SOME NEWS IN BRIEF

Spray away obesity?: "Dieters may find some welcome assistance from a new nasal spray that could help resist the appetizing aromas of cinnamon bun stands, pizza parlors or tempting bakeries. Compellis Pharmaceuticals of Cambridge, Massachusetts said it will begin human trials next year of a nasal spray designed to fight obesity by blocking the senses of smell and taste. It won a patent for the product this month. 'The pleasurable effect of eating is all stimulated by smell and taste,' Christopher Adams, the company's founder and chief executive, told Reuters Tuesday. 'The premise is that olfactory activity that controls both smell and taste is a trigger and a feedback mechanism to eat. If you have some kind of reduced sense of smell or taste, you tend to eat less,' he said. The product, known as CP404, is among the latest devices and treatments under development in the multibillion-dollar fight against obesity." [How absurd can the obesity war get?]


CT, MA may join NY in trans fat idiocy: "Artery-clogging artificial trans fats could soon be banned in Connecticut. Two weeks after the New York City Board of Health voted to make the Big Apple the first city in the nation to ban artificial trans fats in restaurant food, two Republican state senators in Connecticut proposed similar legislation Wednesday. ... Connecticut politicians are not the first to consider a trans fat ban in the wake of New York City's action. A Massachusetts lawmaker proposed a similar bill this week. Bans are being considered in Philadelphia and Cleveland as well."


Magic mushrooms appear to relieve OCD: "A preliminary study of the active ingredient in psychedelic mushrooms has found it is effective in relieving the symptoms of people suffering from severe obsessive compulsive disorder, a University of Arizona psychiatrist reports. Dr. Francisco A. Moreno led the first FDA-approved clinical study of psilocybin since it was outlawed in 1970. The results of the small-scale study are published in the latest edition of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Moreno said the study's intent was only to test the safety of administering psilocybin to patients, and its effectiveness is still in doubt until a larger controlled study can be conducted. But in each of the nine patients in the study, psilocybin completely removed symptoms of the disorder for a period of about four to 24 hours, with some remaining symptom-free for days."

THE WONDERS OF OLIVE OIL AGAIN



Long known as part of the "Mediterranean diet" mythology

People who use plenty of olive oil in their diets may be helping to prevent damage to body cells that can eventually lead to cancer, new research suggests. In a study of 182 European men, researchers found evidence that olive oil can reduce oxidative damage to cells' genetic material, a process that can initiate cancer development. They say the findings may help explain why rates of several cancers are higher in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe, where olive oil is a dietary staple.

They also support advice to replace saturated fats from foods like meat and butter with vegetable fats, particularly olive oil, said study co-author Dr. Henrik E. Poulsen, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark. He and his colleagues report the findings in The FASEB Journal, a publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

The study included healthy men between the ages of 20 and 60 from five European countries. For two weeks [The wonders of long-term research!], the men consumed a quarter cup of olive oil throughout each day. At the end of the study, they showed an average 13 percent reduction in a substance called 8oxodG, which is a marker of oxidative damage to cells' DNA. Such damage occurs when byproducts of metabolism called reactive oxygen species overwhelm the body's antioxidant defenses. Olive oil contains a number of compounds, called phenols, believed to act as powerful antioxidants. However, those compounds didn't seem to account for the drop in DNA oxidative damage, according to Poulsen's team. The men in the study used three different olive oils with varying levels of antioxidant phenols, and oxidative damage declined regardless of the phenol content.

Instead, the researchers suspect that the monounsaturated fats in olive oil are behind the effect. The findings, they say, suggest that olive oil may be part of the reason that certain cancers, including breast, colon, ovarian and prostate cancers, are less common in Mediterranean countries than in Northern Europe. At the beginning of the study, men from Northern Europe had higher levels of 8oxodG than those from Southern Europe. This is consistent, according to Poulsen's team, with the expected effects of the olive-oil-rich "Mediterranean diet."

However, Poulsen told Reuters Health, the diet is more than just olive oil. Ideally, it's also rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fish. Moreover, regardless of its benefits, he added, olive oil is no substitute for calorie control and regular exercise. [He got that right]

Source

The journal abstract is as under:

Effect of olive oils on biomarkers of oxidative DNA stress in Northern and Southern Europeans

Anja Machowetz, Henrik E. Poulsen et al.

High consumption of olive oil in the Mediterranean diet has been suggested to protect DNA against oxidative damage and to reduce cancer incidence. We investigated the impact of the phenolic compounds in olive oil, and the oil proper, on DNA and RNA oxidation in North, Central, and South European populations. In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled crossover intervention trial, the effect of olive oil phenolic content on urinary oxidation products of guanine (8-oxo-guanine, 8-oxo-guanosine and 8-oxo-deoxyguanosine) was investigated. Twenty-five mililiters of three olive oils with low, medium, and high phenolic content were administered to healthy males (n=182) daily for 2 wk. At study baseline the urinary excretion of 8-oxo-guanosine (RNA oxidation) and 8-oxo-deoxyguanosine (DNA oxidation) was higher in the Northern regions of Europe compared with Central and Southern European regions (P=0.035). Urinary excretion of the 8 hydroxylated forms of guanine, guanosine, deoxyguanosine and their nonoxidized forms were not different when comparing olive oils with low, medium, and high phenolic content given for 2 wk. Testing the effect of oil from urinary 8-oxo-deoxyguanosine changes from baseline to post-treatment showed a reduction of DNA oxidation by 13% (P=0.008). These findings support the idea that ingestion of olive oil is beneficial and can reduce the rate of oxidation of DNA. This effect is not due to the phenolic content in the olive oil. The higher DNA and RNA oxidation in Northern European regions compared with that in Central and Southern regions supports the contention that olive oil consumption may explain some of the North-South differences in cancer incidences in Europe.

Maybe I am missing something here but it seems to me that the different physiological response to olive oil observed in Northern and Southern Europeans indicates relevant genetic differences between the two populations and it may be the genetic differences that account for the different disease patterns in Northern and Southern Europe




TRACING THE SOURCES OF TEENAGE MOODINESS

They may be as much neurological as psychological

Scientists at the Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre studying the development of the teenage brain have learned that the frontal lobe gradually matures during adolescence until the age of 25, when it reaches maturity. Over those years, the frontal lobe is "pruned" of excess nerve cells to create more efficient information processing that is useful to adulthood. This "pruning" results in a temporary loss of grey matter. The findings help provide a scientific explanation for the difficult teenage years, when the combination of hormones and brain "pruning" causes adolescents to make reckless decisions and suffer emotional problems. And when parents scream at their teenagers to "start acting like an adult" they are asking for the impossible.

Steve Rankin, 16, of St Andrews in outer Sydney, "stupidly" dropped out of school three months ago. He is yet to find a job and has been fined for drinking on a train. His relationship with his parents is strained. The result of the study "totally makes sense to me", Steve said. "When I was younger I was the golden child and then when I was 15 I felt like a neglected child. Then, not long ago, I just started hating my parents and started getting kind of emo-ish," he says, using teen slang for emotional. "I was like a little kid and then I turned 15 and my parents expected me to be like Albert Einstein or something."

In the past five years, the teenage brain has become the focus of intense scientific study throughout the world. The current issue of the American Journal of Physiology carries a report by University of California psychiatrists who also found that the "pruning" removed useless "white noise" from the brain.

The University of Melbourne's Christos Pantelis began making neuropsychological assessments of teenagers in 2002. His team is brain-scanning 200 10-year-olds to get a closer look at how the brain works. Funding permitting, he will brain-scan the children routinely until they reach full maturity at 25. "The frontal lobes are responsible for the higher-level mental abilities," Professor Pantelis said. "These abilities include problem solving, planning, thinking flexibly. Working memory and the frontal lobes are also important in terms of behavioural and mental control - that is, the ability to stop yourself doing anything inappropriate." Professor Pantelis said the new information might provide useful insights for parents, teachers and legislators. "It is very helpful when you think of some of the problems adolescents are having, either in terms of their behaviour, control of their emotions and their interaction skills. "If we understand that their brains are still maturing in particular ways then it might lead us to teach them in different ways too. "There has also been interest in our studies from the legal world, because you have to ask whether it is OK to put an adolescent or young adult into the same prison as a hardened criminal," he 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].

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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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

Cervical vaccine may help boys!

The benefits of Australian of the Year Ian Frazer's cervical cancer vaccine may extend far further than previously thought, research has found. A study of cancer incidence in kidney transplant patients suggests the vaccine, marketed in Australia as Gardasil, should be considered for boys as well as girls, Sydney researcher Claire Vajdic said. Dr Vajdic, of the University of NSW, and colleagues found kidney transplant recipients were three times more likely to develop cancer than the general population.

She said many of the cancers were known to be caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV), the target of Professor Frazer's vaccine. "Of the 18 specific cancers with greater than threefold increase in risk, five were at sites that are known to be caused by human papilloma virus (tongue, mouth, vulva, vagina, penis)," the researchers wrote in the latest edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. "An additional four were at sites for which the evidence for human papilloma virus is limited or inconclusive (eye, salivary gland, oesophagus, nasal cavity)."

The researchers studied almost 29,000 Australians who had a kidney transplant between 1982 and 2003. Dr Vajdic said 1236 cancers were picked up during an average 8« years of follow-up after transplantation. The risk of lip cancer was 47 times higher than in the general population. "For lip cancer, exposure to UV radiation and tobacco products are thought to be important causal factors but the role of human papilloma virus is under study," the researchers wrote.

Dr Vajdic said scientists believed the increase in cancer risk among transplant patients was associated with having to take drugs to suppress the immune system, thereby avoiding organ rejection. Although she believes the research suggests a much broader role for Professor Frazer's vaccine, the benefits may not be felt for decades even if universal immunisation were achieved. Professor Frazer said the prerequisite for immunising boys with the vaccine was the need for proof that the vaccine was effective in males. [Got that right!]

Source





Trans fat worries irrelevant to Australia anyhow

Some small amounts of trans fat occur naturally in red meat and dairy products, but it's the artificially concocted version that has health officials worrying most. Formed by bubbling hydrogen through polyunsaturated vegetable oil, trans fat is a more solid, stable fat than a regular oil. It has a longer shelf life, can be reused and reheated without spoiling, is ideal for deep frying and gives food a crunchy, crispy texture. Those are also the same characteristics that make trans fat particularly dangerous. The stiffer a fat is, the more likely it is to stick inside your artery walls and stay there. A review of trans fat published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April found that a 2 per cent increase in trans fat increased the risk of coronary heart disease by 23 per cent (2006;354:1601-1613).

New York's ban was the latest action in response to a wave of concern over the negative health effects over the fat. Earlier this year the US Food and Drug Administration began enforcing a requirement that food manufacturers include information about trans fat on labels there - a step other countries such as the UK are also considering.

Australia is also looking into ways to lower the amount of trans fat people are consuming - a joint effort by the National Heart Foundation of Australia, the Dietitians Association of Australia, the Australian Food and Grocery Council and Food Standards Australia New Zealand. These groups will meet early next year to discuss issues and make recommendations to the government.

Whether trans fat should be labelled is among the issues that will be discussed. Currently manufacturers only have to list trans fatty acids if they're making a health claim about the product, such as "no cholesterol'' or "low in saturated fat''. Also on the agenda of next year's meeting will be possible healthy replacements for the partially hydrogenated vegetable oils that are the main source of trans fats.

In the meantime, an increasing number of companies and food manufacturers are reformulating their products to remove trans fat in the face of mounting public concern. In November McDonald's announced it would reduce the trans fat found in the food in all 740 of its Australian franchises, by about 85 per cent, by switching to a healthier canola sunflower blend that has less than 1 per cent trans fat and is high in monounsaturated fat (a good fat).

Brands such as Nestle, Woolworth's Home Brand, Arnott's and others have made similar decisions to reformulate their products to reduce trans fat, or get rid of it completely where they can. But some people are pushing for a ban like that in New York. Last week the Greens announced they would be drafting a bill with a similar objective to put before the Senate, but it's a plan that has received little support from the groups on the collaborative, or from the Government itself.

For one thing, there's just not the same scale of problem here, says Lydia Buchtmann of Food Standards Australia New Zealand. "There's not a huge percentage of trans fat in the Australian diet. We've been carrying out a formal review with dietary modelling, and the preliminary findings have been that 0.6 per cent of our total kilojoules come from trans fat, which is well below the World Health Organisation's maximum limit of 1 per cent,'' she says. By contrast, Americans are consuming 2 to 3 per cent of their daily kilojoules from trans fat. One likely reason is that Australian manufacturers tend to use canola blends, which are more readily available here than the partially hydrogenated soy bean oil so prevalent in America, says Dave Roberts, technical director of the Australian Food and Grocery Council.

Experts say that focusing too much on trans fat could blow things out of proportion and misdirect our attention from saturated fat, which is actually the bigger culprit of heart disease in Australia because we consume so much more of it. "It's an issue if you're a fast food consumer and you're eating at one of the fast food establishments that still uses oil with trans fat in it - but there's not much of it is any more,'' says Peter Clifton, director of CSIRO's Nutrition Clinic which conducts nutritional research and trials on cholesterol, oils, fats and other topics. "Saturated fat is more of an issue. The average consumer would have 20g to 30g of saturated fat a day, compared with two to three grams of trans fat.''

It's a point echoed by the Heart Foundation, among others. "Trans fat is as harmful, if not more so, than other types of fat. However, Australians consume considerably more saturated fat,'' says the foundation's national nutrition program manager Barbara Eden. More than 13 per cent of our daily kilojoules are currently coming from saturated fat while the Heart Foundation recommends that no more than 8 per cent of our total kilojoules come from unhealthy fat - saturated and trans fat combined. "If the focus is on lowering trans fat, what could happen is companies will just swap to an oil that has no or very little trans fat - but could still be very high in saturated fat,'' Eden says.

Take KFC for example. The chain has been vocal about its use of a trans fat-free oil, but that turns out to be palm oil - which contains more than 50 per cent saturated fat. Foodwatch.com.au nutritionist Catherine Saxelby says there's one other problem with focusing too much on removing trans fat from food: "They occur in foods that we don't want people to eat too much of anyway,'' she says. "If people just ate basic staple foods they wouldn't have a problem.''

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].

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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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

A PRIME EXAMPLE OF USELESS "MEDICAL" RESEARCH

But the subtext of it is to demonize McDonalds. It took four medical researchers writing in a prestigious medical journal to establish such amazing facts as the fact that people eat more McDonalds in places that have a McDonalds restaurant! But such "authoritative" findings will be quoted in campaigns to get McDonalds out of hospitals, of course. The fact that for many people the McDonalds is the most comforting and reassuring part of a hospital does not matter, of course. The do-gooders must have a demon to attack. Journal abstract below:

Marketing Fast Food: Impact of Fast Food Restaurants in Children's Hospitals

By Hannah B. Sahud, Helen J. Binns, William L. Meadow and Robert R. Tanz.

OBJECTIVES. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine fast food restaurant prevalence in hospitals with pediatric residencies and (2) to evaluate how hospital environment affects purchase and perception of fast food.

METHODS. We first surveyed pediatric residency programs regarding fast food restaurants in their hospitals to determine the prevalence of fast food restaurants in these hospitals. We then surveyed adults with children after pediatric outpatient visits at 3 hospitals: hospital M with an on-site McDonald's restaurant, hospital R without McDonald's on site but with McDonald's branding, and hospital X with neither on-site McDonald's nor branding. We sought to determine attitudes toward, consumption of, and influences on purchase of fast food and McDonald's food.

RESULTS. Fifty-nine of 200 hospitals with pediatric residencies had fast food restaurants. A total of 386 outpatient surveys were analyzed. Fast food consumption on the survey day was most common among hospital M respondents (56%; hospital R: 29%; hospital X: 33%), as was the purchase of McDonald's food (hospital M: 53%; hospital R: 14%; hospital X: 22%). McDonald's accounted for 95% of fast food consumed by hospital M respondents, and 83% of them bought their food at the on-site McDonald's. Using logistic regression analysis, hospital M respondents were 4 times more likely than respondents at the other hospitals to have purchased McDonald's food on the survey day. Visitors to hospitals M and R were more likely than those at hospital X to believe that McDonald's supported the hospital financially. Respondents at hospital M rated McDonald's food healthier than did respondents at the other hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS. Fast food restaurants are fairly common in hospitals that sponsor pediatric residency programs. A McDonald's restaurant in a children's hospital was associated with significantly increased purchase of McDonald's food by outpatients, belief that the McDonald's Corporation supported the hospital financially, and higher rating of the healthiness of McDonald's food.

Source




'Dark chocolate eases ME symptoms'

I won't criticize this one!



Eating small amounts of dark chocolate every day can help combat a chronic illness, it emerged today. The specially-formulated chocolate helps reduce the symptoms of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), a study by researchers at England's Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust found.

People who took part in the study reported feeling significantly less fatigue after eating 1.5oz (45g) of the chocolate every day for eight weeks. They also reported feeling more fatigue when they stopped eating the chocolate and were receiving a placebo instead, researchers said.

Symptoms of ME, which is also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), include exhaustion, general pain and mental fogginess. But its causes are not fully understood and diagnosing the condition is difficult because many of the flu-like symptoms are similar to other illnesses.

Professor Steve Atkin, who conducted the study, said: "No one has examined the effects of chocolate on CFS before and so this is a very exciting and interesting result for us. "The participants in this study were taking 45g of specially formulated chocolate for eight weeks then having a two-week period of rest before then taking a simulated dark chocolate, low in polyphenols, for another eight weeks. "In the test period they reported feeling less fatigue and once they moved on to the placebo chocolate they began feeling more fatigue again. Interestingly they didn't experience any significant weight gain either, which is an extra positive."

The formulated chocolate contained 85% cocoa solids and was rich in polyphenol flavonoids, which have been reported to reduce the risk of death from coronary heart disease, cancer and strokes. Chocolate is also known to increase neurotransmitters like serotonin, which is associated with regulating mood and sleep.

There is currently no cure for ME and treatment concentrates mainly on managing symptoms, such as headaches, sore throats, sleep disorder and abnormal temperatures. Although the cause of the illness is not yet known, scientists are looking at the possibilities of viruses, environmental toxins and genetic predisposition.

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].

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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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

Trans fats: The evidence

It is easy to see why the medical profession is generally critical of dietary trans fats. The medical gurus are nearly as critical of trans fats as they once were of dietary cholesterol. If you give people a heap of trans fats to eat in some form and then check their blood chemistry a couple of hours later, the changes observed are indeed in the direction associated with heart disease. For many in the medical profession, that is all the evidence you need to condemn trans fats in the diet. Old hands however are aware that there is no end of medical studies based on short term observations of some factor in isolation (also usually associated with atypically high doses of something) which generate either panics or enthusiasms but which later find no support when one looks at long term or overall effects in epidemiology or in better conducted studies.

And intellectual fashions have an alarming tendency to be self-reinforcing. The only kind of study which could settle the question of long term overall ill-effects from trans fats is of course a double-blind prospective study -- where normal, average healthy people are divided into two groups and over a long period fed diets that differ only in trans fat content. You then see how many die in each group in the given period. Drug evaluation research routinely uses such studies but in the case of trans fats, such research has recently been declared "unethical" (See D. Mozaffarian, M. B. Katan, A. Ascherio, M. J. Stampfer, and W. C. Willett. "Trans Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease" N.Engl.J.Med., 2006, 354:1601-1613) and nobody seems to be doing it. It must be comforting to rule out in advance research that could prove you wrong. It is at least dogmatic and arrogant (though parading as compassionate, of course).

It is perhaps because of the lack of proper prospective studies and the need for the prevailing religion to be reinforced that the medical literature is replete with review articles that stress the evils of trans fats. And each new review quotes a lot from previous reviews. The image it all calls to my mind is of one turtle clinging to the back of another turtle who is clinging to the back of another turtle who is clinging to the back of another turtle. One can only hope that the bottom turtles (research reports) are standing on something solid. Knowing how often medical journal articles overlook important confounding variables like social class I doubt it of course. As a humble retired psychologist who comes to this field out of an interest in the sociology of knowledge, I have neither the time nor the ease of access to look at the multitude of bottom turtles concerned but I do notice something about the reviews: It is notable that the most recent reviews are the most definite and mention fewer "non-conforming" research results.

I thought it might be interesting therefore to reproduce below the epidemiology section of an older (1999) review so that readers can see that there are many studies which do not show ill effects of such fats and which mention many doubts about those studies which do show ill effects (Quote: "Interpretation of comparisons among populations with widely different lifestyles is hazardous"). The authors still come to the conclusion that theory and short-term observations would suggest but it is of course the long-term and overall effect of trans fat ingestion that is the issue -- hence the interest of epidemiological studies. The source article for the excerpt below is: Ascherio A, Katan MB, Zock PL, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. "Trans fatty acids and coronary heart disease". N Engl J Med 1999;340:1994-1998. It is from a prestigious journal and has often been cited

"Epidemiologic Studies

The strong correlation between the level of intake of saturated fatty acids and the rates of coronary heart disease among the 16 populations examined in the Seven Countries Study¹⁹ is often quoted as evidence that the consumption of saturated fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease. A subsequent biochemical analysis of food composites representing the average intake of each cohort at base line²⁰ not only confirmed that the intake of saturated fatty acids was strongly correlated with the risk of death from coronary heart disease (r=0.88, P<0.001) but also showed that the intake of trans fatty acids was correlated with the risk of death from coronary heart disease (r=0.78, P<0.001). Interpretation of comparisons among populations with widely different lifestyles is hazardous, but these data leave room for a potentially substantial effect of trans fatty acids on the risk of coronary heart disease.

Several case–control or cross-sectional studies have also been conducted. In a case–control study of subjects in the Boston area, we found a strong and significant positive association between the intake of trans fatty acids, assessed with the use of dietary questionnaires, and the risk of acute myocardial infarction.²¹ The relative risk of acute myocardial infarction for the quintile with the highest intake of trans fatty acids as compared with the quintile with the lowest intake was 2.4 (P for trend <0.001); this association was entirely explained by the intake of these fats from hydrogenated vegetable oil. Bolton-Smith et al. performed a cross-sectional analysis of the association between the intake of trans fatty acids and the presence of previously undiagnosed coronary heart disease among participants in the Scottish Heart Study.²² The intake of trans fatty acids was positively correlated with the ratio of LDL plus very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to HDL cholesterol. The odds ratios for coronary heart disease in the quintile with the highest intake as compared with the quintile with the lowest intake were elevated but not significantly so (1.26 in women and 1.08 in men).

Studies in which the composition of fatty acids in tissue or plasma was used as a marker of trans-fatty-acid intake have yielded conflicting results. With one exception, however, these studies have been too small to detect an association reliably. The results of the only large study,²³ which included 671 men with acute myocardial infarction from eight European countries, were inconclusive. The overall analyses revealed no association between the intake of trans fatty acids and the risk of myocardial infarction. However, in contrast to the centers studied in other countries, the two centers studied in Spain, where the rates of coronary heart disease are very low, reported extremely low levels of trans-fatty-acid intake and little variation between subjects and thus provided little information. After the exclusion of these data, the odds ratios for the third and fourth quartiles of intake, as compared with the lowest, were 1.53 and 1.44, respectively. The interpretation of the results of this study has caused controversy,²⁴ but in any case they do not provide strong evidence against the hypothesis that the consumption of trans fatty acids increases the risk of coronary heart disease.

The strongest epidemiologic evidence relating dietary factors to the risk of coronary heart disease has been provided by three large prospective studies: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study,²⁵ the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study,²⁶ and the Nurses' Health Study.²⁷ Those studies assessed the intake of trans fatty acids using detailed food-frequency questionnaires whose results were validated by comparison with the composition of adipose tissue or food diaries. Each of these studies reported an adverse effect of trans fatty acids. The relative risk of coronary heart disease associated with an absolute increase of 2 percent in the intake of trans fatty acids was 1.36 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.81) in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, 1.14 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.35) in the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study, and 1.93 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.43 to 2.61) in the Nurses' Health Study. The higher relative risk in the Nurses' Health Study may have resulted from the fact that there were four dietary measurements during the follow-up period, thereby reducing the degree of error in assessing trans-fatty-acid consumption. In these three cohorts, the relative risks were higher than those for saturated-fat consumption. For example, in the Nurses' Health Study, replacing 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat with unsaturated fat was associated with a 42 percent decrease in the risk of coronary heart disease, whereas replacing 2 percent of energy intake from trans fatty acids with cis fatty acids was associated with a 53 percent decrease in the risk.

These studies have been criticized on the grounds that measurements of the intake of trans fatty acids were unreliable⁴; however, random errors in measuring the intake would only have led to an underestimation of the association with the risk of coronary heart disease. It has also been suggested that the observed associations resulted from a shift from the use of butter to the use of margarine among high-risk subjects. If so, the association between the intake of trans fatty acids and the risk of coronary heart disease should have been weaker among subjects with stable margarine consumption and stronger during the first few years of follow-up. However, in the Nurses' Health Study,²⁸ the exclusion of women who changed their diet before the beginning of the study strengthened the association. Moreover, consumption of foods high in trans fatty acids such as cookies, which are hardly perceived as healthy, was also positively associated with the risk of coronary heart disease.

Confounding as a result of unmeasured or poorly measured risk factors is a potential problem in any observational study, but these associations were adjusted for many risk factors related to diet and lifestyle, and no credible confounding factor has been identified. Adjustment for the intake of dietary fiber attenuated the relation of trans-fatty-acid intake to the risk of coronary heart disease in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study,²⁵ but not in the other two studies²⁶ (and Hu FB: personal communication). Thus, prospective studies provide consistent evidence that the consumption of trans fatty acids increases the risk of coronary heart disease. The observed relative risks of coronary heart disease were larger than one might predict from the effects of trans fatty acids on LDL and HDL cholesterol levels alone. The increases in triglyceride and Lp(a) lipoprotein levels account for only a small increase in risk; therefore, other mechanisms may be involved."

Note also that the most recent review article reports only two studies of sudden death from heart disease (which is what most people would be worried about) in which trans fats were examined. In one there was no effect and in the other a weak effect was found only by examining extreme groups. See the excerpt below from D. Mozaffarian, M. B. Katan, A. Ascherio, M. J. Stampfer, and W. C. Willett. "Trans Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease" N.Engl.J.Med., 2006, 354:1601-1613:

"Sudden Death from Cardiac Causes

Some data suggest that trans fatty acids may increase the risk of sudden death from cardiac causes. In a study that compared adipose tissue obtained at autopsy from 66 patients with sudden death from cardiac causes with that obtained from 286 healthy age- and sex-matched controls, levels of trans fat were not found to be associated with sudden death from cardiac causes. In contrast, in a larger, community-based case-control study (179 cases), levels of trans fatty acids in erythrocyte membranes were associated with an increase in the risk of sudden cardiac death (odds ratio for interquintile range, 1.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01 to 2.13), after adjustment for other risk factors."

Note also the general comments at the foot of today's posts






Gene therapy for impotence

Doctors have developed a gene therapy treatment that could cure millions of men who suffer from impotence. This comes after researchers were able to identify a gene that is responsible for the condition that affects as many as 60 per cent of men over the age of 55 and around three million men in total in the UK. Tests of the therapy have already started in humans, and the first small trial using the gene has proved that it is safe and works. Men suffering from impotence would need just two injections a year to be able to enjoy a normal sex life.

Although drugs like Viagra have revolutionised the treatment of men with erectile dysfunction, many still claim there is a lack of spontaneity, as love-making has to be planned in advance by taking a pill.

Doctors who discovered the gene say that - for the first time - it will give men with impotence problems total control over their love lives. Around 30 per cent of impotence cases have psychological reasons, but the remaining 70 per cent are physical. Heart disease and diabetes are two of the biggest causes in the middle-aged and elderly.

The gene breakthrough has been made by a team at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, who say the treatment could become available in less than five years. Lead researcher Professor Arnold Melman says: "Our initial research proves that this is a safe method of treatment for male impotence that works very effectively. "The initial trial was in 11 impotent men - two of whom were able to have intercourse for six months after having their gene therapy jab. "It would have worked for all 11 patients, but initially we had to give a combination of low doses and high doses because this was a phase one safety trial, principally looking at the safety of the therapy. "The two men for whom it worked had the highest doses of the drug. "One of the attractions of the drug is that men have just two injections a year and do not have to worry about taking pills - they can just forget they have a problem. The existing impotence drugs can have side effects, such as making men feel dizzy, but so far we have found none with gene therapy." Professor Melman - a urologist - and fellow researcher Dr George Christ will now give high doses of the jab, called Maxi K, to almost 200 men in a trial starting in the New Year.

The gene used in the treatment has been artificially created in the laboratory and is an exact copy of a gene found in human "smooth muscle" tissue, the type of muscle found in the penis. Dr Melman points out that the gene is entirely safe and has been developed without having to use a human virus - such as the common cold virus -to "carry it" to the part of the body where it is needed. "One of the concerns with gene therapy has been the use of viruses and how they can affect the immune system," he says. "We have got round that by developing a gene that does the job without needing assistance."

The gene works in a similar way to impotence drugs like Viagra - except it lasts longer because it stays in the body for months, rather than just a few hours. The gene jab enables extra potassium to be produced, which acts to relax the smooth muscle in the penis, allowing an increased flow of blood into the blood vessels. For it to work properly, it has to be injected into the penis, but Dr Melman says modern techniques mean this is relatively painless. He says: "For many men, the mind might be willing -they desire their partner - but the chemical and mechanical reaction to make things happen is not strong enough. What this gene does is to boost the existing cells so love-making becomes possible."

Dr Richard Petty, medical director of the London Wellman Clinic, approves of the gene breakthrough. "This is fantastic news, because impotence pills like Viagra work for only about 60 per cent of men, and there are many who can't take these pills because of conditions such as heart disease. "Men don't like being reminded they have a problem, but that's what happens every time they pop a pill. The fact they can have a jab that restores their sexuality for six months will be a big boost for men."

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].

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 use of extreme quintiles to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

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

Now for the GOOD trans fats!

Well, as with so much in science, there are caveats. And there's a big one with the trans fats. Although the vast majority of these fats are unhealthy, there is a minority that are fine to eat and may even prove beneficial.

Known as conjugated linoleic acids (CLAs), some of these trans fats occur naturally in dairy products and meat, especially milk and butter. Others form as a result of chemical processing or cooking. A growing number of studies have demonstrated that, at least in animals, these unusual fats fight a host of chronic health conditions from heart disease to diabetes to cancer. Most recently, several CLAs have shown promise in moderating the runaway inflammation that underlies arthritis, asthma, and even lupus.

A new line of research now aims at naturally increasing the concentrations of these unusual trans fats in foods such as milk and cheeses. Michael W. Pariza of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who discovered the beneficial alter ego of CLA trans fats more than 2 decades ago, suspects that one day they may even be added to foods to fortify their healthiness. At present, however, most people take in minimal amounts of CLAs.

Nevertheless, data on the potential benefits of these unusual trans fats have been so compelling that the Food and Drug Administration exempted them from the new trans-fat labeling law that went into effect this year. That law had been intended to steer people away from bad fats...

There is one more important caveat about CLAs: As fats, they're high in calories. That means that, as with all energy-dense foods, consumption of their food sources should be kept within moderation.

Source

This reminds me of the old cholesterol scare. Once all cholesterol in your diet was bad and then it was decided that there is good and bad cholesterol. Then later again it was decided that dietary cholesterol was largely irrelevant to the amount of cholesterol in your blood (the body makes its own cholesterol). As one large study concluded "There was no association between intakes of saturated or c/s-monounsaturated fatty acids, linoleic or linolenic acid, or dietary cholesterol and the risk of coronary deaths". So cholesterol in your food was not really much of a problem after all. Most dietary cholesterol in Western countries comes from eggs so do big egg-eaters die younger? There is no clear evidence that they do. Amusing how the trans fats scare is following the same trajectory. It will take a few years, though





How green is your organic lettuce?

Even an apparently obvious claim-that organic food is better for the environment than the conventionally farmed kind-turns out to be controversial. There are many different definitions of the term "organic", but it generally involves severe restrictions on the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers and a ban on genetically modified organisms. Peter Melchett of the Soil Association, Britain's leading organic lobby group, says that environmental concerns, rather than health benefits, are now cited by British consumers as their main justification for buying organic food. (There is no clear evidence that conventional food is harmful or that organic food is nutritionally superior.)

But not everyone agrees that organic farming is better for the environment. Perhaps the most eminent critic of organic farming is Norman Borlaug, the father of the "green revolution", winner of the Nobel peace prize and an outspoken advocate of the use of synthetic fertilisers to increase crop yields. He claims the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is "ridiculous" because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food. Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%. Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation. The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest.

What of the claim that organic farming is more energy-efficient? Lord Melchett points out for example that the artificial fertiliser used in conventional farming is made using natural gas, which is "completely unsustainable". But Anthony Trewavas, a biochemist at the University of Edinburgh, counters that organic farming actually requires more energy per tonne of food produced, because yields are lower and weeds are kept at bay by ploughing. And Mr Pollan notes that only one-fifth of the energy associated with food production across the whole food chain is consumed on the farm: the rest goes on transport and processing.

The most environmentally benign form of agriculture appears to be "no till" farming, which involves little or no ploughing and relies on cover crops and carefully applied herbicides to control weeds. This makes it hard to combine with organic methods (though some researchers are trying). Too rigid an insistence on organic farming's somewhat arbitrary rules, then-copper, a heavy metal, can be used as an organic fungicide because it is traditional-can actually hinder the adoption of greener agricultural techniques. Alas, shoppers look in vain for "no till" labels on their food-at least so far.

What about Fairtrade? Its aim is to address "the injustice of low prices" by guaranteeing that producers receive a fair price "however unfair the conventional market is", according to FLO International's website. In essence, it means paying producers an above-market "Fairtrade" price for their produce, provided they meet particular labour and production standards. In the case of coffee, for example, Fairtrade farmers receive a minimum of $1.26 per pound for their coffee, or $0.05 above the market price if it exceeds that floor. This premium is passed back to the producers to spend on development programmes. The market for Fairtrade products is much smaller than that for organic products, but is growing much faster: it increased by 37% to reach _1.1 billion ($1.4 billion) in 2005. Who could object to that?

Economists, for a start. The standard economic argument against Fairtrade goes like this: the low price of commodities such as coffee is due to overproduction, and ought to be a signal to producers to switch to growing other crops. Paying a guaranteed Fairtrade premium-in effect, a subsidy-both prevents this signal from getting through and, by raising the average price paid for coffee, encourages more producers to enter the market. This then drives down the price of non-Fairtrade coffee even further, making non-Fairtrade farmers poorer. Fairtrade does not address the basic problem, argues Tim Harford, author of "The Undercover Economist" (2005), which is that too much coffee is being produced in the first place. Instead, it could even encourage more production.

Mr Bretman of FLO International disagrees. In practice, he says, farmers cannot afford to diversify out of coffee when the price falls. Fairtrade producers can use the premiums they receive to make the necessary investments to diversify into other crops. But surely the price guarantee actually reduces the incentive to diversify?

Another objection to Fairtrade is that certification is predicated on political assumptions about the best way to organise labour. In particular, for some commodities (including coffee) certification is available only to co-operatives of small producers, who are deemed to be most likely to give workers a fair deal when deciding how to spend the Fairtrade premium. Coffee plantations or large family firms cannot be certified. Mr Bretman says the rules vary from commodity to commodity, but are intended to ensure that the Fairtrade system helps those most in need. Yet limiting certification to co-ops means "missing out on helping the vast majority of farm workers, who work on plantations," says Mr Wille of the Rainforest Alliance, which certifies producers of all kinds.

Guaranteeing a minimum price also means there is no incentive to improve quality, grumble coffee-drinkers, who find that the quality of Fairtrade brews varies widely. Again, the Rainforest Alliance does things differently. It does not guarantee a minimum price or offer a premium but provides training, advice and better access to credit. That consumers are often willing to pay more for a product with the RA logo on it is an added bonus, not the result of a formal subsidy scheme; such products must still fend for themselves in the marketplace. "We want farmers to have control of their own destinies, to learn to market their products in these competitive globalised markets, so they are not dependent on some NGO," says Mr Wille.

But perhaps the most cogent objection to Fairtrade is that it is an inefficient way to get money to poor producers. Retailers add their own enormous mark-ups to Fairtrade products and mislead consumers into thinking that all of the premium they are paying is passed on. Mr Harford calculates that only 10% of the premium paid for Fairtrade coffee in a coffee bar trickles down to the producer. Fairtrade coffee, like the organic produce sold in supermarkets, is used by retailers as a means of identifying price-insensitive consumers who will pay more, he says.

As with organic food, the Fairtrade movement is under attack both from outsiders who think it is misguided and from insiders who think it has sold its soul. In particular, the launch by Nestle, a food giant, of Partners' Blend, a Fairtrade coffee, has convinced activists that the Fairtrade movement is caving in to big business. Nestle sells over 8,000 non-Fairtrade products and is accused of exploiting the Fairtrade brand to gain favourable publicity while continuing to do business as usual. Mr Bretman disagrees. "We felt it would not be responsible to turn down an opportunity to do something that would practically help hundreds or thousands of farmers," he says. "You are winning the battle if you get corporate acceptance that these ideas are important." He concedes that the Fairtrade movement's supporters are "a very broad church" which includes anti-globalisation and anti-corporate types. But they can simply avoid Nestle's Fairtrade coffee and buy from smaller Fairtrade producers instead, he suggests.

Besides, this is how change usually comes about, notes Mr Pollan. The mainstream co-opts the fringe and shifts its position in the process; "but then you need people to stake out the fringe again." That is what has happened with organic food in America, and is starting to happen with Fairtrade food too. "People are looking for the next frontier," says Mr Pollan, and it already seems clear what that is: local food.

"Local is the new organic" has become the unofficial slogan of the local-food movement in the past couple of years. The rise of "Big Organic", the large-scale production of organic food to meet growing demand, has produced a backlash and claims that the organic movement has sold its soul. Purists worry that the organic movement's original ideals have been forgotten as large companies that produce and sell organic food on an industrial scale have muscled in.

This partly explains why food bought from local producers either directly or at farmers' markets is growing in popularity, and why local-food advocates are now the keepers of the flame of the food-activism movement. Local food need not be organic, but buying direct from small farmers short-circuits industrial production and distribution systems in the same way that buying organic used to. As a result, local food appears to be immune to being industrialised or corporatised. Organic food used to offer people a way to make a "corporate protest", says Mr Pollan, and now "local offers an alternative to that."

Buying direct means producers get a fair price, with no middlemen adding big margins along the distribution chain. Nor has local food been shipped in from the other side of the country or the other side of the world, so the smaller number of "food miles" makes local food greener, too. Local food thus appeals in different ways to environmentalists, national farm lobbies and anti-corporate activists, as well as consumers who want to know more about where their food comes from.

Obviously it makes sense to choose a product that has been grown locally over an identical product shipped in from afar. But such direct comparisons are rare. And it turns out that the apparently straightforward approach of minimising the "food miles" associated with your weekly groceries does not, in fact, always result in the smallest possible environmental impact.

The term "food mile" is itself misleading, as a report published by DEFRA, Britain's environment and farming ministry, pointed out last year. A mile travelled by a large truck full of groceries is not the same as a mile travelled by a sport-utility vehicle carrying a bag of salad. Instead, says Paul Watkiss, one of the authors of the DEFRA report, it is more helpful to think about food-vehicle miles (ie, the number of miles travelled by vehicles carrying food) and food-tonne miles (which take the tonnage being carried into account).

The DEFRA report, which analysed the supply of food in Britain, contained several counterintuitive findings. It turns out to be better for the environment to truck in tomatoes from Spain during the winter, for example, than to grow them in heated greenhouses in Britain. And it transpires that half the food-vehicle miles associated with British food are travelled by cars driving to and from the shops. Each trip is short, but there are millions of them every day. Another surprising finding was that a shift towards a local food system, and away from a supermarket-based food system, with its central distribution depots, lean supply chains and big, full trucks, might actually increase the number of food-vehicle miles being travelled locally, because things would move around in a larger number of smaller, less efficiently packed vehicles.

Research carried out at Lincoln University in New Zealand found that producing dairy products, lamb, apples and onions in that country and shipping them to Britain used less energy overall than producing them in Britain. (Farming and processing in New Zealand is much less energy intensive.) And even if flying food in from the developing world produces more emissions, that needs to be weighed against the boost to trade and development.

There is a strand of protectionism and anti-globalisation in much local-food advocacy, says Gareth Edwards-Jones of the University of Wales. Local food lets farming lobbies campaign against imports under the guise of environmentalism. A common argument is that local food is fresher, but that is not always true: green beans, for example, are picked and flown to Britain from Kenya overnight, he says. People clearly want to think that they are making environmentally or socially optimal food choices, he says, but "we don't have enough evidence" to do so.

What should a shopper do? All food choices involve trade-offs. Even if organic farming does consume a little less energy and produce a little less pollution, that must be offset against lower yields and greater land use. Fairtrade food may help some poor farmers, but may also harm others; and even if local food reduces transport emissions, it also reduces potential for economic development. Buying all three types of food can be seen as an anti-corporate protest, yet big companies already sell organic and Fairtrade food, and local sourcing coupled with supermarkets' efficient logistics may yet prove to be the greenest way to move food around.

Food is central to the debates on the environment, development, trade and globalisation-but the potential for food choices to change the world should not be overestimated. The idea of saving the world by shopping is appealing; but tackling climate change, boosting development and reforming the global trade system will require difficult political choices. "We have to vote with our votes as well as our food dollars," says Mr Pollan. Conventional political activity may not be as enjoyable as shopping, but it is far more likely to make a difference.

Source





Cure closer for diabetes

A Canadian-led research team has uncovered the trigger for Type 1 diabetes, a "breakthrough" that allowed them to cure the disease in mice. Researchers at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, University of Calgary and the Jackson Laboratory in Maine published the findings in the December 15 issue of the journal Cell.

Type 1 diabetes is an auto-immune disorder that affects millions of people worldwide -- about 10 per cent of diabetes cases. It arises when certain cells responsible for insulin production become inflamed and are ultimately destroyed, making it impossible for the body to produce insulin.

Most studies on Type 1 diabetes had focused on the immune system, but the Canadian-led team found a link between the disease and the nervous system. The group discovered that abnormal nerve endings in insulin-producing pancreas islet cells sparked a chain of events that caused Type 1 diabetes in mice. When they removed the sensory neurons, it prevented inflammation of the cells and the mice did not develop the disorder. "We have created a better understanding of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, with new therapeutic targets and approaches derived for both diseases," study collaborator Pere Santamaria, of the University of Calgary, said.

The researchers said treatment was now being tested for Type 2, or obesity-related diabetes, in which insulin resistance was even more severe, with "strong evidence" so far it would work.

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].

Trans fats:

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 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.


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

Britain: The "One size fits all" battle of the lunchbox

Parents are quite capable of feeding their children - despite what the government's School Food Trust would have us believe.

It’s bad enough having Jamie Oliver telling us how to feed our children without another celebrity chef joining in. But in January, Prue Leith, cookery writer and restaurateur, takes up her position as chair of the School Food Trust. ‘This is the most important job I have ever had,’ she said on her appointment. ‘I believe we can really change attitudes through the trust’s mission to help schools teach every pupil about food and nutrition and to give them cooking lessons.

The School Food Trust is yet another government-knows-best initiative set up to propagate myths about diet and intervene into areas where government should fear to tread. It’s website states as fact the horrors of the epidemic of obese children. In fact, the level of obesity is generally overstated (see Fattened statistics, by Peter Marsh) and the solutions are generally worse than the ‘problem’ (see Stop bullying fat kids, by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick).

The one thing we do know is that people are living longer and healthier than ever before. The mortality rate for five year olds fell by 98 per cent from 1901 to 2001. In 1901, the UK average life expectancy was 46 years for men, and 50 years for women. In 2001 this had risen to 76 years for men and 81 years for women. Hardly doomsday scenarios.

As a parent who is the intended recipient of such initiatives, what makes my blood boil is they reveal exactly what the government thinks of me. Here is what actually happens. Parents want their children to be happy and healthy. They want their children to eat food that will make them strong and grow. Parents are also pragmatic with their children. They would rather their children ate something rather than nothing (an admirable idea, I hope you’ll agree) and so work out what that means. This might mean a whole host of different things, from mini pizzas to sweet potatoes, because children all have their individual tastes and quirks.

The School Food Trust site however assumes that parents are complete idiots and then goes from there. For example, one of the factsheets for parents is on the sticky subject of the humble packed lunch. The factsheet tells us ignorant parents that ‘packing a lunch can be done in five minutes before school. Or, if you’re usually pushed for time, pack it the night before and put it in the fridge.’ Thanks for that because we’d obviously never be able to manage without such words of advice. With that sort of view of how impotent we are, it is amazing that the children in question have lived long enough to go to school to have a packed lunch. How did we know not to immerse our children in boiling hot water when bathing them as infants? However did we manage to heat up their baby food?

After assuming we have so little intelligence, the site then continues in a patronising vein to advise us not to put the same thing in our children’s lunchbox every day. ‘Try to have a different type of fruit every day - don’t always pick an orange and an apple, why not try kiwi, mango, grapes, pear, chunks of melon or small packets of dried fruit.’

So, we’re apparently so useless we can’t even work out when and how to make our kids’ lunches but somehow we have the time to wander around sourcing a variety of fruits. Nor does it stop at fruit. There are all sorts of interesting breads we should search for, too. Examples given to put in our children’s lunchboxes are pittas, bagels, baguettes, ciabatta, rice crackers, rolls, wraps - anything but the humble white loaf which somehow has assumed the moral status of heroin.

To be fair, the School Food Trust is not alone in deciding they know better than parents. That other great government-funded institution, the BBC, has decided that mother does not know best. The BBC’s ‘Big Challenge’ is to transform the state of the lunchbox as we know it. As with the School Food Trust, bog standard white sliced bread is the loaf that dare not speak its name. Any old pitta, bagel or wrap will do in place of Sunblest or Mothers Pride. Once again, parents are meant to be sourcing a whole range of products from pasta-based salads to small packs of nuts and seeds.

At one point, it occurs to the author of this advice, nutritionist Lyndel Costain, that children may not rejoice when being offered a bit of pasta and a few nuts to sustain them through the school day. But never fear! There is more sound advice to dole out to us stupid parents. ‘Involve them in lunchbox planning’ or ‘give them a star’ if they try a ‘new, healthier lunchbox food’. After five stars ‘give them a small reward, such as… [wait for it] ... a family walk’!

Please! My 4 year old and 7 year old are involved in lunchbox planning in that they are very sure of what they like and don’t like and a packet of seeds, however much planned, will not be eaten. And a family walk, for my kids at least, is not an incentive to look with delight on a vegetable stick with a dip but an onerous activity they are dragged on under great duress.

If it sounds like I have a personal axe to grind, I do. In my children’s primary school they have embraced the healthy eating agenda with a vengeance. This includes inspecting the children’s lunchboxes and giving awards to the child who brings the ‘healthiest’ lunch to school, while telling those who have biscuits in their box to bring an apple instead.

Perhaps I should think myself lucky compared to the parents of little Ryan Stupples, who was excluded from the school dining hall and made to eat in the headmaster’s office for having - shock, horror - two snack items in his lunchbox. The headmaster told the Daily Telegraph: ‘We take healthy eating very seriously and everyone is aware of our new policies.’ The thought of a 10 year old boy being told by their school that they’ve done something naughty because of what mum and dad put in their lunchbox sends shivers down the spine.

If the lunchbox inspections are bad, the battle for young hearts, minds and stomachs is even worse. When I went to see an assembly that my daughter’s class staged for parents, the tour de force was six year old girls reading their poems about healthy eating. I found myself feeling queasy as they told us about how you must not eat fatty things, because it is important to be thin! The following week there was yet another healthy eating day which involved trying ‘healthy’ foods. Discussing this with friends in the parents forum that I run, it was clear that everyone had their own little horror story to tell of their child’s school cracking down on contraband lunchbox items or brainwashing them about the dangers of their food.

Call me old fashioned but shouldn’t school be trying to develop knowledge and imagination, whether through fantastic literary tales or inspiring science? Why instead are we infecting such young children with an obsession with their bodies?

Parents will remain pragmatic and keep focused on doing what is best for their children, giving them what they will eat, and sometimes getting them to stretch the boundaries of what that means. But at the same time, parents shouldn’t be complacent about the patronising messages coming from something like the School Food Trust. These messages show that the government holds us in high contempt and doesn’t like it when we don’t bow before their codes and guidelines, that we can work out for ourselves what is best for our children. It has imbued food stuffs with moral characteristics - sliced white bread bad, ciabatta good - and it wants to ensure that morality is enforced.

Parents: you can expect plenty of arguments with schools over how to feed your children in the coming months. Stand by what is right for your child. Hold onto your children’s lunchboxes and let the battle commence!

Source





IT IS GOVERNMENT THAT IS FAT

So people dining out in New York City will be protected from unwittingly -- or even wittingly -- consuming foods containing trans fats. Trans fats are what you get with partially hydrogenated oils and shortenings, which keep foods like French fries from getting soggy and margarine solid at room temperature.

Trans fats will be banned in the city's restaurants and undoubtedly before long in Chicago and other places because health authorities say they raise cholesterol and cause heart disease.

Ironically, trans fats became popular in food preparation as people were being scared away from the saturated fats in butter and lard. I'm beginning to think the diet authorities, who unfortunately are close to government power, aren't as sure about things as they claim. (This is worth reading.) They told us (on the basis of evidence that has been questioned in many quarters) that saturated fats are bad for our health. So we turned to polyunsaturated and trans fats, only to be told later that they aren't so great either. This sounds familiar. Oh yes. Heroin was developed to help people break their morphine habits. Then methadone had to be invented to break the heroin habit. Now I read that kids are using methadone for kicks. We'd probably prefer they consumed trans fat.

I don't know what, if anything, trans fats will do to you. I am not a physician or a nutritionist. Maybe they are as bad as the most vocal health "experts" say. But I want to point out two things before moving on to the political implications. First, there is some reason for skepticism about the indictment of saturated fat. (This article is illuminating about the political roots of government diet recommendations.) And second, former Cato analyst Radley Balko points out that as consumption of trans fats has increased over the last two decades, heart disease has decreased and life-expectancy has lengthened. What are we to make of that?

Why a Ban?

Whatever the truth is, this is shouldn't be a political issue. People are perfectly capable of keeping up with the latest dizzying news on what's good for you and what's not without the government banning things. Earlier generations of Americans would have been appalled by New York City's action. But now many people think nothing of demanding prohibition of anything they dislike. And most of the others accept it.

It's as though the process of prohibition meant nothing. But it means a great deal. Let's assume we won't miss trans fats and that healthy substitutes will be easily found and cheap to use. So what? Prohibition is objectionable in itself. If government has the power to ban trans fats in the name of health (an example of what Thomas Szasz calls the Therapeutic State), it will necessarily have the power to prohibit -- or, yes, require -- other things in the name of health. Power won't be contained, and sooner or later it will wash over something the trans-fat opponents don't like.

Why is government looking after our health? To keep the price of medical care down, perhaps. But that's only a concern of government because it pays for a lot medical care (using our money of course). And many people want it (that is, the taxpayers) to pay for it all. When government first intervened in medical matters, we were assured it would not interfere with our lives. Many people believed that story. Now we know better. With the government's medical budgets running wild and its programs facing bankruptcy, control of our decisions has become a matter of fiscal conservatism. The scary thing is that people seem willing to give up freedom to preserve and extend the subsidies. The choice is between government responsibility for medical services or freedom to make decisions. In the long run we can't have both.

We have to drop the idea that if government doesn't protect us from things like trans fats, we are defenseless. Have you read a food label lately? Virtually every product boasts it has no trans fats. Private activities are educating the public (assuming the science is right), and profit-seeking food companies are responding. A margarine company, Smart Balance, has been touting its trans-fat-free product for years. Restaurants would do the same. In the meantime, concerned customers can ask questions or avoid situations of uncertainty.

Yes, that means some inconvenience. But it'll be a lot less inconvenient than the impositions of the Therapeutic State.

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.

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

Vegetarians are more intelligent, says study

Another rubbishy finding that ignores social class

Frequently dismissed as cranks, their fussy eating habits tend to make them unpopular with dinner party hosts and guests alike. But now it seems they may have the last laugh, with research showing vegetarians are more intelligent than their meat-eating friends. A study of thousands of men and women revealed that those who stick to a vegetarian diet have IQs that are around five points higher than those who regularly eat meat. Writing in the British Medical Journal, the researchers say it isn't clear why veggies are brainier - but admit the fruit and veg-rich vegetarian diet could somehow boost brain power.

The researchers, from the University of Southampton, tracked the fortunes of more than 8,000 volunteers for 20 years. At the age of ten, the boys and girls sat a series of tests designed to determine their IQ. When they reached the age of 30, they were asked whether they were vegetarian and their answers compared to their childhood IQ score. Around four and a half per cent of the adults were vegetarian - a figure that is broadly in line with that found in the general population.

However, further analysis of the results showed those who were brainiest as children were more likely to have become vegetarian as adults, shunning both meat and fish. The typical adult veggie had a childhood IQ of around 105 - around five points higher than those who continued to eat meat as they grew up. The vegetarians were also more likely to have gained degrees and hold down high-powered jobs. There was no difference in IQ between strict vegetarians and those who classed themselves as veggie but still ate fish or chicken. However, vegans - vegetarians who also avoid dairy products - scored significantly lower, averaging an IQ score of 95 at the age of 10.

Researcher Dr Catharine Gale said there could be several explanations for the findings, including intelligent people being more likely to consider both animal welfare issues and the possible health benefits of a vegetarian diet. Previous work has shown that vegetarians tend to have lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol, cutting their risk of heart attacks. They are also less likely to be obese. Alternatively, a diet which is rich in fruit, vegetables and wholegrains may somehow boost brain power. Dr Gale said: 'Although our results suggest that children who are more intelligent may be more likely to become vegetarian as adolescents or young adults, it does not rule out the possibility that such a diet might have some beneficial effect on subsequent cognitive performance. 'Might the nature of the vegetarians' diet have enhanced their apparently superior brain power? Was this the mechanism that helped them achieve the disproportionate nature of degrees?'

High-profile vegetarians include singers Paul McCartney and Morrissey and actress Jenny Seagrove. Past exponents of a meat-free lifestyle include George Bernard Shaw and Benjamin Franklin. Promoting the cause, Shaw said, 'A mind of the calibre of mine cannot drive its nutriment from cows', while Franklin stated that a vegetarian diet resulted in 'greater clearness of head and quicker comprehension'. Liz O'Neill, of the Vegetarian Society, said: 'We've always known that vegetarianism is an intelligent, compassionate choice benefiting animals, people and the environment. Now, we've got the scientific evidence to prove it. 'Maybe that explains why many meat-reducers are keen to call themselves vegetarians when even they must know that vegetarians don't eat chicken, turkey or fish!'

Source

Vegetarianism is almost solely a bourgeois preoccupation and, as Murray and Herrnstein showed long ago, the middle and upper classes have an IQ advantage. They also, however, tend to overestimate their own wisdom and go off chasing all sorts of rainbows -- in the belief that they can see truth and virtue where most people cannot




ARROGANT B*STARDS

Clothes made in larger sizes should carry a tag with an obesity helpline number, health specialists have suggested. Sweets and snacks should not be permitted near checkouts, new roads should not be built unless they include cycle lanes and food likely to make people fat should be taxed, they say in a checklist of what we might "reasonably do" to deal with obesity.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the team says that "pull yourself together, eat less and exercise more" is an inadequate response to obesity, voiced only by "less perceptive health professionals" and the media. What fat people need is help, advice and sympathy to overcome their addiction to food, says the group of public health professionals, which includes Sir George Alberti, the Government's national director for emergency care. Their checklist of possible actions includes:

* Printing a helpline numbers for advice with all clothes sold with a waist of more than 40in for men and 37in for boys, women's garments with a waist of more than 35in or size 16 or above, and more than 31in for girls

* Banning the placement of sweets and fatty snacks at or near shop tills and at children's eye level

* Taxing processed foods that are high in sugar or saturated fat

* Introducing health checks for all school leavers, both primary and secondary

* Allowing new urban roads only if they have cycle lanes

* Establishing a dedicated central agency responsible for all aspects of obesity

The report was put together by Laurence Gruer, director of public health science at NHS Health Scotland, and Sir George, who is emeritus professor of medicine at Newcastle University. The Glasgow University professors Naveed Sattar and Mike Lean also contributed to the report, which calls for wider acceptance of drugs and surgery as ways of cutting the health risks that stem from obesity.

The report concludes: "Medical practice must adapt to the current epidemic of obesity and nutrition-related diseases. The profession must unite the forces of public health and acute services to generate sustainable changes in food and lifestyles: matters at the heart of our cultural identities. "Furthermore, training in public health medicine should urge all doctors to contribute towards bringing changes in the food industry and in the environment that will lead to a more physically active, healthier and happier population. "As the prevalence and costs of obesity escalate, the economic argument for giving high priority to obesity and weight management through a designated co-ordinating agency will ultimately become overwhelming. The only question is, will action be taken before it is too late?"

Source




The feminizing effects of soy

Some interesting claims by Jim Rutz

There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular. Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food. The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.

I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens. Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.

In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen. If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.

Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today? Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic. Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!

There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults - especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy. In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.

Source

There is no doubt that soy products do contain phytoestrogens and that such hormones do have roughly the effects described above. See also here. Whether the quantities ingested are large enough to have any given effect is the crucial question

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

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.

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