height and weight of children at age five and seven. In addition, the mothers in the study were asked to provide the waste circumference and fat mass of their children at age seven.

The team found that approximately 94 percent of women in the study had BPA in their urine. After taking various socioeconomic and environmental factors into consideration, the researchers found a positive correlation between prenatal BPA exposure and fat mass index, a measure of body fat based on height, weight and and waist circumference in children at age seven. In particular, the results showed children exposed to high concentrations of BPA had higher levels of adiposi, or the state of being fat.

“The evidence that prenatal BPA exposure is associated with measures of obesity in children may be an important underlying factor in the obesity epidemic,” noted senior author Andrew Rundle, associate professor of Epidemiology, in a press statement. “Endocrine disrupting chemicals like BPA may alter the baby’s metabolism and how fat cells are formed early in life.”

The researchers suspect BPA is an endocrine-disruptor that could “alter the baby’s metabolism and how fat cells are formed early in life.”

To minimize exposure to BPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences advises to refrain from plastic containers numbers 3 and 7, consume fresh or frozen foods instead of canned foods and to use glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food and liquids.

Make sure to eat the right food, and avoid the chemicals. Visit FoodForensics.com for more information.

Sources include:

TheHealthSite.com

HealthAim.com

FoodForensics.com

EnvironmentalHealthNews.org

ScienceDaily.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Business-Man-Holding-Globe-Business

Global depopulation ‘slow kill’ hinted at by common health symptoms

Modern man is nowhere near as robust as his predecessors were. It is true that with the advancements of modern medicine many of us are living long past the expiration dates of our ancestors, but are we truly healthier? Many of our afflictions are more modern ailments. On the surface, it may appear that it is just because we are living longer, or perhaps because modern medicine is more capable. But in all likelihood, the wealthy elite are actually fueling the rise of illness to keep the population under control.

There are a variety of health symptoms that point to a “slow kill” plan to moderate earth’s population. These are five of some of the most common health conditions that indicate these sinister motives are indeed a reality:

1. Low energy and chronic fatigue: Consistent, repeated exposure to pollution and chronic stress leave people exhausted and reliant on caffeine and other stimulants just to get by. When these factors are combined with being exposed to nearly-unavoidable EMF radiation, you can see where problems begin to arise, such as chronic fatigue and overall decreased vitality in the population.

2. Digestive disorders and poor gut health: Did you know that 80 percent of your immune system is in your gut? Attacking this essential system with toxins, pesticides, heavy metals and other hazardous ingredients in the food supply is an efficient way to target an entire population.

3. Dietary conditions: Obesity and diabetes are perhaps two of the most deadly conditions running rampant in our country, yet very few people take them seriously. What passes for food in America is truly despicable; it’s no wonder people are sick. The worst part is that real healing foods, herbs and plants are blackballed by the media and made illegal by the government!

4. Chemical imbalances: Some of the most common problems affecting people in the world today are depression, learning disabilities and poor concentration. The food supply contains many things known to trigger these issues, including artificial coloring. Poor nutrition is another major contributing factor, as accessibility to good quality nutritional foods continues to diminish.

5. Autism: The incidence of autism has increased by as much as 30-fold since the 1970’s. Despite media claims, there are many factors contributing to this vast increase. Vaccine safety is a controversial issue, as are the potential effects of GMOs, glyphosate and the host of other chemicals and toxins we are all exposed to every single day.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

CDC.gov