In The News: Is Sugar's "Time Out" Over?

The New York Times recently profiled sugar's triumphant return.

"Blamed for hyperactivity in children and studied as an addictive substance, sugar has had its share of image problems," the paper reports, "but the widespread criticism of high-fructose corn syrup has made sugar look good by comparison."

As much as the The Sugar Association loves this shift in consumers' attitudes, I am absolutely dismayed that the issue at stake is whether sugar is more nutritious than high fructose corn syrup.

A much more accurate -- and healthful -- concept would be to simply decrease the intake of added sugars, period.

I understand the political, economic, environmental, and farming business implications behind high-fructose corn syrup that make it a bigger threat than sugar, but the fact remains that eating 100 grams of added sugars each day -- whether as high fructose corn syrup or sugar -- adds up to 400 extra calories.

Dr. Robert H. Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco Children’s Hospital sums it up perfectly: “The argument about which is better for you, sucrose or HFCS, is garbage. Both are equally bad for your health.”

In The News: Not-so-Extreme Makeover

The New York Times reports that Snapple is not only changing their tea's label font as well as the shape of their bottles -- they are also axing high fructose corn syrup and replacing it with sugar.

Although both sweeteners are equal from a caloric standpoint, high fructose corn syrup brings other issues to the table -- genetically modified crops, unbalanced farm subsidies, and such low prices for corn that it's no wonder you can get 24 more ounces of soda for two additional pennies!

What's most interesting is that Snapple is also slightly decreasing the sweetness of its tea.

"The old ingredient list for Lemon Snapple Iced Tea: “water, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, tea, natural flavors.” Calories: 200.

The new ingredient list: “filtered water, sugar, citric acid, tea, natural flavors.” Calories: 160."

FYI: The above quote appears to suggest that sugar is less caloric than high fructose syrup. It's not. This new Snapple formula simply contains fewer grams of added sweeteners.

Unfortunately, thee lower-calorie news is counter-balanced by developments that bother me -- the new Snapple bottles have the words "All natural" and "Made from green & black tea leaves" in larger font.

Meanwhile, PepsiCo will roll out limited quantities of Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback in April.

The selling point? A notalgic logo and the replacement of high fructose corn syrup with sugar.

Although calories -- and sugar grams -- will go unchanged, at least mercury contamination won't be a concern.

By the way, Pepsi Throwback is not a brand new idea -- it takes several pages from England's Pepsi Raw.

The impetus behind all this? Easy -- company executives are seeing consumer backlash to high fructose corn syrup and this is one way to prevent profit margins from shrinking.

In The News: Mercury In High Fructose Corn Syrup

Here's some unpleasant news.

The Washington Post is reporting on two recent studies published in Environmental Health which found that "almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient."

Ranges varied from 0.005 to 0.57 micrograms of mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup.

Keep in mind that Environmental Protection Agency figures, for instance, consider 0.1 micrograms per kilogram of body weight to be the upper limit for safe intakes.

This means, then that a 140 pound adult (63.6 kilograms) should consume no more than 6.36 micrograms a day.

The problem here comes with the high amount of high fructose corn syrup consumed by the average child, teenager, and adult in the United States -- 12 daily teaspoons on average.

Let's do some math.

Twelve teaspoons of HFCS equal 48 grams.

If those 48 grams came from the sample with the highest amount of mercury, that totals 27 micrograms of mercury in a single day!

Two more things worth pointing out.

First, sodas were found not to have any mercury in them despite consisting of mainly water and high fructose corn syrup. Perhaps this is due to some processing step?

Second, controversy is arising due to rumblings that the lead author of one study allegedly alerted the Food & Drug Administration about her findings several years ago but, for reasons not known to anyone, these findings were reportedly not followed up on.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy -- which participated in both studies -- is actively pushing for immediate changes in manufacturing that would not taint high fructose corn syrup with the infamous heavy metal.

Yet another bullet point for the ever-expanding "important issues in food safety" list...

And, more importantly, even more of a reason to limit the amount of processed, nutritionally inferior food (which is usually laden with added sugars, mainly in the form of high fructose corn syrup.)

PS: Thank you to reader Dennise O'Grady for providing me with the second link in this post.

FNCE 2008: Out of Towners

Some of the booths at this year's American Dietetic Association Food & Nutrition Conference and Expo struck me as very out of place:

Slimshots: A vanilla-flavored appetite suppresant. Maureen McCormick (Marcia Brady) istheir spokesperson. Appetite suppresants at a food conference?

Corn Refiners Association: Despite current ADA president Martin Yaddrick's statement that "The American Dietetic Association had no involvement with the recent Corn Refiners Association advertisements. ADA did not review or approve the ad in question, nor any wording in it; nor did ADA have advance knowledge of the advertisement,” the people behind this campaign were present at FNCE with all sorts of literature claiming high fructose corn syrup is just dandy.

GNC and Vitamin Shoppe: Although these stores sell legitimate vitamins and minerals, they also hawk supplements (which are unregulated) that often succumb to nutrition quackery in their advertising.

Coca Cola: I am completely at a loss as to how carbonated water with high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners belongs at a nutrition conference. Sprinkling corn fiber into it does not make it "healthy."

Thoughts?

Survey Results: Label Detectives

The latest Small Bites survey asked visitors to identify particular ingredients they consciously try to avoid when purchasing food.

Partially hydrogenated oil (44%) and high fructose corn syrup (43%) led the pack, while artificial dyes seemed troublesome to less visitors (9%).

MSG, meanwhile, received 24% of votes.

Three percent of respondents weren't fazed by any of those ingredients, while 38% do not feel comfortable consuming any of them.

The #1 enemy on that list is certainly partially hydrogenated oil.

There is clear evidence showing the harmful effects it has on lipid profiles and, consequently, heart disease risk.

The high fructose corn syrup situation goes beyond nutrition. Although it contributes as many calories to food as sugar (16 calories per teaspoon), its environmental effects are far worse.

Additionally, because it is such a cheap ingredient, companies liberally include it in a variety of processed foods, in turn increasing total calories.

It also doesn't help that it is in everything from bread to Gatorade to pasta sauce.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the more of these ingredients you see on a nutrition label, the more processed -- and less nutritious -- a given product is.

Numbers Game: Answer

A 16 ounce can of energy drink SoBe Adrenaline Rush contains 16.5 teaspoons of added sugar -- all in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

Yikes!

By comparison, 16 ounces of Coca Cola offer 13.5 teaspoons of added sugar.

And since this energy drink -- like all others -- does not contain fat or protein, its entire caloric content (264 calories) is derived from high fructose corn syrup.

We're basically talking about soda infused with caffeine, amino acids, and vitamin B12.

I find that many people are unaware of the caloric punch these drinks can pack.

For example, I am often greeted with surprise when I tell someone that one SoBe Adrenaline Rush drink and two shots of hard liquor add up to 460 calories.

Numbers Game: Sugar Rush

A 16 ounce can of energy drink SoBe Adrenaline Rush contains ______ teaspoons of added sugar -- all in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

a) 16.5
b) 12
c) 14
d) 22.5

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Tuesday for the answer.

Sensible Nonsense

The folks at Nabisco advertise some of their products under the "sensible snacking" monicker, meaning "they not only taste good, but you can feel good about eating them, too!"

One of these products is Ritz Toasted Snack Chips, which, Nabisco points out, "are not fried [and] have 40% less fat than potato chips."

Very well, but an ounce of these chips only offers 20 less calories than an ounce of potato chips -- and an additional 100 milligrams of sodium!

The main ingredients are white flour, sugar, and high fructose corn syrup.

The flavored varieties' ingredient lists, meanwhile, boast no less than 25 ingredients.

The dictionary defines "sensible" as "acting with or exhibiting good sense."

Perhaps Nabisco would be better off using another adjective? Like "run of the mill"?

Numbers Game: Answer

In 1980, average per capita consumption of high fructose corn syrup in the United States clocked in at 19 pounds. In 2005? 59 pounds.

That's a 310 percent increase in 25 years!

A few other figures jump out for less than stellar reasons.

Shortening (trans fat central!) consumption jumped from 18.2 pounds to 32.6 pounds in that same amount of time, and sour cream/dips more than doubled (from 3.4 half pints in 1980 to 7.9 half pints 25 years later.)

It goes without saying that increased consumption also means increased caloric intake.

And the increasing obesity rate over the past two decades is a mystery because...?

Numbers Game: The Syrup Spike

In 1980, average per capita consumption of high fructose corn syrup in the United States clocked in at _______ pounds. In 2005? ________ pounds.

(Source: US Census Bureau)

a) 19, 59
b) 10, 31
c) 5, 48
d) 25, 38

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Tuesday for the answer!

Perfect Pickings: Sliced Bread (Calling Them As I See Them!)

Earlier today I received a comment from a reader named Mel, who shared how difficult it is to find a "truly whole-grain bread that does not have high fructose corn syrup."

I empathize.

So, let's cut down your time in the bread aisle and name names.

The following "approved" breads have at least 3 grams of fiber, are 100% whole grain, and contain NO high fructose corn syrup.

Please note this is by no means a definitive list, as it does not include lesser-known brands.

A random sampling from a New York City supermarket led to these results.

Small Bites Approved Breads:

* All varieties of Food For Life Ezekiel 4:9 Flourless Sprouted Grain Breads
* Arnold 100% Natural Whole Wheat Bread
* Arnold Natural Flax/Fiber Bread
* Pepperidge Farm 100% Natural 100% Whole Wheat Bread
* Pepperidge Farm 100% Natural 9-Grain Bread
* Pepperidge Farm Golden Harvest Grains
* Sara Lee 100% Whole Wheat Bread
* Vermont Bread Company Soft Whole Wheat Bread

Names Can Be Deceiving...

* Arnold 12-Grain Bread (contains High Fructose Corn syrup and white flour)
* Arnold Double Fiber Whole Wheat Bread (contains High Fructose Corn Syrup)
* Arnold Healthy Multigrain Bread (contains white flour)
* Arnold Hearty Whole Wheat Bread (contains High Fructose Corn Syrup)
* Arnold Whole Grain Health Nut (contains High Fructose corn syrup, only 2 grams of fiber per slice, and contain white flour)
* Dutch Country Stroehmann 100% Whole Wheat Bread (contains High Fructose Corn Syrup and only 2 grams of fiber per slice)
* Healthy Life Bread (contains High Fructose Corn Syrup)
* Pepperidge Farm Farmhouse Soft 100% Whole Wheat Bread (contains High Fructose Corn Syrup)
* Wonder Bread 100% Stoneground Whole Wheat Bread (contains High Fructose Corn Syrup and only 2 grams of fiber per slice)

When in doubt, always read the label!

Perfect Pickings: Sliced Bread

You would think something as simple as nutritious bread would be easy to pick out.

Guess again.

The sliced bread market brings in approximately $18 billion a year, meaning consumers must sort through a maze of brands, health claims, and expensive marketing campaigns.

Alas, Perfect Pickings is here to save the day!

As far as calories are concerned, commercial sliced breads range anywhere from 60 to 120 calories per serving.

These figures mainly depend on the thickness and weight of a particular brand’s slices.

Some clock in at 1 ounce, while another weigh in at an ounce and a half. Some lower-calorie “light breads”, though, constitute a single serving as two slices.

Most standard commercial breads, though, are very similar when compared ounce to ounce.

Don't focus too much on calories -- the differences aren’t that significant, and there are more important values to consider.

Sodium amounts are also fairly consistent across the board, ranging from 120 to 190 milligrams per slice (unless you specifically buy low-sodium varieties or sprouted grain breads, which contain no sodium).

Fiber is the main figure to be on the lookout for. Aim for at least 3 grams of fiber per serving.

Don’t be fooled by varieties consisting of 9, 12, or 15 grains. It is very possible all 15 grains are refined and stripped of their fiber.

You must check the nutrition facts and ingredient list to ensure you are getting a whole grain product.

If “whole wheat flour” is not the first ingredient and each slice provides less than 3 grams of fiber, you are eating white bread (you can thank the addition of molasses for that brown color) with seeds sprinkled on top.

If you see “enriched wheat flour” as the first ingredient, you are not buying whole grain bread. “Enriched wheat flour” is a nice way of saying “white, fiberless flour.”

Keep in mind that Although pure rye bread – popular in Scandinavia – is a whole grain food, the overwhelming majority of rye breads in the United States contain a significant amount of white flour.

Another tricky tidbit – careful with low-calorie “light” breads.

Many boast a fiber content of 5 or 6 grams per serving, but this is mainly due to the addition of cellulose or soy fiber.

Although they operate like insoluble fiber (by helping everything move quickly and smoothly through the digestive system), they do not provide the same health benefits as fiber derived from whole grains.

I recommend avoiding varieties containing high-fructose corn syrup (bread requires a pinch of sugar to soften texture, but HFCS skeeves me out).

Mission: (Semi) Impossible!

Best of the Worst

Yesterday evening I strolled the aisles of my local supermarket with a dual purpose.

First and foremost -- buy food.

Secondly -- seek out ideas for this blog.

One thing that immediately jumped out at me was the vast number of products bearing Bob Greene's "Best Life Diet" seal of approval.

As anyone with access to a television knows, Mr. Greene rose to fame as Oprah's trainer and diet guru.

Soon thereafter, Bob's Best Life Diet was created.

Over on Oprah's website, we find the following tidbit:

"Bob says one of his great passions is to change the way companies manufacture food -- but he emphasizes that the consumers are really in control."

In fact:

"This January, Bob Greene and Oprah launched the 2008 Best Life Challenge, encouraging people across the country to sign the contract and make today the day you finally commit to climb off the diet roller coaster and make a healthier lifestyle for yourself."

Wonderful initiative, but the execution falls short.

I randomly picked up four different products displaying the Best Life Diet Seal of Approval and spotted a few less-than-stellar ingredients:

Let's start with the Fiber One Oats & Chocolate bars.

A quick glance at the ingredient list reveals that they contain more chocolate chips, sugar, and hydrogenated coconut oil (hello trans fats) than actual oats.

Another red flag? The presence of high fructose corn syrup.

They contain nine grams of fiber and are fairly low in calories, so while they are not a pint of ice cream, I can't for the life of me understand why they get a Seal of Approval from someone claiming to help consumers track down healthy choices at the supermarket.

Why not award that seal to a truly healthy, simple, and deserving product like Lara or Clif Nectar bars?

Yoplait Yogurt, another highlighted product, contains added sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

Why this gets a gold star over, say, plain yogurt that can be topped with real fruit pieces blows my mind.

Then we have Green Giant's Just for One Corn Niblets & Butter Sauce frozen trays.

The 120 calories and low-fat claims make a fairly decent first impression, but the 330 milligrams of sodium get a jeer from me. What's wrong with plain frozen corn sauteed in some olive oil?

Remember, these products are not under the "Not terrible, but there are definitely healthier options out there" column.

These products are ones Bob Greene has no qualms putting his name and seal on and describing as "the best" when it comes to nutrition.

I then picked up a can of Progresso Soup, the only soup recommended soup in the diet.

I'm supposed to be okay with the fact that a can of soup containing 1,500 milligrams of sodium is recommended to someone looking to live a healthier lifestyle?

In approximately 45 seconds I spotted two others brands offering soups with half that sodium amount!

This posting may very well shatter my chances of ever appearing on Oprah, but I can't sit back and be okay with the idea that nutritionally mediocre products are, for whatever reason, receiving undeserved endorsement.

Who Greenlighted This?

A few hours ago I spotted an advertisement for Arnold's new Double Protein Hearty Multigrain bread in my gym's locker room, of all places.

"12 grams of protein!" the ad boasted.

The little asterisk attached to the word protein directs you to fairly tiny print explaining that 12 grams are found in two slices.

Very well, then.

So this new bread offers 110 calories, 200 milligrams of sodium, 3 grams of fiber, and 6 grams of protein per slice.

Oddly enough, Arnold's website erroneously attributes 6 grams of fiber to each slice -- oops!

I'm not sure where this "double protein" terminology is coming from, seeing as how Arnold's Health Nut whole grain bread contains 110 calories, 190 milligrams of sodium, 2 grams of fiber, and 5 grams of protein per slice.

I really wonder if there was consumer demand for a bread with an extra gram of protein, especially considering that the average adult in the United States consumes approximately 200% of his/her daily protein requirement.

No one is deficient or needs more in their diet.

I'm not necessarily dissuading anyone from picking this up at the grocery store; I just don't see a reason to.

The ingredient list reveals two interesting things: the extra protein comes from rice (not the highest quality) and high fructose corn syrup is the fourth ingredient (following whole wheat flour, water, and wheat gluten).

So here's a suggestion for the Arnold bread execs -- how about some corn syrup-free bread?

Or, if you want to do your part in helping people achieve their health goals, take a stab at a slightly higher fiber bread.

Wolf In Sheep's Clothing: Fruit Cereals & Snacks

Relying on conventional cereals and snacks to provide fruit to your diet? I'm afraid you might dealing with a case of mistaken identity.

Consider Kellogg's Berry Krispies -- a fruity spin on traditional Rice Krispies.

The packaging shows the three Rice Krispies cartoon characters juggling a variety of berries.

A large strawberry, blueberry, and blackberry are also prominently featured on the front of the box.

A glance at the ingredient list unveils a mystery, though -- where is the fruit?

"Rice, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, salt, natural and artificial berry flavor, malt flavoring, red #40, ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), iron, niacinamide, blue #1, pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B6), riboflavin, thiamin hydrochloride, vitamin A palmitate, folic acid, vitamin B12, vitamin D."

So, in reality, you have artifically colored rice puffs with berry flavor sprinkled on them.

No berries -- or parts of any -- are included in this product.

Not surprisingly, a cup of Berry Krispies provides 0 grams of fiber.

General Mills' Berry Berry Kix doesn't fare much better.

The letter "i" in Kix is dotted with three different berries, and the package boasts: "No Artificial Preservatives! No Artificial Flavors!"

Be still, my heart.

Let's take a look at the ingredient list:

"Whole grain corn, sugar, corn meal, whole grain oats, corn starch, modified corn starch, canola oil, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup" along with food coloring, natural flavors, and a handful of vitamins and minerals.

In total? A measly gram of fiber per serving.

Combined with the feeble gram of protein and gram and a half of fat, this is one breakfast that will barely satiate you (and start your day off with quite a large load of Omega-6 fatty acids!)

Welch's fruit snacks advertise their "100% of the Vitamin C Daily Value per Serving" status on the product's packaging in all capital, colorful letters.

A wavy green banner reads: "Excellent Source of Vitamins A & E" If that wasn't enough, they are also "made with REAL FRUIT."

Who needs a banana or apple when you have these fruit snacks, right? Not quite.

Per the ingredient list:

"Juice from concentrates (grape, peach, pear, and pineapple), corn syrup, sugar, modified corn starch, fruit puree (grape, apple, strawberry, and raspberry), gelatin, citric acid, lactic acid, natural and artificial flavors, coconut oil, carnauba wax, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), [beta carotene (vitamin A), palmitate (vitamin A)], alpha tocopherol acetate (vitamin E), red 40, blue 1, yellow 5 and sodium citrate."

So, essentially, sugar with added vitamins. The high levels of Vitamins A, C, and E are not the result of healthy ingredients, but fortification.

For all intents and purposes, you might as well be chasing your multivitamin with a tablespoon of sugar.

Fruit flavorings, colorings, and extracts are not substitutes for the real thing.

For the constant media hype I hear about the "difficulties of eating healthy,:" incorporating fruit into your day is actually quite easy.

Apples and bananas, for instance, are easily accessible, inexpensive, highly portable, and could not be further from the "acquired taste" category.

You do not need to consume expensive, exotic fruits from a Mongolian monk's Himalayan hut to be healthy. Just try to eat one piece of fruit, whichever one you want, every day.

In The News: A Soda Tax?

Over in San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom is toying with the idea of imposing an anti-obesity tax on stores selling foods and beverages containing high-fructose corn syrup.

Although I understand what he is attempting to achieve, I believe Mayor Newson is going about this the wrong way.

Sweetened drinks undoubtedly add extra calories to anyone's day, but I have a problem with foods being automatically branded as "bad" or "evil," regardless of context.

I don't think the problem to tackle is soda itself as it is the ridiculous amounts of it people are used to drinking.

Between unlimited refills, 20 ounce to-go bottles, and 64 ounce containers at 7-11, it is perfectly feasible to accompany any given meal with as much as 1,000 liquid calories!

And while high fructose corn syrup is a dirt cheap man-made sweetener that is metabolized differently than real sugar (for one, it does not trigger our brain's satiety center when consumed), eliminating it will not decrease an obesity problem.

I have seen the graphs showing a correlation between high fructose corn syrup intake and rising obesity rates in the United States, but it is important to point out that increased high fructose corn syrup intake was also accompanied by exploding portion sizes and easier availability of sugar and fat-laden foods.

It makes much more sense to attribute weight gain to extra calories in the form of more food (larger portions).

Remember, high fructose corn syrup delivers just as many calories as any other sugar (fructose, honey, or table sugar) per teaspoon.

I would hate for people to think that products made with real sugar automatically get a free pass.

A Starbucks Venti vanilla latte accompanied by a banana chocolate-chip muffin adds up to over 1,000 calories and as much added sugar as a can of Coke.

High fructose syrup might be missing from the equation, but that does not make this "meal" healthier or waist-friendly.

A better initiative would be to help convenience stores (particularly those in low-income neighborhoods) offer healthier items (as attempted by New York City's Healthy Bodega initiative).

What do you think?

You Ask, I Answer: Corn Flakes/High Fructose Corn Syrup

I was eating Corn Flakes and saw that HFCS is one of the main ingredients but, per serving, it only has 2g of sugar. Is this still an unhealthier choice for breakfast?

-- Anoymous (via the blog)

I must say -- I have been getting some really thought-provoking questions lately.

One cup of Kellogg's Corn Flakes contains a mere 1.8 grams of sugar (that's half a teaspoon). When the amount is so small, I don't think too much weight should be placed on the particular sweetener listed on the label.

It's also worth mentioning that when it comes to the artificial high-fructose corn syrup, it's important to place it within the context of dietary patterns.

If Corn Flakes are your only source of high fructose corn syrup each day, there is no need for concern.

If, however, you are also having a few cans of regular soda and lots of processed sweet foods, I would recommend taking certain steps to cut back on your consumption of the infamous corn-based sweetener.

My real issue with Corn Flakes is that they are far from nutritious. They aren't "unhealthy", but I can think of much more nutritious, filling -- and tastier! -- choices for breakfast.

For starters, they are fat-free and contain an almost non-existent 1.3 grams of fiber and 1.9 grams of protein per serving. Why am I pointing this out? Remember: fat, fiber, and protein are the three pillars of satiety ("feeling full").

Foods like Corn Flakes -- which lack these three nutrients -- will not help you feel full. In fact, you'll very likely be hungry again just one hour after having your bowl of cereal (unless it is an accompaniment to a more substantial breakfast).

Anyone interested in weight loss -- and maintenance -- should think about consuming healthy and nutrition foods that, in small amounts, satiate.

Nuts, for example, contain healthy fats, fiber, and protein. This is why a handful of nuts as a snack can hold you over much better than a handful of pretzels (which, lacking these nutrients, will not help you feel full until you have consumed a significant amount of calories).

Another eyebrow-raising fact? A cup of Corn Flakes has more sodium than a one-ounce bag of Lay's potato chips (266 milligrams vs. 180 milligrams)!

As I mentioned in my Small Bites newsletter on sodium, one way to get an idea if something we are eating is heavily processed or closer to nature is by looking at the sodium to potassium ratio.

The more processed/artificial the product, the more sodium (and less potassium) it has.

Corn Flakes? 266 milligrams of sodium in one cup, and a feeble 24.6 milligrams of potassium (we should be aiming for approximately 4,000 milligrams of potassium each day).

If you can't live without your cereal in the morning, opt for a wheat-bran based type (wheat bran is high in potassium) and have it with a banana, mango, or raisins (three breakfast-friendly fruits also high in that mineral).

You Ask, I Answer: Diet Soda

I was debating [with a colleague] about whether diet soda is bad for you.

I mentioned some folks believe the artificial sweeteners in them may be cancer-causing, but that it's a step up from guzzling sugary sodas every day.

She said something about the acid in the soda not being that bad for you, because our stomachs are already acidic.

But I always thought the acid in the soda wasn't so good for the tum tum.

What's your verdict?

-- Judith (last name withheld)
(location withheld)

The problem with all soda -- diet or not -- is the phosphoric acid in it.

Not so much because it's bad for your stomach (it isn't), but because of its effect on our calcium levels.

Our bodies like to stay in balance (you might remember the term "homeostasis" from your high school biology class). Calcium and phosphate, in particular, are two minerals that are actually good buddies. In fact, they're inseparable.

If one's level in our blood goes up, the other one wants to go up as well. So when you drink that can of diet soda, your body's phosphate levels rise. Calcium sees this, and says, "Wait a second, I want to go up, too!"

If you are like most people in the United States, your calcium intake isn't as high as it needs to be, meaning you don't have much available calcium floating around. So in order to up its levels, calcium, eager to join phosphate, starts leeching extra calcium from the first place where it can find it – our bones.

Let me be very clear here – if your calcium intake is adequate, the occasional diet soda is not going to harm you or make you develop osteoporosis.

But, in looking at teenagers, for instance (many of whom are already calcium deficient and on top of that are guzzling down two or three sodas a day) this is a problem.

Phosphoric acid is also responsible for wearing away enamel (a protective layer) on our teeth, leading to an increased risk of tooth decay.

I don't see anything wrong with having a soda here or there as a treat (i.e.: at the movie theater, at a barbeque, etc.), but definitely take issue with soda being someone's sole source of liquid day in, day out.

King Corn: Cows + Corn = Moooochos Problemas

One of King Corn's focus is the consequences of utilizing a large portion of the country's corn surplus to feed livestock.

Fifty years ago, cows in the United States, like others around the world, subsisted on a simple, natural diet of grass and hay.

In the early 1970's, though, when farmers were instructed to produce as much food as possible -- resulting in a tremendous surplus of corn -- cows' diets radically changed.

Gone was grass, in was corn (often mixed in with grains also foreign to cows' diets until that time).

Livestock breeders couldn't be happier about this change. On a corn diet, cows fatten up a lot quicker, especially when cruelly crowded in feedlots, literally unable to walk. In other words? More cow to sell in less time.

From a cow's standpoint, however, the glass isn't so full.

Cow's digestive systems are unable to handle corn and grains. Consequently, after a year of said diet (after 12 months, most are then sent to slaughterhouses), many cows get sick.

A sick cow, though, is useless to a breeder. So, as "insurance", antibiotics are mixed into their food supply. It is believed that antibiotic residue in the food we eat is partly responsible for developing antibiotic resistance in our own bodies!

Even with this precaution, many cows become sick to the point where their blood pH drops, often resulting in a life-threatening condition known as acidosis.

In fact, corn is so harmful to cows that if they were to eat it continuously for 18 months, their systems would go into overload, resulting in death.

According to King Corn, everyone who has eaten conventional beef in the United States over the past thirty years has eaten purely corn-fed meat.

This is especially troubling considering that the fat ratio in the United States' diet is completely imbalanced.

Ideally, we want our Omega 6 (an essential fatty acid found in vegetable oils, nuts, seeds, and plants) and Omega 3 (another essential fatty acid, found in walnuts, flax, salmon, tuna) ratio to be approximately 4 to 1. Current estimates place ratios anywhere from 15:1 to 20:1!

What's wrong with that? These disproportionate numbers greatly increase our risk of developing inflammatory diseases, including Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and degenerative joint disease.

As if that weren't bad enough, beef from corn-fed cows contains as much as five times more unhealthy saturated fat than that of grass-fed cattle!

You can now see why having our food supply so saturated with corn -- which provides Omega 6 fatty acids -- is a problem.

Consider a fast-food meal of a hamburger, fries, and soda.

You are getting corn in your hamburger, both in the corn-fed beef and the bun (which contains high-fructose corn syrup).

The fries? Very likely fried in corn oil (it's the cheapest, and you know fast foot outlets are all about cutting costs and maximizing profit!)

The soda? If it's not diet, you're getting your share of high-fructose corn syrup as well.

Next time you're at the supermarket, read the ingredient lists of the foods you place in your cart, keeping track of how many items contain high-fructose corn syrup, corn starch, corn oil, corn gluten, hydrolyzed corn, etc.

I have a feeling you'll be surprised.

King Corn: Review

I caught King Corn earlier today -- and highly, HIGHLY recommend you do too.

I was lucky enough to be at a special screening which was followed by a question and answer session with one of the two documentary's stars as well as the director and editor of the project (my question, and their answer, will be posted separately).

The movie begins with friends Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis getting a strand of their respective hairs tested in a lab. The result? A rather large amount of carbon in their bodies. The culprit? Corn.

It is made clear from the beginning that the problem is not corn on the cob. Rather, it's all the ubiquitous corn byproducts in the United States' food supply.

In just 88 minutes, we watch as Curtis and Ian travel from Boston to Greene, Iowa (where, coincidentally, both their great grandfathers' once lived) in early January of this year to plant their own acre of corn.

As the months roll on, the agricultural dynamic duo begins to ponder -- and investigate -- where the genetically modified corn they are growing -- none of which is edible in its natural state -- will end up.

The answers aren't pretty: cattle feedlots, soda, bread, frying oil, cookies, soups, pasta sauce.... the list goes on!

Sprinkled throughout the documentary is commentary from Michael Pollan (who I asked to participate in our "Speaking With..." section a few months back but declined via his assistant, due to too many commitments) and Harvard's Walter Willett.

Both experts make it clear that the surplus of corn in the United States is behind many severe problems, ranging from rising obesity rates to the deplorable downfall of small farms.

King Corn also teaches a valuable lesson on the history of agriculture in this country, explaining how farmers went from originally being paid NOT to over-produce to today's record-shattering crop numbers (each acre of corn contains 31,000 kernels!)

Rather than write a long post covering the important issues -- and dishing out some eyebrow-raising statistics shown -- in the film, I will blog about King Corn throughout the week to give it the coverage I feel it deserves.

If it's playing at any of your local theaters, do not miss out! Dates and locations are below:

October 19 -- Washington, DC & Boston, MA

October 26 -- Los Angeles, CA

November 2 -- San Francisco & Berkeley, CA

November 9 -- Austin, TX

November 9 - 15 -- Chicago, IL

November 11 -- Pleasantville, NY

November 21 -- Pleasantville, NY

December 7 -- St. Louis, MO