<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Nutrition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/nutrition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 06:12:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What corporations don&#8217;t want you to know</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/what_corporations_dont_want_you_to_know/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/what_corporations_dont_want_you_to_know/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12672881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Disclosure regulations don't ban products, they just inform consumers. So why do companies fight them so hard?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last month, Gallup <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/125468/americans-leery-govt-regulation-business.asp ">reported</a> that despite economic crises brought on by financial deregulation, far more Americans still worry that there will be too much regulation rather than not enough. No doubt, the survey results reflect the triumph of conservative "free-market" rhetoric in equating regulation with job loss in the American psyche. That's a victory of ideology over economic reality, because, as <a href="http://mobile.businessweek.com/magazine/regulations-create-jobs-too-02092012.html">Businessweek</a> recently noted, regulations are hardly job killers. Instead, the magazine points out, they typically "wind up creating about as many jobs as they kill." In the process, they also mitigate major social problems, as Coca-Cola and Pepsi just proved.</p><p>In a move that could serve as the singular parable about the value of regulation, the two soft drink behemoths recently announced they "are making changes to the production of an ingredient in their namesake colas to avoid the need to label the packages with a cancer warning," according to <a href="http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL2E8E9B1420120309">Reuters</a>. The shift comes in the face of a science-based decision to designate the ingredient a potential carcinogen, which then subjected it to a California regulation mandating disclosure of such compounds to consumers.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/what_corporations_dont_want_you_to_know/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/what_corporations_dont_want_you_to_know/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The triumph of Jamie Oliver&#8217;s &#8220;nemesis&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/31/jamie_oliver_gilt_piece/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/31/jamie_oliver_gilt_piece/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reality TV]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/food/feature/2011/08/31/jamie_oliver_gilt_piece</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The culinary crusader barged into West Virginia for a reality show. Now his on-screen rival is making her own magic]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was all I could do not to scarf the entire stromboli, neatly packaged for me in a Styrofoam clamshell, while in the car. The dough was soft. The balance of ham and mozzarella, just right. And so, only about half was left when I parked on Third Avenue, the main drag in Huntington, West Virginia, and offered a bite to some friends.</p><p>"Wow. That's great," said one.</p><p>"Yeah, where'd you get that?" asked another.</p><p>"You'll never believe it," I told them. "This is school lunch."</p><p>
    <a href="http://www.gilttaste.com"><br />
      <img class='wp-image-10008096' src='http://media.salon.com/2011/08/ID_giltTaste.gif' /><br />
    </a>
  </p><p>Times have changed since celebrity chef Jamie Oliver broadcast startling and deliberately inflammatory&#8212;this was reality TV, after all&#8212; images of kids here dumping trays of fresh food untouched into the trash. For those of you who missed, Oliver's prime-time program, "Food Revolution," the British chef arrived in Huntington in 2009 after it was named the most unhealthy metropolitan area in America and went to work ousting greasy burgers and pizza in favor of from-scratch meals made with fresh ingredients. Two years later, on the first week of school, which began in mid-August, students in Cabell County sat down to meals of from-scratch chicken quesadillas and brown rice and, on the day I visited, creamy chicken and noodles served with freshly made coleslaw, steamed broccoli with parmesan, an orange and hot rolls, the smell of which floated enticingly through the halls.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/31/jamie_oliver_gilt_piece/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/31/jamie_oliver_gilt_piece/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The right&#8217;s weird Michelle Obama problem</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/13/michelle_obama_resentment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/13/michelle_obama_resentment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matt Drudge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michelle Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obesity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/07/12/michelle_obama_resentment</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[They hate her because she ate a hamburger even though she wants children to be healthy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was just stupid when the Washington Post's 44 blog ("Politics and Policy") "reported" that Michelle Obama ate a hamburger. (Or, as Ta-Nehisi Coates said, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/proud-of-being-ignorant/241785/">it was "the dumbest story ever written in all of human history."</a> He's not wrong!) After the right-wing blogs all picked it up, as they were always going to because of their seething, inexplicable hatred for the first lady, though, it became something darker than stupid.</p><p>After everyone else began calling the story dumb and pointless and inane, the Post... <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-we-can-eat/post/poll-is-michelle-obama-a-hypocrite-for-loving-burgers/2011/07/12/gIQATS15AI_blog.html">ran a poll.</a> Now the people can decide if Michelle Obama is "a hypocrite" for eating a hamburger! In order to justify the newsworthiness of "Michelle Obama eating a hamburger," the Post's Tim Carman Googled "Michelle Obama" and "hamburgers," and discovered that she has eaten <em>at least five hamburgers</em> in the past.</p><blockquote>
<p>Type in &#8220;Michelle Obama and salads&#8221; into Google, and you gets tons of hits about her introducing salad bars into schools. But few hits of her ordering salads in public.</p>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/13/michelle_obama_resentment/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/13/michelle_obama_resentment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>149</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beck site: Huckabee does literally want the government to take candy from babies</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/22/beck_huckabee_again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/22/beck_huckabee_again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenn Beck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michelle Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Huckabee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/04/22/beck_huckabee_again</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Another round in the fight over the former governor's supposed "progressive" tendencies]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Outgoing Fox host Glenn Beck recently attacked ongoing Fox host Mike Huckabee for supporting first lady Michelle Obama's anti-childhood obesity campaign (fighting childhood obesity is an attack on our fundamental right to feed children garbage). Huckabee, Beck argued, is a "progressive," and progressives, in Beck's world, are the intellectual descendants of the Nazis themselves.</p><p>Huck <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/21/huckabee_beck">struck back with an entertaining, unedited blog post</a> calling Beck a conspiracy theorist looking for "boogey men" that "he and only he can see." "The First Lady's approach is about personal responsibility," Huckabee wrote, "not the government literally taking candy from a baby's mouth."</p><p>On the Blaze, Beck's news website, Kevin Balfe, Beck's primary ghostwriter, <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/04/22/the-huckabee-lie/">has responded today</a> by calling Huckabee a liar. Because, he argues, Michelle Obama and Mike Huckabee do want to literally take candy from babies' mouths:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/04/22/beck_huckabee_again/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/22/beck_huckabee_again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the rise of food prices all bad?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/01/rising_food_prices/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/01/rising_food_prices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/food/francis_lam/2011/03/31/rising_food_prices</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Outrage abounds over a report that companies are shrinking portions but not prices, but it might be good for us]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Slayers of elitists and other warriors of the downtrodden: Look! I bare my throat to you, fleshy and fat and ripe for the kill. But before you draw your blade, let's talk about this for a minute. Is the increasing cost of food in America an entirely bad thing?</p><p>A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/business/29shrink.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=1&amp;hp">recent report in the New York Times</a> announced that American grocery store "shoppers are paying the same amount, but getting less," and proceeded to quote a woman whose three-box pasta dinner for her large family didn't quite satisfy. She only later realized it was because those boxes now contain 13.5 ounces of noodles, not 16.</p><p>The report goes on to catalog other shrinkages: cans of tuna going from 6 ounces to 5; buckets of ice cream going from 2 liters to 1 &#189;; orange juice from 64 ounces to 59, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/04/01/rising_food_prices/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/01/rising_food_prices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>84</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How do &#8220;natural&#8221; non-sugar sweeteners stack up?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/24/natural_sweeteners/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/24/natural_sweeteners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Faddy foods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/food/feature/2011/03/24/natural_sweeteners</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With Nutrasweet and Splenda taking a hit, we look into -- and taste -- trendy alternatives like agave syrup]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that the artificial sweetener aspartame (Nutrasweet) has <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-10-still-drinking-diet-soda-dont-be-a-fashion-victim-pepsi-strokes">attracted suspicion</a>, you might be thinking twice about <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/01/diet.soda.health/">that daily Diet Coke</a> or Splenda (sucralose) in your coffee. Not that this is surprising; even without the stroke and cancer warnings, the word "artificial" alone conjures up images of shadowy figures in lab coats concocting solutions destined for your stomach. Much more reassuring are images of freshly plowed farms tucked in the mountains, like the one on the jar of Lundberg Family Farms' organic brown rice syrup.</p><p>Brown rice syrup is just one of many "natural" sweeteners that have taken off in the wake of the backlash against artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose, which, of course, were invented to defeat the dietary axis of evil -- refined white sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Once confined to Berkeley communes, these not-refined-sugar, not-man-made substances pose a huge marketing opportunity, since most people who avoid sugar don't want to get cancer but also aren't ready to commit to a joyless, dessert-free existence. Natural sweeteners are the perfect answer to this conundrum. Right?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/03/24/natural_sweeteners/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/24/natural_sweeteners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>50</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dennis Kucinich sues House cafeteria because of a sandwich</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/26/kucinich_sues_sandwich/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/26/kucinich_sues_sandwich/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food fights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. House of Representatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/01/26/kucinich_sues_sandwich</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The diminutive congressman suffered an acute loss of enjoyment after accidentally biting into an olive pit]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The headline basically sums up everything you need to know about this news: Dennis Kucinich is suing the Longworth House Office Building cafeteria <a href="http://gawker.com/5743909/dennis-kucinich-sues-congressional-cafeteria-over-olive-pit">because of a sandwich.</a></p><p>You want more? The friendly Cleveland congressman filed suit against a number of companies that supply and run the congressional eatery, because in 2008 he bit into a "sandwich wrap" of some kind and hurt his teeth on an olive pit.</p><p>According to the suit: "Said sandwich wrap was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption, in that it was represented to contain pitted olives, yet unknown to plaintiff contained an unpitted olive or olives which plaintiff did not reasonably expect to be present in the food prepared for him, and could not visually detect prior to consumption."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/01/26/kucinich_sues_sandwich/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/26/kucinich_sues_sandwich/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>51</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wal-Mart teams up with Michelle Obama on nutrition</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/21/walmart_michelle_obama_food/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/21/walmart_michelle_obama_food/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michelle Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/food/2011/01/21/walmart_michelle_obama_food</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The retail mega-giant will enforce new standards on the food in its stores. Experts weigh in on what this means]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday, Wal-Mart executives <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012001581.html">joined</a> Michelle Obama to announce an ambitious healthy food initiative at a community center in southeast Washington, D.C. Over the next five years, the retail giant will enforce new standards of nutrition in its stores -- a mission very much in line with the first lady's commitment to eradicating childhood obesity. Wal-Mart will also build new stores with grocery departments in so-called food deserts, poor urban areas with little access to affordable fresh fruits and vegetables.</p><p>The new standards dictate that by 2016, Wal-Mart will reduce the sodium content and sugar content as well as completely eradicate transfat in food sold in its stores. All the while, Wal-Mart promises to keep the food cheap. Wal-Mart's executive vice president of corporate affairs, Leslie Dach, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/business/20walmart.html">told</a> the New York Times, "We&#8217;ve always said that we don&#8217;t think the Wal-Mart shopper should have to choose between a product that is healthier for them and what they can afford."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/01/21/walmart_michelle_obama_food/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/21/walmart_michelle_obama_food/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Confessions of an ex-Vitaminwater employee</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/20/vitaminwater_advertising_nutrition_sugar/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/20/vitaminwater_advertising_nutrition_sugar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/food/2011/01/20/vitaminwater_advertising_nutrition_sugar</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During my five years working for the company, I learned how to lie about nutrition to consumers -- with snark!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"Don't ever say 'free,'" my boss told me on my first day working for Vitaminwater. "The word 'free' devalues the product."</p><p>"So what should I say?" I asked.</p><p>"Complimentary."</p><p>For the next five years of my life, I'd choose my words wisely at work. Marketing, I would realize, can be an almost poetic exercise. At least, that's what I told myself after writing literature papers on Saturday nights, when I'd wheel a cooler full of Vitaminwater from party to party on my college campus. I'd storm into dorms not as my sometimes disheveled self but as a Campus Brand Ambassador, a "complimentary" Vitaminwater dispenser versed in all the right answers to all the common questions.</p><p>Almost without fail, question No. 1 is: Are there actually vitamins in this? A close second: How many calories does it have? Which is basically the same question as: How much sugar does it have? Or: Is it supposed to be good for you? Nutritious?</p><p>Yesterday, the British Advertising Standards Authority <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/vitaminwaters-nutrition-c_n_810896.html">banned</a> a Vitaminwater ad for falsely advertising the answers to that last big question. The ad described Vitaminwater as "delicious and nutritious." The watchdog group reprimanded Vitaminwater's new-ish parent company, Coca-Cola Co., for calling a product containing as much sugar as a soft drink "nutritious." As long as the ad disappeared, the company would face no further action.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/01/20/vitaminwater_advertising_nutrition_sugar/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/20/vitaminwater_advertising_nutrition_sugar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Carrie Fisher&#8217;s off-putting Jenny Craig story</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/13/carrie_fisher_jenny_craig_fat_shame/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/13/carrie_fisher_jenny_craig_fat_shame/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Body Wars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Celebrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2011/01/13/carrie_fisher_jenny_craig_fat_shame</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jenny Craig's newest spokeswoman doesn't want to be fat anymore -- and Internet trolls are partly responsible]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In Hollywood, it's perfectly acceptable to be a bipolar recovering addict who believes <a href="http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1207973.php/Carrie_Fisher_haunted_by_dead_gay_Republican_ghost">her house is haunted</a> by the Republican who overdosed in it. In fact, if you're Carrie Fisher, that's pretty much your job description. The 54-year-old actress and author has in recent years skillfully turned the darkest struggles and most painful chapters of her life into incisive, witty commentary, including the bestselling memoir and subsequent hit one-woman show, "Wishful Drinking." But while all the world may adore a tanked-up Alderaan princess, it still does not want a beefed-up one. This week, Fisher announced she has become the new face -- and butt -- of Jenny Craig.</p><p>Why the sudden -- and incredibly public -- effort to slim down? As Fisher said at her press conference Wednesday, "I Googled myself recently without a lubricant and I came across a posting that someone made about me which was, 'What ever happened to Carrie Fisher? She used to be so hot, now she looks like Elton John.' Yeah, that hurt." Chalk up another victory for the haters on the Internet.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/01/13/carrie_fisher_jenny_craig_fat_shame/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/13/carrie_fisher_jenny_craig_fat_shame/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>70</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The next diet fad: Imagine yourself pigging out</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/15/imagine_diet_carey_morewedge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/15/imagine_diet_carey_morewedge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obesity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/food/francis_lam/2010/12/15/imagine_diet_carey_morewedge</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Psychologists discover that food porn can make you calorie-chaste, if you can stand to stare at it for long enough]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Psychologists at Carnegie Mellon, led by the excellently named Carey Morewedge, just published a study in <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1530.short">Science</a> demonstrating the Mother of All Ironies: that if you imagine yourself eating something, you <em>can actually curb your appetite for it</em>. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/science/14tier.html?_r=2&amp;src=dayp&amp;pagewanted=all">Coining it the "Imagine Diet,"</a> New York Times science writer John Tierney has come across what could be his brilliant exit strategy from the paper: Publish a book of pictures of fried chicken and chocolate cake with some meditative instructions, and boom! Set sailing on his new yacht.</p><p>First, he'll have to get over the resistance to this counter-intuitive notion and the anger of the six or seven still-employed magazine food editors in America. I mean, isn't the whole point of food porn to make you drool in your lap and want to tear into a pot pie? Yes, Tierney explains, but there's a difference between the psychological phenomena of "sensitization," which is when picturing that hot, steamy pot pie makes you want it, and "habituation," which is when you get over that desire, satisfying it. What Carey Morewedge (I find it impossible to not say his full name) found was that people can bypass their desire and trigger habituation to food. But to do so, you can't just imagine having it in front of you; that leads to sensitization. You have to really, concertedly imagine yourself in the process of eating it. A bunch of it.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/12/15/imagine_diet_carey_morewedge/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/15/imagine_diet_carey_morewedge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama signs historic school lunch nutrition bill</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/13/us_obama_child_nutrition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/13/us_obama_child_nutrition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/food/feature/2010/12/13/us_obama_child_nutrition</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Law allows USDA to set standards for all food served in schools, and gives the first funding increase in 30 years]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thousands more children would get into school-based meal programs and those lunches and dinners would become more nutritious under a bill President Barack Obama signed into law Monday, part of an administration-wide effort to combat childhood obesity.</p><p>"At a very basic level, this act is about doing what's right for our children," Obama said before signing the bill. The ceremony was moved from the White House, where most signings are held, to an elementary school in the District of Columbia to underscore the point.</p><p>Besides Obama, the bill also was a priority for his wife, Michelle, who launched a national campaign this year against childhood obesity.</p><p>"We can agree that in the wealthiest nation on earth all children should have the basic nutrition they need to learn and grow," Mrs. Obama said. "Nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our children. Nothing."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/12/13/us_obama_child_nutrition/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/13/us_obama_child_nutrition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York hopes to ban spending food stamps on soda</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/07/us_food_stamps_sugary_drinks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/07/us_food_stamps_sugary_drinks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/10/07/us_food_stamps_sugary_drinks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If approved, it would be the first time an item would be banned from the federal program based solely on nutrition]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New Yorkers on food stamps would not be allowed to spend them on sugar-sweetened drinks under an obesity-fighting proposal being floated by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson.</p><p>Bloomberg and Paterson planned to announce Thursday that they are seeking permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the nation's food stamp program, to add sugary drinks to the list of prohibited goods for city residents receiving assistance.</p><p>If approved, it would be the first time an item would be banned from the federal program based solely on nutritional value.</p><p>The idea has been suggested previously, including in 2008 in Maine, where it drew criticism from advocates for the poor who argued it unfairly singled out low-income people and risked scaring off potential needy recipients.</p><p>And in 2004 the USDA rejected Minnesota's plan to ban junk food, including soda and candy, from food stamp purchases, saying it would violate the Food Stamp Act's definition of what is food and could create "confusion and embarrassment" at the register.</p><p>In New York, a proposal to adopt a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened soda failed to get out of the state Legislature earlier this year; Bloomberg backed the state proposal.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/10/07/us_food_stamps_sugary_drinks/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/07/us_food_stamps_sugary_drinks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tuesday link dump: Panel discussion to the dark side</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/05/tuesday_link_dump_20/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/05/tuesday_link_dump_20/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/10/05/tuesday_link_dump</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why we conquered Hawaii, Brazilian school lunches, and exciting news about the corporate tax code]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<ul>
<li>Kids in Brazil <a href="http://markbittman.com/when-it-comes-to-school-lunches-america-is-tr">eat really great-sounding school lunches.</a></li>
<li>Hey, simplifying the corporate tax code <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/our_dumb_corporate_tax_system.html">is a good idea with broad bipartisan support.</a> So let's wait for this to not happen.</li>
<li>Hawaii and the story of <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/daskrapital/2010/10/05/what-does-the-washington-post-have-against-hawaii/">why the right hates aesthetic beauty.</a></li>
<li>"<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/05/national-press-club-panel_n_750775.html">That's right, kids.</a> When your dreams of making a difference have all but faded into an uncertain world in which you never know if you'll have the $75 you need to convince firefighters to extinguish your rapidly burning house, it's time to find a safe haven in the welcoming bosom of public relations."</li>
</ul><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/10/05/tuesday_link_dump_20/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/05/tuesday_link_dump_20/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pour some corn sugar on me</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/15/corn_syrup_reinvention/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/15/corn_syrup_reinvention/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2010/09/15/corn_syrup_reinvention</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[High fructose wants a makeover -- but is it too late to win back our love?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you do when you're famous and you've got a public image problem? You could go on the cover of Vanity Fair and declare that you are <a href="http://www.styleite.com/media/lindsay-lohan-vanity-fair-cover/">"literally falling apart."</a> You could do the VMAs and <a href="http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2010/09/13/ten_best_vma_moments">sing about your own douchiness</a>. You could just <a href="http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/14/laughing_at_mel_gibson/index.html">lay really low</a> and hope everything blows over or, if you're corn syrup, you might try to reinvent yourself and change your name.</p><p>On Tuesday, the Corn Refiners Association, acknowledging that the phrase "high fructose corn syrup" has of late become a shorthand for <a href="http://www.salon.com/food/feature/2010/03/26/high_fructose_corn_syrup_study">"deadly crap,"</a> took a break from sticking pins into its <a href="http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/04/08/pollan/index.html">Michael Pollan</a>-shaped voodoo dolls and applied to the federal government to change its name on food labels to something a little friendlier. Corn syrup would like you to now address it as "corn sugar." Miss Corn Sugar if you're nasty.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/09/15/corn_syrup_reinvention/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/15/corn_syrup_reinvention/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Would you like some Coke with that &#8220;corn sugar&#8221;?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/15/corn_sugar_and_coke/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/15/corn_sugar_and_coke/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[How the World Works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works//2010/09/15/corn_sugar_and_coke</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Need another reminder why too much sweet stuff is bad for us, no matter what we call it? Read "The Coke Machine"]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something tells me that the effort by the Corn Refiners Association to <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/a-new-name-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/">rebrand high-fructose corn syrup as "corn sugar"</a> is not <a href="http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/09/15/corn_syrup_reinvention/index.html">going to go well</a>, even if past name-changing efforts have gone swimmingly. I must confess, I had no idea that the Canadian oil seed industry successfully got the name "low erucic acid rapeseed oil" changed to "canola oil" back in the late 1970s, but we live in a different age today. We have the Internet now, and a billion bloggers will eagerly expose and mock every single use of the term "corn sugar" from now until the entire planet suffocates under the weight of morbidly obese humanity. We will never forget its genesis.</p><p>The corn refining industry says it is worried about "consumer confusion." Why can't Americans understand that high fructose corn syrup is just sugar? It must be the name -- "high fructose corn syrup" sounds spooky and unnatural, a fact that lends subconscious support to the argument that HFCS is a health risk.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/09/15/corn_sugar_and_coke/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/15/corn_sugar_and_coke/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does high-fructose corn syrup cause cancer?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/08/05/fructose_cancer_high_fructose_corn_syrup/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/08/05/fructose_cancer_high_fructose_corn_syrup/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/food/francis_lam/2010/08/04/fructose_cancer_high_fructose_corn_syrup</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new study shows that malignant cells love fructose, but the war against the sweetener isn't really about science]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not since olestra and its unfortunate propensity to cause "leakage" have we seen an industrial food get smacked around like high-fructose corn syrup. Despite protests that it's no different than sugar by groups with P.R.-unfriendly names like the Corn Refiners Association, "waning" would be a polite way to describe its popularity. And with the release of a <a href="http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.abstract">new study</a> that shows that cancer cells find fructose tastier -- and more nutritious! -- than other sugars, might the bell be finally tolling for the sweetener called, unappealingly, HFCS?</p><p>For years, consumers' wariness of HFCS's ubiquity and rumors that it causes anything from obesity to late-stage syphilis have beaten it down like a bag of doorknobs -- and food manufacturers have followed suit with products made with sugar instead. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/business/02syrup.html?ref=conagra_foods_inc">Its sales dropped 9 percent in the U.S.</a> from 2007 to 2009, and are sinking fast. You know you have a P.R. problem when sodas tout themselves as healthy because all their empty calories come from sugar, not your cheaper sugar with a funny name.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/08/05/fructose_cancer_high_fructose_corn_syrup/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/08/05/fructose_cancer_high_fructose_corn_syrup/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>57</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the USDA adding justice to the basic food groups?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/07/01/usda_dietary_guidelines/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/07/01/usda_dietary_guidelines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food fights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obesity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/food/francis_lam/2010/07/01/usda_dietary_guidelines</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the first time ever, our official dietary guidelines might address access to healthy food for poor people]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For wonky nutrition folks, there seems to be some seriously good news brewing at the U.S. Department of Agriculture: The first revamp of the nation's Dietary Guidelines in the Obama era may really care about good nutrition! And not just good nutrition, but good nutrition for everyone, <em>even poor people</em>. Mandated by Congress in 1990 to produce a new version of the guidelines every five years, the USDA is looking at what might be the most progressive version of the guidelines ever ... but what do these guidelines mean anyway?</p><p>First, the good news: The Dietary Guidelines may not mean a whole lot to the average consumer, but they deeply influence decisions made by school and institutional food services, federally funded feeding programs like Meals on Wheels, and food labeling. As our friend <a href="http://open.salon.com/blog/dr_ayala/2010/06/26/what_should_americans_eat_the_2010_dietary_guidelines">Dr. Ayala described in her blog</a>, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently released its report, <a href="https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzhNaP8jBl4rYjc1Y2RhNDMtMDYxZi00NzcwLTg5NGQtNTRlZGNmYzk1YjIw&amp;hl=en">officially recommending</a> a steep drop in sodium intake; a smart, realistic move toward encouraging people to rely less on abstract ideas like recommended daily allowances (put away your nutrition calculators! Wait, you don't have one either?) and to think in more big-picture diet patterns, like Mediterranean or vegetarian diets; and, most intriguingly, it actually addresses the systemic access issues behind much of our obesity problem:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/07/01/usda_dietary_guidelines/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/07/01/usda_dietary_guidelines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McDonald&#8217;s and toy lawsuit: Luring kids into obesity?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/23/mcdonalds_happy_meal_toy_lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/23/mcdonalds_happy_meal_toy_lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obesity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/06/23/mcdonalds_happy_meal_toy_lawsuit</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Does the fast-food giant encourage children to choose unhealthy foods with Happy Meal treats?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A nutrition watchdog group is <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65L4RC20100622?type=domesticNews">threatening</a> McDonald's with a lawsuit over Happy Meals toys, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-06-23-Happymeals23_ST_N.htm">arguing</a> that the treats draw children to unhealthy foods and contribute to childhood obesity.</p><p>As children, one of the first safety lessons we learn is that Bad People Who Want to Hurt Kids might try to lure us in with things we love. We know we're not supposed to fall for lines like, "Hey, come here, I have some candy," or "Do you want to see my puppy? It's in my unmarked white van over there." Well, the Center for Science in the Public Interest is basically saying that McDonald's is like the guy with the white van, and they're not afraid to take action.</p><p>If McDonald's doesn't stop putting toys in Happy Meals, the group plans to sue under consumer protection laws. Lawmakers in Silicon Valley have already banned restaurants from giving away toys with unhealthy meals, a law that takes effect later this summer.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/06/23/mcdonalds_happy_meal_toy_lawsuit/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/23/mcdonalds_happy_meal_toy_lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brown rice lowering diabetes risk?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/14/brown_rice_white_diabetes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/14/brown_rice_white_diabetes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nutrition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/06/14/brown_rice_white_diabetes</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Study indicates that replacing white rice with whole grains may help prevent the disease]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To prevent diabetes, stick to whole grains like brown on rice.</p><p>A new <a href="http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20100614/brown-rice-vs-white-rice-which-is-better">study</a> from the Harvard School of Public Health shows that two or more servings of brown rice per week is associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes, while five or more servings of white rice is linked to a higher risk. This is significant for Americans, since white rice consumption has increased over the past few decades and 18 million Americans suffer from type 2 diabetes.&#160;The study examined rice consumption habits and diabetes in 157,463 women and 39,765 men.</p><p>According to the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704324304575306954059024776.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines">Wall Street Journal</a>, researchers pinpoint white rice's high glycemic index as a possible cause of the correlation with diabetes risk. Diets that involve foods that produce fast, high spikes in blood sugar have been previously linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/06/14/brown_rice_white_diabetes/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/14/brown_rice_white_diabetes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

