PrisonPlanet Forum
May 24, 2013, 07:15:24 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: NuVal: Skull & Bones decides nutrition value (soon, no "confusing" labels!)  (Read 6605 times)
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« on: September 29, 2010, 08:22:25 PM »

For your own good....of course...
Your Food will have POINTS Associated with Nutritional Value

NuVal Tyranny comes with Points... thanks for playing.


http://www.nuval.com/

I went to the grocery store today and saw a sign posted outside the entrance, advertising the NuVal system: a scoring system so that the poor confused food shopper will no longer have to deal with "confusing" labels (like 'non-gmo', or 'no BPA', or 'no hormones', etc.). Instead, the good people at Yale University have developed the NuVal scoring system, which assigns points to different foods, based on their nutritional value.

=============================================


http://www.nuval.com/How

Fact panels, package labels, nutrition reports.  There has to be a better way to make decisions about the foods you eat.  Now there is: the NuVal™ Nutritional Scoring System.
 
The NuVal™ System does the nutritional heavy lifting so you don’t have to.  Developed by an independent panel of nutrition and medical experts, the System helps you see – at a glance – the nutritional value of the food you buy.
  
How? The NuVal™ System scores food on a scale of 1-100. The higher the NuVal™ Score, the better the nutrition. It’s that simple. And it’s coming to every aisle of your favorite grocery stores – right there on the shelf tag.  Now you can compare overall nutrition the same way you compare price. You can even compare apples and oranges.
 
For a brief overview of our system that's ready to print, check out our new brochure.  For tips on how to use the NuVal System, visit Shop with NuVal™. To find out which stores currently carry NuVal Scores, go to Where to Find NuVal™.

=============================================

We are assured that 'medical and nutrition experts' have made these decisions about what points to assign to what foods: those Oreo's have 15 points, the Kraft Macaroni and Cheese has 27 points... you get the picture. I wonder what the "no homones" milk will have for a score, vs. the 'loaded with hormones' variety? Wanna bet 'no hormones' is lower because it's not 'fortified' with chemical additives? We'll have to wait and see...

I can see this new 'points' system for food as another globalist scam to achieve a few goals (all in the interest of our good health and nutrition, no doubt.)  Roll Eyes

1. The FDA has made it clear they don't think labeling food with information about the content is necessary... so perhaps they'll plan to replace the ingredients listing with the NuVal score. (Reference the recent FDA announcement that the "non-GMO" label will not be allowed on food packaging, since they claim that genetically modified foods are NO DIFFERENT than natural foods. I mean, why get all hung up on a little spider DNA in your Bananas?
          Click here to see FDA's latest move against human health.

2. The NuVal score will also be associated with a carbon footprint value. Your overall carbon footprint score will be affected by the food you buy.

3. The NuVal scoring system plays right into the cybernetics agenda: they will make this a game... you'll have your total shopping cart NuVal points added up at the checkout counter, and you'll get some kind of 'prize' for having a high score. Perhaps additional discounts on the food prices; or some kind of donation made to a favorite charity, based on your high NuVal scores... they will us the game model to push the NuVal concept into peoples shopping mindsets.... watch this video if you have any doubt that this will happen...

          Most Disturbing Presentation Ever: Our Tech Nightmare ("Skinner Box") DICE 2010
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nka-_Mhp7f0

4. The NuVal score of the food you buy will be sent to your database profile, and tracked ... and if your a parent with children and they find your NuVal score is low, you'll get a visit from CPS... or a local NuVal SWAT team to inspect your pantry and refrigerator. Or perhaps you're diabetic, and you will have to 'meet' your goals for NuVal scores or your health insurer will be raising your premiums. Ties in nicely with the fascist health care legislation and the insurance companies will love this new reason to raise premiums.

5. The NuVal score will be used to "nudge" you (a Cass Sunstein tyrannical NUDGE to influence your decisions - this time used in food purchasing.) You'll start to purchase foods based not on what you 'like' or 'dislike' but based on the NuVal food score; and your desire to be a 'good' food shopper. They will use your sense of wanting to belong - to be a part of this new 'trend' to steer (NUDGE... PUSH... SHOVE) you to changing your shopping habits. For your own good, of course. It's always for your own good.

So who is behind this NuVal system of food labeling? Yale University, for starters...

=============================================

The NuVal™ Nutritional Scoring System was developed as a direct response to America’s troubling health trends: rapidly rising rates of obesity and diabetes in both the adult and child populations.  A team of recognized medical and nutrition experts — led by Dr. David Katz of the Yale Prevention Research Center — advocated the development of an independent and
simplified nutritional scoring system
as a vehicle to improve public health.
 
The effort was funded by Griffin Hospital, a non-profit community hospital and teaching affiliate of the Yale University School of Medicine located in Derby, CT, and home to the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center. The team worked for two years, referring to the most comprehensive science available, to develop the Overall Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI™), a patent-pending algorithm which converts complex nutritional information into a single, easy-to-use score. The ONQI algorithm is now the scientific engine behind the NuVal™ System, and together they are helping people make faster, easier, and better decisions about the foods they buy.
 
=============================================

The Scientists Behind the ONQI

A team of recognized nutrition and medical experts from disciplines spanning endocrinology, dietetics, epidemiology, cardiovascular disease, weight control, and pediatric nutrition drove the development of the ONQI algorithm:
 
David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP*
Chair Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center
Expertise: general nutrition; preventive medicine; public health

Keith Ayoob, EdD, RD*
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Expertise: pediatric nutrition

Leonard Epstein, MD*
University of Buffalo
Inventor of the Traffic Light Diet
Expertise: traffic light food labeling; weight control

David Jenkins, MD, PhD*
University of Toronto
Inventor of the Glycemic Index
Expertise: nutritional biochemistry; diabetes; insulin metabolism; glycemic effects of food

Francine Kaufman, MD
University of Southern California
Past President of the American Diabetes Association
Expertise: pediatric endocrinology

Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
independentWV
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2010, 08:34:57 PM »

http://www.nuval.com/Location

Big Y
Food City
Festival
Price Chopper
Meijer
Hyvee
United Supermarkets
Market Street
Super 1 Foods
Brookshires
Logged
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2010, 08:52:04 PM »

Notice that the "solution" is NOT to remove poisons from the food supply (like High Fructose Corn Syrup, now renamed "Corn Sugar" to disguise it, or hormone-infused meats, or drinks in bottles that leach BPA)... NO - the SOLUTION is to fix a problem that DIDN'T exist: to 'simplify' the food labeling system. Now you don't have to read those long lists of ingredients (where you might stumble over those lengthy chemical names which would CONFUSE you)... no, you just have to TRUST that 'experts' have determined the nutritional value of the food, and put a number on it. Just one number, that's all you need to worry your little fluoridated head about... this has apparently been in the works for years...

Is It Healthy? Food Rating Systems Battle It Out
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/business/01food.html?_r=1
By ANDREW MARTIN
Published: December 1, 2007

At the grocery store, shoppers confront a dizzying array of labels promoting whole grains, reduced fat, antioxidants or vitamins. Some foods are said to be “Smart Choices,” while others are a “Sensible Solution.”

Amid the confusion, how can consumers tell whether Cheerios, say, are better or worse than Special K? Is light mayonnaise more nutritious than regular? Which are worse, Nilla Wafers or Chunky Chips Ahoy?

Suddenly, after years of chaotic, conflicting health claims on food, various groups are rushing to create systems that are supposed to make sense of it all. And grocery chains are starting to line up behind one system or another. Within months, shoppers across the country may find numerical ratings, star ratings or letter grades plastered on the shelf next to virtually every product in a store.

“We know that our customers are looking for answers in how to make their diet better,” said Ric Jurgens, president and chief executive of Hy-Vee grocery stores and chairman of a cooperative that has endorsed one system. He says it “provides a revolutionary and simple way to assess all the foods in our stores.”

(Full article)

===========================================

It is an insult to our intelligence to spin this as some kind of solution to the problem of poisons in the food supply.
These bastards are pushing us into a system where the ingredients in our food will no longer be listed: this is their ultimate agenda - to prevent the exposure of the gm and toxin-laden foods they will continue to sell; now with an opaque false-nutritional labeling system that will PREVENT you from KNOWING what you are EATING. BULLSH*T!!!

By the way, the CEO of Hy-Vee has a website touting NuVal .. and look who's involved with it... not surprisingly, PHARMA (in this case Merck).

===========================================

Merck Source
http://www.hy-vee.com/health/merck-source/default.aspx

A world of health information at your fingertips
   
Condition Guides
Designed to help you learn about and manage a specific health condition. Each Condition Guide brings together information, tools, and resources relevant to a specific condition and puts it all in one place.
   
Health Centers
Health information for you and those for whom you provide care. Search for top health conditions by age and gender, risk factors for diseases and information on healthy living.
   
Resource Library
Explore this extensive array of resources such as medical references similar to those used by your physician, Interactive Learning tools to help you visualize your health, hundreds of health news and articles, and support resources for help and support.

Health Tools
These easy-to-use tools include calculators, health trackers and health assessments to evaluate and monitor your health.

You and Your Doctor
Did you know that doctors base up to 80% of their diagnoses on what patients tell them about their symptoms, history and lifestyle? Just imagine—80% of your diagnosis is based on what YOU say! Preparing for a trip to the doctor not only helps you to get your thoughts in order, but also helps you better understand what your doctor is talking about.
Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
independentWV
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2010, 09:22:07 PM »

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/sep/28/cards-rate-nutritional-value/

Food City, through Topco, has invested money to help bring NuVal to market

Kroger Co. began testing NuVal in its Kentucky stores earlier this year.

Food Safety Bill 510
Attack on Organics and Organic farmers
Codex
Monsanto

Pilikia thanks





Logged
Anti_Illuminati
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2010, 09:22:36 PM »

http://www.healthiertalk.com/food-labeling-nonsense-0779

Food Labeling Nonsense
By Mark Sisson on 07/23/2009

Whether it’s the American Heart Association-approved red “Heart Healthy” stamps that implore overweight diabetics to stuff themselves with “healthy” whole grains or the mention of antioxidant and fiber content somehow making that sugary breakfast cereal good for your kids, packaged food distributors seem to love making outlandish claims that bear little to no fruit.

It’s incredibly effective, though, for the same reason people will believe anything they hear on TV or uttered by someone with an official title.

We’ve already got a far-reaching bunch of bureaucrats at the FDA deciding which macronutrients to highlight and which to demonize on the official nutritional labels that adorn the back of every packaged food item, so the natural next step is a mishmash of extraneous labeling that tries to make nutritional recommendations based on the FDA data (which is itself based on flawed, misguided, or even blatantly false science).

Like most nutritionists, dietitians, and even doctors, they probably think they’re promoting the right message. After all, Conventional Nutritional Wisdom is pretty clear about what’s healthy and what’s not, and everyone else just follows suit. It’s just that they’re totally, utterly, completely incorrect about nearly everything. In some cases, they may even be willfully ignorant.

I almost feel bad for the folks behind NuVal (well, not really), one of the more “promising” nutritional rating labels to be rolled out in the coming months, because theirs seems to be the most earnest rating system. Based on the Overall Nutritional Quality Index algorithm, foods are given a rating, from 1 to 100 (with 100 supposedly being the healthiest). A “panel of nutrition and medical experts” (along with the good folks at Topco Associates) designed the algorithm, which takes over thirty different nutritional factors into consideration. Some of the favorable factors, like omega-3, vitamin, mineral, or antioxidant content, are unequivocally desirable (CW gets it right, sometimes); and I agree with some of the unfavorable factors, like trans fats and sugar content. But where they falter (and this is undoubtedly true of everyone in the food labeling game) is in selecting nutritional factors “based on their established relevance to public health as reported and published by the scientific community.” I have a great deal of respect for the scientific community at large, but as for what passes as mainstream nutritional science?

No, thanks.
I’ve seen what gets “reported and published,” and what gets cast aside and ignored.

Another similar rating system is nutrition iQ, which boasts a similar pedigree of unaffiliated, independent dietitians and medical experts. Instead of numbered ratings, they opt for colors. Red is bad (saturated fat, cholesterol, bad!), while green is great (vegetables, fruits – ok, I can get behind that). Various shades of orange indicate graininess and fibrousness, all “desirable.” Seems pandering and slightly condescending, but then again, I imagine that’s what they think of us.

And then there’s the Smart Choices labeling program – the poster child for industry meddling and conflict of interest. I know I shouldn’t be surprised or even disappointed, but I can’t help it. It’s just so blatant. Take a look at the participating companies and organizations (PDF): Coca-Cola, ConAgra Foods, General Mills, American Diabetes Association (oh, I’m sure these guys are regulating sugar and carbohydrate levels in foods to help patients manage insulin!), Nestle (I’d love to hear their thoughts on nutrition), to name just a few of the more ridiculous members in charge of labeling foods healthy or unhealthy. While there are the expected admonitions of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol levels, what amazed me was their brazenness in recommending up to 25% of calories from added sugar.

Yes, added. That means a carb-rich cereal that’s already destined to become pure blood glucose can have an additional heaping of actual sugar and still get the green check mark on the box indicating “healthy.” Boy, diabetics sure must be thankful to have friends like these in their corner! Interestingly, the folks at Smart Choices have no plans to roll out a corresponding red check mark to indicate “unhealthy,” and I gotta admit – I’m a little disappointed. Their idea of “unhealthy” is likely more healthy than their approved foods.

The easiest way to avoid all this food label confusion is to – you guessed it – avoid food labels altogether. For the most part, we shouldn’t even really be eating foods that come in packages. Nut butters, bagged vegetables, shrink-wrapped organic meat – items like these are the exceptions (and these aren’t the type of mass-market processed foods that get the labels, anyway), of course, but as a general rule avoiding packaged foods is sound. If you follow the Primal Blueprint, of course, this isn’t really an issue at all. I imagine I’m preaching to the choir here, but it’s just too tempting, too fun to point out the dreck that masquerades as sensible nutritional advice (it’s slightly sad, too, but what do we have without laughter?). And hey, even if someone new stumbles across this post and never visits the site again, maybe they’ll think twice about the food labels coming soon to a store near you.

While I imagine their hearts are mostly in the right place, the food labelers cannot succeed. Oh, they’ll succeed as far as getting their message out about what’s healthy and what isn’t. They’ll have the renewed support of most nutritionists and dietitians, and the average citizen will see the green check or the 90+ rating on the granola bars and feel vindicated when they eat them – but they’ll be working against reality.

People won’t get healthier just because they listen to the ratings; they’ll just get fatter and unhealthier. The various ratings agencies and nutritional “experts” simply cannot win this battle when they don’t even know who they should be fighting. The enemy is within, the fox is guarding the henhouse, and the real losers are the people who still buy into CW’s outdated, long-refuted garbage.
Logged
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2010, 09:24:32 PM »


Top Nutrition Scientists Develop Scoring System
to Rank Order Foods on Overall Nutritional Quality

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/11/prweb572345.htm

-- Conference for Scientists, Policy Makers, & Press on Nov. 30 (* from 2007) in Wash. D.C.

Top Nutrition Scientists have developed what is believed to be the world's most sophisticated system to rank order food on the basis of their nutritional value. The system, aptly called the "Overall Nutritional Quality Index," 'ONQI' for short, uses a simple scoring, method designed to be posted on supermarket shelves and on food product packaging to enable consumers to select more nutritious and health foods. Griffin Hospital the developer has partnered with Topco Associates to make the ONQI available through thousands of retail grocery stores in 2008.

Derby, CT. (PRWEB) November 28, 2007

Top nutrition scientists from throughout North America have developed what is believed to be the world's most sophisticated system to rank order foods on the basis of overall nutritional quality.

The system, aptly called the 'Overall Nutritional Quality Index,' or 'ONQI' for short, uses a simple scoring method designed to be posted on supermarket shelves and on food product packaging to enable consumers to select more nutritious and healthy foods
An exclusive all day preview conference for scientists, policy makers, food industry representatives, regulators and the media providing information about the 'ONQI' will be held at the Marriott at Metro Center in Washington D.C. on November 30, 2007 ...

...The ONQI is designed to generate a single score on a scale of 1 to 100 representing overall nutritional quality, for any food or recipe. Approximately 30 nutrients, both those with favorable health effects such as fiber, and those with unfavorable health effects such as added sugar, are included in the sophisticated ONQI formula, which also includes a variety of weighting coefficients that reflect the importance of various nutrients to health, and their associations with specific health outcomes.

"No question, when you look at the details of the ONQI, it's complex" notes Dr. Katz. "The sophistication of the formula we devised sets it apart from other work on this issue. But the ONQI is a perfectly simple, turnkey system to use. The complexity powers it, just like a rather complex engine powers the cars most of us drive quite easily. Just like with that car, when it comes to using the ONQI, you can basically turn the key and go."

"Given the rising toll of nutrition-related health conditions in the U.S., in particular obesity, it is important to provide consumers with a simple standard regarding food choices that is as reliable as it is easy to understand. The ONQI is a labeling system that can help everyone make healthier choices in every food category quickly and easily," explains Dr. Walter Willett, a member of the ONQI expert panel, and Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition, and Chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.

"The ONQI is supported by a large volume of independent research. It directly empowers people to make better choices, and yet avoids the 'good food/bad food' label that many in both nutrition circles and the food industry object to," says Dr. Rebecca Reeves, Past President of the American Dietetic Association. "This system certainly can help consumers make healthier choices within any food category. It's important that it is the product of scientists working independently of any commercial interest. It is a source people can really trust."  (Oh really?)

 .... Griffin Hospital has partnered with Topco Associates to make the ONQI available through thousands of retail grocery stores across the nation beginning in the second-half of 2008. The ONQI will be launched in supermarkets as well as on the Internet in collaboration with one or more of the premier providers of health content on the World Wide Web....

About Topco

Topco Associates is a privately held company that provides innovative solutions for its food industry member-owners and customers. Together, Topco members represent more than $110 billion in consumer sales and have thousands of stores across the country.

Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2010, 09:52:47 PM »

Topco Associates LLC Company Profile
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/40/40467.html

Topco Associates is a top company in terms of private-label procurement. Topco uses the combined purchasing clout of more than 60 member companies (mostly supermarket operators and foodservice suppliers) nationwide to wring discounts from wholesalers and manufacturers. Topco distributes more than 5,000 private-label items, including fresh meat and produce, dairy and bakery goods, and health and beauty aids, to retail locations throughout the US. Its brands include Food Club, Shurfine, and a line of "Top" labels such as Top Crest and Top Care. In addition to procurement, Topco helps its members contain costs through financial-services programs and other business services.

======================================

United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972)
U.S. Supreme Court
Docket Number: 70-82
Status: /us/405/596/case.html

http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/united-states-topco-associates-inc-19987551#ixzz10xfAItZL

UNITED STATES v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES, INC. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS No. 70-82. Argued November 16, 1971 Decided March 29, 1972

The United States brought this injunction action charging a violation of 1 of the Sherman Act by appellee, Topco, a cooperative association of about 25 small and medium-sized independent regional supermarket chains operating in 33 States. As its members' purchasing agent appellee procures more than 1,000 different items, most of which have brand names owned by Topco. The members' combined retail sales in 1967 were $2.3 billion, exceeded by only three national grocery chains.

A member's average market share in its area is about 6% and its competitive position is frequently as strong as that of any other chain. The members own equal amounts of Topco's common stock (the voting stock), choose its directors, and completely control the association's operations. Topco's bylaws establish an "exclusive" category of territorial licenses, under which most members' licenses are issued and the two other membership categories have proved to be de facto exclusive. Since no member under this system may sell Topco-brand products outside the territory in which it is licensed, expansion into another member's territory is in practice permitted only with the other member's consent, and since a member in effect has a veto power over admission of a new member, members can control actual or potential competition in the territorial areas in which they are concerned.

Topco members are prohibited from selling any products supplied by the association at wholesale, whether trademarked or not, without securing special permission, which is not granted without the consent of other interested licensees (usually retailers) and then the member must agree to restrict Topco product sales to a specific area and under certain conditions.

The Government charged that Topco's scheme of dividing markets violates the Sherman Act because it operates to prohibit competition in Topco-brand products among retail grocery chains, and also challenged Topco's restrictions on wholesaling. Topco contended that it needs territorial divisions to maintain its private-label program and to enable it to compete with the larger chains; that the association could not exist if the territorial divisions were not exclusive; and that the restrictions on competition in Topco-brand sales enable members to meet larger chain competition.

Read more: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/united-states-topco-associates-inc-19987551#ixzz10xfJulKQ
Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2010, 09:56:22 PM »

Be wary of eating by nutrient and number
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2008/oct/23/foodanddrink

When anyone tries to tell us that popcorn is healthier than an egg, we ought to be very sceptical indeed. That's just one of the dietary howlers from the NuVal system featured in yesterday's G2, yet another example of dietary advice that is worse than useless.

NuVal purports to bring "a groundbreaking nutritional vision to market" in the form of a food scoring system based on a "patent-pending algorithm" that rates foods on a scale of one to 100, an "Overall Nutritional Quality Index" that can help us make more informed decisions about what we eat.

All that's happened here is that a bunch of professors have put the existing US guidelines for healthy eating into the blender and blitzed them in a crude number-crunching exercise. It's yet another example of the narrow, reductionist approach that dominates dietary thinking. Rather than than looking at food in the round, NuVal encourages what US writer Michael Pollan calls "eating by the nutrient and the number". This is the sort of dietary wisdom that the US has followed for the last thirty years. Result? Americans are fatter and sicker than ever before.

What's wrong with NuVal? It gives its highest meat score, 48, to turkey breast while leg of lamb gets only 28. This rating is doubtless based on the current orthodoxy that fat and cholesterol are dietary antichrists. But there is little evidence to support this and much to challenge it. The Women's Health Initiative trial, for instance, found that after eight years of low-fat eating, women were no better off in terms of cardiovascular disease or cancer risk, and not significantly lighter than their higher fat-eating counterparts.

NuVal doesn't take any interest in farming methods, so it doesn't consider that although the lamb may be fattier than the turkey, the composition of that fat may be healthier. A substantial body of evidence shows that meat from pasture-fed livestock contains nutrients that protect against cancer and heart disease; a healthy balance of omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids along with high levels of both vitamin E and conjugated linoleic acid. Poultry like turkey, which is more often than not indoor-reared and fattened on cereals, has none of these benefits. So when you widen the frame of reference, that turkey versus lamb dilemma isn't half as clear-cut as the NuVal rating suggests.

(Full Article)
Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
Anti_Illuminati
Guest
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2010, 09:56:45 PM »

http://www.fooducate.com/blog/tag/topco-associates/

NuVal Nutritional Scoring vs. Smart Choices
October 30th, 2008


Have you ever wondered what’s inside that tasty TV dinner, instant pudding, or granola bar? How healthy, or not? Theoretically, we can learn a lot about a packaged food item just by reading its nutrition panel. Unfortunately for many of us, the nutrition information, ingredient list, and health claims on the package tend to confuse more than elucidate. As a result, consumers make misinformed purchase decisions. Several labeling initiatives have recently launched with a mission to simplify the nutrition information for consumers. (For some background, check our post about the history of food labels.)

A few days ago we reviewed the brand new Smart Choices Program. Today, a look at another front of package labeling system – NuVal (Nutritional Value Scoring System). NuVal was announced in late 2007 as ONQI (Overall Nutritional Quality Index). It is a scoring system that rates food on a scale of 1-100. The higher the score, the more nutritious the product.

The proprietary system consists of an algorithm that inputs values of over 30 different nutrients (i.e. protein, carbs, fats, vitamins, and minerals), and outputting a single score. The system looks at “nutrients to encourage”, such as fiber and omega-3 fatty acids, as well as “nutrients to avoid” such as saturated fat and sodium.

The NuVal score is displayed at the supermarket on shelf tags and aisle signage, but not on the product package itself. NuVal was supposed to launch earlier this summer with several grocery chains. After a slight delay, Hy-Vee, a midwestern chain out of Iowa, was recently announced as a partner. Price Chopper has joined in the North East. Both are limited launches though – only several stores and several product categories are offered now.

NuVal / ONQI is the brainchild of Dr. David Katz, a Professor of Public Health Practice, and a nationally recognized expert in the fields of weight control and nutrition. He was previously Director of Medical Studies in Public Health, at the Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Katz assembled a top notch team of researchers to create the ONQI system, and it took them 2 years to do it. The grading algorithm itself has not been disclosed to the public.

NuVal LLC is  a joint venture of Yale university’s Griffin Hospital and Topco Associates, a privately held cooperative of food retailers and wholesalers. Unlike “Smart Choices”, food manufacturers are not part of this initiative, although the ONQI score requires additional information from manufacturers that is not found on food labels.

The good:

1. Simplicity. Everyone can relate to a numeric score of 1-100.

2. Uniformity. A single scoring system across all products enables consumers to compare apples to oranges, literally. (not that it would make any sense – both are nutritious and tasty).

3. Depth. A NuVal score of 1-100 provides more breadth to a product’s healthfulness than a Yes/No benchmark that appears only on selected items. Assuming all products in a supermarket will carry a NuVal score, consumers will readily compare between items in a category and choose the one with highest ranking.

4. Independence. Although not mentioned explicitly, it seems that food manufacturers were not directly involved in defining the NuVal scoring algorithm. Hopefully this sets a higher rating standard, more in favor of consumers than in the interests of manufacturers.

The not so good:

1. Mystery Scoring. NuVal is not disclosing its scoring mechanism. Smart Choices posted their criteria online, and those interested can understand exactly why one product is eligible for a check mark, and the other is not. According to NuVal, its algorithm is patent pending (which means it will be published by the US patent office once it is approved). If so, why not publish it now so consumers can be confident in their choices?

2. Manufacturer Buy In. Some of the nutrients used by the NuVal algorithm do not uniformly appear on food nutrition labels (i.e. omega-3, Total bioflavanoids, vitamin B12).  This means either the algorithm can’t calculate scores uniformly within a product category, or that all manufacturers need to provide additional nutrient information to NuVal, a third party. The chances for that happening are slim, especially for those already comitted to Smart Choices.

3. Retailer Buy In. What happens if best selling products in the supermarket get low scores? Will retailers willingly want to lose sales of soda pop and salty snacks because of their single digit score? Or are they betting that customers won’t care?

4. Placement. This may seem trivial, but in those supermarkets where price is displayed on the shelf instead of on the product, there are always mismatches. Put NuVal indicators on the shelves and you’ve added another level of complexity to bleary eyed associates stocking shelves at 4am. With Smart Choices, the approval seal is on the product package itself.

5. No personalization. This is an issue with Smart Choices as well. A middle aged diabetic has different dietary needs than a healthy teenager or a senior suffering from hypertension and trying to reduce sodium intake. How can a low-fat fruit yogurt have the same score for each of them? Ideally, a person would see a personalized score for each product.

Conclusion:

The teams behind NuVal and Smart Choices have made good headway in simplifying a very complex nutrition label and boiling it down to very simple indicator for consumer decision. Both systems sport some flaws, but having them at a supermarket seems to be better than not having them at all.

As the goal of both Smart Choices and NuVal is to become a nationwide standard, it will be interesting to see how the imminent competition between the two systems will play out. Also interesting to look for are the FDA’s actions. Will the FDA choose to create some sort of uniform benchmark like the UK’s Food Standard Agency Traffic Lights?
_____________________________
http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2008/10/25/1862-2008-a-brief-history-of-food-and-nutrition-labeling/

1862 – 2009: A Brief History of Food and Nutrition Labeling

Updated: October  2009. Original version published in November 2008.

In the early 13th century, the king of England proclaimed the first food regulatory law, the Assize of Bread, which prohibited bakers from mixing ground peas and beans into bread dough. Ever since, it has been a cat and mouse game between the food industry and the public (fast forward to China 2008 – cheap poisonous melamine in milk powder). In the US, food regulation dates back to early colonial times. Here is a brief overview of the last 150 years of government and industry food regulation:

1862 President Lincoln launches the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Chemistry, the predecessor of the Food and Drug Administration.

1906 The original Food and Drugs Act is passed. It prohibits interstate commerce in mis-branded and adulterated foods, drinks and drugs.

1906 In the aftermath of “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair, which detailed the horrendous sanitary and working conditions in the meatpacking industry, the Meat Inspection Act is passed.

1924 The Supreme Court rules that the Food and Drugs Act condemns every statement, design, or device on a product’s label that may mislead or deceive, even if technically true.

1938 A revised and expanded Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FDC) Act of 1938 is passed. Highlights include: safe tolerances to be set for unavoidable poisonous substances, standards of identity, quality, and fill-of-container to be set for foods, and authorization of factory inspections.

1939 First Food Standards issued (for canned tomatoes, tomato purée, and tomato paste).

1949 FDA publishes guidance to industry for the first time, called “Procedures for the Appraisal of the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food,” (aka the “black book”)

1950 Oleomargarine Act requires prominent labeling of colored oleomargarine, to distinguish it from butter. (Yes, swindlers tried to sell folks cheap margarine in the guise of butter.)

1958 Food Additives Amendment enacted, requiring manufacturers of new food additives to establish safety. Going forward, manufacturers were required to declare all additives in a product.

1958 FDA publishes the first list of food substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

1962 President Kennedy proclaims the Consumer Bill of Rights. Included are the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose, and the right to be heard.

1965 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires all consumer products in interstate commerce to be honestly and informatively labeled, including food.

1971 Artificial sweetener saccharin, included in FDA’s original GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list, is removed from the list pending new scientific study.

1973 California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) is formed. Begins with 54 farmers mutually certifying each other’s adherence to its own published, publicly available standards for defining organic produce.

1977 Bowing to industry pressure, the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act is passed by Congress to stop the FDA from banning the chemical sweetener. The act does require a label warning that saccharin has been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals.

1980 Infant Formula Act establishes special FDA controls to ensure necessary nutritional content and safety.

1980 The USDA Food and Nutrition Information Center (FNIC) publishes the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The guidelines are to be updated every 5 years. In 1980 there were 7 relatively simple guidelines. In the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, there were 41 recommendations in a 71 page booklet!!!

1982 FDA publishes first “red book” (successor to 1949 “black book”), officially known as “Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of Direct Food Additives and Color Additives Used in Food”.

1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) is passed.  It requires all packaged foods to bear nutrition labeling and all health claims for foods to be consistent with terms defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a concession to food manufacturers, the FDA authorizes some health claims for foods. The food ingredient panel, serving sizes, and terms such as “low fat” and “light” are standardized. This is pretty much the nutrition label as we know it today.

1991 Nutrition facts, basic per-serving nutritional information, are required on foods under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Food labels are to list the most important nutrients in an easy-to-follow format.

1995 Saccharin Notice Repeal Act repeals the saccharin notice requirements of 1977. People can get their saccharin without having to read about its risks.

1995 American Heart Association initiates a food certification program including AHA’s Heart Check Symbol to appear on certain foods.  Criteria is simple – low in saturated fat and cholesterol for healthy people over age 2. Oh and also, a certification payment to AHA by the food manufacturer. Now you know why sugary cereal is Heart Checked.

1998 Transfair, the US Fair Trade organization is established, with a mission “to build a more equitable and sustainable model of international trade that benefits producers, consumers, industry and the earth”.

2002 The 2002 Farm Bill requires retailers provide country-of-origin (COOL) labeling for fresh beef, pork, and lamb. After repeated debilitation and stakeholder pressures, the law would finally go into effect only 6 years later, on Oct 1, 2008, and even then with many loopholes.

USDA Organic Certificate

2002 The National Organic Program (NOP),  enacted. It restricts the use of the term “organic” to certified organic producers. Certification is handled by state, non-profit and private agencies that have been approved by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

2003 Announcement made that FDA will require food labels to include trans fat content. Labeling went into effect in 2006.

2003 The FDA announced plans to permit the manufacturers of food products sold in the United States to make health claims on food labels which are supported by less than conclusive evidence. From “significant scientific consensus” before a claim can be made, industry can now rely on “Some scientific evidence” or “Very limited and preliminary scientific research” to make a health claim. Opponents criticize it as opening the door to ill-founded claims. Advocates believe it will make more information available to the public.

2004 Passage of the Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act. Requires labeling of any food that contains one or more of: peanuts, soybeans, cow’s milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, and wheat.

2004 PepsiCo launches Smartspot – designating the “more nutritious” of its products with an easy to spot symbol on the front of package. Baked Doritos in. Fried Doritos out.

2005 Kraft launches Sensible Solutions, a similar initiative for its gamut of products including sugar-free Jello, vitamin water, and Nabisco toasted chips.

2005 President’s Choice launches Blue Menu to designate its healthier products.

2006 Hannaford Brothers Supermarket Chain launches Guiding Stars  intended to help customers choose healthy foods. Foods are ranked 0 to 3 stars, with three stars awarded to most nutritious foods. Only 20% of the supermarket stocked items are starred, but sales of these items increase by several percentage points.

Sept 2008 NuVal announced – The nutritional value (NuVal) System scores food on a scale of 1 to 100. The higher the NuVal Score, the higher the nutrition of a food product. The score is based on a complex and *top secret* Overall Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI) that takes into account 30 different nutrients in food. [update: read review]

Oct 2007 Kellogg’s Launches Nutrition at a Glance based on the European Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) system. Front of Package information includes daily percentage values for 6 nutrients: calories, total fat, sodium, sugars, vitamin A, and vitamin C.

Oct 2008 Mars International launches GDA labeling of its foods and snacks in the US.

Oct 2008 Smart Choices launched – a pan industry effort to promote a standardized benchmark for front of package consumer information. Initial supporters include General Mills, Con-Agra, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Unilever. [update: read review]

January 2009 Healthy Ideas  launched at Giant Foods and  Stop & Shop supermarkets. Around 10% of the items qualify for this benchmark, developed by the grocers’ nutrition experts and based on FDA and USDA guidelines.

January 2009 Sara Lee introduces Nutritional Spotlight front of package labels for bread, bun, and bagel products. This move is in contrast to an industry wide attempt by manufacturers to create a unified Smart Choice label. This label is similar to Mars’ and Kelloggs’ recent efforts.

January 2009 SuperValu introduces nutritionIQ  shelf signage at its Albertsons stores. The color-coded, easy-to-spot shelf tags, or cards, are supposed to aid shoppers in choosing low fat, high fiber and other good foods.

January 2009 Regional Grocery Chain, United Supermarkets, Introduces TAG Nutrition Labeling Program. Five color coded shelf labels point to Heart Healthy/Diabetes Management, Gluten-Free, Organic, Lean/Low-Fat for Meat and Dairy and Sugar-Free/Reduced Sugar products.

June 2009 – SuperValu introduces Healthy Elements program for its independent retail partners.

Summer 2009 – Smart Choices launches formally with several hundreds of products labeled with the green check mark. Froot Loops becomes the poster child for everything wrong with an industry backed nutrition rating system.

October 2009 – The FDA sends a “Dear Manufacturer” letter to boards of the Smart Choices Program and other Front of Pack nutrition rating systems, stating its concern with the potential to mislead consumers. A week later the Smart Choices program suspends itself.
What’s next for food labels? Consumers interest groups will continue to demand more visibility and more information from manufacturers. More data will become available, but translating the wealth of information to a decision at the supermarket shelf will not necessarily become easier for consumers. Programs such as Guiding Stars and NuVal may help consumers make better decisions, but with the FDA’s renewed interest and vigor, perhaps we shall see a uniform, standardized format on all products in the not too distant future.

Visionaries see a day where each ingredient of every product on a shelf can be connected directly to the farm, factory, and other stakeholders involved in its processing. Now how do you fit all that information on a pack of gum?
Logged
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2010, 10:34:40 PM »


=============================================

The NuVal™ Nutritional Scoring System was developed as a direct response to America’s troubling health trends: rapidly rising rates of obesity and diabetes in both the adult and child populations.  A team of recognized medical and nutrition experts — led by Dr. David Katz of the Yale Prevention Research Center —

=============================================

The Scientists Behind the ONQI

A team of recognized nutrition and medical experts from disciplines spanning endocrinology, dietetics, epidemiology, cardiovascular disease, weight control, and pediatric nutrition drove the development of the ONQI algorithm:
 
David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP*
Chair Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center
Expertise: general nutrition; preventive medicine; public health


Katz spoke at Aspen (along with John Holdren, and Jane Lute... in the annual globalists' circle jerk.)

Bright ideas in the Wild West
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7488333.stm
By Jonathan Marcus
Diplomatic correspondent, BBC News

Aspen, high in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado in what used to be the "Wild Wild West" is perhaps an unlikely setting for a festival of ideas.
...

The festival opened with several key-note speakers offering brief summaries of their "big ideas"; a kind of smorgasbord for the brain.
Professor Lawrence Lessig of the Stanford Law School focused on what he sees as the corrupting effect of the quest for money in the US political system.
"The most impossible idea that you will hear during the festival will be the one that makes you put trust and faith in our government," he said.

John Holdren of Harvard University issued a clarion call for America to assume leadership in the struggle against climate change.

Senior physician Dr David Katz's big idea was what he called "a food supply for dummies" - simple labelling of all food-stuffs to show what was healthy, with the goal of trying to turn back the rising tide of diabetes and heart disease.

==============================

As I said, they are insulting our intelligence with this 'dumbed down' nutritional value numbering system; trying to keep us from being 'confused' about all those complicated ingredients.  And here we have the originator of the system, Katz, referring to it as "a food supply for dummies".

Dummies?

That's the quoted opinion of the globalist pig Katz, attempting to hide the toxins in food behind his nutritional numbering scam. That's what he thinks of the American people - a nation of 'dummies' that he's going to 'help' with his scam.  This is so characteristic of the sociopathic nature of these people who believe they know better than us, about everything.  I wonder how much money he's planning to rake in with this bs?
Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
Anti_Illuminati
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2010, 10:51:53 PM »

Here is the scumbag globalist piece of trash who is shoving down your throat this new fraudulent rating system for virtually every grocery store in the U.S.:

http://twitter.com/DrDavidKatz


http://www.wnho.net/dr_katz_misleads_on_aspartame.htm

DR. DAVID KATZ
MISLEADS ABC AND NATION
ABOUT ASPARTAME STUDY



By Dr. Betty Martini
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Telephone: 770-242-2599
E-Mail: BettyM19@mindspring.com
Web Site: http://www.dorway.com

Posted: 18 February 2006

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:52:35 -0500
From: "Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum." - Bettym19@mindspring.com
To: Dr. David Katz - david.katz@yale.edu
Subject: Dr. David Katz Misleads ABC and Nation about Aspartame Study


Dear Dr. Katz:

Only two things are wrong with your critique of the 3-year Italian aspartame study:

    Your facts are wrong
    Your conclusions are wrong.

YOU SAY:

   1. The researcher studied the effects of about five sodas a day worth of aspartame on each of 1,900 rats that is the equivalent of 100 ounces of soda for a 150-pound person.

   2. The Italian doctor also increased the time the rats ingested the chemical.

   3. This is an animal study. There's [nothing] to indicate this is the same threat in humans.

   4. Rats have short life spans and are more susceptible to cancer. [Prove it!]

   5. The major conclusion [you] drew is that rats and humans were both more likely to develop cancer toward the end of their lives.

   6. If there is any potential harm it's a very low level because of how widespread the use is, and it's been around long enough.

Shame on you for dismissing this vital peer-reviewed research that proves aspartame causes cancer.
Obviously you're blinded or hired by the aspartame industry!

Here are the facts:


1: "Each of the rats" DID NOT GET the equivalent of 100 ounces of diet soda

    300 rats received zero aspartame
    300 received 12% of the human ADI
    300 received 40%

1: Half the rats got zero or a fraction of the human ADI [Average Daily Intake] By the way, five 12-ounce sodas is 60 ounces, not 100. Who taught you math?

2: The rats received it their whole lives because people use it till they die. Makes sense.

3 & 4: The 300 rats that didn't get aspartame showed no cancer increases. Rat studies are standard in drug testing, and the rat can tolerate more aspartame than humans. Rats can tolerate the toxic effects of methanol better. The late Dr. Adrian Gross, FDA toxicologist, told Congress aspartame violates the Delaney Amendment since it can trigger brain tumors and cancer. The bottom line is that when a substance causes cancer in lab animals it must not be added to food. The test animals were genetically uniform. You're saying don't pay this study any mind 'cause they used animals. Well, for 22 years there's been an ongoing test on humans, billions of them, and it's killing us. FDA listed 92 symptoms of aspartame disease from 10,000 volunteered consumer complaints. Come down to my office and I'll show you thousands.

5: The conclusion of this study by the researchers: "APM causes dose-related statistically significant increase in lymphomas and leukaemias in females at dose levels very near those to which humans can be exposed. Moreover it can hardly be overlooked that at the lowest exposure of 80 ppm there was a 62% increase in lymphomas and leukaemias compared to controls."

6: You're saying: "I've smoked them all my life and I ain't dead yet." Google lists 3,110,000 posts on aspartame.


Dr. Katz, is your problem ignorance, or old fashioned hubris?

You have misled millions of ABC listeners with your spout suggesting that aspartame is no more carcinogenic than broccoli or peanuts. How many consumers have you met who eat 837 cans of broccoli, the number of sodas you say average Americans swallow? Do they have a course in remedial arithmetic for you at Yale, Dr. Katz? I ask because you say 837 sodas are 46 gallons. At 12-ounces/can it's 79 gallons. Of course I understand that when you're doing a whitewash job little things like truth and accuracy don't count. Your abundant errors show you never read the impeccable Ramazzini Study, peer-reviewed by 7 world experts which proves beyond doubt aspartame causes leukemia and lymphoma, kidney cancer and cancer of the cranial peripheral nerves.

Only rats fed aspartame developed malignant brain tumors. But you say: "This is an animal study. There's (nothing) to indicate this is the same threat in humans." I was shocked to hear a doctor say something so dumb. Obviously you were told to allay the expected fears of the public. Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D. reviewed this study and said mothers should be terrified, as well as all aspartame consumers. Read his remarks: http://www.wnho.net/new_aspartame_studies.htm Dr. Blaylock authored Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, http://www.russellblaylockmd.com and is a renowned neurosurgeon who has focused on aspartame excitotoxicity.

Dr Blaylock's book explains what animal studies tell us about humans. 40% of the aspartame molecule is excitotoxic aspartic acid. Dr. John Olney founder of the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity has shown that MSG and aspartame produce the same damage to neurons in all animal species tested - dogs, rats, mice, chickens, and primates. And in each case, it is the same types of cells that are affected, those with glutamate receptors. There is a major difference, though, between humans and animals. We accumulate higher amounts of MSG in the blood following similar oral dose than does any known animal. Human brain cells are as sensitive to the damage of excitotoxins as lab animals, often even more sensitive.

H. J. Roberts, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P, declared Aspartame Disease a global plague and published the 1,038 page medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, http://www.sunsentpress.com. He compares aspartame effect on humans and rodents. Corporate representatives assert you would have to drink enormous quantities before reaching the toxic threshold. This is nothing more than propaganda to bamboozle the public. Dr. Roberts says conversion of phenylalanine to tyrosine is much slower in man than rodents so the time is extended and toxicity to humans is intensified. Obviously, animal studies are essential, as a physician don't you know that?

FDA toxicologist Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress since aspartame causes brain tumors and cancer, FDA should not have set an allowable daily dose. Dr. Roberts says quantitative information about aspartame content is absent on labels of products in the US; so concerned parents are unable to calculate how much their children consume.

Dr. Frank E. Young, former FDA Commissioner, defined the ADI during the 11/3/87 Senate hearing on aspartame as "an estimate of the amount of the food additive expressed on a body weight basis in animal studies, that can be ingested daily OVER A LIFETIME without appreciable health risk. He focuses on continued lifetime exposure, not on a single day's dose!

I ask a similar question: How do you set an allowable daily dose of an excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug that damages mitochondria and interacts with all drugs and vaccines - a chemical causing 92 documented symptoms including 4 types of seizures, coma and death published by FDA? Medical texts show it precipitates everything from diabetes, obesity, sudden cardiac death and all types of neurodegenerative diseases, blindness and birth defects.

Dr. Roberts, a diabetic specialist, says not only can aspartame precipitate it, but also aggravates and simulates diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy, destroys the optic nerve and interacts with insulin. Dr. William Deagle, M.D., FCFP, DABFP, AAEM, CCFP told me just today that aspartame is toxic to Beta islets that make insulin and pushes the blood insulin levels higher burning out the already enlarged pancreas in prediabetics and the last bit of autonomous production in diabetic patients. Insulin resistance is much higher in diabetics and the toxic effects of aspartame on mitochondria lower the calorie burn side of the energy equation, resulting in higher obesity and thus yet higher insulin resistance. Aspartame promotes neuropathy by direct toxicity to brain and nerve cells inducing peroxynitrile radicals and neuron death or apoptosis.

Professional organizations and front groups like the Calorie Control Council, the American Diabetes Association, the American Dietetics Association, etc, push aspartame on diabetics whereas it should never be used by a diabetic or prediabetic with insulin resistance syndrome or Syndrome X. Those responsible to solve the problem ARE the problem, just like yourself, Dr. Katz.. You say rats have short life spans and are naturally more susceptible to cancer. This is just whitewash; and hides the real issues.

The Ramazzini study was conducted on almost 2,000 rats as opposed to the 280 to 688 rodents used in Searle's studies, and the rats lived for up to three years instead of being sacrificed after two years, the human equivalent of age 53. "Cancer is a disease of the third part of life," Dr. Soffritti declares: "You have 75 percent of cancer diagnoses for people who are 55 years old or older. So if you truncate the experiments at 110 weeks and the rats are supposed to survive until 150 to 160 weeks, it means you avoid the development of cancer at the time when cancer would be starting to arise."

Such early terminations really help the poisoners. Just kill the rats before they get sick! Dr. Soffritti did exactly the right thing. In his book Dr. Blaylock says that when brain tumors develop spontaneously in rats, the rate at which they appear begins to accelerate after two years of age, exactly when the Searle's study ended. Importantly, brain tumors are extremely rare before age one and one half in the rat. So in truth the incidence of spontaneously occurring brain tumors would be even less than cited above. Yet aspartame fed rats developed 2 tumors by 60 weeks and 5 by 70 weeks.

He says in a collective study of 41,000 rats no tumors were seen before 60 weeks and only one by 70 weeks. That 320 aspartame fed rats developed six brain tumors by 76 weeks indicates an "incredible and unprecedented" occurrence. Within the final 28 weeks 6 more brain tumors occurred in the aspartame fed group. Dr. Olney said, "one must assume that many more (brain tumors) would have occurred after 104 weeks.

Dr. Blaylock says it became obvious that the G. D. Searle was trying desperately to protect their billion-dollar bonanza. In original studies tumors were dose related. In Dr. Soffritti's study tumors were dose related. You would expect aspartame to be a carcinogen. Dr. Roberts discusses the mechanisms obvious to any physician. Here are some from Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic:

    * Many constituents in the human diet are nitrosated within the gastrointestinal tract to form potentially carcinogenic nitroso compounds. Shephard et al (l993) reported mutagenic activity by aspartame after nitrosation, using Salmonella typhimurium as the test organism.

    * The diketopiperazine derivative of aspartame has been incriminated as a tumor-causing chemical.

    * Formaldehyde released from the breakdown of methyl alcohol is known to be carcinogenic.

    * The potential carcinogenic effects of chronic hyperinsulinemia have been discussed in prior publications, with special reference to the prostate. (Roberts l967d). Others have implicated hyperinsulinemia in the pathogenesis of breast cancer (Diamanti-Kandarakis l999).

    * Alteration of glucose transport is a characteristic of experimental tumors. Reporting on this phenomenon, and the dramatic increase in total cellular glucose transporter protein, Birenbaum et al (l987) emphasized the induction of such transformation when fibroblasts are starved for glucose.

    * Increased phenylalanine may play a role. Animal and human studies indicate that restricting dietary phenylalanine decreases tumor growth and metastases (Norris l990).

I could go on, but I suggest you get the medical text: Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic! I read your following statement twice because it sounds like the Twilight Zone. "If it caused any significant harm, we would know about it. If there was any potential for harm, it's a very low level ... because of how widespread the use is and because it's been around long enough."

FDA was so swamped with complaints it admitted in congressional hearings they sent them to the AIDS Hotline to get rid of them. There were three of these hearings because of the outrage of the public being poisoned. The aspartame wars are historic. There are millions of posts on aspartame and thousands of web sites carrying the warnings. I quoted a couple of medical texts on aspartame but there are stacks of books on aspartame toxicity, and a film: Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World. Get it on amazon.com or at Barnes & Noble. More are coming.

Aspartame is continuously in the news. Mission Possible International is a global volunteer force set up to warn consumers with operations in most states and over 30 countries. An Aspartame Information List keeps the public up-to-date, and is a support group as well.

In the UK Roger Williams, a Member of Parliament has called for a ban. I made two tours there. Robin Goodwin, Mission Possible Falkland Islands, petitioned for a ban. Stephen Fox petitioned the Environmental Improvement Board and Board of Pharmacy in New Mexico to ban it and wrote a ban aspartame bill for the legislature. See http://www.wnho.net, click on aspartame. Activists in other states are about to follow in the footsteps of New Mexico. A letter to Governor Richardson signed by 10 Senators asks that New Mexico be declared a state of public emergency so aspartame can be immediately banned without waiting for the next legislative session.

Petitions to ban aspartame have been submitted to the FDA on several occasions, including my own which they refuse to answer, even though the law requires FDA to do so. In l996 Dr. John Olney made world news on the aspartame/brain tumor connection on 60 Minutes. Dr. Ralph Walton joined him with research showing 92 % of independent peer-reviewed studies show problems. http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

I find it very unusual that you don't know what's been going on, especially since you're at Yale. Isn't that Monsanto/Searle's CEO Robert Shapiro's old stumping grounds? Isn't Yale where Dr. David Kessler went when he resigned from the FDA after granting blanket approval for this toxin to be used everywhere, like sugar, even though Searle's own secret trade information admitted it couldn't be used in everything? Unless you been on sabbatical on another planet, I don't understand how you can say "If it caused significant harm we would know about it." In reality it has created a global plague.

You mention alternatives like Splenda (Sucralose) and refer consumers to this trichlorinated sugar molecule, which liberates deadly chlorine. http://www.wnho.net/splenda_chlorocarbon.htm The one caution you give about aspartame is that it makes you crave carbohydrates. Yes, it's addictive. It liberates free methyl alcohol causing methanol poisoning. This affects the brain's dopamine system and causes addiction. True, if you want to get fat NutraSweet is where it's at.

You make light of this impeccable study and say even healthy foods like broccoli, spinach and beans contain potentially carcinogenic compounds. Frankenfood companies have genetically engineered broccoli with rat genes, but it doesn't destroy families. Aspartame triggers male sexual dysfunction, ruins female response, is an abortifacient, teratogen (triggers birth defects and mental retardation) and even damages DNA, which can destroy humanity. Here's the history of aspartame: http://www.wnho.net/the_ecologist_aspartame_report.htm

Your report was broadcast to millions, Dr. Katz. You owe ABC and the public an apology and a retraction! Aspartame experts have always said the original studies need to be repeated because of all the shenanigans committed by Searle, the reason FDA had asked for their indictment. They simply couldn't take a poison and show safety, and they were caught doing such things as excising the brain tumors from the rats and putting them back in the study. When the rats died they would resurrect them on paper. (Bressler Report, FDA audit - http://www.dorway.com/bressler.txt ) FDA toxicologist, the late Dr. Jacqueline Verrett told Congress that all original studies were built on a foundation of sand and should be thrown out. Now the studies have been repeated and the world owes thanks to Dr. Soffritti. The New York Times article shows Dr. Soffritti standing before us like the hero he is. Now the public knows what the aspartame manufacturers and their front groups have been covering up for years.

Dr. Betty Martini
Founder, Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
770-242-2599
http://www.dorway.com
http://www.wnho.net
http://www.mpwhi.com/main.htm

Aspartame Toxiocity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame


______________________________________________________________________

Dr. David Katz

ABC News Medical Contributor

- In 2005, Dr. David L. Katz became a medical contributor for ABC News, with regular appearances on "Good Morning America" and occasional appearances on "20/20," "World News Tonight" and other ABC News programming.

Katz is an associate professor of public health at the Yale University School of Medicine. He directs the Yale Prevention Research Center, which he co-founded in 1998. In July 2005, he became the associate director for nutrition science at the newly established Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University.

His ninth book, "The Flavor Point Diet," is due out from Rodale in January 2006.

Elected to the governing boards of both the American College of Preventive Medicine and the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine, Katz was recognized in 2003-04, and again in 2004-05, as one of America's top physicians in preventive medicine by the Consumers' Research Council of America.

Katz has been an expert consultant on obesity control for the U.S. Secretary of Health, the FDA commissioner, several governors, private corporations and the health insurance industry.

He and his wife, Catherine, developed an innovative nutrition-training program for elementary school students called "The Nutrition Detectives Program."

Katz earned his undergraduate degree at Dartmouth College, his M.D. from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and his master's in public health from the Yale University School of Public Health. He is board-certified in internal medicine and preventive medicine/public health. In 2000, he founded, and currently directs, the Integrative Medicine Center in Derby, Conn., a unique facility in which conventionally trained and naturopathic physicians work collaboratively to provide patients with evidence-based, holistic care.

Committed to "practicing what he preaches," he works out for at least 40 minutes most days. Katz believes he should not be offering advice that he himself would be unwilling to follow.

Katz lives in Connecticut with his wife and their five children: Rebecca, Corinda, Valerie, Natalia and Gabriel.

Artificial Sweeteners: Are They Safe?

Animals in Study Ingested Huge Amounts of the Chemical

Feb. 13, 2006 - The debate over the safety of artificial sweeteners intensified over the weekend, when an article in The New York Times said Aspartame, the most popular sugar replacement in America, might cause cancer in rats.

Aspartame, which was invented in 1965, is found in more than 6,000 products, and most people know it by its trade names, NutraSweet and Equal. It is estimated that 200 million people consume Aspartame so if it is unsafe, the effects could be far-reaching. Dr. David Katz, ABC News' medical contributor, said that people should not jump to conclusions based on the rat study.

"If it caused any significant harm, we would know about it," he said. "If there was any potential for harm, it's a very low level because of how widespread the use is and because it's been around long enough."

Katz, a Yale professor and the author of the "Flavor Point Diet," said that the latest study, which comes from Italy, demonstrated a "statistically significant increase in lymphomas and leukemias over three years." The Italian researcher studied the effects of about five sodas a day worth of Aspartame on each of the 1,900 rats -- that is the equivalent of 100 ounces of soda for a 150-pound person every day. The Italian doctor also increased the time the rats ingested the chemical.

Katz said: "This is an animal study. There's [nothing] to indicate this is the same threat in humans."

Katz said that rats had short life spans and were naturally more susceptible to cancer. He also pointed out that even healthy foods like broccoli, spinach and beans contained some potentially carcinogenic compounds.

Considering that the average American drinks 837 sodas each year, equivalent to 46 gallons -- and 27 percent of that is diet soda, sweetened with artificial sweetener -- the new study has alarmed many people.

There are alternatives to Aspartame like saccharin (Sweet'N Low) and sucralose (Splenda), which Katz said were not the same chemically, but served the same purpose.

"We seem to have the notion in our society that science is something to be suspicious of and the natural stuff is safe," Katz said. "But we know peanuts are dangerous to some people, and we never discuss banning peanuts."

Katz said there were bigger reasons to be wary of artificial sweeteners.

"I think artificial sweeteners are harmful and, not because of the cancer risk, but because as a class they are 300 times more sweet than sugar," he said. "You may not get calories from diet soda, but because you drink it, you develop a sweet tooth and have these cravings."

If people are worried about getting cancer, Katz said, they should keep their weight down and avoid tobacco. Katz said that the major conclusion he drew from the Italian rat study was that rats and humans were both more likely to develop cancer toward the end of their lives.

"More cancer was seen in this study, and the study's author, Dr. Morando Soffriti, was saying if you're studying cancer, it makes more sense to look at the stage of life when the cancer is likely to crop up."
Logged
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2010, 10:53:58 PM »

I have a feeling the Dr. Katz is heavily involved in the recent ban on salt proposed by the current puppet in chief. I think he's the Cass Sunstein of the food supply - ever the control freak: nudging us to pick the right foods, because (in his estimation) we need the federal regulators to manage our intake of nutrients.

No SALT FOR YOU Says Dr. David L. Katz
http://jonjayray.110mb.com/fhaug09.html
4 August, 2009

Attention-seeker targets restaurant over salt

Doctors recommend against eating more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium a day. Order a Denny's double cheeseburger and you'll consume 3,880 milligrams in one sitting, almost double the suggested daily allowance of salt. Denny's meals "are dangerously high in sodium," according to a lawsuit filed last week by a New Jersey man with the support of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit group active in nutrition and food safety issues, the LA Times reports.

Nutrition advocates have won legislative and corporate lobbying battles to rid most of the food industry of artery-clogging trans fats and to compel restaurant chains in some cities and states to reveal the calorie counts of their foods. Now, they're turning their guns on salt.

"We have clear and convincing evidence that sodium is associated with high blood pressure, and high blood pressure is a major risk factor for stroke — and it is pretty consistent across populations and ethnic groups," said Dr. David Katz,
a preventive medicine specialist at Yale University Medical School. "It is unconscionable that a single meal would have 2,000 milligrams or more of sodium," Katz said, reports Times writer Jerry Hirsch.

The New Jersey Superior Court lawsuit alleges that Denny's heavy use of salt puts "the restaurant chain's customers at greater risk of high blood pressure, heart attack and stroke." The lawsuit asks the court to order Denny's to list the sodium content of its food on the menu and warn about the hazards of consuming salt in high doses.

=======================================

Dr. Katz: Remember this guy?

Satyagraha

Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong;
it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatsoever;
and it ever insists upon truth.



Ghandi on the "Salt Satyagraha", the Salt March, March 1930.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Satyagraha

Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2010, 06:46:25 AM »

Yale University (Skull and Bones crew) is very skilled in manipulating the food supply... the fact that Yale is behind the NuVal project is alarming when you consider their history of involvement with one of the biggest famine-based genocides in human history:

How did Mao Zedong rise to power?

He was 100% owned and operated by the globalists... a puppet to conduct the deadly experiment that David Rockefeller thought was so successful, the success that inspired Kissinger to write about the value of food as a weapon...

The following research compiled by TahoeBlue shows Mao's training at Yale in preparation for his genocide... and for a lot more information about Mao and Yale, click on the link provided below:

Quote from: TahoeBlue on 09-01-2010, 19:18:08
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=154829.0


Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
donnay
Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,193


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2010, 08:44:14 AM »

Great information Pilikia and Anti Illuminati!

I smell [Codex Alimentarius] a rat!

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp



Codex Alimentarius - How The Global Elite Will Control Your Food Supply


The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), based in Rome, Italy is an international organization jointly created in 1962 by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations “allegedly” to protect the health of consumers with guidelines for food standards.

Codex Alimentarius may present the greatest disaster for our food supply and thus our health this country has ever seen, and if not stopped is likely to be implemented in 2011.

The Codex and its regulations affecting our food sovereignty go back to 1962.  Fortunately in 1994 Congress passed the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) which for the moment preserved the definition of vitamins, minerals and herbs as foods.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and the “World According to Monsanto,” should be required viewing and are related to the Codex. In the U.S. and in the Codex GMO’s do not require labeling making in impossible to know what you are eating.

Without congressional oversight the U.S. will move towards the policies of Canada and Mexico where supplements are considered drugs, not foods.  Codex if implemented will reverse DSHEA and the U.S. will no longer treat dietary supplements as foods, but as toxins.

For 18 years Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Japan, the European Union and most African countries have fought the U.S. unsuccessfully to require labeling of GMOs. The U.S. erroneously considers GMOs equal to non-GMOs based solely on a 1992 Executive Order from then Skull and Bones president George H. Bush.

Continue...
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2010, 09:08:48 AM »

The most extensive analysis anywhere on the following subject:

Mao was a Yale Man - A Yali and Skull and Bones
by TahoeBlue
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=154829.0
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
okay
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2010, 12:30:01 PM »

Katz, Ayoob, Epstein, Jenkins, Kaufman, the Scientists behind ONQI Overall Nutrition Quality Index. nuff said
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2010, 01:08:50 PM »

Katz, Ayoob, Epstein, Jenkins, Kaufman, the Scientists behind ONQI Overall Nutrition Quality Index. nuff said

that was enough? no reason to research this one? just say those names and magically the issue is resolved?

just click your heels three times too.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!