Recently, Mayor Michael Bloomberg in New York City started a war where banning soda pop became the heated issue. Well, beyond the obvious comparisons to Hitler doing the same thing for the same reasons, it did get some talking started about what exactly is healthy for us to drink or eat. Bloomberg himself fell under fire upon review as most of the things he's been banning are proving to be more healthy for you than many of the things he's banned... and then, there is the hypocrisy. He banned transfat in NYC in regard to restaurants and fast food on behalf of the poor more than any other group. However, he did not ban any pre packaged factory sealed products with transfat which are the primary foods many who are poor eat because of their lower cost.

Did you know that "No Calorie" foods and drinks are worse for you than high calorie options? How can this be you ask? No Calorie doesn't mean there's no calories, it means there's no nutritional value in the calories so it "doesn't" harm you as there are no bad calories either. No calories means empty calories which is like eating rocks as they still take up space inside your body and your body cannot easily burn these calories to remove them because there's almost nothing in them to burn. This means your body stores these empty calories just as it would regular calories but they stay there longer and to make room for regular calories, your body has to expand because the empty calories are still hanging around... aka, you get fat and it's more difficult to slim down.

What about carbohydrates? True, most carbs could be considered to be bad for you because they become sugars in your body. However, there is such a thing as "good carbs" which include things like fiber which actually helps your body to absorb sugars more slowly which helps your body better handle them... which for diabetics is actually a good thing which is why you are told to eat things like banana's, beans and whole wheat bread. It's not that they are not bad for you, it's that they are actually good for you. However, almost all the news you get about carbs is that they are bad and you should eliminate as many as you can. The problem is that your body actually needs a certain amount of carbs and this can differ from person to person as some need a higher carb content and others need less.

Now, we have Nectress. A new "natural" sweetener for you which you are told has no sugar in it... which turns out to be a bold faced lie lol.

The first and most abundant ingredient in Nectresse is actually erythritol, a sugar alcohol commonly derived from corn, the vast majority of which has been genetically modified (GM) in the U.S. The second ingredient in Nectresse is sugar, which is refined and more than likely comes from GM sugar beets. The third ingredient in Nectresse is monk fruit, which McNeil explains is extracted using a natural process involving both water and heat rather than chemicals -- this is good. But the fourth and final ingredient in Nectresse is molasses, which once again is a sugar that more than likely was derived from GM sugar beets -- producers that use sugar from sugar cane, after all, typically indicate this on their ingredient labels.

So this sweetener advertises itself as natural, no calorie and no sugar when sugar is an ingredient in it and it derives it's sugars from special processing including genetically altered corn.

Then we have all the artificial sweeteners health food activists were demanding in the 1960's and 1970's with everyone warning you cannot create an artificial sweetener without numerous health risks because of how our bodies process sugars. When the warnings were ignored and tests revealed health risks like cancer, then these same people began to attack the corporations producing artificial sweeteners who were only providing products these people were demanding.

Even with the above mentioned Nectresse, the health conscious consumers are demanding natural alternatives to sugar cane and other processed sugars.

But here's the thing, the only ingredient Nectress possesses which is good for you is the monk fruit which is up to 200 times stronger than the sweetness in sugar. So why is Splenda adding all these other sweeteners? Because the monk fruit they base all their claims on is expensive but not so expensive that it could not be produced with just the monk fruit as it can be sold at the same price as Nectresse... but they lose a lot of profit doing it. There is so little monk fruit in Nectresse that it's actually the other sweeteners you are absorbing into your body making up that sweet taste. And they charge you an arm and a leg for this when it's little better than Splenda's other artificial sweeteners and it costs less to produce... can you say "rip off"?

And notice it advertises as "No Calorie"... so you get those empty calories which help make you fat and you're adding even more of them to your system when the point for dieters is losing weight and eating healthier... No Calories is a bad joke.

This just goes to prove what I have been saying about these politicians trying to do what's "good for us"... they're just focusing on whatever might get them votes. While they focus on the bad things we ingest, food and drink providers simply replace these bad ingredients that are under fire from health food activists and nutritionists... and replace them with things not under fire which is actually worse for us than what they are removing.

So if you are health conscious and want to eat better, don't believe what you are being told as maybe the transfats aren't as bad for you as the things they'll be replaced by and you will learn later, to your horror, is worse for you than those transfats and sugars you thought were evil incarnate.