Author Archives: HomerSevttp

Finally You Can See How Much Added Sugar Is Hidden in Your Food

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

After years of delay, the Food and Drug Administration finalized new nutrition facts labels on Friday. The label you’re used to seeing on processed foods was more than 20 years old; the government says the new one reflects updated scientific information and “will make it easier for consumers to make better informed food choices.”

The changes include a magnified calorie count and the addition of a line showing added sugar (highlighted below).

Food and Drug Administration

It’s a big deal that companies will now have to identify the added sugar in their food. Once corn-syrup-filled sodas and cheap processed snacks started overtaking our supermarkets in the 1960s, added sweeteners infiltrated nearly every corner of the American diet. As I’ve written in the past:

Naturally occurring sugars (the kind in fruit, for example) come with fiber, which helps us regulate the absorption of food. Without fiber, sugar can overwhelm your system, eventually leading to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other health problems.

Given these risks, experts have warned that no more than ten percent of your daily calorie intake should come from added sugar, or around 12 teaspoons a day; Americans wolf down 30 teaspoons on average by some estimates. It doesn’t help that three-quarters of processed snacks include such added sweeteners. But until now, consumers had no real way of knowing how much of the sugar in their food was naturally occurring, and how much was added in manufacturing. Adding to shoppers’ confusion is how tricky it can be to determine whether sugar is an ingredient in a food: it goes by at least 57 names.

With the new labels, manufacturers will have to reveal more about how they use this ubiquitous ingredient. Time will tell whether the transparency spurs big food companies to look past adding sugar and find new ways to make their food palatable.

Link to original: 

Finally You Can See How Much Added Sugar Is Hidden in Your Food

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Finally You Can See How Much Added Sugar Is Hidden in Your Food

A Billionaire Sued Us. We Won. But We Still Have Big Legal Bills to Pay.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

By now, you’ve probably read about Mother Jones‘ landmark legal win against Frank VanderSloot, a billionaire political donor. If you haven’t, you can read the full backstory here (it’s riveting). Or, if you’re feeling lazy, here’s the TL;DR version:

After the Citizens United decision allowed wealthy political donors to drastically increase their spending, we wrote a piece about one such donor: Frank VanderSloot. He and his company were among the biggest donors to Romney’s super-PAC. It was a straightforward bit of investigative reporting: letting readers know who was funding the campaign.

VanderSloot saw it differently. His lawyers sent us letters complaining about the piece. We didn’t retract our story, and in 2013 he sued us for defamation. Earlier this month, shortly before the case was set to go to trial, an Idaho judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that our reporting was accurate and that the article was protected under the First Amendment.

It was a huge victory. We were up against a powerful billionaire and we won. But it came at a great cost: at least $2.5 million for us and our insurer, and $650,000 in out-of-pocket expenses for Mother Jones, to be precise. Everyone’s been asking whether we can recoup our attorney’s fees from VanderSloot, but unfortunately the answer is no.

The win means a lot to me, personally, too. As someone who writes about rich and powerful people, it’s good to know that the First Amendment is alive and well. And it makes me beyond proud to write for Mother Jones: Not too many other shops would have had the guts to fight back, but we knew you’d expect us to, and that you’d have our back if we took a stand.

If you haven’t already, can you pitch in to help us pay our legal bills? If you can, your donation will be doubled by First Look Media’s Press Freedom Litigation Fund—they’re matching up to $74,999 in donations (the same amount VanderSloot sued us for). You can give by credit card or PayPal.

See more here:

A Billionaire Sued Us. We Won. But We Still Have Big Legal Bills to Pay.

Posted in Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Billionaire Sued Us. We Won. But We Still Have Big Legal Bills to Pay.

Go Green, Win $400 for Holiday Shopping

Sign up for Planet Green’s recycling program, and you’ll automatically be entered to win a $350 Amazon gift card just in time for holiday shopping. Photo: Amazon

If you’re looking to score some extra cash for holiday shopping, why not try reminding friends to recycle their e-waste?

In an effort to raise awareness for keeping old electronics out of landfills, Planet Green Recycle is running a sweepstakes for anyone to enter and win a $350 Amazon gift card and a $50 Planet Green gift card just in time for the holiday season. When you sign up, you’ll automatically be entered in the sweepstakes.

The Planet Green recycling program, which accepts inkjet cartridges and small electronics like cellphones, iPods, tablets and eBook readers, is run from a unique URL — allowing participants to directly track their impact.

For every box of 20 accepted items each member sends in, Planet Green offers payouts to their charity of choice, including schools, nonprofits, sports teams and Scouts troops.

During the run of the sweepstakes, any current member — or anyone who signs up before Nov. 30 — can share the charitable e-waste recycling solution with friends and supporters. For every friend you refer to the sweepstakes page, you’ll be entered to win $500 for your chosen charity.

The member (which can be an individual, business or community group) with the most unique entries will score the donation.

Ready to get started? Head to the sweepstakes page to sign up for the holiday gift cards. After you sign up, share the opportunity on Facebook and Twitter to gather enough entries to win the $500 charitable donation.

The sweepstakes ends on Nov. 30, so act quickly for your chance to win!

earth911

Visit source:

Go Green, Win $400 for Holiday Shopping

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, Holiday shopping, ONA, Plant !t, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Go Green, Win $400 for Holiday Shopping

Which Is More Evil: Coke or Pepsi?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In response to a recent lawsuit, the Grocery Manufacturers Association recently revealed the source of $7.2 million in dark money contributions it had solicited to fight Washington’s Initiative 522, a measure on next week’s ballot that would require food companies to label products with ingredients made from genetically modified organisms. Pepsi was the largest contributor to the trade group’s anti-labeling effort, donating $1.6 million. Coca-Cola wasn’t far behind, chipping in another $1 million.

If you don’t like GMOs, then you probably shouldn’t drink either of America’s leading soda brands. But let’s say Coke and Pepsi products are your only options. How do the two soda giants compare on the social responsibility index? Here’s our totally subjective guide to the relative malevolence of America’s favorite pop-making multinationals.

deadliness in excess

cosal.es

Coke: Guzzling between 6 and 10 liters of Coke daily contributed to the sudden death this February of 31-year-old Natasha Harris of New Zealand, according to her coroner’s report.

Pepsi: Nobody would ever drink this much Pepsi.

Most evil: Coke

Sketchy marketing

Coke: Faces an ongoing class-action lawsuit over the health claims of Glacéau Vitaminwater, which contains eight tablespoons of sugar per bottle. Vitamins? Not so much.

Pepsi: In 2011, settled a $9 million class-action lawsuit over Naked Juice’s claims to contain “all natural” and “non-GMO” ingredients.

Most evil: Tie

Paramilitary death squad hiring?

International Action Center to Stop the War in Colombia

Coke: Two of its bottlers hired a Colombian paramilitary group to murder union organizers, according to a 2001 lawsuit filed in the US by the United Steelworkers union. The case was dismissed in 2009, but these and similar allegations in Guatemala, have sparked boycotts and street protests. Coke denies the claims.

Pepsi: Do people in Latin America even drink Pepsi?

Most evil: Coke

orangutan endangering

Alex Aw/Flickr

Coke: Loved by orangutans, apparently.

Pepsi: Contributes to the killing of orangutans by purchasing conflict palm oil, the Rainforest Action Network alleges.

Most evil: Pepsi

racism

Coke

Coke: In 2000, paid $156 million to 2,000 current and former African-American employees to settle what was then the largest racial discrimination case ever.

Pepsi: Last year paid $3.1 million to resolve a federal charge that it discriminated against 300 African-American job applicants.

Most evil: Coke (Pepsi’s case was more recent, but Coke’s was waaay bigger)

Sexism

Edible Apple

Coke: An interactive online ad that ends, in one scenario, with a woman standing next to a bed in her underwear, was lambasted by Sweden’s sexist ad watchdog for portraying women as “pure sex objects.”

Pepsi: To promote an energy drink, released an iPhone app (above) that coaches men on pickup lines and encourages those who “score” to post details such as name, date, and comments to Facebook and Twitter.

Most evil: Pepsi (Objectifying women = bad. Posting names of sexual conquests online = ick!)

Public-Relations LAMENESS

Coke: Funded a (now discredited) Harvard scientist: One of the sweets’ industry’s biggest allies, he touted sugar as perfectly healthy.

Pepsi: Has funded astroturf-y groups like the Heartland Institute, which questions “how bad the obesity problem is.”

Most evil: Coke (People take Harvard seriously. The Heartland Institute, not so much.)

pro-Gluttony Lobbying

New Yorkers For Beverage Choice

Coke: Spent $9.4 million lobbying against a tax on sugary beverages.

Pepsi: Spent $9.2 million lobbying against the tax.

Most evil: Tie

Evicting farmers from their land

CJ Chanco/Flickr

Coke: Criticized by Oxfam for its links to land disputes that have driven subsistence farmers into poverty.

Pepsi: ditto.

Most evil: Tie

Replacing Jesus with a cola-chugging fat guy

Coca-Cola

Coke: Coca-Cola ads that first appeared in 1931 in the Saturday Evening Post and other national magazines popularized the modern image of Santa Claus as a pudgy guy dressed in red. The rest is history.

Pepsi: Pushes an alternative image of Santa as a party dude who secretly drinks Pepsi when he’s on summer vacation at the beach.

Most evil: Pepsi (At least Coke used its Polar Bears to draw attention to global warming.)

Shameless spin

Coke: Its ad (above) about fighting America’s obesity epidemic may have actually contributed to the problem by spinning Coca-Cola products as components of a healthy lifestyle. Critics responded with a parody video that ends with the exhortation: “Don’t drink Coke.”

Pepsi: “We firmly believe companies have a responsibility to provide consumers with more information and more choices so they can make better decisions,” PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi wrote in a PR essay that appeared in one of the country’s most respected annual reports on obesity. Huh?

Most evil: Coke (There’s a reason the parody video has more YouTube views than the actual ad.)

And the winner is . . .

Index of Soda Evil

Now about that Izze you’re drinking… Oh, dang! PepsiCo owns Izze, too.

Continue reading – 

Which Is More Evil: Coke or Pepsi?

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Which Is More Evil: Coke or Pepsi?