Sweet lovers, bakers, and assorted pastry-makers, take note: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t take kindly to companies falsifying nutritional information about their products.

In the latest chapter of the FDA’s ongoing saga with New Jersey-based Butterfly Bakery, a federal judge has “approved a consent decree of permanent injunction against” the company “for unlawfully distributing misbranded food products, such as muffins and snack cakes,” according to an FDA press release.

Butterfly Bakery has a history of openly flaunting FDA regulations with regards to their nutritional labeling, misrepresenting the sugar and fat content of their products to astonishing degrees — in fact, the FDA plainly warned the company and CEO Brenda Issac that it would face consequences if it didn’t cease its fraudulent practices. As per the FDA press release:

The consent decree restrains Butterfly Bakery and Brenda Isaac from processing and distributing food until the company complies with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and applicable regulations. Under the consent decree, FDA may assess damages against the company for any future violations of the law or the consent decree.

“This injunction demonstrates that the FDA will seek enforcement action against companies that mislead consumers on the products they purchase,” said Melinda K. Plaisier, the FDA’s acting associate commissioner for regulatory affairs. “Until Butterfly Bakery meets FDA regulations, it will no longer be able to process or distribute their products.”

Samples tested by both FDA and state officials over several years show that Butterfly Bakery’s product labeling was false and misleading. For example, laboratory analysis showed that foods labeled as “sugar free” contained sugar, and that certain products contained as much as three times the amount of labeled/declared sugar, two times the amount of labeled/declared fat, and two times the amount of labeled/declared saturated fat.

Faced with the reality of America’s obesity-related medical problems, public health advocates have been pushing for more robust FDA regulation of everything from high-sugar or high-sodium items to energy drinks. While the FDA hasn’t always lived up to these goals — for instance, the agency has stalled to finalize Obamacare’s calorie-reporting requirements for food chains largely because it’s worried about accommodating special interests — their victory against Butterfly Bakery shows that food makers still shouldn’t get carried away with their sugar highs.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), the Republican nominee-apparent for governor this year, was asked by U.S. News how he planned to appeal to female voters. Rather than face up to his record of opposition to women’s reproductive rights, Cuccinelli told the publication that he thought women would vote for him because he’d worked to help the mentally ill:

US NEWS: [Can the GOP appeal] to women?

CUCCINELLI: I’m a person who appeals to women with a variety of issues that they just happen to care more about that I also happen to care about. I’ve worked to improve mental health and worked to help the mentally ill for over a decade and a half, including when I was in the legislature. Women’s issues aren’t just abortion. Women’s issues are everything women care about. And I have an awful lot of issues that I appeal to women on, just as a natural course.

While his empathy for mentally ill citizens is admirable, his record doesn’t hold up. Cuccinelli spent much of his tenure as Attorney General fighting against the Affordable Care Act — a plan that expanded mental health parity — even though the American Psychiatric Association called the landmark health care law “good for patients.”

He has also attacked Medicare as “despicable” and an attack on American freedom — despite the fact that the program provides mental health coverage for millions of America’s seniors.

(ht: Blue Virginia)

The Republican governors who are refusing to accept Obamacare’s optional expansion of the Medicaid program typically cite financial concerns; despite all evidence to the contrary, GOP leaders claim that accepting federal funds to extend health coverage to additional low-income American will end up being too costly for their states. According to a new study, however, they have it backwards. Continuing to resist health reform could be significantly financially riskier than simply agreeing to expand Medicaid.

Each governor resisting Medicaid expansion could end up costing the employers in their state over $1 billion dollars, a new Jackson Hewitt Tax Service report finds. That’s because, since the health reform law seeks to ensure that everyone has access to insurance, Obamacare holds businesses with more than 50 employees responsible for making sure their workers have adequate benefits. Employers won’t be penalized for failing to offer health care to their low-wage workers if those employees can access public insurance through Medicaid — but if states don’t expand their Medicaid pools, the workers who have no other way to get health care could end up costing their employers:

A clause in the 2010 health-care overhaul penalizes some employers when their workers aren’t able to obtain affordable medical coverage through the company. Employers can avoid those fees if their workers qualify for Medicaid as part of an expansion that as many as 22 states have rejected, according to a report today by Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.

Without Medicaid, a “shared responsibility” payment of as much as $3,000 may be triggered for each employee who can’t get insurance through their company. In Texas, the largest state to refuse to increase Medicaid, employers may be liable for as much as $448 million in fines, the study found. In Florida, where the legislature has refused an expansion supported by Governor Rick Scott, employers may pay as much as $219 million. [...]