<![CDATA[Consumerist: Junk Food]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: Junk Food]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/junk food http://consumerist.com/tag/junk food <![CDATA[ 7 Most Unhealthy Carnival Foods ]]> There are few things in the universe more evil than carnival food. Why do they feed us deep-fried sugary food before we get on rides that spin us around and around? Why is it that carnies aren't all 500 lbs.? Must be the meth. Check out Newsweek's list of the 7 most unhealthy carnival foods.

7. Cotton Candy
One large cone of spun sugar is 200 calories. It's practically health food.

6. Snow Cones
The sugary syrup used is 100 calories an ounce. A 12 oz. snow cone will end up being 550 calories, depending on how syrup-heavy you take it.

5. Corn Dogs
a.k.a the "nitratesicle" contains 375 calories and 21 grams of fat and 1170 mg. of sodium.

4. Deep Fried Twinkie
One deep fried Twinkie contains 420 calories and 32 grams of fat. That doesn't include any sugar or jelly topping.

3. Deep Fried Oreos
Each cookie contains 157 calories and 10.1 grams of fat.

2. Funnel Cake
An 8.3 oz. cake contains 760 calories, 44 grams of fat, 80 grams of carbs and 20 mg. of cholesterol.

1. Deep Fried Candy Bars
Everything from Snickers, Mars, Milkyway and 3 Musketeers is deep-fried and slapped on a stick. A king-size, deep-fried bar has over 700 calories and 44 grams of fat.

It's a good thing you will be spending the day walking. What's your favorite decadent carnival food?

Most Unhealthy Carnival Foods [Newsweek]
(Photo: amyadoyzie)

]]>
Consumerist-5021065 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:43:44 EDT Jay Slatkin http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5021065&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Brawndo Becomes A Real Product, Gets Taste Tested ]]> con_brawndofoodpyramid-1.jpg Remember Brawndo from "Idiocracy"—the world's best and only beverage, the one that mutilates your thirst, and is so awesome that we even use it for irrigation? It's now a real product, for those of you who enjoy mixing satire about commercialism with actual commercialism. (Wait—how does that work?) Naturally nobody over 12 years old or sane will probably want to actually taste it—it's just another bad energy drink with fun packaging—so Sarah at CalorieLab has taken a bullet for the rest of us. Good; now we can go back to watching reruns of "Ow My Balls."

"Taking real-life Brawndo for a test drive" [CalorieLab]

]]>
Consumerist-335009 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:00:49 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=335009&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Congress Set To Ban Soda, Junk Food From Schools ]]> Snickers and Cokes would be a thing of the past at school cafeterias and vending machines if the Senate approves an ambitious amendment from Senators Harkin (D-IA) and Murkowsky (R-AK). The amendment to the Farm Bill would establish strict federal guidelines limiting the sale of deliciously unhealthy treats brimming with sugar, salt, and fat.

The nutrition standards would allow only plain bottled water and eight-ounce servings of fruit juice or plain or flavored low-fat milk with up to 170 calories to be sold in elementary and middle schools. High school students could also buy diet soda or, in places like school gyms, sports drinks. Other drinks with as many as 66 calories per eight ounces could be sold in high schools, but that threshold would drop to 25 calories per eight-ounce serving in five years.

Food for sale would have to be limited in saturated and trans fat and have less than 35 percent sugar. Sodium would be limited, and snacks must have no more than 180 calories per serving for middle and elementary schools and 200 calories for high schools.

The standards would not affect occasional fund-raising projects, like Girl Scout cookie sales.

Although states would not be able to pass stronger restrictions, individual school districts could.

The rules have the support of food and drink manufacturers, including the American Beverage Association, which worked closely on the amendment with Mr. Harkin's office and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group that has been critical of the food industry.

"This whole effort has momentum because of the variety of interests that have come together who do not usually find agreement," said Susan Neely, president of the beverage association.

Some parents and nutritionists are angry that states will not be able to enact even tougher limits.

The inclusion of state-level preemption is angering several advocates, but makes the compromise palatable to the industry. Once advocates of local control, the sugar makers are betting that Congress will be less eager than adventurous states to maintain tough regulations that could harm their business.

The amendment's fate - and that of the larger farm bill - is precariously uncertain. Senate Republican's derailed the chamber's last attempt to bring up the farm bill by demanding the right to offer amendments repealing the estate tax and adjusting the alternative minimum tax. Cloture was rejected 55-42. Senate leadership is expected to wedge the Farm Bill back onto the crowded floor schedule for debate early next week.

Effort to Limit Junk Food in Schools Faces Hurdles [NYT]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
(Photo: Scott Ableman)

]]>
Consumerist-328944 Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:45:38 EST Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=328944&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Cereal Makers Target Kids, Evade Junk Food Advertising Ban ]]> Crafty cereal makers may weasel out of their promise to stop advertising junk food to audiences under 12 by fudging serving size information. Eleven cereal makers last week set the threshold for products advertised to children at 12 grams of sugar per serving. According to the New York Times' original coverage, many cereal makers are already "trying to reformulate the foods to meet nutritional guidelines." Why reformulate when you can change the labels?

Much of General Mills' serving size information is arbitrary. Take their line of Total: The serving size for Total and Total Honey Nut Clusters is 3/4 cup, which fluctuates between 30 grams for the former, and 48 grams for the latter. Compare that to Total Cranberry Crunch and Total Raisin Bran, which have larger serving sizes of 1 cup, or 53 grams. Total's mass remains roughly the same mass regardless of whether it has raisins, cranberries, or honey nut clusters.

The standard USDA serving size is 30 grams. For Cocoa Puffs, General Mills uses a serving size of 27 grams. Under the USDA's serving size, Cocoa Puffs have 14 grams of sugar, which would make them subject to the advertising ban; but by using a serving size of 27 grams, the sugar content drops to 12 grams per serving, meaning that General Mills can peddle their sugar puffs to kids without restriction.

Now compare that to General Mills' treatment of Trix, which has a serving size of 32 grams. According to the both the USDA and General Mills, Trix have 13 grams of sugar, making them subject to the advertising ban. When the serving sizes are equal, Cocoa Puffs have more sugar than Trix; yet Cocoa Puffs will be advertised to children, while Trix, the cereal with less sugar, will be kept from audiences under 12.

Despite the labels, these trix are not at all sweet.

Trix indeed [U.S. Food Policy]
Cereals [General Mills]
Cocoa Puffs [NutritionData]
Trix [NutritionData]
PREVIOUSLY: Should We Unilaterally Ban Junk Food Advertising Targeting Children

]]>
Consumerist-281087 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:42:17 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=281087&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Should We Unilaterally Ban Junk Food Advertising Targetting Children? ]]> obesechild.jpgThe New York Times reports that eleven huge food companies, in the face of regulatory intervention, lawsuits, and a forthcoming government study on childhood obesity, agreed to voluntarily withdraw junk food advertising from children's TV shows targeted at an under-12 audience.

But does it go far enough? TV is just one component of the advertising spectrum, and the industry's move won't apply to "family"-type shows.

Maybe we should treat treat junk food ads like cigarette ads...

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

]]>
Consumerist-279678 Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:08:15 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=279678&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Put Down the Bag of Chips, and Drink From the Bottle of Oil ]]> chugchugchug.jpgWe're not sure what's more horrifying: The fact that half of British schoolchildren eat a pack of potato chips (or crisps, if you prefer) every single day, or the fact that such a rate of chip consumption means you're ingesting more than a gallon of vegetable oil every year.

That's a lot of oil, but split it up over 365 days, and it's not quite as scary. What's worse? How about eating a Hardee's 1,420-calorie Monster Thickburger, which gives you the privilege of ingesting 107 grams of fat in one sitting. Americans aren't shying away from the mega-calorie foods, according to new reports. Hopefully no one does THAT every day.

But telling you that fast food is bad for you and that fried slices of potato are full of fat is not exactly surprising. And there's no way that awareness of oil in food is going to stop us from eating the occasional bag of chips. In reality, we just wanted to use this photo in a post.

A packet of crisps a day? That's 5 litres of cooking oil in a year [Times Online]

]]>
Consumerist-202703 Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:48:15 EDT consumerist.com http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=202703&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Why Does Ronald McDonald Hate Black Children? ]]> blacksmcdonalds-735921.jpgThe Chicago Sun Times reported on the exorbitant amount of fast and junk food advertisements that dominate black-oriented television networks like BET. They compared them against the junk food ads on the WB and the Disney Channel. Here are the results, for children's programming exclusively:

About 66 percent of the fast-food ads were on BET, compared with 34 percent on WB and none on Disney. For drinks, 82 percent were on BET, 11 percent on WB and 6 percent on Disney, and for snacks, 60 percent were on BET, none on WB and 40 percent on Disney.

The article also mentions that kids ingest an extra 167 calories for every hour of television they watch. Wait until they start drinking beer.

Study: Ads on BET heavy on the fast food (Thanks, Media Orchard! We stole your image.)

]]>
Consumerist-165162 Wed, 05 Apr 2006 06:20:06 EDT consumerist.com http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=165162&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Jeremy Scott's Fast Food Fashion ]]> An insider source at New York Mag points us to these photos Jeremy Scott s fashion show last week. As the photo series demonstrates, apparently the high fashion you should sprint out to buy next fall is junk-food themed sleeper ware, complete with over-sized donut bracelets.

Pizza, hotdogs, burgers, fries and ice-cream are among the gut-busters showcased in the carnival of calories. We were into the one with the girl sporting a yellow cubic pattern until we realized those were fries. Note too that the face on the fry box bares a striking resemblance to Meatwad from Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

Extravagant couture whereby a dress is transformed into a spindly, sequin encrusted clamshell? That we can deal with, but it s simply stupefying that we should be expected to wear a giant burger shirt complete with 3D frilly lettuce detail. Not to mention disgusting.

Jeremy Scott s bio states that his, collections are narcissistic without apology, theatrical beyond compare, and designed for women who love to dress up and play the part of ultimate diva. The ultimate double-whopper with cheese and bacon diva, that is. Among the celebrities sporting the gear after too many chocolate shake brain freezes are Bjork, Cameron Diaz, Christina Aguilera, Kylie Minogue and Madonna. The others we can understand but Cameron! You re the virgin suicide from next door we wanted to take to the prom and bone on the top of Lookout Mountain! Two all-beef patties slathered in a Snickers bar is not your look, baby. Or for that matter, anyone else's.

Jeremy Scott Fall 2006 Collection [New York Magazine]

]]>
Consumerist-154380 Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:03:50 EST popkin http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=154380&view=rss&microfeed=true