What is really in our food products and is FDA keeping an eye on it?

The FDA was established as a regulatory overseer to ensure implementation of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter-century in the making that prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs. Its official title 'Food and Drug Administration' was given in 1930.

Since then FDA has been entrusted with the task of " protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation" ( as defined on the FDA website)

But it is starting to become apparent that some food product manufacturers have found ways around the regulations that ensure public safety, most commonly used is a legal loophole, introduced in 1958, that allows use of additives in food products if deemed by them as 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS). The most well known example of GRAS is partially hydrogenated fats.

As defined on the FDA site: "Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive."

Thus these additives may not require FDA approval or oversight if declared as safe by industry experts. It is at the food companies' discretion whether to ask for FDA for approval or declare them harmless using the GRAS loophole. Such an evaluation by the food company is not required to be reviewed by the FDA, yet again the decision lies with the food companies.

What is worrisome is that in recent years several safety of such GRAS ingredients has been disputed by scientists and consumer groups. There have been documented cases where some GRAS additives have led to serious allergic reactions or other health issues.

The fact is that American consumers are ingesting food products with ingredients that have not be scrutinized and approved by the FDA. The long term effects of such ingredients on general health are not known or understood.

As pointed out in the NPR news article "Why The FDA Has Never Looked At Some Of The Additives In Our Food "
This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.

The general assumption that these GRAS ingredients are safe is no longer being accepted by major consumer groups. These are now pushing for higher standards of review and scrutiny by FDA.
 
Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.
Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.

Unfortunately the steps being taken to control the increasing number of GRAS ingredients being used by food companies are lagging behind, as mentioned in the article;
In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.
Meanwhile, the FDA's food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl — the average review takes two years, but some drag on for decades.

Many industry experts feel these concerns are exaggerated, but as a consumer we need to take time to read food labels and try to make informed decisions of our own. After all the consequence of what we put in our bodies will primarily effects us and our families.

 


 
 

How much benefit do we really get from Organic food?

Most people myself included tend to think of organic foods as healthier and safer. But that may not always be the case, points out Tamar Haspel in her recent article in The Washington Post's Health and food section. To make it simple she simply gives the evidence on the nutrition and contamination of both organic and conventional foods such as milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish. Here is a short excerpt of the article;

Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.

Organic or conventional? It’s a choice many grocery shoppers are faced with, over and over. The price difference is easy to see; it’s right there on the product. The quality difference is much harder. Is the organic milk better for your kids? Is the conventional lettuce more likely to carry pathogens?

Leave aside for the moment whether organic agriculture is better for the planet and whether organic livestock have better lives, although there’s a strong case for both of those arguments. Leave aside flavor, too, because it’s subjective and variable. What motivates many organic buyers, particularly the parents of small children, is health benefits, and there are two questions: Do organics do us more good (in the form of better nutrition), and do they do us less harm (in the form of fewer contaminants and pathogens)? 

Milk 
 
Nutrition: Compared with conventional milk, organic milk has higher levels of omega-3 fats, which protect against heart disease and may decrease the risk of depression, stroke, cancer and other diseases, but the quantities are too small to be very meaningful. (It takes 11 quarts of organic milk to equal the omega-3s in four ounces of salmon.) Milk’s omega-3 content is a function of the cow’s diet, and higher levels reflect more grass. (A few other nutritional differences between organic and conventional milk have been studied, but there isn’t enough research to draw conclusions.)
Contamination: Neither organic nor conventional milk contains antibiotics. By law, every truckload of milk, organic and conventional, is tested for veterinary drugs, including antibiotics, by trained dairy workers. Any load that tests positive is pulled out of the food supply.
Hormones: The issue with milk is that many conventionally raised dairy cows, unlike organic ones, are injected with bovine growth hormone (BGH, the synthetic version of which is called either recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBGH, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST) to increase their milk production.Both organic and conventional cows have IGF-I in their milk, but cows that get hormone treatment may have more of it.
The use of rBGH has fueled concerns among some parents about giving milk to children, but the FDA report concluded that “consumption by infants and children of milk and edible products from rBGH-treated cows is safe.”
Bottom line: Organic milk has higher omega-3 fat levels, but probably not enough to make a difference. Exposure to pesticides, contaminants or hormones is not a significant risk in either organic or conventional milk.
 
Produce

Nutrition: Many studies have compared the vitamins, minerals, macronutrients and other compounds in organic and conventional produce, and a 2012 review concluded that the results were all over the map. The one exception was that the phosphorus content of organic produce is higher, although the review, done by Stanford University scientists, calls that finding “not clinically significant.”
Contamination: There are two issues for foods that grow in the ground: pesticides and pathogens. There is widespread agreement that organic produce, while not pesticide-free, has lower residue levels and fewer pesticides.
Carl Winter, a toxicologist at the University of California at Davis, says that the Environmental Protection Agency, working from animal research and factoring in the special sensitivities of human subgroups such as babies and children, has found that lifetime risk of adverse health effects due to low-level exposure to pesticide residue through consumption of produce is “far below even minimal health concerns, even over a lifetime.” 
As for pathogens, the 2012 Stanford review found that E. coli contamination is slightly more likely in organic than conventional produce.
The best strategy to reduce risk from produce isn’t to buy either organic or conventional. Rather, it’s to cook your food.
Bottom line: While there may be no significant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce, organic does have lower levels of pesticide residue. However, there isn’t universal agreement on the risk those residues pose.
 
Meat
 
Nutrition: As with milk, the main issue here is omega-3 fats. Some organic meat and poultry have more of them than conventional products do. The reason is diet: Animals that eat more grass have lower fat levels overall and higher omega-3 levels than animals fed more grain.
Although measurements of omega-3 fats in beef vary, the numbers are low and substantially below what can be found in a serving of salmon.
Contaminants: The USDA randomly tests carcasses for residues of pesticides, contaminants and veterinary drugs including antibiotics. In 2011, it screened for 128 chemicals, and 99 percent of the tested carcasses were free of all of them.
It found a few with residue violations and a similar small number with residue within legal limits (mostly of arsenic and antibiotics). Although the USDA doesn’t report organic and conventional separately, contaminant risk overall is extremely low.
The bigger concern is pathogens. Studies of bacterial contamination levels of organic and conventional meat show widely varying results. These findings suggest that organic meat may be slightly more likely to be contaminated, possibly because no antibiotics are used. But conventional meat is more likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But the risk in meat overall was essentially the same. And whether meat is conventional or organic, the solution is adequate cooking.
Bottom line: Grass-fed beef has a slight edge over grain-fed because of higher omega-3 levels, but the amounts are probably too small to affect human health.

Eggs
 
Nutrition: As with milk and meat, the omega-3 levels of eggs are affected by the hens’ diet and can be increased by pasturing or diet supplementation for either organic or conventional hens. Eggs high in omega-3s are generally labeled.
Contaminants: There’s very little research on contaminants in eggs. The 2012 Stanford review concluded that there is “no difference” in contamination risk between conventional and organic eggs.
Bottom line: There are no significant differences affecting health between organic and conventional eggs.  

Fish
 
The USDA has not issued any organic standards for farmed fish or shellfish, but several overseas organizations have. (Because there’s no way to control the diet of wild fish, “organic” doesn’t apply.) Canadian standards prohibit antibiotics and hormones, restrict pesticides and set criteria for acceptable feed. There’s not enough research comparing organic and conventional fish to draw any conclusions about their health benefits.


Reference:
Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.


(The Washington Post- Health, Science and Environment 07/04/14)

Fats are not the enemy

Allison Aubrey presented a case for adding some fat to our diets on  NPR's Morning Edition as few weeks back.

Fats have been the target of most of the popular dietary plans. They are looked upon as the enemy to any healthy lifestyle. But is that justifiable and right?

It is well documented that saturated fats can raise the LDL ( Low-density lipoprotein)in the blood, which is the so-called bad cholesterol. Whereas on the other end, plant-based fats such as those found in nuts and olive oil are actually beneficial to our heart health and can help reduce the risk of heart disease. Yet it seems the risks might be more then the benefits, leading most of us to minimize fats intake whenever trying to eat healthy.

Thus the task of  convincing most of us to bring some ats back into our diets is a tough one.
Here is an excerpts of what experts had to say to Allison Aubrey on the subject;

"Fat was really the villain," says , who is chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. And, by default, people "had to load up on carbohydrates."
But, by the mid-1990s, Willett says, there were already signs that the high-carb, low-fat approach might not lead to fewer heart attacks and strokes. He had a long-term study underway that was aimed at evaluating the effects of diet and lifestyle on health.
"We were finding that if people seemed to replace saturated fat — the kind of fat found in cheese, eggs, meat, butter — with carbohydrate, there was no reduction in heart disease," Willett says.
Willett submitted his data to a top medical journal, but he says the editors would not publish his findings. His paper was turned down.
"There was a lot of resistance to anything that would question the low-fat guidelines," Willett says, especially the guidelines on saturated fat.
Willett's was eventually published by a British medical journal, the BMJ, in 1996.

But here's where it gets interesting: "We've learned that carbohydrates aren't neutral," explains , an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School.
"[Carbs] were the base of the pyramid," says Mozaffarian. The message was "eat all carbohydrates you want."
Americans took this as a green light to eat more refined grains such as breads, processed snack foods and white pasta.
"But carbohydrates worsen glucose and insulin — they have negative effects on blood cholesterol levels," he says. The thinking that it's OK to swap saturated fats for these refined carbs "has not been useful advice."
He says it's clear that saturated fats can raise LDL cholesterol, the bad cholesterol. But that's only one risk factor for heart disease.
There's now evidence that — compared with carbs — saturated fat can raise HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol) and lower trigylcerides in the blood, which are both countering effects to heart disease, he says.
"When you put all of this together," says Mozaffarian, what you see is that saturated fat has a relatively neutral effect compared with carbs. He says it's "not a beneficial effect but not a harmful effect. And I think that's what the recent studies show." He points to a of studies published in 2010.
He also points to a highly publicized that concludes there's no convincing evidence to support the dietary recommendations to limit saturated fat.
The in that paper have created quite a bit of controversy. For instance, the American Heart Association it stands by its recommendations to limit saturated fat.


Although these new points of view don't say 'Go ahead and load up on fats' they do make it clear that fats should not be excluded from our diets completely. Maybe moderation is a good way to go with all diets. 

 
References:
Rethinking Fat: The Case For Adding Some Into Your Diet (NPR)

 

Reduce all animal proteins in our diet to live longer

It has been well documented that consumption of too much red meat as an adult can lead increased risk for type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and certain cancers.

Now researchers in the US and Italy have gathered enough data, over a period of two decades, to conclude that individuals who have diets high in animal proteins during their middle age are four times more likely to die of cancer then their counterparts who had diets low in animal proteins. A risk some have compared with smoking. An increased risk of developing Diabetes Type 2 was also observed.

Valter Longo, a University of Southern California gerontology professor and director of the school’s Longevity Institute, who co-authored the study pointed out "The great majority of Americans could reduce their protein intake," and added "The best change would be to lower the daily intake of all proteins, but especially animal-derived proteins."

The interesting finding though was the fact that if you started eating more animal proteins after the age of 66 years, it is actually good for your health.


Here are two articles on the subject:

Too much animal-based proteins could lead to early death, study says ( Brady Dennis for The Washington Post)

It's time to kick the high-protein diet habit – before it kills you (Holly Baxter for The Guardian)


Reference:

Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Obesity spreads to developing countries

A UK think tank The Overseas Development Institute  report concludes that number of obese and overweight adults in the developing world has  almost quadrupled to about one billion since 1980.
According to the report, there are almost as many overweight or obese adults in North Africa, Middle East and Latin America as there are in Europe. It also highlights the fact that one in three adults in the world (1.46 billion) were overweight or obese in 2008, up by 23% since 1980.
 If these figure are not enough to make us realize that obesity is no longer a rich countries' problem instead is more of a worldwide health issue, then I do not know what is going to!
A major change seen in worldwide diets is the increasing consumption of sugar and sweeteners, which has risen by over 20% per person between 1961 and 2009. One big culprit for that is the increased consumption and marketing of processed foods everywhere.
In countries with emerging economies, people are making bigger incomes and hence now can chose more varied foods and change diets. A huge majority of these individuals in developing countries live in highly congested urban settings and get very little exercise.

South Korea's Health Wellness efforts at a national level have resulted in a 300% increase in fruit and 10% increase in vegetable consumption.  Major campaigns by the government and nutrition specialists to advertise and teach the public that the traditional diet which is low fat is a healthy diet. The most common ingredients in Korean traditional cuisine are vegetables along with use of ginger, garlic, herbs, and various condiments, the health benefits of which are well-known.  The educational and campaigning efforts also focused on providing new approaches to maintaining a traditional yet contemporary Korean diet. These efforts to improve the national diet has helped South Korea keep its obesity rate at 4%. This is the lowest in the OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmen) but unfortunately it too is rising gradually and is expected to increase by about 5% in ten years.

I am sure that reasons and solutions as well, are far more complex and numerous then the ones I list, but it is clear that if we do not take major steps to change these dangerous dietary and lifestyle trends for the better, we are heading for a disastrous worldwide health catastrophe.


P.S:

• Obesity quadruples to nearly one billion in the developing world(BBC World)
• Overseas Development Institute(Website)
•  The unique aspects of the nutrition transition in South Korea: the retention of healthful elements in their traditional diet (Public Health Nutrition Publication)

Reduce risk of diabetes by making small lifestyle changes...

A recent trial by researchers at University of Edinburgh specifically focusing on individuals of South Asian descent, has shown that even small changes in lifestyle can lead to weight loss and significantly reduce the risk of type 2 Diabetes. It has been seen that men of Pakistani and Indian descent are three times more likely to develop diabetes as compared to men from the general population with similar body mass indexes.

This trial titled "Culturally adapting the prevention of diabetes and obesity in South Asians (PODOSA) trial", included 171 individuals of Pakistani and Indian descent living in Scotland with impaired glycemia thus at high risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.

As most South Asian cultural activities and traditions revolve around family and food. Participants were given detailed dietary advice by dieticians and provided culturally relevant lifestyle change plans and resources. The trials made use of professional translators and multilingual professionals for communicating instructions to participants. Also many of the manual and pamphlets were translated into participants' preferred languages, such as Urdu, Hindi, and Punjabi. In contrast, the control group was given basic instructions on weight control and management, it was not culturally specific.

According to Professor Raj Bhopal of Edinburgh University's Population Health Sciences Center 'These differing approaches show us that a more family-centred strategy, with culturally tailored lifestyle advice, can produce significant benefits to people's health through weight loss.'

 Although trials in Europe and North America have not so far reported on the impact on South Asian populations separately or provided the details of their cross-cultural adaptation processes. But there might be a more positive outcome of such efforts when instructions and advice are culture specific.



P.S: Small Lifestyle changes 'lower type 2 diabetes risk' (BBC World: Health)

Heart Attacks, Strokes and Apples

We all heard our parents encouraging us to eat fresh fruit and vegetable, specially apples, and all of them used the old Victorian saying " An Apple a Day Keeps the Doctor Away" to further motivate us. Well, more then a century later it still holds true, especially for the above 50 population.
According to an article published in the christmas edition of the British Medical Journal, a research study led by Dr Adam Briggs of the BHF Health Promotion Research Group at Oxford University came to the conclusion that about 8500 deaths from heart attacks and strokes could be averted if all adults of 50 years and above were prescribed an a apple a day. The significance of this outcome is more apparent when compared to another recent study that showed that if adults 50 and above not already on it, were prescribed statins, it could prevent about 9400 deaths from heart diseases. 
Dr. Adam Briggs says 'It just shows how effective small changes in diet can be, and that both drugs and healthier living can make a real difference in preventing heart disease and stroke.' But the researchers stress that this does not encourage individuals already on statins to stop taking them, just try adding apples to your daily diet.
Although apples appear to be exceptionally good for maintaining a healthy heart, it is clearly essential to eat a variety of fresh fruits and vegetable on a daily basis to stay healthy.





P.S:
An Apple A Day Keeps The Heart Doctor Away (University of Oxford)
Apple Nutrition and Composition Facts(USDA Database)

When should I discard these condiments?

It can be tricky to decide when to discard those condiments in our fridge. All items have expiry dates for when to throw them unused and unopened. The confusion is when they are opened, being used and being refrigerated, how long can we keep them and use them then?
Click on the following link to find a very simple list on the WebMD site of how long common condiments and other items in our refrigerators can be safely used;
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/healthtool-condiments-table

Moms, we've got to get moving!

I am guilty of this too, I watch far too much TV. Yes, and that automatically reduced the amount of physical activity I get. That in turn plays an important role in leading to unwanted weight gain.
Not only is this lack of physical activity bad for the moms, it is setting a poor example for our kids, who too spend far too much time in front of TVs and Computer screens. If not for ourselves, let us change that for our sons and daughters and lets get moving!!

Here is the report on the subject on MedicineNet.com;

Less Physical Activity, More TV for Today's Moms, Study Finds
American mothers watch more TV and get less physical activity today than mothers did four decades ago, a new study finds.
"With each passing generation, mothers have become increasingly physically inactive, sedentary and obese, thereby potentially predisposing children to an increased risk of inactivity, adiposity [body fat] and chronic non-communicable diseases," said study leader Edward Archer, an exercise scientist and epidemiologist at the University of South Carolina.

"Given that physical activity is an absolute prerequisite for health and wellness, it is not surprising that inactivity is now a leading cause of death and disease in developed nations," Archer noted in a university news release. The analysis of 45 years of national data focused on two groups of mothers: those with children 5 years or younger, and those with children aged 6 to 18. The researchers assessed physical activity related to cooking, cleaning and exercising. (Continued)

The relationship between cholesterol treatment and muscle aches

I know many people who take medications for lowering their cholesterol. Some of them complain of a non specific muscle aches. Now there seems to be a definite proof that these muscle pains may be caused by the interaction of Statins (a class of cholesterol lowering drugs) with other medications a person might be taking. Here is an article on that subject published in a New York Times' Well blog recently;

 People who use statin drugs to lower their cholesterol sometimes complain of muscle pain and soreness. But a new study suggests that in some cases these side effects may be a result of combining statins with other medications.
The research found that people taking statins had double the risk of muscle pain when they were prescribed various other drugs, and often these side effects were what prompted people to stop taking statins. People in the study who quit using statins because they could not tolerate them were, on average, taking as many as three other drugs that could increase the risk of side effects.
Statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs in the world and used by roughly 20 million Americans to reduce the risk of heart attacks and stroke. But the new research suggests that doctors and pharmacists may need to do a better job of managing the medications that are prescribed in combination with them. (Complete Article)

Finally FDA admits to the detrimental effects of Partially Hydrogenated Oils!!

About five years after I wrote about the dangers of using trans fats it was great to finally see this headline on BBC World News' home page;

US moves to ban trans fats in foods

US food safety officials have taken steps to ban the use of trans fats, saying they are a threat to health.
Partially hydrogenated oils, the source of most trans fat, are no longer "generally recognised as safe", said the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The regulator said a ban could prevent 7,000 deaths and 20,000 heart attacks in the US each year.
The FDA is opening a 60-day consultation period on the plan, which would gradually phase out trans fats.
 "While consumption of potentially harmful artificial trans fat has declined over the last two decades in the United States, current intake remains a significant public health concern," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a statement. Read on....

We must rid our food of trans fats!!!!

Click edit above to add content to this empty capsule.

What exactly are trans fats? These are basically highly processed vegetable oils like soy or sunflower oils. Processing is the heating of these oils to very high temperatures and then reacting them with hydrogen, leading to the formation of partially hydrogenated fats.
Why are they used? Firstly hydrogenated fats are easily solidified most common use of that property is in the manufacture of margerine. Secondly they have a much longer shelf life then natural unprocessed oils, that makes it most attractive to all companies producing processed foods, bakery goods and of course all fast food restaurants.
Why are they harmful? The list of their crimes is endless but I'll jot down some major ones! First of all as they are absorbed they interact with the normal fat metabolism interfering with its function in a damaging way. Thus leading to raised blood cholesterol and triglycerides. Both these can result in clogged arteries and increasing the risk of heart disease. Secondly Trans fats also disturb the balance between good and bad prostaglandins in our bodies. Which leads to increase in blood pressure, increased blood clotting, increased inflammatory activity in our bodies and also decrease in natural killer cells which normally help the body fight cnacerous cells.
How to stop their use? The answer to that is the easiest, refuse to buy anything that list hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated fats. If it's not profitable it won't be used!!! It is always driven by money! These huge corporations don't worry about our health but about their budgets, and they won't stop poisoning us and our kids unless we decide not to fill their pockets!
After all the recent hue and cry about Trans fats has forced some fast food companies to change the fats they use. If we refuse to poison ourselves while making them rich we will force them to stop this madness!!!