I'm not sure what it is about the 2008 Election that has driven people to the bottle. Sure, coping with the anxiety of tough decisions by imbibing alcohol has been around since, well, the day alcohol was invented (good day, by the way), but this year's campaign for the ages has really upped the ante.

Tonight is the first, and presumably only, vice presidential debate. Maybe it stems from those viral videos of Sarah Palin's Katie Couric interview or Joe Biden's generally gaffe prone nature, but people are expecting it to be a doozy. Many peoples answer: Get boozy.

Googling "Vice Presidential Debate Drinking Game" (in quotes) racks up a respectable 839 results -- and not many are leftovers of Cheney/Edwards. Want to join in on the fun? After the jump see the links to the top 8...

Are you feeling opinionated on a range of food topics, notably diets? On the website Opposing Views, you have the opportunity to view experts' arguments for and against low-carb diets, caffeine use, biotech foods, and on becoming a vegetarian. Afterwards, you can post your own comments.

There are so many overbearingly opinionated blogs. What a relief to finally find a site where doctors and scientists debate over hot topics. And, rather than totally ignoring what everyone else has to say, it fosters continued discussion with comments. Also, the site provides news headlines dealing with the various questions.

From all the food-related issues that Opposing Views thoroughly covers, I found the topic on caffeine the most interesting. This is no doubt due to my over sensitivity to caffeinated products. Also, increasingly we hear stories in the news stating that coffee can reduce our risks of diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and colon cancer. Just this past January, the media stated that doctors confirmed that while coffee helps fight type two diabetes, caffeine makes it worse. Such a contradictory study gives one an even stronger reason to check out this debate on Opposing Views.

As organic foods get more popular and end up everywhere from the farmer's market to Wal-Mart, critics are getting louder about whether consumers are getting their money's worth. Unfortunately, they seem to focus on the fact that it has not been proven that organic foods are definitely healthier - as in more nutritious - than their conventionally grown counterparts.

The foods are organically grown, not magically nutritionally enhanced.

Whether someone eventually proves that organic foods have more or less nutritional value than their conventionally grown counterparts, the point of buying organic is supporting the non-use of pesticides and other growth-enhancement techniques in food production. There is a lower risk of ingesting some residual chemical or hormone with organic food. Organics may taste the same as, better than or worse than more conventionally grown produce, since they are not protected from bad weather, etc. (or shielded from particularly good weather), so there is more risk - and more potential reward - for the consumer.

As the organic movement spreads, more consumers will gradually learn more about what the label means and will be able to make informed choices on whether it is something they want to support. It seems short-sighted to say that because there is no clear nutritional difference, that organic food is a waste of time and money.

 

 

The American Medical Association is pushing to get warning labels on high-salt foods and, over the next 10 years, get those salt levels reduced by 50%. The group says that Americans eat twice as much salt as they should and that high levels of salt consumption can lead to an increased risk "for high blood pressure and may be an independent risk factor for other cardiovascular problems."

The Food Products Association, which is a food and beverage trade organization, says that the AMA's desire for this policy is misguided. Not only is salt naturally occurring in some foods, and an important flavor enhancer and natural preservative in others, but the link between salt and health problems is not crystal clear. It is a "risk factor for" and not "a cause of" the various health concerns that it has been linked to. Food groups say that current labels, which list the amount of sodium in foods, should be sufficient for consumers to make informed decisions on their foods.

The debate between the two parties is strong enough that the FDA may hold a hearing in the near future to determine the status of salt as a "safe food."

 

Related Links:
Singling out salt 
Round salt?

I've been fiercely opposed to the chemically-altered and highly sweet high fructose corn syrup for years, and it's amazing to me that, as long as it's been known to have serious affects on health, contributing to rising obesity and diabetes rates, it's still ubiquitously available in foods. It's super sweet, and it's cheap.

Kate Hopkins from the Accidental Hedonist is, like me, a long-time member of the anti-HFCS camp. She's developed an exceedingly well-researched answer to a reader's question on how to argue the HFCS case when many corn industry marketing folks rave about how "natural" the product is.