The candy manufacturers are like anyone else in business, they naturally do what they must to make a profit. Since so many happy and positive experiences and sheer enjoyment have become positively associated with candy, there is a tendency to regard the manufacturers quite positively, no matter what they do.
They are also good for business. They buy produce from farmers so the primary industry sector thinks well of them. They operate manufacturing plants which employ many people so the secondary industry sector thinks well of them too. Taken together, this is more than enough to keep most politicians on their side.
As an industry group in which there is stiff competition, the candy manufacturers also spend a fortune every year advertising their products. This forges good relationships with the media, a key sector to have on side.
However, consumers are increasingly learning about health and the health sector has been one the candy manufacturers have tended to overlook. Until now that is. This is starting to change and the pace of change is increasing. Why? Because what people are learning is that candy is definitely bad for your health and that’s a message the candy industry has to tackle head on, since billions of dollars are at stake.
So don’t expect the candy industry to play fair. They won’t. No doubt they will buy, although they will say ‘fund’, some supportive research saying that their products are good for you. They will have no problems getting news coverage for these claims, so they have enhanced credibility and don’t get dismissed as mere advertising, since they know how to work their friends in the media systems.
And of course, they will have to directly counter their emerging biggest weakness by claiming that they actually offer health foods! This breathtaking untruth will have to feature in their marketing strategy increasingly and it has already begun.
Remember from Part 1 that these sugar-rich foods do not start from a level playing field. Consuming a candy bar actually costs nutrients. So when you see absurd claims that this candy bar or that chocolate or whatever, provides a certain proportion of your daily nutritional requirements, they are simply misleading you. Some would say they are lying, but in the world of marketing it seems that word doesn’t exist.
Just a couple of days ago I posted a comment to an article on the heart health benefits of flavenols. I noted that the Mars corporation had funded some research that found wonderous health benefits in the cocoa used in Mars chocolates. Having seen increasing numbers of candybars touted as healthy because some vitamins had been added I wondered how long it would be before Mars joined the competitive fray by following suit. It certainly didn’t take long!
Just a couple of days later I found the following CBS news item. Take a look at this skillfully crafted but dangerous rubbish.
Nov 1, 2005 6:58 pm US/Mountain
Mars: New Candy Is Heart-Healthy
(CBS) NEW YORK Chocolate is thought of as a Cupid-helper. Now, one company says a new line of candy bars can help the heart in a different way, promoting heart health.But a dietician says that, regardless of any potential benefits, the calories in chocolate still need to be counted.
Mars Inc. says its newly-launched "CocoaVia" delivers "real heart-health benefits."
The company says CocoaVia’s ingredients are "formulated to promote a healthy heart. – CocoaVia is the only product that contains a patented blend of heart-healthy cocoa flavanols and cholesterol-lowering plant sterols from soy. The new line of snacks also is fortified with calcium and a mix of heart-healthy nutrients including folic acid, vitamins B-6, B-12, C and E."
Still, Elisa Zied, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association cautions that calories are still calories, and need to be watched.
"The company says you have to have about two of these bars a day to get benefits," she told The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith Tuesday. "That will pack on anywhere between 160 and 280 calories to get the full antioxidant and other benefits. That’s a lot of calories from candy."
Dark chocolate, Zied says, has twice as much flavanol content as light chocolate, and white chocolate has absolutely no flavanols.
"The problem is," she says, "(chocolate is) a concentrated source of calories. The typical bar has about 230 calories and about 13 grams of fat. And most people can eat much more than a bar in one sitting. You have to really curb the calories when you’re talking about chocolate, and emphasize the dark if you want to get any health benefits."
One more thing in chocolate’s favor: the fat in it "doesn’t contribute to high cholesterol. It has a pretty good fat profile – doesn’t have an adverse impact on blood cholesterol."
Again, though, Zied stresses moderation, saying small amounts of chocolate every day should be fine; it’s when you eat chocolate in concert with other foods that are loaded with sugar that you start to have a problem with calories adding up.
"I would say that the average person should not have more than 250 more extra calories of candies, deserts, etc. a day, and the average candy bar is about 250 calories," Zied says. "You need to do this for the rest of your life if you want to reap the benefits. I never like to recommend one food to promote a good heart. It’s about the overall pattern of your diet."
Notice that this is really simply an advertisement disguised as a press standard news item. Don’t be fooled by that. We see the use of the term "healthy heart" which we already know builds on the research I reported on a couple of days ago.
Notice too how the seemingly balanced comments of a qualified dietitian are used to add power to their message. Notice words like "registered dietitian" and the borrowed credibility by association through reference to "the American Dietetic Association".
The list of added nutrients is actually impressive and I am pleased to see them. I don’t know what quality they are or what bioavailability they offer however. They may possibly be of no health value at all. In any case, the products are still highly refined carbohydrates and they still pose a health threat.
I regard this marketing tactic of adding some nutrients into candy in order to sell more by marketing it as healthy is on a par with disguising alcoholic mixed drinks as softdrinks to increase market share in the young. It is ethically low and poses a real danger to health.
Ms Zied should turn in her registration and hang her head in shame. Her comments, either deliberately or by skillful editing, actually powerfully promote these products. At a time when every effort needs to be made to overcome the obesity epidemic, any promotion of chocolate candy bars is obscene. Further, her direct support, thinly veilled by half-hearted cautionary remarks, for the practice of consuming chocolate every day, is culpable.
I know that since the retirement of the Mars brothers the Mars corporation has experienced a significant downturn. Even during periods of very high employment and economic bouyancy, Mars was sheding its workforce in significant numbers globally. The diversified nature of their operations affords security but it also means that when significant declines happen in one or more sectors of operation, the entire corporation suffers. There has been a large decline in pet food income for instance and large cuts in its IT workforce. They have also made costly management mistakes in their global IT rationalization, spending huge sums on useless software. Now it seems they are determined to recoup some losses by selling more candy. That’s not good health news at all.
If you are health conscious, and everyone should be, then beware of people promoting candy. Call this class of "foods" lollies, sweets, candy, confectionary or whatever you like, the fact is under any name it represents a threat to health.
Can such highly refined carbohydrates contribute at all to health? Yes, but in an extremely limited way. Let’s consider a couple.
First, an occasional sweet treat may genuinely offer a lift in mood. It is a way of indulging the so-called sweet tooth. It can be very pleasurable and there are real health benefits associated with this. Closely related to this might be the interpersonal or social benefit associated with a positive response to a gift of chocolates or similar sweets.
Second, as emergency rations or a boost to energy at times of great need. There are chocolates in soldiers’ ration packs for instance, so they can secure a burst of energy when needed, to get their job done in circumstances where providing better sources of nutrition isn’t feasible.
And in case you are wondering, yes, very occasionally I do enjoy a small amount of confectionary, usually high quality, gluten-free chocolate. I can assure you that my warning against consuming these dangerous foods is one I take seriously and sensibly – I am not some kind of anti-sugar nutter.
Now let’s briefly consider the down side. A surprisingly large number of people have quite adverse responses and reactions to highly refined carbohydrates or sugars. It can have a significant psychological impact as well as result in various physical symptoms. Unfortunately the patterns of presentation usually slip under the diagnostic radar of most orthodox practitioners and many people with this problem have no idea what is robbing them of full health.
These candies are calorie dense. That is, gram for gram, they are relatively very high in calories. You will probably have heard of these as "empty calories". This reminds me of a funny comment from someone who said that it was fine to have the lollies she did because her dietician told her they only had empty calories, so how heavy could empty calories be.
As amusing as I found this comment, it was a bit troubling. This lady sincerely believed her candy consumption had been approved by her dietician, all because of failed communication. Just so we’re clear then, empty calories are those that add energy (that is calories or kilojoules) but don’t add nutrition (that is nothing of nutritional value).
But that isn’t the whole truth. You see, most candy actually has negative nutritional value and it is this fact that has been cleverly hidden by the mainstream media where the confectionary manufacturers are big advertisers. The sweet treats load on the calories, offer no nutrition and then use up nutrients in the course of trying to metabolize them. So in providing no nutrient value but costing some to deal with the sugars, a net loss of nutrition occurs.
A common problem associated with confectionary consumption is the development of diabetes mellitus, since processing large surges of sugars in the blood stream consumes stores of insulin. This is why the rate of diabetes is so high in Chinese populations as they seem to have a very high consumption of sugars.
Consumption of sugar laden candies also worsens conditions such as arthritis and ADHD. Some individual types of confectionary tend to be implicated more than others but they are all suspect. In any event, since people with arthritis are wise to avoid also being overweight, consuming empty calories is something to avoid.
So I have argued that metabolizing sugars actually consumes more nutrients than the candies provide, meaning they are worse than being empty calories, they are actually negative nutritionally. Let’s consider this further. What happens when children have a candy bar half and hour before dinner? Yes that’s right, they don’t eat their meal because they say they aren’t hungry.
And they’re right. Their blood sugar level is elevated and this signals their brain to register that they don’t need to eat. So they skip a meal or skimp on it, leaving uneaten as much as they can get away with. What is the result? They just went without nutritional foods because it had been replaced by anti-nutritional food. The net result is a worsening of the negative nutritional impact of sugar-laden foods.
Now, what if you force them to eat? Then, you will certainly improve their nutritional status, but you will have also increased their total caloric or energy intake, risking or contributing to an overweight problem.
The bottom line is that candy or lollies or whatever you want to call them are quite bad foods when it comes to health. If you can be disciplined enough to consume only very little, and very rarely, then you can thoroughly enjoy them (unless you are one of the many people who must avoid them always, due to your specific condition).
Keep watch for Part 2 where I will alert you to a disturbing marketing trend.
Health and safety go hand in hand, or at least they should. Acting responsibly, the Salus Corporation has issued a recall for some of its products that are supplied to hospitals and extended care facilities. These places can be quite dangerous enough without facing increased risks, so it is good that the FDA has issued an alert about this recall.
The FDA alert is provided below.
Salus Corporation Shampoo Caps
Audience: Hospital and Extended Care Facility Risk Managers and supervisory personnel
[Posted 11/01/2005] Salus Corporation dba ICP Medical of Olivette, Missouri, has voluntarily initiated a nationwide recall of all lot numbers of shampoo caps with conditioner because some of the product is contaminated with the bacteria Serratia marcescens. Serratia marcescens has the potential to cause severe and life-threatening illness, especially in those with a compromised immune system. The shampoo caps were manufactured under three brand names: (1) The Salus Corporation dba ICP Medical brand name of CompleteBath (Reorder No. ICP095230); the brand name of ReadyBath, manufactured for Medline Industries, Inc., Mundelein, IL (Reorder No. MSC095230); and the brand name of No-Rinse, manufactured for No Rinse Laboratories, LLC, Centerville, OH (Reorder No. 02000). The shampoo caps were distributed to health care facilities and institutions nationwide through Salus Corporation, Medline Industries, and No Rinse Laboratories. The product can also be purchased through the internet.
If you have, or anyone you know has, cause to use such a product in a hospital or extended care facility, be sure to check the brand and source to determine its safety. Further details follow in the company’s press release.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — Olivette, MO — October 31, 2005 — Salus Corporation dba ICP Medical of Olivette, Missouri, has voluntarily initiated a nationwide recall of all lot numbers of shampoo caps with conditioner because some of the product is contaminated with the bacteria Serratia marcescens. Serratia marcescens has the potential to cause severe and life-threatening illness, especially in those with a compromised immune system. To date, no adverse effects have been reported as a result of using these shampoo caps. The bacteria has the potential to cause wound infections and then gain access to the blood stream from infected wounds. Once in the blood stream the bacteria has the potential to cause a number of life-threatening complications. It also has the potential to cause sight-threatening eye infections, as well as a number of other health problems. Serratia marcescens is often resistant to many antibiotics making treatment of an infection potentially problematic. The shampoo caps may have been used in medical settings on patients that are immuno-compromised or have head wounds.
The shampoo caps were manufactured under three brand names: (1) The Salus Corporation dba ICP Medical brand name of CompleteBath (Reorder No. ICP095230); the brand name of ReadyBath, manufactured for Medline Industries, Inc., Mundelein, IL (Reorder No. MSC095230); and the brand name of No-Rinse, manufactured for No Rinse Laboratories, LLC, Centerville, OH (Reorder No. 02000). The shampoo caps are packaged 1 disposable cap per plastic bag. The plastic bag is labeled with the product name. The product is used as a method of cleaning the hair without the use of running water rather than using conventional shampooing methods.
The shampoo caps were distributed to health care facilities and institutions nationwide through Salus Corporation, Medline Industries, and No Rinse Laboratories. The product can also be purchased through the internet. Salus Corporation Corporation has notified their customers to arrange for return of the shampoo caps.
Salus Corporation voluntarily initiated the recall after learning complaints of odor had been received on the ReadyBath Shampoo Cap with Conditioner. Their investigation has revealed the potential source of the bacteria and has taken steps to correct the problem.
The shampoo caps should be returned to the point of purchase or by calling Salus Corporation dba ICP Medical at 314-429-1000. Health care facilities or consumers may contact Tom Huling, Vice President of Salus Corporation at 314-429-1000, ext. 226 for any further questions.
One disturbing reminder in the face of this dangerous contaminant is expressed above in these words: "Serratia marcescens is often resistant to many antibiotics making treatment of an infection potentially problematic." Bacterial infections are slowly but surely becoming as big a menace as viral infections and we have the misuse and downright abuse of antibiotics to thank for that fact.
My advice is to start improving your immune function and generall health and wellness now. Don’t put it off, start now.
A series of studies presented on 31 October to the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research adds to the growing evidence that changing your diet may be among the most effective ways of prolonging your life. Up to a third of cancers are thought to be associated with diet. Eating more fruit and vegetables is the second most effective way to cut the risk of cancer, after not smoking.
Just one, simple to adopt, finding provides protection for meat eaters. Researchers from Florida A&M University found using garlic to flavour meat could help counter carcinogenic substances commonly produced by cooking protein.
According to the World Cancer Research Fund the top ten superfoods to beat cancer are the following.
CABBAGE
Member of the same family as sprouts, watercress and broccoli. Studies link eating lots of brassica with lower rates of cancer of the digestive system.
BROCCOLI
An archetypal cancer preventive. It contains sulphoraphane, a phytochemical that helps destroy carcinogens
GARLIC
Containing the pungent phytochemicals called allylic sulphides, garlic has long been used as a natural medicine. Allylic sulphides may help ward off cell damage, thus preventing cancer.
RED AND ORANGE PEPPERS
Excellent sources of vitamin C; half a red pepper provides all the vitamin C an adult needs in one day, they also contain anti-oxidant flavonoids and beta-carotene.
BRAZIL NUTS
Rich in selenium, an important antioxidant mineral. Some studies have suggested low levels increase the risk of cancer and heart disease.
TOMATOES
The anti-oxidant lycopene is what makes them red. Some research has linked tomatoes – especially when cooked, canned or in pastes and sauces – with a lower risk of prostate cancer.
ONIONS
Contain allium compounds and are rich in quercetin, a phytochemical. Both of these are thought to reduce cancer as well as improving circulation and blood pressure.
CARROTS
A good source of the antioxidant beta-carotene, which the body converts to vitamin A. This is needed for healthy skin, a strong immune system and to help see in the dark.
STRAWBERRIES
As well vitamin C and flavonoids, they contain a phytochemical called ellagic acid, which some research has shown can help inhibit the growth of cancerous cells.
SUNFLOWER SEEDS
Richest in vitamin E, a powerful antioxidant vitamin. Mixed with pumpkin seeds they provide a useful blend of omega-3 and omega-6 fats.
So there you have it, a useful starting place for foods to include abundantly in your diet. Personally, I am not so sure about tomatoes generally and I’m quite certain that having them in sauces is a bad idea if the preparation includes excessive sodium. There are two problems with tomatoes. The frst is that many people have allergies to them. The second is that, being from the nightshade family, they frequently worsen arthritis. So the World Cancer Research Fund and I will have to differ on that one. Still, that leaves nine foods we can both recommend, so tuck in and enjoy the benefits.
While briefly surfing yesterday I came across an interesting item on a website with an all-too-familiar message. The site provided a series of questions from people who had written seeking health or medical advice, along with answers provided by "People’s Pharmacy". Here is what I encountered.
Q: My father has high blood pressure and high cholesterol. He takes atenolol, Zocor, aspirin, Norvasc and lisinopril.
He used to be healthy, happy and energetic. Now his pulse is very slow, and he has almost no energy. He complains of dizziness and seems depressed much of the time. He gets short of breath just walking up the driveway.
I worry that he might be taking too much medicine, but now his doctor wants to prescribe even more – Zoloft for depression and albuterol for asthma. Could all these pills be contributing to his symptoms?
A: Beta blockers like atenolol, metoprolol and propranolol can all slow the pulse. Some people also develop fatigue, depression and asthma on such medicine. A new review of atenolol and similar drugs (The Lancet, Oct. 18, 2005) suggests that they might not be as helpful as different blood pressure medicine.
Before adding more drugs, the doctor needs to determine whether your father’s blood pressure pills are causing his dizziness and other symptoms.
Graedons’ People’s Pharmacy, No. BL-677, P.O. Box 52027, Durham, NC 27717-2027.
The question had an interesting effect. I felt a combination of sadness and sympathy for the patient and his daughter, frustration and anger related to the uncaring attitudes and arrogant ignorance of the pharmaceutical company-medical profession dyad, and a kind of cautious surprise at the basic soundness of the answer, since several other answers on the site had been disappointing.
What we have here is a good example of poor quality but quite standard medical practice. This is an illustration of iatrogenesis by polypharmacy. Is the father taking too much medicine? Yes, he certainly is and what is more, none of it is necessary. This is the sort of drug taking profile that would be better replaced with high quality, balanced nutritional supplements such as can be found via our Health Products site (where you can also find a link to obtain a free report on heart attack and stroke prevention).
The symptoms of declining health mentioned by the daughter are classic features of this polypharmacy, and indeed, can usually be found with some of these individual drugs. The medically inept but conditioned response by the doctor to simply add more drugs to the mix further exacerbates the polypharmacy and will, I can assure you, worsen the patient’s condition.
As angry as I can become with such stupidity by prescribers, I have to say that the problem is much bigger and deeper than any individual practitioner. Suggestions that continuing education will solve this poor standard of practice are sadly mistaken. The problem stems from flaws in the very culture of orthodox medicine, but we’ll leave those for another day.