FOOD FREAKS PANIC ABOUT NUTRASWEET

Panic: 'MP calls for ban on artificial sweetener', reports the Guardian on fears related to the sweetener aspartame, more widely known as NutraSweet. Liberal Democrat MP Roger Williams, a member of the parliamentary select committee on food and the environment, said in a Commons debate that there was 'compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic substance to be banned from the UK food and drinks market altogether'. Williams referred in particular to a study announced earlier this year from the European Ramazzini Foundation, which found statistically significant increases in leukaemia and lymphomas in rats fed a diet with the sweetener added.

Don't panic: While there have been long-standing suggestions that aspartame is carcinogenic, the sweetener has been the subject of numerous reviews that have drawn the conclusion that it is not a health risk.

On the face of it, aspartame seems an unlikely cause of cancer. As it is digested, the sweetener is broken down into simpler by-products, two amino acids plus methanol, which are already found in the diet in other foods. If aspartame is carcinogenic, then so are many normal foods. For example, tomato juice contains six times as much methanol as the equivalent volume of aspartame-sweetened soft drink. The quantities of aspartame consumed on average, about 2-3mg per kilogram of body weight per day, are well below the 40 mg/kg per day specified as safe by the European Union (EU).

The European Ramazzini Foundation study does suggest that aspartame is a health risk. Rats bred to spontaneously develop cancers developed more cancers while consuming aspartame than those that did not. For example, rats given the equivalent of 100 times the safe dose of aspartame were roughly twice as likely to develop lymphomas and leukaemias as those given no aspartame. There were also effects seen at lower doses.

However, such a study on a rather peculiar breed of animal cannot be a reliable guide to the effect of aspartame on humans. In passing, it is worth noting that there have been suggestions in the past that aspartame could increase the risk of brain tumours - but no significant increased risk of brain tumours was found in this study.

Before these results were widely publicised, it would have been better for them to be reviewed in the light of previous research, especially human epidemological studies, to make a balanced assessment of risk. Given the ubiquity of aspartame in all sorts of foods, any significant increased risk of cancer in humans would surely have shown up by now. One of the largest manufacturers of aspartame, Ajinomoto, has criticised the Ramazzini study as 'not consistent with the extensive body of scientific research which already exists on aspartame'.

The irony is that this is another example of competing panics. Aspartame has become popular at a time when many people are trying to lose weight, often for health reasons inspired by the hysteria around obesity. On the other hand, it is now suggested that aspartame may be carcinogenic. So, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Sweet.

Source

The aspartame saga continues

I have received the following article from Dr. Joe Schwarcz, Director, McGill University Office for Science and Society. It originally appeared in The Montreal Gazette

We are up to our ears in scientific publications. Over 9000 peer-reviewed journals bombard us with thousands of new research findings every day. They deal with all aspects of science, ranging from highly theoretical quantum mechanical calculations to studies of what goes into our mouths or comes out of our nose. It’s a real challenge for our brain to make sense of this tsunami of information! For most of us, the studies that arouse the greatest interest are the ones that have a potential impact on our daily lives, especially on our health. There’s certainly no lack of these. Virtually every day we hear of some study that urges us to eat more of a certain food or avoid another. There are studies that warn us about risks of specific chemicals in our environment and others that offer hope for the treatment of disease. To confuse matters, and people, studies are often at odds with each other!

There are several points to remember in the face of this publication onslaught. Science aims for a consensus opinion arrived at by examining all the available information. Rarely are single studies compelling enough to cause a major shift in thinking. Results that are reproduced by different researchers merit more attention. Negative studies are less likely to be reported than positive ones, leading to “publication bias,” and research that is funded by vested interests can raise questions about reliability. Keep in mind also that not all peer-reviewed journals are equally demanding in the quality of papers they accept for publication, and that scientists are not immune to human foibles.

When it comes to health-related issues, the fundamental question raised by any new study is whether it is persuasive enough to change any recommendations that are currently in effect. Recently an Italian study on aspartame, the most widely used artificial sweetener in the world, aroused a great deal of interest. This isn’t surprising, given the title of the paper: “Lifespan Exposure to Low Doses of Aspartame Beginning During Prenatal Life Increases Cancer Effects in Rats.” If such a common product increases our risk of cancer, changes in recommendations about its use would certainly be warranted. But what does this rat study mean for humans?

The current “Acceptable Daily Intake” (ADI) for aspartame in North America is 50 milligrams per kilogram body weight, while in Europe it is 40 mg/kg. Based on numerous laboratory, animal and human studies, adverse effects below these levels are unlikely. Using the lower European value, the ADI for an average adult weighing sixty kilograms is then 2400 mgs, which is the amount of aspartame found in roughly four liters of diet drink. Average consumption of course is way below this, but unfortunately there are people who drink abusive amounts. Perhaps they will re-evaluate their habit after hearing about what researchers at the European Ramazzini Foundation found.

Dr. Morando Soffritti and colleagues fed pregnant rats aspartame-laced food, and then did the same to their offspring throughout their natural lives. The rats were then autopsied and all signs of cancer recorded. One group of rats was fed aspartame at a dose of 100 mg per kilogram of bodyweight, another group at 20 mg/kg, and a third group, given no aspartame, served as a control.

Soffritti was following up on similar research he had published in 2005 which had concluded that aspartame was a carcinogen. That study was criticized by a group of toxicologists assembled by the European Union as having poor methodology and coming to an unwarranted conclusion. Soffritti was understandably angered by the criticism and undoubtedly vowed to “show them.” And apparently he has. The current results do show that animals fed at 100 mg/kg per day developed more tumours than those fed no aspartame. This is the amount of aspartame found in ten liters of diet drink. However, when it comes to the 20 mg/kg dose, the incidence of tumours found was essentially the same as in the rats given no aspartame. Based on these results, Soffritti and colleagues correctly conclude that their study showed aspartame to be a carcinogen, and that the effect is dose related.

What do we make of this? It is surprising that a carcinogenic effect was found, given that a large number of other studies have failed to find a link between aspartame and cancer. But the important finding here is the dose-response relationship. As the dose is decreased, so is the risk of tumour formation. At the equivalent of two liters of diet drink a day, the percent of animals bearing tumours is the same as in the control group. So, are these results convincing enough to alter the Acceptable Daily Intake? Before taking such an action, at the very least, we need to see if the experiment can be reproduced by another lab.

The Ramazzini Foundation study [by Soffritti] comes on the heels of a paper recently published in the Annals of Oncology, in which researchers from Italy and France examined the potential association between the risk of cancer and the consumption of artificial sweeteners. They evaluated the rates of consumption of saccharin, aspartame, and other sweeteners in approximately 7,000 individuals with various types of cancers and compared these with a similar number of people who did not have the disease. No link between artificial sweeteners and cancers of the esophagus, colon, rectum, larynx, breast, ovaries, prostate, kidney or mouth was found. And this was a human, not a rat study. Let’s remember also that the amount of aspartame found in a couple of diet drinks and artificially sweetened yogurts is way less than the 20 mg/kg per day dose that was shown to cause no increase in tumours in the Ramazzini study. In any case, there is no reason for anyone to be consuming more artificially sweetened products than these.

For now, there seems to be no reason to change recommendations about consuming moderate amounts of aspartame, but rest assured that it won’t be long before some new study comes along that either accuses or exonerates aspartame of some nutritional crime. Many scientists will be ready to evaluate that study and change their views if warranted (myself included). That’s the way of science.




Cellphones: No evidence will ever be enough

Mobile phones do not pose a health risk, according to one of the biggest studies into their dangers. But this is only in the short term; long-term damage cannot be ruled out. Six years of research by 28 teams, at a cost of £8.8 million, have failed to substantiate any of the health claims made about mobile phones or the masts that broadcast their signals.

But the fears could not be entirely laid to rest, said Professor Lawrie Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme, which oversaw the study. This was because cancer had a long latency period, and mobile phones had not been in use long enough to rule out risk. A second study, for which 6 million pounds has been earmarked, would follow mobile-users over a long period to see if intensity of use has any link with the frequency of cancers.

Professor Challis said that the results so far were “reassuring” – there was no evidence of immediate or short-term damage and no association between use and cancer. He said that experiments on tissue had produced no effects, and the committee responsible for the programme believes that there is no need for further work in this area.

The researchers tested people who complained that they were hypersensitive to electromag-netic fields and found that they were able to tell whether the fields were turned on or off. Their symptoms must have some other cause, he said.

Professor Challis emphasised that although the mobile phone industry had jointly funded the research with the Government, the committee had been protected from any undue influence. He said that the best researchers had been sought and their work published in peer-reviewed journals. Of the 28 projects funded, 23 were now complete and resulted in 23 published papers. Yesterday’s report summarises the conclusions.

Professor Challis said: “We cannot rule out the possibility that cancer could appear in a few years’ time, both because the epidemiological evidence we have is not strong enough to rule it out and, secondly, because most cancers cannot be detected until ten years after whatever caused them.” The research must continue, he added. “We can’t reassure people about the long-term use.”

The only worrying sign was a “very slight hint” of increased incidences of brain tumours among longer-term users, he said, but this was at the borderline of statistical significance and needed further investigation. Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrats’ science spokesman, said: “This report is good news for the public, phone users and the industry. There is no basis on health grounds for any further tightening of regulations or advice on mobile phone masts or the use of handsets.”

A cohort study involving 200,000 people will take place in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Britain, in which mobile users will be identified and followed for a prolonged period. Any symptoms they suffer will be recorded and compared with their use of mobile phones, using billing records. A senior doctor whose research contributed to the development of a vaccine against cervical cancer is to be the next chief executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC).

Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, who has a strong background in clinical science, will succeed Professor Colin Blakemore at the end of the month. His appointment may help to allay fears that the Government is pressing a heavy business agenda on the body, which distributes 460 million pounds in public funds to biomedical research. Ministers are pushing the MRC to support more science with commercial applications, in line with a review of funding arrangements by Sir David Cooksey, a venture capitalist.

Source







A modest proposal from Australia: Government-funded health "Trainers" for all

The Fascist writer below recognizes that people mostly ignore "health" messages so "make people behave" is the proposed solution. That people have any right to eat what they want is not recognized. Nor is it recognized that "health" wisdom often goes into reverse.

THE idea that taxpayers should subsidise weight loss programs sparked an outcry this week, but it is the first solid policy proposal we have seen to stem a health problem that is costing Australia billions. It comes on the back of calls for cartoon characters to be banned from food packaging, for a tax to be placed on high sugar breakfast cereals and as some hospitals ban surgery on obese people and smokers. Unlike a weight loss program, none of these proposals does anything to change behaviour. That's why both sides of politics say they are seriously considering the weight loss subsidy.

Sixty per cent of our population is overweight. The problem - in defiance of government advertising campaigns to eat more fruit and vegetables and do more exercise - is, like Australians, only getting bigger.

A study in the Medical Journal of Australia has found these public health messages are being absorbed by the public. But it also found this knowledge does not readily translate into behavioural changes. We know what's good for us - but we won't do it.

Every year our public hospitals treat 500,000 people for preventable illnesses. Every year over 50,000 people die from illnesses caused by their poor lifestyle. It's time we asked whether scarce public health dollars should be spent fixing up health problems that are caused by our own unhealthy habits. We're making the unemployed take some responsibility for the public funding they get by working for the dole. In Aboriginal communities bureaucrats have taken control of welfare payments so they can't be spent on alcohol and drugs. The health system is the next area ripe for the new responsibility agenda.

Why should taxpayers fund repeated heart by-pass operations unless the patient receiving them signs a contract agreeing to give up smoking, do 30 minutes of exercise a day and lose weight? What's the point of the public subsidising diabetes or cholesterol tablets if the patient won't exercise and continues eating fatty foods?

A National Heart Foundation study estimates that seven lifestyle factors - obesity, low fruit and vegetable consumption, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, low physical activity, high cholesterol and high blood pressure - cause 52,738 deaths in Australia every year - 39 per cent of all deaths. If we don't start heeding these public health messages (and it doesn't seem likely we will) that number is bound to get even worse.....

The answers aren't necessarily expensive or difficult. We all know what we've got to do to address these health problems: eat healthier food, eat less food overall, quit smoking, take up regular exercise, and control our alcohol intake. But knowing isn't doing. That's why we need to consider a more interventionist approach to preventive health.

The health fund Australian Health Management, which runs an intensive diet and exercise preventive health program, has found spending $600 a year on a personalised health management program for its chronically ill members saves the fund $1800 a year per person. This health fund has found a much more intensive personalised coaching approach to preventive health does pay off.

Instead of spending millions kitting out our ambulances, hospitals and morgues with beds and stretchers that can cope with the morbidly obese, perhaps we should be spending the money on personal coaches that help the chronically ill reinvent their lifestyles. This health fund shows why a subsidy for weight loss programs is worth a trial. The doctors group proposing the plan wants to keep its costs down to $27 million by restricting it to obese people at risk of a chronic illness . But the extra expense of extending it to all overweight Australians could save us much more than it costs.

Telling people what's good for them hasn't worked. If we want cheaper health insurance and lower taxes, it's time to make people take that 30 minute walk and cut down on their calorie intake.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

Lack of sleep can lead to overweight kids

The fact that -- for once -- parental education and income was controlled for makes this study unusually strong. So it is amusing that diet and exercise were found to have negligible effect

A lack of sleep is more likely to lead to overweight children than a poor diet or lethargic lifestyle, a new long-term study has found.

New Zealand researchers monitored a random sample of almost 250 children, regularly tracking weight, diet, body composition, physical activity and sleep patterns from the ages of three to seven.

They took into account birth weight, parent's education, income, ethnicity and if their mother was smoking while pregnant - all factors known to affect a child's weight.

Previous studies have found poor sleep is linked to heavier children, but this is the first time such a thorough and long assessment had been done, researcher Professor Barry Taylor said.

Almost a quarter of the Dunedin children surveyed were overweight by the time they were seven, Prof Taylor said. "(But) how active you are actually seems to have no effect on whether or not you're overweight at the age of seven," he told AAP. "The food that you ate had some effect, but actually the biggest effect was short sleep."

He said the children slept an average of 11 hours each night and those that got any less shut-eye were more likely to be overweight, even if other factors were controlled. "It's a complicated connection," said Prof Taylor, a pediatrician and academic from the Dunedin School of Medicine.

He said the amount of sleep a person got altered the hormones controlling metabolism and appetite, hence, how much one eats. "We were surprised by how big a factor (sleep was)," Prof Taylor said. "I was expecting the ... percentage of food eaten as vegetables and fruit would be more important and that activity levels ... would be more important."

Evidence suggests the amount of sleep both children and adults get has dropped significantly in the past 30 years, Prof Taylor said, blaming a "modern lifestyle". He said children should generally get about nine to 10 hours of sleep a night, but some will need more.

Trials are now under way to see if teaching families how to deliberately increase their child's sleep can alter growth. "All we can say at this stage is this looks like something that needs to be done," Prof Taylor said.

The study was published in the British Medical Journal.

SOURCE





Aspartame in the gun again

Based on specious epidemiological reasoning. There are some very strange aspartame crusaders. I have had run-ins with them before

An artificial sweetener used in Diet Coke is to undergo an urgent EU safety review. Aspartame is ingested every day by millions of people around the world in more than 6,000 well-known brands of food, drink and medicine. However, it has been the subject of a number of studies that appear to show harmful effects on human health.

One recent study linked diet drinks containing aspartame to premature births, while another suggested it could cause cancer.

To date, health watchdogs, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA), have ruled out any link to ill-health.

But after several MEPs asked for a new investigation following pressure from European health campaigners, EU Commission officials have now asked the EFSA to bring forward a review that had been planned for 2020.

The concern about artificial sweeteners such as aspartame relates to the fact that they contain methanol, a nerve toxin which can be metabolised in the body to form two more nerve toxins: formic acid and formaldehyde, the chemical used to preserve dead bodies.

Earlier this year, experts on Britain’s Committee on Toxicity(CoT) ruled that ‘long-term exposure to methanol consumed through food, including from aspartame, is unlikely to be harmful to health’. The committee pointed out that methanol is also found in fruit and vegetables.

As a result of the experts’ conclusions, the FSA ruled the consumption of aspartame ‘is not of concern at the current levels of use’.

Despite this verdict, the FSA is currently recruiting volunteers for an investigation into anecdotal reports of ill health, including headaches and stomach upsets, associated with aspartame.

The watchdog announced the research project in 2009, however it has had difficulties recruiting volunteers who claim to suffer problems.

EFSA spokesman, Lucia De Luca, said: ‘Aspartame is one of hundreds of flavourings. It is on the market because it has been assessed in the past and considered safe. ‘We have received an official request for a complete re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame. ‘The re-evaluation is scheduled for 2020 but the Commission asked us to do this re-evaluation now in the light of recent events. ‘In the past year, there have been a couple of studies looking at aspartame and concerns expressed by consumer groups and others.’

In July last year, EU-funded research by Danish scientists, which looked at almost 60,000 mothers-to-be, found a correlation between the amount of diet drink consumed and an early birth.

Previously, the Independent Ramazzini Foundation in Italy has published research suggesting aspartame caused several types of cancer in rats at doses very close to the current acceptable daily intake for humans. Both of these have been evaluated by EFSA experts, who have rejected any risk to human health.

Aspartame is manufactured by Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe. The firm said it welcomes the decision to bring forward the safety evaluation. A spokesman said: ‘EFSA reaffirmed the safety of aspartame in 2006, 2009 and 2010. In addition, recent allegations about the safety of aspartame made in France and by a handful of MEPs have already been dismissed by EFSA. ‘This review of the extensive body of science on aspartame will provide additional confirmation of the ingredient’s safety.

‘By providing an excellent sweet taste, aspartame makes a useful contribution to a healthy, calorie-controlled diet and can help people to avoid overweight and obesity, and their associated diseases.’

SOURCE

Aspartame to be declared 'possible carcinogen' by WHO

This is just the latest in a long line of do-gooder attempts to "get" artificial sweeteners. Sugar is bad for you too, of course, so you can't win. And fruit sugar (fructose) is the worst of all, allegedly

I once took on the Aspartame evangelists at some length, linking to many studies that debunked the scare. You can find my posts here. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Sources told Reuters that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." But historically, the agency's decisions have been controversial and confusing.

Reuters reported that an arm of the World Health Organization will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." (Image credit: Steve Russell / Contributor via Getty Images)
An agency within the World Health Organization (WHO) will soon name the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame a "possible carcinogen," based on a review of 1,300 studies, Reuters reported, citing information from two sources who are knowledgeable about the process.

But don't panic: The arm of the WHO that did the review, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), uses a classification system for possible and known carcinogens that is notoriously confusing and often misleading, Reuters noted. Science writer Ed Yong summed it up well in a 2015 Atlantic article, in which he wrote, "Perhaps we need a separate classification scheme for scientific organizations that are 'confusogenic to humans.'"

Here's what you need to know.

The IARC doesn't analyze how much of a product a person can safely consume before it poses a health risk, according to Reuters. When it comes to aspartame, the answer is a lot: Past assessments suggest that a typical, 150-pound (68 kilograms) person could safely consume the equivalent of the aspartame contained in more than 13 cans of Diet Coke a day.

The arm of the WHO that handles such assessments — the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives, or JECFA — has ruled on aspartame many times before. In its most recent review, the agency again held that the sweetener is safe to consume and set the acceptable daily intake at zero to 40 milligrams per 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of body weight. That translates to about 2,730 milligrams per day for a 150-pound person.

Again, this recommendation reflects how much aspartame can be consumed before it poses any health risk — not specifically cancer. Various agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have not found any definitive link between aspartame consumption and an increased risk of cancer, the American Cancer Society states.

Interestingly, JECFA is also reviewing the available data on aspartame and will announce its findings July 14, the same day the IARC is expected to rule on the artificial sweetener.

The IARC ranks substances as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic or not classifiable. These classifications serve as a rough way to rank the strength of the evidence linking a substance to cancer in humans; this evidence includes studies of humans, human cells and tissues and lab animals, as well as studies of the substances' similarity to known or probable carcinogens. The rankings aren't related to how much a substance might increase cancer risk, but how conclusively the IARC can say it causes cancer at all.

Tobacco, asbestos and processed meat are all classified as carcinogenic, meaning the IARC determined there's conclusive evidence that they can cause cancer in humans, even though the degree of risk differs among these substances.

The IARC considers glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, a "probable" carcinogen, meaning there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence that it can cause cancer in humans and either sufficient evidence showing it causes cancer in animals or strong evidence that it has similar characteristics to known or probable human carcinogens. (Regulatory agencies have contested the IARC's ruling on glyphosate, Reuters noted.)

For "possible" carcinogens, there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence they can cause cancer in humans but sufficient evidence that they cause cancer in animals or strong evidence that they have carcinogen-like characteristics. In some cases, something can rank as a possible carcinogen if there's "strong" evidence from cell and chemical studies but inadequate evidence in animals and humans.

Sources told Reuters that aspartame will fall into this category, alongside the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with cellphones. (Note that non-IARC authorities have said there's no or insufficient evidence linking cancer to cellphone use.)

Listing aspartame as a possible carcinogen is intended to motivate more research, sources close to the IARC told Reuters. Read more about the IARC's upcoming decision in Reuters.

https://www.livescience.com/health/food-diet/aspartame-to-be-declared-possible-carcinogen-by-who-dont-panic

****************************************************

Trying for a baby? Eat Brussels sprouts: Vegetable helps boost fertility in both men and women

Just theory.  No research cited

Many people shudder at the thought of Brussels sprouts with their minds conjure up images of bitter, overcooked school vegetables.   But new research suggests that couples who are trying for a baby should tuck into a regular helping of the festive staple.

According to studies, nine per cent of all conceptions take place over the Christmas period, making December the most fertile month of the year. Parties and festive tipples are thought to be partly responsible for this trend.

However, Neema Savvides, a nutritional therapist at the Harley Street Fertility Clinic, says the increased consumption of sprouts could also play a role.  She said: ‘Believe it or not, this green micro cabbage is a baby making super food.

‘Firstly, they are bursting with folic acid which is essential for boosting fertility in both men and women.  ‘This vitamin rich source also increases sperm levels and helps line the womb with the right nutrients raising sperm survival chances.

‘Another benefit of this folic rich food is that it also helps to decrease the risk of miscarriages and birth defects.’

Brussels sprouts also contain a phytonutrient called di-indolylmethane, which helps women absorb balanced levels of the hormone oestrogen.

In fact, it binds to environmental oestrogens, like pesticides and hormones in meat and dairy products, and helps rid the body of excess hormones – this boosts fertility.

The vegetable is also thought to lower cholesterol levels and have anti-inflammatory properties.

SOURCE






Trials discover that controversial sweetener aspartame is actually SAFE and doesn't cause headaches or nausea

The aspartame warriors will block their ears

The controversial sweetener aspartame has effectively been cleared as safe to eat by Government experts following human feeding trials.

Human guinea pigs were fed cereal snack bars, some of which contained the artificial sweetener, by a team of researchers at Hull York Medical School.

The study recruited 50 people who had reported reactions after consuming aspartame in the past, such as headaches and nausea.

There was also a control group of another 50 others who have eaten aspartame in food and fizzy drink over many years without any ill-effects.

However, the investigation found no evidence of harm in either those who reported past sensitivity to aspartame or the control group.

Significantly, this was a so-called double-blind trial where neither the trial participants or the researchers knew which of the bars was being eaten.

Yesterday, the Food Standards Agency announced that as a result of the British research, the Committee on Toxicity(CoT) had decided there is no need to ban or control the sale or consumption of the sweetener.

The FSA said: ‘The expert committee concluded that 'the results presented did not indicate any need for action to protect the health of the public'.’

The government watchdog has not released the full details of the research because they remain confidential until they have been published in a peer reviewed journal.

And despite concluding there is no reason to protect consumers, the FSA said the committee had not carried out an overall safety evaluation of aspartame

A separate safety evaluation is being conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is due to be published this month. The FSA said it will send the results of the British trial to EFSA, so they can be taken into account.

The conclusions of the experts on the CoT are unlikely to satisfy the many critics of aspartame, who include Erik Millstone, Professor of Science Policy at the University of Sussex.

He insists there is good quality independent research projects that have identified potential problems, ranging from premature births in women who enjoy diet drinks, to cancer.

Prof Millstone, of the university’s Science and Technology Policy Research unit, believes that EFSA’s evaluation is biased in favour of aspartame.

He claims the EFSA panel set up to carry out the safety assessment is dominated by experts linked to manufacturers or regulators that have previously supported aspartame.

The professor pointed to several studies that raise real questions about the safety of aspartame and justify the need for further research.

An EU funded project published in 2010 found pregnant women who down cans of fizzy drink containing artificial sweeteners appear to be at greater risk of having a premature baby,.

It is rare for a mother to be to give birth early - before 37 weeks - assuming all aspects of the pregnancy have been normal. The research found this low risk was increased by 38per cent if the woman was drinking an average of one can of diet drink a day.

The statistics, gathered by academics in Denmark, showed that a woman who routinely drank at least four cans a day could increase the risk by as much as 78per cent. This meant that if the risk of a premature birth was normally one in a 100, it increased to 1.78 in 100.

The professor also highlighted work by the independent Ramazzini Foundation in Italy, which has published research suggesting aspartame caused several types of cancer in rats at doses very close to the current acceptable daily intake for humans.

The concern about artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame, relates to the fact that they contain methanol.

Methanol is a nerve toxin, which can be metabolised in the body to form formic acid, which is another nerve toxin, as well as formaldehyde, which is the chemical used to preserve dead bodies.

All of these research studies have formed part of the EFSA review. A paper detailing the review’s draft conclusions found they did not identify a health risk.

SOURCE

Cancer link for sweetener?

RESEARCHERS have strengthened a link between aspartame - a common sweetener in soft drinks, medicines and sugar-free sweets - and cancer in rats. The chemical is sold under the brand name NutraSweet. The study, conducted by a team of Italian scientists, demonstrates that aspartame is particularly potent when animals are exposed in the womb. The research was recently published online in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US government sponsored, peer-reviewed journal.

This study raises "serious questions about the safety of the artificial sweetener aspartame", said Mike Jacobson, executive director for the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, a public health watchdog group based in Washington, DC. He hoped the Food and Drug Administration would re-evaluate the chemical.

But industry group, Calorie Control Council, disagrees. Beth Hubrich, a registered dietitian for the council, said the study's methodology was faulty and its results would unnecessarily alarm people. "It is difficult to understand why the National Institute of Environmental Health Safety would publish such studies in Environmental Health Perspectives when the design and execution did not follow guidelines set up by the National Toxicology Program," Dr Hubrich wrote.

The study, from the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences - an independent, non-profit foundation based in Bologna, Italy - indicated that cancers were more common in rats exposed to the sweetener than in animals that were not exposed. "On the basis of our scientific data, we believe that aspartame should be avoided as much as possible, especially by pregnant women and children," Morando Soffritti, the lead researcher on the study, wrote in an email.

The acceptable daily intake of aspartame is 40ml per kilogram of body weight in Australia and the European Union. That's a lot of aspartame. For a 68kg adult, that's about 18 cans of diet soft drink each day. For a 23kg child, it's closer to six cans a day. But aspartame isn't just in soft drink. It is also in yoghurts, sugar-free desserts, gums and medicines. It is therefore likely that daily aspartame consumption is often underestimated, according to Dr Soffritti.

In the subject rats, the Italian scientists discovered a statistically significant dose-related increase of malignant tumours in rats fed the artificial sweetener. The high-dose group showed statistically significant increases in tumours - as much as 15 percentage points higher in males - while the low-dose group showed minor increases in lymphomas and leukemias in both sexes, and breast cancers in females. The results, Dr Soffritti said, "call for urgent reconsideration of regulations governing the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener". "This is not just an opinion," he said, "but in the US, it is also the law."

Others, however, maintain there is no risk. James Swenberg, professor of environmental sciences and engineering at the University of North Carolina, said the study did not follow the National Toxicology Program's methodology, and the results were therefore suspect. [And anything backed by the extremist "Centre for Science in the Public Interest" is suspect too]

Source





New York City Fast Food Outlets Protest New Calorie-Posting Rules: Eateries Refuse to Cooperate, Calling Plan an "Eyesore"

Burger King, McDonald's and Wendy's are among the chains planning to defy New York City's new rule that they begin posting calories on menus Sunday, the AP reports. Other big fast food eateries like Taco Bell and KFC aren't saying whether they will comply, but with just days to go until the deadline, the menu boards in their Big Apple restaurants remain unchanged.

All are hoping a New York Restaurant Association lawsuit in federal court will get the new regulation thrown out. Meanwhile, the city won't fine anyone for violating it until October. "We are not trying to avoid providing this information to customers," Wendy's spokesman Denny Lynch told the AP. He noted that the company has made nutritional information available for 30 years on fliers and posters.

However, New York is the first city in the country to require certain fast food restaurants to list calorie counts next to menu items in type that is at least as large as the price. Lynch says adding all those numbers will make menus impossible to read.

"You'll either have to have a Times Square-sized menu board, or it could look like a bad day at the eye doctor's office," said Jack Whipple, president of the National Council of Chain Restaurants. Fast food chains also say they have been unfairly singled because the new rule only applies to restaurants that serve standardized portions and offer nutritional information voluntarily.

Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a health advocacy group, had a different take: "They are afraid that when people see these eye-popping calorie numbers, they might switch to a smaller size," he said. "They feel it is gong to hurt sales."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

Aspartame revisited

It looks like I poked a beehive when I criticized the anti-aspartame campaign yesterday. I got several accusatory emails, including one from the chief anti-aspartame evangelist herself, Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum. I have never heard of a D.Hum before. Maybe you get them out of cornflakes packets. I reproduce below part of my correspondence with the D.Hum one:

I initially reiterated my point about the lack of human double-blind studies. She replied:

Dr. Walton's study was double blind. Who do you work for?

I was rather amused by the implicit suggestion of bad faith so I replied:

I work for BIG PHARMA, of course. No honest person could question your beliefs, could they? You can see more about my evil affiliations here:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com

With the lack of any sense of humour that one expects of fanatics, she did not apparently detect the sarcasm at all. She replied:

I figured as much. I'm not surprised. If you had read Dr. Walton's report you would have seen the link and the fact that it was double blind. Here is the link.

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Aspartame-Adverse-Reactions-1993.htm

And what a link it is! She had to go all the way back to 1993 to find something and then it concerned ill-effects among a non-random sample of 13 clinical depressives who were fed doses of aspartame seven times a day in pill form, rather than in food.

Quite aside from the ridiculous "sampling", the fact that they got the stuff in pill form quite vitiates the study. Aspartame is supplied IN FOOD and unless you study it in food, you are pissing into the wind. As I have previously pointed out, the potentially bad metabolites of it have been shown to be susceptible to breaking down by other food components or their metabolites so it is the actual bottom line after that happens that we have to look at, not intermediary processes in isolation. And NOBODY seems to have shown any adverse effects from normal use of aspartame in a double-blind study.

I am sure the anti-aspartame evangelists will be sticking pins into a voodoo doll of me by now.





Popcorn addiction dangerous

A MAN who microwaved and ate two to three bags of extra-buttered popcorn a day for a decade has come down with a dangerous lung disease, apparently the first public case of "popcorn lung". Popcorn lung, or broncheolitis obliterans, permanently scars airways, eventually leaving victims fighting for breath and dependent on oxygen. When safety experts identified the disease in workers in popcorn factories in 2002, they said consumers were not at risk because of the relatively low exposure.

But after treating a Colorado furniture salesman, 53, earlier this year, doctors at the National Jewish Medical and Research Centre in Denver warned federal agencies. "We cannot be sure that this patient's exposure to butter-flavoured microwave popcorn has caused his lung disease," wrote the hospital's Cecile Rose."However, we have no other plausible explanation."

In response to the news, the Flavour and Extract Manufacturers Association on Tuesday recommended that members who made butter flavours with diacetyl consider cutting its concentration. The association made it clear there was no suggestion of risk from eating popcorn. "No, it's inhalation," Ms Rose said. "This patient described enjoying the smell so much he was actually inhaling the steam."

Ms Rose said she had been surprised by the man's condition. "So I turned to him and apologised and said, 'This is a really weird question. But are you around a lot of popcorn?' His jaw dropped, and he said, 'How did you know to ask me that? I am popcorn.' He described himself as a two-pack-a-day user. Sometimes more." Ms Rose and her colleagues tested the air in the man's home for diacetyl, a chemical used to produce a buttery flavour, while he was microwaving popcorn.

Ms Rose said the man's lungs have stabilised since he gave up eating popcorn - and he shed almost 15 kilograms in weight.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

The campaign against Nutrasweet (aspartame)

Coming as I do from a big sugar-producing area (Far North Queensland), I always read carefully the little sachets that one gets with one's coffee in coffee lounges. I make sure that I am putting real sugar in my coffee and not some substitute junk. So I should be in sympathy with the campaign against aspartame, right? Wrong! As far as I can see, the campaign is founded on little more than the usual self-glorifying belief that if something is popular it must be bad.

There is a list here of 13 recent anti-aspartame studies and, unless I have missed something, there is not one study of the type that would be decisive: A double-blind study in humans. There are plenty of in vitro ("test tube") and in vivo (rats and mice) studies but that's about it.

And even some of the studies listed there admit that some of the potentially bad byproducts of aspartame metabolism can be broken down rapidly by other food components or metabolites. So showing that rats on a rat diet cannot handle aspartame well tells us nothing about humans. What is needed are studies of humans on a human diet as it seems probable that the human metabolism CAN safely break down aspartame. One has to look at the bottom line, not intermediate processes in isolation.

Since a double blind study in humans should not pose any great difficulty, I think it is the absence of such a study which is most telling.

The attention-seeking studies have however had an effect. There are now various bans on aspartame, particularly in Europe and the UK. Seeing how crazy such places also are about "obesity", it is strange indeed that something which could help combat obesity is restricted on such flimsy grounds. It reinforces the impression that the attack on obesity is insincere too. It adds to the evidence that the anti-obesity campaign is really an expression of middle-class contempt for the working class, who are indeed fatter on the whole: Good old class-prejudice again. The more things change ....

The amusing thing is that all the food and health rhetoric goes right over the heads of most working class people. They very wisely just don't listen. They just eat what they like and damn the consequences. I do too. But my father was, after all, a lumberjack. Heh!





Are baby milk additives rotting babies' bowels?

Prebiotics: Another fad goes bad. If this one causes Crohn's disease it is a real disaster. If baby formula makers don't act on this immediately, they could be in big trouble. They might be in big trouble already

DOCTORS have warned that infant milk formula containing added fruit sugars could be causing gut disorders in children. Several new milk formula products, including Nutricia and Aptamil, contain prebiotics such as fructose or other short-chain carbohydrates to improve digestive health.

But Melbourne researchers have found prebiotics in the diet can cause gastrointestinal problems. They are worried that the latest nutrition fad could be doing "more harm than good" in children with a predisposition to gut problems. Gastroenterology expert Prof Peter Gibson expressed concerns about adding prebiotics to infant formula. "Excessive intake of sugars that escape digestion and absorption in the small intestine contribute to susceptibility and symptom generation in Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome and ulcerative colitis," he said. "And excessive intake of such sugars are particular to the Western diet. "But for those who are susceptible to these diseases, the short-chain carbohydrates or prebiotics extend the bowel and make it worse."

Prof Gibson said drugs did not work well with these conditions and there "are few ways of dealing with them". "People appear to be getting better by taking these foods out of the diet. People with IBS who take these out of their diet that we have studied -- three out of four have shown a significant improvement."

His team has measured the prebiotic contents of food in the Australian diet in order to generate a nutritional database. They are studying the dietary intake of 100 people with Crohn's disease over the next 12 months to confirm the findings of a pilot study. That study found more than half of the 52 patients with Crohn's disease who removed prebiotics from their diet improved their symptoms. "Prebiotics provide good bacteria to maintain good digestive health," Prof Gibson said. "But they are likely to make bowel conditions worse."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

More amusing correspondence from the Aspartame (Nutrasweet) foes

Further to my post of yesterday, I received or had copied to me the following:

We are not in any way associated with Betty Martini whose rants embarrass us all. She is what one of my colleagues called "a self-appointed general"

There is a list on Yahoo, The Aspartame Victim's Support Group that at all times, for the last 10 years has had 1,000 people who list and share their experiences with aspartame.

I replied:

Testimonials are the stock in trade of the quack. They are of no worth in determining cause. Give me double blind studies.

Then the following was copied to me:

Mary... do you know what he's talking about...

A more sophisticated person replied, also copying to me:

He's saying all you're giving him are 'anecdotal' accounts - not double blind human tests with a large number of subjects made up of a 'control' group and an 'aspartame' group. Walton's was too small by scientific standards.

You get mired down in debating this guy, it could go on forever and you won't win because he is there to prove his predetermined point and to make you look bad. Like Martini, he will out-argue you and drag you down. We don't have to prove anything to this character. Those who believe will survive. Those who don't won't. Don't waste valuable time arguing with him. He isn't worth it.

These are obviously sincere people who have themselves had bad experiences that they attribute to aspartame -- but they are badly lacking in scientific understanding. The fact that some academic researchers will hop onto any bandwagon that will give them publications is a serious disservice to them.

Because of their lack of scientific background, they fail to understand that I am asking only for normal scientific caution and so interpret my comments as evilly motivated in some way. I noted at the beginning that I myself do not use ANY artificial sweeteners that I know of so my personal inclination would be to agree with them. I just ask for a conventional standard of proof before I do so.





Non-smokers suffer fewer heart attacks after ban

This could be just a statistical blip but it is an interesting straw in the wind

The ban on smoking in public places in Scotland is already beginning to have an impact on the nation's health, a conference in Edinburgh heard yesterday. The number of nonsmokers admitted to hospital after heart attacks fell by 20 per cent in the ten months after the ban came into force in March 2006, compared with the same ten months in the year before, Jill Pell, of Glasgow University, said. Other studies have shown that children's exposure to secondhand smoke has fallen, except among children whose mothers smoke, or those with two parents who smoke.

Professor Pell's study covered nine hospitals, which between them account for two thirds of all hospital admissions for heart attacks in Scotland. In the ten months of the year leading up to the ban, there were 3,235 admissions, while in the matching period after the ban, the figure was 2,684. Patients were asked if they were smokers or nonsmokers, and their answers double-checked through blood tests to detect levels of cotinine, the product into which nicotine is converted by the body. In nonsmokers, the fall in heart attack admissions was higher, at 20 per cent.

Professor Pell said that the reduction among nonsmokers was biologically plausible, because smoke contained a lot of toxins that could trigger heart attacks in people with coronary heart disease. "The difference between our study and earlier ones is that we have been able to show an effect in people who have never smoked. That can only be due to lower levels of passive smoke," she said.

Rates of heart disease are falling everywhere, but not as fast as this. Over the same period of ten months after the ban, admissions in England fell by 4 per cent, and the reduction rate in Scotland over the decade before the ban was 3 per cent per year. Sally Haw, principal public health adviser to NHS Scotland, who collaborated in the study, said she was confident that the figures were reliable. "It's a large study, we have confirmed people's smoking status, and we have used a robust definition to count admissions" she said.

Sir Richard Peto, of Oxford University, an expert in the epidemiology of smoking, said many things could affect admissions for heart attacks, including the weather. Fewer people suffer heart attacks when the weather is mild. "I'd be surprised if this drop were due solely to the smoking ban," he said. "I would like to see cigarette sales figures, to see if there has been any fall."

Jon Ayres, head of the University of Aberdeen environmental and occupational medicine department, said: "It's very difficult to believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with the results. I think the 20 per cent figure is good. If you look at the figures month to month, the effect seems to creep up since last year. This also suggests that the important thing was the smoking ban."

The study has yet to be published, but the conference coincided with the publication online by the British Medical Journal of three other studies. One found a reduction of 39 per cent in exposure to secondhand smoke in 11-year-olds and a similar decrease among adult nonsmokers. Cotinine levels in blood were used to measure exposure, and showed that most children have benefited. But in those with two parents who smoke, or with a mother who is a smoker, the drop was not statistically significant.

A study by Aberdeen University of nearly 400 staff at 72 pubs in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh also found health improvements in bar staff. The two-day conference at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre has attracted an international audience of health experts and policymakers.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

Restaurant menu calorie counts don't work - and may even make diners consume MORE, study finds

This is by now a common finding but the people who "just know" what the truth is don't care about evidence

Calorie counts on food menus do not motivate people to make healthier choices, according to new findings.

Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania analyzed the purchasing behaviors of 1,121 adults at two McDonald’s restaurants in New York City.

They found that even when they provided information on 'ideal' dietary intakes for each day or per meal, diners did not change their orders.

Commenting on the results, lead researcher Dr Julie Downs said: 'Putting calorie labels on menus really has little or no effect on people’s ordering behaviors at all.'

She and her team found that the majority of participants actually ended up consuming more calories than recommended per meal - 650 for women; 800 for men.

Calorie counts have become a hot topic of debate over recent years, especially in light of America's worsening obesity epidemic.

Nutrition advocates say if people knew how simple it is to cut their caloric intake, they would make better decisions.

As a result, several states and municipalities across the country including New York, Philadelphia and California, have already introduced mandatory menu labeling.

And soon nationwide regulations will go into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act, although a precise date has not been set.

However, Dr Downs argues the 'well-intentioned' policy is unrealistic and 'not going to help curb' the obesity trend.

'The people who set these policies aren’t very representative,' she explained.

The results suggest that consumers, especially at fast-food venues, tend choose taste, value, and convenience over nutrient content.

According to the American Heart Association, among Americans age 20 and older, 154.7million are overweight or obese.

The recent study was published in the American Journal of Public Health.

SOURCE





Sweeteners are not bad for you: Take the scare stories about diet drinks and sweets with a pinch of salt, experts say

Aspartame, xylitol and Stevia might sound like Doctor Who villains, but in fact they are sugar substitutes, or sweeteners.

Most of us have been consuming them in some form since the first of them, saccharin – dubbed ‘the poor man’s sugar’ – was formulated by German chemists more than 100 years  ago.

And fears about their potentially toxic effects date back almost as far.

Diabetes, cancer, strokes, seizures, hypertension, vomiting, dizziness – all have been cited as risks from sweetener consumption.

Yet none of these claims has stuck, and today sweeteners are a global industry worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

They are found in more than 6,000 products from drinks and desserts  to cakes, chewing gum and  ready meals.

Last week a new study emerged, with Purdue University in Indiana claiming that diet drinks containing the artificial sweetener aspartame (such as Coke Zero) are no healthier than their full-sugar counterparts and could contribute to weight gain, diabetes and heart disease.

The report author, Professor Susan Swithers, suggested this could be because the chemical fails to trigger the ‘full’ feeling in our brain, so we over-indulge elsewhere.

She also proposed  a link between aspartame and metabolic syndrome, a much-disputed term denoting a combination of symptoms that increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

Catherine Collins, principal dietician at St George’s Hospital, London, strongly disputes the findings of the Purdue University research.

‘There are many, many factors involved in us feeling full or satisfied, and indeed experiments have shown that chocolate cravings are noticeably reduced the moment you eat the first piece, before the sugar even hits your bloodstream, so this study proves nothing,’ she says.

It is sugar (sucrose), with its high calorific content and need for insulin to break it down, that poses the real risk for obesity and type 2 diabetes, Collins argues.

‘Sweeteners have either zero calories or are very low in calories that aren’t absorbed anyway, so are effectively zero calorie,’ she adds.

‘So the suggestion that these products are no better at preventing weight gain or diabetes, or that they in fact cause them, is unfounded, as the accepted scientific evidence demonstrates.’

THE CANCER MYTH

The spectre of sweeteners as carcinogens first surfaced in the 1970s when saccharin (found in Sweet’N Low) was discovered in one study  to raise the risk of bladder cancer  in rats.

A wealth of later research in humans found no link. Equally, aspartame, the most commonly used sweetener, was blamed in 1996 as the cause  of the spike in brain tumours in Americans between 1975 and 1992.

Subsequent studies again found no relationship.

The sweetener sodium cyclamate was banned in the US in 1969 after a study found that rats fed the equivalent of 250 cans of diet drinks  a day developed bladder tumours.

Further studies failed to replicate these findings, but the ban remains. Sodium cyclamate is deemed safe in Europe and 50 countries worldwide – but is not routinely found in UK products.

Dr Paul Mulholland, an oncologist at University College London who specialises in brain tumours, says: ‘I am not aware of any risk factors for brain cancer apart from radiation.’

SO ARE THEY SAFE?

Collins says: ‘The problem with many of these studies looking at links between cancers, seizures, hypertension and sweeteners – and the way they are reported – is that  too often people confuse correlation with causation.

'For example, an analysis of Mail on Sunday readers would probably find that they have higher levels of bowel cancer than people in Africa, but that’s because this group lives in a Western country with a particular diet, not because reading a newspaper causes cancer.’

The concerns about sugar substitutes are, she argues, based on a misunderstanding of the wider data.

One such misunderstanding is that aspartame is harmful because the body breaks it down into toxic substances – methanol and formaldehyde. But they’re not absorbed and the amounts are negligible: a can of Diet Coke produces 20mg of methanol, half the amount produced by the same quantity of fruit juice .

‘The fact is, sweeteners are safe,’ adds Collins. ‘Both the American Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority approve them. Those who cast doubt about their safety can often have a vested interest in doing so.’

A major review was conducted in 2006 by the EFSA, which concluded: ‘Extensive scientific research ...... together with a history of more than 20 years of safe use, support the conclusion that aspartame is safe.’

Doctors and dieticians warn that there can be unfortunate side effects to some sweeteners. ‘Sugar alcohols in particular – the xylitols and sorbitols – are not absorbed by the gut and will in larger doses, and especially in people who already have irritable bowel syndrome, cause bloating and diarrhoea,’ says consultant gastroenterologist Neil Ikin, from London’s Homerton hospital.

Collins, however, recommends such sugar alcohols, which are often found in chewing gums, as they have consistently been shown to help fight plaque and tooth decay  by preventing bacteria in the  mouth from forming the acids that attack teeth.

The message, it seems, is clear: sweeteners won’t cause any ill effects. Just as long as you don’t have IBS.

SOURCE

Diet Coke fans warned as more evidence shows it could increase the risk of ‘silent killer’

This "new study" is garbage. No attempt at allowing for demographic confounds was made. It's probably just another proof that poor people have worse health. I append the original journal article below

The new study, published in the Diabetes Journal, found people who consumed artificial sweeteners were more at risk to type 2 diabetes compared with those who didn't.

“The findings strengthen evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives,” the researchers wrote.

“[It also] provides important insights in the context of ongoing worldwide re-evaluation of artificial sweeteners by health authorities.”

The French scientists analysed the diets and health of 105,588 people for nine years.

By the end of the study, 972 participants had developed type 2 diabetes.

The experts found those who consumed between 16 and 18mg of artificial sweeteners per day had a 69 per cent higher chance of developing the condition than those who ate less.

While those who ate and drank aspartame-containing products specifically had a 63 per cent higher chance of developing the disease.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/health/diet-coke-fans-warned-as-more-evidence-shows-it-could-increase-the-risk-of-silent-killer/news-story/cb4abd65327fbe78111dc81bed243bbb

Artificial Sweeteners and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in the Prospective NutriNet-Santé Cohort

Charlotte Debras et al.

OBJECTIVE
To study the relationships between artificial sweeteners, accounting for all dietary sources(total and by type of artificial sweetener) and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), in a large-scale prospective cohort.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The analyses included 105,588 participants from the web-based NutriNet-Santé study (France, 2009–2022; mean age 42.5 ± 14.6 years, 79.2% women). Repeated 24-h dietary records, including brands and commercial names of industrial products, merged with qualitative and quantitative food additive composition data, enabled artificial sweetener intakes to be accurately assessed from all dietary sources. Associations between artificial sweeteners (total, aspartame, acesulfame potassium [K], and sucralose) and T2D were investigated using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for potential confounders, including weight variation during follow-up.

RESULTS
During a median follow-up of 9.1 years (946,650 person-years, 972 incident T2D), compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners (i.e., above the sex-specific medians of 16.4 mg/day in men and 18.5 mg/day in women) had higher risks of developing T2D (hazard ratio [HR] 1.69; 95% CI 1.45–1.97; P-trend <0.001). Positive associations were also observed for individual artificial sweeteners: aspartame (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.38–1.93], P-trend <0.001), acesulfame-K (HR 1.70 [1.42–2.04], P-trend <0.001), and sucralose (HR 1.34 [1.07–1.69], P-trend = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS
Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated; however, many sensitivity analyses were computed to limit this and other potential biases. These findings of positive associations between artificial sweetener intakes and increased T2D risk strengthen the evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives. This study provides important insights in the context of on-going reevaluation of artificial sweeteners by health authorities worldwide.

https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/doi/10.2337/dc23-0206/153434/Artificial-Sweeteners-and-Risk-of-Type-2-Diabetes

***************************************************

We're all doomed!

Sugar is going to kill us! And this time it's not the fructose demonized by the obsessive Lustig but ordinary table sugar.

But not to worry. It's a nonsense study supported by a Danish milk supplier. But that does not bias the report of course. Oh no!

Ad homs aside, however, the experimental design is ludicrous. They took a small group of fatties and then subdivided them into four even smaller groups -- leaving subgroups with averages that are likely to be extremely unstable and unreplicable

But here's the fun: All four groups ended up equally fat. It was only the distribution of the fat around the body that differed. Do we now have a doctrine about where your fat must be?

But to complete the laughter at this piece of nonsense, notice that they are giving a guernsey to Aspartame -- the most demonized sweetener there is. The anti-Aspartame brigade will be outraged!

Sucrose-sweetened beverages increase fat storage in the liver, muscle, and visceral fat depot: a 6-mo randomized intervention study

By Maria Maersk et al.

Abstract

Background: The consumption of sucrose-sweetened soft drinks (SSSDs) has been associated with obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disorders in observational and short-term intervention studies. Too few long-term intervention studies in humans have examined the effects of soft drinks.

Objective: We compared the effects of SSSDs with those of isocaloric milk and a noncaloric soft drink on changes in total fat mass and ectopic fat deposition (in liver and muscle tissue).

Design: Overweight subjects (n = 47) were randomly assigned to 4 different test drinks (1 L/d for 6 mo): SSSD (regular cola), isocaloric semiskim milk, aspartame-sweetened diet cola, and water. The amount of intrahepatic fat and intramyocellular fat was measured with 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Other endpoints were fat mass, fat distribution (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and magnetic resonance imaging), and metabolic risk factors.

Results: The relative changes between baseline and the end of 6-mo intervention were significantly higher in the regular cola group than in the 3 other groups for liver fat (132–143%, sex-adjusted mean; P < 0.01), skeletal muscle fat (117–221%; P < 0.05), visceral fat (24–31%; P < 0.05), blood triglycerides (32%; P < 0.01), and total cholesterol (11%; P < 0.01). Total fat mass was not significantly different between the 4 beverage groups. Milk and diet cola reduced systolic blood pressure by 10–15% compared with regular cola (P < 0.05). Otherwise, diet cola had effects similar to those of water.

Conclusion: Daily intake of SSSDs for 6 mo increases ectopic fat accumulation and lipids compared with milk, diet cola, and water. Thus, daily intake of SSSDs is likely to enhance the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00777647.

SOURCE

Anti-obesity propaganda blamed for new eating disorder among children

DOCTORS have started treating a new type of eating disorder, warning aggressive anti-obesity campaigns are driving healthy children to starvation.

The phenomenon has been seen by Victoria's three leading paediatric services, with doctors hospitalising children who have lost up to a third of their body weight over a few months in an irrational desire to stay thin.

Royal Children's Hospital chair of adolescent health Susan Sawyer said this eating disorder, affecting children at the upper end of the healthy weight range, was only starting to be documented.

"When you're older and overweight it's a very simple message that weight loss is good for you," Prof Sawyer said. "The difficulty with young people is that even if they are moderately overweight, they are still growing height-wise and are at risk of over-interpreting public health messages of 'low fat is good' to suggest that 'no fat is better'.

"For all intents and purposes, these adolescents have anorexia nervosa in terms of how unwell they are, the distorted body image and the amount of weight loss, but they are at a normal weight. "This is very new."

Austin Hospital's medical director of mental health, Richard Newton, said he believed some of the nine and 10-year-olds being treated were becoming ill from "the panic" created by anti-obesity campaigns. "We need to be giving healthy weight messages that don't vilify fatness, but actually encourage health," Associate Prof Newton explained. "Some of the health messages we give create panic.

"We have to reassure young people that if they do have a weight problem, it doesn't mean that makes them a bad person. "We need to encourage people to not just consider physical health, but emotional wellbeing as well."

Monash Children's head of adolescent medicine Jacinta Coleman said children developing this type of eating disorder could become sick quickly. "The kids we're seeing are at the upper end of their healthy weight range, not necessarily obese but on the more overweight side, and there is so much pressure on kids to lose weight," Dr Coleman said.

"They need to understand that you can be healthy even at a heavier weight, as long as you're active, eating nutritious food. "I think that's where the message is getting misinterpreted."

SOURCE

Sweet soft drinks may raise risk of depression

It's only a conference paper so far so is difficult to evaluate but apparently BOTH sugar and aspartame intake were associated with depression.  Sugar and aspartame are very different chemicals so is it the bubbles in pop that are bad for you?  Perhaps the real question is why do depressed people like pop?

If you are feeling low, it may be best to lay off the fizzy drinks and have a cup of coffee instead.  A study has linked soft drinks to depression – with diet versions particularly problematic.  Coffee, however, appeared to have the opposite effect.

The finding comes from US researchers who studied the drink consumption of 265,000 men and women aged 50 to 71.  Ten years into the study, the volunteers were asked if they had been diagnosed with depression in the previous five years.

Those who drank more than four cans of soft drinks a day were 30 per cent more likely to have had depression than those who drank none, the American Academy of Neurology conference heard. The risk seemed greater among those who preferred diet drinks.

The researchers said this may be due to the presence of the artificial sweetener aspartame, which yesterday was provisionally given a clean bill of health by the European Food Safety Authority, following a review.

Making the link does not prove soft drinks cause depression.  But researcher Honglei Chen said: ‘While our findings are preliminary and the underlying biological mechanisms are not known, they are consistent with a small but growing body of evidence suggesting that artificially sweetened beverages may be associated with poor health.’

The study found that those who had four cups of coffee a day were 10 per cent less likely to become depressed than non-coffee drinkers.  Dr Chen said this may be due to the caffeine in coffee stimulating the brain.

The British Soft Drinks Association urged caution over the findings and pointed out that the scientists themselves said that more research is needed.

SOURCE






"Superfoods" can make cancer MORE likely, says pioneer of DNA study

Mega-pesky!

Fashionable anti-cancer superfoods and supplements do not prevent the disease and may even cause it, according to a scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA.

James Watson said the cure for many cancers will remain elusive unless scientists rethink the role of antioxidants, which include vitamin pills and food such as blueberries and broccoli.

It is widely believed they boost health and fight cancer by mopping up oxygen molecules called free radicals. But Dr Watson argues these may be key to preventing and treating cancer – and depleting the body of them may be counter-productive.

Free radicals not only help keep diseased cells under control, they are also pivotal in making many cancer drugs, as well as radiotherapy, effective, he believes.

Writing in a journal published by the Royal Society, the 84-year-old Nobel laureate stated that antioxidants ‘may have caused more cancers than they have prevented’.

‘For as long as I have been focused on the curing of cancer, well-intentioned individuals have been consuming antioxidative nutritional supplements as cancer preventatives, if not actual therapies,’ he said.

‘In light of recent data strongly hinting that much of late-stage cancer’s untreatability may arise from its possession of too many antioxidants, the time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer.’

He said a vast number of studies had found antioxidants including vitamins A, C and E and the mineral selenium, to have ‘no obvious effectiveness’ in preventing stomach cancer or in lengthening life.  Instead, they seem to slightly shorten the lives of those who take them, and vitamin E may be particularly dangerous.

The American, who describes his theory as among his most important work since the DNA breakthrough with British colleague Francis Crick in 1953, said blueberries may taste good but give no protection against cancer. The study by Dr Watson,  based at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, is published in the journal Open Biology.

He has caused uproar in the past with his opinions on race, intelligence, beauty and homosexuality.

Professor Nic Jones, of Cancer Research UK, agreed that studies showed antioxidants were ineffective for cancer prevention in healthy people and can even slightly increase the risk of the disease.

He said vitamins and minerals should be obtained through a healthy and balanced diet.

SOURCE

Hilarious: Diet products "boost appetite"



Diet products make people eat more, says nutritional toxicologist Peter Dingle. He said some sweeteners in diet products were linked with stimulating appetite. "Aspartame, commonly known as the sweetener NutraSweet, is a neuro-stimulant linked with stimulating appetite, so it can make you hungry," Prof Dingle, associate professor in health and the environment at Murdoch University, said. "Diet stuff doesn't satisfy hunger like conventional food, because hunger is linked to certain texture and taste sensations. If you don't get them, you don't feel satisfied -- you don't have the feeling 'I've had enough, I'm full'."

He said people also ate more because they felt they had "done something healthy" by having diet products. "Then they tend to consume just as much, if not more, than before," he said. "There is little research to show that these foods have great benefit for long-term weight control. "Long-term weight control is about eating good, healthy, nutritious foods, combined with a positive lifestyle, which includes keeping fit."

He said people focused on calories instead of nutrition. Rather than diet food, people should eat healthier, with fewer processed grains and more "super foods" such as beans, nuts, vegetables and omega-3 oils, Prof Dingle said. Instead of diet or soft drinks, people should drink water, which was healthier. "Parents give their kids two cans a night and then they complain they can't sleep," he said.

The Aspartame Information Center website says scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows aspartame is safe and not associated with adverse health effects.

Source






Lunch-box dictators in Australia

A Victorian primary school is cracking down on all packaged and processed foods in children's lunches. Teachers at St Thomas' Primary School in Sale are inspecting lunch boxes to discourage unhealthy eating. They have asked parents of grade 3-4 students not to provide any packaged foods for lunch. Food deemed off-limits includes snacks such as BBQ Shapes, chips, cereal bars, crackers and biscuits.

The Bracks Government recently announced restrictions on selling junk food at canteens. But the school is taking healthy eating one step further by hoping to change what kids bring in their lunch boxes. Grade 3-4 teacher Rose Lee said they took action after seeing the amount of processed food brought to school. "There was always so many packets of BBQ Shapes, chips and LCMs (cereal bars)," she said. "There never seemed to be any fresh stuff."

Ms Lee said they sent a note home to parents about their decision to focus on healthy food. "We asked them to support us by not including any packaged or processed foods," she said. Ms Lee said the kids were initially shocked. "We had a meeting with our grade 3-4 saying we don't want them to bring in packaged food and they were absolutely horrified," she said. "They thought we were the meanest teachers in the school!"

But she said that four weeks later the students were loving it. "The kids are remarkable," Ms Lee said. "Now they are the ones who are inspiring us to eat healthy food." Ms Lee said the policy was not a ban, but they did inspect lunch boxes. "I do check lunches," she said. "And you make an almighty fuss about those that have packaged foods."

But Ms Lee said most students now brought fresh food by choice. "We thought it was going to be really tough, but it hasn't been at all. They are not bringing the packaged food in," she said. Ms Lee said the school also incorporated healthy eating in every class. She said the students were learning how to read nutritional information, to cook and also going for 1km runs. Ms Lee said only grade 3-4 students were involved in the initiative but they might expand it to the rest of the school.

Obesity expert Prof John Dixon applauded the healthy eating move. "This is just what we need. Clearly, parents and schools are incredibly concerned about obesity," he said. Prof Dixon, from Monash University's Centre for Obesity Research and Education, said it was great to see action at a grassroots level. "If communities wake up to it, they can make decisions that are positive for their kids," he said. Victorian Parents Council head Jo Silver also welcomed the crackdown on lunchbox junk. "We need to encourage our children to eat healthily," she said

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

*********************