STOP with the diet drinks: Experts warn even sugar-free sodas are linked to weight gain, dementia and strokes

• The American Heart Association released the science advisory on Monday 
• Experts noted that sugar-free sodas have been found to increase the risk of weight gain and type 2 diabetes
• They add that diet drinks should be used only as a transitional beverage between sugar-laden drinks and plain or unsweetened flavored water

By MARY KEKATOS FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 18:21 BST, 31 July 2018 | UPDATED: 20:19 BST, 31 July 2018

Drinking diet soda is just as bad for you as having a regular soda, a new report has claimed.  

Even sugar-free drinks are raising the risk of weight gain, type 2 diabetes, dementia and stroke among US adults, the panel of doctors and researchers has warned.

They said that children are at an even greater risk of disease because consuming diet drinks at such a young age can create behaviors that follow them throughout their lives.

With obesity rates continuing to balloon in the US - and diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers following these trends - the experts say it is vital now more than ever to lay down the diet sodas to help curb the growing epidemic.

+1

Experts have warned Americans in a new advisory to stop consuming diet drink due to several studies showing a link to weight gain, and an increased risk of dementia and stroke

The group, from the American Heart Association, did note that diet drinks are often used by people who generally consume large amounts of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) as a way to wean themselves off.   

'This approach may be particularly helpful for individuals who are habituated to a sweet-tasting beverage and for whom water, at least initially, is not a desirable option,' the report said. 

The writers also pointed to a number of self-reporting surveys that showed an encouraging trend of Americans consuming fewer sugar-laden and diet drinks.

ccording to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, adults drank an average of 5.6 ounces of low-calorie drinks per day - the equivalent of about half a can of soda - in 2006.

The data showed that by 2014, adults were drinking just 3.8 ounces per day. For kids and teenagers, they were drinking less than an ounce per day.

KIDS ARE FALLING OUT OF LOVE WITH SODA, REVEALS CDC

American teenagers are increasingly shunning fizzy drinks, a CDC report revealed in February 2017.

Soda drinking among high school students in the US dropped by over one-third from 2007 to 2015.

Meanwhile there has been a uptick in the number of American children drinking diet soda.

Researchers say the new figures are encouraging as sugar-sweetened beverages are one of the largest contributors of added sugars to adolescents' diets.

However, they noted that the overall prevalence of Americans drinking sugary drinks, at any age, remains high and more approaches need to be put into place for the downward trend to continue. 

The report, as part of the CDC's weekly Morbidity and Mortality report, took its data from the YRBS - a US survey that provides representative data on health behaviors among students in grades nine to 12.

The survey asked the high schoolers how many times that had drunk 'a can, bottle, or glass of soda or pop, such as Coke, Pepsi, or Sprite' and not counting diet drinks.

Researchers found that the number of students drinking soda daily had significantly fallen from 33.8 percent in 2007 to 20.4 percent in 2015. 

Meanwhile, according to the survey, adults drank an average of 16.2 ounces of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) per day in 2000, which fell to 8.4 ounces in 2014.

The decline was even more drastic among kids, from 19 ounces per day in 2000 to 8.6 ounces in 2014.

The American Heart Association, in 2016, released its recommendation that children consume no more than six teaspoons of sugar per day.     

'We want to make crystal clear it's important to maintain that [downward] trend,' said Dr Alice Lichtenstein, vice chair of the writing group and a professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University in Boston.

'We hear a lot about potential adverse effects of low-calorie sweeteners, but much of it is speculation. We have to go with the available evidence. The best advice we can give at this time is to ramp down intake and avoid excess consumption.'

The advisory particularly recommended that children stay away due to the lack of data on the long-term effects of these low-calorie drinks.

'One question we discussed is whether for children who are obese and who drink regular soda on a regular basis, is it OK for them to drink diet soda instead?' said Dr Frank Hu, a member of the writing group and chair of the nutrition department at Harvard University.

'The consensus is that for short-term weight control, it's OK. Certainly, it's not the best alternative...because we all know there are more healthy alternatives, such as water, low-fat and fat-free milk.'  

However, a report from the CDC released in February 2017 found that teens' daily intake of milk also declined (from about 44 percent to 37 percent), as did 100 percent fruit juice intake (27 percent to 21.6 percent). 

Although the FDA has labeled low and no-calorie sweeteners - sold under names such as Splenda and Sweet & Low - as 'generally recognized as safe', many of the experts say that this shouldn't be taken as a ringing endorsement.

'Artificial soda, there's nothing good about it,' said Christopher Gardner, director of Nutrition Studies at Stanford University, who was not part of the AHA advisory.

'There's nothing health-promoting about it. The only health-related role it has is as a transition beverage, replacing or displacing sugar-sweetened beverages.' 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6011365/Experts-warn-sugar-free-sodas-linked-weight-gain-dementia-stroke.html

How to count on food – Part 4

This part begins with a little review of a long-running mystery story – it is apparently still unresolved, with strong opinions on both sides about the guilt or innocence of a very common synthetic additive used in countless food products.

June 25, 2017 

By CHRIS CHAN

Beeswax, E901, is used as a glazing agent to make sweets, fruits, confectioneries and medicine pills, etc, externally shiny; that’s how Smarties get that bright, polished look. Photo: VisualHunt.com/Blumenbiene

Read : Part 1  Part 2  Part 3   Part 4   Part 5 

It is almost certain that you would have ingested this compound at some point in your life, and possibly you are even ingesting it every day without even knowing about it.

The compound is the artificial sweetener, E951 (aspartame) – and despite its ubiquity, it is probably even more curious than you might think.

Food regulators in the United States and the European Union assert that aspartame is a non-toxic compound – so how come there is so much controversy?

Well, there have been many odd events in the life of this compound (developed by G. D. Searle & Co) since it first gained approval in 1974 for use as a sweetener additive by the Food & Drugs Agency (FDA) in the United States.

However, this approval was rescinded late in 1975 due to highly questionable issues with the safety studies submitted by G. D. Searle & Co.

E960 is a natural sweetener derived from Stevia leaves and is about 250 times sweeter than sugar. 

Photo: VisualHunt.com/DeathByBokeh

In May 1981, three out of six scientists at the FDA advised against approving aspartame, but in July the same year, the FDA commissioner ignored their concerns and unilaterally approved aspartame for use in dry foods.

This was followed by approval in July 1983 for aspartame use in carbonated drinks and syrups.

Even after approval, various steps were taken to establish the toxicity of aspartame, culminating in the FDA releasing a list in 1992 of over 8,000 complaints categorised by various reported symptoms.

Still, the advice was that aspartame is safe, except for people with phenylketonuria (a rare condition where sufferers cannot metabolise phenylalanine).

Then various European studies appeared to provide contradictory evidence. Tsakiris (2005) reported neurological issues with aspartame consumption by humans within the consumption limits recommended by the FDA – mostly it was related to learning impairment and memory loss.

Even earlier, a study by Trocho (aka Barcelona Study, 1998) had implicated aspartame in both organ and brain damage in test rats.

But possibly the most worrying reports were the 2005 Soffritti Study which claimed that aspartame is a carcinogen in test rats – and this claim was subsequently supported by another study by Ramazzini in 2007.

Fake news

The case against aspartame was really not helped by a fake letter circulated in 1999 by a supposed “Nancy Markle” which claimed that the compound was responsible for multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, and methanol toxicity, causing “blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects and death”. The false claims were easily disproved and led to justifiable accusations of a smear campaign against aspartame.

Regardless of the politics, the facts are quite simple. Aspartame is manufactured using the waste by-products of genetically-modified Escherichia coli bacteria breeding in warm tanks of carbohydrates, nitrogen compounds and other nutrients – however, medical insulin is also produced in a similar manner so this is not necessarily contentious.

It is almost certain that you would have ingested aspartame at some point in your life, and possibly you are 

even ingesting it every day without even knowing about it. Photo VisualHunt.com/Tony Webster

When ingested, aspartame decomposes into two amino acids (40% aspartic acid and 50% phenylalanine) and 10% methanol. Aspartic acid can be manufactured by the body itself but diet is the only source of phenylalanine (which is used as a precursor for dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine). Methanol is a toxic compound and is broken down first in the liver into formaldehyde (also toxic), and then into formic acid (yet another toxic compound) before finally being detoxified into carbon dioxide.

Before you worry too much, methanol is a very common compound also found in fruits, vegetables, beers, et cetera – so this compound is not necessarily substantially contentious either, especially as the overall methanol load from normal consumption of aspartame is quite low.

Affecting the brain?

What is curious is that there is some evidence that both dietary aspartic acid and phenylalanine can cross the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB), and can therefore affect the brain.

The problem is that normal diets with common foods (eg. fish, meat, legumes, corn, soy-based foods, et cetera) have lots of the same amino acids – and fruits, vegetables, beers, wines, et cetera, contain methanol, so eating standard healthy meals might also be a bit risky if aspartame is indeed acutely toxic.

Also, many of the problematic test results involved rodents as test subjects – not humans, whose physiology is significantly different.

However, the human processing of large amounts of aspartame via carbonated drinks may enhance the uptake of aspartic acid and phenylalanine, not unlike people getting drunk faster with sparkling wines (because the bubbles induce a faster absorption of alcohol) – though no research has established yet whether this is of any relevance.

Perhaps more relevant is a 2015 study which showed that glucose intolerance in rodents and some humans can be induced by artificial sweeteners altering the balance of bacterial colonies in the gut microbiome.

Food regulators in the United States and the European Union assert that aspartame is a non-toxic compound – so 

how come there is so much controversy? Photo: VisualHunt.com/Steve Snodgrass

The theory is that the low-calorie sweeteners favour proliferation of the bacteria that are better at extracting energy (ie. glucose) from food – this extra glucose finds its way into blood and body tissue where it promotes insulin resistance, which can eventually lead to health issues like obesity, diabetes and diseases of the liver and heart.

However, on balance, the evidence still suggests that aspartame itself is not toxic, especially if ingested and buffered with other foods – so perhaps do not drink a litre of diet soda at once without proper food.

In any case, there are no compelling medical or health reasons to ingest aspartame at all, so if you want to be safe, perhaps a sensible course of action might be to limit consumption to, say, a quarter of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 40mg per kilo of body weight.

This means if your weight is 60kg, the industry recommended daily limit for aspartame consumption is 60 x 40 = 2,400mg – or if you want to be safe, 600 mg a day. Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sucrose so a quarter of the ADI at 600mg is still equivalent to an amazing 120 grams (or over quarter of a pound) of sugar.

For reference, a single 330ml can of diet cola can contain 175mg of aspartame.

Even though it is heavily abridged, the overview of E951 above is important not only due to the many unusual scientific controversies over its use – but because there are also other less well-known, equally strident disputes about the safety of many other EU-approved sweeteners such as E950 (acesulfame K), E952 (cyclamic acids), E953 (isomalt), E954 (saccharins), E955 (sucralose), E957 (thaumatin), E959 (neohesperidine DC), E960 (steviol glycoside), E961 (neotame), E962 (salt of aspartame-acesulfame), E964 (polyglycitol syrup), E965 (maltitol), E966 (lactitol), E967 (xylitol), E968 (erythritol) and E969 (advantame).

Of the list above, both E961 and E969 are notably interesting as they are a new breed of super high-intensity sweeteners – neotame is around 9,000 times sweeter than sugar and advantame is an incredible 20,000 times sweeter.

Stevia, yet not really stevia

Just as a comment, E960 is a natural sweetener derived from the leaves of the Stevia Rebaudiana plant and is about 250 times sweeter than sugar – and research has currently found scant evidence of toxicity in the human use of steviol glycoside.

However, if you attempt to buy this rather expensive compound in the supermarkets, many of the packaged stevia-based sweeteners are substantially adulterated with other synthetic sweeteners – so please be aware of this. It seems that additives are even added to other additives now.

The high use and low cost of artificial sweeteners (and indeed sugar itself) means that it has been suggested that modern processed foods can taste around three times as sweet as similar foods only 50-odd years ago.

The per capita use of natural sugar itself has gone up 30% between 1977 and 2010 in the United States – and consumption of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) there has gone up 245% between 1989 and 2000 alone.

The consumption statistics of artificial sweeteners is not easy to derive given the range of chemicals, producers and uses – but it would be reasonable to assume that the usage of artificial sweeteners has been on a pretty steep upward trend for the last few decades.

For example, in 2014, around 32% of Americans routinely choose to consume artificial sweeteners on a daily basis.

Note that sweeteners are often used to mask the bitterness of other additives – and therefore many societies have generally grown accustomed to the extravagant sweetness of modern processed foods. Think of “honey-cured” meats, caffeine-laden canned drinks or frappucinos, for example.

Other E9xx additives

There are some other curious additives in the E9xx section – and we will start with E900 (dimethylpolysiloxane). In real life, E900 is a compound used to make the silly putty children play with – but it is also used as an additive to frozen French fries and other commercial deep frozen fried foods.

This is because its strong anti-foaming properties help prevent hot oil from splashing or bubbling over when cooking, especially in large commercial deep fat fryers.

How it works is because this silicone compound has a relatively low surface tension and can therefore flow easily onto the external films of hot oil bubbles – once there, E900 acts as a surfactant to reduce the surface tension of the oil bubbles and also weaken the surfaces in between adjoining oil bubbles, causing them to fold gently back into the hot oil.

Glazing

E901 (beeswax), E903 (carnauba wax), E904 (shellac), E905 (paraffin or microcrystalline wax) and E907 (hydrogenated poly-1-decene) are glazing agents, used to make sweets, fruits, confectionaries, medicine pills, et cetera, externally shiny. For example, the use of E901 and E903 is how chocolate Smarties get that attractive bright, polished look.

Sheep wool, human hair and urea

E913 (lanolin) is derived from the oily secretions from the sebaceous glands in the hides of sheep – these secretions are used to oil wool, and apparently often included as part of the gum base for use in chewing gums (though most of the gum base is made from other compounds). Lanolin is also used in cosmetics and bath soaps as a moisturiser.

If chewing on E913 now sounds a little icky, then consider the origins of E920 (l-cysteine) – it is a dough conditioner commonly used to ensure commercial breads remain soft and fluffy long after they have been baked.

E920 was originally derived from human hair though it can also be extracted from bird feathers and animal hairs – in the EU, E920 sourced from human hair cannot be used.

However, in China it seems that much of the E920 produced there is still based at least in part on using human or pig hair – there is no way to test for the origin because the molecules are homogenous after processing into l-cysteine. China is a major exporter of l-cysteine to the world.

E927 (azodicarbonamide) was famous a few years ago for its dual use in making yoga mats and improving the textures of bread rolls in some popular food chains – but it is now banned in the EU.

However, E927b (carbamide) is still permitted as an additive to improve the colour and baking quality of flour. A more common term for carbamide is urea, though of course the urea used in baking is not derived from human or animal waste.

Gassy additives

Gases are also considered additives, though it would be rare to see them listed on a supermarket label as they are usually exhibited only for commercial bulk packaging – E938 (argon), E939 (helium) and E941 (nitrogen) are used as packaging gases to prevent the spoilage of food; E942 (nitrous oxide) is used as a spray propellant for other additives and oils; E943a (butane), E943b (iso-butane) and E944 (propane) are used as flammable gases to char or singe surfaces to finish the presentation of foods such as crème brulee, moussaka, lasagna, et cetera; E948 (oxygen) is used to oxidise food quickly to obtain a matured or aged look; and E949 (hydrogen) is used to hydrogenate fats.

The last of the E9xx series is E999 (quillaia extract) which is used as a foaming agent to improve the bubbles in beer and other fizzy drinks. Photo: VisualHunt.com/Theo Xiong

The last of the E9xx series is E999 (quillaia extract) which is used commonly as a foaming agent to improve the bubbles in beer and other fizzy drinks – it is also a natural humectant, often used to keep cakes, puddings and other desserts moist for extended periods of time.

Yet again, I have to add that over-consumption of many additives may lead to possible health hazards and side-effects – and it is simply not possible to cover all potential reactions due to the numbers and combinations of additives.

However, most food additives are regulated in their use and therefore should not cause problems when processed foods are consumed in reasonable amounts by healthy humans.

The next part has more curious tidbits about other unusual additives and bulking agents – including additives which can peel oranges or glue proteins, yet legally need not be reported, and why.

Read : Part 1  Part 2  Part 3   Part 4   Part 5

\http://www.star2.com/food/food-news/2017/06/25/how-count-food-part-4/

The hidden cause of unexplained weight gain may be poor liver function

The issue of weight is a prevalent source of discontent especially in western cultures. It seems that we havewoken upand realized that weight control is about much more than keeping up appearances. Obesity rates have skyrocketed along with ...

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 by: Derrell Jones

(NaturalNews) The issue of weight is a prevalent source of discontent especially in western cultures. It seems that we havewoken up and realized that weight control is about much more than keeping up appearances. Obesity rates have skyrocketed along with the associated adverse health conditions. 

Each year more and more people choose to eat right and exercise but still struggle with weight issues and chronic degenerative conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, heart disease, etc. 

A seldom-discussed yet extremely important aspect of weight loss is liver function. 

Traditional diets see-saw between high fat, nutritionally void foods and weight loss gimmicks and products that actually causes people to gain weight in the long run. In the middle of all this is a liver that grows, quite literally, fattier and more sluggish by the day.

The liver has two distinct and highly important functions. First, it is the body's chief blood detoxifier. Secondly, the liver is the body's primary fat metabolizer. Once the liver becomes sluggish and fatty it performs neither job well and we begin to pack on the pounds in earnest and have great difficulty losing the weight once it is on.

What are some causes of a fatty liver

A high fat diet (primarily animal fat) will most likely cause the liver to malfunction over time. Animal fats tend to contain toxic materials that were trapped by the animals body. When we ingest these fats the toxins are released in the liver where they have the ability to cause damage, inducing poor liver function.

Another cause of fatty liver is artificial sweetener use. Artificial sweeteners have been touted by industry as a zero calorie marvel that will help consumers reduce calories and lose weight. What is not revealed is that artificial sweeteners generally lead to long term weight gain. How, do you ask? Artificial sweeteners completely bypass the normal digestive stages and are immediately taken into the liver. The liver basically shuts down all other metabolic processes, including metabolizing fat, to contend with the sweetener. The fats in the liver are either released - without being fully metabolized - into the blood stream to be stored as unprocessed material or they attach themselves to the liver. Either way,this is bad news for your weight and health.

An additional prevalent culprit behind fatty liver is excessive alcohol use. Before the alcohol causes cirrhosis it makes the liver fatty, which is the beginning of the road to dysfunctional health and weight gain.

Finally, prescription and over-the-counter medications have adverse effects on the liver. Notice that almost all of the pharmaceutical commercials mention the liver and liver function. It is because they know how detrimental their medications are to the liver and the health dysfunctions, like weight gain, cirrhosis and liver failure that will occur when using their products. Continue taking your prescriptions but seek a holistic health professional who can assist with eliminating the underlying cause(s) of your condition which would eliminate the need for the medication.

How to avoid or reverse a fatty liver

Here are a few helpful tips that can get you started or keep you on the road to healthy liver function.

• Avoid artificial sweetener use
• Restrict or eliminate alcohol consumption
• Nourish the liver with fresh citrus juices, milk thistle, and licorice. A mixture of cayenne and lemon juice or cayenne and vegetable juice is a great liver nutritive
• Detoxify the colon to keep the digestive system flowing which increases metabolism and aids the liver in its proper functioning

It is clear that poor liver function will most likely lead to a malfunctioning and fatty liver, in turn making weight gain probable and weight loss unlikely. 

If you are working diligently at exercising and eating right but still struggle to lose weight have your liver function checked to shed light on this little-known aspect of weight management.

Sources for this article include:
Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide, Trivieri & Anderson p.264
http://www.savvypatients.com/sweeteners.htm
http://www.majidali.com/fatty_liver.htm

http://www.naturalnews.com/035305_weight_gain_fatty_liver_obesity.html

See also:
Five herbs your liver will love - detox, boost function and more

Soylent Sickness

Life hacks are designed to be simple and quick solutions to some of life’s complex problems. Sometimes it’s a tip or another way of looking at a problem that makes it ... 

October 26, 2016

Story at-a-glance

• Developed by a technology entrepreneur, Soylent has produced a nutritional product claiming to meet all your daily requirements in a powder or bottle
• Now facing their second production problem in the three years they’ve been in business, Soylent denies any issue with contamination or flaws in production
• Soylent proudly uses as many GMO foods as possible, increasing your toxic load of pesticides and ignoring independent research demonstrating significant health effects

By Dr. Mercola

Life hacks are designed to be simple and quick solutions to some of life’s complex problems. Sometimes it’s a tip or another way of looking at a problem that makes it easier to address the challenge. In the case of Rob Rhinehart, serial entrepreneur, he decided to hack his food supply.

Having spent $100,000 without success from the $170,000 he and his partners had received from Y Combinator, Rhinehart stopped looking at technological advancements.

He had become fascinated with the idea of reducing his food bill and the time it took to cook and eat. Without any education in nutrition, food preparation or biology, he used the last of the money to start Soylent.1

While his new company has a large fan base, the product will have difficulty living up to the hype based on the nutritional premise behind the product line and the manufacturing foundation of the product.

Although using a meal replacement may allow you slightly increased productivity, eating meals with friends and family has a distinct emotional and psychological benefit to your health.2,3,4

In recent weeks their newest product line, Soylent Bar, has been recalled as consumers are suffering from hours of vomiting, dehydration and diarrhea, some requiring hospitalization. The first health issues were reported September 7, and the company is still struggling to determine the source of the problem.5

Can You Drink Your Daily Nutritional Requirements?

The primary premise behind Soylent is that you can drink your complete nutritional requirements and never have to eat food again. Taking advantage of a large community of people who continually strive to find more hours in their day, Rhinehart hit upon a marketing strategy that launched his company and built a strong fan base.

Other companies have produced liquid nourishment they claim are supplements to your regular food intake, reportedly designed to improve your vitamin intake without compromising taste and quality.

However, manufactured liquid food cannot adequately replace the nutrients and micronutrients your body extracts from organic, whole foods.

Ambronite, a self-proclaimed “supermeal” in a bottle, marketed as a meal replacement drink, has a similar idea about natural food sources. Founded in 2013 and carried in 35 countries,6 co-founder Simo Suoheimo told International Business Times:7

"The main thing with longer space voyages that we're currently seeing, the trend in this sort of research, is stemming from the fact that we haven't really solved nutrition science.

We're still very much in the beginning of understanding what nutrients play a part in human survival and indeed optimizing performance.

The fact is that with the current knowledge it's really hard to create a complete product with synthetics because we don't even know yet what we have to include in there. Whereas products based on real actual foods solve this pretty well."

Soylent Soy Not Soylent Green

In the 1973 science-fiction film “Soylent Green,” an overpopulated futuristic society was reduced to living on wafers, called Soylent Green. Only at the end of the film do consumers learn the wafers have been made of human flesh.

In the early months, Rhinehart was encouraged to change the name of his company, but said he liked the self-deprecating nature of the name. His idea was to poke fun:8“The general ethos of natural, fresh, organic [and] bright — this is the opposite.”

The early recipes used canola oil for lipids and fats, maltodextrin (another name for sugar) and oat flour for carbohydrates, rice for protein and sucralose (key ingredient in artificial sweetener Splenda) to mask the taste of the vitamins.9

It is outwardly apparent from observing dietary habits that you can survive on less than optimal nutrition. But the resulting poor health, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, cancers and other illnesses make it less than an ideal choice.

Scientists are not yet aware of how your body uses phytochemicals and other nutrients that have not yet been identified. Dr. Walter Willett, Harvard School of Public Health chair of the nutritional department, was quoted in The New Yorker, saying:10

“It’s a little bit presumptuous to think that we actually know everything that goes into an optimally healthy diet. [You can live without plant chemicals.] But you may not live maximally, and you may not have optimal function. We’re concerned about much more than just surviving.”

Proud to Use Genetically Engineered Foods Despite Overwhelming Evidence of Risks

In this documentary you’ll discover some of what happens when we use genetically engineered (GE) foods. Scientists are only beginning to uncover the long-term effects of splicing the genes of one living creature into another.

However, Soylent isn’t convinced by independently funded research and has relied on information from the American Medical Association (AMA), World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission, claiming no credible evidence exists that genetically modified (GM) foods are unsafe.11 However, even WHO admits that:12

“Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.”

Then, in 2015, 19 of the 28 countries in the European Commission decided it was in the best interest of their citizens to say “No” to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within their borders, and all 28 countries require labeling of foods containingGMO products.13 According to Soylent:14

“All of our products use bioengineered algae as a source of lipids and essential omega fatty acids. Produced efficiently in bioreactors, rather than on farmland, these single-celled organisms require far less resources than traditional agriculture.”

Genetic Engineering Is Not Clear Cut

Although many organization claim that “GMO foods are safe,” this statement is far from the truth for two different reasons. In the first place, genetically engineering any plant or animal is not as clear cut as moving one puzzle piece from one plant or animal to another.

This is a laboratory-based technique that has produced unexpected and toxic results when scientists begin tampering with the DNA of living organisms. Manipulating the genetics of a plant or animal is very imprecise.

Pesticide-producing plants designed to increase crop yield, and an inability to adequately predict the long-term effects of GM plants and animals in the food supply chain, only increases your risk of illness and disease.

In one 90-day trial researchers were able to detect organ disruption in the kidneys and livers of laboratory animals that “could be the onset of chronic diseases.”15

The researchers noted that at that time there was no time limit for studying the effects of GMO food on humans and suggested it should be made compulsory to study these effects longer than 90 days, and should include multigenerational studies to assess long-term health and fertility issues.

This is plain common sense, since no one alive today will eat GMOs for mere months unless they’re eating a wholly organic diet from birth until death.

Toxic Chemical Exposure Increases When Total Food Supply Is GMO

Soylent promises their customers that the drinks and bars they sell can meet all your nutritional needs. Some of their customers have taken this to heart and completely eliminated other food sources. This may be a very dangerous choice, as plant-based GMO products are genetically manipulated to withstand powerful pesticides allowing farmers to use higher and higher doses to kill weeds that are becoming resistant to chemical control.16,17 

This means you are exposed to greater amounts of toxic chemicals with the increased number of GMO products you consume. If your total nutrition comes from a product using mostly GMO-based nutrients, then it stands to reason that unless those ingredients are first completely cleansed of pesticide residue and pesticides bred into the plant are removed (which is currently not possible), you are increasing your toxic load with each meal.

Current Bar Recall Is Not the First Problem Soylent Has Experienced

Soylent’s new bars are being recalled due to their causing severe illness, but this isn’t the first problem this company has faced since its inception in 2013. In 2015 they introduced 2.0, their signature drink in a bottle. Whereas before customers mixed a bottle of lipids with powder and water, the 2.0 drink came premixed in a slick white plastic bottle.

Mere weeks after the product’s introduction, shipments were delayed.18 Amid customer complaints, the company admitted that some of their bottles were growing mold on the exterior surfaces. However, images sent to Motherboard clearly show mold growth both on the exterior and interior of their bottles.19

The current problems with the Soylent bar will not disappear quickly. One Reddit user has compiled 58 reports of gastrointestinal distress since September 7.20,21 The original report in Ars Technica listed 33 reported illnesses on October 10, but the list jumped to 58 by October 16. Rosa Labs, manufacturers of the Soylent bars released this statement:22

“After these reports, we have retrieved remaining bars from our consumers and have personally consumed many of the remaining bars without adverse effects. We have also sent them for further microbiological testing and all tests have come back negative. Based on this we remain very confident in the safety of the bars.”

Soylent has theorized the problem results from an intolerance or sensitivity to one of the ingredients in the bars. Although Soylent said the manufacturing facility, Betty Lou’s in McMinnville Oregon, is inspected annually, an online U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database indicates the last inspection was done in 2014 with a “voluntary action indicated” result.23

Is Artificial Sweetener to Blame?

BuzzFeed quotes sources close to Soylent’s production who believe the gastrointestinal problems may be related to the amount of sucralose in the bar, but the company has no current plans to reduce the amount.24 Each bar contains 30 milligrams (mg) of sucralose, the key ingredient in the artificial sweetener Splenda.25

Despite the company’s interest in laying responsibility for the vomiting and diarrhea at the doorstep of sucralose, Diet Coke and Pepsi One both have 40 mg of sucralose in one can of soda, 10 mg more than a Soylent bar.26

That said, sucralose does come with other health concerns. In 2013, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) downgraded sucralose from “safe” to “caution” after preliminary findings suggested sucralose consumption caused leukemia in mice.27 The study was finally published in early 2016, demonstrating male mice who consumed sucralose had a greater potential of developing leukemia and malignant tumors in their lifetime than did the female mice.28 The researchers concluded:

“These findings do not support previous data that sucralose is biologically inert. More studies are necessary to show the safety of sucralose, including new and more adequate carcinogenic bioassay on rats. Considering that millions of people are likely exposed, follow-up studies are urgent.”

Lisa Lefferts, senior scientist at CSPI, addressed concerns that in this study mice received doses of sucralose higher than currently recommended by the FDA. She was quoted by EatClean.com saying:29

"[E]ven if you consume less, that doesn't mean there's no problem. When something causes cancer at high doses, it generally causes cancer at lower doses, the risk is just smaller."

SAD NEWS: House Passes DARK Act Compromise

The House passed a compromise to the DARK Act that will force food distributors to disclose the presence of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients with a smartphone scan code. President Obama has signed the bill that removes states’ rights for labeling GMOs. The bill is full of loopholes, which may allow genetically modified ingredients to slip through unannounced.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), aka GE foods, are live organisms whose genetic components have been artificially manipulated in a laboratory setting through creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and even viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry. They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe not. For years, I’ve stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.

The FDA cleared the way for GE Atlantic salmon to be farmed for human consumption. Thanks to added language in the federal spending bill, the product will require special labeling so at least consumers will have the ability to identify the GE salmon in stores. However, it's imperative ALL GE foods be labeled clearly without a smartphone scan code because not everyone owns a smartphone.

The FDA is threatening the existence of our food supply. We have to start taking action now. I urge you to share this article with friends and family. If we act together, we can make a difference and put an end to the absurdity.

Boycott Smart Labels Today

When you see the QR code or so-called Smart Label on a food product, pass it by. Products bearing the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association’s (GMA) Smart Label mark are in all likelihood filled with pesticides and/or GMO ingredients.

The GMA’s 300-plus members include chemical technology companies, GE seed and food and beverage companies. Monsanto, Dow and Coca-Cola are just some of the heavy-hitters in this powerful industry group, which has showed no qualms about doing whatever it takes to protect the interest of its members.

Don’t waste your time searching through their website, which may or may not contain the information you’re looking for. If they insist on wasting your time and making your shopping difficult, why reward them with a purchase?

A little known fact is that the GMA actually owns the "Smart Label" trademark that Congress has accepted as a so-called “compromise” to on-package GMO labeling, and that’s another reason why I believe the Smart Label mark is the mark of those with something to hide, such as Monsanto.

Will you financially support a corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system, or a healthy, regenerative one? There are many options available besides big-brand processed foods that are part of the “GMA’s verified ring of deception.” You can:

• Shop at local farms and farmers markets
• Only buy products marked either “USDA 100 percent Organic” (which by law cannot contain GMOs), “100 percent Grass-Fed” or “Non-GMO Verified”
• If you have a smartphone and you don’t mind using it, download the OCA’s Buycott app to quickly and easily identify the thousands of proprietary brands belonging to GMA members, so you can avoid them, as well as identify the names of ethical brands that deserve your patronage

Last but not least, encourage good companies to reject QR codes and to be transparent and clear with their labeling. This will eventually ensure that all GMO foods can easily be identified by the GMA’s “verified ring of deception” mark that is the Smart Label.

Campbell’s, Mars, Kellogg’s, ConAgra and General Mills all vowed to voluntarily comply with Vermont's GMO labeling law by labeling all of their foods sold across the U.S. Will their plans change now that the law has been passed by Congress and signed by the President? That remains to be seen, but if you like these companies, I would encourage you to reach out to them and ask them to remain steadfast in their promise.

Non-GMO Food Resources by Country

If you are searching for non-GMO foods, here is a list of trusted sites you can visit.

• Organic Food Directory (Australia)
• Eat Wild (Canada)
• Organic Explorer (New Zealand)
• Eat Well Guide (United States and Canada)
• Farm Match (United States)
• Local Harvest (United States)
• Weston A. Price Foundation (United States)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/10/26/soylent-gmo-foods.aspx