If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courthouse News Service)   You know that American Heart Association checkmark seal of approval on all the food you buy that's heart healthy? Yeah, about that   (courthousenews.com) divider line 33
    More: Asinine, American Heart Association, certification mark  
•       •       •

2877 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Aug 2013 at 4:10 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-18 02:58:53 AM
Lucky for me I don't pay attention to that seal of approval b.s, I eat whatever will make most doctors cry when they give me a physical.
 
2013-08-18 03:01:59 AM
In most every regard America is a lie.
 
2013-08-18 03:49:56 AM
Just to celebrate I'm gonna go eat a metric f*ckton of eggs cooked in butter.
 
2013-08-18 04:07:14 AM
The stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame are also paid for. Whatevs.
 
2013-08-18 04:25:14 AM
The healthy heart tick here means something's low fat only.  It literally means nothing regarding carbs/sugar.  A bag of cane sugar would get the healthy heart tick.

I have many times had to patiently explain to people that getting the "lite" version because it has 1gm less fat is meaningless if it has 10g more sugar.
 
2013-08-18 05:47:49 AM

if_i_really_have_to: The healthy heart tick here means something's low fat only.  It literally means nothing regarding carbs/sugar.  A bag of cane sugar would get the healthy heart tick.


Yeah, it's primarily based on saturated fats, and percent of calories from fat.  The only complaint here seems to be about sodium in soup.  Sodium has been shown many times over to NOT be the blood pressure aggravator it was once thought to be decades ago. (Scientific American survey of 6000 studies)

O'Shea seeks restitution and damages for consumer fraud, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. someone else's money.  Period.

Sorry frivolous lawsuit person.  You lose.
 
2013-08-18 05:51:53 AM
As alleged herein, the AHA, for a fee, abandons its general, noncommercial dietary and nutritional guidelines - which categorically rule out unhealthy processed products, including Campbell's soups, as demonstrated below - and agrees to certify as heart-healthy products that merely meet the minimum criteria for certain FDA-regulated health claims, rather than the AHA's own more demeaning standards.

That word -- I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
2013-08-18 06:35:19 AM
You mean somebody actually believes those labels mean something other than that somebody paid to get a label? Honestly?
serious?letmelaughharder.jpg
 
2013-08-18 06:42:20 AM

Kittypie070: Just to celebrate I'm gonna go eat a metric f*ckton of eggs cooked in butter.


go ...   ... on ....
 
2013-08-18 06:45:42 AM
After Komen's pink washing and how BS the label "organic" etc. is in most states, people take those labels seriously still?
 
2013-08-18 07:44:44 AM
While this kinda does piss me off since I am on a strict diet and I do use those labels, I really don't care enough about it to be outraged.

At least I know what to avoid now
 
2013-08-18 08:03:42 AM
Read the ingredients and the basic nutritional info. It is literally the only part of the packaging which has any meaning whatsoever. Everything else is lies. It tells you something that companies are fighting very hard to have the nutritional info regulations removed.
 
2013-08-18 08:14:49 AM

if_i_really_have_to: The healthy heart tick here means something's low fat only.  It literally means nothing regarding carbs/sugar.  A bag of cane sugar would get the healthy heart tick.

I have many times had to patiently explain to people that getting the "lite" version because it has 1gm less fat is meaningless if it has 10g more sugar.


I often wonder why people don't get this.  They will obsess about that last gram of fat and then wash down that lowfat meal with a 32 oz. Coke that has 6 teaspoons of sugar in it.  I was hypoglycemic for years until I got the sugar/carb consumption under control.  We really need a new approach to nutrition.
 
2013-08-18 08:15:06 AM
I always wondered how "heart healthy" Campbell's soup really is considering there's almost a gram of sodium in one little can.
 
2013-08-18 08:28:04 AM
Obvious tag unavailable, receiving triple bypass.
 
2013-08-18 08:44:19 AM

DubyaHater: I always wondered how "heart healthy" Campbell's soup really is considering there's almost a gram of sodium in one little can.


because sodium isn't bad for you?
 
2013-08-18 10:14:03 AM
BBB, AHA, ADA, AARP, AAA, USA ... they all had integrity once upon a time.
 
2013-08-18 10:21:41 AM
At least I'm no longer forced to jump rope.
 
2013-08-18 10:33:04 AM
It's really stupid since dietary fat isn't even bad. You want 30% of your calories from fat
 
2013-08-18 11:22:18 AM

AngryDragon: if_i_really_have_to: The healthy heart tick here means something's low fat only.  It literally means nothing regarding carbs/sugar.  A bag of cane sugar would get the healthy heart tick.

I have many times had to patiently explain to people that getting the "lite" version because it has 1gm less fat is meaningless if it has 10g more sugar.

I often wonder why people don't get this.  They will obsess about that last gram of fat and then wash down that lowfat meal with a 32 oz. Coke that has 6 teaspoons of sugar in it.  I was hypoglycemic for years until I got the sugar/carb consumption under control.  We really need a new approach to nutrition.




I see this all the time with people who drink skim milk (1%) instead of whole milk (3%). I always ask them, why don't you just throw away a table spot of the whole milk and drink that instead?

/IIRC someone successfully sued and milk producers can no longer put "low fat" labels any more since 1%-2% does not qualify as "low".
 
2013-08-18 12:12:10 PM

machoprogrammer: It's really stupid since dietary fat isn't even bad. You want 30% of your calories from fat


coupla things -

30% is the recommended maximum for adults.  Not a minimum or "how much you want".

Not all fats are the same.  There is strong evidence that a higher percentage of saturated fat is correlated with coronary heart disease.  In other words, getting 30% of fat from dairy and red meat is probably less heart healthy than getting it from fish and vegetable sources.  In summary - some fats are bad in excess.

It seems likely that the American diet includes a lot, perhaps even too much, fat; especially saturated fat.  If we had an epidemic of people suffering from fat deprivation in the U.S I would probably agree with you that this is stupid.  As it is, we have an epidemic of obesity. Though I wouldn't be able to provide a source to support this assertion, I strongly suspect that most Americans don't read the nutrition label and do the factional math in their head while shopping.  If a convenient recognizable symbol is provided,I don't see how it could possibly be interpreted as a bad or "stupid" thing.
 
2013-08-18 12:21:21 PM
Wait, a lawyer is claiming that the deep-pocketed company he's suing is doing something bad?

Call me when there's a finding that Campbell's actually did what the lawyer is claiming.  Until then, it's just a press release by one side in a lawsuit.
 
2013-08-18 02:46:37 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: if_i_really_have_to: The healthy heart tick here means something's low fat only.  It literally means nothing regarding carbs/sugar.  A bag of cane sugar would get the healthy heart tick.

Yeah, it's primarily based on saturated fats, and percent of calories from fat.  The only complaint here seems to be about sodium in soup.  Sodium has been shown many times over to NOT be the blood pressure aggravator it was once thought to be decades ago. (Scientific American survey of 6000 studies)

O'Shea seeks restitution and damages for consumer fraud, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. someone else's money.  Period.

Sorry frivolous lawsuit person.  You lose.


It's pretty generic, and in all likelihood not just concerning sodium content. HFCS would be one of them, which my girlfriend was amazed to see as one of the main ingredients alongside the heart-healthy badge. Specifically, the lawsuit is concerning the AHA's usage of it's Heart Healthy logo, which is used with foods that really are, and also along with foods that are not good but whose manufacturer paid a licensing fee. It's potentially false advertisement, and I hope they win. It's hard enough to find good foods, and we really don't need a company LYING to us telling us it is.

Also, you're misrepresenting the study's findings, as per the article you cite. It found that cutting sodium intake has no effect of reducing cardiovascular disease (heart attacks and strokes) for people that already have hypertension. (Which is not the same as saying increasing sodium intake doesn't cause cardiovascular disease.) It also found that lower sodium intakes were correlated with increased risk of fatal cardiovascular disease. (Could that be because the diet in question had sodium replaced with HFCS?)

Of course, I don't believe that sodium is bad, but when you combine it's effects with inflammatory properties of HFCS and low water intake of course it's going to be a contributing factor. (Let's not forget about chronic stress!) My advice is to eat all the salt you want, but have plenty of water and few diuretics in your diet.
 
2013-08-18 05:39:57 PM

wademh: You mean somebody actually believes those labels mean something other than that somebody paid to get a label? Honestly?
serious?letmelaughharder.jpg


wait...the walmart brand "organic" eggs didn't come from chickens living in a utopian paradise?  i don't know what to believe anymore.
 
2013-08-18 05:44:16 PM

DubyaHater: I always wondered how "heart healthy" Campbell's soup really is considering there's almost a gram of sodium in one little can.


You have to be able to stand eating the stuff before it matters how heart healthy it is. To me it tastes so disgustingly like swallowing sea water that when I do get sucked in by an appealing looking can of soup I can never successfully stomach more than a few bites. I suspect anyone who is affected by the check mark has already done a decent job oversaturating their salt taste buds.
 
2013-08-18 06:11:08 PM
i haven't had a can of campbell's soup since i was like 12.  these days i just use them as components for cooking other dishes.
 
2013-08-18 06:37:40 PM
"unhealthy, processed" seem to be the same thing in this wacko's tiny brain. There's many foods that if you don't process them, you will die.
 
2013-08-18 07:13:11 PM

Kittypie070: Just to celebrate I'm gonna go eat a metric f*ckton of eggs cooked in butter.


That would be good for your heart so long as you replaced other calories with it.
 
2013-08-18 07:25:11 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: machoprogrammer: It's really stupid since dietary fat isn't even bad. You want 30% of your calories from fat

coupla things -

30% is the recommended maximum for adults.  Not a minimum or "how much you want".

Not all fats are the same.  There is strong evidence that a higher percentage of saturated fat is correlated with coronary heart disease.  In other words, getting 30% of fat from dairy and red meat is probably less heart healthy than getting it from fish and vegetable sources.  In summary - some fats are bad in excess.

It seems likely that the American diet includes a lot, perhaps even too much, fat; especially saturated fat.  If we had an epidemic of people suffering from fat deprivation in the U.S I would probably agree with you that this is stupid.  As it is, we have an epidemic of obesity. Though I wouldn't be able to provide a source to support this assertion, I strongly suspect that most Americans don't read the nutrition label and do the factional math in their head while shopping.  If a convenient recognizable symbol is provided,I don't see how it could possibly be interpreted as a bad or "stupid" thing.


The main issue is we rely too much on correlations. If being fat and lazy is unhealthy, then all sorts of non-causal food items will be popping up, including anything cheap to produce and easy to purchase.

Considering the very start of "meat is bad" came from a correlation that didn't account for the soda and fries consumed at the same time as the burgers it looked at AND threw out countries with high meat that weren't showing bad hearts, I find the whole thing laughable.

Get some twins, monitor their diets and exercise, and see where they end up. Otherwise we'll see this nonsense go on for another fifty years.
 
2013-08-19 12:21:45 AM
Look for the

P.L.U.G.
Prophet of Loss Universal Guarantee

You can trust that if a product, company, or service bears this seal, you know someone paid me money ... an obscene amount of money. I guarantee it!
 
2013-08-19 07:01:13 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: If we had an epidemic of people suffering from fat deprivation in the U.S I would probably agree with you that this is stupid. As it is, we have an epidemic of obesity.


The epidemic of obesity started precisely when everyone started obsessing about fat and switched to massive carb eating.
 
2013-08-19 09:48:10 AM
If this bothers you, don't ever look into what it takes to get an "EnergyStar" compliance certification.

Bottom line, ignore certifications, they're meaningless at best, misleading lies at worst.
 
2013-08-19 10:55:30 AM

jjorsett: If this bothers you, don't ever look into what it takes to get an "EnergyStar" compliance certification.

Bottom line, ignore certifications, they're meaningless at best, misleading lies at worst.


Mine has the highest rating possible. It gets that by having a dishwashing cycle called energy-saver, which cannot clean dishes.

It also has an ultra heavy high pressure jet pot scrubber cycle :)
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report