by OneMoreBite | Jul 25, 2005 | Food Safety
Coca-Cola may face a fatwa, or decree by Muslim leaders if more samples prove to have liquor in them following the discovery of alcohol in a bottle of the beverage.
As reported in the Packaging Blog, “In June of this year a Mpumalanga doctor, Haroon Dindar, bought a crate of 1.25 liter bottles of Coke from a bottling plant in Ermelo South Africa. One of the bottles that he opened had a smell of alcohol so he sent the contents for testing. The test showed it had in fact contained 0.925g of alcohol per 100ml.”
They determined it was an isolated incident, but how exactly does alcohol find its way into a bottle of soda pop? How did Coca-cola manage to keep this so quiet? I think it’s an even bigger story than finding human digits in chili at Wendys.
by OneMoreBite | Jul 8, 2005 | Food Reviews
If you get Pepsi anyway, this is a neat deal to save some money because soft drinks are expensive! Think about it: if you drink only one soft drink a day, and you buy at a convenience store for instance, you’re probably paying more than $1 every single day for that lousy drink. That’s $365 a year, folks! Doesn’t that seem a tad high?
No wonder everyone thinks they’re broke all the time.
My trick? Get flavors such as Root Beer or Cherry, and sweetener of your choice (I like Stevia), then add to ordinary water, and you get all but the fizz for pennies a day, rather than dollars. Think of what you could do with all that extra cash?
Meanwhile, go get that $10 rebate Pepsi’s offering, quick now, cause the deal expires soon. Just print out the coupon (it’s in the PDF format), follow directions and then deposit that check.
Clue: If you provide your phone number, they do have the right to call, even if you are on the Do Not Call list. That’s the way the DNC list works. Vendors have the right to call you, despite being on the list, if you contact them for information. I believe they can contact you up to 90 days. In the case of a company such as Pepsi, I wouldn’t worry about it. Not likely Pepsi’s going to be calling you up to see if you liked the new Diet Pepsi with Lime.
by OneMoreBite | Jul 6, 2005 | Food Reviews
When the label says 100% whole grain, and nothing else. No “wheat flour,” because guess what? It’s no longer whole grain. You can have whole grain flour but it would be listed as “100% whole grain flour.” Anything else is not whole grain. These products advertising themselves as whole grain when they may have a bit of whole grain is misleading, but apparently perfectly legal in the US.
Here’s a tip: If it’s highly refined, it’s not nutritious, even if they do toss in a small amount of “whole grain.” Apparently some people think they can buy a box of breakfast cereal and get something nutritious for their or their kid’s breakfast. They are wrong.
ABC News reported in March 2005 that Jennifer Hardee is suing Kraft Foods Co., General Mills Cereals and Kellogg USA, Inc. in what may become a class action lawsuit for deceptive labeling. She was fooled into believing their new low sugar cereals were healthier largely because of their new ad campaign stating they are healthier. Shame on her for believing their ads! How could she be so foolish?
“Parents think they’re buying something healthier for their children, [only] to find out that they’re not,” said Hardee.
These new low-sugar varities of Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes and Froot Loops, General Mills’ Cocoa Puffs and Trix, and Post’s Fruity Pebbles, have the same amount of calories, carbohydrates, fat, fiber and other nutrients as the regular versions of the cereals, according to a recent report by The Associated Press. Well duh!
So, they are the same, right? Wrong. Lower sugar is lower sugar. There is a difference. Is it healthier? Probably not, but that’s open to debate. At least these companies are trying to put out a “healthier” product, but good luck with that. Everyone knows we actually want good taste more than anything. Why else would be buying all these highly sugared products in the first place?
If this does turn into a class action suit it would likely mean millions of dollars for the lawyers with those suit participants likely receiving coupons for $2.00 off a cereal of their choice. Class action suits are never a good deal for the plaintiffs, but lawyers come out smelling like a rose. Sad but true.
“What they’re doing with their low-sugar cereals is reducing their sugar content, but increasing the refined carbohydrates,” Hardee’s lawyer, Harold Hewell, told ABC News affiliate KGTV in San Diego. “The body treats refined carbohydrates the same as sugar so there is no real net nutritional benefit.” Not precisely true yet refined carbs are the point, and these lowered sugared products are still highly refined, despite the ad claims to the contrary, and that’s misleading.
Stop eating these cereals entirely and you will have a healthier breakfast. Try oatmeal–not instant with added sugar and flavor–just plain oatmeal. Add brown sugar and milk if you like, it’s okay. Really it is. To Ms. Hardee: Feed your kids real food. Give them an apple or banana, bake something. Mix and make your own breakfast cereals–it’s ultra easy to do and far less money. In fact, gather your kids and have them create breakfast cereals with you. That would be a great way to show your kids how they can have a hand in their own health too.
by OneMoreBite | Jul 3, 2005 | Just for Fun
Kristy’s blog, She Just Walks Around With it, is great, especially when you need a laugh or a smile.
by OneMoreBite | Jun 30, 2005 | Diet Products
Think you have a sweet tooth? According to Packaged Foods, diet candy sales reached $495 million in 2004, more than four times the sales in 2000. The major contributing factor appears to be the increasing versatility of many artificial sweeteners, allowing for new combinations of flavor, texture and appearance.
Food Production Daily reports that Russell Stover is the current leader in diet candy, controlling 37% of dollar sales in IRI-tracked mass-market outlets as of first quarter 2005. Following Russell Stover are Hershey at 14%, Atkins Nutritionals with 12% and Kraft and 9%.
What is Diet Candy
So called “Diet Candy” generally means sugar free or low sugar, and the proliferation of sweeteners continues to grow. FDA approved sweeteners include saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, and acesulfame-K, all available both on your supermarket shelves and as ingredients, especially in diet drinks.
Newer sweeteners are known as polyols, which provide the same bulk as sugar but are sugar free, do not promote tooth decay, and are used in a wide range of foods including chewing gum, candies, ice cream, baked goods, and fruit spreads. Polyols are generally mixed with other sweeteners, since the combination (synergy) creates an even sweeter product than either used alone.
New Sweetners: Coming Soon to a Sweet Treat Near You
New sweeteners on the horizon include dihydrochalcones, derived from citrus fruits; glycyrrhizin, a non-caloric extract of licorice root and thaumatin, a mixture of proteins from a West African fruit.
Cyclamate, banned here in 1970 as a potential carcinogen, may make a comeback as it is currently awaiting approval in the United States. Cyclamate is currently accepted and used in 50 countries. Another little known sweetener, alitame, an amino acid derivative may win approval. All of these products are many times sweeter than sucrose, and are winning the favor of food producers and consumers every day.
The bottom line: Do these low calorie, low sugar products help people lose weight?
by OneMoreBite | Jun 15, 2005 | Uncategorized
Okay, this has nothing to do with weight loss, unless you consider the weight of your hard earned money, but here’s the deal:
In Washington State we already have one of the highest gas tax rates in the country. Now, with no real announcement or warning, our legislature is quieting introducing a proposed nearly 10 cent per gallon tax to take effect very soon! The only way to stop this new tax is to get the word out and have all registered voters who’d rather not be skinned alive at the gas pump sign the petition to Stop the Gas Tax!
History of Gas Taxes in Washington State:
From an article at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Bader said, “The voters rejected a 9-cent-a-gallon gas tax in 2002, and since that time the Legislature has raised the gas tax by 14.5 cents a gallon. Olympia simply isn’t listening.”
Timing is simply wrong for this, especially since the residents of Washington State are already paying 28 cents a gallon in taxes! No wonder our gas prices are so high! It’s not the hapless gas station owners who are robbing us blind, but our very own legislature.
Money is needed, yes, but this is the wrong time to add further to the burden of the citizens in this most basic of needs. The price of gas will likely rise, and meanwhile our gas tax sits right on top, ensuring we’ll always be paying far more than everyone else. The trickle-down effect has already started, where business owners must rise prices to help offset the higher costs of fuel, and it hits the worker hardest since employers aren’t likely to increase wages to offset our higher costs of living.
As passed, the gas tax increase will be phased in over four years, beginning with a 3-cent boost in July, 2005.
The tax package also includes new tolls, local taxes and weight fees on cars, light trucks and SUVs. The full gas tax increase and weight fee will cost motorists $67 to $172 a year, depending on vehicle size. So, if you’d like to spend more each and every year to license your vehicle (this only a couple years after we finally got equitable licensing fees in Washington State), then sign this petition now!
I am coordinating the efforts for Clark County, but no matter where you live in Washington State you can get a petition, just go to NoNewGasTax.com and request one. If you are anywhere in Clark County, send me your request and I’ll get one out to you. There are also pickup locations at a few places.
Thanks, and now, back to our regularly scheduled programming …
If anyone in Clark County (or any county) would like to help me in getting signatures
by OneMoreBite | Jun 4, 2005 | Food Reviews
Burger King’s got the jump on this one, and it’s a great idea: Strips of chicken, battered and deep fried (just the way we like it), with a spicy, snappy, addictive taste. Their thinking is that people want food they can eat on-the-go (in the car perhaps) and their cup-full-o-chicken-strips fits that bill. The dipping sauce would be a problem, but I’m sure they’ll figure that out.
Maybe the auto manufacturers should take a clue and put a mini-bar in the front seat? That’d be cool. Push a button and it flips up with a little tray, mini-refrigerator, maybe a mini-microwave for heating those “better when hot” snacks? Cup holder, natch. Um, what else? Ideas, people, give me ideas. Napkin holder would be nice, maybe a condiment center? Pretty soon I’m gonna need an RV just to get to work.
Then, when you’re done, push another button and that flips away and up flips your “porta-office.” Oh, the joy, the rapture, to be able to read e-mail and organize files while zipping down the road at 70 miles-per-hour in a 10,000 pound machine.
After a work “break” it’s time to get serious, so push another button and the portable DVD/game console pops up. This is for serious traffic jams only though! Remember to keep your eyes on the road and your free hand on the wheel at all times.
This leads to me my latest “big idea.” I want a semi-truck, train, bus, whatever, something big, to haul a bunch of exercise equipment. Then the commuters can pay a fee to ride in the beast while exercising on their way to and from work. The trouble with that idea is when there is no traffic the ride would be too fast, and you’d get a lousy workout, but when the traffic is horrible and everyone else is all stressed and annoyed, us in the “Move it or Lose it” bus are saying, “ha ha on you. We’re getting our exercise!” I love this idea, it just needs a little tweaking, oh, and a bunch of money.
Paul Allen, Bill Gates? You have the bucks. Make it happen, and I’ll be first in line for a monthly pass, and you’ll be heroes.
by OneMoreBite | Jun 3, 2005 | Food Reviews
I finally found some “dark” M&M’s; a not easy feat in itself. I’ve been looking for them for weeks. So, I get my prize home and tear it open only to find … the colors. They are so horribly depressing you might as well eat dirt.
Don’t they get it in M&M’s land? It’s the colors stupid! How could they not know it’s the deep dark brown package and the bright, vibrant colors that I love so much, not the stupid candy. The candy, frankly tastes like, er, I don’t know, sort of stale? I’ve never liked the taste of M&M’s but the colors, that’s another story.
Did anyone buy the white ones? That was doubly-dumb I thought. Who wants an anemic looking candy?
So, I’m not happy with this flavor at all. The taste is reminiscent of the sugar-free posers, and that’s not good either. I’ll stick with the regular.
by OneMoreBite | May 10, 2005 | Food Safety
Whole Foods Markets sell a meat substitute under the brand name Quorn. It’s what they call a mycoprotein and is described as being related to mushrooms, but the CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) claims it is a mold more closely related to mildew than truffles.
Apparently the trouble is some people have an allergic reaction to Quorn and for whatever reason Quorn Foods is reluctant to point that out on their package labels. They may end up wishing they’d simply been more truthful if the “mildew” idea sticks.
Truth in labeling is becoming a bigger issue. Recent cases brought by the CSPI include a suit against Arizona Rx drinks which claim to contain ginseng, echinacea, gingko biloba, valerian, and sometimes vitamins. The CSPI reports that independent laboratory tests showed the drinks had barely detectable levels of those ingredients. No surprise there either.
Don’t think because a drink suggests a health benefit that one exists. The law allows labeling to mention health benefits if the product contains the ingredient. They never said it had to be enough of the ingredient to actually cause an effect, just that it had to be present. Obviously expensive herbal ingredients will be added in minute amounts so they can be claimed on the labels.
CSPI means well, but they can be overly zealous in their attempts to be the food police. If only we could find a happy medium between being totally screwed over by food manufacturers and having the food police lording over us then maybe we could get somewhere. I’m not holding my breath.
by OneMoreBite | Apr 23, 2005 | Diet Products
Good news! The price of Splenda may soon be going down! The primary patent held for Splenda by Tate & Lyle has already expired. They hold numerous other patents but this still opens the door to competition. Other companies can now create Splenda as well, and will soon bring it to market under different brand names (but it will be virtually the same thing just like a generic drug). This competition will encourage price to drop which is good news for everyone (except maybe Tate & Lyle).
Despite the questionable announcement of a “shortage of Splenda” which was probably bogus (I don’t have facts, but really, a shortage? Gimme a break), now the news that the patents are expired. Coincidence? I think not.
Splenda is considered far safer than aspartame and many companies are moving to use it. Seven-up has just announced they will be brining a diet 7-Up to market sweetened with Splenda.
Hopefully the day will come with the FDA will recognize that Stevia is even better being a plant (not a chemical process), and will let it be grown and sold as a sweetener. Why they do not now is beyond me. It’s as if they declared sugar cane a drug. Sugar cane is a plant, so is Stevia. Why is one okay, and one not? Ask big business.
