June 2nd, 2009 by admin in Better Health Network
No Comments »
I don’t have to tell you that in this economy everyone is looking for ways to cut costs. One place many people are choosing to save pennies is by choosing generic, or store brands, instead of name brands at the supermarket.
The Food Marketing Institute reports these stats:
- 93% of retailers plan to increase the number of store-label products in upcoming months.
- 15% of supermarket sales are store labels compared to 14% in 2008 and 11.5% in 2007.
- 10.8% increase in store label sales in most recent fiscal year. Manufactured brands grew by 2.5%.
The average family spends $98.40 weekly on groceries. If you have children, you will spend well over $100. So saving even a few dollars each shopping trip can add up.
Can you tell a difference in the store brand vs the manufactured brand? I personally will purchase store brand for many things like milk, bread, cheese, butter, etc. I have tried some of the store brand cereals and not found them to be as good as the manufactured brand. It all depends, though, on the product and the price. If a manufactured brand is on sale or if I have a coupon, it is much cheaper to go with that than the store brand.
Did you know that many of the store brands are actually made by national brands and relabeled for the store? This varies by store and product, but often those paper towels that are store brand are the same as the manufactured brand.
What do you think? What do you purchase in the generic, or store brand? Do you notice a difference?
This post, Going Generic, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Brian Westphal.
May 26th, 2009 by admin in Better Health Network, Quackery Exposed
No Comments »
By Dr. John Snyder of the Science Based Medicine Blog
I recently saw a 14 year old girl in my office with a 2 day history of severe abdominal cramps, bloody diarrhea, and fever. Her mother had similar symptoms as did several other members of her household and some family friends. After considerable discomfort, everyone recovered within a few days. The child’s stool culture grew a bacterium called Campylobacter.
Campylobacter is a nasty little pathogen which causes illness like that seen in my patient, but can also cause more severe disease. It is found commonly in both wild and domestic animals. But where did all these friends and family members get their campylobacter infections? Why, from their friendly farmer, of course!
My patient’s family and friends had taken a weekend pilgrimage to a family-run farm in Buck’s County, Pennsylvania. They saw farm animals and a working farm. And they all drank raw milk. Why raw milk? Because, as they were told and led to believe, raw milk is better. Better tasting and better for you.
In 1862, the french chemist Louis Pasteur discovered that heating wine to just below its boiling point could prevent spoilage. Now this process (known as pasteurization) is used to reduce the number of dangerous infectious organisms in many products, prolonging shelf life and preventing serious illness and death. But a growing trend toward more natural foods and eating habits has led to an interest in unpasteurized foods such as milk and cheese. In addition to superior taste, many claim that raw milk products provide health benefits not found in the adulterated versions. Claims made about the “good bacteria” (like Lactobacillus) conquering the “bad” bacteria (like Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli) in raw milk are pure fantasy. Some even claim that the drinking of mass-produced, pasteurized milk has resulted in an increase in allergies, heart disease, cancer, and a variety of other diseases. Again, this lacks any scientific credibility.
With this growing interest in unpasteurized dairy products has come an increase in the rate of food-born infections. The federal government developed the Grade ‘A’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance in 1924, providing a set of guidelines for the safe processing and handling of milk products. Although all 50 states have voluntarily adopted these guidelines, the FDA has no oversight jurisdiction. It is up to individual states to determine their own safety protocols and enforcement strategies. While selling raw milk is currently illegal in 26 states, those with a will have found a way to skirt the law to get their fix of the real deal.
My patient was a victim of a recent outbreak in Pennsylvania, but similar outbreaks of infectious disease due to unpasteurized milk products are a recurring headache for public health officials. Between 1973 and 1993 there was an average of 2.3 milk born disease outbreaks per year. That number increased to 5.2 per year between 1993 and 2006. Whatever the numbers are, there is no question that the increasing consumption of raw milk is a genuine threat to public health.
The health claims made for raw milk, and against its pasteurized cousin, are being heavily pushed by a small but passionate contingent one might refer to as “food guardians.” These are people who espouse a return to the good old agrarian days of wholesome, farm-raised foods, free from man-made chemicals and mass-market processing. Some of these ideals are highly respectable and healthful responses to the ways in which society has dealt with the need to push products to a mass market at profit. For example, the use of pesticides, animal hormones and antibiotics, and farm run-off can have deleterious environmental and human health consequences. However, many of the health claims that are made about products like raw milk are not supported by scientific evidence, and lack scientific plausibility. Despite this lack of evidence, however, the allure of raw milk products is clearly on the rise.
Beyond the obvious public health consequences of this trend lies the problem of an increasing public credulousness when it comes to pseudoscientific claims. This is similar to the trend we are seeing regarding concerns about the dangers of vaccines and excessive fears concerning certain potential environmental hazards.
Unscientific and outright fraudulent claims about the health benefits (as well as the hidden dangers) of a variety of foods is on the rise. And bogus or unsupported nutrition claims are big business. From the immune boosting and weight loss powers of the acai berry, to the cancer protective effects of vitamins, nutrition pseudoscience is all the rage. While raw milk will never have quite the celebrity cache of these “super foods”, it is promoted with the same lofty yet empty claims, and provides the added bonus of infectious diarrhea.
On a recent visit to a local high-end wine shop, I came face-to-face with the ease with which people fall prey to the marketing of food pseudoscience. A woman was examining a bottle of wine when the store keeper approached to offer help. She told her a little about the wine and then said, “And all of their wines are biodynamic.” To this, the shopper exclaimed “Oh wow, that’s great.” She bought the wine, likely without having a clue what the term “biodynamic” even means. Biodynamic farming is a mixture of Gaia-like principles (the earth is a living organism) and organic practices, with a smattering of mysticism, alchemy, and astrology. In essence, a smorgasbord of pseudoscientific farming practices perfect for the current culture of armchair environmentalism and the new found heal-thy-self mantra of the well-to-do. While the motivating factors and socioeconomic status may differ between those drinking biodynamic wine and those drinking raw milk, both are relying on false beliefs and unsupported claims in making their choices to consume these products.
As a lover of cheese, I appreciate that there are those whose refined palates favor the delicacy of unpasteurized, aged cheeses so prevalent in other countries. But to stretch this taste preference to include health benefits unsupported by science and even common sense is not just misguided, it can be dangerous. Dangerous because it increases the risk of infectious disease, but also because it perpetuates a credulous perspective that adds to the ongoing erosion of our appreciation and acceptance of science.
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
May 25th, 2009 by admin in Better Health Network
No Comments »
I am always on the lookout for a new snack and I found one I just had to tell you about. I have a big sweet tooth so sweet snacks are usually my first choice (although I also do love my popchips). I firmly believe in the glycemic index for snacks and try to choose things with fiber and/or protein so that they give me sustained energy instead of a spike and drop in my energy. I hate it when I eat something only to be hungry or feel lethargic 30 minutes later.
The new favorite sweet snack is SmartFood popcorn clusters. Mmmmm. You may remember or still have on your store shelves the SmartFood popcorn that is cheddar flavor, but this is completely different. These are sweet and in individual bags.
The SmartFood clusters are sweet, sweet, sweet. They hit the spot a few minutes ago when I ate a pack. I had the Cranberry Almond flavor and it is tart along with the sweet for a nice combo. They also come in Honey Multigrain which taste JUST like caramel corn and a Chocolate Cookie Caramel Pecan Flavor which is a bit more rich than the others.
The reason I love them is that they are also nutritious (of course!). They have 5 grams of fiber (which makes them lower glycemic) and are an excellent source (20%) of calcium. They are made with brown rice syrup instead of high fructose corn syrup and are low in fat with no saturated or trans fat. Each pack is 110-120 calories and are quite convenient to throw into your purse or briefcase or desk drawer.
Check them out and let me know what you think. I found them in the chip aisle in my grocery store.
This post, Yummy New Snack, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Brian Westphal.
May 13th, 2009 by admin in Better Health Network
No Comments »
We are all trying to cut back at the grocery store, but do you always have to get fresh produce? Not necessarily. I am always all for getting lots of fruits and veggies in whatever form. But I often hear people tell me they don’t think canned is as good as fresh. Hopefully I can set the record straight.
Canned food is often less expensive than frozen or fresh. It is also very convenient. You won’t throw away moldy or freezer burned foods. They are much more shelf stable so you can stock your pantry and always have something healthy on hand. And if you have been reading the Diet Dish for long, you know that I LOVE canned beans!
Fresh is not always best
A study from UC Davis found that all cooked forms of fruits and veggies–whether they come from fresh, frozen, or canned– are nutritionally similar. In fact, many foods are actually more nutritious in canned form. For example, canned pumpkin is higher in Vitamin A than an equal amount of cooked fresh pumpkin because the canning process concentrates the food. Canned tomatoes are higher in lycopene because the heat from the canning process helps the body absorb the lycopene better. The same is true for carotenoids in carrots, spinach, and other leafy greens and lutein in corn.
Surprising ways to use canned food
I just made three recipes I found on mealtime.org which is the website for the Canned Food Alliance.
Green Sal
ad with Posole and Creamy Cilantro-Lime Dressing
This green salad is dressed with the most amazing creamy cilantro lime dressing. It is so good I wish you could taste it through the screen. What I love about this recipe is that you use only 1 T. of oil (instead of 1/2 or more cup per recipe) because you use pureed cannelini beans. This adds fiber and reduces calories and fat. Did I mention how yummy it is? Oh, and just in case you didn’t know (I didn’t), Posole is simply white corn.
Canned items in this recipe:
- Cannelini beans
- Mild green chilis
- Posole (also called hominy which is white corn)
- Slice ripe black olives
Caribbean Stir-Fri
ed Shrimp
I made this last night and my husband went back for seconds. Even Basil (almost 2 year old) ate it up! Uses frozen shrimp, canned pinepple, and tomatoes. It took me 15 minutes to make. I served it with instant brown rice. Tasty!
Canned items in this recipe:
- Pineapple chunks in juice
- Diced tomatoes
- Mild green chilis
Red Satin Cake w
ith Peaches and Raspberries
OK…ready for dessert now? You would never believe that this cake has pureed beets in it. I hate beets (sorry, but true). But I wanted to see how this would taste. Outstanding! You simply put the entire can of beets in the blender and mix it into a boxed mix of devil’s food cake and some eggs. No oil in cake mix because beets provide the moisture. Then you take canned peaches in juice and blend with cornstarch and boil to thicken for the filling. So easy!
Canned items in this recipe:
- No salt added sliced canned beets
- Sliced peaches in juice
For more recipes, check out the recipe section of www.mealtime.org
This post, Is Canned Food Good for You?, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Brian Westphal.
May 12th, 2009 by admin in Better Health Network, News
2 Comments »
I really don’t think the cholesterol lowering effects of Cheerios are comparable to how a drug may help lower cholesterol, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is saying that the claims Cheerios is making on it’s boxes are similar to those made by drug companies. And, by the way, it is against the law. The FDA sent General Mills a letter (read the whole letter here) saying that the phrases they are using on their packages and website are misleading consumers.
Here is snapshot of what FDA said in their letter:
Unapproved New Drug
Based on claims made on your product’s label, we have determined that your Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. Specifically, your Cheerios® product bears the following claims on its label:
• “you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks”
• “Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is … clinically proven to lower cholesterol. A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol.”
These claims indicate that Cheerios® is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia. Additionally, the claims indicate that Cheerios® is intended for use in the treatment, mitigation, and prevention of coronary heart disease through, lowering total and “bad” (LDL) cholesterol.
You may or may not think this is a big deal, but I can tell you that the FDA takes health claims seriously. There are only certain FDA approved claims that food companies are allowed to make on a product label. In this letter they also included the website as part of the label since the web address www.wholegrainnation.com is listed there. So that means that everything on the website also needs to comply with the official FDA health claims.
Cheerios is a great cereal that is low in sugar and has soluble fiber. I am sure they will correct their language to comply with the FDA’s request and this will blow over. Keep eating your Cheerios with low fat milk and a handful of blueberries. Yum!
This post, Cheerios: A Drug?, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Brian Westphal.
