Published April 22, 2012

FoxNews.com

Spiritual disciplines are the habits we keep that connect us to God. They come from the Jewish conviction that action shapes and reveals what we ultimately believe. Our faith might come and go, but our actions should never waiver. This can be true for people of all faith claims.

We dance in rhythm with God when we keep the Sabbath. The reason we are called to take a day of rest is simple. Humans tend to forget that we did not make the world and thus, that the world does not depend upon us.

Barbara Brown Taylor tells a story about a friend, David, growing up in Atlanta and what he taught her about fidelity to God:

When I was a junior in high school, my boyfriend Herb played on the varsity basketball team. He was not the star player however. The star player was a boy named David, who scored so many points during his four-year career that the coach retired his jersey when he graduated. This would have been remarkable under any circumstances, but it was doubly so since David did not play on Friday nights.

On Friday nights, David observed the Sabbath with the rest of his family, who generously withdrew when David’s gentile friends arrived, sweaty and defeated, after Friday night home games.

Following each Friday night game, David’s friends came to his house to describe the game in great detail. “Blow by blow” the gentiles were allowed to speak and create worlds in David’s living room. Someone in the room asked if it bothered him to sit at home while his team “was getting slaughtered in the high school gymnasium.”

“No one makes me do this,” he said. “I’m a Jew, and Jews observe the Sabbath.” Six days a week, he said, he loved nothing more than playing basketball and he gladly gave all he had to the game. On the seventh day, he loved being Jewish more than he loved playing basketball, and he just as gladly gave all he had to the Sabbath. Sure, he felt a tug, but that was the whole point. Sabbath was his chance to remember what was really real. Once three stars were visible in the Friday night sky, his identity as a Jew was more real to him than his identity as the star of our basketball team.”

It is essential for Christians to create regular, intentional spaces of time in which we do not work, e-mail, fax, clean, or do laundry.

A time when we allow our hearts to settle and the voices to hush. Sabbath is a time when we remember that God made the world and rested; that He calls us to rest with him, to hear his voice, to be aware of his presence.

And it is a time to remember, according to the Hebrew Testament teaching on Sabbath and Jubilee, that there will be a day when all peoples of the world will rest—not just the ones who can financially afford to take a day off.

Sabbath-keeping reminds us that we are pilgrims in a foreign land, awaiting the world to become what the world was meant to be.

We remember vividly that, although God made the world, the world is not the way God made it.

When we keep Sabbath, we proclaim to the rest of the world that God is about the business of making things new. God needs a way of reminding us that we are no longer in Egypt, stacking bricks for the Empire. If busyness and idolatry plague our collective life, Sabbath is a means by which we can become more like the person God created us to be.

For the last few years, I’ve rigorously worked to keep a full Sabbath day in my weekly schedule.

It hasn’t always been easy.

Deaths, births, tragedies, miracles, and mundane duties of life show little regard for my personal desire to rest.

Slowly, over time, when those things occur on Sabbath, I’m tempted to jump in and fix everything. Sometimes, when the circumstances demand, I have to get involved. Most of the time, however, keeping Sabbath convicts me that the world can run just fine without me. I see a clear role for myself in the divine story. I am important in this narrative, but I’m not the main point or the main character. Sabbath teaches me this.

Whole. Rested. Listening. Attentive. Cleansed.

This is what Sabbath is about. It creates the space in our lives for us to remember who we are. To remember that we are players in a different story.

Americans work hard. Maybe too hard.

This is an invitation to Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and Christians.

One day a week. Rest. For God’s sake.

Dr. Josh Graves is a minister and writer. You can read his blog @ www.joshugraves.com or follow him on Twitter @joshgraves. His next book, “Heaven on Earth” (Abingdon) comes out in December.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/22/let-make-sunday-day-rest-for-gods-sake/#ixzz1t6RqGW49

How many atheists are there?
It depends on your definition of the term. Only between 1.5 and 4 percent of Americans admit to so-called “hard atheism,” the conviction that no higher power exists. But a much larger share of the American public (19 percent) spurns organized religion in favor of a nondefined skepticism about faith. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the “Nones,” is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. David Silverman, president of American Atheists, claims these Nones as members of his tribe. “If you don’t have a belief in God, you’re an atheist,” he said. “It doesn’t matter what you call yourself.”

Why are so many people leaving religion?
It’s primarily a backlash against the religious Right, say political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell. In their book, American Grace, they argue that the religious Right’s politicization of faith in the 1990s turned younger, socially liberal Christians away from churches, even as conservatives became more zealous. The dropouts were turned off by churches’ Old Testament condemnation of homosexuals, premarital sex, contraception, and abortion. The Catholic Church’s sex scandals also prompted millions to equate religion with moralistic hypocrisy. “While the Republican base has become ever more committed to mixing religion and politics,” Putnam and Campbell write, “the rest of the country has been moving in the opposite direction.” As society becomes more secular, researchers say, doubters are more confident about identifying themselves as nonbelievers. “The collapse of institutional religion in the first 10 years of this century [has] freed so many people to say they don’t really care,” said author Diana Butler Bass.

How are nonbelievers perceived?
Most polls suggest that atheists are among the most disliked groups in the U.S. One study last year asked participants whether a fictional hit-and-run driver was more likely to be an atheist or a rapist. A majority chose atheist. In 2006, another study found that Americans rated atheists as less likely to agree with their vision of America than Muslims, Hispanics, or homosexuals. “Wherever there are religious majorities, atheists are among the least trusted people,” said University of British Columbia sociologist Will M. Gervais. As a result, avowed atheists are rare in nearly all areas of public life. Of the 535 legislators in Congress, for example, only one — Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) — calls himself an atheist. Few sports stars or Hollywood celebrities own up to having no religious faith.

Why so much distrust?
Many Americans raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition are convinced that atheists can have no moral compass. Azim Shariff, a University of Oregon psychologist who studies religious thinking, sums up how believers view nonbelievers: “They don’t fear God, so we should distrust them. They do not have the same moral obligations as others.” The antipathy may have actually grown with the recent emergence of “New Atheist” writers such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, who have launched impassioned attacks on organized religion. Dawkins has encouraged his followers to “ridicule” anyone who could believe in “an unforgiving control freak” and “a capriciously malevolent bully” like the God portrayed in the Old Testament. Dawkins’s harsh approach, said Barbara J. King, an anthropologist at the College of William and Mary, has confirmed “some of the negative stereotypes associated with the nonreligious — intolerance of the faithful, first and foremost.”

How have atheists responded to this negative image?
A coalition of nonbelievers is out to make atheism more acceptable, starting with last month’s “Reason Rally” on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., where thousands stood up for their right to not believe. Silverman of American Atheists, who helped organize the rally, said it was intended to give heart to young, “closet atheists” who fear the social stigma of being “outed,” in much the same way closeted gays do. “We will never be closeted again,” he said. Some within the movement advocate taking a more conciliatory approach to believers, too. Alain de Botton, the Anglo-Swiss writer of the new book Religion for Atheists, assails Dawkins as being “very narrow-minded,” and praises religions as “the most successful educational and intellectual movements the planet has ever witnessed.”

Will atheism ever be accepted?
If growth continues at the current rate, one in four Americans will profess no religious faith within 20 years. Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a “legitimate political segment of the American population,” afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities. But he’s not advocating a complete secular takeover of the U.S. — nor would he be likely to achieve one, given the abiding religious faith of most Americans. “We don’t want the obliteration of religion; we don’t want religion wiped off the face of the earth,” Silverman said. “All we demand is equality.”

Atheists in foxholes
Atheists are barely visible in politics and entertainment, but they are clamoring for recognition in another area of public life — the military. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers estimates that 40,000 soldiers identify as nonbelievers, and counts the most famous casualty of the war in Afghanistan, former NFL star Pat Tillman, as one of its own. In attempting to secure the same rights and support enjoyed by religious soldiers, the association lobbies against the idea that “there are no atheists in foxholes,” and wants “atheist chaplains” made available for the ranks of the armed nonbelievers. Jason Torpy, the association’s president, says that nonbelievers outnumber every religious group in the military except Christians, yet receive no ethical and family counseling geared to their own nonbeliefs. “These are things that chaplains do for everybody,” he said, “except us.”

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/rise-atheism-america-110700315.html

So as people prepare to gather on the National Mall to celebrate their belief in nothingness, we might reasonably wonder what they want.

In the last decade there has been a spate of books denouncing religion and the religious. Leading this crusade are men like Oxford University’s professional atheist Richard Dawkins.

Finding abuses of religion is low hanging fruit—the sexual abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, self-detonating Muslim extremists, snake-handlers, etc.—and Dawkins and his ilk have made a fortune peddling it.

Dawkins has even turned it into a movement. His minions organize conferences, evangelize the believing, and even gather for Sunday meetings.

Paradoxically, it has become a kind of religion, a Church of Unbelief complete with a saint (Christopher Hitchens), a high priest (Richard Dawkins), and holy writ (anything Dawkins writes). And now, with the political nature of this rally, Dawkins is set to become the Pat Robertson of atheism.

But there is something not quite right about all of this. Christianity, whatever the faults of its adherents, has a rich intellectual tradition that has a comprehensive view of life.

It has given rise to the West as we know it. Our laws, arts, governments, and the very framework of our thought find their meaning in Christianity. Take for example the central premise of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal.”

As Indian philosopher and social reformer Vishal Mangalwadi points out, there is nothing self-evidential about the equality of men.

Indeed, that most of the world believes in the inequality of men finds expression in many of the oppressive laws and governments in non-Western traditions. The only way such a statement makes any sense at all is in a Christian context.

Atheism, by contrast, has no creed, no principles, no philosophy, and can give no guidance. It is but to have a settled disposition on a single question: is there a God?

As my friend the late atheist and journalist Christopher Hitchens conceded, “atheism is nothing in itself.”

That not withstanding, atheism does have a history—a bad history. By conservative estimates, the twentieth century, an experiment in secular governance, witnessed the deaths of more than 100 million people. That is more than all the religious wars in all previous centuries combined.

One gets the impression, however, that these so-called “new atheists” listened to John Lennon’s “Imagine” in the black light a few too many times and really believe that a godless society would be utopian in nature.

How we answer the question of God’s existence or non-existence will largely determine our view of man and that, in turn, will determine our view of government.

If, for instance, you do not believe in God, you are likely to conclude that man is a temporal being meant to serve the state, an eternal institution. This is the view of the communist world. Sacrificing a few million people for the sake of building socialist paradise was always deemed an acceptable price to pay.

If, on the other hand, you believe in a just, benevolent God who made man in his own image, you will likely draw a very different conclusion: man is an eternal being that the state, a temporal institution, is meant to serve.

Proponents of a society free from religious influence can point to no nation or civilization that was founded upon atheism that we might call even remotely good. The story of those regimes is well documented and may be summarized in a word—murderous.

What they can point to are secular societies that are still running off of their accumulated Christian capital. But beware. When the fumes in that tank are spent, tyranny cannot be far away.

In his farewell address, George Washington offered a sober warning: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” This he deduced without the benefit of seeing the twentieth century. The eighteenth, it seems, was enough.

So as the rally for nothingness meets to celebrate, well, nothing in particular, reflect for a moment on the world they would give us. One need not imagine it. It has been done.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/24/rally-for-nothing-in-particular/print#ixzz1q8tCt0gc

Is your kitchen more a) MasterChef or b) Fear Factor?

I’m sorry to say, the correct answer is probably B. Thanks to modern food processing techniques, manufacturers are allowing toxic and disease-promoting ingredients to find their way into our food, and in many cases, they’ve invented clever ways to keep them off the ingredient statement.

So with help from Rodale.com writer Leah Zerbe, I’ve narrowed down the most sordid supermarket selections for you. Read on for five of the grossest foods your grocer has to offer. And for more simple secrets that will keep you looking and feeling your best all year long, follow me here on Twitter or sign up for our FREE Eat This, Not That! daily newsletter. You’ll learn how to lose weight without ever dieting again.

Gross Food #5: Grain products

Why it’s gross: Many packaged breads and baked goods contain L-cysteine—a non-essential amino acid made from dissolved human hair (often from China) or duck feathers (mmmm). Food manufacturers use the ingredient as a commercial dough conditioner, meant to improve the texture of breads and baked goods.
Why it’s bad: Eating something derived from the human body violates the religious and ethical beliefs of Muslims and vegans. Plus, eew! If you want to avoid ingesting hair and feathers—and really, who doesn’t?—try eating unprocessed whole grains like oats and brown rice, and make your own baked goods whenever possible.

Gross Food #4: Shrimp

Why it’s gross: Depending on where your shrimp comes from, it could be tainted with chemicals used to clean filthy shrimp-farm pens. Just as disgusting, farmed shrimp from overseas is often full of antibiotics, mouse and rat hair, and pieces of insects (yummy!).
Why it’s bad: Only about 2 percent of all imported seafood is inspected, meaning this nasty stuff is making its way onto your plate. Contaminated shrimp tends to come from critters imported from overseas shrimp farms, so if you’re looking for safer—and more appetizing—options, choose domestic shrimp.

Gross Food #3: Salad dressing

Why it’s gross: Big food corporations often add the chemical titanium dioxide—commonly found in paints and sunscreens—to processed foods like salad dressing, coffee creamers, and canned icing to make them appear whiter.
Why it’s bad: Titanium dioxide is a component of the metallic element titanium, a mined substance that’s sometimes contaminated with toxic lead. Plus, most white dressings (like cream-based ranch) aren’t great for you anyway. Both your health and your waistline will fare better if you go with an olive oil- or vinegar-based salad topper instead. Or, better yet, make your dressing at home.

Gross Food #2: Jelly beans

Why it’s gross: Many artificial food dyes—found in hundreds of everyday foods—are made from petroleum-derived materials. Food producers use these chemical dyes in cereals and candy to make them more “fun” for kids, in pickles to make them appear fresher, and in place of real ingredients in a variety of other packaged foods. Betty Crocker Carrot Cake Mix, for example, is actually a carrot-free product, with “carrot flavored pieces” cooked up from corn syrup and artificial colors Yellow 6 and Red 40. (We reveal more insidious ingredients hiding on supermarket shelves in the 15 Scariest Food Additives.)
Why it’s bad: Orange and purple food dyes have been shown to impair brain function, and other dyes have been linked to ADHD and behavioral problems in kids, as well as brain-cell toxicity. And not only are these additives potentially hazardous, but they’re also a rip-off! It’s cheaper for food companies to use fake dyes in place of real ingredients, so you end up with food frauds like Tropicana Twister Cherry Berry Blast, a “juice” product without a trace of cherry or berry juice (check out our full list of the 20 Worst Drinks in America). Get your brightly colored foods from the produce aisle only!

Gross Food #1: Mushrooms

Why it’s gross: The FDA legally allows 19 maggots—tiny, rice-shaped fly larvae that feast on rotting foods—and 74 mites in every 3.5-ounce can of mushrooms. Bon appetit!
Why it’s bad: While maggots do have their place in the medical world—they can help heal ulcers and other wounds—most of us would agree that they don’t have a place in our mouths. Opt for fresh mushrooms instead, and if you need another reason to ditch canned goods, consider this: Most are lined with bisphenol A (or BPA), a plastic chemical that causes unnatural hormonal changes linked to heart attacks, obesity, and certain cancers.

Source: http://health.yahoo.net/experts/eatthis/5-grossest-foods-supermarket?page=3

The Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary welcomes Michael Kinnamon, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, as the keynote speaker for the annual Seminary Scholarship Symposium. The symposium is held at the Seminary on the campus of Andrews University and runs from Jan. 31–Feb. 3, 2012. The symposium is free and open to the public.

Kinnamon is a prominent religious leader in the United States. He is a clergyman in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and a well-known ecumenical leader and educator, as well as the Allen and Dottie Miller Professor of Mission, Peace, and Ecumenical Studies at Eden Theological Seminary in Lexington, Ky. Previously, he served as the general secretary of the Consultation on Church Union and executive secretary of the World Council of Church’s Commission on Faith and Order. Kinnamon earned his PhD from the University of Chicago Divinity School.

A prominent member of the Ecumenical Movement, Kinnamon firmly believes in the need for unity in the church and works hard to build that unity. “The church is where the Spirit is,” he says. “Look for that when we sit around these tables. Trust that the Spirit has claimed these others. Getting to know one another builds that trust. This is how we deal with ongoing conflicts—not as a political caucus, but as sisters and brothers.”

Denis Fortin, dean of the Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, says, ”Seventh-day Adventists have historically had some thoughtful and serious reservations about the apparent goals of the ecumenical movement. Kinnamon will speak about ecumenism in the United States and share his thoughts on how Adventists can be more involved among other Christian groups.”

Nicholas Miller, associate professor of church history and director of the International Religious Liberty Institute, will give a response to Kinnamon’s address.

“As in other years, the Seminary Scholarship Symposium seeks to provide a good exercise for our professors and students in an appropriate academic setting and offers opportunity for dialogue about various points of view,” says Fortin.

The Seminary Scholarship Symposium begins Tuesday, Jan. 31, with a 10:30 a.m. Recognition Assembly in the Seminary Chapel. This assembly will celebrate selected publications of Seminary faculty in 2011, as well as present the names of those receiving the Augsburger Excellence in Teaching Award and the Horn Excellence in Research Award.

On Thursday, Feb. 2, Kinnamon will present at 10:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. Immediately following, Miller will give a response. Both presentations will take place in the Seminary Chapel. Prior to the 7 p.m. address on Thursday there will be a reception and poster session in the Seminary Commons from 6–7 p.m. The symposium will conclude on Friday, Feb. 3, with two scholarly paper presentations and another poster session. Friday’s presentations begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 1 p.m.

Briefing about Michael Kinnamon’s visit from Denis Fortin, dean of the Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
(Adapted from what was read at Seminary Assembly, Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012)

For the last eight years, the Seminary has held a Scholarship Symposium during which professors and students present the results of their research on a broad range of topics. This Symposium also includes an invitation to a guest speaker who presents a topic of interest to the community. The plenary lecture is given by the guest speaker and a Seminary professor responds to it, followed by questions from the audience.

This year, after consultation with university administrators, the invitation was given to Michael Kinnamon, general secretary of the National Council of Churches. Interestingly, this speaking engagement is one of Kinnamon’s last in his current role as he is returning to teaching.

As a General Conference institution, Andrews University, and the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in particular, is well aware of the responsibility and influence we have with our students, and with the broader Adventist world. We are honored to serve our church as theological thought leaders, and guard carefully the hard-earned trust of our world church and its leadership.

The Seminary Scholarship Symposium is done within an academic context with academic value. Kinnamon will speak at the plenary session on Thursday evening, Feb. 2, about current trends in the ecumenical movement in America and the voice Adventism could have in the Christian world. Then Nicholas Miller, associate professor of church history and director of the International Religious Liberty Institute, will provide our students with a response on behalf of the Seminary.

Our invitation to Michael Kinnamon is also intended to reach out to the wider Michiana community in hopes of attracting local people to Andrews for this lecture and symposium. Kinnamon is very well known and respected in broad circles of Christianity. He is also very active and influential in American politics and religious life. He is known as a spokesperson on various social issues and is passionate about Christianity and religious freedom.

This invitation and lecture should not be perceived or crafted as an attempt at rewriting our historical Adventist faith. We believe in the Three Angels’ Messages and the other tenets of our faith. We continue to promote religious liberty and the freedom of conscience. This is not a first step to join the NCC or any other such organizations and we are not promoting ecumenism. People should not exploit this event to create fear in the hearts of other Adventists.

We are no longer a small, unknown denomination. Seventh-day Adventists have more influence than we think. In some parts of the world, Seventh-day Adventists have been appointed or elected to parliaments; some have been prime ministers. One of our former Seminary students is now Governor General of Jamaica. It’s vital for our students to learn how to dialog and relate to others despite having a differing theology. The ability to understand other viewpoints, including differing religious views, is an essential part of a good education. We hope this academic lecture will help our community get acquainted with a different understanding of Christianity, and help us be able to relate to others once our students are pastors, chaplains and teachers in their communities. We won’t agree with everything Kinnamon will say, but we will listen to him with a respectful yet critical mind.

The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary is a safe place where various ideas can be discussed, examined and critiqued, and in the end, we learn something from it all that will affirm our faith and our walk with our heavenly Father. This is our vision of a great Seminary education.

Source:  http://www.andrews.edu/news/2012/01/symposium.html

Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human bodythat they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases.

Although the commentary might seem straight out of the Journal of Ideas That Will Never Fly, the researchers cite numerous studies and statistics to make their case that added sugar — or, more specifically, sucrose, an even mix of glucose and fructose found inhigh-fructose corn syrup and in table sugar made from sugar cane and sugar beets — has been as detrimental to society as alcohol and tobacco.

Sour words about sugar

The background is well-known: In the United States, more than two-thirds of the population is overweight, and half of them are obese. About 80 percent of those who are obese will have diabetesor metabolic disorders and will have shortened lives, according to the UCSF authors of the commentary, led by Robert Lustig. And about 75 percent of U.S. health-care dollars are spent on diet-related diseases, the authors said.

Worldwide, the obese now greatly outnumber the undernourished, according to the World Health Organization. Obesity is a public health problem in most countries. And chronic diseases related to diet such as heart diseases, diabetes and some cancers — for the first time in human history — kill more people than infectious diseases, according to the United Nations.

Less known, and still debated, is sugar’s role in the obesity and chronic disease pandemic. From an evolutionary perceptive, sugar in the form of fruit was available only a few months of the year, at harvest time, the UCSF researchers said. Similarly, honey was guarded by bees and therefore was a treat, not a dietary staple. [6 Easy Ways to Eat More Fruits & Veggies]

Today, added sugar, as opposed to natural sugars found in fruits, is often added in foods ranging from soup to soda. Americans consume on average more than 600 calories per day from added sugar, equivalent to a whopping 40 teaspoons. “Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy,” the researchers write.

Many researchers are seeing sugar as not just “empty calories,” but rather a chemical that becomes toxic in excess. At issue is the fact that glucose from complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, is safely metabolized by cells throughout the body, but the fructose element of sugar is metabolized primarily by the liver. This is where the trouble can begin — taxing the liver, causing fatty liver disease, and ultimately leading to insulin resistance, the underlying causes of obesity and diabetes.

Added sugar, more so than the fructose in fiber-rich fruit, hits the liver more directly and can cause more damage — in laboratory rodents, anyway. Some researchers, however, remained unconvinced of the evidence of sugar’s toxic effect on the human body at current consumption levels, as high as they are.

Economists to the rescue

Lustig, a medical doctor in UCSF’s Department of Pediatrics, compares added sugar to tobacco and alcohol (coincidentally made from sugar) in that it is addictive, toxic and has a negative impact on society, thus meeting established public health criteria for regulation. Lustig advocates a consumer tax on any product with added sugar.

Among Lustig’s more radical proposals are to ban the sale of sugary drinks to children under age 17 and to tighten zoning laws for the sale of sugary beverages and snacks around schools and in low-income areas plagued by obesity, analogous to alcoholism and alcohol regulation.

Economists, however, debate as to whether a consumer tax — such as a soda tax proposed in many U.S. states — is the most effective means of curbing sugar consumption. Economists at Iowa State University led by John Beghin suggest taxing the sweetener itself at the manufacturer level, not the end product containing sugar.

This concept, published last year in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, would give companies an incentive to add less sweetener to their products. After all, high-fructose corn syrup is ubiquitous in food in part because it is so cheap and serves as a convenient substitute for more high-quality ingredients, such as fresher vegetables in processed foods.

Some researchers argue that saturated fat, not sugar, is the root cause of obesity and chronic disease. Others argue that it is highly processed foods with simple carbohydrates. Still others argue that it is a lack of physical exercise. It could, of course, be a matter of all these issues.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/sugar-regulated-toxin-researchers-180605186.html

But the truth is, you don’t need me to tell you that soda isn’t healthy. We all know that America’s drink of choice contributes to our country’s ever-expanding obesity problem. But, as Rodale.com writer Leah Zerbe discovered, love handles are just the beginning. Read on for her report on three shocking soda facts that will have you saying “Just water, please” from now on.

And for more instant secrets that will keep you healthy and fit all year long, follow me right here on Twitter or sign up for our FREE Eat This, Not That! daily newsletter to lose weight without ever dieting again.

Shocking Soda Fact #1: Soda fattens up your organs

A recent Danish study revealed that drinking non-diet soda leads to dramatic increases in dangerous hard-to-detect fats. Researchers asked participants to drink either regular soda, milk containing the same amount of calories as regular soda, diet cola, or water every day for six months. The results? Total fat mass remained the same across all beverage-consuming groups, but regular-soda drinkers experienced dramatic increases in harmful hidden fats, including liver fat and skeletal fat. The regular-soda group also experienced an 11 percent increase in cholesterol compared to the other groups! And don’t think switching to diet varieties will save you from harm: Artificial sweeteners and food dyes have been linked to brain cell damage and hyperactivity, and research has shown that people who drink diet soda have a higher risk of developing diabetes.

Read out about the 7 biggest food label lies.

FIX IT WITH FOOD: The average American drinks 450 calories a day. By switching to water as your go-to beverage, you’ll make room in your diet for these 40 Foods with Superpowers—foods that, even in moderation, can strengthen your heart, fortify your bones, and boost your metabolism so you can lose weight more quickly.

Shocking Soda Fact #2: Soda contains flame retardants

Some popular soda brands, including Mountain Dew, use brominated vegetable oil—a toxic flame retardant—to keep the artificial flavoring from separating from the rest of the liquid. This hazardous ingredient—sometimes listed as BVO on soda and sports drinks—can cause bromide poisoning symptoms like skin lesions and memory loss, as well as nerve disorders. If that’s not a good enough reason not to “Do the Dew,” I don’t know what is. (We reveal more insidious ingredients hiding onsupermarket shelves in the 15 Scariest Food Additives).

Are you addicted to diet soda? Find out now!

DRINK DISASTERS: Soda isn’t the only dubious drink you have to watch out for. Many bottled beverages pack enough sugar and calories to foil your get-fit plans in one fell sip. Protect yourself by avoiding the 11 Worst Beverages in the Supermarket!

Shocking Soda Fact #3: Drinking soda makes you a lab rat

Many American soda brands are sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, a heart-harming man-made compound derived mainly from genetically engineered corn. The problem? Genetically engineered ingredients have only been in our food chain since the 1990s, and we don’t know their long-term health impacts because the corporations that developed the crops never had to test them for long-term safety. Case in point: Some recent findings suggest that genetically engineered crops are linked to digestive tract damage, accelerated aging, and even infertility!

Source: http://health.yahoo.net/experts/eatthis/3-shocking-soda-facts

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. gross domestic product reached $15.17 trillion at the end of the third quarter 2011. That number is higher today, though a formal report on fourth quarter 2011 growth still has yet to be released. But with the national debt currently at $15.23 trillion and set to go up with the president’s latest debt ceiling increase, the 100 percent GDP-to-debt threshold has been reached.

“It is like watching a horror movie,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told WOKV-AM in Jacksonville on Monday. “You know those movies where the people in the audience are screaming, ‘Don’t go in that door!’ because you know the killer is there? Well, it is the same thing with this debt. We know how this ends.”

What does 100 percent debt-to-GDP spell? Not quite Greece, though, it’s not far off from what sank the European nation.

“The Greek economy is broken. The U.S. economy is not broken,” said former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin, head of American Action Network.

“But if we were so foolish to do things as we are now,” the U.S. economy will break, Holtz-Eakin warned, noting that the debt is equal to the median income of Americans 300 million times over.

“Every American (would have) to give up a year of income to pay it off,” he said of the debt.

A White House official who asked not to be named noted that Obama already has a detailed plan for a balanced approach to cutting $4 trillion in federal red ink.

The White House, supported by congressional Democrats, often points to the recession and soaring debt it inherited from the George W. Bush administration to explain why it had to dive into deficit spending.

But in his 2008 run for office, then-Sen. Barack Obama said stopping the deficit spending is the first step to recovery.  ”The first thing you do when you’re in a hole is what? … You stop digging. So the first thing that we’re going to have to do is to stop adding to our deficit,” he said.

Republicans readily point to that statement as they blame the massive increase in debt on Obama’s economic stimulus plan and health care reform measures — $5 trillion during this administration as the Treasury Department’s own figures show.

“This dismal benchmark underscores the president’s aversion to making tough fiscal choices in an election year,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Finance and Budget committees, said on Monday.

Cornyn said Obama should heed the warning of his fiscal commission and start slashing costly programs from the budget. The fiscal commission recommended cutting $4 trillion over 10 years from spending increases scheduled by the government’s “base-line budgeting” technique.

“Next month, the president will submit his budget to Congress and voters will see if we have a leader who possesses the audacity to right the ship or one who will continue to lead us down a path that has brought economies in Western Europe to their knees.”

The co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform were not immediately available for comment, a spokeswoman told Fox News. In offering their recommendations in December 2010, former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles said the national debt was 62 percent of GDP, which would mean the debt grew two-thirds its size in just one year.

As the president prepares to grapple with rousing complaints about the sluggish economy during a tough reelection year, he announced Monday that he was replacing his chief of staff with his budget chief, Jack Lew, who is integral to the budget debate.

Nearly one year ago, Lew told the Senate Budget Committee that the administration will live within its means.

“Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we’re not adding to the debt anymore; we’re spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing down our national debt,” Lew testified.

But a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, called the president’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal “debt-doubling,” and said Lew had falsely characterized the budget in a claim the White House continues to repeat.

A spokesman for House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy also pointed to the president’s promise in 2009 to cut the deficit in half.by the end of his first term as another broken promise.

“The president’s plan is not panning out as promised,” said McCarthy spokesman Mike Long. “At $15.23 trillion, the national debt is now equal to our economy, and under the president’s watch the debt has grown by $4.6 trillion. It’s clear his economic policies are failing Americans.”

Holtz-Eakin said the president did announce that he wants to chop $489 billion off the defense budget over the next decade, suggesting he is at least looking in the right direction on budget cuts.

But Holtz-Eakin said most bipartisan and nonpartisan analysts say that’s about a tenth of what needs to get done.

“That’s a 10 cents on the dollar down payment,” he told Fox News. Instead, Holtz-Eakin said the administration and Congress have no choice but to look at entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and farm programs, which take up 60 percent of the budget.

Not doing so, he said, is a failure of elected officials.

“What they’re pretending is that they can keep what they have, but they can’t it’s going to fall apart,” he said. “They can take the cuts when the world falls apart or they can fix them now.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/09/republican-blasts-obama-after-national-debt-surpasses-economic-output/#ixzz1j0ooXEXp