Sunday, May 20, 2012

Agriculture Department study concludes healthy diet is less expensive than junk food

Agriculture Department/Associated Press - This undated handout photo provided by the Agriculture Department shows a plate showing portion sizes of 100 calories worth of strawberries, broccoli, potato chips, bread and M&Ms. Is it really more expensive to eat healthy? An Agriculture Department study released Wednesday found that most fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods cost less than foods high in fat, sugar and salt. That counters a common perception among some consumers that it’s cheaper to eat junk food than a nutritionally balanced meal.

By Associated Press, Published: May 16
WASHINGTON — Is it really more expensive to eat healthy?

An Agriculture Department study released Wednesday found that most fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods cost less than foods high in fat, sugar and salt.

That counters a common perception among some consumers that it’s cheaper to eat junk food than a nutritionally balanced meal.

The government says it all depends on how you measure the price. If you compare the price per calorie — as some previous researchers have done — then higher-calorie pastries and processed snacks might seem like a bargain compared with fruits and vegetables.

But comparing the cost of foods by weight or portion size shows that grains, vegetables, fruit and dairy foods are less expensive than most meats or foods high in saturated fat, added sugars or salt.
That means bananas, carrots, lettuce and pinto beans are all less expensive per portion than French fries, soft drinks, ice cream or ground beef.

“Using price per calorie doesn’t tell you how much food you’re going to get or how full you are going to feel,” said Andrea Carlson, scientist at the USDA’s Economic Research Service and an author of the study.

For example, eating a chocolate glazed donut with 240 calories might not satiate you but a banana with 105 calories just might.

In the comparisons, the USDA researchers used national average prices from Nielsen Homescan data, which surveyed a panel of households that recorded all food purchases over a year from retail outlets.

The cost of eating healthy foods has been the subject of growing debate as experts warn Americans about the dangers of obesity. More than a third of U.S. adults are obese, according to the government, and researchers expect that number to grow to 42 percent by 2030.

“Cheap food that provides few nutrients may actually be ‘expensive’ for the consumer from a nutritional economy perspective, whereas food with a higher retail price that provides large amounts of nutrients may actually be quite cheap,” the study said.

The USDA study criticizes a 2010 report from researchers at the University of Washington, which found that calorie-for-calorie junk food is more cost-effective for low-income people than eating healthy.

Adam Drewnowski, director of the Nutritional Sciences Program at the University of Washington and lead author of the prior study, said he stands by his findings that a healthier diet generally costs more. He said there is no government recommendation for how many pounds of food an American should eat each day, but there are federal guidelines that suggest a 2,000 calorie diet.

“Some of these calories are in fact empty calories, so from the standpoint of nutrition they are not terrific,” Drewnowski said. “But the empty calories keep you from being hungry, and this is why people buy them, especially lower-income people.”

Margo Wootan, a nutrition advocate with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said some people don’t think they get as much value from fruits and vegetables as they get from other foods.
“If they buy a bag of chips for $2, they think it’s a good deal, but if they buy a bag of apples for $2, they think it’s a lot,” Wootan said. “We need to do more to help people understand that fruits and vegetables are not as expensive as they think they are.”

Wootan said shopping smart can make healthy eating more affordable. Consumers should be more flexible about choosing less expensive fruits and vegetables that are in season and supplementing those with frozen or canned fruits and vegetables so they don’t have to throw away as much.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

EWG Cleaners Hall of Shame Reveals Hidden Hazards

Washington, D.C. – The Environmental Working Group Cleaners Hall of Shame unearths compelling evidence that common household cleaners, including some hyped as “safe” or “natural,” can inflict serious harm on unwary users.

Many present severe risks to children who may ingest or spill them or breathe their fumes.
“Cleaning your home can come at a high price – cancer-causing chemicals in the air, an asthma attack from fumes or serious skin burns from an accidental spill,” said Jane Houlihan, EWG senior vice president for research and co-author of the EWG Cleaners Hall of Shame. “Almost any ingredient is legal and almost none of them are labeled, leaving families at risk. Our Hall of Shame products don’t belong in the home.”

The EWG Cleaners Hall of Shame is excerpted from the comprehensive EWG Cleaners Database project, due for publication in fall 2012.

EWG’s research has turned up products loaded with toxic compounds banned in some countries. Some ingredients are known to cause cancer, blindness, asthma and other serious conditions. Others are greenwashed, meaning that they are not, as their ad hype claims, environmentally benign. Still more hide the facts about their formulations behind vague terms like “fragrance.”
Among the worst offenders:

• Mop & Glo Multi-Surface Floor Cleaner contains methoxydiglycol (DEGME), which is "suspected of damaging the unborn child" by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. DEGME levels in this product are up to 15 times higher than allowed in the European Union.
• Tarn-X tarnish remover contains up to 7 percent thiourea, which is categorized as a carcinogen by the state of California. The National Toxicology Program, an interagency federal group, says that thiourea is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen."
• Simple Green Concentrated All-Purpose Cleaner claims to be “non-toxic” but contains 2-butoxyethanol, a solvent absorbed through the skin that irritates eyes and may damage red blood cells. This concentrated product is sold in a ready-to-use spray bottle despite instructions to dilute, even for heavy cleaning.
• Mystery mixtures such as Target’s Up & Up and Walmart’s Great Value brands, whose product labels offer little or no ingredient information.

Other products cited for hidden hazards:
-- Conventional oven cleaners with sodium or potassium hydroxide that can burn skin, lungs and eyes.
-- Spray cleaners with quaternary ammonium compounds or ethanolamine, chemicals that can trigger asthma attacks and can cause new cases of the disease in people who are asthma-free.

Though many Americans assume that government bodies oversee the safety of the multi-billion-dollar household cleaning products industry, it is largely unregulated. Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) introduced the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2011 which would require cleaning products makers to list ingredients on the product labels while also maintaining comprehensive, up-to-date lists of ingredients on their websites in multiple languages.

The EWG Cleaners Database aims to fill this information gap in order to give people straight facts developed by independent scientists. Now under construction, this ground-breaking initiative aims to uncover the truth about toxic chemicals in common household products on the American market and to empower consumers to make smart choices. Its publication will mark the first comprehensive independent scientific analysis of toxic chemicals in more than 2,000 cleaning products and 200 brands.

The EWG Cleaners Hall of Shame offers tips to consumers to help them avoid the most hazardous products and find safer alternatives.

Study Ranks "10 worst" kids' cereals for sugar!

A new study shows many breakfast cereals pack so much sugar, they're more like desserts.
For the report, the Environmental Working Group checked the content of 84 popular offerings, and says, "Kellogg's Honey Smacks, at nearly 56 percent sugar by weight, leads the list of the 10 worst children's cereals."
One cup of Kellogg's Honey Smacks has more sugar than a Hostess Twinkie, and a cup of 44 other children's cereals has more sugar than three Chips Ahoy! Cookies, according to the EWG.

11 Photos

Sugary cereals: Which are the 10 "worst?"

View the Full Gallery »

It adds that only a quarter of the cereals meets voluntary proposed guidelines of the federal Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children which, says the EWG, recommend no more than 26 percent added sugar by weight." And the EWG is pushing for even an even lower lid.
It quotes health expert Dr. Andrew Weil as saying, "The fact that a children's breakfast cereal is 56 percent sugar by weight - and many others are not far behind - should cause national outrage."
The EWG also quotes noted NYU nutrition professor Marion Nestle as saying, "Cereal companies have spent fortunes on convincing parents that a kid's breakfast means cereal, and that sugary cereals are fun, benign, and all kids will eat. The cereals on the EWG highest-sugar list are among the most profitable for their makers, who back up their investment with advertising budgets of $20 million a year or more. No public health agency has anywhere near the education budget equivalent to that spent on a single cereal. Kids should not be eating sugar for breakfast. They should be eating real food."

The EWG's "10 Worst Children's Cereals," based on percent sugar by weight:
1) Kellogg's Honey Smacks -- 55.6 percent
2) Post Golden Crisp -- 51.9 percent
3) Kellogg's Froot Loops Marshmallow -- 48.3 percent
4) Quaker Oats Cap'n Crunch's OOPS! All Berries -- 46.9 percent
5) Quaker Oats Cap'n Crunch Original -- 44.4 percent
6) Quaker Oats Oh!s -- 44.4 percent
7) Kellogg's Smorz -- 43.3 percent
8) Kellogg's Apple Jacks -- 42.9 percent
9) Quaker Oats Cap'n Crunch's Crunch Berries -- 42.3 percent
10) Kellogg's Froot Loops Original -- 41.4 percent