Refreshing News

The father of an 11-year-old took a picture of him holding a .22 rifle and posted it on Facebook. Shortly after, an anonymous call was made to New Jersey’s Department of Youth and Family Services, and they showed up at the father’s door demanding to see his firearms or else they would take the child.

Shawn Moore posted on a pro-Second Amendment forum detailing the experience. Moore said two representatives from the state’s social services came to his house on the night of March 15 with four police officers.

They said they were responding to a call about a young boy holding a firearm, and without a search warrant, demanded to see his firearms. Though Moore was not initially there, his wife called him and talked to him throughout until he was able to arrive at the home.

They also called their lawyer, who listened to the exchange between the DYFS, police and Moore’s family. His lawyer told Moore to deny entry to the DYFS.

After he told them they could not enter, a DYFS representative threatened to take his children. When Moore asked for her name, she refused to give it to him and soon left “empty handed and seeing nothing.”

Nappen, Moore’s attorney, told The Blaze more details about the ordeal.

Apparently, the DYFS representative wanted access to the house and gun safe so that she could make sure they were catalogued and “properly registered,” though New Jersey does not require registration.

Nappen said he believes they are still wanting to inspect the house, but assures Moore that it will not happen.

He also said Moore is more than qualified to carry the firearms, as he holds three significant firearms designations, including an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor, NRA Certified Range Safety Instructor, and NJ State Certified Firearms Hunting Instructor.

On top of that, his son is also certified by the state of New Jersey. Anyone under the age of 18 must pass a state firearms hunter safety test in order to go hunting, and Moore’s son did so.

The community of Second Amendment supporters is angered by the incident and has reposted the story on Facebook pages and numerous pro-gun sites.

Moore said on Monday night that the DYFS is still insisting on seeing his safe.

He ended his post by saying, “People it can happen that fast. Most people wouldn’t have stood up to them like I did.”

Good news: Amid the sea of fat-soaked failures that pervade the menus of newer major restaurant and fast-food chains, we uncovered some remarkably smart choices. Even better—most menus contain at least one item that sounds too indulgent, but is actually a veritable guilty pleasure worth ordering, at least every once in a while. Check out this list of surprisingly healthy restaurant foods to make better choices when dining out. You’ll shed pounds and walk away feeling better about your meal—and your body.

20. Guilty Pleasure at Arby's

Super Roast Beef Sandwich

430 calories
17 g fat (5 g saturated, 0.5 g trans)
1,060 mg sodium

Just like a hamburger, this sandwich is piled with lettuce, tomato, and onion. The difference is that Arby's replaces the beef patty with roast beef, which clears off enough excessive fat to make room for indulgent sides or dessert. If this were a burger, you could expect it to weigh in with at least 600 calories.

19. Guilty Pleasure at Atlanta Bread Company

New England Clam Chowder (1 1/4 cup)

190 calories
9 g fat (6 g saturated)
1,240 mg sodium

This isn't an endorsement of clam chowder in general, just ABC's better-than-average bowl. The recipe they use has very little cream, relying instead on milk as the base. It's not the best soup on their menu, but it's probably the least fattening bowl of clam chowder you're likely to come across in any restaurant.

18. Guilty Pleasure at Ben & Jerry's

Half Baked Frozen Yogurt (1/2 cup)

180 calories
3 g fat (1.5 g saturated)
23 g sugars

Frozen yogurt shops are all the rage right now, but Ben & Jerry's has been quietly pumping out low-fat fro-yo for close to 2 decades. Skip the restaurant dessert and swing by here instead. Top a cup with chopped nuts and fresh fruit for one of the finest desserts you'll ever encounter.

17. Guilty Pleasure at Blimpie

Pasta Fagioli with Sausage Soup

150 calories
5 g fat (2 g saturated)
910 mg sodium

It's usually best to avoid meals that center on sausage—the most dubious meat in a restaurant's arsenal. See, most chefs haven't learned to use rich ingredients in moderation. Let this sausage soup be an example to them: It delivers moderate numbers in every nutritional category. Pair with a 6" Club sub for a sub-600 calorie lunch.

16. Guilty Pleasure at Bojangles'

Macaroni & Cheese

240 calories
7 g fat (3 g saturated; 2 g trans)
660 mg sodium

By no means is this the leanest side on the menu, but you won't find a lighter serving of macaroni and cheese anywhere else in the country. Balance it out by picking up the 25-calorie green beans for your second side.

15. Guilty Pleasure at Burger King

BK Single Stacker

370 calories
21 g fat (8 g saturated)
690 mg sodium

Healthier items like to hide in the less-publicized areas of fast food menus. Burger King's Whopper lineup is almost entirely worrisome; The Flame Broiled Burgers are much safer. Bacon cheeseburgers routinely top 1,000 calories—this one is harmless by comparison.

14. Guilty Pleasure at California Pizza Kitchen

Sesame Ginger Chicken Dumplings

465 calories
1 g saturated fat
1,801 mg sodium

There's not a whole lot to this appetizer, just a couple of wonton chicken dumplings, ginger dipping sauce, and a sprinkling of sesame seeds and green onions. That's exactly what makes it one of the lightest appetizers on the menu, and eating it before your meal arrives can do a number on your appetite.

13. Guilty Pleasure at Culver's

Oreo Chocolate Frozen Custard Sandwich

284 calories
14 g fat (6 g saturated)
22 g sugars

It's a massive Oreo cookie made with chocolate custard filling, yet somehow it manages to have only 20 calories more than five real Oreos.

12. Guilty Pleasure at Dairy Queen

All Beef Chili Dog

330 calories
20 g fat (8 g saturated; 0.5 g trans)
1,050 mg sodium

Chili and a hot dog is to the cookout what a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is to the lunch box. Too bad the former doesn't have much to offer nutritionally. But at least DQ's isn't too terrible—especially not when you compare it to the rest of the menu. In fact, propped up next to the GrillBurgers—which average 716 calories—this indulgent lunch looks a lot like health food.

11. Guilty Pleasure at Del Taco

Del Beef Burrito

470 calories
19 g fat (8 g saturated)
1,060 mg sodium

Burritos that won't balloon your belly are the exception rather than the rule, but this surprising Mexican wrap-up from Del Taco makes the grade. As usual, fewer ingredients is the recipe for healthfulness: wrap, beef, sauce, cheese. Don't be tempted by their "Macho" burrito lineup, all of which contain at least 900 calories and 2,000 milligrams of sodium.

10. Guilty Pleasure at El Pollo Loco

Salsa Bar

Salsa is now America's most popular condiment (take that, ketchup). Good thing El Pollo Loco lets you ladle on as much of the topping as you want. The restaurant offers four varieties, and only the Spicy Avocado surpasses 15 calories per a 1.5-ounce serving. The rest are tomato-based, which means that they're loaded with vitamins C and A, as well as the antioxidant lycopene, a carotenoid that has been shown to fight many types of cancer, including breast, prostate, and lung.

9. Guilty Pleasure at Haagen-Dazs

Five Milk Chocolate (1/2 cup)

220 calories
12 g fat (7 g saturated)
20 g sugars

It's not necessarily the fact that you're eating ice cream that's healthy—it's the fact that you're avoiding other, less-wholesome frozen treats. With its "Five" series, Haagen-Dazs scores marketing points—and legitimate nutritional boons—with a core principle of sound eating: The fewer ingredients, the better.

8. Guilty Pleasure at IHOP

Two x Two x Two

540 calories
27 g fat (9 g saturated; 0.5 g trans)
1,250 mg sodium

The "Two x Two x Two" is practically the only breakfast on IHOP's regular menu that wouldn't give a nutritionist a panic attack. Two eggs, two pancakes, and two strips of bacon or sausage links: All your breakfast bases are covered for a reasonable 540 calories. Just take care to watch your saturated fat for the rest of the day.

7. Guilty Pleasure at Jack in the Box

Grilled Chicken Strips (4) with Zesty Marinara Sauce

275 calories
7 g fat (1.5 g saturated)
1,270 mg sodium

This nonfried finger food isn't on the sides menu, but order it anyway to avoid a glut of trans fat. These chicken strips are loaded with 43 grams of protein, so your belly will stay full long after you stop eating. That's a claim French fries can't make.

6. Guilty Pleasure at Long John Silver's

Chocolate Cream Pie

280 calories
17 g fat (10 g saturated)
19 g sugars

Many restaurants treat dessert as an opportunity to stuff as many calories as possible into your belly. A rational indulgence, this refreshing slice from Long John Silver's is the exception that proves the rule. Fellow nautical chain Red Lobster, on the other hand, deviates from their usual nutritional virtue with a crime against your body for dessert: Their Chocolate Wave cake contains a gargantuan 1,490 calories.

5. Guilty Pleasure at McDonald's

McDouble

390 calories
19 g fat (8 g saturated; 1 g trans)
890 mg sodium

Seeing the word "double" anywhere near a menu item is usually a clear warning sign—McD's own 740-calorie Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese is a perfect example. The McDouble, though, is a low-profile winner. You'd be hard pressed to find a lighter double-patty cheeseburger.

4. Guilty Pleasure at Olive Garden

Steak Toscano

590 calories
20 g fat (4.5 g saturated)
1,460 mg sodium

The Olive Garden menu, land of 1,000-calorie pastas, is hiding a surprisingly lean steak entrée. Dodge flabby bullets by choosing the Toscano over nearby menu losers like the 1,510-calorie Pork Milanese.

3. Guilty Pleasure at Papa John's

The Works (2 slices, original crust)

460 calories
18 g fat (8 g saturated)
1,300 mg sodium

As pies topped with "everything" go, this is as good as you're going to get. While the Works is touch too sodium-heavy, Papa John's restraint with fatty cheese is admirable. (As a counter-example, cheesy abandon sinks many new Domino's offerings.) The equivalent pair of slices at Pizza Hut would cost you an additional 120 calories.

2. Guilty Pleasure at Pizza Hut

Hand Tossed Spicy Sicilian Pizza, 12" (2 slices)

480 calories
22 g fat (9 g saturated)
1,460 mg sodium

Beef and sausage are far from the leanest pie toppers, but the Spicy Sicilian recipe employs both meats alongside sweet red onions and spicy jalapenos. Surprisingly, the outcome is leaner than any other multimeat pie on the Pizza Hut menu. That's not to say that this should be your everyday pie, just that it earns its place as an occasional indulgence.

1. Guilty Pleasure at Wendy's

Original Frosty (small)

300 calories
8 g fat (5 g saturated)
42 g sugars

When you crave a chocolate shake, remember that they don't get leaner than this. The smallest chocolate shake at Baskin-Robbins, by comparison, has twice as many calories as the Wendy's classic. Beware newer models however; There's now a teeming family of Frosty variations, from Floats to Frosty-cinos, and every single one is worse than the original.

6. Worst Gluten-Free Cookie

Glow Gluten-Free Gingersnap Cookies (2 cookies)

220 calories
12 g fat (5 g saturated)
16 g sugars

If you’re looking to indulge without too much remorse, gingersnaps are often the way to go. Ginger naturally packs a flavorful punch without tacking on the caloric heft of chocolate chips, nuts, or candy pieces. Unfortunately, just two of Glow’s cookies contain as much saturated fat as 10 McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets and more calories than seven Nabisco Ginger Snaps! Enjoy Life uses fruit juices, dates, and applesauce to help sweeten and soften its cookies while keeping fat and calories to a minimum.

Eat This Instead!

Enjoy Life Eat Freely Soft Baked Gingerbread Spice Nut & Gluten-Free Cookies (2 cookies)

120 calories
4 g fat (0 g saturated)
10 g sugars

5. Worst Gluten-Free Bread

Aleia’s Gluten-Free Farmhouse White Bread (2 slices)

240 calories
8 g fat (0 g saturated)
36 g carbohydrate
4 g fiber

Aleia relies on a combination of eggs and canola oil to bind its loaves, which means more fat and calories per slice. Build a sandwich on this bread, and you’ll be on your way to a belt-busting lunch before you’ve even added toppings. Instead, Udi’s bread cuts calories by a full third, and it's bolstered by a substantial 6 grams of fiber and 5 grams of protein.

Eat This Instead!

Udi’s Gluten-Free Millet-Chia Ancient Bread (2 slices)

160 calories
5 g fat (0.5 g saturated)
28 g carbohydrate
6 g fiber

4. Worst Gluten-Free Breakfast

Glutino Sesame Seed New York Style Bagel (1 bagel)

440 calories
16 g fat (3 g saturated)
620 mg sodium

Bagels are notoriously calorie-dense—even those without gluten. The listed serving size may be half a bagel, but don’t be fooled—few people will stop at half. To add further insult, Glutino’s also manages to pack in more fat per bagel than three scoops of Breyer’s Original Strawberry ice cream. Kinnikinnick’s is the most moderate bagel around. Make this your morning go-to instead, and you’ll save 12 pounds over six months!

Eat This Instead!

Kinnikinnick Foods Tapioca Rice Sesame Bagels (1 bagel)

210 calories
7 g fat (2.5 g saturated)
390 mg sodium

3. Worst Gluten-Free Dessert

Tia’s Scrumptious & Totally Healthy Gluten-Free Grandma’s Chocolate Cake (1 individual sized cake)

510 calories
33 g fat (9 g saturated)
31 g sugars

This “Totally Healthy” cake contains as many calories as 8.5 Fudgesicles, as much fat as 3.5 McDonald’s Hamburgers, and more sugar than 10 feet of Fruit by the Foot candy. Splurge on one of these cakes just twice a week and you’ll pack on 15 extra pounds by the end of the year! Satisfy your sweet tooth with Amy’s deceptively decadent loaf cake; because it comes frozen, you can defrost it a single slice at a time and save the rest for later.

Eat This Instead!

Amy’s Gluten-Free Organic Cakes, Chocolate (1 slice, 1/6 of cake)

180 calories
7 g fat (1 g saturated)
17 g sugars

2. Worst Gluten-Free Snack

Udi’s Gluten-Free Original Granola (1 cup)

520 calories
20 g fat (2 g saturated)
20 g sugars

With 20 grams each of both fat and sugar, Udi’s granola resembles a dessert far more than it does a breakfast food. In fact, more honey and canola oil go into this granola than do fruit or nuts. Bakery on Main’s granola is still too calorie-dense to scarf down like cereal, but a judicious sprinkling over yogurt makes for a solid snack.

Eat This Instead!

Bakery on Main Gluten-Free Cranberry Orange Cashew Granola (1 cup)

320 calories
15 g fat (1 g saturated fat)
16 g sugars

1. Worst Gluten-Free Frozen Dinner

Amy’s Kitchen Gluten-Free Dairy Free Rice Macaroni & Cheeze (227 g)

520 calories
22 g fat (5 g saturated)
740 mg sodium

Amy’s removes the gluten and the dairy from this dish, but leaves plenty of oil-derived fats. This diminutive tray packs as much fat as 9 Chewy Chips Ahoy cookies and fulfills 25 percent of your day’s saturated fat allowance. But in a rare, impressive feat, Glutino manages to create a decent Alfredo pasta. The key? A cream-free, milk-based cheese sauce and enough lean chicken to supply 15 grams of protein.

Eat This Instead!

Glutino Gluten-Free Chicken Penne Alfredo (260 g)

340 calories
8 g fat (3.5 g saturated)
830 mg sodium

1. Your food can legally contain maggots, rodent hair, and insect eggs.

The FDA allows certain “defects” to slide by. Have a look at what your food can carry:
•    Canned pineapple can pack in up to 20% moldy fruit.
•    Berries can harbor up to 4 larvae per 100 grams.
•    Oregano can legally contain up to 1,250 insect fragments per 10 grams.
•    Cinnamon can carry up to 1 milligram of animal excrement per pound.
•    Ocean perch can harbor small numbers of copepods, parasites that create pus pockets.

2. Nutritious food costs 10 times as much as junk food.

University of Washington researchers calculated the cost discrepancy between healthy food and junk foods and found that 2,000 calories of junk food rings up at a measly $3.52 a day. Yet for 2,000 calories of nutritious grub, the researchers plunked down $36. To add insult to fiscal injury, out of every dollar you spend on food, only 19 cents goes toward the stuff you eat. The other 81 percent goes toward marketing, manufacturing, and packaging. Think about that the next time your grocery bill jumps into triple-digit dollars.

3. Grocers don’t have to tell you where your salad comes from.

With fresh fruits and vegetables, supermarkets must tell you the country of origin, but with dried fruit and mixed produce, the law isn't so strict. That means a mixed bag of salads isn't required to disclose its location, and that can create problems if there's a bacterial outbreak. News reports might warn you about E. Coli-tainted spinach coming from a certain country, but if your spinach is packaged with other greens, you'll have no way of knowing if it's in your bag. That's a huge problem considering leafy greens top the CDC's list of foods most commonly associated with food borne illness.

4. Fruits and vegetables are losing their nutrients.

According to the USDA, the fruits and vegetables we eat today may contain significantly fewer nutrients than those our grandparents ate. Researchers looked at 43 produce items and discovered drops in protein (6 percent), calcium (16 percent), iron (15 percent), riboflavin (38 percent), and vitamin C (20 percent). Your move: Eat more fruits and vegetables.

5. Calorie counts on nutrition fact labels aren’t accurate.

Researchers at Tufts University recently analyzed 269 food items from 42 national sit-down and fast-food restaurant chains, and they found that nearly 20 percent of samples contained 100 or more calories than reported by the restaurants. Think about it like this: If every meal you eat has 100 more calories than you need, you’ll gain more than 30 pounds this year.

6. Chicken today contains 266 percent more fat than it did 40 years ago.

What’s more, today’s chicken also has 33 percent less protein, according to a study from the Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition at London Metropolitan University. The problem is modern farming practices. Cramped environments and unnatural diets produce birds that have the same weight problems as the humans who eat them.

7. Milk contains hormones that may cause cancer.

In 1970, a typical dairy cow could produce about 10,000 pounds of milk per year. Today, that same cow produces roughly 20,000 pounds. So did cows change? Nope. It’s their feed that’s different. Today’s cows are routinely fed a hormone called recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST. Problem is, studies have linked rBST to a multitude of cancers, including those of the prostate, breast, and colon. And while milk from rBST-treated cows is ubiquitous in America’s supermarkets, some of the biggest players are getting wise. Stores like Whole Foods, Wal-Mart, and Kroger only carry rBST-free dairy.

8. Conventional supermarket peaches can be coated with as many as nine different pesticides.

Because peaches are prone to bruising, blemishing, and insect takeover, they’re routinely soaked in chemicals in the weeks before being shipped off to the supermarket. That’s why the Environmental Working Group rates peaches among the dirtiest conventional fruits in America. Also on that list: apples, celery, strawberries, and spinach. As a general rule, unless the produce has a thick, impermeable skin, assume it’s soaked in pesticides. Now wash it with water and mild soap before you eat it.

9. You’re probably eating trans fat without knowing it.

Slack FDA regulations allow food processors to claim zero trans fats even if the food contains .49 grams. To be clear, that’s .49 grams per serving. That means by the time you finish, say, an entire bag of Cheetos, you might be ingesting nearly 5 grams of trans fat. Sure the bag says “0 GRAMS TRANS FAT” right on the front, but if you look at the ingredient statement, you’ll see partially hydrogenated oil, the primary source of trans fat.

10. The number of daily calories available to each American has increased by 500 over the last 40 years.

USDA data shows that the food industry supplies 2,700 calories to every man, woman and child in America. In 1970, that number was 2,200. That increase translates into 52 extra pounds of fat per person, per year.

11. Commonly used food dyes can alter your kids’ behavior.

Researchers at the University of Southampton found that colors such as Yellow #5, Yellow #6, and Red #40 could cause hyperactivity in children. Ironically, foods marketed to children are often the most heavily dyed foods in the supermarket.

12. Your stomach bug is likely food poisoning.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that every year, 48,000 Americans receives food poisoning from contaminated food, and that puts a $152 billion strain on the economy. What’s worse, an astonishing 3,000 of those people die.

13. Forty-two percent of raw supermarket chicken is contaminated.

In a study by Consumers Union, the driving force behind Consumer Reports, 12 percent of tested chickens were infected with Salmonella, and nearly half carried Campylobacter. Campylobacteriosis is one of the most common causes of food poisoning in America.

14. Gulf Coast oysters carry E. coli.

When researchers from Arizona tested Gulf Shore oysters, they found E. coli in every single sample. As filter-feeders, oysters naturally sift through the pollutants in the water, increasing their risk of contamination by pathogens. If you’re buying oysters from anything less than a highly trusted source, make sure you cook them through.

15. The USDA is allowing your meat to be “cleaned” with ammonia—and they’re hiding it from you.

The typical fast-food burger is made with slaughterhouse trimmings, fatty cuts of beef typically reserved for pet food and cooking oil. What’s more, these burgers contain pieces of hundreds, potentially even thousands, of different cows. This creates an environment where bacteria thrive, so to clean the meat, the USDA allows a company called Beef Products to pipe the raw beef through pipes and expose it to ammonia gas. Never mind that ammonia is a poison or that evidence suggests the process may not be fully effective. The USDA deems it safe enough, and it allows the meat to be sold without any indication that it received the gas treatment.

16. Aluminum cans are lined with a hormone-disrupting toxin.

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is the chemical found in plastic bottles, glass jar lids, and the lining of food-containing tins and cans. In your body, BPA acts similar to estrogen, and it has been linked to behavioral problems, reproductive issues, and obesity. The industry has been slow to find a replacement, so limit exposure by switching to glass containers or plastic bottles labeled BPA-free.

17. Roughly two-thirds of bottled water doesn’t comply with FDA standards.

When the Food and Drug Administration set bottled-water regulations, it left in one gaping loophole: The regulations apply only to bottled waters sold across state or country borders. Bottles packaged and sold within a single state don’t have to comply with national standards. Although many states do have their own set of (nationally unregulated and unrecognized) regulations in place, one in five have none. Furthermore, government and industry estimates figure that 25 percent of water bottles sold in the US contain mere tap water. You should be so lucky as to end up with one of those; the FDA’s rules are far more lax than the tap water standards set by the EPA.

18. We drink twice as many calories today as we did 30 years ago.

The average American drinks 450 liquid calories every day, according to a study from the University of North Carolina. And booze isn’t the problem. Blame the bigger bottles of soda, the sugar-loaded coffee drinks, and the barrel-sized smoothies.

19. Fast food signs alter your behavior

A study published last year in Psychological Science reveals that the mere sight of a fast-food sign on the side of the road is enough to make people feel rushed, which can lead to impulsive decisions—and dangerous nutritional choices. Sidestep your impulses the next time you eat out: Plan your order before you walk through the door and then stick with it.

20. There are crushed bugs in your food.

Carmine, a vibrant red food colorant, is actually the crushed abdomen of the female Dactylopius coccus, a beetle-like African insect. Not only is the thought of eating bug juice gross, but it also poses an ethical issue for some vegetarians and vegans. Look for it in red-colored candies and juices.

Question: Which of the following can be legally labeled "natural"?

a. Foods with added sweeteners
b. Foods with chemical preservatives
c. Foods with artificial sweeteners
d. Foods with added color

Answer: Every single one of them. It's true, outside of the meat counter, the FDA makes no stipulation about the use of the term "natural," leaving manufacturers to abuse it however they see fit. Gross, right? But here's something even worse: When the Cornucopia Institute, an organic watchdog group, recently analyzed so-called "natural" cereals, it found that they're often contaminated with pesticides and warehouse fumigation chemical residues, genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) and ingredients grown in sewage sludge.

"It's important for consumers to know that these companies are using conventional ingredients to produce their 'natural' cereal, most likely produced with pesticides and fumigants," explains Charlotte Vallaeys, director of farm and food policy at Cornucopia. Despite the fact that over half of the population believes "natural" means no pesticides or GMOs, it's nothing more than a fancy label, she adds. Read on for the cereals that promote themselves—explicitly or not—as natural alternatives to traditional cereals.

#1: Kashi GoLean

Most corn and soy ingredients come from genetically engineered crops, which have never even been proven safe. In fact, scientists have linked GMOs to serious health problems. In Cornucopia Institute tests, researchers detected GMO material in 100 percent of the soy in Kashi GoLean. "It is clear from the percentages that this was not accidental contamination, but deliberate use of GMOs," says Vallaeys.

Kashi is owned by food industry giant Kellogg Company, which also markets Bear Naked, a non-organic granola. The Cornucopia Institute also points out that the cereal-making giant has no policy against the use of toxic pesticides, hexane, a harmful solvent used in non-organic soybean processing, and GMO ingredients.

Organic Alternative: Nature's Path Organic Optimum Blueberry Cinnamon

#2: Nutritious Living Hi-Lo

Consumer polls show that 93 percent of Americans believe products containing GMOs should be labeled, but under current laws, they aren't, leaving food shoppers in the dark. In fact, many natural products, like this cereal, are laced with genetically engineered ingredients. GMO technology has been linked to skyrocketing food allergy rates, digestive troubles, infertility, and even accelerated aging! The soy content of Nutritious Living Hi-Lo was 85 percent GMO—meaning the soy was manipulated on the molecular level to withstand heavy sprayings of the weed killer Roundup, which often winds up insidethe food you eat.

Organic Alternative: Ambrosial Granola Venetian Vineyard

#3: Kix

Mothers may stop approving this breakfast cereal in light of GMO testing: 56 percent of the corn content was genetically engineered, according to the Cornucopia Institute analysis. GMO corn and soy crops have actually led to a major problem in the fields that affects your health—weeds are becoming resistant to certain pesticides, causing farmers to apply heavier doses of even more dangerous chemicals. Certain pesticides are believed to be hormone-disruptors that can lead to obesity and diabetes, and other developmental problems.

Organic Alternative: Envirokids Organic Gorilla Munch Cereal

#4: Barbara's Bakery Puffins

Barbara's Bakery got called out because, over the past few years, they've slowly been decreasing their USDA-certified organic cereal options and increasing their selection of uncertified "natural" products. Between 2007 and 2011, the company's organic choices dropped from 55 to just 20 percent—shortly after the company was acquired by a private investment firm. That's misleading to customers who think the company is staying true to its organic roots, and think they're still buying organic cereals. Today, 55 percent of the corn used in Puffins is genetically engineered, not even close to being natural. "Consumers should continue to look for the organic seal as their assurance that the foods were produced without deliberate use of GMOs by farmers," says Vallaeys.

Organic Alternative: Nature's Path Organic Corn Puffs

#5: Peace Cereal

Until 2008, all Peace Cereal products were certified organic or labeled "made with organic ingredients," meaning at least 70 percent of the ingredients were organic. Today, none of the products are, which can be confusing to customers who initially trusted the once-organic brand. Strawberry-containing Peace Cereal options could contain the carcinogenic pesticide Captan, which is detected in 55 percent of conventional strawberries tested.

"We were surprised to see some companies, like Peace Cereal, reducing organic options in the cereal aisle," says Vallaeys. "Peace Cereal has no organic options left, but its prices remained the same."

Organic Alternative: Nature's Path Flax Plus Red Berry Crunch (It's about 2 cents cheaper per ounce, too.)

#6: Mother's Bumpers

Nearly 30 percent of the corn in Mother's Bumpers was found to be genetically modified. A 2011 Canadian report published in the journalReproductive Toxicology revealed that the pesticides used on genetically modified crops and, in some cases, the genes used to create GM crops are able to survive in our digestive tracts, move into our bloodstreams, and—in pregnant women—show up in developing infants.

Pepsico owns the Mother's brand. One of its processing plants emits 19,000 pounds of sulfuryl fluoride, a greenhouse gas and fumigant, annually. The toxic gas is used post-harvest to kill pests in non-organic wheat, almond, oats, corn, rice, barley, raisins, and peanuts. Fumigated food products can then be distributed to consumers 24 hours after gassing, according to the Cornucopia Institute.

Organic Alternative: Cascadian Farms Honey Nut Os

#7: Back to Nature

Back to Nature is owned by Kraft Foods and comes in nine varieties, with only one being organic. Its "natural" granola products contain conventional ingredients that are produced on conventional farms with the use of pesticides and other synthetic inputs that would be prohibited on organic farms. "Conventional grain ingredients destined for processed foods like granola can be fumigated in the warehouse," explains Vallaeys. "The USDA has tested ingredients like wheat flour for toxic fumigant residues, and has found some samples to be contaminated with levels higher than the maximum acceptable level for children. Organics, which prohibits these fumigants, offers a level of protection that 'natural' products don't."

Organic Alternative: Laughing Giraffe granola

#8: Grape Nuts and Post's "Natural Advantage Line"

Grape Nuts may carry that crunchy, earthy image—and food industry giant Post did form the "Post Natural Advantage Line," including Grape Nuts, Shredded Wheat, and Raisin Bran—but the conventional ingredients used in these cereals are still grown with chemical pesticides, and USDA data shows that wheat is often contaminated with residues of malathion, chlorpyrifos methyl, and chlorpyrifos, toxic bug-killing chemicals that could harm neurological development. "They are 'natural' only in the sense that they do not appear to contain artificial preservatives," explains Vallaeys. "But the ingredients are conventional ingredients, from crops grown on conventional farms which can use toxic pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, genetically engineered crops, and a whole host of other inputs that are strictly prohibited on farms growing crops for organic cereal." For that reason, Post landed rock bottom on the Cornucopia Institute's Cereal Scorecard.

Organic Alternative: Cascadian Farm Organic Raisin Bran

#9: Kellogg's Low-Fat Granola

Don't let this granola's earthy-looking packaging (like the green leaf?) or claims of whole grains fool you, warns the Cornucopia Institute's Cereal Crimes report. This granola contains harmful high-fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated oils, artificial flavors, and other hard-to-pronounce ingredients that sound like they belong in a lab, not your mouth. "There is nothing natural about this product. Given that Kellogg's policy is to source GMOs, consumers should also assume that the corn, cottonseed and soy ingredients in this granola are genetically engineered," says Vallaeys. Luckily, high-quality, organic granola is readily available.

Organic Alternative: Lydia's Organics Grainless Apple Cereal

To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
From: Tomas Young

I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.

—Tomas Young

Juanita Tudor Lowrey received government benefits tied to her father, a Civil War veteran

10 years after the launch of the Iraq War, a number of critics and analysts have been pointing to war’s extravagant financial cost – to say nothing of its toll on human lives. But a surprising report shows that nearly 150 years after its conclusion, the U.S. government is still paying relatives of Civil War veterans.

An analysis from the Associated Press found that more than $40 billion annually is being spent on veterans and survivors of wars dating back to the Spanish-American War of 1898 up through the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

There are actually only two recipients of Civil War benefits, both children of veterans and receiving $876 per year.
Although their names are being kept private, the AP estimates that they were both born between 1920 and 1930, meaning their parents were themselves upwards of 80-years-old when their children were born.
Juanita Tudor Lowrey, 86, received Civil War benefits tied to her late father from the age 2 until her 18^th birthday.

Former Republican senator and military veteran Alan Simpson said the government should consider means testing veterans as the burden on the federal debt continues to grow.
"Without question, I would affluence-test all of those people," Simpson told the AP.
Simpson co-chaired President Obama’s deficit reduction committee in 2010, which offered a number of recommendations for reducing the federal budget defecit.
And while it would be natural to assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are the most costly, the payments to Vietnam War veterans nearly doubles the cost of our two current wars, $22 billion to $12 billion, respectively.

Simpson said that a number of new ailments added to veterans coverage, including heart disease, has been driving up costs.
"That has been terribly abused," he said.
Meanwhile, World War II is still costing the federal government about $5 billion a year. And the Korean War still costs taxpayers about $2.8 billion annually.
Amazingly, $20 million is still being paid each year to 2,289 veteran family members from World War I, many of whom are over 100-years-old. But perhaps even stranger, 47 benefit recipients were not even born until after the war ended.

The Pentagon has banned the use of 60mm mortar rounds by its troops worldwide after seven US marines were killed by a misfire at a training ground in the Nevada desert.

The explosion at Hawthorne army depot on Monday killed seven marines. There were reports that an eighth died later in hospital but this was not immediately confirmed by the military. Eight people survived with injuries.

The mortar round exploded in its firing tube during an exercise, said Brigadier General Jim Lukeman at a news conference in North Carolina, where the marines are based. Investigators were trying to determine why it went off.

The Hawthorne depot is used to train troops heading overseas. The rescue of the wounded marines was complicated by the remoteness of the site, which is favoured because its harsh geography simulates conditions in Afghanistan.

"We send our prayers and condolences to the families of Marines involved in this tragic incident," said the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force commander, Major General Raymond C Fox. "We mourn their loss and it is with heavy hearts we remember their courage and sacrifice."

The 60mm mortar traditionally requires three to four marines to operate but it is common during training for others to observe nearby. The firing tube is a shell some 355mm (14 ins) in length.

The mortar has changed little since the second world war and remains one of the simplest weapons to operate. Joseph Trevithick, a mortar expert with Global Security.org, said its simplicity meant it was depolyed at the lowest level of infantry units.

A number of things could go wrong including a fuse malfunctioning, a problem with the barrel's assembly or a round prematurely detonating inside the tube, Trevithick said.

A Marine Corps official said an explosion at the point of firing in a training exercise could kill or maim anyone inside or nearby the protective mortar pit and could concussively detonate any mortars stored nearby in a phenomenon known as "sympathetic detonation".

The official said a worldwide moratorium after such an accident was not unusual and would last until the investigation determined it was safe to start using the weapon again.

According to one of its supporters, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is not "what our troops need," is "too costly" and "poorly managed," and its "present difficulties are too numerous to detail."

The F-35 is a case study of government failure at all levels - civilian and military, federal, state, local, even airport authority. Not one critical government agency is meeting its obligation to protect the people it presumably represents. Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who wrote the F-35 critique above, is hardly unique as an illustration of how government fails, but he sees no alternative to failure.

Up for re-election in 2014 and long a supporter of basing the F-35 in Vermont, Leahy put those thoughts in a letter to a constituent made public March 13. This is Leahy's most recent public communication since December 2012, when he refused to meet with opponents of the F-35 and his web site listed a page of "public discussion" events mostly from the spring, including private briefings with public officials, without responding to any substantive issues.

The F-35 is a nuclear-capable weapon of mass destruction that was supposed to be the "fighter of the future" when it was undertaken in 2001. Now, more than a decade overdue and more than 100% over budget, the plane is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over its useful life, of which about $400 billion has already been spent.

100th F-35 Being Built, None Yet Operational

In January, the Lockheed Martin production facility in Fort Worth, Texas, reported it was well along "in the final phase of building the wings" of the 100th F-35 constructed by the Bethesda, Maryland, company. Of the first 99 F-35s, none are yet operational.

The F-35 isn't even close to fully operational - it can fly only on sunny days. It can't fly at night. And it can't fly in clouds or near lightning. We know this because the Pentagon tells us so, in a report written for the Secretary of Defense by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, J. Michael Gilmore, dated February 15, 2013.

Although some media hyped the report as a "leaked document," Gilmore clearly expected the report would become public, since he included a description of its wide distribution within the government, concluding with the reminder: "By law, I must provide Congress with any test-related material it requests."

By March 5, Gilmore's report was on the internet and giving the Canadian government second thoughts about buying the plane at all. Of the ten other countries partnering in F-35 development, Italy has already reduced the number of plane it will eventually buy. Norway, Turkey, and others are also having second thoughts – as is even the United States. Leahy indicates in his letter that "the jet is too costly to proceed with purchases at today's planned levels," which are about 2,400 planes at a currently projected cost of $120 billion each, give or take $30 billion.

Gilmore's report covers the F-35 training program at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida for two months in the fall of 2012, a program originally scheduled to begin in August 2011, but the F-35 wasn't ready then. Even a year later, the training program "was limited by the current restrictions of the aircraft." The program partially trained 4 pilots in 46 days.

If the Pilot Can Eject, He'll Be Lucky Not to Drown

The report's executive summary gives a sense of what some of the "current restrictions" of the F-35 are:

Aircraft operating limitations prohibit flying the aircraft at night or in instrument meteorological conditions, hence pilots must avoid clouds and other weather. These restrictions are in place because testing has not been completed to certify the aircraft for night and instrument flight.
The aircraft also is currently prohibited from flying close formation, aerobatics, and stalls, all of which would normally be in the familiarization phase of transition training?.
The F-35A does not yet have the capability to train in these phases, nor any actual combat capability, because it is still early in system development.
Also, little can be learned from evaluating training in a system this immature?.
The radar, the pilot's helmet-mounted display (HMD), and the cockpit interfaces for controlling the radios and navigational functions should be improved.

The report also notes that the pilot escape system is not yet reliable, especially if a pilot were to eject over water.

On the blog of the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Winslow Wheeler takes a closer look at the full report under the headline: "The Air Force's F-35A: Not Ready for Combat, Not Even Ready for Combat Training."

What Do You Expect for $400 Billion? Something That Works?

So for $400 billion (and counting), the U.S. has bought an "immature system," a combat fighter still unfit for combat, a plane that has spent much of 2013 grounded for various malfunctions. The General Accounting Office (GOA) report issued this month offers good news of the it's-not-as-bad-as-it-used-to-be kind, as in the finding that production costs are "trending" downward toward targets.

The program continues to make design changes in the F-35 at the rate of about 200 per month, even as the plane continues in production, creating what amounts to a permanent process of retrofitting. The GAO projects that F-35 flight testing may be complete some time in 2017 and the plane might not be ready for combat before 2019.

No wonder the F-35 program's executive officer, Lt.-General Christopher Bogdan, has expressed dissatisfaction with the companies making the plane. The general, who has been with the program since July 2012 and became director in December, didn't use the word "profiteering" to call out two major defense contractors for their shoddy-but-profitable performance on the F-35, but he came close:

"What I see Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney [subsidiary of United Technologies Corp.] doing today is behaving as if they are getting ready to sell me the very last F-35 and the very last engine and are trying to squeeze every nickel out of that last F-35 and that last engine. I want them both to start behaving like they want to be around for 40 years, I want them to take on some of the risk of this program, I want them to invest in cost reductions, I want them to do the things that will build a better relationship. I'm not getting all that love yet."

Congress Isn't Doing Its Job in This Area, Either

Congressional oversight, which is intended to keep debacles like the F-35 from happening, has failed utterly. Instead, according to Leahy, who as the senior Democratic senator is the president pro tem of the Senate and third in the line of succession to the presidency, leadership is no longer possible.

Like the rest of the Vermont congressional delegation, which includes Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., Leahy has struck a pose of self-imposed helplessness when it comes to basing the world's most expensive and not-yet-operational weapons system in the middle of Vermont's only significant population center, suggesting that the decision is entirely up to the Air Force and civilian control of the military is an outmoded concept of some other America.

The Air Force has twice postponed making a final decision as to whether the F-35 should be based at the Burlington International Airport, even though the Air Force's own environmental report warns that the F-35 is four times as loud as current fighters in Burlington, and that this increase in noise is likely to render at lease 1,300 homes - and perhaps more than 3,000 homes - "unsuitable for residential use."

None of Vermont's congressional delegation has addressed these or other serious issues with any intellectual integrity. Welch has no reference to the F-35 on his web site, and Sanders has nothing more substantive than links to a few brief news stories.

Former Prosecutor Trusts Belief Over Evidence

"I am concerned that some fears have become exaggerated throughout this debate," Leahy wrote in December, relying on the unscientific, unsupported opinion of an Air Force officer. In the same letter, without providing a factual basis, the former county prosecutor added, "I would strongly oppose basing the F-35 in Vermont if I believed its noise would make Winooski or South Burlington unlivable."

One commenter on the POGO Blog story wondered: "When will we bring to justice the flag officers and SESs [senior executive service], past and present, who presided over this abortion? Courts martial, criminal indictments, please? And what about the contractor's violations?

So while some observers are calling for criminal investigations of a boondoggle, Vermont's congressional delegation is still calling for basing the plane in Burlington.

There was a time when "fruit flavored" and "cheese flavored" meant "made with real fruit" and "made with real cheese." Today? It's artificial everything. Most of the food at your local supermarket is no more authentic than Snooki's tan. Our fruit comes packaged in Loops, our cheese delivered via Whiz. Sure, it's edible, but there's no way your great grandparents would recognize this junk as food.
The problem with additives runs deep. The FDA currently maintains a list of ingredients called Everything Added to Food in the United States (EAFUS), which features more than 3,000 items and counting. Thankfully, most EAFUS ingredients are benign, but a few of them do have potentially harmful effects. Why they're legal is a mystery to us. Some of them might be backed by powerful lobby groups, while others probably survive simply because some guy at the FDA has too much paperwork on his desk and hasn't made time to adequately review the data.
Below are 10 of the most dubious ingredients hiding in your food, compliments of Eat This, Not That! 2011. Even if you're not convinced of their danger, you have to admit this: The more filler ingredients you cut from your diet, the more space you have for wholesome, nutritious foods.

Scary Ingredient #1: Olestra
A fat substitute synthesized by Procter & Gamble. Because human digestive enzymes can't break down the big molecules, Olestra contributes 0 calories to your diet.
Why it’s scary: In the late ’90s, Frito-Lay released Olestra-enhanced WOW chips and Procter & Gamble introduced Fat Free Pringles. Both products were required to carry warning labels to notify customers about the risk of "loose stools." Within 4 years, some 15,000 people had dialed in to a hotline set up specifically to handle adverse-reaction complaints. Apparently the complaints didn't move the FDA, because in 2003, the administration revoked the warning-label mandate. If you want to take your chances with diarrhea, go ahead, but first consider this: Olestra also appears to interfere with the body's ability to absorb some crucial nutrients like beta-carotene and lycopene. To counteract the effect, processers add some nutrients back, but it's unlikely that all the blocked nutrients are adequetly replaced.
Furthermore, just last week I tweeted that an animal study at Purdue University found that fake fats like Olestra may cause more weight gain than real fat.

Where you’ll find it: Lay’s Light chips, Pringles Light chips

Scary Ingredient #2: Caramel Coloring
An artificial pigment created by heating sugars. Frequently, this process includes ammonia.

Why it’s scary: Caramel coloring shows up in everything from soft drinks and sauces to breads and pastries. When made from straight sugar, it's relatively benign. But when produced with ammonia it puts off 2-methylimidazole and 4-methylimidazole, chemicals that have been linked to cancer in mice. The risk is strong enough that the California government, a bellwether for better food regulation, categorized 4-methylimidazole as “known to cause cancer” earlier this year. Unfortunately, companies aren't required to disclose whether their coloring is made with ammonia, so you'd be wise to avoid it as much as you can.

Where you'll find it: Colas and other soft drinks, La Choy soy sauce, Stove Top stuffing mix

Scary Ingredient #3: Saccharin
An artificial sweetener discovered by accident in the 1870s.

Why it’s scary: Studies have linked saccharin to bladder tumors in rats, and in 1977, the FDA required warning labels on all saccharin-containing foods. In 2000, the agency changed its stance and allowed saccharin to be sold without warning labels. But that doesn't make it entirely safe. A 2008 Purdue study found that replacing sugar with saccharin in rats’ diets made them gain more weight, proving once again that you should be aware of these faux fat foes.

Where you'll find it: Sweet ‘N Low, TaB cola
YOUR NEW SHOPPING LIST! There are more than 45,000 options in the average supermarket. Some will wreck your waistline; some will shrink it.

Scary Ingredient #4: Potassium Bromate
A compound that conditions flour and helps bread puff up during baking.
Why it’s scary: Potassium bromate causes thyroid and kidney tumors in rats, and it's banned from food use in many countries. In California, products containing potassium bromate are required to carry a cancer warning. Fortunately, negative publicity has made the additive relatively rare, but until the FDA banishes it, you should remain on the lookout.

Where you'll find it: Johnny Rockets Hoagie Roll

TERRIBLE SALADS: Even foods that sound perfectly healthy can be secretly loaded with dangerous amounts of fat and sodium.

Scary Ingredient #5: Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)
Petroleum-derived antioxidants and preservatives.

Why they're scary: The Department of Health and Human Services says BHA is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," yet the FDA allows it to be used anyway. BHT is considered less dangerous, but in animal research, it too has resulted in cancer. Oddly, the chemicals aren’t even always necessary; in most cases they can be replaced with vitamin E.

Where you'll find it: Goya lard, Golden Grahams, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Orbit gum

Scary Ingredient #6: Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil
A semi-solid fat created when food processors force hydrogen into unsaturated fatty acids.

Why it's scary: Partially hydrogenated fats are the principle sources of trans fat in the American diet, and a Harvard study estimated that trans fat causes 70,000 heart attacks every year. The good news: Partially hydrogenated oils are beginning to slowly retreat from our food. Progressive jurisdictions like New York City are starting to restrict the allowable amounts in restaurants, and many chains are switching to healthier frying oil. Still, the battle isn’t over. At Long John Silver’s, for example, there are still 17 menu items with more than 2 grams of the stuff. According to the American Heart Association, that's about the maximum you should consume in a single day.

Where you'll find it: McDonald’s McChicken, Long John Silver’s Broccoli Cheese Soup

Scary Ingredient #7: Sulfites
Preservatives that maintain the color of food, and by releasing sulfur dioxide, prevent bacterial growth.
Why it's scary: Humans have used sulfites to keep food fresh for thousands of years, but some people—especially asthma sufferers—experience breathing difficulties when exposed. In the 1980s, unregulated use resulted in at least a dozen deaths, prompting the FDA to slap warning labels on wine bottles and develop new guidelines for proper use. Now restaurants can no longer soak fresh ingredients in sulfites. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, there have been no known deaths since the new legislation took hold. The bottom line: If you're among the majority of people not sensitive to sulfites, consumption won’t hurt you. If you're not sure, ask your doctor for a test.

Where you'll find it: Wine, Sun-Maid Mixed Fruit, Jolly Ranchers, Fig Newtons

SNACK YOURSELF THIN! It can be a challenge to find snacks low in sugar and high in protein and fiber.

Scary Ingredient #8: Azodicarbonamide
A synthetic yellow-orange dough conditioner

Why it's scary: This chemical is used most frequently in the production of industrial foam plastic, and although the FDA has approved its use for food in the States, the United Kingdom has labeled it a potential cause of asthma. In a review of 47 studies on azodicarbonamide, the World Health Organization concluded that it probably does trigger asthmatic symptoms. The WHO concluded, “exposure levels should be reduced as much as possible.” I’ll put it more concisely: Avoid it.

Where you'll find it: Dunkin’ Donuts bagels, McDonald’s burger buns

Scary Ingredient #9: Carrageenan
A thickener and emulsifier extracted from seaweed.

Why it's scary: Seaweed is actually good for you, but carrageenan is a mere seaweed byproduct. Through animal studies, it has been linked to cancer, colon trouble, and ulcers. It isn’t certain that carrageenan harms humans, but avoiding it is clearly the safer option. Most studies examined degraded forms of the additive, and research from the University of Iowa found that carrageenan could be degraded through the normal digestive process.
Where you'll find it: Weight Watchers Giant Chocolate Fudge Ice Cream Bars, Skinny Cow Ice Cream Sandwiches, Creamsicles

Scary Ingredient #10: Ammonium Sulfate
An inorganic salt that occurs naturally near active volcanoes and is used commercially to nourish yeast and help bread rise.

Why it's scary: This nitrogen-rich compound is most often used as fertilizer, and also appears commonly in flame retardants. Thankfully, the ingredient only sounds scary—a 2006 Japanese rat study found the additive to be non-carcinogenic. Both the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the FDA deem it safe.

Where you'll find it: Nature’s Own bread, Subway rolls
DID YOU KNOW? You don't need to make big changes to your diet to lose 10, 20, or even 30 pounds. You just need to make the right small tweaks.

With so much misinformation out there about food and how it affects human health, making healthy food choices for you and your family can be difficult and confusing. There are a number of specific foods; however, that you will want to avoid in almost every circumstance because they provide virtually no health benefits while posing plenty of health risks. Here are nine foods you should never eat again if you care about preserving your long-term health:

1) White bread, refined flours. By definition, white bread and refined flours in general are toxic for your body because they have been stripped of virtually all vitamins, minerals, fiber, and other important nutrients. Because of this, the body does not know how to properly digest and assimilate these so-called foods, which can lead to health problems. Refined white flour has also been bleached with chlorine and brominated with bromide, two poisonous chemicals that have been linked to causing thyroid and organ damage.

2) Conventional frozen meals. Most conventionally-prepared frozen meals are loaded with preservatives, processed salt, hydrogenated oils and other artificial ingredients, not to mention the fact that most frozen meals have been heavily pre-cooked, rendering their nutrient content minimal at best (especially after getting microwaved again at home). With the exception of a few truly healthy frozen meal brands such as Amy’s and Organic Bistro, most frozen meals are little more than disease in a box, so avoid them in favor of fresh foods.

3) White rice. Like white bread, white rice has been stripped of most of its nutrients, and separated from the bran and germ, two natural components that make up rice in its brown form. Even so-called “fortified” white rice is nutritionally deficient, as the body still processes this refined food much differently than brown rice, which is absorbed more slowly and does not cause the same spike in blood sugar that white rice does.

4) Microwaveable popcorn. This processed food is a favorite among moviegoers and regular snackers alike, but it is one of the unhealthiest foods you can eat. Practically every component of microwaveable popcorn, from the genetically-modified (GM) corn kernels to the processed salt and preservative chemicals used to enhance its flavor, is unhealthy and disease-promoting. On top of this, microwaveable popcorn contains a chemical known as diacetyl that can actually destroy your lungs. If you love popcorn, stick with organic kernels that you can pop yourself in a kettle and douse with healthy ingredients like coconut oil, grass-fed butter, and Himalayan pink salt.

5) Cured meat products with nitrates, nitrites. Deli meats, summer sausage, hot dogs, bacon, and many other meats sold at the grocery store are often loaded with sodium nitrite and other chemical preservatives that have been linked to causing heart disease and cancer. If you eat meat, stick with uncured, nitrite and nitrate-free varieties, and preferably those that come from organic, grass-fed animals.

6) Most conventional protein, energy bars. By the way they are often marketed, it might seem as though protein and energy bars are a strong addition to a healthy diet. But more often than not, these meal replacements contain processed soy protein, refined sugar, hydrogenated fat, and other harmful additives that contribute to chronic illness. Not all protein and energy bars are bad, of course — Thunderbird Energetica, Organic Food Bar, Boku Superfood, Vega Sport, PROBAR, and Zing all make healthy protein and energy bars. Just be sure to read the ingredient labels and know what you are buying.

7) Margarine. Hidden in all sorts of processed foods, margarine, a hydrogenated trans-fat oil, is something you will want to avoid at all costs for your health. Contrary to popular belief, butter and saturated fats in general are not unhealthy, especially when they are derived from pastured animals that feed on grass rather than corn and soy. And if animal-based fats are not for you, stick with extra-virgin coconut oil or olive oil rather than margarine.

8) Soy milk and soy-based meat substitutes. One of the biggest health frauds of modern times, the soy craze is a fad that you will want to skip. Besides the fact that nearly all non-organic soy ingredients are of GM origin, most soy additives are processed using a toxic chemical known as hexane, which is linked to causing birth defects, reproductive problems, and cancer. Soy that has not been fermented is also highly estrogenic, which can throw your natural hormone balance out of whack.

9) “Diet” anything. Many so-called “diet” products on the market today contains artificial sweeteners like aspartame (Equal) and sucralose (Splenda), both of which are linked to causing neurological damage, gastrointestinal problems, and endocrine disruption. Many diet products also contain added chemical flavoring agents to take the place of fat and other natural components that have been removed to artificially reduce calorie content. Instead, stick with whole foods that are as close to nature as possible, including high-fat foods grown the way nature intended, and your body will respond surprisingly well.

You've been firing on all cylinders at work.

It seems counterintuitive, but when we feel proud of past accomplishments (like after a glowing performance review), we're more likely to reach for junk food, according to a study published in the Journal of Consumer Research. However, if we're feeling excited and hopeful (maybe thinking about how our presentation is going to kill it at next month's conference), we're more likely to resist the candy and opt for something good for us, like fruit. "When an individual is happy or proud, they tend to get more sucked up in the moment," says study author Karen Page Winterich. "Hopeful people are more focused on the future and the goals they would like to achieve--such as losing weight or eating healthier."

You're drinking out of the wrong shape of glass.

Ever notice how those beers at your favorite Friday-night pub seem to go down so easily? It may not have anything to do with the type or the taps or the kind of day you had. The next time you're in there, take a look at the glasses. In a study published in the journal PLoS ONE, people tended to chug alcohol 60 percent faster when it was served in a curved glass than in a straight one. The curvy shape also tricked people into misjudging how much alcohol it took to fill the glass halfway. Your best bet? Bottled beer, so you'll know how much you've had to drink.

Your ice cream dish is white porcelain.

You're smart to scoop your French vanilla ice cream into dainty porcelain bowls, because you know that the smaller the dinnerware, the larger the serving appears (and thus, the less you'll eat). You can cut even more calories by contrasting the color of your food with your dishes. In a study published last year in the Journal of Consumer Research, people were more likely to load up their plates with spaghetti and sauce if those plates happened to be red. The study authors (who included eating-behavior expert Brian Wansink, PhD) said that the way the food appears to blend into the plate color creates the illusion of a smaller portion size. Try eating your pale-colored treats out of party bowls--or brightly colored mugs.

You store pretzels and other snacks in clear jars.

We're more tempted by food when it's in our sight, according to Wansink, the author of Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think. In his experiments, subjects ate 70 percent more chocolate when the bonbons were placed in a clear bowl than when they were in an opaque bowl. Wansink has also found that we're three times more likely to eat the first thing we lay eyes on than the fifth. So keep apples in a bowl on the counter and the Oreos in the package in the cabinet in the pantry.

You're not wearing your eyeglasses in chain restaurants.

To find out how strongly nutritional information affects purchase decisions (if at all), researchers interviewed New York City restaurant patrons in 2007 and 2009--one year before and then nine months after the city required fast-food joints to post calorie counts. The researchers, who published their findings in the British Medical Journal, found that the labels failed to stop patrons in their tracks: Only about one in six lunchtime customers said they noticed or read them. However, these people (usually women, unsurprisingly) placed orders that had about 106 fewer calories, on average, than the others. The researchers don't know exactly how these people scaled back their orders (did they order smaller fries? skip the cheese? or did they go for grilled instead of fried?), but they did conclude that the labels had an overall positive effect. Seek out the charts, skim the info, and then ask yourself if the tortilla is worth the extra calories (290, if you're wondering).

You've switched from regular soda to diet.

Yes, you're saving hundreds of calories. But nutritionists have recently become suspicious of artificial sweeteners. One theory is that by delivering intense sweetness without any of the calories that would accompany that taste in nature, these chemicals disturb the complicated feedback loops between the brain, stomach, nerves and hormones. Your body and brain are primed for calories and energy, and...nothing happens. "This can cause you to crave more sweet foods," say nutritionists (and diet-soda skeptics) Stephanie Clarke and Willow Jarosh, and that craving can be too strong to resist. Artificial sweeteners may also mess with your sense of satiety. While studies with humans are inconclusive, Purdue University researchers found that rodents who ate food sweetened with saccharine consumed more calories and gained more weight than did rats fed sugar-sweetened food. Treat diet soda like a treat, not a staple.

From the depths of the White House's "We the People" petition website comes this cause created on Tuesday, hoping to force congressional lawmakers to prominently display their financial backers and monetary support from various lobbies.

Since most politicians' campaigns are largely funded by wealthy companies and individuals, it would give voters a better sense of who the candidate they are voting for is actually representing if the company's logo, or individual's name, was prominently displayed upon the candidate's clothing at all public appearances and campaign events. Once elected, the candidate would be required to continue to wear those "sponsor's" [sic] names during all official duties and visits to constituents. The size of a logo or name would vary with the size of a donation. For example, a $1 million dollar contribution would warrant a patch of about 4" by 8" on the chest, while a free meal from a lobbyist would be represented by a quarter-sized button. Individual donations under $1000 are exempt.

While such a change in the rules would not actually lie within the executive branch's purview -- and would likely break House and Senate dress code -- the petition is indicative of what has become the site's de facto function, to serve as a clearing house for a wide variety of proposals of both the novel and novelty variety.

After a slew of petitions calling for everything from a state-by-state secession from the union to the construction of a Star Wars-style "Death Star," the White House upped their signature threshold from the previous 25,000 to 100,000. The "make lawmakers look like NASCAR drivers" one in particular still has a very long way to go.

Some legitimate petitions have since met the new benchmark, however. A call for the White House to prevent a controversial cybersecurity bill from becoming law and another protesting the suspension of the military's popular tuition assistance programhave surged past 100,000 signatures in recent weeks. But that hasn't discouraged jokers from submitting less serious ideas, such as a petition calling for President Barack Obama to change the national anthem to R. Kelly's 2003 hit "Ignition (Remix)."

The Sandy relief fund chaired by New Jersey first lady Mary Pat Christie has raised more than $32 million so far. But four months after the superstorm, none of that aid has reached storm victims yet.

In an interview, Mary Pat Christie pointed to the logistical challenge of starting a charity from scratch, the relief fund’s focus on addressing long-term recovery needs, instead of short-term relief, and her own “methodical” approach to putting the proper resources and safeguards in place, as reasons for the delay.

It was never the intent for the Hurricane Sandy New Jersey Relief Fund to quickly provide monetary aid directly to storm victims, she noted. Instead, the plan was to lend support to reputable nonprofit groups that will be providing victims with financial assistance and other services in the months and years to come. The relief fund plans to distribute $1 million in grants this week, with another $5 million to follow several weeks after that.“I have taken excruciating steps to make sure that we give the money out in a really judicious way,” Mary Pat Christie said.

“You want accountability, you get accountability when you go through a methodical structure,” she said. “So, in three years when I’m still distributing money at Hurricane Sandy Relief, ask me if we're doing enough."

Mary Pat Christie’s defense of her charity’s performance, however, comes on the heels of the pointed barbs her husband, Gov. Chris Christie, has hurled at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Speaker of the House John Boehner, among others, for what the governor sees as inexcusable delays in helping the state’s residents, businesses and communities still reeling from the Oct. 29 storm. Christie famously called Congress’ holdup of Sandy relief “disgusting.”

'Let's move it'
The deliberate pace of Mary Pat Christie’s 4-month-old charity contrasts with the Robin Hood Foundation’s rapid turnaround of the $67 million raised by the 12-12-12 Concert for Sandy Relief.

To date, Robin Hood has awarded more than $50 million in grants to dozens of nonprofit groups, with nearly 40 percent of the funds earmarked for relief efforts in New Jersey. The foundation expects to commit almost all of the remaining concert money by the end of the month.Mary Pat Christie, however, says the comparison is unfair. Robin Hood has 25 years of experience and 85 employees, while her charity has only four people on staff.

Mary Pat Christie’s former chief of staff and director of protocol, Cam Henderson, who had no prior experience running a charitable foundation, has been tapped to serve as the fund’s executive director, at an annual salary of $160,000. The average compensation for top executives of nonprofit organizations with budgets between $25 million and $50 million in 2009 was $309,466, the charity noted.

“We have a very, very thin staff, really hard workers. We get everything we can on a pro bono basis,” Mary Pat Christie said, as she sat at a conference table in the charity’s spartan headquarters in Harding, located on the top floor of a converted barn. A local firm, Hampshire Real Estate Cos., is donating the office space.

Mary Pat Christie’s relief fund announced on Dec. 27 that it was making an initial commitment of $1 million in startup funds for long-term recovery committees that will be coordinating relief programs at the county level for the next several years.

However, those funds hadn’t been released as of last week. The delay stems from the fact that the recovery groups were subsequently required to submit formal grant requests to the relief fund for review by Feb. 15.

The charity’s grant committee, which Mary Pat Christie is not a member of, met two weeks later to vote on the grant amounts, which were publicly announced March 6. The six county committees receiving the grants, including the groups serving Monmouth and Ocean counties, should have the funds on hand sometime this week, the charity said.

But that $1 million in aid represents just 3 percent of the amount the charity has raised. That doesn’t sit well with storm victim Gigi Liaguno-Dorr.

“That's absolutely 100 percent unacceptable, because we want help yesterday,” said Liaguno-Dorr, of Middletown, who is still at battling her insurance company over the destruction of her Union Beach restaurant, Jakeabob’s Bay.

“She's the governor's wife. If anybody can push it through, she can,” she said. “Let’s move it.”

Sugar-sweetened beverages are linked to more than 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide each year, according to new research presented this week at an American Heart Association conference.

"This means about one in every 100 deaths from obesity-related diseases is caused by drinking sugary beverages," says study author Gitanjali Singh, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Among the world's 35 largest countries, Mexico had the highest death rates from sugary drinks, and Bangladesh had the lowest, according to the study. The United States ranked third.

However, the American Beverage Association dismissed the research as "more about sensationalism than science."

When people drink too many beverages containing added sugar, such as soft drinks, fruit drinks, energy or sports beverages, they tend to put on weight. The study authors say these added pounds increase the risk of developing diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers -- conditions often referred to as obesity-related diseases.

Researchers at Harvard wanted to find out how often people around the globe drank sugar-sweetened beverages and how that affected their risk of death. They looked at 114 national dietary surveys covering more than 60% of the world's population. They also used evidence from studies published in medical journals that discussed sugary drinks and other dietary habits. Their data was included in the 2010 Global Burden of Disease Study, which looks at the health and mortality of populations across the world.

How did the Harvard scientists single out that sweet drinks were linked to weight gain and death? They spent several years gathering and combing through data. They looked at all kinds of factors that can affect our weight such as TV watching, changes in physical activity levels, smoking and the consumption of all kinds of food and drink.

When the researchers controlled for these factors, they were able to determine what percentage of deaths from diabetes, heart disease and cancer were linked to sugary drinks.

"The investigators examined changes in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and then its association with change in body fatness or BMI (body mass index), and subsequent deaths from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer," says Rachel Johnson, professor of nutrition at the University of Vermont in Burlington and chair of the American Heart Assocation's Nutrition Committee, who was not involved in the study.

Scientists found that more people died from diabetes, heart disease and cancer in parts of the world where consumption of sugary drinks is high.

Of the nine world regions in 2010, Latin America and the Caribbean had the most diabetes deaths linked to sugary drinks with 38,000. East and Central Eurasia had the most cardiovascular deaths at 11,000.

In the United States, sugary drinks were linked to the deaths of 25,000 people from diabetes and other obesity-related diseases. As in many other countries, the death rates were highest in young adults under age 45, with one in 10 obesity-related deaths associated with sugary beverages.

"Almost three-quarters of the deaths caused by sugary drinks are in low and middle income countries," says study author Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, co-director of the cardiovascular epidemiology program at the Harvard School of Public Health. "So this is not just a problem in wealthy nations."

The average consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in Mexico, the country with the highest death rates among larger nations, was 24 ounces per day.

The American Beverage Association released this statement in response to the study:

"This abstract, which is neither peer-reviewed nor published, is more about sensationalism than science. In no way does it show that consuming sugar-sweetened beverages causes chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease or cancer - the real causes of death among the studied subjects.

"The researchers make a huge leap when they illogically and wrongly take beverage intake calculations from around the globe and allege that those beverages are the cause of deaths which the authors themselves acknowledge are due to chronic disease."

The study authors and other experts disagree.

"We know having an elevated BMI is associated with an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers," says Johnson. "The body does not seem to detect fullness as well when you drink sugary drinks. That is one explanation for why sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with obesity."

Recently the American Heart Association came out with a scientific statement about sugar intake and heart health because it says there is new evidence about the relationship between the two. The statement says some research has found a link between sugar consumption and cardiovascular disease, while other research has not found a direct link.

The AHA says that the best way to maintain a healthy weight and to decrease the risk of heart disease is to eat a healthy diet and to limit added sugar to no more than 100 calories a day for women and 150 for men.

Soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are the main source of added sugars in the American diet, according to the statement. One 12-ounce regular soda contains the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar and has about 140 calories.

Could Sugar Hill Mayor Gary Pirkle soon be known as Mayor Sugardaddie?

According to Darren Shuster,SugarDaddie.com spokesman and founder of Pop Culture PR, Mayor Pirkle has made a counterproposal to Sugardaddie.com's offer to pay $3.75 million if the city of Sugar Hill will change its name to Sugardaddie.com.

During a 45-minute meeting with Shuster on March 21, Pirkle offered to accept $1 million in return for changing his title to "Sugardaddie" for a period of one year.

Pirkle said he realizes Sugardaddie.com's offer is a publicity stunt, but saw a possibility for the city to benefit as well.

"We thought why not have a little fun with it and get a little publicity for ourselves," Pirkle explained.

Pirkle also offered to let Sugardaddie.com pay for and erect a bronze statue of a gold digger to represent the city's gold mining past, instead of the Hugh Hefner statue installation that is a condition of the original offer. The gold digger statue, which Shuster says would cost $50,000-$100,000, would tie in with the site's "gold digger" image, Shuster explained.

"We didn't think Hugh Hefner was appropriate," Pirkle said.

Shuster said he plans to take both offers to his client. He added the original $3.75 million offer has now been increased to $7.75 million.

As for what Mayor Pirkle will do if Sugardaddie.com actually accepts his offer to change his title:

"I'll be fine with that," Pirkle said. "It will be some money that we can do something nice for the citizens with."

A 47-year-old Michigan woman developed a bone disease rarely seen in the U.S. after she drank a pitcher of tea made from at least 100 tea bags daily, for 17 years, researchers report.

The Detroit woman visited the doctor after experiencing pain in her lower back, arms, legs and hips for five years.

X-rays revealed areas of very dense bone on the spinal vertebrae and calcifications of ligaments in her arm, said study researcher Dr. Sudhaker D. Rao, a physician at Henry Ford Hospital who specializes in endocrinology and bone and mineral metabolism.

The researchers suspected the woman had skeletal fluorosis, a bone disease caused by consuming too much fluoride (a mineral found in tea as well as drinking water).

The patient's blood levels of fluoride were four times higher than what would be considered normal, the researchers said.

Skeletal fluorosis is endemic in regions of the world with naturally high levels of fluoride in drinking water, including some parts of India and China, but is rare in Europe and North America. (Low levels of fluoride are added to drinking water in the United States to prevent cavities, but aren't high enough to cause fluorosis.)

Rao said the patient was originally referred to him because her doctors suspected she had cancer, which can also show up on an X-ray as areas of dense bone. But because Rao had seen cases of skeletal fluorosis in his native India, "I was able to recognize it immediately," he said.

Excess fluoride is typically eliminated from the body by the kidneys, Rao said. But if one consumes a lot of it, as this patient did through tea drinking, over time, the fluoride forms crystal deposits on bone, Rao said.

A few other cases of skeletal fluorosis caused by tea drinking have been reported in the United States. In these cases, patients typically drank a gallon of tea a day, Rao said. Rao and colleagues instructed their patient to stop drinking tea, after which she experienced an improvement in symptoms. The fluoride deposits will gradually go away as the bone remodels (or repairs) itself, a process that occurs frequently in the body, Rao said.

A description of the case will published tomorrow (March 21) in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Pass it on: A 47-year-old U.S. woman developed a bone disease after drinking a pitcher of tea a day for 17 years.

A man who spent more than two decades behind bars for the cold-blooded slaying of a Brooklyn rabbi was released Thursday into the arms of his weeping relatives after a reinvestigation by prosecutors cast serious doubt on evidence used to convict him.

"Sir, you are free to go," a judge told a smiling, white-haired David Ranta moments after prosecutors announced they supported tossing out the 1991 conviction.
Ranta's pregnant daughter — a 2-year-old when he was jailed — sisters and other supporters burst into applause and swarmed him as he walked out of the courtroom. His parents had died while he was in prison.
"I'm overwhelmed," the 58-year-old Ranta told reporters. "I feel like I'm under water, swimming."
The dramatic turnabout came after the Brooklyn district attorney's office filed paperwork on Wednesday saying it supported a defense motion to vacate the murder conviction and dismiss the indictment. After a recent review, they said they "no longer have sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Before releasing Ranta, Judge Miriam Cyrulnik offered an apology: "To say I'm sorry for what you've endured would be an understatement. ... But I say it anyway."
Ranta had claimed he had been rotting in a Buffalo prison for no reason.
"Like I said from the beginning, I had nothing to do with this case," he said outside court.

Prosecutors admitted the case against Ranta was now too "degraded" to hold up in court. But unlike case where convicts are exonerated by new DNA evidence, they stopped well short of conceding his innocence.
"That's a good question," prosecutor John O'Mara, who heads the DA's Conviction Integrity Unit, said when asked by reporters who killed the rabbi. "It may have been this defendant, it may not have been this defendant."
The case dated to Feb. 8, 1990, when a gunman botched an attempt to rob a diamond courier in Williamsburg. After the courier escaped unharmed, the man approached the car of Rabbi Chaskel Werzberger — a Holocaust survivor and a leader of the Satmar Hasidic community — shot him in the forehead, pulled him out of the vehicle and drove away in it.
Thousands attended the rabbi's funeral, and then-Mayor David Dinkins offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to an arrest. After the arrest of Ranta, Hasidic Jews surrounded the car that carried him to jail and chanted, "Death penalty!"

No physical evidence linked the unemployed drug addict to the crime and the diamond courier never identified him as the bandit. But a jury found him guilty anyway based on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. He was sentenced to 37½ years in prison.
The case began to unravel after newly formed Conviction Integrity Unit began its review in 2011. That same year, a man named Menachem Lieberman had approached Ranta's trial lawyer to tell him he "had uncertainty and discomfort" with his identification of Ranta, and later gave the unit a sworn statement recounting how a detective had told him to "pick the one with the big nose" — Ranta — out of a police lineup.
Other interviews done by the unit suggested an alleged accomplice-turned-prosecution witness — now dead — had pinned the shooting on Ranta to save himself. A woman also repeated claims that her deceased husband privately confessed he was the killer.

The unit also found gaps in police paperwork intended to document their investigation. And Ranta denied he knowingly signed police file folders with statements saying he'd helped plan the robbery.
Ranta "claimed he had signed a blank file folder ... only because he thought it was a form to allow him to make a phone call," court papers said.
The decision by the Brooklyn district attorney's office to support tossing out the conviction shocked relatives of Werzberger, said Isaac Abraham, a close family friend. They believe there's still credible evidence Ranta participated, he said.
"For this to happen 23 years later is mind-boggling," Abraham said. "He can only claim he wasn't the shooter but he can never claim he wasn't involved."

One long-retired detective from the case, Louis Scarcella, has defended his work.
"I never framed anyone in my life," he told the New York Post this week. "You have to be a low devil to frame someone. I sleep well at night."
Asked about Scarcella on Thursday, Ranta trial attorney Michael Baum said: "I think he saw a chance to solve a high-profile case at any cost. ... He's a cowboy."

Modern society is a sad state that produces many over-processed livers. When we overeat or eat processed or fried foods, and, anytime we are exposed to environmental pollutants or stress, the liver becomes overworked and overloaded. When the liver is taxed, it can’t process toxins and fat in an efficient way. There are many foods that can help cleanse the liver naturally by stimulating its natural ability to clean toxic waste from the body.

In the past, I have discussed my favorite cleansing foods. This list is a little more specific and focuses mainly on foods that can help cleanse your liver. In addition to taking a liver-cleansing supplement, and performing at least two liver and gallbladder cleanses per year, eating the following foods is the best way to keep your liver healthy and functioning the way you need it to. I would encourage you to incorporate these liver cleanse foods into your weekly diet.

1. Garlic

Just a small amount of this pungent white bulb has the ability to activate liver enzymes that help your body flush out toxins. Garlic also holds high amounts of allicin and selenium, two natural compounds that aid in liver cleansing.

2. Grapefruit

High in both vitamin C and antioxidants, grapefruit increases the natural cleansing processes of the liver. A small glass of freshly-squeezed grapefruit juice will help boost production of the liver detoxification enzymes that help flush out carcinogens and other toxins.

3. Beets and Carrots

Both are extremely high in plant-flavonoids and beta-carotene; eating beets and carrots can help stimulate and improve overall liver function.

4. Green Tea

This liver-loving beverage is full of plant antioxidants known as catechins, a compound known to assist liver function. Green tea is not only delicious, it’s also a great way to improve your overall diet. Learn more about the benefits of green tea.

5. Leafy Green Vegetables

One of our most powerful allies in cleansing the liver, leafy greens can be eaten raw, cooked, or juiced. Extremely high in plant chlorophylls, greens suck up environmental toxins from the blood stream. With their distinct ability to neutralize heavy metals, chemicals and pesticides, these cleansing foods offer a powerful protective mechanism for the liver.
Try incorporating leafy greens such as bitter gourd, arugula, dandelion greens, spinach, mustard greens, and chicory into your diet. This will help increase the creation and flow of bile, the substance that removes waste from the organs and blood.

6. Avocados

This nutrient-dense super-food helps the body produce glutathione, a compound that is necessary for the liver to cleanse harmful toxins.

7. Apples

High in pectin, apples hold the chemical constituents necessary for the body to cleanse and release toxins from the digestive tract. This, in turn, makes it easier for the liver to handle the toxic load during the cleansing process.

8. Olive Oil

Cold-pressed organic oils such as olive, hemp and flax-seed are great for the liver, when used in moderation. They help the body by providing a lipid base that can suck up harmful toxins in the body. In this way, it takes some of the burden off the liver in terms of the toxic overload many of us suffer from.

9. Whole Grains

Grains, such as brown rice, are rich in B-complex vitamins which are nutrients known to improve overall fat metabolization, liver function and liver decongestion. If possible, do not eat foods with white flour, instead try eating whole wheat alternatives.

10. Cruciferous Vegetables

Eating broccoli and cauliflower will increase the amount of glucosinolate in your system, adding to enzyme production in the liver. These natural enzymes help flush out carcinogens, and other toxins, out of our body which may significantly lower risks associated with cancer.

11. Lemons & Limes

These citrus fruits contain very high amounts of vitamin C, which aids the body in synthesizing toxic materials into substances that can be absorbed by water. Drinking freshly-squeezed lemon or lime juice in the morning helps stimulate the liver.

12. Walnuts

Holding high amounts of the amino acid arginine, walnuts aid the liver in detoxifying ammonia. Walnuts are also high in glutathione and omega-3 fatty acids, which support normal liver cleansing actions. Make sure you chew the nuts well (until they are liquefied) before swallowing.

13. Cabbage

Much like broccoli and cauliflower, eating cabbage helps stimulate the activation of two crucial liver detoxifying enzymes that help flush out toxins. Try eating more kimchi, coleslaw, cabbage soup and sauerkraut.

14. Turmeric

The liver’s favorite spice. Try adding some of this detoxifying goodness into your next lentil stew or veggie dish for an instant liver pick-me-up. Turmeric helps boost liver detox, by assisting enzymes that actively flush out dietary carcinogens.

Sports-Bar Food

Research shows that high-fat indulgences such as french fries, potato chips and mozzarella sticks can not only throw off the scale, but they can also disrupt sleep cycles.

A better sleep snack: Edamame (boiled soybeans in the pod, served sprinkled with salt) is high in magnesium, which has been shown in some studies to improve the quality of sleep of insomnia patients.

Crudité

Raw broccoli, cauliflower and carrots will make you feel full quickly...but will still be moving uncomfortably through your digestive system long after you pull up the covers.

A better sleep snack: Bananas contain sleep-inducing tryptophan and magnesium as well as (bonus!) potassium...which can prevent a middle-of-the-night charley horse.

Cured Meats

Bacon, pepperoni and sausage contain high levels of tyramine, an amino acid that boosts the secretion of the brain stimulant norepinephrine.

A better sleep snack: A turkey sandwich on whole wheat toast. Don't forget the bread: The complex carbs combined with the tryptophan in the turkey will stimulate the production of serotonin, which can make you feel drowsy.

Heart-Healthy Chocolate

You know chocolate has caffeine, but you may be surprised to hear that some of the darker bars can have as much as 80 milligrams—the amount in a can of Red Bull. As a general rule, the darker the chocolate, the stronger the stimulant.

A better sleep snack: Save the chocolate for breakfast , and at night, snack on trail mix with walnuts, almonds and dried tart cherries. All three are good food sources of melatonin, a hormone that promotes a more restful sleep.

Slumber-Party Snacks

Some studies have suggested that gorging on ice cream and candy bars a half-hour before bed can cause nightmares.

A better sleep snack: Nonfat popcorn will take the edge off your hunger but won't make you feel stuffed...or scared.

A Decaf Latte

A 2007 Consumer Reports study found that the amount of caffeine in "decaf" drinks sold at coffee shops varied from less than 5 milligrams to levels high enough to interfere with sleep. While a generic 8-ounce cup of decaf has 3 to 12 milligrams, a decaf from Dunkin' Donuts had 32 milligrams—as much as a 12-ounce bottle of Coke.

A better sleep snack: There's no conclusive proof that chamomile tea will put you to sleep, but it's been used for thousands of years as a natural calming remedy.