Aquafina Admits To Its TAP WATER Origin

Bottled water is one of the greatest marketing scams of the modern age. Take PepsiCo’s Aquafina brand, for example. Just by including a picture of mountains on the label, we are led to believe that this water originates from a natural drinking source. It’s essentially the same tactic that is used by several companies who bottle and sell water to the masses, as well as by food manufacturers who wish us to believe their products are ‘natural.’

Pepsico recently admitted that Aquafina is really just tap water, so ask yourself, why do we pay 2,000x the price of tap for it?

Nestle’s Pure Life and Coca-Cola’s Dasani, the world’s largest corporate water brands, are also guilty of this kind of willful misdirection. Three years ago, Coca-Cola admitted that Dasani is just filtered tap water.

In 2007, Corporate Accountability International, based in Boston, pressured the U.S. manufacturer of Aquafina bottled water to make it clear that the drink is made with treated tap water. They said that PepsiCo was guilty of misleading marketing practices used to “turn water from a natural resource into a pricey consumer item.”

Although this effort began several years, activists are still pressuring the company to label all of their bottles with something that, truly, should be public knowledge.

“New labels will spell out “public water source,” acknowledging the bottled brand’s shared origin with tap water. Aquafina is then purified through a seven-step process, stripping it of minerals and other contents commonly found in municipal water supply.” (source)

So, it seems not all of the bottles were labelled, which is why RT news as well as Greenpeace have also joined in to contribute to the bad press for bottled water, and we are happy to do the same. It’s just another opportunity to provide the masses with the truth about bottled water.

Article Source: Conscious Evolution

Photo Credit

Harvard Scientist Recommends KALE for Calcium -- NOT DAIRY

Vegans may have had it right all along; while raw, organic milk offers numerous health benefits, a Harvard researcher and pediatrician argues that conventional milk and dairy products alike are a detriment to your health – thanks to added health-compromising sweeteners.

As David Ludwig mentioned in his research, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics, there have been countless pieces of research concluding the ill effects of sugar-sweetened beverages. The over-consumption of sugar has been tied to obesity, diabetes, inflammatory-related pain, and much more. And because of sugar’s negative effects on our health, even the United States Department of Agriculture, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other organizations are recommending against consuming calories from sugary drinks.

The one calorie-containing beverage they still heavily promote, however, is reduced-fat milk, where the organization recommends drinking 3 cups daily. This is where Ludwig questions the scientific rationale for such recommendations.

“This recommendation to drink three cups a day of milk – it’s perhaps the most prevailing advice given to the American public about diet in the last half century. As a result, Americans are consuming billions of gallons of milk a year, presumably under the assumption that their bones would crumble without them,” says David Ludwig.

As far as Ludwig is concerned, if the USDA is recommending to drink reduced-fat milk, it is also inadvertently encouraging the consumption of added sugars – a piece of advice that goes against all the research saying not to consume sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages. The idea of consuming low-fat milk or chocolate milk cancels out the whole reasoning for the recommendation in the first place since the fats are simply being replaced with dangerous sugars.

“The worst possible situation is reduced-fat chocolate milk: you take out the fat, it’s less tasty. So to get kids to drink 3 cups a day, you get this sugar-sweetened beverage,” Ludwig says. ”…we can get plenty of calcium from a whole range of foods. On a gram for gram basis, cooked kale has more calcium than milk. Sardines, nuts seeds beans, green leafy vegetables are all sources of calcium.”

The Case Against Low-Fat Dairy, and Other Dangers of Milk

Harvard researcher David Ludwig certainly has a point in analyzing and ultimately criticizing the USDA’s recommendations, but there is much more to the full-fat vs reduced-fat argument for milk and dairy products.

There are plenty of reasons to avoid certain fats such as trans-fats and refined polyunsaturated fats in vegetable oils (like corn, soy, sunflower, and canola), but the evidence for moderate consumption of saturated fat, which is found in milk, coconut oil, and grass-fed land animals, is coming to the surface. While saturated fat was villainized for decades, a 2010 analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that “there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of [coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease].”

Further, there are numerous benefits to drinking full-fat dairy products. In it’s most pure state (raw, organic, and coming from grass-fed cows), full-fat dairy has been found in research to potentially promote heart health, control diabetes, aid in vitamin absorption, lower bowel cancer risk, and even aid in weight loss. But while pure dairy could promote your health, conventional dairy may prove damaging.

Before you consume more conventional dairy, please educate yourself as to what’s in your dairy. You’d be surprised that there could be 20+ painkillers, antibiotics, and much more lurking in your milk.

Article Source

Photo Source