background preloader

The sugar conspiracy

The sugar conspiracy
Robert Lustig is a paediatric endocrinologist at the University of California who specialises in the treatment of childhood obesity. A 90-minute talk he gave in 2009, titled Sugar: The Bitter Truth, has now been viewed more than six million times on YouTube. In it, Lustig argues forcefully that fructose, a form of sugar ubiquitous in modern diets, is a “poison” culpable for America’s obesity epidemic. A year or so before the video was posted, Lustig gave a similar talk to a conference of biochemists in Adelaide, Australia. Afterwards, a scientist in the audience approached him. “If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” wrote Yudkin, “that material would promptly be banned.” Perhaps the Australian scientist intended a friendly warning. This represents a dramatic shift in priority. Not just defeated, in fact, but buried. “Holy crap,” Lustig thought. By then it was too late. Related:  General healthMISC.

Why MSG allergy is fake science | Jeremy Goldkorn In May this year, the medical journal Clinical & Experimental Allergy published a review of more than a decade of scientific research into "the possible role of MSG in the so-called 'Chinese restaurant syndrome'". Chinese restaurant syndrome is the popular slang for allergies or adverse reactions that some people claim they get after eating food containing the flavour-enhancer monsodium glutamate, or MSG, that is widely used in many processed foods and also added to many Asian dishes. What is amazing about the publication of this research is not that it concludes MSG allergy is a myth, but that a scientific journal still needs to bother debunking such pseudoscience at all. As the New York Times put it in an article by Julia Moskin published last year, "'Chinese restaurant syndrome' has been thoroughly debunked (virtually all studies since then confirm that monosodium glutamate in normal concentrations has no effect on the overwhelming majority of people)".

Beyonce's sportswear range Ivy Park 'made by sweatshop workers' Beyonce’s clothing label Ivy Park used Sri Lankan workers paid less than 44p an hour in ‘sweatshop’ conditions, it has been claimed. The sportswear brand, sold exclusively at TopShop, includes leggings sold at £100 and has had a huge marketing push with billboards on the side of buses showing black and white shots of Beyonce working out. The Sun on Sunday reported Jakub Sobik of Anti-Slavery International said: ‘Companies like Topshop have a duty to find out if these things are happening. Ivy Park was launched with the mission statement of ‘inspiring and supporting women’. But the paper quoted a seamstress with MAS holdings who said: ‘When they talk about women and empowerment this is just for the foreigners. They want the foreigners to think everything is OK.’ MAS Holdings, which produces the clothes at a factory in Katunayake, close to Colombo airport, employs around 74,000 workers, 70 per cent of them women.

Why I'm Transitioning Away from Veganism… | The Balanced Blonde In the last few weeks it’s become clear to me how silly it is that I am so afraid to share this on the blog and in my life. It’s not healthy to feel guilt for listening to your own body– I should be thanking myself, not telling myself I’ve done something wrong. I have “sinned.” When it comes to veganism, that is. When I created this blog over a year ago, I identified with being a plant-based vegan. I was vegan, and it worked. Then around November my body started telling me things. I spent the next several months ignoring my body’s internal cues. That’s what I kept telling myself. I also started fearing a LOT of things when it came to food. I started living in a bubble of restriction. Does that sound crazy to you? Yeah, it sounds crazy to me too. I knew which juice I wanted long before we headed over… A green juice with a tiny bit of apple but not their green juice with more apple juice because that one was too sugary. We walked, I got my juice, sipped it, and was still starving.

Sign of times as children aged two recognise brand logos CHILDREN as young as two can recognise two-thirds of popular brand logos, a new study has found. Psychologists have discovered that toddlers can recognise the emblems of famous brands including McDonald's, Shell, Nike, Mercedes and even Heineken. The researchers say their findings show youngsters are influenced by advertising at a much earlier age than previously believed. They claim the success of shows such as Teletubbies have led companies to deliberately target infants. The report has provoked concern that very young children could be unwittingly influenced by unscrupulous marketing firms. The Dutch study, published in the Journal of Applied Development Psychology, involved 234 children aged between two and eight. such as Shell, McDonald's, Snuggle fabric conditioner, Nike, Mercedes, Heineken and Camel cigarettes. The report said: "Our study clearly shows that exposure to television has consequences for the brand recognition of even the youngest children."

Why we fell for clean eating | Life and style In the spring of 2014, Jordan Younger noticed that her hair was falling out in clumps. “Not cool” was her reaction. At the time, Younger, 23, believed herself to be eating the healthiest of all possible diets. She was a “gluten-free, sugar-free, oil-free, grain-free, legume-free, plant-based raw vegan”. But the “clean” diet that Younger was selling as the route to health was making its creator sick. As Younger slowly recovered from her eating disorder, she faced a new dilemma. She lost followers “by the thousands” and received a daily raft of angry messages, including death threats. For as long as people have eaten food, there have been diets and quack cures. At its simplest, clean eating is about ingesting nothing but “whole” or “unprocessed” foods (whatever is meant by these deeply ambiguous terms). But it quickly became clear that “clean eating” was more than a diet; it was a belief system, which propagated the idea that the way most people eat is not simply fattening, but impure.

Can a 3-year-old recognize the Target logo? What’s in a logo? For a child just learning to read, a lot more than we probably realize. Symbols help children navigate the world. As toddlers, we learn that a red octagon means stop and a green light means go. "It is actually helpful for a child to be able to recognize a logo and say a brand name," said Anna R. The problem, of course, is that not all logos appear with equal frequency. What logos are kids most likely to recognize? "How to Advertise to Kids Now" is a new series in which Campaign US examines the smartest, most innovative, and responsible ways advertisers are reaching kids today.

Orthorexie Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Une alimentation saine se caractériserait par la consommation de produits frais, naturels, et le refus d'aliments raffinés, industriels ou transformés. L’orthorexie (du grec orthos, « correct », et orexis, « appétit ») est un ensemble de pratiques alimentaires, caractérisé par la volonté obsessionnelle d’ingérer une nourriture saine et le rejet systématique des aliments perçus comme malsains (malbouffe)[1]. Ce terme a été créé en 1997 par le Dr Steven Bratman qui propose de considérer cette pratique comme un trouble des conduites alimentaires (anorexie, boulimie)[2]. Définition[modifier | modifier le code] Selon Bratman, l’orthorexie concerne l’attitude vis-à-vis du choix de la nourriture ingérée[2]. D’après Patrick Denoux, maître de conférences en Psychologie interculturelle à l’université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, il y a une spirale du risque imaginé. « A priori, il n’y a pas de danger à suivre [un régime sans gluten].

McDonald's, Toyota, Disney: Kids Recognize Brands, Corporate Logos Alexandra Noailles' son doesn't want just toys. Julien covets merchandise from the animated film "Cars" and Nintendo's Wii video game system. When it comes to yogurt, he opts for Dannon's Danimals. And when he wants fast food, more often than not it's McDonald's that he asks for. Barely five years-old, Julien has developed some pretty specific brand preferences. "I figure he just picks it up in commercials," Noailles, of Peekskill, N.Y., said. For years, understanding brands and logos was thought to be the province of older children, but a recent study has found that the preschool set also has the ability to identify and distinguish among different corporate products. "Young children are ready learners and are learning about their brand environment just about everywhere," said T. The study, which involved 38 Australian preschool children ages 3 to nearly 5 years old, found that while the children were not yet able to read, they often knew exactly which logo corresponded with which brand.

Related: