Breaking – Campbells Moves To Label Their GMO Products / Questions Still Loom


By: Zy Marquiez
January 8, 2016

In a stunning development, Campbell Soup is breaking rank with all other companies which do not label genetically modified ingredients in their products.

Following the recent victory in Vermont that requires genetically modified organism [GMO] labeling within the state, the company has begun taking action towards this new reality.

Where all this could be headed, the following article below by the New York Times elucidates:

Campbell Labels Will Disclose G.M.O. Ingredients

Most interesting shown within the article:

Campbell is also breaking with its peers by calling for federal action to make mandatory a uniform labeling system of foods that contain such ingredients, commonly known as G. M.O. labeling, said Denise Morrison, chief executive of Campbell.

Campbell is calling for mandatory labeling of products that use ingredients from G.M.O. crops. Credit Campbell Soup Company

“We’re optimistic that a federal solution can be reached in a reasonable amount of time, but if that’s not the case, we’re preparing to label all our products across the portfolio,” Ms. Morrison said in an interview.

She said about three-quarters of the company’s products contained ingredients derived from corn, canola, soybeans or sugar beets, the four largest genetically engineered crops. The change in labeling is expected to take 12 to 18 months.

The first example provided by the company, for a SpaghettiO’s label prepared for Vermont, is sparsely worded and does not specify which individual ingredients are genetically altered. It simply states at the bottom of the label: “Partially produced with genetic engineering. For more information about G.M.O. ingredients, visit WhatsinMyFood.com.” [Bold and underline emphasis added].

Whilst the opening statement should send a shot across the entire corporate food sector, the main point should be that there is an incredible lack of specificity of GMO labeling for a company claiming it wants a ‘mandatory uniform labeling system’.

What are we to take of this?

Is Campbell’s Soup attempting to make a politically corporately correct move by asking for what it knows is coming, but doing so in such a manner [keep in mind, they are not being specific about which items are being genetically modified] that ameliorates the amount of waves being caused by showing that they haven’t fully converted their products to precise GMO labels?

Another notable point of the article was put forth by Mr. Vilsack, who is the agriculture secretary. Please keep in mind, as Jon Rappoport of NoMoreFakenews.com has reported before, Tom Vilsack is one “of Monsanto’s most influential political allies in the world”:

“I’m going to challenge them to get this thing fixed,” Mr. Vilsack told The Register, adding that he was worried about “chaos in the market” if other states follow suit. “That will cost the industry a substantial amount of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, and it will ultimately end up costing the consumer,” he said.

The ultimate cost individuals eating GMOs would pay via their health, would be far more than what the financial increase to them will be. As penned by Christina Sarich, of NaturalSociety.com, this is a great reason why “over 60 countries have already passed mandatory GMO labeling laws”, with many countries such as Russia choosing an outright ban:

64 Nations Say No To GMO, Yet US Govt Nears Illegal GMO Labeling?

As Sarich implores trenchantly in the article:

“So are we really supposed to believe that genetically engineered crops are safe and that the average consumer in America who is practically begging for organic food is simply over-reacting, or are we to correctly assume that the United States has been bought by biotech?”

An excellent synopsis of the current issues regarding the abstruse, but rather overarching aspects of the GMO issues is covered by F. William Engdahl:

“Genetic Manipulation Of Organisms: Legal Victory in “Paris vs. Monsanto GMO Cabal”

As stated by Engdahl:

The entire field of so-called biotechnology is corrupt and rotten to its very unscientific, reductivist core. That should not surprise as it was created deliberately by America’s leading eugenics family and funded by their Rockefeller Foundation to advance their mad eugenics agenda at the very same time the Rockefeller Foundation was funding the Nazi eugenics research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin.

Within Engdahl’s analysis he also mentions what should be shocking to most, which is the fact that the Seralini study:

was the first-ever long-term rat study documenting the effects of a GMO diet in the entire twenty years’ history of commercial GMO. The results were bone-chilling.” [Bold Emphasis added].

Couple this with what investigative reporter Jon Rappoport mentions in:

Anti-GMO movement’s PR agency represent’s who??

The FDA is the criminal agency that allowed GMO crops through the door, to begin with, in 1996, by saying, based on zero research, that GMO and non-GMO crops were identical.”

Given the fact that Big Biotech has never really show any credible evidence of GMO safety in intergenerational studies, and more, should they even be trusted?

While the above news brought about by the NYT seems positive and ultimately, could be, we must remain concerned in the fact that there is still myriad issues not being addressed.

Why has Campbell Soup asked for a ‘mandatory uniform labeling system’ and then in the same breath, mention that they lack specificity in their products? It’s not like they didn’t know the labeling in Vermont was coming. If they were truly turning over a new leaf, those labels would be on the products already.

Detaching to gaze at the larger picture, why is Tom Vilsack even trusted as the secretary of agriculture, knowing he has extensive ties to Monsanto?

And finally, although over 92% of Americans polled are for GMO labeling, the better question is, why label the GMOs, when you can just ban them? Why allow ‘food’ that’s never been proven safe to be part of the food suply, especially when it has been supported by the surreptitious machinations of big biotech the whole way through?

One way or another, what Campbell Soup has carried out will show its true colors, sooner or later.

For the time being, be very skeptical, because for every new data point that arises, there are many that have are not being addressed except by a handful of people. And those questions, are ultimately where the darker side of GMOs lie.

———————————————————————————————————————————–
Sources & References:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/business/a-new-fact-on-the-food-label.html?_r=0
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/anti-gmo-movements-pr-agency-represents-who/
http://naturalsociety.com/russian-govt-completely-bans-gmos-in-food-production/
http://naturalsociety.com/64-nations-say-no-to-gmo-yet-us-govt-nears-illegal-gmo-labeling/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetic-manipulation-of-organisms-legal-victory-in-paris-vs-monsanto-gmo-cabal/5499023

Congress Drops ‘Country Of Origin Labeling’ Rule On Meat Products

Congress has repealed a law requiring vendors to label the country of origin on meat packages. The World Trade Organization has given Canada and Mexico, America’s top two agricultural partners, permission to impose more than 1 billion in retaliatory tarrifs on companies that fail to remove country of origin labels from pork and beef packages. RT’s Brigida Santos explains how why the interests of cattle and hog companies may have led to the move.

Is [Big] Pharma Trying to Eliminate the Homeopathic Competition?

Is Pharma Trying to Eliminate the Homeopathic Competition?

Source: Center for Homeopathic Advocacy

Source: GreenMedInfo.com
By: Larry Malerba, DO

Homeopathy is a thorn in the side of Pharma because of the fact that its unique medicines are FDA regulated, safe, inexpensive, and can’t be patented.

Now that the deadline for public comment at FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has officially come to a close, supporters of homeopathy are waiting to see what steps, if any, will be taken to further regulate the marketing of homeopathic medicines. In light of these developments and other recent events, some believe that there is an organized effort under way to discredit this venerable medical art and science.

Homeopathy is a 200 year-old holistic system of healing with a remarkable safety record and a reputation for yielding excellent results. It employs small doses of naturally occurring substances, which are prescribed in accordance with the principle of similars: A treatment is chosen on the basis of a homeopathic medicine’s ability to closely mimic the symptom pattern of the sick individual.

However, FDA and FTC actions in the U.S. along with similar developments in the U.K., Australia, and Canada have homeopathic supporters wondering.

Although homeopathy has been part of the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS) since 1948, recent pressure by anti-homeopathy activists has led to a decision by the Dept. of Health to review the status of NHS funding for homeopathy.

One U.K. homeopathic physician, Dr. David Fitton, noted,

“It’s quite respectable in all European countries, and it’s well integrated at the consultant level, but for some reason in the UK there’s a big anti-homeopathy attitude, a campaign almost.” (1)

Meanwhile, in Canada, a University of Toronto professor’s efforts to conduct research on the homeopathic treatment of children with ADHD have also met with resistance. A group of scientists led by well-known anti-holistic medicine activist, Joe Schwarcz, of McGill University, sent a letter to Univ. of Toronto questioning why it would sanction a study based on a therapy like homeopathy. A response from U. of T. stated that,

“Rigorous research into these products and therapies—including the research conducted by Professor Boon and at the Centre for Integrative Medicine—helps patients and their caregivers make informed treatment choices.” (2)

Coincidentally—or not—a recent review conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in Australia concluded that, “there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.”

This rather sweeping and surprisingly bold condemnation of homeopathy contradicted a prior review sponsored by the Swiss government, which came to the opposite conclusion. That study vindicated homeopathy, calling it effective, safe, and cost-effective. It recommended that homeopathy be included in Switzerland’s national health program.

The American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacists (AAHP) responded to the Australian review:

“The AAHP considers their conclusion to be a blanketed and unfounded generalization about the therapeutic effects of all homeopathic medicines. This overreaching announcement is a disservice to patients and health care systems around the world.” (3)

A Homeopathy Research Institute critique of the Australian study pointed out…

“… deep flaws in how the NHMRC had analyzed the evidence on homeopathy. This raises questions … leading to serious concerns about the conduct of this governmental body.” (4)

Homeopathic supporters are familiar with the standard arguments lodged by anti-homeopathy activists who like to call themselves “skeptics.” They insist that there is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy. They repeat this unfounded claim in spite of a growing body of evidence to the contrary.

It has recently come to light that a well-known skeptic organization, Sense About Science, which actively campaigns against homeopathy in the UK, was reportedly accepting money from Coca-Cola to spread disinformation downplaying the dangers of sugary drinks. Coca-Cola’s Chief Science & Health Officer immediately “retired” from her position after the Associated Press exposed the scam. (5)

Iris Bell, MD, PhD, is a Stanford University School of Medicine graduate and Director of Research for the Program in Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. She has published over 100 peer-reviewed articles. In response to critics’ claims that there is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy, Dr. Bell noted that such claims…

“…rely on a small selection of methodologically flawed, highly criticized meta-analyses of homeopathy while ignoring the specific peer-reviewed published scientific evidence from multiple independent laboratories that homeopathic medicines are biologically active on gene expression, immune modulation, and biological signaling effects. It also ignores data showing that homeopathic medicines can have beneficial effects in individual patients and in animals different from placebo effects in a number of studies.”

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

 

How Your Health Benefits from Fiber, and Suffers from Antibiotics

 

Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
December 16, 2015

Your gut microbiota plays a crucial role in your health, and the 100 trillion or so microbes living in your gut feed on the foods you eat. In this way, your diet influences your health not just by the micronutrients it contains, but also by how it affects the bacterial colonies residing in your intestinal tract.

In the featured video, Rhonda Patrick PhD, a biomedical scientist, interviews intestinal microbiota researchers Justin and Erica Sonnenburg about the interactions between diet and gut bacteria—specifically those living in your colon—and the effects on your health.

Justin Sonnenburg is an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford, and Erica Sonnenburg is a senior research scientist in the Sonnenburg Lab,1 which is part of the department of microbiology and immunology at Stanford.

The Importance of Fiber for Gut Health

Much of the discussion pivots around the role of dietary fiber, which promotes health by fueling beneficial bacteria to produce compounds that help regulate your immune function.

For starters, these compounds help increase T regulatory cells, specialized immune cells that help prevent autoimmune responses and more. Via a process called hematopoiesis, they’re also involved in the formation of other types of blood cells in your body.

Few Americans get the standard recommendation of 30 to 32 grams of fiber per day, and when fiber is lacking, it starves these beneficial bacteria, thereby setting your health into a downward spiral. As noted by Patrick:

“This has an effect not only on the immune system and autoimmune diseases but also results in the breakdown of the gut barrier, which leads to widespread inflammation and inflammatory diseases.”

Toward the end of the video, Erica Sonnenburg also delves into the effects of C-sections, explaining how avoiding vaginal birth negatively impacts the baby’s health by depriving him or her of exposure to bacteria present in the mother’s vaginal canal.

She also explains how infant formula may affect your child’s health, as it does not contain human milk oligosaccharides—special carbohydrates found only in breast milk that specifically nourishes your baby’s gut flora.

High-Fiber Diet Reduces All-Cause Mortality

Mounting research suggests that a high soluble fiber diet can help reduce your risk of premature death from any cause, likely because it helps to reduce your risk of a number of chronic diseases.

This includes type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Studies have also linked a high-fiber diet to beneficial reductions in cholesterol and blood pressure, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation—all of which can influence your mortality risk.

Most recently, a meta-analysis2,3 evaluating the impact of a high soluble fiber diet on mortality with pooled data from nearly 1 million Europeans and Americans found a 10 percent drop in mortality risk with each 10-gram per day increase in fiber.

Organic psyllium is one of the best ways to radically increase your intake of soluble fiber. I believe most people could benefit from more fiber. I shoot for 50 grams of fiber per 1,000 calories consumed and personally take about 3 ounces of organic psyllium a day, which supplies 75 grams of soluble fiber, about half of my daily fiber intake.

Other recent studies have produced similar results:

  • A 2014 study4,5 found that every 10-gram increase of soluble fiber intake was associated with a 15 percent lower risk of mortality.

Those who ate the most fiber had a 25 percent reduced risk of dying from any cause within the next nine years, compared to those whose fiber intake was lacking.

  • Research6 published in 2013 found that for every 7 grams more soluble fiber you consume on a daily basis, your stroke risk is decreased by 7 percent. This equates to increasing your consumption of fruits and vegetables by about 2 additional portions per day.

The Links Between Antibiotics, Your Microbiome, and Obesity

Your gut microbiome also exerts a powerful influence on your weight. Gut microbes known as Firmicutes have been detected in higher numbers in obese individuals, who also may have 90 percent less of a bacteria called bacteroidetes than lean people.7 In a Medscape interview8 published in April, 2015, Dr Martin Blaser, who heads up the Human Microbiome Center at New York University, discussed the links between your gut microbiome, obesity, and chronic disease.

As noted by Dr. Blaser:

“The basic idea is that the microbiome is ancient. The organisms that we carry are not random; they have been selected over eons of evolution. They are important for our physiology, and there is a lot of evidence for that. My big point is that they are changing. As a result of the change, there are health consequences …

I believe that there is a general paradigm that we are losing important organisms early in life, and that is fueling some of the diseases that are epidemic today.”

In his book, “Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues,” Dr. Blaser attributes rising obesity and disease rates to factors that have altered the microbial composition of our microbiome. This includes:

  • Increased rates of C-sections
  • Excessive use of antibiotics in medicine
  • Inappropriate use of antibiotics in food production. As noted by Dr. Blaser: “Farmers found that they could increase the growth of their livestock by giving them low doses of antibiotics … the earlier in life they gave the antibiotics, the more profound the effect—and that is what we are doing to our kids”
  • Dietary changes, switching to diets low in fat and high in carbohydrates
  • Switching from breast milk to infant formula. This dietary change, he believes, is the most adverse of all

Moreover, he believes the effects are “cumulative over time and cumulative across generations,” noting that: “We’ve done studies in mice in which we can show that giving mice antibiotics early in life makes them fat. Putting mice on a high-fat diet makes them fat, and putting them on both together makes them very fat, suggesting the idea of additive risk.”

How Gut Bacteria Helps Regulate Your Appetite

Recent research has shed even more light on the links between gut bacteria and weight problems. Here, the researchers decided to investigate the possibility that bacterial proteins might act directly on appetite-controlling pathways. The hypothesis was that since bacterial survival depends on maintaining a stable environment, the bacteria must have some way of communicating their nutritional needs to the host.

Indeed, this is what they discovered. In essence, it appears gut bacteria play a role in appetite regulation by multiplying in response to nutrients, and stimulating the release of satiety hormones. The research also suggests bacteria produce proteins that can linger in your blood for a longer period of time, thereby modulating satiety pathways in your brain.

As reported by Medical News Today:9

“The researchers studied the growth dynamics of E. coli K12 … when exposed to regular nutrient supply … After 20 minutes of consuming nutrients and expanding numbers, it was found that E. coli bacteria from the gut produce different kinds of proteins than they do before feeding. The 20-minute mark coincides with the time taken for a person to begin feeling full or tired after a meal …

[T]he researchers began to profile the bacterial proteins before and after feeding … ‘Full’ bacterial proteins were found to stimulate the release of … a hormone associated with feeling full while “hungry” bacterial hormones did not …

The investigators next tested for the presence of one of the ‘full’ bacterial proteins, called ClpB. Levels of CLpB in mice and rats 20 minutes after eating … did correlate with ClpB DNA production in the gut, suggesting a mechanism linking gut bacterial composition with the host control of appetite.

The researchers also found that ClpB increased production of appetite-reducing neurons. Evidently, bacterial proteins produced by satiated E. coli influence the release of gut-brain signals, as well as activating appetite-regulated neurons in the brain.”

Another recent study10 found that probiotics helped protect against weight gain. The probiotic product in question was a commercial product simply referred to as VSL#3, containing multiple bacterial strains, including Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium longum. After four weeks, men who consumed this probiotic mix gained less weight and fat compared to those who received a placebo.

A Course of Antibiotics Can Alter Your Gut Microbiome for Up to a Year

It’s really important to understand the impact antibiotics have on your overall health, as they’re indiscriminate killers, wiping out not just the disease-causing bacteria but the beneficial bacteria too. Recent research demonstrates that when you take a course of antibiotics, your gut microbiome may be adversely affected for up to a year afterwards, depending on the antibiotic you’re taking.

Such dramatic shifts in your microbiome can also allow pathogens such as the deadly Clostridium difficile to gain a strong foothold, as evidenced in a recent animal study.11 This is a significant reason for limiting antibiotics to severe infections only, as a healthy gut microbiome is part of your immune function, serving as a primary defense against all disease.

The randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial,12,13,14,15 which took place in Sweden and Great Britain, evaluated the effects of four commonly-prescribed antibiotics: clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, minocycline, and amoxicillin.

The bacteria in the participants’ oral and gut microbiomes were analyzed before the experiment, right after finishing the one-week long course of antibiotics, and again one, two, four, and 12 months afterward. While the oral microbiome normalized fairly quickly, the gut microbiome typically did not.

As reported by The Atlantic:16

“People who took clindamycin and ciprofloxacin saw a decrease in types of bacteria that produce butyrate, a fatty acid that lowers oxidative stress and inflammation in the intestines.

The reduced microbiome diversity for clindamycin-takers lasted up to four months; for some who took ciprofloxacin, it was still going on at the 12-month check-up. Amoxicillin, on the plus side, seemed to have no significant effect on either the oral or gut microbiome, and minocycline-takers were back to normal at the one-month check-up.”

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com

Leaked Emails Prove Coca-Cola Was Paying for Propaganda Promoting Sugary Drinks

Coca Cola’s Spin Doctor Steps Down

coke-bottles-735-350

Source: NaturalSociety.com
By: Christina Sarich

Rhona Applebaum, a senior executive at Coca Cola, had been arranging to give donations amounting to $1.5 million to ‘charities’ that published propaganda telling people that sugary drinks have nothing to do with their weight problem, diabetes, and multiple other health issues associated with obesity.

Rhona Applebaum likely didn’t count on the trial (so clearly proving that Coca Cola is contributing to America’s obesity epidemic) being unveiled through her personal emails. Now she is taking ‘immediate retirement.’

In August of this year, The New York Times reported that Coca Cola had financial ties to the research group Global Energy Balance Network, which is made up of university researchers. The company provided the group with $1.5 million in research funding, $1 million of which went to the University of Colorado where group president, James O. Hill, is a professor.

Further investigations found that the beverage company helped pick the group’s leaders, draft its mission statement, and design its website. The research group argues that Americans are too fixated on calories and diet and should be more concerned about exercise – shifting focus away from Coca-Cola’s contribution to this nation’s ill health.

The emails reveal that Sense About Science, run by Simon Singh, had been given donations of £20,000. GEBN promotes the idea that lack of exercise, not sugary drinks and colas, is the primary cause of obesity.

Sense About Science published a report discounting one study showing that sugary drinks, such as those sold by Coca-Cola, are responsible for a whopping 184,000 deaths annually. Sense About Science also ‘corrected’ a journalist who was linking the beverage Coke to cancer. [1]

Though the University of Colorado has returned the $1 million after receiving criticism, Applebaum’s name continues to be tarnished. Many believe she helped to orchestrate the propaganda. [2]

Even Harvard has published studies showing that consuming sugary drinks like Coca Cola sodas are bad for your health, and contribute to the over $190 billion this country spends annually in fighting obesity-related health conditions. Companies like Coca-Cola also spend as much as $3.2 billion marketing these health-destroying drinks.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

 

Top 20 Addictive Foods: Are You Hooked?

Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Margie King, Health Coach

Let food be thy medicine.  Just don’t let it be thy drug. 

Can’t resist a slice – or two or three – of pizza?  You may well be addicted.

Researchers from the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan and the New York Obesity Research Center at the Mount Sinai – St. Luke’s Hospital in New York wanted to know what foods felt addictive to real people.[i]

They posited that highly processed foods may trigger an addictive response in some people that leads to unintended overeating.  And they observed that these foods share common traits with highly addictive drugs.

Like other drug problems, they say, “food addiction” is characterized by:

  1. Loss of control over consumption;
  2. Continued use despite negative consequences; and
  3. Inability to cut down despite the desire to do so.

And neuro-imaging studies show similar brain patterns in “food addicts” and drug addicts.  In particular both show increased activation of the reward regions of the brain in response to food cues – just like other addictions.

Although you may have your own suspicions, human studies haven’t confirmed which foods are most likely to trigger an addiction.  Animal studies suggest that highly processed foods like Oreo Double Stuf cookies, cheesecake, and icing set off binges.

To get a better handle on what foods are most likely to get the better of people, the researchers asked about 500 people to complete a Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) survey to determine which of 35 foods were most associated with problem eating behaviors.  Problem behaviors included trouble cutting down on the food, or losing control over how much of the food was eaten, or feeling that you aren’t eating enough of the food.

The foods in the survey fit into four categories:

  1. Chocolate/French Fries: high in both fat and refined carbohydrates/sugar
  2. Cheese/Bacon: high in fat but not refined carbohydrates/sugar
  3. Pretzels/Soda: high in refined carbohydrates/sugar but not fat
  4. Broccoli/Chicken: low in both fat and refined carbohydrates/sugar

In general, the researchers found that processed foods high in fat and having a high glycemic load, were most frequently associated with addictive eating behaviors. The glycemic load measures how quickly a standard serving of a particular food will spike your blood sugar.

There was an interesting exception. The researchers found that men had more of a problem with some unprocessed foods (e.g., steak, nuts, cheese) than women did.

Here’s the list:

  1. Pizza
  2. Chocolate
  3. Chips
  4. Cookies
  5. Ice Cream
  6. French Fries
  7. Cheeseburger
  8. Soda
  9. Cake
  10. Cheese
  11. Bacon
  12. Fried Chicken
  13. Rolls (plain)
  14. Popcorn (buttered)
  15. Breakfast Cereal
  16. Gummy Candy
  17. Steak
  18. Muffins
  19. Nuts
  20. Eggs

Although some of the foods on the list are unprocessed, the researchers observed that processing tends to result in a higher concentration of addictive substances in a food with the addition of fat, carbs, and sugar. In other words, the dose of fat and sugar you get in cake or pizza is much higher than you would find in nature. And, they note, the combination of fat and sugar in a single food rarely occurs in nature.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

The Truth About Sugar

Source:Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
December 12, 2015

“The Truth About Sugar” features Cara Patterson, Rick Shabilla, Audrey Cannon, and Simon Gallagher, who between them consume nearly 120 teaspoons of sugar a day.

Refined sugar has become a dietary staple in most developed nations, and many are at a loss as to how to avoid this pernicious ingredient, which can be found in virtually every processed food — typically in the form of high-fructose corn syrup.

High-sugar diets are undoubtedly the primary culprit in skyrocketing obesity and type 2 diabetes rates and other chronic health problems associated with insulin resistance.

For example, according to recent research1 presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2015, obese children as young as 8 now display signs of heart disease, and excessive sugar consumption right from birth on is at the root of this trend.

Cutting out Sugar Is One of the Easiest and Fastest Ways to Improve Your Health

“The Truth About Sugar,” which aired on BBC One, aims to “demystify some of the myths about sugar — namely, what food products secretly contain it — and demonstrate the impact it can make on your health if you reduce the amount you eat.”

Three of the individuals in the film did indeed manage to lose nearly 6 kilos (13 pounds) each after going on a low-sugar diet — cutting their added sugar from an average of 23 to 39 teaspoons a day, down to 6 teaspoons, as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Recent research2,3,4,5 has revealed that cutting out added sugars can improve biomarkers associated with health in as little as 10 days — even when overall calorie count and percentage of carbohydrates remains the same.

The study, led by Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist who has long argued that added sugar is toxic when consumed in too-high amounts, reduced the amount of added sugars from an average of 27 percent of daily calories down to about 10 percent.

This is in line with the most recent recommendations by the federal government’s Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, issued in February.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also proposed adding “added sugar” to the Nutrition Facts panel on processed foods, set at 10 percent of total energy intake for a 2,000 calorie-a-day diet.

Dr. Lustig’s research suggests such a labeling addition could potentially make a big difference in people’s health, provided they read food labels.

Sugar Is Disguised Under Many Names

Many are simply unaware of just how much sugar they’re consuming. Added sugar oftentimes hides under other less familiar names, such as dextrose, maltose, galactose, and maltodextrin, for example.

According to SugarScience.org, added sugars hide in 74 percent of processed foods under more than 60 different names. (For a full list, please see SugarScience.org’s “Hidden in Plain Sight” page.6)

Misled by shrewd advertisers, many are also still unaware of how too much sugar can disrupt your health and well-being. As previously reported by The New York Times:7

“The scientists who started SugarScience.org say they have reviewed 8,000 independent clinical research articles on sugar and its role in metabolic conditions that are some of the leading killers of Americans, like heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and liver disease.

The link between sugar and chronic disease has attracted increasing scientific scrutiny in recent years. But many studies have provided conflicting conclusions, and experts say part of the reason is that biased studies have clouded the debate.”

Industry Front Groups Work to Keep Sugar Hazards Secret

Indeed, the sugar-processed food and beverage industries have fought hard to hide and downplay the health hazards associated with sugar. Large sums of money have been spent to this end, and scientific integrity has been tossed by the wayside in order to convince you that sugar belongs in your diet.

Weight problems, they say, are due to inactivity — not excessive sugar consumption. The Global Energy Balance Network is one front group peddling this misinformation, originally funded with millions of dollars by none other than Coca-Cola.

But we are making progress as last week, due to all the public exposure and negative press, the Global Energy Network shut down.8

It was to counter profit-driven industry interests that SugarScience.org9 was created. Run by dozens of scientists at three American universities, this educational website makes independent research available to the public, so if you want the real scoop on what sugar does to your health, this is the place to look.

Refined Sugar Is All Energy and No Nutrition

When we talk about sugar, we’re really including ALL sugars, including honey, agave, table sugar, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and the natural fructose found in fresh-pressed fruit juice and whole fruits.

However, refined sugar and processed fructose are two of the worst, with fructose having even worse health impacts than refined sugar. In the film, biologist Marty Jopson, Ph.D., explains what makes refined sugar so unhealthy.

Sugar cane and sugar beets are used in sugar production, as these plants have high concentrations of sugar. The refining process further increases that sugar concentration.

Since all the fiber, roughage, and most of the water is removed, what’s left — the refined sugar — is nothing but empty calories (pure energy), completely devoid of nutrition. Should you fail to use up all these calories through physical activity, it will inevitably be stored as fat. And that’s the problem with eating some 30 teaspoons or more of refined sugar a day. You simply cannot burn it all!

For example, to burn off the calories from one Snickers bar you’d have to walk about five miles, and to offset a one-soda-per-day habit — equivalent to about 10 teaspoons of sugar — you have to walk one hour per day just to prevent additional weight gain.

But it’s not just candy, pastries and soda that are loaded with added sugars. Savory foods contain it as well. As do most, if not all condiments, and even infant formula and baby food.

How Much Sugar Do You Eat Each Day?

If you’re like most people, you probably don’t know the exact answer to that question, and the reason for this is because it’s in virtually all processed food products, including products you would never suspect would have added sugar in it.

For example, the film mentions that a serving of Pad Thai noodles contains 9.5 teaspoons of sugar; a package of sweet and sour chicken with rice contains 12.5 teaspoons (more than a can of soda); and a can of baked beans contains 6 teaspoons of sugar — which, remember, would ideally be your grand total for the day!

The film goes on to discuss the science of addictive foods, and how food manufacturers employ scientists to determine the precise “bliss point” of each food, be it tomato sauce or chips. This “bliss point” is achieved through combinations of sugar, salt, and fat, plus proprietary additives and flavorings, as detailed in my previous article “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food.

One question raised is: were food manufacturers to take sugar out of their foods completely, would we still buy them? The answer is likely no, because without all these flavor additives, of which sugar is more or less essential, many processed foods would be unpalatable, as the processing removes much of the natural flavors.

This is a problem relegated to the processed food industry. You don’t really have this problem when you’re cooking from scratch with whole foods, which are packed with natural flavors. Then all you need is seasoning. Rarely, if ever would you consider adding several teaspoons of sugar to a home-cooked meal!

How Quickly Can a High-Sugar Diet Pack on Unwanted Pounds?

So, just how quickly can a high sugar diet like this pack on extra pounds? To use Dr. Jopson’s example, let’s say you drink 3 cups of tea or coffee per day, and you add 2 teaspoons of sugar to each cup. Let’s also assume that you’re not burning off that extra sugar due to a sit-down job and leisure time inactivity. At the end of one year, that sugar (6 teaspoons a day), would turn into a whopping 4.5 kilos, or 9.9 pounds, of body fat.

When you consider that most consume five or six times more sugar than that each day, it’s easy to see how obesity has become more the norm than the exception. One of the volunteers featured in “The Truth About Sugar” had a body fat percentage of 51, and that’s not unusual these days. A body fat percentage of 32 and over is considered obese for women, and anything above 25 percent falls in the obese category for men.

What to Do If Your Body Fat Percentage Is Too High

It’s important to realize that the benefits of reducing belly fat go far beyond aesthetics. Abdominal fat — the visceral fat that deposits around your internal organs — releases proteins and hormones that can cause inflammation, which in turn can damage arteries and enter your liver, affecting how your body breaks down sugars and fats.

The chronic inflammation associated with visceral fat accumulation can trigger a wide range of systemic diseases linked with metabolic syndrome. This is why carrying extra weight around your middle is linked to type 2 diabetes, heart disease, strokes, and other chronic diseases, and why measuring your waist-to-hip ratio is actually a better indicator of your health status than body mass index (BMI).

For the majority of people, severely restricting carbohydrates such as sugars, fructose, and grains in your diet will be the key to weight loss. Refined carbohydrates like breakfast cereals, bagels, waffles, pretzels, and most other processed foods will raise your insulin levels and, over time, cause insulin resistance, which is the No. 1 underlying factor of nearly every chronic disease and condition known to man, including weight gain.

If you’re currently drinking soda, other sweetened beverages, or fruit juices on a daily basis, you may want to start by eliminating those, and work your way through the rest of your food choices from there. The only beverage your body truly needs is clean, pure water.

As you cut the sugars from your diet, you need to replace them with healthy substitutes like vegetables and healthy fats (including natural saturated fats). You can find a detailed a step-by-step guide to this type of healthy eating program in my comprehensive nutrition plan, and I urge you to consult this guide if you are trying to lose weight.

Remember, one of the simplest guidelines to shedding excess weight is to EAT REAL FOOD, meaning food in the most natural form you can find, ideally whole organic produce, and pasture-raised when it comes to meats and animal products like dairy and eggs.

Intermittent fasting can further boost weight loss, as it:

  • Increases secretion of human growth hormone (HGH), a fat-burning hormone
  • Increases catecholamines, which increases resting energy expenditure
  • Decreases insulin levels and improves insulin sensitivity
  • Increases ghrelin, aka “the hunger hormone,” thereby reducing overeating
  • Shifts your body from burning sugar to burning fat as its primary fuelContinue Reading At: Mercola.com