Showing posts with label Center for Science in the Public Interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Center for Science in the Public Interest. Show all posts

Thursday, July 28, 2011

The 2011 Xtreme Eating Awards

Center for Science in the Public Interest http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/xtreme_eating_awards_2011.pdf

•The Cheesecake Factory Ultimate Red Velvet Cake Cheesecake. Total calories: 1,540, Total saturated fat: 59 grams


•IHOP Monster Bacon ‘N Beef Cheeseburger (two bacon-burger patties topped with American and provolone cheeses on a “Romano-Parmesan” bun). Total calories: 1,250, Total saturated fat: 42 grams, Sodium: 1,590 milligrams


•Denny’s Fried Cheese Melt with fries. Total calories: 1,260, Total saturated fat: 21 grams, Sodium: 3,010 milligrams

•The Cheesecake Factory Farmhouse Cheeseburger (includes pork belly, cheddar cheese, onions, lettuce, tomato, mayo and fried egg). Total calories: 1,530 calories, Total saturated fat: 36 grams, Sodium: 3,210 milligrams


•Cold Stone Creamery PB&C Shake, per 24 fl. oz. Total calories: 2,010, Total saturated fat: 68 grams

•Applebee’s Provolone-Stuffed Meatballs with Fettuccini (cheese-stuffed meatballs in marinara sauce and parmesan cream sauce atop about four cups of pasta, served with garlic bread). Total calories: 1,520, Total saturated fat: 43 grams, Sodium: 3,700 milligrams

•Great Steak extra-large King Fries (French fries topped with cheese, bacon, sour cream).Total calories: 1,500, Total saturated fat: 33 grams, Sodium: 4,980 milligrams

•Morton’s Porterhouse Steak (24 ounces of aged prime beef before cooking). Total calories: 1,390, Total saturated fat: 36 grams, Sodium: 1,200 milligrams. That’s not including sides, like 850-calorie mashed potatoes or 330-calorie creamed spinach.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Soda Tax: Consider the Health Benefit and Paying for Healthcare

http://www.naturalnews.com/028541_soda_tax_health_care.html
Soda Tax: Consider the Health Benefit and Paying for Healthcare
Friday, April 09, 2010
Deanna Dean, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) The new federal excise tax on soda and other sugary drinks is being considered by the Senate Finance Committee as they listen to proposals on how to pay for President Obama's universal health care plan, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a three-cent tax would generate $24 billion over the next four years. The tax also has the full support of many in the health industry including Washington based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which pressures food companies to make healthier products. Strong opposition is likely to come from an already tax burdened electorate and the beverage industry.

Michael Jacobson of the CSPI states, "Soft drinks are nutritionally worthless...[and] are directly related to weight gain, partly because beverages are more conducive to weight gain than solid foods." "Beverage companies market more than 14 billion gallons of calorie-laden soft drinks annually. That is equivalent to about 506 12-oz. servings per year, for every man, woman, and child." He contends that consumption would be less by around one percent and overall health would be improved for each penny tax on a 12 ounce drink. He goes on to say that $1.5 billion could be raised annually with this tax.

The obesity epidemic in the United States, according to the journal Archives of Internal Medicine, costs the United States an estimated $147 billion a year in health costs.

A research team led by Kiyah Duffey of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote, "While such policies will not solve the obesity epidemic in its entirety and may face considerable opposition from food manufacturers and sellers, they could prove an important strategy to address overconsumption, help reduce energy intake and potentially aid in weight loss and reduced rates of diabetes among U.S. adults."

"Our findings suggest that national, state or local policies to alter the price of less healthful foods and beverages may be one possible mechanism for steering U.S. adults toward a more healthful diet," Duffey and colleagues wrote.

Adding to the argument, a U.S. study found that increasing consumption of sugary soft drinks contributed to 130,000 new cases of diabetes and 14,000 new cases of heart disease in the last decade.

LSU Health Sciences Center at the New Orleans School of Public Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National reports that drinking more than five servings of sugar-sweetened cola per week before pregnancy appears to significantly increase diabetes risk.

Drs. Mitchell Katz and Rajiv Bhatia of the San Francisco Department of Public Health said taxes are a way to correct a market that favors unhealthy food choices over healthier options.

"Sadly, we subsidize the wrong things including corn, which makes the corn syrup in sweetened beverages so inexpensive," they wrote.

A group of prominent researchers in an article in the Sept. 17 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine think the tax strategy could help support health care reform, while also funding programs to prevent obesity.

However, Susan Neely of the American Beverage Association, which represents Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and others, told the Wall Street Journal, consumption would not be lowered and poor Americans would feel the brunt of this tax the most. She said the industry actively supports programs in schools that encourage lower consumption of sugary drinks and that taxes won't teach or promote a healthy lifestyle for our children.

Mike Adams of Natural News has one of the most enticing ideas yet: "A far better option is educating consumers about the harm these products cause."

Your healthmate,
Deanna Dean

Deanna Dean is the Wellness Director for Your Health Coach, a company dedicated to health and wellness education.
website: yourhealthcoachdee.com

Dee is a Wellness & Weight Loss Coach, a Certified Natural Health Professional, is pursuing an ND degree-Naturopathic Doctor, is a certified Raw Chef, certified in Dietary Guidelines from the Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, former Personal Trainer, Yoga and Fitness Studio Owner, TV and Radio Guest, Health Columnist.

Deanna develops customized programs to enhance the health of her clients, educates, and coaches dieters for safe weight loss.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Something fishy?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-19-fake-foods_N.htm

Something fishy? Counterfeit foods enter the U.S. market
1-19-9
By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY

Some of your favorite foods may be fakes.

Foods masquerading as something else — a more nutritious something else — have been big news in the past two years. Chinese food companies in particular have been blamed for making deadly alterations to dairy, baby and pet foods by adding melamine. The chemical makes it appear that the food or beverage has the required level of protein.

But what about food producers in this country? What fraudulent foods do U.S. consumers have to fear from American companies?

Experts say dangerous U.S.-produced foods are comparatively few, but producers have been known to practice "economic adulteration" — adding a little to their bottom line by padding, thinning or substituting something cheap for something expensive.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration regulate the food industry, but with safety issues to deal with, economic adulteration has "really been back-burnered," says Bruce Silverglade of the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest. So in a caveat emptor world, what should consumers look out for?

Fish is the most frequently faked food Americans buy. In the business, it's called "species adulteration" — selling a cheaper fish such as pen-raised Atlantic salmon as wild Alaska salmon.

When Consumer Reports tested 23 supposedly wild-caught salmon fillets bought nationwide in 2005-2006, only 10 were wild salmon. The rest were farmed. In 2004, University of North Carolina scientists found 77% of fish labeled red snapper was actually something else. Last year, the Chicago Sun-Times tested fish at 17 sushi restaurants and found that fish being sold as red snapper actually was mostly tilapia.

"It's really just fraud, plain and simple," says Gavin Gibbons of the National Fisheries Institute, an industry group.

One thing consumers don't need to worry about is scallops. Tales of skate wings cut into circles and sold as scallops are common. But Randolph says the FDA has never found an actual case of it.

Salmon is tricky. Randolph does have one tip, though. Farmed salmon gets its coloring from dyes added to food pellets the fish are fed, while wild salmon gets it from the plankton they eat.

"When you cook it, the wild salmon retains its color, and in the aquaculture salmon, the color tends to leak out," she says. Suspicious consumers can call the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition hotline at 1-888-SAFEFOOD.

Olive oil

This luxury oil, touted for its heart-health properties and taste, has become a gourmet must-have. Americans consumed about 575 million pounds of the silky stuff last year, according to the North American Olive Oil Association. Sixty-three percent was the higher-grade extra virgin, which comes from the first pressing of the olives.

It's also one of the most frequently counterfeited food products, says Martin Stutsman, the FDA's consumer safety officer for edible oils.

There are no national figures on olive-oil fakery. But after complaints, Connecticut began testing two years ago. "We were coming across a lot of products labeled as extra-virgin olive oil that contained up to 90% soybean oil," says Jerry Farrell Jr., Connecticut's commissioner of consumer protection.

Most name brands were fine, Farrell says. It was often off-brands sold in discount stores that were the problem.

Connecticut was so concerned that in November, it became the first state in the nation to set standards for olive oil, enabling officials there to levy fines and pull adulterated products off store shelves. California is set to create its own standards this year. Reports from panels of testers have found as much as 60% to 70% of the olive oil sold as extra virgin in the state is a lower-quality olive oil, says Dan Flynn of the Olive Center at the University of California-Davis.

The easiest thing is for fakers to add 10% vegetable oil in extra virgin, says Stutsman. "It will still smell as it should, but you've saved 10% of the cost."

Bob Bauer, president of the North American Olive Oil Association, says it's more of a problem in restaurants than in supermarkets.

Honey

An expensive natural product that's mostly sugar, honey is easily faked. "If you can substitute a less expensive source of sugar for the expensive one, you can save some money and gain market share," says the FDA's Stutsman.

It used to be that cane sugar or high-fructose corn syrup was mostly used to thin out honey. But chemically, that was easy to spot. FDA used an isotope test that would easily identify the adulteration.

So counterfeiters got wily and started using beet sugar. Its profile is similar to honey, so the FDA had to switch to a much more complicated, multistep test comparing the sugar profiles to see if the proportions and trace materials match.

"But once we started catching people, they create a moving target. They'll switch to something more difficult (to detect)," says Stutsman.

Maple syrup

Maple syrup is another high-value item that can be adulterated. In these tough economic times, Vermont, the USA's largest supplier to flapjacks everywhere, may up its testing programs.

The boiled-down sap of the sugar maple tree can be diluted with water or sugar by sellers "trying to get more bang for the buck," says Kristin Haas, food safety director in the state's Agency for Agriculture, Food and Markets.

Vermont's testing program has found fraud only three times in the past 17 years, says Haas, but it's not taken lightly. "A couple of years back, there was a gentleman who actually went to prison because of this issue."

When times get tight, the incentive to cheat can rise like sap in the spring, so the state may have to work harder to keep its premier product pure.

Vanilla

A product of the tropics, vanilla pods can be soaked in milk or stored in sugar to impart a delicate vanilla scent to foods. More commonly, they're soaked in alcohol that is then used as a flavoring.

But vanillin (pronounced VAN-ah-lynn), a chemical copy of the richly organic vanilla flavor, was created in the laboratory in the 19th century. When used in foods, it's supposed to be labeled as an artificial flavor and usually is.

One "too good to be true" product to watch out for is really inexpensive vanilla extract sometimes sold in Mexico and Latin America, says the FDA. It's often made with coumarin, a toxic substance that has been banned in U.S. foods since 1954.

Coumarin is chemically related to warfarin, a blood thinner, and can be dangerous. It's "no bargain," the FDA says.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Approval process for genetically engineered animals

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-genetic19-2008sep19,0,4097901.story

FDA proposes approval process for genetically engineered animals
The regulations would treat the creatures like drugs. Critics fear that environmental concerns aren't being given proper weight.
By Karen Kaplan and Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
September 18, 2008

The Food and Drug Administration today opened the way for a bevy of genetically engineered salmon, cows and other animals to leap from the laboratory to the marketplace, unveiling an approval process that would treat the modified creatures like drugs.

The guidelines for the first time make explicit the regulatory hoops companies would have to jump through to sell salmon that grow twice as fast as wild fish, pigs with high levels of healthy omega-3 fatty acids in their meat or goats that produce beneficial proteins in their milk.

"It's about time the federal government has acknowledged that these animals are on [the] doorstep and need to be regulated to ensure their safety," said Greg Jaffe, director of the project on biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington.

Many experts, however, fear that the proposed regulations do not go far enough to protect and reassure the public. In particular, they argue that the approval process would be highly secretive to protect the commercial interests of the companies involved and that the new rules do not place sufficient weight on the environmental impact of what many consider to be Frankenstein animals.

Animals can't be treated exactly like drugs, said Jaydee Hanson, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety in Washington. "Drugs don't go out and breed with each other. When a drug gets loose, you figure you can control it. When a bull gets loose, it would be harder to corral."

The draft guidelines represent an effort to formalize procedures that the agency is already following, said Randall Lutter, a deputy commissioner for policy at the FDA. They show "how we have been and how we will continue to regulate genetically engineered animals," he said.

The genetically modified animals have a variety of potential uses. Some, like many agricultural crops now in use, are more disease resistant. One company, for example, has produced a cow that is not susceptible to mad cow disease.

Others are more nutritious or grow faster, improving the diet and enhancing farmers' profits. Some would serve as sources for organs for human transplants, expanding the small pool of donor organs now available. Others, called biopharm animals, would be used to produce drugs such as insulin, which are now manufactured in yeast or bacteria.

"There are very compelling and real benefits for humans and animals" from genetic engineering, said William Flynn of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. "But we must show that they are safe before they enter the marketplace."

The new regulations do not cover cloned animals, most pets and research animals. Clones are genetic replicas of existing animals, and the FDA has already determined that they are safe. Pets and research animals are unlikely to enter the food chain.

Only one genetically engineered animal is now being sold in the United States, a glow-in-the dark aquarium fish called a zebra. The FDA approved it because it is not eaten and its need for warm water effectively precludes it from escaping confinement.

Technically, the modified animals are not considered drugs. Instead, the segment of DNA that is added to them to change their properties is the drug. Realistically, however, the only way to regulate the DNA is to regulate the animal, said Eric Flamm, a policy advisor at the agency.

That regulation will entail a series of procedures that demonstrate that the modified animal itself is healthy and then that a food or drug produced from it is safe for human use. The new rules do not, however, envision feeding the products to humans in the equivalent of clinical trials for drugs.

"It's a complex and detailed process" that has been proved for a variety of other products, said Larisa Rudenko, a senior advisor for biotechnology at the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Once an animal product has been approved, its labeling may or may not reflect its origin, Lutter said. If the composition of meat or other food has been changed, such as by increasing its content of omega-3 fats, that will be reflected in its labeling. But if the animal simply grows faster or is more environmentally friendly without changes in composition, that will not.

karen.kaplan@latimes.com

thomas.maugh@latimes.com

Sunday, September 9, 2007

Market food rating system has influence

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_he_me/diet_supermarket_guide;_ylt=AvwuEg6zQBWGmJpy5KEJrSms0NUE

Market food rating system has influence
By DAVID SHARP, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 5, 2007

A gold star rating system aimed at helping food shoppers make healthier choices seems to have some influence — meaning more Shredded Wheat, Raisin Bran and Honey Nut Clusters in shopping carts.

Hannaford Bros., a New England supermarket chain, said sales of items that earned at least one out of three stars outpaced similar products that got no stars.

The difference was greatest among packaged foods, including cereal, canned goods, bakery items and snack foods. Hannaford said those products that received stars grew 2 1/2 times faster than similar items deemed less healthy.

The system is based on a formula that Hannaford wants to patent. In general, though, vitamins, minerals, fiber and whole grains earn more stars. Added sodium, trans fats, saturated fats and cholesterol mean fewer, or no, stars.

"I love it. I absolutely do," Donna Lewis said Wednesday after pushing her cart through the checkout line with her 5-year-old son.

Lewis uses the star system to teach her children, including two other boys, about good nutrition. The star system make nutrition simple, she said. Children easily understand it.

Some of Hannaford's ratings are a no-brainer.

For example, whole milk gets no stars, 1 percent milk gets two stars and skim milk gets three stars. Whole-grain breads get more stars than standard white flour. Virtually all fresh produce, from habaneros to mangos, get three stars.

As expected, Fruity Pebbles, Cap'n Crunch, Cocoa Puffs and similar sugar-laden cereals get no stars. Ditto for Campbell's Spaghettio's and Chef Boyardee Ravioli and Kraft Easy Mac. On the canned soup aisle, there are practically no stars at all.

But the star system contains some surprises, even for educated shoppers.

Mott's four flavors of "Healthy Harvest" applesauce in kid-sized serving containers gets two stars. Right next to those on the shelf, Mott's Scooby Doo! "Pirates Punch" and "Mummy Berry" flavors, which have added sugar, get no stars.

Kim Marcotte of Falmouth was surprised to discover that a can of Nature's Place Organic green beans she purchased had 380 milligrams of salt. But Del Monte Fresh Cut's "Cut green beans" had only 10 milligrams of salt, earning it stars.

"I just assumed that because it was a vegetable, it would be good for you," said Marcotte, who tries to buy organic products for her young children.

Hannaford said data suggest consumers are using the program.

Star-rated frozen dinners grew 4 1/2 times faster than unstarred ones, and breakfast cereals with stars grew 3 1/2 times faster than other cereals, Hannaford said. Among other findings, sales of star-rated ground beef grew 7 percent while other ground beef declined 5 percent; chicken that earned stars grew 5 percent, while other chicken dropped 3 percent; fat-free milk grew 1 percent, and whole milk dropped 4 percent.

Only a few food areas, including seafood, showed no change.

"The fact that the movement of products with stars has been growing steadily since the introduction of the program suggests to me that customers are using the program," said Caren Epstein, spokeswoman for Scarborough-based Hannaford.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group, said the findings are encouraging.

"It's certainly a good step forward, and the entire supermarket industry is watching Hannaford," said Michael Jacobson, the nonprofit's executive director in Washington.

Hannaford ratings cover more than 25,000 items now, and the chain plans to begin including baby food starting Sept. 15. Star ratings for oils will be in Hannaford stores later this year.

Already, Guiding Stars has expanded to another supermarket chain, Florida-based Sweetbay Supermarkets. And Food Lion is expected to launch the program next year, Epstein said. All three chains are owned by Delhaize America.

The program comes as food makers, the government and others consider various ranking schemes. Hannaford will present its findings at a Food and Drug Administration hearing on Monday and Tuesday focusing on front-label nutrition symbols.

Marcotte, a shopper from Falmouth, said the Guiding Stars haven't changed her buying habits overall. But it has allowed her to spend less time studying food labels.

"It has made it easier," she said. "When I go grocery shopping, I go to the back and look for two things: hydrogenated oils and high-fructose corn syrup. Now I don't have to spend as much time reading the back of boxes."
___
On the Net:

Hannaford Bros. http://www.hannaford.com

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Dunkin' Donuts going free of trans fat

http://www.ocregister.com/news/dunkin-trans-fat-1822528-doughnut-chain

Sunday, August 26, 2007
Dunkin' Donuts going free of trans fat
The change is to take place at 5,400 U.S. restaurants by Oct. 15.
By MARK JEWELL
The Associated Press

BOSTON Dunkin' Donuts, the food-on-the-go chain whose name celebrates a treat that's symbolic of unhealthy eating, is trying to refresh its image by largely eliminating trans fat across its menu, Homer Simpson be damned.

Dunkin' planned to announce Monday that it has developed an alternative cooking oil and reformulated more than 50 menu items – doughnuts included. The Canton, Mass.-based chain says its menu will be "zero grams trans fat" by Oct. 15 across its 5,400 U.S. restaurants in 34 states.

About 400 locations nationwide that took part in a four-month test already have made the switch to a new blend of palm, soybean and cottonseed oils. That includes all restaurants in New York City and Philadelphia, which are forcing restaurants to phase out their use of artery-clogging trans fat.

The ice cream chain Baskin-Robbins, another unit of Dunkin' Brands Inc., plans to be zero grams trans fat by Jan. 1.

Dunkin' isn't claiming it will become "trans fat free," but does say any trans fat in foods including doughnuts, croissants, muffins and cookies will fall below half a gram per serving. Federal regulations allow food labels to say they've got zero grams of trans fat, provided levels fall below the half-gram threshold.

A nutrition advocacy group welcomed Dunkin's addition to the list of restaurant chains that have recently shifted away from trans fat.

"It's good news that they're dropping most, if not quite all, trans fat," said Jeff Cronin, spokesman for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based nonprofit. "If Dunkin' Donuts can do that, anyone can."

But Cronin cautioned that when it comes to Dunkin's doughnuts, "we're still talking about a food that's mostly white flour, sugar, and fat."

Dunkin' isn't positioning its namesake product as health food – a shift that would involve more disbelief suspension than might be possible for a treat synonymous with portly, doughnut-gobbling Homer from television's "The Simpsons."

"The goal was not to make a healthy doughnut, it was really to create a doughnut that was better," said Joe Scafido, Dunkin's chief creative and innovation officer. "Certainly, we did not create a healthy doughnut."

Although its coffees are by far a bigger seller, the New England-bred, 57-year-old chain was founded on the reputation of its doughnuts. Now, Dunkin' claims to be the first major chain to introduce a zero grams trans fat doughnut, although smaller doughnut makers have already done so. Mainstream doughnut makers' products can have around 5 grams of trans fat apiece.

The main source of trans fats is partially hydrogenated oils, formed when hydrogen is added to liquid vegetable oils to harden them. Evidence suggests that artificial trans fats boost "bad" cholesterol and lower "good" cholesterol, increasing the risk of heart disease and stroke.

Dunkin' is ahead of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc., which has yet to roll out a zero gram trans fat doughnut but hopes to do so. Brian Little, a spokesman for the North Carolina-based chain, said, "We continue to work aggressively with outside supply partners, and our goal is to get to zero trans fatty acids while maintaining great Krispy Kreme taste."

A call seeking comment from another chain, California-based Winchell's Donut House, wasn't immediately returned.

Starbucks Corp., Dunkin's Seattle-based rival in the coffee shop niche, said in May that it would cut artificial trans fats out of its food and drink by year's end in stores in the continental U.S., Alaska and Canada.

Dunkin's announcement follows about four years of research of more than 28 alternative cooking oils and proprietary blends.

This past spring, hundreds of restaurants began taking part in a test to gauge customer reaction to the blend that Dunkin' ultimately selected. Managers at participating stores were split into two groups, with one receiving conventional cooking oil, the other receiving the experimental oil, and neither group knowing which type they received. Dunkin' closely watched sales and customer response at restaurants with the experimental oil.

"We got no negative consumer feedback, and we sold 50 million doughnuts in that time," Scafido said.

Dunkin's 1,900 locations outside the U.S. are expected to begin using the new oil over the next couple years, he said.

Friday, July 6, 2007

Eat To Live: New fears over aspartame

http://www.upi.com/Consumer_Health_Daily/Reports/2007/07/02/eat_to_live_new_fears_over_aspartame/6520/


Eat To Live: New fears over aspartame
By JULIA WATSON
UPI Food Writer

LE BUGUE, France, July 2 (UPI) -- Two years ago, Italian researchers at the prestigious Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences published a study that showed feeding rats aspartame at levels per body weight close to those of humans led to an increase in brain tumors, lymphomas and leukemia in the females.

Aspartame, familiar to consumers as brand names NutraSweet and Equal, is an artificial sweetener found globally in approximately 6,000 products.

It's contained in candy, desserts and yogurts. It's in diet sodas and hot chocolate and those sugar-free packets for coffee and tea in restaurants. It's also in some pharmaceutical products, like cough lozenges and vitamins. Some chewing gum is aspartame-sweetened.

At this level of saturation, it represents 62 percent of the artificial sweetener market.

As reported by Eat To Live last May, the FDA rejected the foundation's conclusions, saying they weren't consistent with other studies that the FDA had evaluated that confirmed aspartame was safe as a sweet alternative to sugar.

So the Ramazzini Foundation went back to the drawing board.

This time, it put 4,000 rats on doses of aspartame equivalent in respective body weight to the amount consumed by some people.

With this second investigation, they also began exposing rats to aspartame before they were born. And they allowed them to live until they died a natural death, instead of killing them at two years as in other studies elsewhere.

Their conclusions have just been published in Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Parents should take particular note.

Again, they found significant increases in lymphomas and leukemia. When fetuses were exposed to the sweetener, the potential carcinogenic effects increased.

A study last year from the National Cancer Institute involving 340,045 men and 226,945 women found no significant link between aspartame and cancer.

But the men and women studied were all between the ages of 50 and 69 and had only begun consuming the sweetener in adulthood.

Children are considerable consumers of aspartame through Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, Kool-Aid, Jell-O gelatin dessert and pudding mixes and certain Popsicles.

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the acceptable daily intake of aspartame is equivalent to a child weighing 50 pounds drinking two cans of diet soda daily, or a 150 pound adult drinking just over seven.

It encourages people not to panic. Just to stop buying products containing aspartame.

However, the Ramazzini Foundation researchers write in their study: "On the basis of the present findings, we believe that a review of the current regulations governing the use of aspartame cannot be delayed.

"This review is particularly urgent with regard to aspartame-containing beverages, heavily consumed by children."

The FDA says it has not yet reviewed the report. But it appears it still finds no reason to revise its opinion or advice to consumers.

Since the study's publication, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, on its Web site Chemical Cuisine directory, has now demoted aspartame from the "use caution" category to "everyone should avoid". It also gives thumbs down to acesulfame.

If you want a sweet alternative to sugar, it recommends sucralose, commonly known by the brand name Splenda.

To satisfy a sweet tooth craving, try chewing on dried apricots or a handful of dried prunes or raisins. Stewing then pureeing dried apricots provides a very sweet sauce to pour round or over ice cream or slices of cake that already contain enough of the sugar you crave that you don't need to increase the amount with a butterscotch or chocolate sauce.