Cross-posted at WLF’s Forbes.com contributor page At a time when all their attempts to impose “sin taxes,” more regulation of advertising, and bans on certain products have been shot down, advocates of government intervention into America’s food choices have ratcheted up their below-the-belt demonization campaign. Words such as “toxic,” “poison,” “manipulation,” “addictive,” and “inherently dangerous” are increasingly used in the media when food and obesity are discussed. Viewers of MSNBC’s popular “Morning Joe” last Tuesday were treating to a red-faced rant from co-host Mika Brezinski about how, among other things, “sugar is poison” and soda is “killing our children.” (An ironic side note: “Morning Joe” is sponsored by Starbucks, purveyor of the 20 oz. Java Chip Frappuccino (570 cal., 88 g. of sugar)). Thousands more viewers of Al Sharpton’s “Politics Nation” show on March 8 heard about how “food companies are manipulating their products in order to get you addicted to them.” A segment on the talk show “Dr. Oz” had the good doctor talking about how parents face “a powerful conspiracy when it comes to feeding their families.” Such views and rhetoric are certainly not originating at the stratospheric level of the broadcast press. They are parroting what they hear in other media outlets, like The New York Times, Huffington Post, and The Atlantic, and also from public health academics/activists from schools such as Yale, NYU, and The University of California. The Times Magazine offered a must-read for activists and trial lawyers on February 20, excerpting from a Times reporter’s book, Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. It purports to relate through interviews and assessments of internal documents how processed food makers meticulously adjust their recipes to give their products (gasp!) maximum consumer appeal and achieve a “bliss point” where consumers want more. The author learned firsthand how bad things like cheese crackers and frozen waffles would taste without the additions of “toxic” salt and (heavily government-subsidized) sugar. Media reports have presented Salt Sugar Fat as further evidence of companies’ nefarious manipulation of our food, which leads to “food addiction.” Various other books and studies, some discussed in past Legal Pulse posts (here and here) have advanced this concept, claiming that some ingredients in food have an effect on the brain similar to marijuana, or that manipulated combinations of ingredients make them irresistibly “hyperpalatable.” The studies are severely lacking in detailed analysis or clear evidence of cause and effect. And as one published evaluation done by Cambridge University researchers relates, food addiction studies have failed to establish that such classic elements of addiction such as tolerance and withdrawal are evident in “food addicts.” Of course, in the court of public opinion and among policy-makers clear proof isn’t needed. Mere correlation between food and “addiction,” or even a plausible theory, is more than enough to support calls for taxation, regulation, and other measures to protect the defenseless, addictable public. The food addiction concept could mean even more to plaintiffs’ lawyers who are salivating over food and beverage industry profits, and legal activists who want to use litigation to reshape social behavior. Such lawyers and activists are working to posture food as the “next tobacco.” Food industry groups and their lawyers are equally anxious to convince us (and maybe themselves) that food (or sugar, or salt) is not tobacco, with law journal articles and association seminar panels devoted to countering the notion. From a legal and common-sense perspective, it’s hard to take seriously the idea of massive class action lawsuits against food and soda makers alleging fraud, conspiracy, failure to warn, breach of warranty, or other violations. The law journal article mentioned above does an excellent job explaining why such claims have little merit. The major flaws that undercut obesity lawsuits lie in the inherent complexity of food consumption and obesity. Given the many factors that contribute to obesity, and the diversity of foods people eat, how could one possibly prove causation? Don’t doubt, however, that activists and their lawyers will try, and all the publicity over “addiction” could play to their favor. Perhaps unflattering documents will arise through discovery in one of the many food labeling class action suits pending in court, some of which were brought by lawyers from the “tobacco wars.” Maybe whistleblowers seeking fame and fortune will come forward with secret strategy memos. Or it’s possible that ambitious state attorneys general could be convinced to get involved. And remember, all it takes is one or a few judges (who may read The New York Times or tune in to MSNBC) keen on making a name for themselves to start the litigation ball rolling down the hill. They’d have to cast aside a lot of basic legal principles, but we’ve seen judges do that before in the name of “public health,” haven’t we? Then again, food has been seen as potentially the “next tobacco” for at least the last decade, and it still isn’t. Let’s hope it’s all just talk and wishful thinking for another ten years, and beyond.Glenn Lammi, Chief Counsel, Legal Studies Division at the Washington Legal Foundation. This post originally appeared on The Legal Pulse. More Stories:What is Weighing Us Down? New Infographic Shows How Calorie Imbalance Impacts Us AllThe Real Story Behind Weight Loss MythsIs BPA Safe? Why Some Are Still Confused Despite EvidenceThe
We're looking for everyday ideas to get active and stay fit. We'd love to hear your idea. Share it here.Good things happen when people come together. They share ideas and innovations, which in turn foster community and creates workable solutions that help individuals and neighborhoods thrive. That’s why we encourage you to send us your comments and feedback. Your voice counts, whether it’s a high-five for a fitness initiative we’re working on, a suggestion for improving
Google "Copa
On a daily basis, most people get enough fluid through normal drinking behavior, such as drinking with meals and snacks. However, thirst isn’t always a reliable gauge of hydration status, especially in children and older adults. A better barometer is the color of the urine. For most healthy individuals, clear or light-colored urine suggests adequate hydration, whereas a dark yellow or amber color usually signals dehydration, although certain medicines and vitamins may cause the color of the urine to change, making this test unreliable. Infrequent urination and low urine volume can also suggest inadequate hydration. Mild dehydration can affect physical and mental performance and contribute to unpleasant physical symptoms like headaches and muscle cramps. The early signs of dehydration can be non-specific, usually involving fatigue, headache and confusion. Oral rehydration is usually all that is required. But because severe dehydration can be life-threatening, medical help should be sought quickly if there is any concern about someone needing more aggressive fluid supplementation. However, severe dehydration can be life-threatening. Because dehydration can develop quickly under some conditions, it’s important to recognize the following signs of dehydration in others and act quickly to help them cool down and rehydrate. Signs of Dehydration Increased thirstDry or sticky mouthLight-headedness or headacheFatigueImpaired mental focusLow urine outputInability to produce tearsDry skin References: Urinary indices of hydration status. Armstrong, L.E., Maresh, C.M., Castellani, J.W., Bereron, M.F., Kenefick, R.W., LaGassee, K.E., and Riebe D. Int J Sport Nutr. 1994 Sep;4(3):265-79.
Paying attention to hydration while exercising in cold climates is just as important as in hot climates. We all know that the hotter it is, the more you perspire and the more you need to drink. High rates of energy expenditure in winter activities such as snowboarding, ice skating, and skiing and the use of heavy clothing can likewise cause significant fluid loss through sweat. So remember to consume fluids before, during and after these activities. Being high above sea level can affect hydration. Have you ever noticed how hard and frequently you breathe when you are in higher elevation? With every breath you exhale, you are losing fluid. High altitudes also tend to have low humidity, which increases losses through the skin. And research suggests that people tend to drink less at high altitudes, probably due to a decreased sensation of thirst. So the next time you are staying at a higher elevation, remember to drink plenty of fluids. Don’t forget air travel. The air inside airplanes during flight tends to have very low humidity –only about 15%. Low humidity increases dehydrating water losses through the skin, which in turn drives up your need to drink. So the next time you are on a long flight, remember to drink plenty of fluids. For tips on staying hydrated, see our Hydration Checklist.
A smart choice is an informed choice. And when it's easy to make informed choices-and balance those choices with an active lifestyle, you're on your way to a healthier life. In September 2009, we were the first beverage company to commit to front-of-pack energy labeling globally on nearly all our packaging by the end of 2011, and we have met this target. The Clear on Calories program builds on our commitment by partnering with the American Beverage Association to create a unified look for the new labels, and by expanding the initiative to include company-controlled vending machines and fountain equipment. This way, you'll know exactly how many calories are in a beverage before making a purchase- whether at a store, or using one of our vending machines or fountain machines-making it easier for you to make informed choices that complement your active, healthy lifestyle.Calories Count™ Vending Program In support of initiatives to promote active, healthy lifestyles and combat obesity, we have developed a vending machine program that provides clear calorie information, encourages lower-calorie beverage choices, and reminds consumers that "calories count" in all the choices they make. The Calories Count vending program is part of the beverage industry's commitment to providing more low-/no-calorie product choices and clearer calorie information, making it easier for consumers to choose beverages that are right for them and their families. Program Background In February 2010, the beverage industry announced the Clear on Calories program in support of First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move!" campaign. The first step was placing a calorie label on the front of our cans, bottles, and packages, which we completed in 2011. The Calories Count vending program, described below, expands on our efforts by providing calorie information on beverage vending machines, encouraging lower-calorie beverage choices, and raising awareness of the importance of calorie balance and being active. Under the Calories Count vending program, we will work with government leaders, food service operators, vending companies, and other customers to: Increase availability of lower-calorie beverages in vending machinesAdd calorie labels to selection buttons on beverage vending machines to show calorie counts per beverage container