Frozen Dairy Dessert

The new and “improved” Breyer’s now contains dozens of ingredients including corn syrup, carrageenen, and diglicerides. There are so many added ingredients in the new Breyer’s that the FDA will not allow it to even be called ice cream. The appropriate term is now “frozen dairy dessert”. That’s right … Breyer’s is no longer making ice cream. They are making frozen dairy desserts. Under federal law, to be called “ice cream”, a product must meet a certain standard of identity, which in this case requires that there be at least 10% milk fat in the product. That generally would come from the cream in the product. If the product does not meet the federal “recipe” for ice cream, it has to be called something else. Breyer’s has opted for the term frozen dairy dessert.

Why The Change in Ingredients?

Mouseprint.org has an awesome side by side ingredients list and carton cover to take a look at. They outline the changes in the terms used as well as the ingredients lists. One major change in recipe is the amount of milk in the product. The old real ice cream product has milk and cream as the first two ingredients. The new version has cream listed as fourth. Breyer’s is insisting that the changes in recipe took place because consumers wanted a smoother texture and lower fat that natural ice cream did not provide. They claim lower fat content and enhanced taste with the new product. However, the truth is that the changes most likely took place for cost reasons. Breyer’s ice cream was competing with other cheaper frozen dairy desserts. With less cream and milk being utilized it will cut cost of production significantly. Was this a move to better “taste” or to cost savings? I believe it is the later.

What About the Old Recipe?

However, all is not lost for the all natural Breyer’s ice cream lovers. Breyer’s will maintain a selection of natural ice creams that will come at a premium price. The flavors will include chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry. There are also a few other organic and natural brands left on the market. The key is to look at the ingredients list if you want the real deal. Look to see that the product is labeled “ice cream” instead of another similar sounding name, and check the ingredients label. You would want to see cream and milk topping the list in a natural ice cream product.

What do you think of this change? Will it prevent you from purchasing Breyer’s or do you welcome the new frozen dairy dessert line?

Here is an overview of what exactly this proposition would do to the consumer and the benefits to the jelly and jam industry.

Who is proposing these new changes?

First things first, who is proposing these new changes to the FDA? A citizen petition submitted by the International Jelly and Preserve Association (IJPA) is behind the appeal. It says “a citizen petition”, but you will note the backers are the Jelly and Preserve Association themselves. Why is this significant? The Jelly and Preserve Association members have everything to gain from this bill. If labeling restrictions are lessened in any form, the jelly makers will benefit.

What changes are proposed?

Now we know who’s behind the petition, but what exactly are they seeking? They essentially want to remove the requirement for jellies and jams that contain artificial sweetener to be labeled as such. Instead of including the term “artificially sweetened” on the label they want to be able to use descriptors such as “reduced sugar” or “low calorie”.

“We tentatively reach this conclusion because we find that nutrient content claims, such as ‘low calorie’  or ‘reduced sugar’ ‘ better characterize the nutritional profile of the affected fruit spreads than does the term ‘artificially sweetened’.”

What they’re saying is that consumers should be able to infer from words like “low calorie” or “reduced sugar” – that their food is being artificially sweetened. However, there are a number of products that are low calorie or reduced sugar that do NOT contain artificial sweeteners.

This is reminiscent of the generic and other “natural ingredients” that is currently used on ingredients lists of products. Just like the “100% juice” claim on many juice bottles, labeling and the use of specific words can be misleading. You can view the full proposition here.

Health Concerns

There are people who have incredible sensitivity to artificial ingredients. The removal of the “artificially sweetened” label could put these families at risk. If your child has dietary requirements that require artificial ingredients to be removed from the diet, how will you know what products to purchase? Currently that little statement is what parents rely on for information. If the law is changed without big hoopla in the media, many parents won’t even know these changes were made.

Does it concern you that food companies are trying to circumvent the laws and  standards put in place to protect consumers? Do you think products should be required to maintain their labels if they contain artificial sweeteners?

If you want to take a stand against this particular labeling law, please visit the regulations.gov website and leave a comment with your concerns.

What is 100% Fruit Juice?

This question may seem silly on the surface. Of course 100% fruit juice would be just that- 100% fruit juice. Unfortunately that’s not quite true. For a product to be labeled 100% fruit juice it simply means that everything in the bottle was expressed from a fruit or vegetable. Beware … there are a number of things that are expressed from fruit that are anything but natural.

That is how a product with ingredients like water, citric acid (for tartness), absorbic acid (Vitamin C) or natural flavor added can legally be labeled 100% fruit juice. That “natural” flavor can be concocted by a food scientist in a lab, just as long as it was created from a fruit or vegetable.

The legal guidelines can be found in the FDA”s Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 Section 101.3. This section contains the following guidelines that enable the blurring of the lines in the “100% juice” claim even further.

(3) If the beverage contains 100 percent juice and also contains non-juice ingredients that do not result in a diminution of the juice soluble solids or, in the case of expressed juice, in a change in the volume, when the 100 percent juice declaration appears on a panel of the label that does not also bear the ingredient statement, it must be accompanied by the phrase “with added ___,” the blank filled in with a term such as “ingredient(s),” “preservative,” or “sweetener,” as appropriate (e.g., “100% juice with added sweetener”), except that when the presence of the non-juice ingredient(s) is declared as a part of the statement of identity of the product, this phrase need not accompany the 100 percent juice declaration.

In other words, so long as the added ingredients do not diminish the soluble solids of the fruit, they can be added without reducing the “100% Juice” claim. Though it is deceiving, it may not be so bad if the “with added ___” statement had to be placed directly under the “100% Juice” claim, but it doesn’t. The phrase need not accompany the 100% juice declaration, it just has to be on the container. This is where the handy little asterisk* comes into play.

So how can you get 100% juice without the added ingredients?

You can always juice your own fruit for the optimal in nutrition and for 100% pure fruit juice. However, this is not always practical for some families. So how can you ensure you are getting 100% pure fruit juice without all the fillers or added ingredients when you purchase a product from the shelf? Sadly you must read the labels. Reading the labels on your food products are the only way to ensure that the product you are getting is 100% pure. The only ingredient on the list should be fruit if the product is pure.

Aside from the obvious “extra” ingredients it should be noted that fruit and vegetable juices lose their nutrients incredibly fast. Freshly squeezed juice contains a punch of nutrients just like eating the real deal. However, once the fruit has been juiced, it should be drank immediately. In fact, within 15 minutes the bulk of the nutrients will have left the juice leaving you with mostly fruit sugar and water.  Therefore, instead of heading to the fruit juice aisle to fill those fruit and veggie servings, consider finding ways to incorporate whole fruits and veggies into your diet in a kid-friendly way.

What are your tips for getting your kids to eat their fruits and veggies? Did you know these hidden ingredients lurked in your “100% juice” drink?

This article is “100% Opinion” *

*with added truth

These drug manufacturers must prove that their solutions are both safe and effective before they can hit the marketplace and reap big profits. To do this they must have human drug trials. But, in the United States, it is very difficult to find parents willing to subject their children to these trials. Because of this, many companies have moved an incredibly high percentage of their drug testing trials overseas. They aren’t just moving them overseas though. They are moving them to impoverished countries where informed consent is subjective and regulations are loose.

Back in 2011, Vanity Fair did a fantastic story on the issue of drug testing impoverished countries and the outcomes of these trials. As outlined in the article:

As recently as 1990, according to the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, a mere 271 trials were being conducted in foreign countries of drugs intended for American use. By 2008, the number had risen to 6,485—an increase of more than 2,000 percent. A database being compiled by the National Institutes of Health has identified 58,788 such trials in 173 countries outside the United States since 2000.

These statistics were from 2008. The story gets much more grim as the years continue. We now have many drug companies solely testing overseas with no American trials being performed. Here are some of the major issues with this procedure of overseas testing:

Human Rights Ignored

When testing is done overseas, companies are released from the ethical and legal constraints of the United States. Though these products are going to be brought to the United States, they are not required to follow all the regulations. One example of how this practice can cause major ethical concerns is by forms of consent. In the summer of 2011, for instance, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer began making payments to families of Nigerian children who died of meningitis following a controversial drug trial marred by allegations of lack of consent, inadequate documentation and medical malpractice. Consent is easier to obtain in impoverished countries.

British drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has recently been fined $230,000 by a court after 14 babies died during a vaccine drug trial. The company has been criticised for its handling of the tests and choice to locate the trial in a largely impoverished community, with many parents alleging that they were not informed of their children’s participation in a drug trial until after the vaccine had been administered.

These are just a few of the many examples of what can happen when loosely regulated drug trials on children take place in foreign countries. Ultimately, regulations in many foreign countries are less stringent, if there are any regulations at all. The risk of litigation is negligible, in some places nonexistent. This means drug companies have free rein and can test as they please. As an added bonus they don’t have to release test results performed abroad if they choose not to. This will be covered in a moment.

Are Findings Abroad Relevant to the United States?

Some health professionals also question if tests performed outside the United States are even relevant to treatment here. People in the areas of testing sometimes have little to no health history or past. It is easy for companies to find patients who have never had a drug in their lives. Therefore, reactions to the drug are less likely. Diets are different, medical interventions are different, and overall healthcare is different. This could cause patients to metabolize drugs differently and react differently to the drugs as a whole. This could deem those trials irrelevant to the American population.

Picking and Choosing

When drug trials are performed overseas the company has no obligation to release that data when applying for the drug to be released. They can pick and choose which trials to include in their application for the drug to come to market. Celebrex is a prime example of a drug tested overseas where clinical trials were narrowed down to only include the trials with best outcomes. In reading the Vanity Fair article you learn that:

The National Institutes of Health maintains a record of most—but by no means all—drug trials inside and outside the United States. The database counts 290 studies involving Celebrex. Companies are not required to report—and do not report—all studies conducted overseas. According to the database, of the 290 trials for Celebrex, 183 took place in the United States, meaning, one would assume, that 107 took place in other countries. But an informal, country-by-country accounting by VANITY FAIRturned up no fewer than 207 Celebrex trials in at least 36 other countries.

So why were all trials not included in the count to the National Institutes of Health? Could it be that studies showed patients taking the drug were more likely to suffer heart attacks and strokes than those who took older and cheaper painkillers? After consumption of this drug in the US, it turns out that this was in fact the case and sales of Celebrex dropped significantly.

Drug testing is a must to ensure safety of products before they reach market, but are we allowing the unethical treatment of children abroad to potentially benefit our own? What are your thoughts? Should there be heavier regulation in the pharmaceutical industry in testing and procedures for drugs to make it to the marketplace?

Here is a rundown of the changes that you will see in 2013 payroll and income taxes. Please note that income in headlines are quoted for individual earners, you will find married, and head of household, amounts in the summary.

For All Income Earners

Regardless of how much you earn, whether it be $6000 per year or $600,000 per year, income earners across the board will see a paycheck that is 2% less than the previous year as the payroll tax holiday was allowed to expire. This means the full 6.2% of Social Security will now be withheld from your pay as opposed to the previous 4.2%. The tax holiday lasted two years. The new increased percentage will help continue funding to the Social Security system. The wage ceiling on which Social Security is taxed has also been increased to $113,700. Medicare tax is unlimited, but if you earn more than $200,000 an additional 0.9% will also be withhold.

Income Earners over $200,000

This tax increase was one that was put into place when the healthcare bill was passed. This tax will be labeled a Medicare surtax and is a 3.8 percent additional tax on net investment income. This tax applies to taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income that exceeds a threshold ($250,000 for married filers and $200,000 for singles).

Income Earners over $250,000

Dependent and Personal Exemptions Decreased

Beginning in 2013, taxpayers with incomes in excess of the below gross income levels will lose some or all of their exemption deductions.:

• Singles at $250,000
• Married jointly at $300,000
• Head of household at $275,000
• Married filing separately at $150,000

Removal of Some Itemized Deductions

The same income guidelines as decreased deductions apply to itemized deductions. Earners can lose up to 80% of there deductions for previously exempt-able items such as mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, and state income taxes paid.

For Income Earners over $400,000

Tax Rates on Standard Taxable Income

For a large percentage of taxpayers, tax rates will remain the same as 2012. For single filers with taxable income above $400,000, married filers with income over $450,000, married filing separately over $225,000 and heads of household with taxable income over $425,000, the new 39.6% rate will replace the 35% tax rate for income over these amounts. All other tax rates on income will remain the same. Here is the tax table for 2013.

Capital Gains and Dividend Income

If you happen to fall into the highest income bracket on the tax table ($400,000+ income), your capital gains and dividend income tax rate increases from 15 percent to 20 percent.

How do you feel about the new tax laws and schedule?

The modified mosquitoes are designed to die before maturity. The idea is that these mosquitoes will go out into the population and breed with other non-modified mosquitoes. This self-destructive gene will be passed on to the baby mosquitoes and the offspring will die before they reach maturity. This will decrease the mosquito population and eventually eliminate it altogether.

This would be the first time that a genetically altered species was released into the general population in the United States outside of GE plants and produce. The company who has engineered these mosquitoes is Oxitec. Earlier in the year, Oxitec published an article in the journal Nature Biotechnology with the results of the 2010 field tests. The field test for these mosquitoes was done in the Grand Cayman Island in the Caribbean. Over a 23-week period, Oxitec released 3.3 million genetically engineered male mosquitoes on the island and claimed an 80 percent reduction of the dengue mosquito population. This means the modified mosquitoes do work. But is this a good thing?

I will point out that the targeted mosquitoes are the Aedes aegypti mosquito. This mosquito breed is not native to the United States. Therefore, it is not a huge food source for any other species. Sounds safe enough right?

Here are my concerns.

Health Concerns

Though the project only released non-biting male mosquitoes into the population, these mosquitoes will be breeding and creating genetically altered offspring. These offspring will be both male and female. Since we are only testing male mosquitoes could there be a potential for any health risks associated with a bite from a genetically altered female? I don’t know … but since the mosquitoes have only been around since 2010 I don’t feel this was tested for a long enough period of time to determine if health risks could result.

Mass Genocide of Species

The insects will only be released here in the US, but just as the Aedes aegypti mosquito made its way to the US, these genetically altered species could make their way to the native population. If this occurred we would have a mass extinction of an entire species. This would be detrimental to the species of the native land who feed on these mosquitoes for survival and could be a slippery slope. These insects decrease the population so fast that species feeding on these insects would not have time to adjust to the changes and could potential die off themselves.

The New Norm

Could genetically altered species for population control become the new norm in our society? With one win under its belt, this could be the new pest control of the modern world. Is this a road we are prepared to take? If so, how many species could be in danger?

What is your opinion? Should we be meddling with the genetic makeup of species for pest control?

The document claimed that the salmon “will not have any significant impacts on the quality of the human environment of the United States.” It also claimed that the GE salmon, the first ever intended for human consumption in the United States, is unlikely to harm populations of wild salmon. This is the first of its kind: the first “transgenic” animal allowed into our food supply. It may sound harmless enough and could even appear as a huge asset to food crisis. The GE salmon is touted for being able to help grow our food supply as the salmon is genetically altered to grow at twice the rate of its unaltered counterparts. However, what does this mean for the average consumer?

Just like genetically modified produce, there is no legislation in place to enforce labeling of this new GE salmon. This means unless the package specifically states that the salmon contained within is GE-free, you will have no way of knowing what you are eating.

The safety of the new genetically altered fish is being questioned by a number of health organizations, non-profits, and legislators, but it doesn’t appear to be slowing the progress the GE salmon is making towards your dinner table. The concerns about the GE salmon range from overcrowded farming practices with the inclusion of more antibiotics and alterations, to the GE salmon making its way into the natural salmon population and overpowering the native fish. The fish grow at twice the rate of a traditional salmon and could cause issues if introduced into the wild.

Health concerns are another area that nonprofits and legislators are hitting on. The sad truth is that the only studies being done on the safety of consumption of these genetically altered fish are being done by the company who is set to make large sums of money off of their sale. The FDA has left it up to AquaAdvantage to prove the safety of the fish which makes it easy to see why there is concern and outrage among health advocates and consumer labeling groups.

GE salmon has yet to get final approval so it is not too late to voice your opinion. Be sure to contact your local legislature with your concerns or suggestions. The food labeling revolution is well underway and GE salmon is on the agenda.

What is your take? Do you see any issue with genetically altered fish hitting your supermarket shelves? Would you want to know your salmon was GE before consuming it?

Massachusetts elected their first female Senator in the state’s history this year when Democrat Elizabeth Warren beat out Republican Scott Brown. Nebraska also had their first full term female Senator elected. Republican Deb Fischer was elected into office and will be the first woman in the state to hold a full term in Senate.

There are other women in the Senate who are firsts of their kind as well. Hawaii elected the first Asian-American woman to Senate and Wisconsin the first openly gay female Senate member. As if having the most women in Senate in all history isn’t enough, New Hampshire went a step further. New Hampshire is the first and only state to have an entirely female delegation. The state’s House and Senate representation is all female, plus they also have the one and only Democratic female governor.

The victories for women were so great that white men will now be the minority in the House Democratic Caucus. With many Blue Dog Democrats not running for re-election, the female candidates swept the races and are now the majority in the House Democratic Caucus.

So with women holding a record number of Senate seats, an all-female delegation in New Hampshire, women majority in the House Democratic Caucus, the first Asian-American woman Senator, and first openly gay female Senator, how are women reacting to the decisions post-election?

The Zeno Group has some answers for us. They interviewed 194 women to take a pulse check on the post-election mood. Here is what they found.

• Mood of Mom: Nervous (34%), happy (27%) and indifferent (14%) are how moms categorized their feeling, post-election.  One message that topped the list is that moms are relieved that Election 2012 is over.
• Moms Take Issue:  Concerns about the economy (61%), jobs (19%) and healthcare (13%) topped moms’ list as the single most important issues facing the country into 2013.  However, nearly 3 in 5 moms report that the election will unlikely impact their confidence that their family’s healthcare needs will be met.
• TV Ranked Supreme: Even though election night was the biggest event in Twitter history with a record setting 20 million tweets, moms reported tuning in to television (76%) and traditional news sources to get election news throughout the season.
• A Female President? Could the Clintons return to the White House? 87 percent of those surveyed expect to see a female President during their lifetime.  Hillary Clinton topped the list as the most likely candidate to grace the Oval Office.
• The Future: 45% of moms with daughters report that they’re more optimistic about their daughters’ future today than before the election.  Only 12% of moms with girls are feeling more pessimistic.

Check out this awesome infographic to go along with the Zeno Group findings. Are you surprised by any of their findings, or by the influx of women in the political realm?

However, there was much more to this election than election of governmental officials. Each state had a series of State Ballot Measures on which citizens voted. There was also a 3^rd party candidate this year, Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party, who was attempting to get 5% of the popular vote to push the party for the next presidential race in 2016.

So here is a quick overview of the outcomes of some of the most controversial and interesting measures to come from the 2012 elections.

Libertarian “It Only Takes 5” Results

The Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson was pushing for just 5% of the popular vote. What difference would 5% of the popular vote make? It wouldn’t put him in the executive seat , so why does it matter? The main reason the Libertarians were pushing for this magical 5% of popular vote is because it would give the Libertarian Party a huge boost for the 2016 Presidential race and put a 3^rd party candidate in the spotlight with the democrat and republican candidates. With just 5% of the vote the Libertarian Party would have had equal ballot access in all 50 states, be able to take part in the national presidential debates, and receive part of the federal funding for their 2016 run at presidency.

So what happened? Did the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson get their 5%? The answer is no, they did not. Gary Johnson ended with over 1 million votes and 1% of the popular vote. This means a lot for the people living in states with more stringent ballot access regulations. Oklahoma, for example, hasn’t had a third party candidate on the ballot since Ross Perot and has very difficult ballot access regulations. There were a number of protests in Oklahoma on election day over outrage at limited ballot access in the state and Independent and 3^rd party supporters unable to vote for the presidential candidate of their choosing.

Fortunately, 1% is enough for guaranteed ballot access in many states, but the battle for 50 state ballot access with have to begin now if the Libertarian Party is to see their candidate on all 50 ballots come 2016.

Gay Marriage

Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington all had gay marriage questions on their ballots. Maryland, Maine, and Washington approved gay marriage and Minnesota did not ban gay marriage. Essentially, gay marriage proposals won out in all four states.

Medical Marijuana

Legalization of the use of marijuana for medical purposes was on the ballot in Arkansas, Colorado, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Washington. The measure passed in all the states except Arkansas and Oregon.

Abortion

Abortion issues were on the ballot in both Florida and Montana. Florida voted against a ban on public funds going towards abortion. Therefore, this was a win for pro-choice advocates in the state. However, Montana voters approved a measure that would require parental notification prior to an abortion for a minor (16 years old and under). This would be considered a small win for pro-life supporters.

GMO Labeling

The required labeling of genetically modified food was on the ballot in California. The measure did not pass and labeling will not be required.

There are just a few of the hot button issues related to the 2012 elections. What was the most important state question you voted on this election to you personally?

Here are the most recent polling results on a national scale so you can have an idea just how close the race is currently running.

October 29^th National Poll (Morning)

• Romney 48%
• Obama 47%

October 29^th National Poll (Evening)

• Romney 48%
• Obama 48%

October 30^th National Poll

• Romney 48%
• Obama 47%

As you can see from the polling results above the race is very tight. However, when we ask Americans who they think will actually win the election (not who they are voting for) they feel strongly that Obama will come out the winner. In fact, 54% think Obama will win compared to only 34% who feel confident that Romney will win. 11% still are unsure who may come out the winner.

So who will win? It is really hard to say at this point. And even if Romney received a higher percentage of votes overall nationally, he could still lose the race. This can and does happen in our presidential races because of the way our voting system is set up. We run on an electoral based system where each state is allowed a certain number of electoral votes. The Electoral College is the official body that elects the president each year. However, citizens pass votes that show the Electoral College representative in their area who they wish to win. The Electoral College delegate DOES NOT have to cast a vote for this person, but historically an overwhelming majority have. Critics argue that the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives swing states disproportionate influence in electing the President and Vice President. Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an important, distinguishing feature of federalism in the United States and that it protects the rights of smaller states.

So who will win the presidential race? Obama has a pretty good lead in many of the polling results for the swing states. As we know from past elections these swing states are incredibly important because of the Electoral College.

We will continue to see polling results come in right up until Election Day. With the polling numbers remaining so close these past few weeks, I don’t anticipate seeing much change overall in the polls. The still undecided voters and third-party voters, in such a tight race, can really be the deciding factor in the overall race.

Do you follow the polling results?