Jack in the Box Yanks Toys from Kids' Meals

 

 LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Fast-food chain Jack in the Box has pulled toys from its kids' meals, a spokesman told Reuters on Tuesday.

The move, which managers at Los Angeles outlets said took effect on Thursday, comes as fast-food companies are under pressure to stop using toys to market children's meals that are high in calories, sugar, fat and salt.

Lawmakers in San Francisco and nearby Santa Clara County have passed laws that will require kids' meals to meet certain nutritional standards before they can be sold with toys.

"While we've been aware of efforts to ban the inclusion of toys in kids' meals, that did not drive our decision," Jack in the Box spokesman Brian Luscomb said.

"Our advertising and promotions have focused exclusively on the frequent fast-food customer, not children," added Randy Carmical, also a Jack in the Box spokesman.

Carmical said the San Diego-based company has been more focused on the food in its meals for children, such as grilled cheese sandwiches or grilled chicken strips. The company pulled toys from the meals when it began offering parents the option of substituting sliced apples with caramel sauce as an alternative to French fries, he said.

"We believe that providing these kinds of options is more appealing to a parent than packaging a toy with lower-quality fare," Carmical said.

The Jack in the Box decision won praise from organizations and advocates critical of the fast-food industry.

"It's terrific that Jack in the Box has taken this step," said Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's really a monumental step that I hope their competitors will emulate."

CSPI in December sued McDonald's Corp, the world's largest hamburger chain, to stop it from using Happy Meal toys to lure children into its restaurants.

Consumer and health advocates are using the announcement to put pressure on McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell and other fast food chains that still include toys in kids' meals.

Lobbyists for fast-food companies are fighting anti-obesity laws by asking U.S. state legislators to remove restaurant marketing from local governments' regulatory menu.

Toy giveaways make up more than half of the marketing expenditures in the fast-food industry, according to Wootan, with $360 million spent annually to put toys in kids meals.

Jack in the Box has about 2,200 restaurants across the United States, where it is the fifth-largest hamburger chain.

America’s First Lady Teams with Grocers to Provide Access to Healthy Food

 

Some of the biggest names among retail grocers have joined with first lady Michelle Obama in her campaign to provide fresh produce and nutritious foods to America’s “food deserts” in order to allow impoverished areas access to healthy fare, as a part of her signature effort to combat childhood obesity.

A “food desert” is defined by the Department of Agriculture as a Census tract where the lesser amount of 33 percent or 500 people reside more than one mile from a grocery store in an urban area, or at a distance of more than 10 miles in a rural area. Melody Barnes, director of the Domestic Policy Council, noted, “We know from the research that when people live in communities that have greater access to supermarkets, they consume more foods like fresh fruits and vegetables.”

According to Barnes, the campaign will ultimately service about 9.5 million of the 23.5 million Americans(including 6.5 million children) now living in low-income areas that currently have a shortage of grocers who sell foods that are nutritious and affordable.The new stores are expected to create more than 46,000 jobs across the country.

Several of the nation’s blockbuster chains, including Walmart, Walgreens and SuperValu, as well as a number of regional retailers, have committed to bring in excess of 1,500 stores to less fortunate neighborhoods and provide fresh and nutritious and fresh foods poorer communities.

Walmart, the nation’s largest retail grocer, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, expects to have opened between 275 to 300 food desert stores by the year 2016. The company’s expansion is part of its plan to promote eating healthier for lower prices. The savings will apply to such premium products as whole wheat pasta.

In addition, the plan includes support for charities. The well-known retailer has already opened 218 amidst low-income neighborhoods since beginning the project in 2007, according to Leslie Dach, executive vice president of corporate affairs for the company. 

Walgreens, America’s largest drugstore chain, will be expanding food products in at least 1,000 stores to include fresh produce, pre-packaged salads, sandwiches, and foods that are partially prepared for easy cooking at home.
Company spokesperson, Tiffani Washington says that the Chicago-based retailer has already put their project into motion in their home city, as well as in California at San Francisco locations. CEO Greg Wasson said that greater than 45 percent of existing Walgreen stores are located in areas that don’t have easy access to fresh food.
Retail grocer SuperValu has also committed to building 250 Save-A-Lot stores over the next five years among areas having little to no access to fresh food, and expects the project to generate 6,000 jobs. Chief Executive Craig Herkert said that Supervalu already operates about 400 stores in areas that may be considered food deserts, including five that were recently opened on the south side of Chicago.
In addition, regional supermarkets such as Brown’s Super Stores in Philadelphia, and Calhoun Foods in Alabama and Tennessee plan to expand food products to assist in the joint effort of the campaign to improve access to healthy foods.
Just last month, the first lady assisted the Agriculture Department in revamping the food pyramid into a chart called MyPlate, which left out desserts. During a news conference at the White House, Obama noted, “The commitments that you all are making today have the potential to be a game changer for our kids and for our communities all across this country.”

Diet Soda Linked to Expanding the Waistline Rather Than Trimming It

Findings showed that although the waistlines of all participants expanded to some extent, those who were diet soda drinkers had a waistline increase that was 70 percent higher than those who did not partake of the low-calorie drinks. Adding insult to injury, those who consumed two or more diet sodas daily saw their waistlines expand a a rate that was five times greater than non-drinkers. The results remained true even after the researchers adjusted for other contributing factors such as physical activity levels, age, and diabetes status.

Drinking diet soda in an attempt to shed pounds may pack them on instead. Even worse, the artificial sweeteners they contain may promote the onset of type 2 diabetes. The discouraging news comes from researchers at the University of Texas, San Antonio. The findings of the research were recently presented at the American Diabetes Association's (ADA) Scientific Sessions in San Diego, California.

Dr. Helen Hazuda, professor and chief of the Division of Clinical Epidemiology of the Texas University School of Medicine and lead author of the decade-long study, stated, “Data from this and other prospective studies suggest that the promotion of diet sodas and artificial sweeteners as healthy alternatives may be ill-advised.” She then added, “They may be free of calories but not of consequences.” Hazuda’s is the fourth large-scale study to indicate that consuming diet soda is detrimental to health.

For their study, Hazuda’s team analyzed composite data from 474 participants of the San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging (SALSA), a large, population-based study of the disablement process in both elderly Mexican and European Americans. Participants reported their intake of diet soda at the beginning of the study, and were also measured for height, weight and waist circumference. The study subjects were then tracked in terms of their diet soda intake and body fat for an average of nine and one-half years.

Although the data did not indicate the reason that drinking diet soda promotes weight gain, previous research suggests that because the brain expects calories to be associated with the sweet-tasting drinks, when none are present, the body begins to store more calories as fat.

Researcher, Sharon Fowler noted, “Artificial sweeteners could have the effect of triggering appetite but unlike regular sugars they don’t deliver something that will squelch the appetite.” Therefore, those who need their soda fix may be better served by consuming full-calorie sodas in moderation instead.

Weight Loss Enemy Foods to Avoid: Forever on Your Hips Once Past the Lips

 

A new study from Harvard researchers provides scientific evidence that you are what you eat. In the quest for weight loss, the quality of foods consumed is much more significant than calorie content. Munching chips and sipping soda in front of the TV helps to pack on the pounds, giving real meaning to the term “couch potato.” The full details of the study can be found in the New England Journal of Medicine.

   Although it has long been known that a healthy diet includes fresh vegetables and fruits, whole grains, nuts and lean proteins, the Harvard research team has successfully determined the pound-packing impact of ingesting culprit foods. At the top of the list of fatty offenders are those tasty potato chips, which lead to more weight gain per serving that any other food in the study, while the best power food for weight loss is yogurt.

Making healthy food choices that work with your body will have a greater positive impact overall than will simply eating less. Consuming high-quality foods will also lead to the most successful weight loss long term, as adults gain about one pound per year, on average. Of course, when focusing on weight loss, the daily overall calorie count must be considered because moderation remains key in the weight loss process.

According to lead study author Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, “For diet, conventional wisdom often recommends ‘everything in moderation,’ with a focus only on total calories consumed.” He then pointed out, “Our results demonstrate that the quality of the diet — the types of food and beverages that one consumes — is strongly linked to weight gain.”

The study revealed that every extra serving of potato chips consumed within a day, results in a weight-gain of 1.69 pounds every four years. In addition, potatoes in general are foods that fatten whether French fried, mashed, boiled or even baked.

The study found that for each extra serving consumed, an average of 1.28 pounds were gained over a four-year period, while French fries alone were associated with over three pounds of added weight.

Also among the top five offenders were  sugar-sweetened beverages, unprocessed and processed red meat, with all being linked to about one pound of additional weight every four years.

Americans are Snacking Their “Weigh” to Obesity

 

As time goes on, America’s waistline continues to expand. In the age of fast-moving technology, people are moving slower and less often, with far too many becoming couch potatoes munching their way into obesity. Let’s face it. People are eating more, as well as eating more often, and now there’s a study to back it up. The details of the analysis appear in the June issue of the journal PLoS Medicine.

Barry Popkin, Ph.D., a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, along with his co-author, have found that it’s the number of snacks and meals that people are eating—not simply portion size of foods consumed each day—that are serving to boost caloric intake to just under 2,400 calories daily. How much is eaten, and how often, contributes to the continuous increase in the American waistline.

The study found that over the past three decades, Americans have increased from partaking of 3.8 snacks and meals daily to an average of 4.9, accounting for an dramatic rise of 29 percent.

In addition, the average portion size has increased by around 12 percent, while in contrast, energy density, which is average number of calories per 1-gram serving of food, has actually declined over the 30-year period, meaning that foods rich in calories have had little to do with the obesity epidemic.

Popkin noted, “The real reason we seem to be eating more is we’re eating often.” He then added, “The frequency of eating is probably, for the average overweight adult, becoming a huge issue.”

Popkin pointed out that a much of the culpability for endless munching can be placed on food advertising as well as other marketing. He says, “It’s all about making people think they want to have something in their hands all the time. It’s there, it’s available all the time, it’s tasty. It’s not very healthy, but it’s tasty. It’s sweet, it’s salty, it’s fatty—it’s all the things we love.”

To arrive at their conclusions, Popkin and his colleague examined data gathered from four nationally representative food surveys conducted between 1977 and 2006 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The results coincided with those of a prior study conducted by Popkin and his co-author, which revealed that the time interval between meals and snacks has significantly declined since 1977, in conjunction with a substantial increase in the number of calories consumed.

Popkin noted, “It used to be you’d have three meals a day. And if you snacked, it was unsweetened tea or coffee. Nowadays, everywhere you turn there’s food. If you’re driving, you have a big bag of Doritos next to you while you drive.” Moreover, he pointed out that sugary drinks such as soda, flavored and sweetened coffees, and fruit juices are also major culprits, with several hundred extra calories coming just from drinks.

Although the study findings appear to be in balance with America’s apparent dietary imbalance, the research does have a few shortcomings. The surveys from which the data came did not track the same individuals over time, and there were also variances among questions and methods used. In addition, participants self-reported their food intake for the prior 24 hours, which may have had an effect on accuracy.

According to a 2010 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 25 percent of American adults are obese. As a preventive measure for becoming a part of these alarming statistics (or to remove yourself from them), stand pat with three meals daily, remembering to keep your portions in check. In addition, enjoy some healthy snacks, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, and avoid processed foods.

Weight Loss Maintenance: How it Differs from Dieting

 

Dieting requires tools to expend more calories than you take in. This happens in a variety of ways, but the techniques used to be successful in that phase of weight loss may differ drastically from that in keeping it off. A new study shows that the skill set required for weight loss maintenance is very different from that of the initial weight loss.

The study, published in the recent issue of American Journal of Preventive Medicine, reinforces what many diet programs have advocated for years: You cannot just diet, lose weight, and go back to old behavior and habits. That’s a sure way to put the pounds back on. There needs to be a shift in thinking and activities to maintain and preserve that hard-won weight loss.

Lead author Christopher Sciamanna, and colleagues of the study out of Penn State, conducted a telephone survey of 1,165 overweight adults, which consisted of queries on 36 practices when on a weight loss journey and subsequent to their weight loss. The questions included topics such as types of food, motivational factors, following a specific weight loss program, and exercise regimen, among others.

Success was measured in their ability to lose weight—at least 10 percent of their body weight—and the ability to keep that weight off for a year or more post-diet. Those who maintained a diet and exercise program and used motivational practices had the best success in the diet phase; while keeping the weight off required a slightly different skill set.

Keeping the weight off, or losing additional weight, necessitated motivational reminders of why the weight was lost, what it took to get there, and why it is necessary to keep it off, as well as a reward system. While diet and exercise were also important—two factors that both weight loss and weight management had in common—they were less important in the maintenance stage.

Sciamanna said that one of the aims of the research was to show that changes are necessary to diet and behavior to keep weight off. Practices significantly associated with successful maintenance only were:
•    Eat plenty of low-fat sources of protein
•    Follow a consistent exercise routine
•    Reward yourself for sticking to your diet or exercise plan
•    Remind yourself why you need to control your weight

FDA Attempting to Regulate Dietary Supplements

 

The Food and Drug Administration has taken hits over their lack of regulation for dietary supplements, but are taking steps to rein in the booming industry in an attempt to safeguard consumers.

The FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of regulations than those covering conventional foods and drug products (prescription and over-the-counter). Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), dietary supplement manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed. The FDA has only been responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market. Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements.

The brouhaha over Hydroxycut and its adverse health effects is one example of how the regulations fell short. The diet supplement, which listed appetite control, weight loss, and improved energy among its positive effects, came under fire from the FDA after it received reports of adverse health effects, including one death and one person who required a liver transplant. Other problems reported included heart problems and a type of muscle damage that could lead to kidney failure. The FDA finally stepped in and warned consumers to stop using the popular line of weight loss products.

While the dietary supplement industry believes that current regulations are adequate to protect consumers because manufacturers conduct their own safety tests, this is not always the case. Rigorous testing providing safety and effectiveness data, which is required of all drugs, is not conducted in the same way for dietary supplements. And therein lies the problem.

Consumer products researcher, Consumer Reports, has conducted their own studies on protein drinks and issued a warning about the amount of protein and lead contaminants found in these popular beverages. The testing consisted of 15 protein drinks and Consumer Reports found that all the products had at least one sample containing one or more of the following detrimental ingredients: arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. In some cases, the amount of lead in a single daily serving of eight of the products exceeded California Proposition 65 levels, which would require warning labels.

Subsequent to the study, Consumers Reports issued a statement that it “believes that the FDA’s oversight under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act is inadequate to ensure that protein drinks and other dietary supplements are consistently low in heavy metals and other contaminants.  … [More] must be done to ensure that those products are properly evaluated for safety and effectiveness before they are sold to consumers.”

In response to recent pressures, the FDA has today issued a draft of a guidance document for the dietary supplements industry stipulating that manufacturers must notify the agency in advance when adding a “new ingredient” with an unknown safety profile to their products. The manufacturers must also provide evidence that the ingredient is safe for consumers. They consider this “an important preventive control to ensure that consumers are not exposed to unnecessary public health risks from new ingredients with unknown safety profiles.”

The term "new dietary ingredient" means a dietary ingredient that was not marketed in the United States in a dietary supplement before October 15, 1994. There is no authoritative list of dietary ingredients that were marketed in dietary supplements before October 15, 1994. Therefore, manufacturers and distributors (you) are responsible for determining if an ingredient is a "new dietary ingredient" and, if not, for documenting that a dietary supplement that contained the dietary ingredient was marketed before October 15, 1994.

While this is a step forward in ensuring public safety, many believe that more rigorous testing should be required of dietary supplements, and that approval for new products should undergo review prior to landing on store shelves for public availability.

Have you had a problem with a dietary supplement? Reported it to the FDA? We’d love to hear about your experience and the response received from the FDA.

Waistlines Across America Continue to Grow

Obesity rates continue to increase across America, with almost one-third of Americans now living with a body mass index (BMI) of over 30. The Southern part of the U.S. is weighing in with the highest obesity rates, with Mississippi taking top honors, and Oklahoma, Alabama and Tennessee seeing rapidly rising numbers.

The annual “F as in Fat" report from the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation paints a bleak picture on the expanding girth across our great land. Over the past 15 years, seven states have doubled their rate of obesity and 10 states have doubled their rate of diabetes.

In the last year alone, 16 states had an increase in obesity and only one—Colorado—had an obesity rate below 20 percent…barely. In 2006, Colorado showed a 16.9 percent rate, so even America’s healthiest state is losing the battle.

"Today, the state with the lowest adult obesity rate would have had the highest rate in 1995," said Jeff Levi, executive director of the Trust for America's Health. In 1980, only 15 percent of the entire U.S. population was obese.

Not one state showed a decline in the last year, either remaining steady or loosening that belt one more notch.

Much of the report agrees with one recently conducted by Dr. Earl S. Ford and colleagues from the CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. In that study, the researchers looked at data on nearly 23,000 people aged 20 and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 1999-2008. In 1999-2000, the researchers found, 27 percent of men were obese. By 2007-2008, that percentage had risen to 32 percent. The number of obese women inched up from 33 percent to 35 percent over the same time period.

As American’s waistlines continue to grow, so does concern for higher health care costs. With the continued growth in obesity and health problems associated with the condition, the U.S. could be facing even greater issues than once expected with our health care system. Currently, the U.S. spends billions of dollars each year on obesity-related health issues, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke and type II diabetes and these costs continue to rise. Work-related losses and premature death push the costs even higher.