THE RECENT EGG RECALL WAS MASSIVE – A HALF A BILLION EGGS. The eggs were recalled because of salmonella. Here is some of the information I discovered in reading about the recall and salmonella.

1. All chicken and eggs have the potential to be tainted with salmonella, regardless of how they are raised or fed. Conventional, cage-free, free-range, pastured, organic, or vegetarian fed – none of these labels mean salmonella-free.
2. How a chicken is raised and fed does impact the risk factor.

   Conventionally raised and cage-free chickens live in over-crowded conditions (farmers are only required to give chickens a space about the size of a sheet of computer paper).  Cage-free are loose rather than stacked in battery cages. In either case, the chickens are surrounded by their own waste and never go outside into the sunlight and fresh air. They are frequently debeaked, force molted, and/or bred to have extra large breasts – the last meaning they often can’t walk around. They are fed a diet that isn’t what chickens naturally eat. All of these factors negatively impact the chickens’ immune systems and increase their exposure to salmonella.

   Pastured and free-range chickens are more likely to have adequate space to roam, scratch and engage in other natural chicken-y behaviors. They spend time outside (in some cases 100% of their time is spent outside.) Pastured chickens eat a natural chicken diet of grasses and insects. These factors positively impact chicken immune systems and decrease their exposure to salmonella.

   But here’s the rub: it all depends on the farm. A farm can raise free range birds in a filthy environment with poor feed or conventional birds in an exceptionally clean environment with top quality feed. So while the label can give you an idea of how the chickens are raised, it’s no guarantee.

3. Salmonella can get into chickens and eggs in a variety of ways and contamination can occur in the barn or during cleaning and processing.

   In poultry, salmonella often comes from feed or supplements tainted with rodent feces, unsanitary living conditions, unsanitary processing equipment, contact with rodents, flies or birds, or a combination of these things.

   In eggs, salmonella can get in from the inside or the outside. A hen with salmonella in her system can transfer it to the egg, or an egg exposed to salmonella from unsanitary conditions can absorb it through the porous shell.
   

4. The only way to guarantee you are safe from salmonella in poultry and eggs is to cook food thoroughly to safe temperatures and to use safe handling methods to prevent cross-contamination.

   Chicken should be cooked to 165 degrees Fahrenheit and eggs to 160 degrees Fahrenheit. Wash your hands, disinfect surfaces, and don’t rinse poultry before cooking. Find more safe handling tips at the USDA web site.

THIS RECALL IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT MAKES IT CLEAR that unsanitary conditions will lead to a massive outbreak of salmonella. About 2000 people were sickened. It is unclear how many illnesses were from under-cooked food versus how many from cross-contamination. But in the end, the more eggs and chickens contaminated, the more chance for illness.

Even if we could eradicate salmonella, I’m not sure I would support the effort as I fear it would prohibit the raising of pastured and free-range chickens. And I certainly wouldn’t support a vaccine or the irradiation of meat and eggs. Better to try to but food with the least risk and follow safe handling and cooking methods.

But just because salmonella is killed when it’s cooked doesn’t give farmers a pass on keeping chickens in sanitary conditions and using unhealthy or contaminated feed.

The bottom line: If you can buy higher quality eggs and poultry from a source you trust, do it. Regardless, cook eggs and chicken thoroughly and use safe handling methods to avoid cross-contamination.

THIS MORNING, I READ AN ARTICLE ABOUT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE (RBGH OR RBST) IN BREYERS, HAAGEN-DAZS, AND BASKIN-ROBBINS ICE CREAM. It made me think about just how hard it is to find a good, real ice cream.

Ice cream is milk, cream, sugar, and real flavor ingredients like vanilla or cocoa (not to be confused with “flavoring” ingredients.) As simple as the ingredients are, real ice cream is very hard to find.

Most ice cream brands contain things like cellulose gum, mono and diglycerides, guar gum, carrageenan, dextrose, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, and dyes.  Yuck – unhealthy ingredients, some with possible negative health side effects and all with unknown side effects in the quantity and combination they’re found in our food system.

The two I’ve found to be closest to the real deal are Breyers (regular not low fat or light) and Turkey Hill Philadelphia Style (I guess Philadelphians don’t like additives in their ice cream).

NOW I FIND OUT THIS rBGH CRAP.

The FDA says ingesting bovine growth hormone is safe.  But is it?

Remember when you were breastfeeding your baby (or knew someone who was breastfeeding a baby)? Doctors recommend avoiding alcohol and being careful about what medications are ingested – because everything that goes into the mother comes out in the milk. I feel certain my doctor wouldn’t have recommended I take a growth hormone while I was breastfeeding. What’s different about cows? Nothing.

• The Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH, is banned in Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia and all 27 nations of the European Union. Babies in China are developing breasts at seven months because of rBST in the formula.
• rBGH was developed by Monsanto. The company’s own studies found that the amount of IGF-1 in milk more than doubled when cows were injected with rBGH.  A European Commission committee determined that excessive levels of IGF-1 in milk of cows injected with rBGH may pose serious risks of breast, colon and prostate cancer.
• Bovine Growth Hormone is also notorious for causing the cows much pain and distress because it increases diseases like lameness and mastitis in cows injected with it. Increased udder infections mean more injections of antibiotics, which also end up in the milk.

SO HOW DO I GET REAL ICE CREAM? I usually make it myself in my Cuisinart ice cream maker. Unfortunately, I’ve found it hard to find a cream that’s just cream, without carageenan, guar gum, Polysorbate 80, or other stuff. Seriously, why isn’t cream just cream? But that’s another blog post.

The bottom line: Bovine Growth Hormone can cause some serious health problems. Avoid or severely limit intake of Breyer’s, Haagen-Dazs, and Baskin-Robbins ice cream because the milk used comes from cows given the growth hormones rBGH/rBST. Know what’s in your ice cream by reading the ingredients. Eat wisely.

SUNNY D JUST WENT GREEN. And while it is impressive that Sunny D ‘s six manufacturing plants in the U.S. and Spain went to zero waste this year – beating the company goal by three years – this faux juice still rates as a Worst Food.

Strike 1: Misleading marketing

To start with, if a food’s marketing campaign is “Buy this and your kids will think you’re cool,” avoid it at all costs. Seriously.  We don’t need our kids to think we’re cool; we need them to be healthy. Because we’re parents and we all know our kids aren’t going to think we’re cool, no matter what food we buy.

But the bigger marketing issue is that Sunny D wants us to think it’s a real juice, a replacement for, say, orange juice. But, as you’ll see below, juice is in Sunny D the same way vermouth is in an extra dry martini. (That’s barely at all, in case you’re not a martini drinker.)

Strike 2: Sunny D is mainly sugar water

So the marketing campaign is a huge red flag, but what is Sunny D, anyway? According to the Sunny D web site, it’s a “fruit-flavored beverage,” which sounds about right. Although I might call it “artificially fruit-flavored sugar water.”

The main ingredients in Sunny D are water and high fructose corn syrup.

Less than 2% is concentrated juices (orange, tangerine, apple, lime, grapefruit), citric acid, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), thiamin hydrochloride (vitamin B1), natural flavors, modified food starch, canola oil, sodium citrate, cellulose gum, xanthan gum, sodium hexametaphosphate, sodium benzoate, yellow 5, and yellow 6.

To be clear:

• 98% is water and HFCS
• 2% is all that other stuff

An 8 ounce serving of Sunny D contains 27g of sugar, and that sugar is from the HFCS, not fruit juice. It’s about the same sugar content as 8 ounces of soda. It also contains 190 mg of sodium, which is more than 5 times the sodium in the same amount of Coke. Yikes.

Strike 3: Other additives

The inclusion of natural flavors is a sure sign that the flavor of this drink isn’t coming from those miniscule amounts of juice. Sunny D also contains corn starch and canola oil. In a drink? Who needs to be drinking that stuff?

Sodium benzoate is a potentially toxic additive and yellow dyes have also been linked to health issues.

The bottom line:

Three strikes and you’re out, Sunny D. This beverage may be cheap (about $.03/ounce), but it’s definitely not a healthy drink for everyday consumption or, quite frankly, for consumption at all.

By Charles Wilson and Eric Schlosser

In Chew on This, Schlosser, who wrote Fast Food Nation, teams up with Wilson to provide a look at the fast food industry in a book geared towards young adults. Focusing on fast food industry marketing ploys and health impact, this book covers the gruesome side of food creation and employee treatment in less — but enough — detail than Fast Food Nation.

Amazon’s Editors Say:
Grade 7 Up An important addition to most libraries. Useful for health classes and nutrition units, it will also be an eye-opener for general readers who regularly indulge at the Golden Arches. An adaptation of Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation (Houghton, 2001), Chew on This covers the history of the fast-food industry and delves into the agribusiness and animal husbandry methods that support it. From the 37-day life of the pre-McNugget chicken to the appallingly inhumane conditions of slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants, the author lays out the gruesome details behind the tasty burgers and sandwiches. Equally disturbing is his revelation of the way that the fast-food giants have studied childhood behavior and geared their commercials and free toy inclusions to hook the youngest consumers. The text is written in a lively, lay-out-the-facts manner. Occasional photographs add bits of visual interest, but the emphasis here is on the truth about soda pop and obesity, fries and lies.

Why it changed my eating habits: This book is the perfect read for anyone who avoided Fast Food Nation over worries of being too grossed out. Chew on This covers the same subject matter in a PG-13 version, but still gets the point across. What I really enjoyed about this book is all the statistics and discussion starting points for getting conversations going with kids about fast food from every angle — health, animal rights, employee rights, and marketing tactics. If Fast Food Nation hadn’t already made me disgusted with the fast food industry, this book would have surely done the trick.

I WASN’T EATING A LOT OF BEEF ANYWAY, but after reading Fast Food Nation, I stopped eating beef altogether. Then, a few years later, I read The Omnivore’s Dilemma. It put a light at the end of the beefless tunnel by describing Joel Salatin’s grass farming methods at Polyface Farms.

At the time, I couldn’t get grass-fed beef anywhere nearby, but now I can get it through my CSA, from two farms within an hour away, and from both local Whole Foods Markets. So we’re back to eating some beef.

BUT WHY CHOOSE GRASS-FED BEEF? Is it just some fad or trend? Is it some status thing for wealthy or pretentious people? Is it really better? And if so, what does “better” mean?

It’s hard to separate quality of food from impact on the environment and treatment of the animals, (and, in my opinion, we shouldn’t) but those concerns aside, there are real health and quality reasons to choose grass-fed.

Here are the top three:

1. No antibiotics needed. Cows are ruminants. They are designed to eat grass. To digest grain, they need to be given antibiotics, otherwise they will get sick. Being fed grain messes with a cow’s digestive system, leading to more parasites and E. coli. Grain-fed cows spend most of their life on a crowded feedlot, standing in E. coli-filled feces, so they need even more antibiotics.
2. More omega-3 fatty acids. Also, more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) (associated with lower heart disease and cancer risk), vitamin A, and vitamin E. Meat from feedlot cows will have half as much as much omega-3s as grass-fed meat These nutrients come from the grass. What the cow eats ends up in the meat ends up in you.
3. Less saturated fat and less overall fat. Corn-fed beef has the marbling that many people see as desirable. But the marbling is just saturated fat that can’t be trimmed off. Because grass-fed beef has less fat, it also has fewer calories.

As a bonus, it tastes better. I didn’t think I’d be able to taste any difference, but the grass-fed beef is definitely more flavorful and has an almost buttery texture.

MAYBE YOU THINK YOU CAN’T AFFORD GRASS-FED BEEF. But don’t write it off as unaffordable yet. Sure if you’re buying steaks every week, grass-fed can get way pricy. But to buy ground beef, stew meat, or bottom round roast, it’s fairly affordable (I pay between $5.99/lb and $7.99/lb for these cuts at Whole Foods). And if you buy just one cut per week, you might be able to fit it in the budget.

Another way to make it affordable is to buy in quantity direct from the farm. When I do a 25lb buy, I get a wide variety of cuts, from soup meat to filet mignon, all for about $5/lb., about $1 less than the cheapest cut at Whole Foods.

The bottom line: Grass-fed beef isn’t some fad for wealthy city-folk. It has real and serious health and quality advantages, and it doesn’t have to be cost prohibitive.

More information about the nutrition and safety of grass-fed beef:
http://www.puremeats.com/resources/grassfed_factsheet.shtml
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/9/1/10
http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm

(Source: Dr. Dina Rose, The (Chocolate) Milk Mistake. Detailed list at bottom.)

THESE NUMBERS ARE ASTOUNDING AND seeing it in black and white (so to speak) drives home how much sugar kids are consuming when they have packaged chocolate milk once or twice every day.

Sugar is only one part of the picture, though, and for sure milk has more nutrients than those other treats. The whole picture includes our entire food culture.

HOW DO WE WANT OUR KIDS TO THINK ABOUT FOOD, portion food, and eat food? Every meal, snack, or grocery shopping trip is a view into our food culture and it’s up to us as parents to consciously decide what food culture messages we want to give our kids.

Chocolate milk is one example of how we can define our family’s food culture. By giving chocolate milk on a daily or regular basis, a parent is making a conscious decision to blur the line between treat and growing food, to say “yes, milk doesn’t taste good enough on its own, so let’s add chocolate”, and to give additional sugar that is basically hidden from the child in a healthy food.

There’s not necessarily a right or wrong here; each family has to make their own decisions and stand behind those decisions.

THE BOTTOM LINE: As parents, only we can and should decide what our kids eat. The food decisions we make should be done thoughtfully and purposefully. We should be able to stand behind them as sending the food culture message to our kids that we mean to send.

Chart Details:

• 1 cup packaged chocolate milk = 28g sugar
• 1 Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Bar = 24g sugar
• 1 serving Cocoa Krispies = 12g sugar
• 2 Entenmann’s Softees Powdered Donuts = 26g sugar
• 1 Dairy Queen Child’s Chocolate Cone = 17g sugar
• 1 Dairy Queen Child’s Chocolate Cone with Rainbow Sprinkles = 22g sugar
• 1 Dairy Queen Child’s Chocolate Cone with Oreo Pieces = 28g sugar
• 1 apple fritter at Starbucks = 27g sugar
• 1 12-ounce can of 7UP = 25g sugar
• 6 Oreo Cookies = 28g sugar
• 1 Pepperidge Farm Soft Baked Chocolate Chunk Dark Chocolate Brownie = 13g sugar
• 1 16-ounce bottle of Nesquik chocolate milk = 58g
• 1 McDonald’s Hot Caramel Sundae = 44g sugar

DOES THE PREFIX “ECO-“ MEAN ECOLOGICAL OR ECONOMICAL? Take a look at these products. Which ones are organic or environmentally friendly?

Unless you read the fine print, you could be fooled. I sure was – and so was the Home Depot guy. He recommended Ortho Ecosense to me as an organic solution to my tomato plant blossom rot problem.

Oops.

Luckily, I read the directions and label in more detail before using it. It’s not safe for kids or pets and harmful if inhaled. Definitely NOT “eco” in the way I – and the vast majority of the world – understand the meaning of “eco.”

CONVENTIONALLY, “ECO-“ IS USED TO REPRESENT ECOLOGICAL and “econ” is the short form of economics. The prefix “eco-“ is often used for environmentally friendly products or services – Ecoviva water, Ecosummer Travel Expeditions, Ecover, Eco-Bags, etc. Not one of those companies is promoting its products as economical. Even Wikipedia lists it as “a prefix mostly relating to ecological or environmental terms.”

So, why is Ortho trying to fool everyone into buying their products by using the “eco-“ prefix and even printing it in green? This label is extremely misleading. Shame on you, Ortho.

EVEN THOUGH THIS ISN’T A FOOD PRODUCT, it’s meant to be used on food products people grow in their gardens and is a really good example of how companies use packaging to manipulate people into buying products based on first impression or emotional response.

I really, really wish I had taken the time to read the label completely before I bought this toxic product so I didn’t have to make a trip back to Home Depot. But better that than using this poison on my tomatoes. Yuck.

The bottom line: Don’t rely on packaging. Read the fine print and ingredients on every product you buy that will be ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by you and your family.

YOU HAVE TO GIVE KELLOGG’S CREDIT. Through some sort of marketing magic, they’ve convinced everyone Pop-Tarts are a breakfast food. Now, if only we could get them to use that marketing magic for good and not junk food, we might achieve world peace.

At least Quaker had the guts to come right out and call their product a Breakfast Cookie. And in fact, a homemade oatmeal cookie would be healthier than either Quaker or Kellogg’s breakfast treats.

THERE’S NO POINT IN LISTING POP-TART INGREDIENTS. They come in about 30 different flavors (not counting the printed or limited edition flavors) with names like Ice Cream Shoppe™ Vanilla Milkshake, Frosted Wild! Grape, and Frosted Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough.

Some also carry front of box claims like 20% daily value of fiber, one serving of whole grain, and 25% less sugar.

But here are some points to note:

• In most (if not all) Pop-Tarts, 5 of the first 6 ingredients are sugars or oils.
• Any Pop-Tarts with color, whether on sprinkles, in frosting, or in fruit, is getting its color from dyes. The strawberries aren’t red, the red dye is red.
• The fiber in Pop-Tarts is from inulin. Better to get fiber from fruits, whole grains, and veggies – not Pop-Tarts.
• 25% less sugar means the Pop-Tart “[c]ontains 25% less sugar than 55 to 75 of the top 100 toaster pastries.” It also means more fat content (they have to make up for the lack of sweet somehow).
• With any product, it’s important to look at the whole nutritional package, not just the sugar, calorie, or fat content.

POP-TARTS ARE ONE OF THE FOOD PRODUCTS that are continually singled out as nutritionally lacking and inappropriately marketed towards children. In 2006, the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus recommended Kellogg’s remove the phrase “made with real fruit” due to consumer complaint; however, the phrase is still used.

The bottom line: Kellogg’s does seem to think we can be easily fooled by creative use of the truth in marketing. But we know better. Pop-Tarts should be considered treats, not an every day food (and definitely not a breakfast food!)

If you are interested in making some homemade Pop-Tart-like treats or hearty oatmeal raisin cookies, try these recipes. They are delicious and don’t contain synthetic additives or trans fats.

• Homemade “Pop Tarts” from Smitten Kitchen (I used frozen pie crust from Whole Foods instead of homemade pastry with great results.)
• Vanishing Oatmeal Breakfast Cookies from SparkRecipes

Consume This First is excited to have another guest post from The Non-Toxic Mom. Be sure to visit her blog, where she blogs often and with enthusiasm about living a non-toxic lifestyle.

AHH, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, WHAT AM I GOING TO DO WITH YOU? I’m not talking to those of you who get it; I’m talking to those of you who are still clueless. Particularly YOU, the administrator who agreed to have a meeting with me and then nearly knocked me out of my chair with absolutely insane comments and a backward philosophy. Why why why did you look at me like I’m a crazy, overbearing, neurotic parent? Did I come to you as the “competitive”mom, and insist on knowing how all the other kids in the class are performing?  Did I come to you as the “pushy” mom, and insist that you work harder to teach my 3 year old developmentally ridiculous practices, like reading? Did I come to you as the “entitled” mom, and insist that my extra wonderful child should have every little thing catered to her specific desires? No, no, and no.

I simply asked you to look at the snacks being served to the 2,3, and 4 year olds in your preschool. I excitedly said that we have a great opportunity to advertise ourselves as a school that cares about health and wellness. You said feeding the kids good food is not the school’s responsibility. I insisted that we have a chance to influence the early eating habits of these kids. You told me that I’m the only parent who cares about this stuff; I should just look at the food the other kids bring in their lunchboxes. For snack I suggested fruit; you said they’ll never eat it. Even worse, you said your teachers cannot be expected to take the time to cut it up. I asked you to at least choose crackers and cookies without preservatives and artificial ingredients; you said you’re not convinced there’s anything wrong with serving these things to kids. I gave you 3 types of cereals that have decent ingredients and that my kids love for snack; you warily sneered that you’ll have to “taste test” these cereals to see if they’ll meet the approval of the preschoolers.

WAIT, ADMINISTRATOR  X, IF YOU RECALL, THERE WAS MORE. I switched gears and asked you to please stop giving my child Twizzlers, lollipops and Hershey kisses on Thursdays after ballet. You told me that you will not stop because the children work for food. After I caught my breath and picked myself up off of the floor, I mentioned that I was pretty sure that rewarding children with food was not a great practice. With a straight face you told me, “When the girls are not listening during ballet, I tell them that they better dance if they want their treats, and you know what? They start dancing, so IT WORKS!”

Administrator X, I almost dropped dead when I heard this. I have been an educator for 13 years. I have worked with kids of all ages. I have taught lots of preschoolers. I have worked with kids with severe special needs who needed constant reinforcement, but managed to survive not getting it from food. You said it works. Of course it works. That’s hardly the point. Lots of things work in the short term. You can beat the crap out of your kids if you want a temporary measure of compliance; does that mean it’s a good idea? Hardly. Reinforcing and rewarding kids with food works, but it is less than ideal. I’ve been watching kids lately. They are absolutely devastated when everyday activities are not concluded with some sort of food ceremony:

“Hooray, you went to the bathroom. Here’s a cookie.”
“Yippee, you put your dirty tissue in the garbage. Good job. Here’s a jelly bean.”
“Wow, you didn’t hit your brother at all today. Here’s a cake; let’s celebrate.”
“Great, you finished your breakfast…here’s dessert.”

GIVE ME A BREAK. It’s enough already; food is for eating so you can grow tall and strong and remain alive. If you absolutely must hold a reward over their heads, buy some stickers and call it a day. Don’t reward my child with toxic garbage at 10:30 in the morning because she didn’t annoy you while you were trying to teach ballet.

OK, deep breath….so I’m annoyed about the snacks at my daughter’s preschool; the toxicity of them, the way they are being used to manipulate the kids, and the resistance to changing them.  I was inspired to think about what I would do if I ran the school. This inspiration was motivated by your snide comment, Administrator X, as we parted ways and you sneered, “Maybe you should start your own school.”  So what can teachers and administrators do to promote better habits and food practices in our kids?

1. Model your own interest in healthy eating by creating a culture of wellness in your class. Encourage kids to bring in fruits and vegetables- if you want to have a star chart, have one for those kids who bring in good snacks. If you provide the snacks to the kids, take the time to wash and prepare healthy snacks together as a class. Praise kids for trying new foods.
2. Stop using food as a reward. It’s a cheap and dirty trick.
3. When you serve junk food, don’t also serve chemicals. Cookies and crackers do not need to have hydrogenated fat, high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, artificial colors, and GMO’s. Read labels.
4. Leave the candy out of school. A cookie is one thing; lollipops and gummy bears are a whole other level of ridiculous.

SCHOOL LEADERS, LISTEN UP. I know your job can be very challenging. Most of you deserve all the credit in the world for your dedication to the children in your care. Sorry to add to your “to do” list; I know it’s already quite long. But years after the silly songs and circle time rituals are forgotten, habits will remain. Teach your little students to care about eating well. It’s one of the most valuable lessons you can teach and one they’ll always remember.

And yes, I’d love to start my own school.

BRACE YOURSELF. I’m about to go after some of your favorite foods – sodas, snacks, treats, and more. These ingredients can also be found in foods like pasta sauces, cereals, and side dishes – things you eat at meals every day.

All five have all been linked to serious health problems. In some cases the evidence is clear, in others, the jury is still out – we still aren’t sure whether the ingredient is harmful or not – but the risk isn’t worth it.

Getting these five ingredients out of your house will make your family healthier, cut down on useless calories and chemical additives, and could save you money (if you can stop or cut back on buying certain products).

YOU MAY OR MAY NOT THINK YOU CAN ELIMINATE these ingredients completely from your shopping list, but limit them as much as you can. Sometimes an alternative product is available; sometimes the food item can be removed from your family’s daily consumption all together. In some cases, maybe the best you can do is cut back.

But even that will help.

1. Dyes

Used in: Sports drinks, fruit drinks, candy, cereal, crackers, cereal bars, ice pops, most anything with bright colors, even color you think is from fruit.

Usually made from petrochemicals, dyes are used to make food brightly colored and “fun” and/or to make food look as if it contains healthy fruits and vegetables.

Food dyes like yellow 5 and red 40 are linked to various health problems in children such as hyperactivity, impulsivity, learning difficulties, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  Studies on the blue dyes show potential kidney problems.

Because of those links, dyes commonly used in the United States in have already been banned in the U.K. Food makers, such as Kellogg’s, make two versions of products, one without dyes (using colorings made from real food ingredients) for U.K. and one with dyes for U.S.

I talked about dyes in more detail (with references) in Red Dye 40 and Its Colorful Friends.

2. Benzoates (Sodium benzoate, Potassium benzoate)

Used in: sodas, sports drinks, salad dressing, vinegars, and more

Benzoates have recently been linked to several health problems, leading scientists to call for the FDA to retest these ingredients. Original tests are quite old.

Professor Peter Piper (okay, it sounds fake, but stay with me) has done research linking sodium benzoate to cellular damage, specifically to cell mitochondria.

When benzoates are combined with ascorbic acid in the ingredients of a food product, benzene, a known carcinogen, is created – albeit in levels not considered dangerous for consumption.

Finally, studies done in the U.K. in 2007 linked sodium benzoate to hyperactivity when used with artificial colors.

3. Trans Fats (Partially Hydrogenated Oils)

Used in: Crackers, fast food, snack foods, cookies, margarines, and more.

Trans fats have been directly linked to coronary heat disease, Alzheimer’s, cancer, diabetes, obesity, liver dysfunction, infertility in women.

The evidence is so strong, there are movements to ban trans fats in several cities and states in the U.S., including New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Vermont. Denmark already has a nationwide ban and other countries are attempting the same.

4. Artificial sweeteners

Used in: cereals, sodas, low-calorie foods, gum, almost anything that says “sugar-free”

Artificial sweeteners are hundreds of times sweeter than sugar. As a result, your palate grows accustomed to needing super-sweet foods. This leads to consumption of more artificially sweetened foods and less naturally sweet foods like fruit.

Studies on animals have been done to see how the body reacts to some artificial sweeteners. The results aren’t pretty. Artificial sweeteners can actually cause weight gain. The sweet taste creates an insulin response, but there is no increase of blood sugars. The result is hypoglycemia and increase food consumption at the next meal.

For every study saying artificial sweeteners are safe, there’s one saying they aren’t. Evidence is far from clear. Here’s a rundown of the five FDA-approved artificial sweeteners.

Saccharin (Sweet and Low, Sweet Twin, Sweet’N Low, and Necta Sweet): Listed as a carcinogen for decades for causing cancer in laboratory animals, it was delisted in the 1990’s after the original studies were criticized for high dosages (hundreds of times the “normal” human intake). As a result, the FDA has strict regulations about allowable amounts and many people believe saccharin should be avoided by infants, pregnant women, and small children.

Aspartame ( Nutrasweet, Equal, and Sugar Twin): Linked to headaches and depression, both of which can be severe in people with mood disorders. Ongoing studies are researching a possible link to cancer and weight gain.

Acesulfame Potassium (acesulfame K, Ace-K, or Sunett): This sweetener has not been subjected to long-term studies. It contains the carcinogen methylene chloride, which can cause headaches, depression, nausea, mental confusion, liver effects, kidney effects, visual disturbances, and cancer in humans with long-term exposure. The FDA has not required any further testing.

Neotame: A new version of aspartame without the phenylalanine dangers, so it can be consumed by people with PKU. The makers of Neotame claim 100 studies have been done, although these studies are not available to the public. No independent studies have been done.

Sucralose (Splenda): Contains chlorine, a carcinogen. There have been no long-term studies on sucralose to determine how it’s digested and absorbed into the body. Short-term studies have linked it to bloating, gas, diarrhea, nausea, skin irritations, wheezing, cough, runny nose, chest pains, anxiety, moods swings, depression, and itchy eyes.

More information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_substitute
http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/article.htm

5. High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

Used in: drinks, sodas, snacks, cookies, treats, bread, pasta sauce, salad dressing, jams, and more

No point in beating a dead horse; I wrote about why to avoid HFCS before and we’ve all heard about the potential health problems associated with HFCS. The bottom line is that no one yet knows whether HFCS causes metabolism problems, weight gain, or worse. You don’t want to fool yourself into thinking a food is healthy just because it contains sugar not HFCS. But scientists are very clear on how bodies process sugar, while they aren’t 100% certain about HFSC and whether it’s causing unintended effects.

HFCS is often found in highly processed foods – foods that can often be avoided or limited. Why mess around? Avoid HFCS whenever you can.

The bottom line: Avoid buying food products with these ingredients. Find alternatives or skip the product all together. What you can’t avoid, limit. Your family will be healthier and you’ll cut back on unneeded calories and additives. If you need help finding good alternatives, email me and I’ll do my best to help.