nosh nook #129 - thursday, september 10, 2009

new 'smart choices' food labels are deceptive (link)
09.09.09 - fox news - by christopher wanjek

back in the nineties, when saturday night live was still good, they ran an ad for "bad idea jeans." it featured a bunch of dudes sitting around in their sweetly stonewashed bad idea jeans getting ready for a game of hoops & chatting it up. mike myers is all "now that i have kids, i feel a lot better about having a gun in the house." the title card flashes...BAD IDEA. david spade's all "i usually wear protection, but then i thought 'when am i gonna make it back to haiti?'"...BAD IDEA. that's essentially what "smart choices," the "new front-of-pack nutrition labeling program (that) helps shoppers make smarter food and beverage choices within product categories in every supermarket aisle" is...something that people may think is a good idea but is actually a bad idea.

fox news reporter christopher wanjek hates the program too. wow. for once, i actually agree with something said by fox news. that makes me feel very very very very very very dirty. dirty like a fox. aren't they supposed to be for big business? i guess their "anti-label" stance is stronger than their "pro-business" stance. the "smart choices" program is "underwritten by 10 of the largest food companies doing business in the united states" and the items listed as "smart choices" are dubious at best. surprisingly, fox news is also on the same side as the democratic-led government, who has some issue with the program & sent them a letter "explaining politely that they were being monitored." it's like we're in bizzaro world!

i mean, the program has a "snack foods" & "sweets" category that includes items like fudgsicles, teddy grahams & lunchables. eggs? too high in cholesterol to make the list. hellman's mayo? on the list. fruit loops & lucky charms both bear the "smart choices" label, but fruits & vegetables, although automatically on the list, don't bear a label. the average person probably knows that fruits & vegetables are good for you, but if you're relying on a label to tell you what's healthy, you might not. as a result, "the smart choices system merely makes highly processed foods appear healthy when they are not." as wanjek notes, the program's "longevity is questionable, for any consumer relying solely on smart choices checkmarks will surely be diabetic, obese or even dead within a few years." that sounds quite promising.

nosh nook #101 - monday, august 3, 2009

candy or food? confusion grows as new tax looms (link)
08.02.09 - chicago tribune - by ameet sachdev & bob secter

so you think you know what "candy" is? is it food? is it a sugary treat? is it anything you can find in the candy aisle? if you think you know, you might want to slow down there & think again, fair consumer. for years, scientists have devoted hours upon hours of lab time to defining what exactly makes something "candy," with little to no success. luckily for them, the state of illinois has come up with a definition, allowing the scientists to finally put down their bunsen burners & pocket protectors & relax with a candy bar or two or three.

as the chicago tribune reports, as part of revisions to the state sales tax, illinois has established a definition for candy, one that "demote(s) candy and soft drinks from the food group," allowing them to tax certain items at the higher, non-food rate. the revisions, which go into effect on september 1st, are designed "to help pay for a $31 billion public works program gov. pat quinn recently signed into law." with these changes, "sweets containing flour as an ingredient--and there are a lot of them--are not legally deemed to be candy, even if common sense and common taste say otherwise." oh arbitrary government regulation.

so what's considered candy? the tribune provides a few examples...hershey's bar? candy. hershey's cookies 'n' creme bar? nope. butterfinger? yep. butterfinger stixx? not candy. you put yogurt on fruit...you've got candy. you put it on a pretzel...not candy. for mom & pop stores, this causes a bit of a nightmare. whereas chain stores like wal-mart have a team of people who can easily determine which items to tax which way, the mom & pop stores have to have mom or pop do it. arthur paris, owner of lincoln park's carnival foods was quoted as saying "i anticipate having to make some arbitrary choices about what a high tax is and what a low tax [is]. it is virtually impossible for a one-horse shop like me to get this right." good luck, arthur! may the fair winds of chicago blow through your store!

nosh nook #95 - friday, july 24, 2009

hot dogs should carry a warning label, lawsuit says (link)
07.23.09 - los angeles times - by jerry hirsch

in the future! in the future, we will have a superbly super advanced society! the awesomeness of the whole thing will be totally awesome! life will be full of life. technology will become extremely technological. health advances will have advanced to a level where the average age will be somewhere around 120 & we'll have one thing to thank...labels pasted on to absolutely everything!

as the l.a. times reports, the cancer project, a vegan advocacy group, is suing hot dog makers to make them begin labeling their packages with the words "warning: consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer." um, what? apparently it's true, because neal barnard, president of the group, compares hot dogs to tobacco, arguing that "processed meats are linked to colon cancer."

the l.a. times isn't so sure. while the cancer project claims that studies show that nitrites play a role in the development of cancer, the times notes that "it's not clear whether it is because of the nitrites or other factors such as high fat content." regardless, it's ridiculous to be labeling everything. are we that dumb that we need labels on everything to know what's good & what's bad?

plus, it's like michael jacobson, executive director of the center for science in the public interest is quoted as saying, "the overuse of warnings can lead to 'warning fatigue.'" damn straight, mike. as far as i'm concerned, i'm already sick & tired of labels...but i've got time for one more. i label this whole effort "ridonkulous."

nosh nook #83 - wednesday, july 8, 2009

USDA to oversee school snack food: senate ag chair (link)
07.07.09 - reuters - by roberta rampton/walter bagley

this just in: there's no need to worry. the government cares about you. they want to make sure that you're safe & healthy and if that requires a whole bunch of regulation, so be it. this is especially true when it comes to food & your diet. it's a good thing, because we all know that we can't be trusted to eat healthy. a few weeks back, california became the first state to require restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus, following regulation established here in nyc a few years back. every day, it seems like there's another politician with another brilliant legislative plan that'll save our nation's children from the obesity epidemic.

the government will begin dealing with school lunch legislation as early as summer's end & as reuters reports, iowa's tom harkin, the new chairman of the USDA, is a politician, so he has an obesity-combatting plan too--regulate school vending machines. brilliant! the USDA already "oversees the contents of school lunches and bars the sale of foods with minimal nutritional value," but their reach doesn't cover vending machines, so back in april, harkin introduced a bill that would extend regulation to include the evil snack dispenseries.

kevin concannon, obama's nominee for head of the USDA's food & nutrition programs, wants to work with harkin to change americans' deplorable eating habits. he's run "food stamp and public nutrition programs in iowa, maine and oregon during his career," so he should know what's best for the other forty-seven states. still, as much as he wants to regulate & improve our children's eating habits, "he's seen 'pushback' from schools that count on revenue from vending machines to pay for student activities." that's why we need vending machine legislation. without it, schools won't know what's good for them & if schools don't know what's good for them & the government is helpless to do anything about it, MeMe roth will only get louder...& we don't want that. won't someone please think of the children?

nosh nook #76 - monday, june 29, 2009

'bliss' foods devised to create snack junkies (link)
06.29.09 - the australian - by jonathan leake

are you a junkie? do you run out to the corner at every opportunity & grab yourself some smack? how about some snack? if you're like me and millions of americans, you're a total junkie, always fiending for some snack. who says we're junkies? former FDA chairman david kessler, the guy who got standardized nutrition facts on labels & took on big tobacco, that's who...& he said it in an actual book (the end of overeating) from an actual publisher (rodale), so you know it's true.

last night, i came across an article about kessler's book in today's edition of the australian, since australia's from the future & all. in it, there's an article about the findings in kessler's book, findings that say that "manufacturers have discovered optimum levels of fat, sugar and salt that make [foods] highly addictive." heinz & starbucks are just two of the companies "seeking to trigger a 'bliss point'" in eaters, a point where more neurons fire in the brain & the eaters become snack junkies.

not having read kessler's book, here's my judgment (of the snap variety) about his findings: he says "it is time to stop blaming individuals for being overweight or obese." um, no it's not. even if manufacturers have some devious plan to create foods that turn people into snack junkies, just like with any junkie, individuals aren't entirely blameless. we get addicted to shit, but last i checked, we humans have free will & aren't entirely puppets.

having read this article by the australian, here's my judgment (of the non-snap variety) about it: um, this book came out two months ago. peeps have already covered it. i guess you just got the press release the other day or something & figured, "you know what? junk food hatred is a hot topic down under these days. let's let jonathan run with it." your article might be from the future & the book might be from the past, but your topic is SO NOW!