Do you think that eating at Taco Bell is Healthy?
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Mintel: Local Produce More Important than Organic
Local is quickly becoming a consumer favorite, as locally-sourced
products are becoming more popular at grocery stores and restaurants
alike, according to recent Mintel research.
The same is true in the fruit and vegetable industry with more than half (52 percent) of consumers reporting that it’s more important to buy local produce than organic. In fact, fruit products with a natural/organic claims have declined 58 percent between 2008 and 2011, while vegetable product launches with that claim have decreased by 77 percent during the same time period, according to data from Mintel’s Global New Products Database (GNPD).
“Natural and organic produce items aren’t completely passe, but local varieties are steadily gaining ground,” says John N. Frank, category manager, CPG food and drink reports for Mintel. “Interestingly enough, senior citizens are even more likely to believe that buying local produce is more important than organic.”
While it’s true that consumers have their preferences when it comes to the type of fruits and veggies they consume, they still aren’t eating the recommended daily amounts. Fourteen percent of Americans don’t eat any servings of fruit on a typical day and 7 percent report the same of their vegetable eating habits.
Meanwhile, 69 percent agree that they should eat more fruits and veggies than they currently consume.
“Consumers may respond well to a marketing message touting the idea that eating vegetables is a healthier way to get important vitamins than taking a pill,” suggests John Frank. “Some 81 percent of respondents agree with that statement. Another effective marketing message could be ways to make meal salads with vegetables, as 59 percent of respondents say they eat salads as a meal at least once a week.”
Providing vegetable preparation ideas could also increasing produce consumption, according to Mintel. It may be lack of ideas that leads 37 percent to say the fresh vegetables they buy often go bad before they have a chance to eat them, and 27 percent who say they would eat more vegetables if they knew how to prepare them.
My Take on the Story:
This is a great opportunity for restaurants to help consumers eat more local fruits and veggies by providing them as menu items or demonstrating how to prepare fresh vegetables at home. Consumers today want information that they can apply immediately, to make life easier or more enjoyable.
Restaurants can create tremendous value be offering menu items that help consumers eat the recommended daily amount of fresh fruit and vegetables. I believe that restaurants often sell themselves too short when the focus is mostly on price discounting. Price is only important in the absence of perceived value.
People are willing to spend more on things they value. That is why many of us are willing to spend thousands each year on mobile devices and accessories. Mobile devices have become a valuable part of our daily lives. Now, restaurants should also strive to become a valuable part of daily lives by serving more menu items made with fresh fruits and vegetables.
The same is true in the fruit and vegetable industry with more than half (52 percent) of consumers reporting that it’s more important to buy local produce than organic. In fact, fruit products with a natural/organic claims have declined 58 percent between 2008 and 2011, while vegetable product launches with that claim have decreased by 77 percent during the same time period, according to data from Mintel’s Global New Products Database (GNPD).
“Natural and organic produce items aren’t completely passe, but local varieties are steadily gaining ground,” says John N. Frank, category manager, CPG food and drink reports for Mintel. “Interestingly enough, senior citizens are even more likely to believe that buying local produce is more important than organic.”
While it’s true that consumers have their preferences when it comes to the type of fruits and veggies they consume, they still aren’t eating the recommended daily amounts. Fourteen percent of Americans don’t eat any servings of fruit on a typical day and 7 percent report the same of their vegetable eating habits.
Meanwhile, 69 percent agree that they should eat more fruits and veggies than they currently consume.
“Consumers may respond well to a marketing message touting the idea that eating vegetables is a healthier way to get important vitamins than taking a pill,” suggests John Frank. “Some 81 percent of respondents agree with that statement. Another effective marketing message could be ways to make meal salads with vegetables, as 59 percent of respondents say they eat salads as a meal at least once a week.”
Providing vegetable preparation ideas could also increasing produce consumption, according to Mintel. It may be lack of ideas that leads 37 percent to say the fresh vegetables they buy often go bad before they have a chance to eat them, and 27 percent who say they would eat more vegetables if they knew how to prepare them.
My Take on the Story:
This is a great opportunity for restaurants to help consumers eat more local fruits and veggies by providing them as menu items or demonstrating how to prepare fresh vegetables at home. Consumers today want information that they can apply immediately, to make life easier or more enjoyable.
Restaurants can create tremendous value be offering menu items that help consumers eat the recommended daily amount of fresh fruit and vegetables. I believe that restaurants often sell themselves too short when the focus is mostly on price discounting. Price is only important in the absence of perceived value.
People are willing to spend more on things they value. That is why many of us are willing to spend thousands each year on mobile devices and accessories. Mobile devices have become a valuable part of our daily lives. Now, restaurants should also strive to become a valuable part of daily lives by serving more menu items made with fresh fruits and vegetables.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Final Glance: Restaurant companies Stock Prices
March 16, 2012 NEW YORK — Shares of some top restaurant companies were mixed at the close of trading:
Brinker International Inc. fell $.27 or .9 percent, to $28.71.
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. rose $3.83 or .9 percent, to $410.91.
Darden Restaurants Inc. fell $.52 or 1.0 percent, to $52.51.
Domino's Pizza Inc. fell $.13 or .3 percent, to $39.96.
McDonald's Corp. fell $.38 or .4 percent, to $97.66.
Panera fell $3.28 or 2.0 percent, to $161.43.
Papa John's International Inc. rose $.10 or .3 percent, to $37.16.
Starbucks Corp. rose $.14 or .3 percent, to $53.21.
Wendy's Company rose $.13 or 2.6 percent, to $5.04.
Yum Brands Inc. fell $.22 or .3 percent, to $68.40.
Did you notice that Chipotle Mexican Grill's stock is almost worth more than all the other restaurant companies combined? I know it's the advertising right? Well, the company spends almost nothing on advertising—just $6 million nationwide in 2011 compared to $650 million spent by McDonald's alone.
We now have scientific proof that the best and most recognizable brands aren’t built through advertising or promotional campaigns alone, but rather through all of the ways people experience the brand. Chipotle's "Food with Integrity" brand has connected with like-minded people who seek great-tasting food fast without having to eat low-quality traditional fast food.
Chipotle's vision is to "change the way people think and eat fast food. They do this by avoiding a formulaic approach when creating their restaurant experience and looking to fine-dining restaurants for inspiration. This should be an inspiration to all locally owned and operated restaurants that use high-quality raw ingredients, classic cooking methods, distinctive interior design, and have friendly people to serve customers.
In fact, the only difference I can see between most locally owned and operated restaurants and Chipotle is the speed of service. Many locally owned restaurants tend to fall short when it comes to making the dining experience fast and convenient for customers who don't always have time for a sit down dining experience. Can you spell "OPPORTUNITY"?
Brinker International Inc. fell $.27 or .9 percent, to $28.71.
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. rose $3.83 or .9 percent, to $410.91.
Darden Restaurants Inc. fell $.52 or 1.0 percent, to $52.51.
Domino's Pizza Inc. fell $.13 or .3 percent, to $39.96.
McDonald's Corp. fell $.38 or .4 percent, to $97.66.
Panera fell $3.28 or 2.0 percent, to $161.43.
Papa John's International Inc. rose $.10 or .3 percent, to $37.16.
Starbucks Corp. rose $.14 or .3 percent, to $53.21.
Wendy's Company rose $.13 or 2.6 percent, to $5.04.
Yum Brands Inc. fell $.22 or .3 percent, to $68.40.
Did you notice that Chipotle Mexican Grill's stock is almost worth more than all the other restaurant companies combined? I know it's the advertising right? Well, the company spends almost nothing on advertising—just $6 million nationwide in 2011 compared to $650 million spent by McDonald's alone.
We now have scientific proof that the best and most recognizable brands aren’t built through advertising or promotional campaigns alone, but rather through all of the ways people experience the brand. Chipotle's "Food with Integrity" brand has connected with like-minded people who seek great-tasting food fast without having to eat low-quality traditional fast food.
Chipotle's vision is to "change the way people think and eat fast food. They do this by avoiding a formulaic approach when creating their restaurant experience and looking to fine-dining restaurants for inspiration. This should be an inspiration to all locally owned and operated restaurants that use high-quality raw ingredients, classic cooking methods, distinctive interior design, and have friendly people to serve customers.
In fact, the only difference I can see between most locally owned and operated restaurants and Chipotle is the speed of service. Many locally owned restaurants tend to fall short when it comes to making the dining experience fast and convenient for customers who don't always have time for a sit down dining experience. Can you spell "OPPORTUNITY"?
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Red meat raises risk of dying, risk higher with processed meats
(CBS News) Eating a diet heavy in red meat has been tied to added
risk for cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It shouldn't be surprising
then that a new study found eating red meat every day appears to
increase a person's chances of dying from a chronic disease by 12
percent.
PICTURES: 10 Ways Meat Can Make You Sick
For the study, published online in the March 12 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, Harvard researchers analyzed data from two dietary studies that tracked nearly 37,700 men and 83,600 women for 28 years.
The researchers found overall that there were 23,900 deaths, including 5,900 from heart disease and nearly 9,500 from cancer. When the researchers looked closely at dietary habits, red meat took the cake when it came to raising death risk.
A daily serving of processed meat increased death risk by 20 percent, the study found, while a once-per-day serving of unprocessed red meat was tied to a 13 percent increase in overall mortality risk. According to the study authors, nearly 9 percent of deaths in men and 8 percent of deaths in women from the study could have been prevented if participants ate less than half a serving of red meat per day.
"We found that a higher intake of red meat was associated with a significantly elevated risk of total, CVD and cancer mortality, and this association was observed for unprocessed and processed red meat, with a relatively greater risk for processed red meat," the authors wrote in the study.
When it comes to red meat research, the findings are not in the carnivore's favor.
Previous research by study author Dr. An Pan, a nutrition researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, found eating red meat - particularly when its processed - raised a person's risk for type 2 diabetes by 19 percent. A January study found that for every 50 grams of processed meat a person eats per day - which can be as little as one sausage link - raised a person's risk for pancreatic cancer by 19 percent.
A 2010 study showed that people who ate the most red meat among study participants were 79 percent more likely to develop cancer of the stomach and esophagus. Another study that year found processed red meats were tied to a 30 percent increased risk for bladder cancer.
The bottom line?
"We should move to a more plant-based diet," study co-author Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, told HealthDay. "This can substantially reduce the risk of chronic disease and the risk of premature death."
In fact, the study found replacing red meat with healthier alternatives reduced a person's risk of dying.
Replacing one serving of red meat with one serving of fish was tied to a 7 percent death risk reduction, with poultry the risk fell 14 percent, nuts 19 percent, legumes 10 percent, low-fat dairy products 10 percent or whole grains daily was associated with a 14 percent lower risk of dying.
Since meat is a big protein component of many Americans' diets, what can be done to reduce death risk?
In an accompanying commentary published in the same journal issue, Dr. Dean Ornish, clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisico, said way for Americans to eat is with a diet that contains little or no red meat and is high in "good carbs" - which include vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and natural soy products - and low in "bad carbs" - such as simple and refined carbohydrates, sugars, white flour, and high fructose corn syrup, and high in "good fats" found in fish oil.
"We have a spectrum of choices, it's not all or nothing," Ornish wrote.
Ornish is the namesake behind the "Ornish diet," which limits fat intake to 10 percent of daily caloric intake, compared with the government's recommended 20 to 35 percent of caloric intake. It was ranked by U.S. News as the top diet for heart health, but experts said it might be somewhat difficult to follow and tough for some dieters to give up fatty animal foods.
Other experts suggest simply following the U.S. Department of Agriculture's new MyPlate nutrition icon, which offers dietary guidelines for healthy eating.
"The message is simple," Dr. Robert Graham, internist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, told HealthPop in an email. "In concordance with the "choose my plate campaign" eat less meat and more fruits and vegetables (half of your plate).
"My take on this story is that eating more whole foods is one of the easiest ways to improve our health and preventing disease. Whole foods retain fiber, as well as a host of beneficial phytochemicals and nutrients often destroyed in processed foods. Vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and legumes in their natural form are great examples of foods that offer a powerful combination of important vitamins, minerals, protein, and antioxidants. In America, many people including myself at one time, believe that we need red and other meats in our diet to get protein. I'm here to tell you that if you reduce your red meat consumption and open your world up to so many more plant based protein options. . . you'll look, feel, and be healthier. I know; I know your not a vegetarian or vegan. Neither am I, but I love the way I feel when I eat less meat. "
PICTURES: 10 Ways Meat Can Make You Sick
For the study, published online in the March 12 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, Harvard researchers analyzed data from two dietary studies that tracked nearly 37,700 men and 83,600 women for 28 years.
The researchers found overall that there were 23,900 deaths, including 5,900 from heart disease and nearly 9,500 from cancer. When the researchers looked closely at dietary habits, red meat took the cake when it came to raising death risk.
A daily serving of processed meat increased death risk by 20 percent, the study found, while a once-per-day serving of unprocessed red meat was tied to a 13 percent increase in overall mortality risk. According to the study authors, nearly 9 percent of deaths in men and 8 percent of deaths in women from the study could have been prevented if participants ate less than half a serving of red meat per day.
"We found that a higher intake of red meat was associated with a significantly elevated risk of total, CVD and cancer mortality, and this association was observed for unprocessed and processed red meat, with a relatively greater risk for processed red meat," the authors wrote in the study.
When it comes to red meat research, the findings are not in the carnivore's favor.
Previous research by study author Dr. An Pan, a nutrition researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, found eating red meat - particularly when its processed - raised a person's risk for type 2 diabetes by 19 percent. A January study found that for every 50 grams of processed meat a person eats per day - which can be as little as one sausage link - raised a person's risk for pancreatic cancer by 19 percent.
A 2010 study showed that people who ate the most red meat among study participants were 79 percent more likely to develop cancer of the stomach and esophagus. Another study that year found processed red meats were tied to a 30 percent increased risk for bladder cancer.
The bottom line?
"We should move to a more plant-based diet," study co-author Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, told HealthDay. "This can substantially reduce the risk of chronic disease and the risk of premature death."
In fact, the study found replacing red meat with healthier alternatives reduced a person's risk of dying.
Replacing one serving of red meat with one serving of fish was tied to a 7 percent death risk reduction, with poultry the risk fell 14 percent, nuts 19 percent, legumes 10 percent, low-fat dairy products 10 percent or whole grains daily was associated with a 14 percent lower risk of dying.
Since meat is a big protein component of many Americans' diets, what can be done to reduce death risk?
In an accompanying commentary published in the same journal issue, Dr. Dean Ornish, clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisico, said way for Americans to eat is with a diet that contains little or no red meat and is high in "good carbs" - which include vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and natural soy products - and low in "bad carbs" - such as simple and refined carbohydrates, sugars, white flour, and high fructose corn syrup, and high in "good fats" found in fish oil.
"We have a spectrum of choices, it's not all or nothing," Ornish wrote.
Ornish is the namesake behind the "Ornish diet," which limits fat intake to 10 percent of daily caloric intake, compared with the government's recommended 20 to 35 percent of caloric intake. It was ranked by U.S. News as the top diet for heart health, but experts said it might be somewhat difficult to follow and tough for some dieters to give up fatty animal foods.
Other experts suggest simply following the U.S. Department of Agriculture's new MyPlate nutrition icon, which offers dietary guidelines for healthy eating.
"The message is simple," Dr. Robert Graham, internist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, told HealthPop in an email. "In concordance with the "choose my plate campaign" eat less meat and more fruits and vegetables (half of your plate).
"My take on this story is that eating more whole foods is one of the easiest ways to improve our health and preventing disease. Whole foods retain fiber, as well as a host of beneficial phytochemicals and nutrients often destroyed in processed foods. Vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and legumes in their natural form are great examples of foods that offer a powerful combination of important vitamins, minerals, protein, and antioxidants. In America, many people including myself at one time, believe that we need red and other meats in our diet to get protein. I'm here to tell you that if you reduce your red meat consumption and open your world up to so many more plant based protein options. . . you'll look, feel, and be healthier. I know; I know your not a vegetarian or vegan. Neither am I, but I love the way I feel when I eat less meat. "
Mintel's 2012 Dining Out Report: A Look Ahead
CHICAGO, March 12, 2012
/PRNewswire/ -- Interest in where food comes from, as well as changes
in restaurant spending will both be driving the foodservice
rollercoaster in 2012, according to Mintel's latest report.
"Overall, restaurant economic prospects for 2012 look positive," says Eric Giandelone, foodservice director at Mintel. "In spite of the down economy, Mintel estimates that the US restaurant industry will be worth $416.4 billion in 2012, showing that operators really have listened to consumer wants and needs and made appropriate changes."
Fresh and local fare:Interest in where food comes from and a desire for fresh, unprocessed food will lead more operators to focus on American regionalism. With an increase in nutrition awareness, we can expect to see more double-sided menus, that is menus providing something for everyone along the nutrition and economic continuums.
'Fresh' is the top-rated menu descriptor that interests Mintel respondents (89%) followed by 'made from scratch' (71%) and 'real' (67%). In recent years, the term 'artisan' has garnered much attention, but seems to be falling out of favor as it is now the least favorite menu description with only 28% of people finding it of interest.
Restaurant spending:In spite of economic conditions, most Mintel respondents (65%) who have visited a restaurant in the past month say they will spend the same amount at restaurants in 2012. Meanwhile, 12% plan to spend more. Of the 12%, the highest percentage of them (59%) say they will spend their extra dollars at a casual restaurant, followed closely by a family restaurant (57%).
Count 'em up:When the FDA imposes its planned calorie count nutrition menu labeling laws, the highest percentage of respondents (41%) who have eaten at a restaurant in the past month say they will make no changes in how they dine out, while 33% say they will order menu items that are healthier overall and have fewer calories.
The industry will be waiting to see the economic effects of these upcoming menu labeling laws. Consumers could change their dining-out habits when they face the facts about the calories of the food they order from restaurants. Some 7% already predict that they will eat out less when calories are disclosed.
"I believe once consumers become familiar with seeing the required nutritional information next to menu items at chain restaurants, they will expect to see the same information at locally owned restaurants. This is why it's vital that we educate consumers on nutrition rather than calories. Counting calories is part of the reason why we have so many low calories processed foods. It's better for consumers to control their calorie intake with portion size rather than removing natural antioxidants that the body knows how to use efficiently, along with complex carbohydrates, protein, fats, and other critical nutrients. Foods that have been processed to reduced calories are often low-fiber foods that do not provide our bodies extra health disease protection. All calories are not created equal, and it's the restaurant's responsibility and opportunity to help educate consumers on the difference and provide their guest with fresh unprocessed food to actually increase dining out among consumers."
"Overall, restaurant economic prospects for 2012 look positive," says Eric Giandelone, foodservice director at Mintel. "In spite of the down economy, Mintel estimates that the US restaurant industry will be worth $416.4 billion in 2012, showing that operators really have listened to consumer wants and needs and made appropriate changes."
Fresh and local fare:Interest in where food comes from and a desire for fresh, unprocessed food will lead more operators to focus on American regionalism. With an increase in nutrition awareness, we can expect to see more double-sided menus, that is menus providing something for everyone along the nutrition and economic continuums.
'Fresh' is the top-rated menu descriptor that interests Mintel respondents (89%) followed by 'made from scratch' (71%) and 'real' (67%). In recent years, the term 'artisan' has garnered much attention, but seems to be falling out of favor as it is now the least favorite menu description with only 28% of people finding it of interest.
Restaurant spending:In spite of economic conditions, most Mintel respondents (65%) who have visited a restaurant in the past month say they will spend the same amount at restaurants in 2012. Meanwhile, 12% plan to spend more. Of the 12%, the highest percentage of them (59%) say they will spend their extra dollars at a casual restaurant, followed closely by a family restaurant (57%).
Count 'em up:When the FDA imposes its planned calorie count nutrition menu labeling laws, the highest percentage of respondents (41%) who have eaten at a restaurant in the past month say they will make no changes in how they dine out, while 33% say they will order menu items that are healthier overall and have fewer calories.
The industry will be waiting to see the economic effects of these upcoming menu labeling laws. Consumers could change their dining-out habits when they face the facts about the calories of the food they order from restaurants. Some 7% already predict that they will eat out less when calories are disclosed.
"I believe once consumers become familiar with seeing the required nutritional information next to menu items at chain restaurants, they will expect to see the same information at locally owned restaurants. This is why it's vital that we educate consumers on nutrition rather than calories. Counting calories is part of the reason why we have so many low calories processed foods. It's better for consumers to control their calorie intake with portion size rather than removing natural antioxidants that the body knows how to use efficiently, along with complex carbohydrates, protein, fats, and other critical nutrients. Foods that have been processed to reduced calories are often low-fiber foods that do not provide our bodies extra health disease protection. All calories are not created equal, and it's the restaurant's responsibility and opportunity to help educate consumers on the difference and provide their guest with fresh unprocessed food to actually increase dining out among consumers."
Friday, March 9, 2012
Coca-Cola Co and PepsiCo Inc are making changes to the production of an ingredient in their namesake colas to avoid the need to label the packages with a cancer warning.
(Reuters) The change will not be noticeable to consumers, according to statements from both companies.
Coke and Pepsi said on Friday that they had asked their suppliers of the caramel coloring in their colas to alter their manufacturing process to meet the requirements of a California ballot initiative aiming to limit people's exposure to toxic chemicals.
"Consumers will notice no difference in our products and have no reason at all for any health concerns," said PepsiCo spokeswoman Gina Anderson in a statement.
The change is meant to reduce the amount of a chemical called 4-methylimidazole, or 4-MI, which in January was added to the list of chemicals covered by California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65.
High levels of that chemical have been linked to cancer in animals. The California statute says that "no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving a clear and reasonable warning ..."
Coca-Cola spokesman Ben Sheidler said the modification to the manufacturing process will have no effect on the formula, color or taste of Coca-Cola.
Both companies said they started in California, and would expand the use of the reduced 4-MI caramel coloring over time.
Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc said all the caramel color being produced for it meets the new California standard.
Earlier this week, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a U.S. watchdog group, said it found unsafe levels of the chemical in cans of Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Dr Pepper and Whole Foods Markets Inc's 365 Cola.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said at the time it was reviewing the group's petition but stressed that the drinks were still safe. An FDA spokesman said a person would have to drink "well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents".
Wow. Pepsi says consumers will notice no difference in their products and have no reason at all for any health concerns. So Pepsi if this is true, why didn't you voluntarily change remove the chemical as soon as you learned about the health risk?
This may be one reason why it seems like more and more people are getting cancer today. Which leads to the question, why are we spending billions on cancer research when we are putting chemicals in our food and beverages that are known to cause cancer?
Coke and Pepsi said on Friday that they had asked their suppliers of the caramel coloring in their colas to alter their manufacturing process to meet the requirements of a California ballot initiative aiming to limit people's exposure to toxic chemicals.
"Consumers will notice no difference in our products and have no reason at all for any health concerns," said PepsiCo spokeswoman Gina Anderson in a statement.
The change is meant to reduce the amount of a chemical called 4-methylimidazole, or 4-MI, which in January was added to the list of chemicals covered by California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65.
High levels of that chemical have been linked to cancer in animals. The California statute says that "no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving a clear and reasonable warning ..."
Coca-Cola spokesman Ben Sheidler said the modification to the manufacturing process will have no effect on the formula, color or taste of Coca-Cola.
Both companies said they started in California, and would expand the use of the reduced 4-MI caramel coloring over time.
Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc said all the caramel color being produced for it meets the new California standard.
Earlier this week, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a U.S. watchdog group, said it found unsafe levels of the chemical in cans of Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Dr Pepper and Whole Foods Markets Inc's 365 Cola.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said at the time it was reviewing the group's petition but stressed that the drinks were still safe. An FDA spokesman said a person would have to drink "well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents".
Wow. Pepsi says consumers will notice no difference in their products and have no reason at all for any health concerns. So Pepsi if this is true, why didn't you voluntarily change remove the chemical as soon as you learned about the health risk?
This may be one reason why it seems like more and more people are getting cancer today. Which leads to the question, why are we spending billions on cancer research when we are putting chemicals in our food and beverages that are known to cause cancer?
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Seven Million Pounds of “Pink Slime” Beef Destined for National School Lunch Program
By Sarah B. Weir, Yahoo! blogger
McDonald's and Taco Bell have banned it, but now the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is buying 7 million pounds of beef containing ammonium hydroxide-treated ground connective tissue and meat scraps and serving it up to America's school kids. If you thought cafeteria food was gross before….
Related: What You Need to Know About the New Meat and Poultry Labels
According to TheDaily.com,
the term "pink slime" was coined by microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein,
formerly of the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service. He first saw it
being mixed into burger meat when he was touring a Beef Products Inc
(BPI) facility in 2002 after an outbreak of salmonella. "Scientists in
D.C. were pressured to approve this stuff with minimal safety approval,"
Zirnstein told The Daily.
"Pink slime," which is officially called "Lean Beef Trimmings," is banned for human consumption in the United Kingdom. It is commonly used in dog and chicken food. Celebrity chef and safe food advocate Jamie Oliver featured the substance and called for its ban on the April 12, 2011 episode of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, which may have influenced McDonald's to stop using beef patties containing the filler.
Reportedly, Zirnstein and his colleague Carl Custer studied the substance and classified it as a "high risk product." Custer, who worked at the Food Safety Inspection service for 35 years, says, "We looked at the product and we objected to it because it used connective tissues instead of muscle. It was simply not nutritionally equivalent [to ground beef]. My main objection was that it was not meat."
Another issue is the ammonium hydroxide, a chemical that is used to kill pathogens such as E. coli. The FDA considers it safe for human consumption but a 2009 expose by the New York Times questioned its safety and efficacy. Some food advocates are asking for meat containing "pink slime" to be labeled. It's used in about 70% of ground beef in the US. "We don't know which districts are receiving what meat, and this meat isn't labeled to show pink slime. They don't have to under federal law," Bettina Siegal, a writer and mother of two who created TheLunchTray.com told NBC. Siegel has started a petition to demand the USDA stop using the product in the National School Lunch Program.
Would you allow your kids to eat ground beef mixed with "pink slime?" Let us know in the comments below.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Chipotle's "Back to The Start Video" Gets National Attention During the Grammy Awards
Did you see the advertisement for Chipotle Mexican Grill during the Grammy
Awards? If not, here's your chance to go Back
to the Start.
Coldplay’s haunting classic “The Scientist” is performed by country music legend Willie Nelson for the soundtrack of the short film entitled “Back to the Start.” The film, by film-maker Johnny Kelly, depicts the life of a farmer as he slowly turns his family farm into an industrial animal factory before seeing the errors of his ways and opting for a more sustainable future. Both the film and the soundtrack were commissioned by Chipotle to emphasize the importance of developing a sustainable food system.
The video has had immediate effects. Hurst, a former hog farmer who is now president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, notes that “The day after it ran, McDonald’s announced that it would require its pork suppliers to end the use of gestation crates.” And then Bon Appétit Management Company announced a comprehensive animal welfare policy that phases out gestation crates by 2015.
McDonald's one of largest fast food chains has been the headlines lately about their food supply practices. First the "Pink Slime" and now gestation crates. This goes to show the power of the internet and social media. Large corporations can longer hide behind a corporate veil like they once did. Companies are now forced to be more transparent which means better products and services for us the consumers.
Let's go back to start by educating ourselves about our food and where it comes from. Chipotle has shown us that consumers are willing to pay for a more sustainable food system. We shouldn't be willing to compromise our health and food system by putting more profit in the pockets of companies that care nothing our wellness or the wellbeing of animals.
Coldplay’s haunting classic “The Scientist” is performed by country music legend Willie Nelson for the soundtrack of the short film entitled “Back to the Start.” The film, by film-maker Johnny Kelly, depicts the life of a farmer as he slowly turns his family farm into an industrial animal factory before seeing the errors of his ways and opting for a more sustainable future. Both the film and the soundtrack were commissioned by Chipotle to emphasize the importance of developing a sustainable food system.
The video has had immediate effects. Hurst, a former hog farmer who is now president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, notes that “The day after it ran, McDonald’s announced that it would require its pork suppliers to end the use of gestation crates.” And then Bon Appétit Management Company announced a comprehensive animal welfare policy that phases out gestation crates by 2015.
McDonald's one of largest fast food chains has been the headlines lately about their food supply practices. First the "Pink Slime" and now gestation crates. This goes to show the power of the internet and social media. Large corporations can longer hide behind a corporate veil like they once did. Companies are now forced to be more transparent which means better products and services for us the consumers.
Let's go back to start by educating ourselves about our food and where it comes from. Chipotle has shown us that consumers are willing to pay for a more sustainable food system. We shouldn't be willing to compromise our health and food system by putting more profit in the pockets of companies that care nothing our wellness or the wellbeing of animals.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Monsanto's Bt GMO corn to be sold at Wal-Mart with no indication it is genetically modified
(NaturalNews) Most of the genetically-modified (GM) corn products forced on American consumers today are hidden in processed foods in the form of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn oil, corn starch, and various other corn-based additives. But soon to be available at a Walmart near you is Monsanto's Bt sweet corn, the agri-giant's first ever GM corn product made available to consumers as whole ears right on the cob in the produce section-- and like with all other GMOs, neither Walmart nor Monsanto has any intention of labeling this new "Frankencorn."
Monsanto first unveiled this new variety of GM sweet corn back in August, which rivals Syngenta's GM sweet corn that has already been on the market in limited form for the past ten years, claiming that it would be available to farmers for planting during Fall 2011. Now, the corn appears set to make its debut in Walmart stores across the country as early as Summer 2012, unless massive public outcry is able to convince the multinational retailer to scrap the corn, or at least voluntarily label it.
This disturbing development comes courtesy of both Food & Water Watch and Sum Of Us, which recently drew attention to the issue by creating petitions against Walmart's potential sale of the corn. Though Monsanto's GM sweet corn contains three genetically-engineered (GE) traits that have never been used in food eaten directly by people, and that have never been properly tested, Walmart still intends to quietly stock its produce shelves with this phony corn in the very near future.
Whole Foods and Trader Joe's have rejected Monsanto's Bt corn, how about Wal-Mart?
In a recent campaign alert (http://sumofus.org/campaigns/walmart-monsanto/), Sum Of Us explains that immense consumer pressure has already resulted in commitments from Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe's, and General Mills not to use the new GM corn in any of their products. But as of the announcement, Walmart has made no such commitment, presumably because of the company's close-knit relationship with Monsanto, a "match made in hell" that Food & Water Watch has humorously dubbed "Walsanto" (https://www.facebook.com/WalsantoWatch?sk=info).But there is still time to stop Walmart's stocking of Monsanto's latest GM poison which, if successful, has the potential to completely destroy the viability of the entire crop. If Walmart rejects the GM corn, many others will likely follow, which will result in farmers refusing to plant it.
It is a simple supply and demand situation, but one that is complicated by the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refuses to mandate that any GMOs be labeled, which means millions of people consume them all the time without knowing it. This is why YOUR help is needed to spread the truth about both GM sweet corn and GMOs in general to your friends, family members, neighbors, and coworkers.
You can also sign this petition by April 1, 2012, asking Walmart not to stock Monsanto's GM sweet corn:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org
Sources for this article include:
http://sumofus.org/campaigns/walmart-monsanto/
http://fooddemocracynow.org
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/BuyingNon-GMO/index.cfm
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Community Supported Agriculture
Wendy on our team here at Whole Foods Network, recommended
that I watch the video above entitled "The Real Dirt on
Farmer John". I have often wondered what it was like when we had family
farms everywhere across our nation, and why we only see remnants of what was once
a thriving industry. It's sad to see empty farms
houses and barns falling apart and land taken over by weeds, when I drive across our country. Because I know that every lost family farm means more factory farms. This story helped
me to understand what happened from a farmer's perspective. In the end, farmer
John goes back to the start with Community Supported Agriculture. Maybe we all
should seek to do the same in our communities. Pull up a comfortable chair, get
some organic popcorn, and enjoy the story!
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Walmart Introduces "Great for You" Brand
What's its label Spring. options provide affixed
www.WalmartGreatForYou.com,
in
www.WalmartGreatForYou.com,
in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)