Sing Along With Sugar

I’ve been writing about sugar and all its variations for the last few weeks now, and today is the last of the series on it.

To close out, I leave you with a video I made set to some bubblegum music – how pertinent to sugar, eh?

So get ready to sing and clap your hands, all in honor of sugar.

Do you love sugar? I hate to break the bad news to you, but sugar doesn’t love you back, no matter what the song may tell you.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.

Red Bull Has Cocaine In It!

I told you in yesterday’s article about the dangers of soda. Well, how about so-called “energy drinks,” and in particular, Red Bull, the best-selling energy drink in the world?

Red Bull is produced and sold by the Austrian company Red Bull GmbH. In 2006 there were three billion cans sold.

The motto for the drink is “It gives you Wings.”

What with its high sugar and caffeine content, it’s understandable that it will give you energy and “wings” – although it’s not a healthy type of energy that it gives you.

It contains 21.5 grams of sucrose, 5.25 grams of glucose, and 80 mg of caffeine. The caffeine in Red Bull is equal to the amount found in an average cup of coffee, although it’s twice the amount found in a can of Coke. A sugar-free version is available, sweetened with aspartame and sucralose, instead of sucrose and glucose.

Commonly reported adverse effects due to caffeine used in the quantities present in Red Bull are insomnia, nervousness, headache, and rapid heartbeat.

The results of a study conducted in 2008 showed that the ingestion of one can of Red Bull had an immediate detrimental effect on both endothelial function, and normal blood coagulation. This temporarily raised the cardiovascular risk in these individuals to a level comparable to that of an individual with established coronary artery disease.

Based on their results, researchers involved with the study cautioned against the consumption of Red Bull in individuals under stress, in those with high blood pressure, or in anyone with established atherosclerotic disease.

There has been at least one case report of Red Bull overdose causing death in a young athlete.

But regardless of all this, because of the way it is promoted, it is the world’s leading energy drink.

But the kind of energy boost it gives is one that will ramp up your adrenal system and put your body in hyperdrive. It’s the kind of boost that puts you in High Density Lifestyle mode.

And now, on top of all that Red Bull is, it was recently discovered that Red Bull has cocaine in it.

Maybe that’s why it is the world’s leading energy drink!

Because of the recent findings of cocaine in Red Bull, it has been banned in at least six German states.

The cocaine was discovered by a German food safety agency in the North Rhine-Westphalia (LIGA) state, which stated they found 0.4 micrograms per liter in the drink.

While Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection both said the level did not pose a threat to public safety, it was thought more German states may join the ban.

“The institute examined Red Bull Cola in an elaborate chemical process and found traces of cocaine,” said Bernhard Kuehnle, head of the food safety department at the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection.

Officials also said that the presence of the cocaine residues violated the parameters of being classified a “food stuff.” Rather, it should be classified as a narcotic, and that classification needs a specific license.

The Red Bull company immediately issued a statement that said the problem had arisen out of its “use of a decocainised coca leaf extract in the product.”

The use of coca leaves is something that the beverage industry is understandably coy about given its links to cocaine, even if decocainised leaves are legal in most countries.

According to a story in Time magazine, Coca-Cola refused to confirm or deny whether it used either regular or decocainised coca leaves in its products.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.

And So Now, Guess Who Is Being Hyped as “The Natural” Choice?

I’ve been writing articles for the last week about sugar, and how detrimental it is to your health.

I started off by telling you about the downside of sugar, and then how toxic high fructose corn syrup is. From there, I discussed artificial sweeteners, telling you about the dangers of all five of the artificial sweeteners that have been approved by the FDA: saccharine, aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame K, and neotame.

And so, where does that leave us? Well, believe it or not, the good old sugar industry sees an opening. They realize that if they portray themselves as the natural option, they can convince people that they are the healthy choice.

Why, what a public service they are providing! They are advising people to get away from using the poisonous artificial sweeteners, and instead return back to the fold by sticking with the real thing.

From the tomato sauce on a Pizza Hut pie called “The Natural,” to the just-released soda Pepsi Natural, some of the biggest players in the American food business have started, in the last few months, replacing high-fructose corn syrup with old-fashioned sugar, and promoting the fact that by doing that, they are giving people a healthy choice.

Blamed for hyperactivity in children and studied as an addictive substance, sugar has had its share of image problems. But the widespread criticism of high-fructose corn syrup — the first lady, Michelle Obama, has said she will not give her children products made with it — has made sugar look good by comparison.

Most scientists do not share the perception. Though research is still under way, many nutrition and obesity experts say sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are equally bad in excess. But, as is often the case with competing food claims, the battle is as much about marketing as it is about science.

But with sugar newly ascendant, the makers of corn syrup are fighting back. Last fall, the Corn Refiners Association mounted a multimillion-dollar defense, making sure that an advertisement linking to the association’s Web site pops up when someone types “sugar” or “high-fructose corn syrup” into some search engines.

In one television advertisement, a mother pours fruit punch into a cup while another scolds her because the punch contains high-fructose corn syrup. When pressed to explain why it is so bad, the complaining mother is portrayed as a speechless fool.

Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, said consumers were being duped.

“When they discover they are being misled into thinking these new products are healthier, that’s the interesting angle,” Ms. Erickson said in an interview.

Meanwhile, the American Medical Association says that when it comes to obesity, there is no difference between the syrup and sugar.

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

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.

A Look at Artificial Sweeteners, Part 5

There are 5 artificial sweeteners, and I’ve told you about 4 of them in the last few articles. Those 4 are: saccharine, aspartame, sucralose, and acesulfame K.

Each of these has the potential to adversely affect your health.

Today I’ll tell you about the last of the 5 artificial sweeteners. This one is called Neotame.

Neotame is the new kid on the block. Approved in 2002 by the FDA,  it is a new version of aspartame, and is manufactured by Monsanto, who manufactures Nutrasweet, a version of aspartame.

With all the bad publicity Nutrasweet/aspartame has gotten, Monsanto’s hope with Neotame is that a new version of aspartame can help Monsanto maintain market share in the artificial sweetener business.

Neotame is chemically related to aspartame and is much sweeter than aspartame, with a potency of approximately 7,000 to 13,000 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar).

It is 30 times sweeter than aspartame, so only a tiny amount is needed. Since the FDA does not require

labels to include ingredients that comprise less than one percent of the product, neotame can be used in foods without having to be listed on the label.

It can also be camouflaged under “natural flavors,” so when you see that phrase listed on the label, you may want to give serious consideration to whether you want to buy that product.

Neotame entered the market much more discreetly than the other nonnutritive sweeteners. While the Web site for neotame claims that there are over 100 scientific studies to support its safety, they are not readily available to the public, as there have not been any legitimate, independent, long-term human studies on neotame.

Critics say neotame is even more toxic than aspartame. Neotame has a similar structure to aspartame — except that, from its structure, it appears to be even more toxic than aspartame. This potential increase in toxicity will make up for the fact that less will be used in diet drinks.

Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid.

Given all of the suffering being caused by Monsanto’s aspartame, the prudent course would be to start out with the assumption that it may cause toxic damage or cancer from long-term exposure and conduct many thorough, long-term, and independent human studies to see the effects.

The studies on the safety of Neotame are sketchy at best. Consumer groups have called for independent research (not studies funded by the manufacturer) to evaluate its effects. They allege that Monsanto’s studies on humans lasted only one day.

They accuse Monsanto of hiring a close business partner to conduct studies on the sweetener. The critics also say that it was discovered the researchers were hiding reaction-causing chemicals in the drinks given to control groups.

The non-profit group, Truth in Labeling, gained access to some of the neotame studies. They write, “At the time of our review of Monsanto’s application, three human studies on the safety of neotame were presented. The studies had few subjects, all of whom were employees of the company. Some of the subjects reported headaches after ingesting neotame, but the researchers concluded that the headaches were not related to neotame ingestion. Not mentioned in the studies was the fact that migraine headache is, by far, the most commonly reported adverse reaction to aspartame in the files of the FDA.”

H.J. Roberts, MD, who has studied the effects of aspartame for many years, writes: “The fundamental issue is that neotame, a synthetic variation of aspartame, requires extensive evaluation before the FDA should accept a superficial opinion about its purported safety based largely on limited short-term data involving potentially flawed protocols that were almost totally funded by corporate contracts.”

Even Monsanto’s own pre-approval studies of neotame revealed adverse reactions. Unfortunately, Monsanto only conducted a few one-day studies in humans rather than encouraging independent researchers to obtain NIH funding to conduct long-term human studies on the effects of neotame.

And so, that concludes the information not only about Neotame, but artificial sweeteners in general. I hope by reading all these articles that you realize that all of these artificial sweeteners are very dangerous to your health.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.

A Look at Artificial Sweeteners, Part 4

The theme of the past week’s articles has been sugar. I’ve told you about the downside of sugar in general, and then I discussed how toxic high fructose corn syrup is.

The last few days I’ve shone the spotlight on artificial sweeteners, first talking about saccharine, then aspartame, and then sucralose.

Sugar is bad enough for you, but as you may have garnered from the articles on artificial sweeteners, the fake stuff is even worse.

I’m not done talking about the artificial sweeteners, though, because there’s two more. Remember, overall there are five artificial sweeteners that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have approved, and so far I have covered three of them.

Today I will discuss Acesulfame K.

Acesulfame K, sold commercially as Sunette or Sweet One, was approved by the FDA in 1988 as a sugar substitute in packet or tablet form, in chewing gum, dry mixes for beverages, instant coffee and tea, gelatin desserts, puddings and nondairy creamers. The manufacturer has asked the FDA to approve acesulfame K for soft drinks and baked goods, and the FDA is currently studying it.

Most people are not even aware that this is a nonnutritive sweetener being used in their food and beverages. It is listed in the ingredients on the food label as acesulfame K, acesulfame potassium, Ace-K, or Sunett. It is 200 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar) and is often used as a flavor-enhancer or to preserve the sweetness of sweet foods.

In carbonated drinks, it is almost always used in conjunction with another sweetener, such as aspartame

or sucralose. It is also used as a sweetener in pharmaceutical products, especially chewable and liquid medications, where it can make the active ingredients more palatable.

Like saccharin, it has a slightly bitter aftertaste, especially at high concentrations. Kraft Foods has patented the use of sodium ferulate to mask acesulfame’s aftertaste.

Compared to aspartame and saccharin, acesulfame K is even worse. The additive is inadequately tested, as the FDA based its approval on tests of acesulfame K that fell short of the FDA’s own standards. But even those tests indicate that the additive causes cancer in animals, which means it may increase cancer risk in humans.

Acesulfame K breaks down into Acetoacetamide, which has been shown to affect the thyroid in rats, rabbits, and dogs. Administration of 1% and 5% acetoacetamide in the diet for three months caused benign thyroid tumors in rats. The rapid appearance of tumors raises serious questions about the chemical’s carcinogenic potency.

Acesulfame K does contain the carcinogen methylene chloride. Long-term exposure to methylene chloride can cause headaches, depression, nausea, mental confusion, liver effects, kidney effects, visual disturbances, and cancer in humans. There has been a great deal of opposition to the use of acesulfame K without further testing, but at this time, the FDA has not required that these tests be done.

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, Director of the Public Citizen Health Research Group, and a former member of the NCI Carcinogenicity Clearinghouse has said about acesulfame K:

“It is clear that questions arising in earlier — extremely inadequate — studies about the additive’s cancer-causing properties have not been resolved…. Given the likelihood that millions of Americans would be exposed to acesulfame were the additive to be approved for beverage use, the questions about its carcinogenicity must be resolved before a scientifically supportable regulatory decision can be made.”

So there you have it about another one of the artificial sweeteners. But there’s still one more to discuss, and I’ll be back tomorrow with a look at the last of the five FDA approved artificial sweeteners.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.