ScienceDaily — Chemists in Japan have found that brown seaweed, a flavor component used in many Asian soups and salads, contains a compound that appears in animal studies to promote weight loss by reducing the accumulation of fat. Called fucoxanthin, the compound achieved a 5 percent to 10 percent weight reduction in test animals and could be developed into a natural extract or drug to help fight obesity, the researchers say.
Reference
• Seaweed
• Kelp
• Brown rice
• Bran
The compound targets abdominal fat, in particular, and may help reduce oversized guts, the scientists say. Their study was presented at the 232nd national meeting of the American Chemical Society.
Fucoxanthin is a brownish pigment that gives brown seaweed its characteristic color and also conducts photosynthesis (the conversion of light to energy). It is found at high levels in several different types of brown seaweed, including a type of kelp that is used in traditional Japanese miso soup. But fucoxanthin is not found in abundance in green and red seaweed, which also are used in many Asian foods, the researchers say.
The brown seaweed used in the current study was Undaria pinnatifida, a type of kelp also known as wakame, which is widely consumed in Japan. As kelp forests are found in abundance along the California coast, the new research findings could represent a potentially lucrative market if kelp -- of which there are many varieties -- can be developed into effective anti-obesity drugs, according to the scientists.
"I hope that our study [points to a way to] help reduce obesity in the U.S. and elsewhere," says study leader Kazuo Miyashita, Ph.D., a chemistry professor at Hokkaido University in Hokkaido, Japan. The compound appears to fight fat through two different mechanisms, he says.
The study involved more than 200 rats and mice. In obese animals fed fucoxanthin, the compound appeared to stimulate a protein, UCP1, that causes fat oxidation and conversion of energy to heat, Miyashita says. The protein is found in white adipose tissue, the type of fat that surrounds internal organs. As the abdominal area contains abundant adipose tissue, the compound might be particularly effective at shrinking oversized guts, the researcher says. This is the first time that a natural food component has been shown to reduce fat by targeting the UCP1 protein, he says.
The pigment also appeared in animal studies to stimulate the liver to produce a compound called DHA, a type of omega-3 fatty acid, at levels comparable to fish oil supplementation. Increased levels of DHA reduce 'bad cholesterol' (low density lipoprotein), which is known to contribute to obesity and heart disease. But unlike fish oil supplements, fucoxanthin doesn't have an unpleasant smell, Miyashita says. No adverse side effects from fucoxanthin were reported in the mice and rats used in the study.
But eating lots of seaweed is not the quickest or most convenient path to weight loss, Miyashita cautions. He notes that a person would probably need to eat huge amounts of brown seaweed daily to cause noticeable weight loss. That's because fucoxanthin is tightly bound to proteins in the seaweed and is not easily absorbed in the form of whole seaweed. However, he hopes to extract the most active form of fucoxanthin from brown seaweed so that it can be developed into a pill that people can take daily or as needed.
Human studies are planned, the researcher says, but adds that it may take three to five years before such an anti-obesity pill is available to consumers. Until then, people should continue to eat a well-balanced diet and get plenty of exercise, he says. Funding for the current study was provided by the Japanese government.
Adapted from materials provided by American Chemical Society. American Chemical Society (2006, September 19). Brown Seaweed Contains Promising Fat Fighter, Weight Reducer. ScienceDaily.
Showing posts with label natural health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural health. Show all posts
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Two Nutrients Stop Blindness:
Lutein and zeaxanthin, two nutrients found in eggs, spinach, and other leafy green vegetables may protect against age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the most common cause of blindness among the elderly.
The study involved 4,519 people aged 60 to 80 who were questioned about their dietary habits for a period of six years.
Participants who ate the most foods containing lutein and zeaxanthin (those in the top fifth) had a 35 percent lower risk of developing AMD than those who ate the least (in the bottom fifth).
The nutrients may protect against the condition by helping your eyes to filter dangerous short-wavelength light, and warding off other potentially damaging effects to the center of your eye’s retina (the macula).
Lutein and zeaxanthin are carotenoids, which are responsible for the yellow color in many fruits and vegetables.
Over 1 million Americans, particularly those older than 65, have AMD.
Archives of Ophthalmology September 2007, Vol. 125 No. 9
The study involved 4,519 people aged 60 to 80 who were questioned about their dietary habits for a period of six years.
Participants who ate the most foods containing lutein and zeaxanthin (those in the top fifth) had a 35 percent lower risk of developing AMD than those who ate the least (in the bottom fifth).
The nutrients may protect against the condition by helping your eyes to filter dangerous short-wavelength light, and warding off other potentially damaging effects to the center of your eye’s retina (the macula).
Lutein and zeaxanthin are carotenoids, which are responsible for the yellow color in many fruits and vegetables.
Over 1 million Americans, particularly those older than 65, have AMD.
Archives of Ophthalmology September 2007, Vol. 125 No. 9
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Chemical Cuisine: Food Additives
Introduction to Food Additives..
Shopping was easy when most food came from farms. Now, factory-made foods have made chemical additives a significant part of our diet. Most people may not be able to pronounce the names of many of these chemicals, but they still want to know what the chemicals do and which ones are safe and which are poorly tested or possibly dangerous. This listing provides that information for most common additives. A simple general rule about additives is to avoid sodium nitrite, saccharin, caffeine, olestra, acesulfame K, and artificial coloring. Not only are they among the most questionable additives, but they are used primarily in foods of low nutritional value. Also, don’t forget the two most familiar additives: sugar and salt. They may pose the greatest risk because we consume so much of them. Fortunately, most additives are safe and some even increase the nutritional value of the food. Additional information about some of the additives is available elsewhere in this Web site. Use the search engine provided to locate that information.
Glossary
ANTIOXIDANTS retard the oxidation of unsaturated fats and oils, colorings, and flavorings. Oxidation leads to rancidity, flavor changes, and loss of color. Most of those effects are caused by reaction of oxygen in the air with fats.
CARCINOGEN is a chemical or other agent that causes cancer in animals or humans.
CHELATING AGENTS trap trace amounts of metal atoms that would otherwise cause food to discolor or go rancid.
EMULSIFIERS keep oil and water mixed together.
FLAVOR ENHANCERS have little or no flavor of their own, but accentuate the natural flavor of foods. They are often used when very little of a natural ingredient is present.
THICKENING AGENTS are natural or chemically modified carbohydrates that absorb some of the water that is present in food, thereby making the food thicker. Thickening agents "stabilize" factory-made foods by keeping the complex mixtures of oils, water, acids, and solids well mixed.
Cancer Testing
Chemicals usually are tested for an ability to cause cancer by feeding large dosages to small numbers of rats and mice. Large dosages are used to compensate for the small number of animals that can be used (a few hundred is considered a big study, though it is tiny compared to the U.S. population of 270 million). Also, the large dosages can compensate for the possibility that rodents may be less sensitive than people to a particular chemical (as happened with thalidomide). Some people claim that such tests are improper and that large amounts of any chemical would cause cancer. That is not true. Huge amounts of most chemicals do not cause cancer. When a large dosage causes cancer, most scientists believe that a smaller amount would also cause cancer, but less frequently. It would be nice if lower, more realistic dosages could be used, but a test using low dosages and a small number of animals would be extraordinarily insensitive. It would also be nice if test-tube tests not using any animals were developed that could cheaply and accurately identify cancer-causing chemicals. While some progress has been made in that direction, those tests have not proven reliable. Thus, the standard high-dosage cancer test on small numbers of animals is currently the only practical, reasonably reliable way to identify food additives (and other chemicals) that might cause cancer.
The Delaney Clause is an important part of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. That important consumer-protection clause specifically bans any additive that "is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal." The food and chemical industries are seeking to weaken or repeal that law.
Alphabetical Listing of Additives
Safe. The additive appears to be safe.
Cut back on this. Not toxic, but large amounts may be unsafe or promote bad nutrition.
Caution. May pose a risk and needs to be better tested. Try to avoid.
Certain people should avoid these additives.
Everyone should avoid. Unsafe in amounts consumed or is very poorly tested and not worth any risk.
ACESULFAME-K... Artificial sweetener: Baked goods, chewing gum, gelatin desserts, soft drinks. This artificial sweetener, manufactured by Hoechst, a giant German chemical company, is widely used around the world. It is about 200 times sweeter than sugar. In the United States, for several years acesulfame-K (the K is the chemical symbol for potassium) was permitted only in such foods as sugar-free baked goods, chewing gum, and gelatin desserts. In July 1998, the FDA allowed this chemical to be used in soft drinks, thereby greatly increasing consumer exposure.
The safety tests of acesulfame-K were conducted in the 1970s and were of mediocre quality. Key rat tests were afflicted by disease in the animal colonies; a mouse study was several months too brief and did not expose animals during gestation. Two rat studies suggest that the additive might cause cancer. It was for those reasons that in 1996 the Center for Science in the Public Interest urged the FDA to require better testing before permitting acesulfame-K in soft drinks. In addition, large doses of acetoacetamide, a breakdown product, have been shown to affect the thyroid in rats, rabbits, and dogs. Hopefully, the small amounts in food are not harmful.
ALGINATE, PROPYLENE GLYCOL ALGINATE... Thickening agents, foam stabilizer: Ice cream, cheese, candy, yogurt. Alginate, an apparently safe derivative of seaweed (kelp), maintains the desired texture in dairy products, canned frosting, and other factory-made foods. Propylene glycol alginate, a chemically-modified algin, thickens acidic foods (soda pop, salad dressing) and can stabilize the foam in beer.
ALPHA TOCOPHEROL
(Vitamin E) ... Antioxidant, nutrient: Vegetable oil. Vitamin E is abundant in whole wheat, rice germ, and vegetable oils. It is destroyed by the refining and bleaching of flour. Vitamin E prevents oils from going rancid. Recent studies indicate that large amounts of vitamin E may help reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer.
ARTIFICIAL COLORINGS. Most artificial colorings are synthetic chemicals that do not occur in nature. Because colorings are used almost solely in foods of low nutritional value (candy, soda pop, gelatin desserts, etc.), you should simply avoid all artificially colored foods. In addition to problems mentioned below, colorings cause hyperactivity in some sensitive children. The use of coloring usually indicates that fruit or other natural ingredient has not been used.
* BLUE 1 ... Artificial coloring: Beverages, candy, baked goods.
Inadequately tested; suggestions of a small cancer risk.
* BLUE 2 ... Artificial coloring: Pet food, beverages, candy.
The largest study suggested, but did not prove, that this dye caused brain tumors in male mice. The FDA concluded that there is "reasonable certainty of no harm."
* CITRUS RED 2 ... Artificial coloring: Skin of some Florida oranges only.
Studies indicated that this additive causes cancer. The dye does not seep through the orange skin into the pulp. No risk except when eating peel.
* GREEN 3 ... Artificial colorings: Candy, beverages.
A 1981 industry-sponsored study gave hints of bladder cancer, but FDA re-analyzed the data using other statistical tests and concluded that the dye was safe. Fortunately, this possibly carcinogenic dye is rarely used.
* RED 3 ... Artificial coloring: Cherries in fruit cocktail, candy, baked goods.
The evidence that this dye caused thyroid tumors in rats is "convincing," according to a 1983 review committee report requested by FDA. FDA’s recommendation that the dye be banned was overruled by pressure from elsewhere in the Reagan Administration.
* RED 40 ... Artificial coloring: Soda pop, candy, gelatin desserts, pastry, pet food, sausage.
The most widely used food dye. While this is one of the most-tested food dyes, the key mouse tests were flawed and inconclusive. An FDA review committee acknowledged problems, but said evidence of harm was not "consistent" or "substantial." Like other dyes, Red 40 is used mainly in junk foods.
* YELLOW 5 ... Artificial coloring: Gelatin dessert, candy, pet food, baked goods.
The second most widely used coloring causes mild allergic reactions, primarily in aspirin-sensitive persons.
* YELLOW 6 ... Artificial coloring: Beverages, sausage, baked goods, candy, gelatin.
Industry-sponsored animal tests indicated that this dye, the third most widely used, causes tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney. In addition, small amounts of several carcinogens contaminate Yellow 6. However, the FDA reviewed those data and found reasons to conclude that Yellow 6 does not pose a significant cancer risk to humans. Yellow 6 may also cause occasional allergic reactions.
ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL FLAVORING ... Flavoring: Soda pop, candy, breakfast cereals, gelatin desserts, and many other foods. Hundreds of chemicals are used to mimic natural flavors; many may be used in a single flavoring, such as for cherry soda pop. Most flavoring chemicals also occur in nature and are probably safe, but they are used almost exclusively in junk foods. Their use indicates that the real thing (often fruit) has been left out. Companies keep the identity of artificial (and natural) flavorings a deep secret. Flavorings may include substances to which some people are sensitive, such as MSG or HVP.
ASCORBIC ACID (Vitamin C), SODIUM ASCORBATE... Antioxidant, nutrient, color stabilizer: Cereals, fruit drinks, cured meats. Ascorbic acid helps maintain the red color of cured meat and prevents the formation of nitrosamines, which promote cancer (see SODIUM NITRITE). It helps prevent loss of color and flavor by reacting with unwanted oxygen. It is used as a nutrient additive in drinks and breakfast cereals. Sodium ascorbate is a more soluble form of ascorbic acid.
ERYTHORBIC ACID is very similar to ascorbic acid, but has no value as a vitamin. Large amounts of ascorbic acid may reduce the severity of colds and offer other health benefits.
ASPARTAME ....Artificial sweetener: "Diet" foods, including soft drinks, drink mixes, gelatin desserts, low-calorie frozen desserts, packets Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), made up primarily of two amino acids, was thought to be the perfect artificial sweetener, but questions have arisen about the quality of the cancer tests, which should be repeated. Some persons have reported adverse behavioral effects (dizziness, hallucinations, headache) after drinking diet soda, but such reports have not been confirmed in controlled studies. If you think you’ve experienced adverse effects due to aspartame, avoid it. Also, people with the rare disease PKU (phenylketonuria) need to avoid it. There is little evidence that this or other artificial sweeteners have helped people lose weight, though those additives might help some strong-willed dieters. Indeed, since 1980, consumption of artificial sweeteners and rates of obesity have both soared.
BETA-CAROTENE ... Coloring; nutrient: Margarine, shortening, non-dairy whiteners. Beta-carotene is used as an artificial coloring and a nutrient supplement. The body converts it to Vitamin A, which is part of the light-detection mechanism of the eye and which helps maintain the normal condition of mucous membranes. Large amounts of beta-carotene in the form of dietary supplements increased the risk of lung cancer in smokers and did not reduce the risk in non-smokers. Smokers should certainly not take beta-carotene supplements, but the small amounts used as food additives are safe.
BROMINATED VEGETABLE OIL (BVO) ... Emulsifier, clouding agent: Soft drinks. BVO keeps flavor oils in suspension and gives a cloudy appearance to citrus-flavored soft drinks. Eating BVO leaves small residues in body fat; it is unclear whether those residues pose any risk. Fortunately, BVO is not widely used.
BUTYLATED HYDROXYANISOLE (BHA) ... Antioxidant: Cereals chewing gum, potato chips, vegetable oil. BHA retards rancidity in fats, oils, and oil-containing foods. While most studies indicate it is safe, some studies demonstrated that it caused cancer in rats. This synthetic chemical can be replaced by safer chemicals (e.g., vitamin E), safer processes (e.g., packing foods under nitrogen instead of air), or can simply be left out (many brands of oily foods, such as potato chips, don’t use any antioxidant).
BUTYLATED HYDROXYTOLUENE (BHT) ... Antioxidant: Cereals, chewing gum, potato chips, oils, etc. BHT retards rancidity in oils. It either increased or decreased the risk of cancer in various animal studies. Residues of BHT occur in human fat. BHT is unnecessary or is easily replaced by safe substitutes (see discussion of BHA). Avoid it when possible.
CAFFEINE ... Stimulant: Naturally occurring in coffee, tea, cocoa, coffee-flavored yogurt and frozen desserts. Additive in soft drinks, gum, and waters. Caffeine is the only drug that is present naturally or added to widely consumed foods (quinine is the other drug used in foods). It is mildly addictive, one possible reason that makers of soft drinks add it to their products. Many coffee drinkers experience withdrawal symptoms, such as headaches, irritability, sleepiness, and lethargy, when they stop drinking coffee. Because caffeine increases the risk of miscarriages (and possibly birth defects) and inhibits fetal growth, it should be avoided by women who are pregnant or considering becoming pregnant. It also may make it harder to get pregnant (but don’t use it as a birth-control pill!). Caffeine also keeps many people from sleeping, causes jitteriness, and affects calcium metabolism. The caffeine in a cup or two of coffee is harmless to most people. But if you drink more than a couple of cups of coffee or cans of caffeine-containing soda per day, experience symptoms noted above, are at risk of osteoporosis, or are pregnant, you should rethink your habit.
CALCIUM (or SODIUM) PROPIONATE ... Preservative: Bread, rolls, pies, cakes. Calcium propionate prevents mold growth on bread and rolls. The calcium is a beneficial mineral; the propionate is safe. Sodium propionate is used in pies and cakes, because calcium alters the action of chemical leavening agents.
CALCIUM (or SODIUM) STEAROYL LACTYLATE ... Dough conditioner, whipping agent: Bread dough, cake fillings, artificial whipped cream, processed egg whites. These additives strengthen bread dough so it can be used in bread-making machinery and help produce a more uniform grain and greater volume. They act as whipping agents in dried, liquid, or frozen egg whites and artificial whipped cream.
SODIUM STEAROYL FUMARATE serves the same function.
CARMINE; COCHINEAL EXTRACT ... Artificial coloring. Cochineal extract is a coloring extracted from the eggs of the cochineal beetle, which lives on cactus plants in Peru, the Canary Islands, and elsewhere. Carmine is a more purified coloring made from cochineal. In both cases, the actual substance that provides the color is carminic acid. These colorings, which are extremely stable, are used in some red, pink, or purple candy, yogurt, Campari, ice cream, beverages, and many other foods, as well as drugs and cosmetics. These colorings have caused allergic reactions that range from hives to life-threatening anaphylactic shock. It is not known how many people suffer from this allergy. The Food and Drug Administration should ban cochineal extract and carmine or, at the very least, require that they be identified clearly on food labels so that people could avoid them. Natural or synthetic substitutes are available. A label statement should also disclose that, Carmine is extracted from dried insects so that vegetarians and others who want to avoid animal products could do so.
CARRAGEENAN ... Thickening and stabilizing agent: Ice cream, jelly, chocolate milk, infant formula. Carrageenan is obtained from seaweed. Large amounts of carrageenan have harmed test animals’ colons; the small amounts in food are safe.
CASEIN, SODIUM CASEINATE ... Thickening and whitening agent: Ice cream, ice milk, sherbet, coffee creamers. Casein, the principal protein in milk, is a nutritious protein containing adequate amounts of all the essential amino acids. People who are allergic to casein should read food labels carefully, because the additive is used in some “non-dairy” and “vegetarian” foods.
CITRIC ACID, SODIUM CITRATE ... Acid, flavoring, chelating agent: Ice cream, sherbet, fruit drink, candy, carbonated beverages, instant potatoes. Citric acid is versatile, widely used, cheap, and safe. It is an important metabolite in virtually all living organisms and is especially abundant naturally in citrus fruits and berries. It is used as a strong acid, a tart flavoring, and an antioxidant. Sodium citrate, also safe, is a buffer that controls the acidity of gelatin desserts, jam, ice cream, candy, and other foods.
COCHINEAL EXTRACT: see CARMINE
CORN SYRUP... Sweetener, thickener: Candy, toppings, syrups, snack foods, imitation dairy foods.
Corn syrup,which consists mostly of dextrose, is a sweet, thick liquid made by treating cornstarch with acids or enzymes. It may be dried and used as corn syrup solids in coffee whiteners and other dry products. Corn syrup contains no nutritional value other than calories, promotes tooth decay, and is used mainly in foods with little intrinsic nutritional value.
CYCLAMATE ... Artificial sweetener: Diet foods. This controversial high-potency sweetener was used in the United States in diet foods until 1970, at which time it was banned. Animal studies indicated that it causes cancer. Now, based on animal studies, it (or a byproduct) is believed not to cause cancer directly, but to increase the potency of other carcinogens and to harm the testes.
DEXTROSE (GLUCOSE, CORN SUGAR) ... Sweetener, coloring agent: Bread, caramel, soda pop, cookies, many other foods Dextrose is an important chemical in every living organism. A sugar, it is a source of sweetness in fruits and honey. Added to foods as a sweetener, it represents empty calories and contributes to tooth decay. Dextrose turns brown when heated and contributes to the color of bread crust and toast. Americans consume about 25 pounds per year of dextrose -- and a total of about 150 pounds per year of all refined sugars.
EDTA ... Chelating agent: Salad dressing, margarine, sandwich spreads, mayonnaise, processed fruits and vegetables, canned shellfish, soft drinks. Modern food-manufacturing technology, which involves rollers, blenders, and containers made of metal, results in trace amounts of metal contamination in food. EDTA (ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid) traps metal impurities, which would otherwise promote rancidity and the breakdown of artificial colors. It is safe.
E
RYTHORBIC ACID ... Antioxidant, color stabilizer: Cured meats. see ASCORBIC ACID above.
FERROUS GLUCONATE ... Coloring, nutrient: Black olives. Used by the olive industry to generate a uniform jet-black color and in pills as a source of iron. Safe.
FOOD-STARCH, MODIFIED
see STARCH, MODIFIED below.
FUMARIC ACID ... Tartness agent: Powdered drinks, pudding, pie fillings, gelatin desserts. A solid at room temperature, inexpensive, highly acidic, fumaric acid is the ideal source of tartness and acidity in dry food products. However, it dissolves slowly in cold water, a drawback cured by adding DIOCTYL SODIUM SULFOSUCCINATE (DSS), a detergent-like additive that appears to be safe.
GELATIN ... Thickening and gelling agent: Powdered dessert mixes, yogurt, ice cream, cheese spreads, beverages. Gelatin is a protein obtained from animal hides and bones. It has little nutritional value, because it contains little or none of several essential amino acids.
GLYCERIN (GLYCEROL) ... Maintains water content: Marshmallows, candy, fudge, baked goods. In nature, glycerin forms the backbone of fat and oil molecules. The body uses it as a source of energy or as a starting material in making more-complex molecules.
GUMS: Arabic, Furcelleran, Ghatti, Guar, Karaya, Locust Bean, Tragacanth, Xanthan ... Thickening agents, stabilizers: Beverages, ice cream, frozen pudding, salad dressing, dough, cottage cheese, candy, drink mixes. Gums are derived from natural sources (bushes, trees, seaweed, bacteria) and are poorly tested, though probably safe. They are not absorbed by the body. They are used to thicken foods, prevent sugar crystals from forming in candy, stabilize beer foam (arabic), form a gel in pudding (furcelleran), encapsulate flavor oils in powdered drink mixes, or keep oil and water mixed together in salad dressings. Gums are often used to replace fat in low-fat ice cream, baked goods, and salad dressings. Tragacanth has caused occasional severe allergic reactions.
HEPTYL PARABEN ... Preservative: Beer, non-carbonated soft drinks. Heptyl paraben -- short for the heptyl ester of para-hydroxybenzoic acid -- is a preservative. Studies suggest that this rarely used additive chemical is safe, but it, like other additives in alcoholic beverages, has never been tested in the presence of alcohol (such as in animals weakened by long-term consumption of alcohol).
HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP ... Sweetener: Soft drinks, other processed foods. Corn syrup can be treated with enzymes to convert some of its dextrose to fructose, which results in High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). HFCS has largely replaced ordinary sugar used in soft drinks and many other foods because it is cheaper. Americans consume about 59 pounds per year of HFCS (and a total of 150 pounds per year of all refined sugars).
HYDROGENATED STARCH HYDROLYSATE (HSH) ... Sweetener: Dietetic and reduced-calorie foods. HSH, like sorbitol, is slightly sweet and poorly absorbed by the body. Like sorbitol, and other sugar alcohols, eating significant amounts of HSH may cause intestinal gas and diarrhea.
HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL, PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL ... Fat, oil, shortening: Margarine, crackers, fried restaurant foods, baked goods. Vegetable oil, usually a liquid, can be made into a semi-solid shortening by reacting it with hydrogen. Hydrogenation reduces the levels of polyunsaturated oils — and also creates trans fats, which promote heart disease (they act like saturated fats). Ideally, food manufacturers would replace hydrogenated shortening with less-harmful ingredients.
HYDROLYZED VEGETABLE PROTEIN (HVP) ... Flavor enhancer: Instant soups, frankfurters, sauce mixes, beef stew. HVP consists of vegetable (usually soybean) protein that has been chemically broken down to the amino acids of which it is composed. HVP is used to bring out the natural flavor of food (and, perhaps, to enable companies to use less real food). It contains MSG and may cause adverse reactions in sensitive individuals.
INVERT SUGAR ... Sweetener: Candy, soft drinks, many other foods. Invert sugar, a 50-50 mixture of two sugars, dextrose and fructose, is sweeter and more soluble than sucrose (table sugar). Invert sugar forms when sucrose is split in two by an enzyme or acid. It provides "empty calories," contributes to tooth decay, and should be avoided.
LACTIC ACID ... Controls acidity: Spanish olives, cheese, frozen desserts, carbonated beverages. This safe acid occurs in almost all living organisms. It inhibits spoilage in Spanish-type olives, balances the acidity in cheese-making, and adds tartness to frozen desserts, carbonated fruit-flavored drinks, and other foods.
LACTOSE ... Sweetener: Whipped topping mix, breakfast pastry. Lactose, a carbohydrate found only in milk, is one of Nature’s ways of delivering calories to infant mammals. One-sixth as sweet as table sugar, lactose is added to food as a slightly sweet source of carbohydrate. Milk turns sour when bacteria convert lactose to lactic acid. Many people, especially non-Caucasians, have trouble digesting lactose. Bacteria in their guts may produce gas.
LECITHIN ... Emulsifier, antioxidant: Baked goods, margarine, chocolate, ice cream. A common constituent of animal and plant tissues, lecithin is a source of the nutrient choline. It keeps oil and water from separating out, retards rancidity, reduces spattering in a frying pan, and leads to fluffier cakes. Major natural sources are egg yolk and soybeans.
MALTITOL ... Sweetener: Dietetic and other reduced calorie foods. Like mannitol, sorbitol, and other sugar alcohols, maltitol may be expected to promote flatulence and other gastrointestinal symptoms.
MANNITOL ... Sweetener, other uses: Chewing gum, low-calorie foods. Not quite as sweet as sugar and poorly absorbed by the body, it contributes only half as many calories as sugar. Used as the "dust" on chewing gum, mannitol prevents gum from absorbing moisture and becoming sticky. Safe — except that large amounts that are used in gum may have a laxative effect and even cause diarrhea.
MONO- and DIGLYCERIDES ... Emulsifier: Baked goods, margarine, candy, peanut butter. Makes bread softer and prevents staling, improves the stability of margarine, makes caramels less sticky, and prevents the oil in peanut butter from separating out. Mono- and diglycerides are safe, though most foods they are used in are high in refined flour, sugar, or fat.
MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE (MSG) ... Flavor enhancer: Soup, salad dressing, chips, frozen entrees, restaurant foods. This amino acid brings out the flavor in many foods. While that may sound like a treat for taste buds, the use of MSG allows companies to reduce the amount of real ingredients in their foods, such as chicken in chicken soup. In the 1960s, it was discovered that large amounts of MSG fed to infant mice destroyed nerve cells in the brain. After that research was publicized, public pressure forced baby-food companies to stop adding MSG to their products (it was used to make the foods taste better to parents).
Careful studies have shown that some people are sensitive to MSG. Reactions include headache, nausea, weakness, and burning sensation in the back of neck and forearms. Some people complain of wheezing, changes in heart rate, and difficulty breathing. Some people claim to be sensitive to very small amounts of MSG, but no good studies have been done to determine just how little MSG can cause a reaction in the most-sensitive people. To protect the public’s health, manufacturers and restaurateurs should use less or no MSG and the amounts of MSG should be listed on labels of foods that contain significant amounts. People who believe they are sensitive to MSG should be aware that other ingredients, such as natural flavoring and hydrolyzed vegetable protein, also contain glutamate. Also, foods such as Parmesan cheese and tomatoes contain glutamate that occurs naturally, but no reactions have been reported to those foods.
OLESTRA (Olean) ... Fat substitute: Chips, crackers. Olestra is Procter & Gamble’s synthetic fat that is not absorbed by the body, but runs right through. Procter & Gamble suggests that replacing regular fat with olestra will help people lose weight and lower the risk of heart disease.
Olestra can cause diarrhea and loose stools, abdominal cramps, flatulence, and other adverse effects. Those symptoms are sometimes severe.
Even more importantly, olestra reduces the body’s ability to absorb fat-soluble carotenoids (such as alpha and beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, and canthaxanthin) from fruits and vegetables. Those nutrients are thought by many experts to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease. Olestra enables manufacturers to offer greasy-feeling low-fat snacks, but consumers would be much better off with baked snacks, which are perfectly safe and just as low in calories. Products made with olestra should not be called "fat free," because they contain substantial amounts of indigestible fat.
PHOSPHORIC ACID; PHOSPHATES ... Acidulant, chelating agent, buffer, emulsifier, nutrient, discoloration inhibitor: Baked goods, cheese, powdered foods, cured meat, soda pop, breakfast cereals, dehydrated potatoes. Phosphoric acid acidifies and flavors cola beverages. CALCIUM and IRON PHOSPHATES act as mineral supplements. SODIUM ALUMINUM PHOSPHATE is a leavening agent. CALCIUM and AMMONIUM PHOSPHATES serve as food for yeast in baking. SODIUM ACID PYROPHOSPHATE prevents discoloration in potatoes and sugar syrups. While excessive consumption of phosphates could lead to dietary imbalances that might contribute to osteoporosis, only a small fraction of the phosphate in the American diet comes from additives. Most comes from meat and dairy products.
PLANT STEROL ESTERS ... Cholersterol-lowering Additive: Margarine, other foods . These substances, which are extracted from pine trees, reduce the absorption of cholersterol from food and lower blood cholersterol levels. They are not toxic, but they may reduce the body's absorption of nutrients called carotenoids that are thought to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease. Used in Benecol-brand products (margarine, salad dressing, and others).
POLYSORBATE 60 .... Emulsifier: Baked goods, frozen desserts, imitation dairy products. Polysorbate 60 is short for polyoxyethylene-(20)- sorbitan monostearate. It and its close relatives, POLYSORBATE 65 and 80, work the same way as mono- and diglycerides, but smaller amounts are needed. They keep baked goods from going stale, keep dill oil dissolved in bottled dill pickles, help coffee whiteners dissolve in coffee, and prevent oil from separating out of artificial whipped cream.
POTASSIUM BROMATE ... Flour improver: Bread and rolls.. This additive has long been used to increase the volume of bread and to produce bread with a fine crumb (the not-crust part of bread) structure. Most bromate rapidly breaks down to form innocuous bromide. However, bromate itself causes cancer in animals. The tiny amounts of bromate that may remain in bread pose a small risk to consumers. Bromate has been banned virtually worldwide except in Japan and the United States. It is rarely used in California because a cancer warning might be required on the label. In 1999, the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the FDA to ban bromate.
PROPYL GALLATE ... Antioxidant preservative: Vegetable oil, meat products, potato sticks, chicken soup base, chewing gum. Propyl gallate retards the spoilage of fats and oils and is often used with BHA and BHT, because of the synergistic effects these preservatives have. The best studies on rats and mice were peppered with suggestions (but not proof) that this preservative might cause cancer. Avoid.
QUININE ... Flavoring: Tonic water, quinine water, bitter lemon. This drug can cure malaria and is used as a bitter flavoring in a few soft drinks. There is a slight chance that quinine causes birth defects, so, to be on the safe side, pregnant women should avoid quinine-containing beverages and drugs. Relatively poorly tested.
SACCHARIN ... Artificial sweetener: "Diet" products, soft drinks (especially fountain drinks at restaurants), packets. Saccharin (Sweet ’N Low) is 350 times sweeter than sugar and is used in dietetic foods or as a tabletop sugar substitute. Many studies on animals have shown that saccharin can cause cancer of the urinary bladder. In other rodent studies, saccharin has caused cancer of the uterus, ovaries, skin, blood vessels, and other organs. Other studies have shown that saccharin increases the potency of other cancer-causing chemicals. And the best epidemiology study (done by the National Cancer Institute) found that the use of artificial sweeteners (saccharin and cyclamate) was associated with a higher incidence of bladder cancer.
In 1977, the FDA proposed that saccharin be banned, because of studies that it causes cancer in animals. However, Congress intervened and permitted it to be used, provided that foods bear a warning notice. It has been replaced in many products by aspartame (NutraSweet). In 1997, the diet-food industry began pressuring the U.S. and Canadian governments and the World Health Organization to take saccharin off their lists of cancer-causing chemicals. The industry acknowledges that saccharin causes bladder cancer in male rats, but argues that those tumors are caused by a mechanism that would not occur in humans. Many public health experts respond by stating that, even if that still-unproved mechanism were correct in male rats, saccharin could cause cancer by additional mechanisms and that, in some studies, saccharin has caused bladder cancer in mice and in female rats and other cancers in both rats and mice.
In May 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services removed saccharin from its list of cancer-causing chemicals. Later that year, Congress passed a law removing the warning notice that likely will result in increased use in soft drinks and other foods and in a slightly greater incidence of cancer.
SALATRIM ... Modified fat: baked goods, candy. This manufactured fat (developed by Nabisco) has the physical properties of regular fat, but the manufacturer claims it provides only about 5/9 as many calories. Its use can enable companies to make reduced-calorie claims on their products. Salatrim’s low calorie content results from its content of stearic acid, which the manufacturer says is absorbed poorly, and short-chain fatty acids, which provide fewer calories per unit weight.
Critics have charged that it does not provide as big a calorie reduction as claimed by Nabisco. Moreover, only very limited testing has been done to determine effects on humans. Eating small amounts of salatrim is probably safe, but large amounts (30g or more per day) increase the risk of such side effects as stomach cramps and nausea. No tests have been done to determine if the various food additives (salatrim, olestra, mannitol, and sorbitol) that cause gastrointestinal symptoms can act in concert to cause greater effects.
Nabisco declared salatrim safe and has marketed it, as the law allows, without formal FDA approval. (Nabisco has since sold salatrim to another company, Cultor.) In June 1998, the Center for Science in the Public Interest urged the FDA to ban salatrim until better tests were done and demonstrated safety.
SALT (Sodium Chloride) ... ... Flavoring: Most processed foods, soup, potato chips, crackers. Salt is used liberally in many processed foods and restaurant meals. Other additives contribute additional sodium. A diet high in sodium increases the risk or severity of high blood pressure, which increases the risk of heart attack and stroke. Everyone should eat less salt: avoid salty processed foods and restaurant meals, use salt sparingly, and enjoy other seasonings.
SODIUM BENZOATE ... Preservative: Fruit juice, carbonated drinks, pickles, preserves. Manufacturers have used sodium benzoate for a century to prevent the growth of microorganisms in acidic foods.
SODIUM CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE (CMC) ... Thickening and stabilizing agent; prevents sugar from crystallizing: Ice cream, beer, pie fillings, icings, diet foods, candy CMC is made by reacting cellulose with a derivative of acetic acid. Studies indicate it is safe.
SODIUM NITRITE, SODIUM NITRATE ... Preservative, coloring, flavoring: Bacon, ham, frankfurters, luncheon meats, smoked fish, corned beef. Meat processors love sodium nitrite because it stabilizes the red color in cured meat (without nitrite, hot dogs and bacon would look gray) and gives a characteristic flavor. Sodium nitrate is used in dry cured meat, because it slowly breaks down into nitrite. Adding nitrite to food can lead to the formation of small amounts of potent cancer-causing chemicals (nitrosamines), particularly in fried bacon. Nitrite, which also occurs in saliva and forms from nitrate in several vegetables, can undergo the same chemical reaction in the stomach. Companies now add ascorbic acid or erythorbic acid to bacon to inhibit nitrosamine formation, a measure that has greatly reduced the problem. While nitrite and nitrate cause only a small risk, they are still worth avoiding.
Several studies have linked consumption of cured meat and nitrite by children, pregnant women, and adults with various types of cancer. Although those studies have not yet proven that eating nitrite in bacon, sausage, and ham causes cancer in humans, pregnant women would be prudent to avoid those products.
The meat industry justifies its use of nitrite and nitrate by claiming that it prevents the growth of bacteria that cause botulism poisoning. That’s true, but freezing and refrigeration could also do that, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has developed a safe method using lactic-acid-producing bacteria. The use of nitrite and nitrate has decreased greatly over the decades, because of refrigeration and restrictions on the amounts used. The meat industry could do the public’s health a favor by cutting back even further. Because nitrite is used primarily in fatty, salty foods, consumers have important nutritional reasons for avoiding nitrite-preserved foods.
SORBIC ACID, POTASSIUM SORBATE ... Prevents growth of mold: Cheese, syrup, jelly, cake, wine, dry fruits. Sorbic acid occurs naturally in many plants. These additives are safe.
SORBITAN MONOSTEARATE ... Emulsifier: Cakes, candy, frozen pudding, icing. Like mono- and diglycerides and polysorbates, this additive keeps oil and water mixed together. In chocolate candy, it prevents the discoloration that normally occurs when the candy is warmed up and then cooled down.
SORBITOL ... Sweetener, thickening agent, maintains moisture. Dietetic drinks and foods, candy, shredded coconut, chewing gum. Sorbitol occurs naturally in fruits and berries and is a close relative of sugars. It is half as sweet as sugar. It is used many dietetic foods. It is used in non-cariogenic (non-decay-causing) chewing gum because oral bacteria do not metabolize it well. Some diabetics use sorbitol-sweetened foods because it is absorbed slowly and does not cause blood sugar to increase rapidly. Moderate amounts of sorbitol may have a strong laxative effect and even cause diarrhea, but otherwise it is safe.
STARCH ... Thickening agent: Soup, gravy. Starch, the major component of flour, potatoes, and corn, is used in many foods as a thickening agent. However, starch does not dissolve in cold water. Chemists have solved this problem by reacting starch with various chemicals to create MODIFIED STARCHES (see next entry).
STARCH, MODIFIED ... Thickening agent: Soup, gravy, baby food. Modified starches are used in processed foods to improve their consistency and keep the solids suspended. Starch and modified starches sometimes replace large percentages of more nutritious ingredients, such as fruit. Choose baby foods without added starches (starch-thickened baby foods have contained as little as 25 percent as much of the fruit ingredients as 100-percent-fruit baby foods). One small study suggested that modified starches can promote diarrhea in infants.
SUCRALOSE ... Artificial sweetener: Diet foods. Approved in the United States in April 1998, sucralose (a synthetic chemical) can be used in soft drinks, baked goods, ice cream, sweetener packets, and other products. It previously had been used in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere. Sucralose is safer than saccharin and cyclamate and doesn’t raise the concerns that tests on acesulfame-K and aspartame have raised.
SUGAR (SUCROSE) ... ... Sweetener: Table sugar, sweetened foods. Sucrose, ordinary table sugar, occurs naturally in fruit, sugar cane, and sugar beets. Americans consume about 65 pounds of sucrose per year. That figure is down from 102 pounds per year around 1970, but the decrease has been more than made up for with HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP and DEXTROSE. About 156 pounds of all refined sugars are produced per person per year, an increase of 28 percent since 1983. Interestingly that’s just when the use of ASPARTAME started skyrocketing. In other words, it appears that artificial sweeteners have not replaced sugar, but may have stimulated America’s sweet tooth.
Sugar and sweetened foods may taste good and supply energy, but most people eat too much of them. Sugar, corn syrup, and other refined sweeteners make up 16 percent of the average diet, but provide no vitamins, minerals, or protein. That means that a person would have to get 100 percent of his or her nutrients from only 84 percent of his or her food. Sugar and other refined sugars can promote obesity, tooth decay, and, in people with high triglycerides, heart disease.
SULFITES (SULFUR DIOXIDE, SODIUM BISULFITE) ... Preservative, bleach: Dried fruit, wine, processed potatoes. Sulfiting agents prevent discoloration (dried fruit, some "fresh" shrimp, and some dried, fried, or frozen potatoes) and bacterial growth (wine). They also destroy vitamin B-1 and, most important, can cause severe reactions, especially in asthmatics. If you think you may be sensitive, avoid all forms of this additive, because it has caused at least twelve known deaths and probably many more.
THIAMIN MONONITRATE ... Vitamin B-1. Perfectly safe, despite adding minuscule amounts of nitrate to our food.
VANILLIN, ETHYL VANILLIN ... Substitute for vanilla: Ice cream, baked goods, beverages, chocolate, candy, gelatin desserts. Vanilla flavoring is derived from a bean, but vanillin, the major flavor component of vanilla, is cheaper to produce in a factory. A derivative, ethyl vanillin, comes closer to matching the taste of real vanilla. Both chemicals are safe.
VEGETABLE OIL STEROLS ... Cholesterol-lowering Additive: Margarine, other foods. These substances, which are extracted from soybeans, reduce the absorption of cholersterol from food and lower blood cholersterol levels. They are not toxic, but they may reduce the body's absorption of nutrients called carotenoids that are thought to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease. Used in Take Control-brand margarine.
SUMMARY OF ADDITIVES’ SAFETY
SAFE
These appear to be safe, though a few people may be allergic to any additive.
* ALGINATE
* ALPHA TOCOPHEROL (Vitamin E)
* ASCORBIC ACID (Vitamin C)
* BETA-CAROTENE
* CALCIUM PROPIONATE
* CALCIUM STEAROYL LACTYLATE
* CARRAGEENAN
* CASEIN
* CITRIC ACID
* EDTA
* ERYTHORBIC ACID
* FERROUS GLUCONATE
* FUMARIC ACID
* GELATIN
* GLYCERIN (Glycerol)
* GUMS: Arabic, Furcelleran, Ghatti, Guar, Karaya, Locust Bean, Xanthan
* LACTIC ACID
* LECITHIN
* MONO- and DIGLYCERIDES
* PHOSPHATE SALTS
* PHOSPHORIC ACID
* PLANT STEROL ESTERS
* POLYSORBATE 60, 65, 80
* POTASSIUM SORBATE
* PROPYLENE GLYCOL ALGINATE
* SODIUM ASCORBATE
* SODIUM BENZOATE
* SODIUM CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE (CMC)
* SODIUM CASEINATE
* SODIUM CITRATE
* SODIUM PROPIONATE
* SODIUM STEAROYL LACTYLATE
* SORBIC ACID
* SORBITAN MONOSTEARATE
* STARCH, MODIFIED STARCH
* SUCRALOSE
* THIAMIN MONONITRATE
* VANILLIN, ETHYL VANILLIN
* VEGETABLE OIL STEROL ESTERS
CUT BACK
Not toxic, but large amounts may be unsafe or promote bad nutrition. See main text for details.
* CAFFEINE
* CORN SYRUP
* DEXTROSE (CORN SUGAR, GLUCOSE)
* HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP
* HYDROGENATATED STARCH HYDROLYSATE
* HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL
* INVERT SUGAR
* MALTITOL
* MANNITOL
* SALATRIM
* SALT
* SORBITOL
* SUGAR
CAUTION
These additives may pose a risk and need to be better tested. Try to avoid..
* ARTIFICIAL COLORINGS
o CITRUS RED 2
o RED 40
* ASPARTAME (Nutrasweet)
* BROMINATED VEGETABLE OIL (BVO)
* BUTYLATED HYDROXYANISOLE (BHA)
* BUTYLATED HYDROXYTOLUENE (BHT)
* HEPTYL PARABEN
* QUININE
CERTAIN PEOPLE SHOULD AVOID
May cause allergic reactions or other problems. See main text for details.
* ARTIFICIAL COLORINGS
o YELLOW 5
* ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL FLAVORING
* ASPARTAME (Nutrasweet)
* BETA-CAROTENE
* CAFFEINE
* CARMINE; COCHINEAL
* CASEIN
* GUM TRAGACANTH
* HVP (HYDROLYZED VEGETABLE PROTEIN)
* LACTOSE
* MSG (MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE)
* QUININE
* SODIUM BISULFITE,
* SULFITES
* SULFUR DIOXIDE
AVOID
The additive is unsafe in the amounts consumed or is very poorly tested.
* ACESULFAME POTASSIUM
* ARTIFICIAL COLORINGS
o BLUE 1
o BLUE 2
o GREEN 3
o RED 3
o YELLOW 6
* CYCLAMATE
* OLESTRA (Olean)
* POTASSIUM BROMATE
* PROPYL GALLATE
* SACCHARIN
* SODIUM NITRITE, SODIUM NITRATE
Food Additive Cemetery -- Additives That Have Been Banned
The food and chemical industries have said for decades that all food additives are well tested and safe. And most additives are safe. However, the history of food additives is riddled with additives that, after many years of use, were found to pose health risks. Those listed below have been banned. The moral of the story is that when someone says that all food additives are well tested and safe you should take their assurances with a grain of salt.
The food and chemical industries have said for decades that all food additives are well tested and safe. And most additives are safe. However, the history of food additives is riddled with additives that, after many years of use, were found to pose health risks. Those listed below have been banned. The moral of the story is that when someone says that all food additives are well tested and safe you should take their assurances with a grain of salt.
Additive Function Natural or Synthetic Year Banned Problem
Agene (nitrogen trichloride) flour bleaching and aging agent synthetic 1949 dogs that ate bread made from treated flour suffered epileptic-like fits; the toxic agent was methionine sulfoxime
Artificial colorings:
* Butter yellow
artificial coloring synthetic 1919 toxic, later found to cause liver cancer
* Green 1
artificial coloring synthetic 1965 liver cancer
* Green 2
artificial coloring synthetic 1965 insufficient economic importance to be tested
* Orange 1
artificial coloring synthetic 1956 organ damage
* Orange 2
artificial coloring synthetic 1960 organ damage
* Orange B
artificial coloring synthetic 1978 (ban never finalized) cancer
* Red 1
artificial coloring synthetic 1961 liver cancer
* Red 2
artificial coloring synthetic 1976 possible carcinogen
* Red 4
artificial coloring synthetic 1976 high levels damaged adrenal cortex of dog; after 1965 it was used only in maraschino cherries and certain pills; it is still allowed in externally applied drugs and cosmetics
* Red 32
artificial coloring synthetic 1956 damages internal organs and may be a weak carcinogen; since 1956 it continues to be used under the name Citrus Red 2 only to color oranges (2 ppm)
* Sudan 1
artificial coloring synthetic 1919 toxic, later found to be carcinogenic
* Violet 1
artificial coloring synthetic 1973 cancer (it had been used to stamp the Department of Agriculture’s inspection mark on beef carcasses)
* Yellow 1 and 2
artificial coloring synthetic 1959 intestinal lesions at high dosages
* Yellow 3
artificial coloring synthetic 1959 heart damage at high dosages
* Yellow 4
artificial coloring synthetic 1959 heart damage at high dosages
Thanks to Doug Pierce at Threshold Media for his assistance. Threshold Media, 13268 Country Ridge Dr., Germantown, MD 20874
Source: http://www.alternativehealth.co.nz/food%20additives/index.htm
Shopping was easy when most food came from farms. Now, factory-made foods have made chemical additives a significant part of our diet. Most people may not be able to pronounce the names of many of these chemicals, but they still want to know what the chemicals do and which ones are safe and which are poorly tested or possibly dangerous. This listing provides that information for most common additives. A simple general rule about additives is to avoid sodium nitrite, saccharin, caffeine, olestra, acesulfame K, and artificial coloring. Not only are they among the most questionable additives, but they are used primarily in foods of low nutritional value. Also, don’t forget the two most familiar additives: sugar and salt. They may pose the greatest risk because we consume so much of them. Fortunately, most additives are safe and some even increase the nutritional value of the food. Additional information about some of the additives is available elsewhere in this Web site. Use the search engine provided to locate that information.
Glossary
ANTIOXIDANTS retard the oxidation of unsaturated fats and oils, colorings, and flavorings. Oxidation leads to rancidity, flavor changes, and loss of color. Most of those effects are caused by reaction of oxygen in the air with fats.
CARCINOGEN is a chemical or other agent that causes cancer in animals or humans.
CHELATING AGENTS trap trace amounts of metal atoms that would otherwise cause food to discolor or go rancid.
EMULSIFIERS keep oil and water mixed together.
FLAVOR ENHANCERS have little or no flavor of their own, but accentuate the natural flavor of foods. They are often used when very little of a natural ingredient is present.
THICKENING AGENTS are natural or chemically modified carbohydrates that absorb some of the water that is present in food, thereby making the food thicker. Thickening agents "stabilize" factory-made foods by keeping the complex mixtures of oils, water, acids, and solids well mixed.
Cancer Testing
Chemicals usually are tested for an ability to cause cancer by feeding large dosages to small numbers of rats and mice. Large dosages are used to compensate for the small number of animals that can be used (a few hundred is considered a big study, though it is tiny compared to the U.S. population of 270 million). Also, the large dosages can compensate for the possibility that rodents may be less sensitive than people to a particular chemical (as happened with thalidomide). Some people claim that such tests are improper and that large amounts of any chemical would cause cancer. That is not true. Huge amounts of most chemicals do not cause cancer. When a large dosage causes cancer, most scientists believe that a smaller amount would also cause cancer, but less frequently. It would be nice if lower, more realistic dosages could be used, but a test using low dosages and a small number of animals would be extraordinarily insensitive. It would also be nice if test-tube tests not using any animals were developed that could cheaply and accurately identify cancer-causing chemicals. While some progress has been made in that direction, those tests have not proven reliable. Thus, the standard high-dosage cancer test on small numbers of animals is currently the only practical, reasonably reliable way to identify food additives (and other chemicals) that might cause cancer.
The Delaney Clause is an important part of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. That important consumer-protection clause specifically bans any additive that "is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal." The food and chemical industries are seeking to weaken or repeal that law.
Alphabetical Listing of Additives
Safe. The additive appears to be safe.
Cut back on this. Not toxic, but large amounts may be unsafe or promote bad nutrition.
Caution. May pose a risk and needs to be better tested. Try to avoid.
Certain people should avoid these additives.
Everyone should avoid. Unsafe in amounts consumed or is very poorly tested and not worth any risk.
ACESULFAME-K... Artificial sweetener: Baked goods, chewing gum, gelatin desserts, soft drinks. This artificial sweetener, manufactured by Hoechst, a giant German chemical company, is widely used around the world. It is about 200 times sweeter than sugar. In the United States, for several years acesulfame-K (the K is the chemical symbol for potassium) was permitted only in such foods as sugar-free baked goods, chewing gum, and gelatin desserts. In July 1998, the FDA allowed this chemical to be used in soft drinks, thereby greatly increasing consumer exposure.
The safety tests of acesulfame-K were conducted in the 1970s and were of mediocre quality. Key rat tests were afflicted by disease in the animal colonies; a mouse study was several months too brief and did not expose animals during gestation. Two rat studies suggest that the additive might cause cancer. It was for those reasons that in 1996 the Center for Science in the Public Interest urged the FDA to require better testing before permitting acesulfame-K in soft drinks. In addition, large doses of acetoacetamide, a breakdown product, have been shown to affect the thyroid in rats, rabbits, and dogs. Hopefully, the small amounts in food are not harmful.
ALGINATE, PROPYLENE GLYCOL ALGINATE... Thickening agents, foam stabilizer: Ice cream, cheese, candy, yogurt. Alginate, an apparently safe derivative of seaweed (kelp), maintains the desired texture in dairy products, canned frosting, and other factory-made foods. Propylene glycol alginate, a chemically-modified algin, thickens acidic foods (soda pop, salad dressing) and can stabilize the foam in beer.
ALPHA TOCOPHEROL
(Vitamin E) ... Antioxidant, nutrient: Vegetable oil. Vitamin E is abundant in whole wheat, rice germ, and vegetable oils. It is destroyed by the refining and bleaching of flour. Vitamin E prevents oils from going rancid. Recent studies indicate that large amounts of vitamin E may help reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer.
ARTIFICIAL COLORINGS. Most artificial colorings are synthetic chemicals that do not occur in nature. Because colorings are used almost solely in foods of low nutritional value (candy, soda pop, gelatin desserts, etc.), you should simply avoid all artificially colored foods. In addition to problems mentioned below, colorings cause hyperactivity in some sensitive children. The use of coloring usually indicates that fruit or other natural ingredient has not been used.
* BLUE 1 ... Artificial coloring: Beverages, candy, baked goods.
Inadequately tested; suggestions of a small cancer risk.
* BLUE 2 ... Artificial coloring: Pet food, beverages, candy.
The largest study suggested, but did not prove, that this dye caused brain tumors in male mice. The FDA concluded that there is "reasonable certainty of no harm."
* CITRUS RED 2 ... Artificial coloring: Skin of some Florida oranges only.
Studies indicated that this additive causes cancer. The dye does not seep through the orange skin into the pulp. No risk except when eating peel.
* GREEN 3 ... Artificial colorings: Candy, beverages.
A 1981 industry-sponsored study gave hints of bladder cancer, but FDA re-analyzed the data using other statistical tests and concluded that the dye was safe. Fortunately, this possibly carcinogenic dye is rarely used.
* RED 3 ... Artificial coloring: Cherries in fruit cocktail, candy, baked goods.
The evidence that this dye caused thyroid tumors in rats is "convincing," according to a 1983 review committee report requested by FDA. FDA’s recommendation that the dye be banned was overruled by pressure from elsewhere in the Reagan Administration.
* RED 40 ... Artificial coloring: Soda pop, candy, gelatin desserts, pastry, pet food, sausage.
The most widely used food dye. While this is one of the most-tested food dyes, the key mouse tests were flawed and inconclusive. An FDA review committee acknowledged problems, but said evidence of harm was not "consistent" or "substantial." Like other dyes, Red 40 is used mainly in junk foods.
* YELLOW 5 ... Artificial coloring: Gelatin dessert, candy, pet food, baked goods.
The second most widely used coloring causes mild allergic reactions, primarily in aspirin-sensitive persons.
* YELLOW 6 ... Artificial coloring: Beverages, sausage, baked goods, candy, gelatin.
Industry-sponsored animal tests indicated that this dye, the third most widely used, causes tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney. In addition, small amounts of several carcinogens contaminate Yellow 6. However, the FDA reviewed those data and found reasons to conclude that Yellow 6 does not pose a significant cancer risk to humans. Yellow 6 may also cause occasional allergic reactions.
ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL FLAVORING ... Flavoring: Soda pop, candy, breakfast cereals, gelatin desserts, and many other foods. Hundreds of chemicals are used to mimic natural flavors; many may be used in a single flavoring, such as for cherry soda pop. Most flavoring chemicals also occur in nature and are probably safe, but they are used almost exclusively in junk foods. Their use indicates that the real thing (often fruit) has been left out. Companies keep the identity of artificial (and natural) flavorings a deep secret. Flavorings may include substances to which some people are sensitive, such as MSG or HVP.
ASCORBIC ACID (Vitamin C), SODIUM ASCORBATE... Antioxidant, nutrient, color stabilizer: Cereals, fruit drinks, cured meats. Ascorbic acid helps maintain the red color of cured meat and prevents the formation of nitrosamines, which promote cancer (see SODIUM NITRITE). It helps prevent loss of color and flavor by reacting with unwanted oxygen. It is used as a nutrient additive in drinks and breakfast cereals. Sodium ascorbate is a more soluble form of ascorbic acid.
ERYTHORBIC ACID is very similar to ascorbic acid, but has no value as a vitamin. Large amounts of ascorbic acid may reduce the severity of colds and offer other health benefits.
ASPARTAME ....Artificial sweetener: "Diet" foods, including soft drinks, drink mixes, gelatin desserts, low-calorie frozen desserts, packets Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), made up primarily of two amino acids, was thought to be the perfect artificial sweetener, but questions have arisen about the quality of the cancer tests, which should be repeated. Some persons have reported adverse behavioral effects (dizziness, hallucinations, headache) after drinking diet soda, but such reports have not been confirmed in controlled studies. If you think you’ve experienced adverse effects due to aspartame, avoid it. Also, people with the rare disease PKU (phenylketonuria) need to avoid it. There is little evidence that this or other artificial sweeteners have helped people lose weight, though those additives might help some strong-willed dieters. Indeed, since 1980, consumption of artificial sweeteners and rates of obesity have both soared.
BETA-CAROTENE ... Coloring; nutrient: Margarine, shortening, non-dairy whiteners. Beta-carotene is used as an artificial coloring and a nutrient supplement. The body converts it to Vitamin A, which is part of the light-detection mechanism of the eye and which helps maintain the normal condition of mucous membranes. Large amounts of beta-carotene in the form of dietary supplements increased the risk of lung cancer in smokers and did not reduce the risk in non-smokers. Smokers should certainly not take beta-carotene supplements, but the small amounts used as food additives are safe.
BROMINATED VEGETABLE OIL (BVO) ... Emulsifier, clouding agent: Soft drinks. BVO keeps flavor oils in suspension and gives a cloudy appearance to citrus-flavored soft drinks. Eating BVO leaves small residues in body fat; it is unclear whether those residues pose any risk. Fortunately, BVO is not widely used.
BUTYLATED HYDROXYANISOLE (BHA) ... Antioxidant: Cereals chewing gum, potato chips, vegetable oil. BHA retards rancidity in fats, oils, and oil-containing foods. While most studies indicate it is safe, some studies demonstrated that it caused cancer in rats. This synthetic chemical can be replaced by safer chemicals (e.g., vitamin E), safer processes (e.g., packing foods under nitrogen instead of air), or can simply be left out (many brands of oily foods, such as potato chips, don’t use any antioxidant).
BUTYLATED HYDROXYTOLUENE (BHT) ... Antioxidant: Cereals, chewing gum, potato chips, oils, etc. BHT retards rancidity in oils. It either increased or decreased the risk of cancer in various animal studies. Residues of BHT occur in human fat. BHT is unnecessary or is easily replaced by safe substitutes (see discussion of BHA). Avoid it when possible.
CAFFEINE ... Stimulant: Naturally occurring in coffee, tea, cocoa, coffee-flavored yogurt and frozen desserts. Additive in soft drinks, gum, and waters. Caffeine is the only drug that is present naturally or added to widely consumed foods (quinine is the other drug used in foods). It is mildly addictive, one possible reason that makers of soft drinks add it to their products. Many coffee drinkers experience withdrawal symptoms, such as headaches, irritability, sleepiness, and lethargy, when they stop drinking coffee. Because caffeine increases the risk of miscarriages (and possibly birth defects) and inhibits fetal growth, it should be avoided by women who are pregnant or considering becoming pregnant. It also may make it harder to get pregnant (but don’t use it as a birth-control pill!). Caffeine also keeps many people from sleeping, causes jitteriness, and affects calcium metabolism. The caffeine in a cup or two of coffee is harmless to most people. But if you drink more than a couple of cups of coffee or cans of caffeine-containing soda per day, experience symptoms noted above, are at risk of osteoporosis, or are pregnant, you should rethink your habit.
CALCIUM (or SODIUM) PROPIONATE ... Preservative: Bread, rolls, pies, cakes. Calcium propionate prevents mold growth on bread and rolls. The calcium is a beneficial mineral; the propionate is safe. Sodium propionate is used in pies and cakes, because calcium alters the action of chemical leavening agents.
CALCIUM (or SODIUM) STEAROYL LACTYLATE ... Dough conditioner, whipping agent: Bread dough, cake fillings, artificial whipped cream, processed egg whites. These additives strengthen bread dough so it can be used in bread-making machinery and help produce a more uniform grain and greater volume. They act as whipping agents in dried, liquid, or frozen egg whites and artificial whipped cream.
SODIUM STEAROYL FUMARATE serves the same function.
CARMINE; COCHINEAL EXTRACT ... Artificial coloring. Cochineal extract is a coloring extracted from the eggs of the cochineal beetle, which lives on cactus plants in Peru, the Canary Islands, and elsewhere. Carmine is a more purified coloring made from cochineal. In both cases, the actual substance that provides the color is carminic acid. These colorings, which are extremely stable, are used in some red, pink, or purple candy, yogurt, Campari, ice cream, beverages, and many other foods, as well as drugs and cosmetics. These colorings have caused allergic reactions that range from hives to life-threatening anaphylactic shock. It is not known how many people suffer from this allergy. The Food and Drug Administration should ban cochineal extract and carmine or, at the very least, require that they be identified clearly on food labels so that people could avoid them. Natural or synthetic substitutes are available. A label statement should also disclose that, Carmine is extracted from dried insects so that vegetarians and others who want to avoid animal products could do so.
CARRAGEENAN ... Thickening and stabilizing agent: Ice cream, jelly, chocolate milk, infant formula. Carrageenan is obtained from seaweed. Large amounts of carrageenan have harmed test animals’ colons; the small amounts in food are safe.
CASEIN, SODIUM CASEINATE ... Thickening and whitening agent: Ice cream, ice milk, sherbet, coffee creamers. Casein, the principal protein in milk, is a nutritious protein containing adequate amounts of all the essential amino acids. People who are allergic to casein should read food labels carefully, because the additive is used in some “non-dairy” and “vegetarian” foods.
CITRIC ACID, SODIUM CITRATE ... Acid, flavoring, chelating agent: Ice cream, sherbet, fruit drink, candy, carbonated beverages, instant potatoes. Citric acid is versatile, widely used, cheap, and safe. It is an important metabolite in virtually all living organisms and is especially abundant naturally in citrus fruits and berries. It is used as a strong acid, a tart flavoring, and an antioxidant. Sodium citrate, also safe, is a buffer that controls the acidity of gelatin desserts, jam, ice cream, candy, and other foods.
COCHINEAL EXTRACT: see CARMINE
CORN SYRUP... Sweetener, thickener: Candy, toppings, syrups, snack foods, imitation dairy foods.
Corn syrup,which consists mostly of dextrose, is a sweet, thick liquid made by treating cornstarch with acids or enzymes. It may be dried and used as corn syrup solids in coffee whiteners and other dry products. Corn syrup contains no nutritional value other than calories, promotes tooth decay, and is used mainly in foods with little intrinsic nutritional value.
CYCLAMATE ... Artificial sweetener: Diet foods. This controversial high-potency sweetener was used in the United States in diet foods until 1970, at which time it was banned. Animal studies indicated that it causes cancer. Now, based on animal studies, it (or a byproduct) is believed not to cause cancer directly, but to increase the potency of other carcinogens and to harm the testes.
DEXTROSE (GLUCOSE, CORN SUGAR) ... Sweetener, coloring agent: Bread, caramel, soda pop, cookies, many other foods Dextrose is an important chemical in every living organism. A sugar, it is a source of sweetness in fruits and honey. Added to foods as a sweetener, it represents empty calories and contributes to tooth decay. Dextrose turns brown when heated and contributes to the color of bread crust and toast. Americans consume about 25 pounds per year of dextrose -- and a total of about 150 pounds per year of all refined sugars.
EDTA ... Chelating agent: Salad dressing, margarine, sandwich spreads, mayonnaise, processed fruits and vegetables, canned shellfish, soft drinks. Modern food-manufacturing technology, which involves rollers, blenders, and containers made of metal, results in trace amounts of metal contamination in food. EDTA (ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid) traps metal impurities, which would otherwise promote rancidity and the breakdown of artificial colors. It is safe.
E
RYTHORBIC ACID ... Antioxidant, color stabilizer: Cured meats. see ASCORBIC ACID above.
FERROUS GLUCONATE ... Coloring, nutrient: Black olives. Used by the olive industry to generate a uniform jet-black color and in pills as a source of iron. Safe.
FOOD-STARCH, MODIFIED
see STARCH, MODIFIED below.
FUMARIC ACID ... Tartness agent: Powdered drinks, pudding, pie fillings, gelatin desserts. A solid at room temperature, inexpensive, highly acidic, fumaric acid is the ideal source of tartness and acidity in dry food products. However, it dissolves slowly in cold water, a drawback cured by adding DIOCTYL SODIUM SULFOSUCCINATE (DSS), a detergent-like additive that appears to be safe.
GELATIN ... Thickening and gelling agent: Powdered dessert mixes, yogurt, ice cream, cheese spreads, beverages. Gelatin is a protein obtained from animal hides and bones. It has little nutritional value, because it contains little or none of several essential amino acids.
GLYCERIN (GLYCEROL) ... Maintains water content: Marshmallows, candy, fudge, baked goods. In nature, glycerin forms the backbone of fat and oil molecules. The body uses it as a source of energy or as a starting material in making more-complex molecules.
GUMS: Arabic, Furcelleran, Ghatti, Guar, Karaya, Locust Bean, Tragacanth, Xanthan ... Thickening agents, stabilizers: Beverages, ice cream, frozen pudding, salad dressing, dough, cottage cheese, candy, drink mixes. Gums are derived from natural sources (bushes, trees, seaweed, bacteria) and are poorly tested, though probably safe. They are not absorbed by the body. They are used to thicken foods, prevent sugar crystals from forming in candy, stabilize beer foam (arabic), form a gel in pudding (furcelleran), encapsulate flavor oils in powdered drink mixes, or keep oil and water mixed together in salad dressings. Gums are often used to replace fat in low-fat ice cream, baked goods, and salad dressings. Tragacanth has caused occasional severe allergic reactions.
HEPTYL PARABEN ... Preservative: Beer, non-carbonated soft drinks. Heptyl paraben -- short for the heptyl ester of para-hydroxybenzoic acid -- is a preservative. Studies suggest that this rarely used additive chemical is safe, but it, like other additives in alcoholic beverages, has never been tested in the presence of alcohol (such as in animals weakened by long-term consumption of alcohol).
HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP ... Sweetener: Soft drinks, other processed foods. Corn syrup can be treated with enzymes to convert some of its dextrose to fructose, which results in High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). HFCS has largely replaced ordinary sugar used in soft drinks and many other foods because it is cheaper. Americans consume about 59 pounds per year of HFCS (and a total of 150 pounds per year of all refined sugars).
HYDROGENATED STARCH HYDROLYSATE (HSH) ... Sweetener: Dietetic and reduced-calorie foods. HSH, like sorbitol, is slightly sweet and poorly absorbed by the body. Like sorbitol, and other sugar alcohols, eating significant amounts of HSH may cause intestinal gas and diarrhea.
HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL, PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL ... Fat, oil, shortening: Margarine, crackers, fried restaurant foods, baked goods. Vegetable oil, usually a liquid, can be made into a semi-solid shortening by reacting it with hydrogen. Hydrogenation reduces the levels of polyunsaturated oils — and also creates trans fats, which promote heart disease (they act like saturated fats). Ideally, food manufacturers would replace hydrogenated shortening with less-harmful ingredients.
HYDROLYZED VEGETABLE PROTEIN (HVP) ... Flavor enhancer: Instant soups, frankfurters, sauce mixes, beef stew. HVP consists of vegetable (usually soybean) protein that has been chemically broken down to the amino acids of which it is composed. HVP is used to bring out the natural flavor of food (and, perhaps, to enable companies to use less real food). It contains MSG and may cause adverse reactions in sensitive individuals.
INVERT SUGAR ... Sweetener: Candy, soft drinks, many other foods. Invert sugar, a 50-50 mixture of two sugars, dextrose and fructose, is sweeter and more soluble than sucrose (table sugar). Invert sugar forms when sucrose is split in two by an enzyme or acid. It provides "empty calories," contributes to tooth decay, and should be avoided.
LACTIC ACID ... Controls acidity: Spanish olives, cheese, frozen desserts, carbonated beverages. This safe acid occurs in almost all living organisms. It inhibits spoilage in Spanish-type olives, balances the acidity in cheese-making, and adds tartness to frozen desserts, carbonated fruit-flavored drinks, and other foods.
LACTOSE ... Sweetener: Whipped topping mix, breakfast pastry. Lactose, a carbohydrate found only in milk, is one of Nature’s ways of delivering calories to infant mammals. One-sixth as sweet as table sugar, lactose is added to food as a slightly sweet source of carbohydrate. Milk turns sour when bacteria convert lactose to lactic acid. Many people, especially non-Caucasians, have trouble digesting lactose. Bacteria in their guts may produce gas.
LECITHIN ... Emulsifier, antioxidant: Baked goods, margarine, chocolate, ice cream. A common constituent of animal and plant tissues, lecithin is a source of the nutrient choline. It keeps oil and water from separating out, retards rancidity, reduces spattering in a frying pan, and leads to fluffier cakes. Major natural sources are egg yolk and soybeans.
MALTITOL ... Sweetener: Dietetic and other reduced calorie foods. Like mannitol, sorbitol, and other sugar alcohols, maltitol may be expected to promote flatulence and other gastrointestinal symptoms.
MANNITOL ... Sweetener, other uses: Chewing gum, low-calorie foods. Not quite as sweet as sugar and poorly absorbed by the body, it contributes only half as many calories as sugar. Used as the "dust" on chewing gum, mannitol prevents gum from absorbing moisture and becoming sticky. Safe — except that large amounts that are used in gum may have a laxative effect and even cause diarrhea.
MONO- and DIGLYCERIDES ... Emulsifier: Baked goods, margarine, candy, peanut butter. Makes bread softer and prevents staling, improves the stability of margarine, makes caramels less sticky, and prevents the oil in peanut butter from separating out. Mono- and diglycerides are safe, though most foods they are used in are high in refined flour, sugar, or fat.
MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE (MSG) ... Flavor enhancer: Soup, salad dressing, chips, frozen entrees, restaurant foods. This amino acid brings out the flavor in many foods. While that may sound like a treat for taste buds, the use of MSG allows companies to reduce the amount of real ingredients in their foods, such as chicken in chicken soup. In the 1960s, it was discovered that large amounts of MSG fed to infant mice destroyed nerve cells in the brain. After that research was publicized, public pressure forced baby-food companies to stop adding MSG to their products (it was used to make the foods taste better to parents).
Careful studies have shown that some people are sensitive to MSG. Reactions include headache, nausea, weakness, and burning sensation in the back of neck and forearms. Some people complain of wheezing, changes in heart rate, and difficulty breathing. Some people claim to be sensitive to very small amounts of MSG, but no good studies have been done to determine just how little MSG can cause a reaction in the most-sensitive people. To protect the public’s health, manufacturers and restaurateurs should use less or no MSG and the amounts of MSG should be listed on labels of foods that contain significant amounts. People who believe they are sensitive to MSG should be aware that other ingredients, such as natural flavoring and hydrolyzed vegetable protein, also contain glutamate. Also, foods such as Parmesan cheese and tomatoes contain glutamate that occurs naturally, but no reactions have been reported to those foods.
OLESTRA (Olean) ... Fat substitute: Chips, crackers. Olestra is Procter & Gamble’s synthetic fat that is not absorbed by the body, but runs right through. Procter & Gamble suggests that replacing regular fat with olestra will help people lose weight and lower the risk of heart disease.
Olestra can cause diarrhea and loose stools, abdominal cramps, flatulence, and other adverse effects. Those symptoms are sometimes severe.
Even more importantly, olestra reduces the body’s ability to absorb fat-soluble carotenoids (such as alpha and beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, and canthaxanthin) from fruits and vegetables. Those nutrients are thought by many experts to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease. Olestra enables manufacturers to offer greasy-feeling low-fat snacks, but consumers would be much better off with baked snacks, which are perfectly safe and just as low in calories. Products made with olestra should not be called "fat free," because they contain substantial amounts of indigestible fat.
PHOSPHORIC ACID; PHOSPHATES ... Acidulant, chelating agent, buffer, emulsifier, nutrient, discoloration inhibitor: Baked goods, cheese, powdered foods, cured meat, soda pop, breakfast cereals, dehydrated potatoes. Phosphoric acid acidifies and flavors cola beverages. CALCIUM and IRON PHOSPHATES act as mineral supplements. SODIUM ALUMINUM PHOSPHATE is a leavening agent. CALCIUM and AMMONIUM PHOSPHATES serve as food for yeast in baking. SODIUM ACID PYROPHOSPHATE prevents discoloration in potatoes and sugar syrups. While excessive consumption of phosphates could lead to dietary imbalances that might contribute to osteoporosis, only a small fraction of the phosphate in the American diet comes from additives. Most comes from meat and dairy products.
PLANT STEROL ESTERS ... Cholersterol-lowering Additive: Margarine, other foods . These substances, which are extracted from pine trees, reduce the absorption of cholersterol from food and lower blood cholersterol levels. They are not toxic, but they may reduce the body's absorption of nutrients called carotenoids that are thought to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease. Used in Benecol-brand products (margarine, salad dressing, and others).
POLYSORBATE 60 .... Emulsifier: Baked goods, frozen desserts, imitation dairy products. Polysorbate 60 is short for polyoxyethylene-(20)- sorbitan monostearate. It and its close relatives, POLYSORBATE 65 and 80, work the same way as mono- and diglycerides, but smaller amounts are needed. They keep baked goods from going stale, keep dill oil dissolved in bottled dill pickles, help coffee whiteners dissolve in coffee, and prevent oil from separating out of artificial whipped cream.
POTASSIUM BROMATE ... Flour improver: Bread and rolls.. This additive has long been used to increase the volume of bread and to produce bread with a fine crumb (the not-crust part of bread) structure. Most bromate rapidly breaks down to form innocuous bromide. However, bromate itself causes cancer in animals. The tiny amounts of bromate that may remain in bread pose a small risk to consumers. Bromate has been banned virtually worldwide except in Japan and the United States. It is rarely used in California because a cancer warning might be required on the label. In 1999, the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the FDA to ban bromate.
PROPYL GALLATE ... Antioxidant preservative: Vegetable oil, meat products, potato sticks, chicken soup base, chewing gum. Propyl gallate retards the spoilage of fats and oils and is often used with BHA and BHT, because of the synergistic effects these preservatives have. The best studies on rats and mice were peppered with suggestions (but not proof) that this preservative might cause cancer. Avoid.
QUININE ... Flavoring: Tonic water, quinine water, bitter lemon. This drug can cure malaria and is used as a bitter flavoring in a few soft drinks. There is a slight chance that quinine causes birth defects, so, to be on the safe side, pregnant women should avoid quinine-containing beverages and drugs. Relatively poorly tested.
SACCHARIN ... Artificial sweetener: "Diet" products, soft drinks (especially fountain drinks at restaurants), packets. Saccharin (Sweet ’N Low) is 350 times sweeter than sugar and is used in dietetic foods or as a tabletop sugar substitute. Many studies on animals have shown that saccharin can cause cancer of the urinary bladder. In other rodent studies, saccharin has caused cancer of the uterus, ovaries, skin, blood vessels, and other organs. Other studies have shown that saccharin increases the potency of other cancer-causing chemicals. And the best epidemiology study (done by the National Cancer Institute) found that the use of artificial sweeteners (saccharin and cyclamate) was associated with a higher incidence of bladder cancer.
In 1977, the FDA proposed that saccharin be banned, because of studies that it causes cancer in animals. However, Congress intervened and permitted it to be used, provided that foods bear a warning notice. It has been replaced in many products by aspartame (NutraSweet). In 1997, the diet-food industry began pressuring the U.S. and Canadian governments and the World Health Organization to take saccharin off their lists of cancer-causing chemicals. The industry acknowledges that saccharin causes bladder cancer in male rats, but argues that those tumors are caused by a mechanism that would not occur in humans. Many public health experts respond by stating that, even if that still-unproved mechanism were correct in male rats, saccharin could cause cancer by additional mechanisms and that, in some studies, saccharin has caused bladder cancer in mice and in female rats and other cancers in both rats and mice.
In May 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services removed saccharin from its list of cancer-causing chemicals. Later that year, Congress passed a law removing the warning notice that likely will result in increased use in soft drinks and other foods and in a slightly greater incidence of cancer.
SALATRIM ... Modified fat: baked goods, candy. This manufactured fat (developed by Nabisco) has the physical properties of regular fat, but the manufacturer claims it provides only about 5/9 as many calories. Its use can enable companies to make reduced-calorie claims on their products. Salatrim’s low calorie content results from its content of stearic acid, which the manufacturer says is absorbed poorly, and short-chain fatty acids, which provide fewer calories per unit weight.
Critics have charged that it does not provide as big a calorie reduction as claimed by Nabisco. Moreover, only very limited testing has been done to determine effects on humans. Eating small amounts of salatrim is probably safe, but large amounts (30g or more per day) increase the risk of such side effects as stomach cramps and nausea. No tests have been done to determine if the various food additives (salatrim, olestra, mannitol, and sorbitol) that cause gastrointestinal symptoms can act in concert to cause greater effects.
Nabisco declared salatrim safe and has marketed it, as the law allows, without formal FDA approval. (Nabisco has since sold salatrim to another company, Cultor.) In June 1998, the Center for Science in the Public Interest urged the FDA to ban salatrim until better tests were done and demonstrated safety.
SALT (Sodium Chloride) ... ... Flavoring: Most processed foods, soup, potato chips, crackers. Salt is used liberally in many processed foods and restaurant meals. Other additives contribute additional sodium. A diet high in sodium increases the risk or severity of high blood pressure, which increases the risk of heart attack and stroke. Everyone should eat less salt: avoid salty processed foods and restaurant meals, use salt sparingly, and enjoy other seasonings.
SODIUM BENZOATE ... Preservative: Fruit juice, carbonated drinks, pickles, preserves. Manufacturers have used sodium benzoate for a century to prevent the growth of microorganisms in acidic foods.
SODIUM CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE (CMC) ... Thickening and stabilizing agent; prevents sugar from crystallizing: Ice cream, beer, pie fillings, icings, diet foods, candy CMC is made by reacting cellulose with a derivative of acetic acid. Studies indicate it is safe.
SODIUM NITRITE, SODIUM NITRATE ... Preservative, coloring, flavoring: Bacon, ham, frankfurters, luncheon meats, smoked fish, corned beef. Meat processors love sodium nitrite because it stabilizes the red color in cured meat (without nitrite, hot dogs and bacon would look gray) and gives a characteristic flavor. Sodium nitrate is used in dry cured meat, because it slowly breaks down into nitrite. Adding nitrite to food can lead to the formation of small amounts of potent cancer-causing chemicals (nitrosamines), particularly in fried bacon. Nitrite, which also occurs in saliva and forms from nitrate in several vegetables, can undergo the same chemical reaction in the stomach. Companies now add ascorbic acid or erythorbic acid to bacon to inhibit nitrosamine formation, a measure that has greatly reduced the problem. While nitrite and nitrate cause only a small risk, they are still worth avoiding.
Several studies have linked consumption of cured meat and nitrite by children, pregnant women, and adults with various types of cancer. Although those studies have not yet proven that eating nitrite in bacon, sausage, and ham causes cancer in humans, pregnant women would be prudent to avoid those products.
The meat industry justifies its use of nitrite and nitrate by claiming that it prevents the growth of bacteria that cause botulism poisoning. That’s true, but freezing and refrigeration could also do that, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has developed a safe method using lactic-acid-producing bacteria. The use of nitrite and nitrate has decreased greatly over the decades, because of refrigeration and restrictions on the amounts used. The meat industry could do the public’s health a favor by cutting back even further. Because nitrite is used primarily in fatty, salty foods, consumers have important nutritional reasons for avoiding nitrite-preserved foods.
SORBIC ACID, POTASSIUM SORBATE ... Prevents growth of mold: Cheese, syrup, jelly, cake, wine, dry fruits. Sorbic acid occurs naturally in many plants. These additives are safe.
SORBITAN MONOSTEARATE ... Emulsifier: Cakes, candy, frozen pudding, icing. Like mono- and diglycerides and polysorbates, this additive keeps oil and water mixed together. In chocolate candy, it prevents the discoloration that normally occurs when the candy is warmed up and then cooled down.
SORBITOL ... Sweetener, thickening agent, maintains moisture. Dietetic drinks and foods, candy, shredded coconut, chewing gum. Sorbitol occurs naturally in fruits and berries and is a close relative of sugars. It is half as sweet as sugar. It is used many dietetic foods. It is used in non-cariogenic (non-decay-causing) chewing gum because oral bacteria do not metabolize it well. Some diabetics use sorbitol-sweetened foods because it is absorbed slowly and does not cause blood sugar to increase rapidly. Moderate amounts of sorbitol may have a strong laxative effect and even cause diarrhea, but otherwise it is safe.
STARCH ... Thickening agent: Soup, gravy. Starch, the major component of flour, potatoes, and corn, is used in many foods as a thickening agent. However, starch does not dissolve in cold water. Chemists have solved this problem by reacting starch with various chemicals to create MODIFIED STARCHES (see next entry).
STARCH, MODIFIED ... Thickening agent: Soup, gravy, baby food. Modified starches are used in processed foods to improve their consistency and keep the solids suspended. Starch and modified starches sometimes replace large percentages of more nutritious ingredients, such as fruit. Choose baby foods without added starches (starch-thickened baby foods have contained as little as 25 percent as much of the fruit ingredients as 100-percent-fruit baby foods). One small study suggested that modified starches can promote diarrhea in infants.
SUCRALOSE ... Artificial sweetener: Diet foods. Approved in the United States in April 1998, sucralose (a synthetic chemical) can be used in soft drinks, baked goods, ice cream, sweetener packets, and other products. It previously had been used in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere. Sucralose is safer than saccharin and cyclamate and doesn’t raise the concerns that tests on acesulfame-K and aspartame have raised.
SUGAR (SUCROSE) ... ... Sweetener: Table sugar, sweetened foods. Sucrose, ordinary table sugar, occurs naturally in fruit, sugar cane, and sugar beets. Americans consume about 65 pounds of sucrose per year. That figure is down from 102 pounds per year around 1970, but the decrease has been more than made up for with HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP and DEXTROSE. About 156 pounds of all refined sugars are produced per person per year, an increase of 28 percent since 1983. Interestingly that’s just when the use of ASPARTAME started skyrocketing. In other words, it appears that artificial sweeteners have not replaced sugar, but may have stimulated America’s sweet tooth.
Sugar and sweetened foods may taste good and supply energy, but most people eat too much of them. Sugar, corn syrup, and other refined sweeteners make up 16 percent of the average diet, but provide no vitamins, minerals, or protein. That means that a person would have to get 100 percent of his or her nutrients from only 84 percent of his or her food. Sugar and other refined sugars can promote obesity, tooth decay, and, in people with high triglycerides, heart disease.
SULFITES (SULFUR DIOXIDE, SODIUM BISULFITE) ... Preservative, bleach: Dried fruit, wine, processed potatoes. Sulfiting agents prevent discoloration (dried fruit, some "fresh" shrimp, and some dried, fried, or frozen potatoes) and bacterial growth (wine). They also destroy vitamin B-1 and, most important, can cause severe reactions, especially in asthmatics. If you think you may be sensitive, avoid all forms of this additive, because it has caused at least twelve known deaths and probably many more.
THIAMIN MONONITRATE ... Vitamin B-1. Perfectly safe, despite adding minuscule amounts of nitrate to our food.
VANILLIN, ETHYL VANILLIN ... Substitute for vanilla: Ice cream, baked goods, beverages, chocolate, candy, gelatin desserts. Vanilla flavoring is derived from a bean, but vanillin, the major flavor component of vanilla, is cheaper to produce in a factory. A derivative, ethyl vanillin, comes closer to matching the taste of real vanilla. Both chemicals are safe.
VEGETABLE OIL STEROLS ... Cholesterol-lowering Additive: Margarine, other foods. These substances, which are extracted from soybeans, reduce the absorption of cholersterol from food and lower blood cholersterol levels. They are not toxic, but they may reduce the body's absorption of nutrients called carotenoids that are thought to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease. Used in Take Control-brand margarine.
SUMMARY OF ADDITIVES’ SAFETY
SAFE
These appear to be safe, though a few people may be allergic to any additive.
* ALGINATE
* ALPHA TOCOPHEROL (Vitamin E)
* ASCORBIC ACID (Vitamin C)
* BETA-CAROTENE
* CALCIUM PROPIONATE
* CALCIUM STEAROYL LACTYLATE
* CARRAGEENAN
* CASEIN
* CITRIC ACID
* EDTA
* ERYTHORBIC ACID
* FERROUS GLUCONATE
* FUMARIC ACID
* GELATIN
* GLYCERIN (Glycerol)
* GUMS: Arabic, Furcelleran, Ghatti, Guar, Karaya, Locust Bean, Xanthan
* LACTIC ACID
* LECITHIN
* MONO- and DIGLYCERIDES
* PHOSPHATE SALTS
* PHOSPHORIC ACID
* PLANT STEROL ESTERS
* POLYSORBATE 60, 65, 80
* POTASSIUM SORBATE
* PROPYLENE GLYCOL ALGINATE
* SODIUM ASCORBATE
* SODIUM BENZOATE
* SODIUM CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE (CMC)
* SODIUM CASEINATE
* SODIUM CITRATE
* SODIUM PROPIONATE
* SODIUM STEAROYL LACTYLATE
* SORBIC ACID
* SORBITAN MONOSTEARATE
* STARCH, MODIFIED STARCH
* SUCRALOSE
* THIAMIN MONONITRATE
* VANILLIN, ETHYL VANILLIN
* VEGETABLE OIL STEROL ESTERS
CUT BACK
Not toxic, but large amounts may be unsafe or promote bad nutrition. See main text for details.
* CAFFEINE
* CORN SYRUP
* DEXTROSE (CORN SUGAR, GLUCOSE)
* HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP
* HYDROGENATATED STARCH HYDROLYSATE
* HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL
* INVERT SUGAR
* MALTITOL
* MANNITOL
* SALATRIM
* SALT
* SORBITOL
* SUGAR
CAUTION
These additives may pose a risk and need to be better tested. Try to avoid..
* ARTIFICIAL COLORINGS
o CITRUS RED 2
o RED 40
* ASPARTAME (Nutrasweet)
* BROMINATED VEGETABLE OIL (BVO)
* BUTYLATED HYDROXYANISOLE (BHA)
* BUTYLATED HYDROXYTOLUENE (BHT)
* HEPTYL PARABEN
* QUININE
CERTAIN PEOPLE SHOULD AVOID
May cause allergic reactions or other problems. See main text for details.
* ARTIFICIAL COLORINGS
o YELLOW 5
* ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL FLAVORING
* ASPARTAME (Nutrasweet)
* BETA-CAROTENE
* CAFFEINE
* CARMINE; COCHINEAL
* CASEIN
* GUM TRAGACANTH
* HVP (HYDROLYZED VEGETABLE PROTEIN)
* LACTOSE
* MSG (MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE)
* QUININE
* SODIUM BISULFITE,
* SULFITES
* SULFUR DIOXIDE
AVOID
The additive is unsafe in the amounts consumed or is very poorly tested.
* ACESULFAME POTASSIUM
* ARTIFICIAL COLORINGS
o BLUE 1
o BLUE 2
o GREEN 3
o RED 3
o YELLOW 6
* CYCLAMATE
* OLESTRA (Olean)
* POTASSIUM BROMATE
* PROPYL GALLATE
* SACCHARIN
* SODIUM NITRITE, SODIUM NITRATE
Food Additive Cemetery -- Additives That Have Been Banned
The food and chemical industries have said for decades that all food additives are well tested and safe. And most additives are safe. However, the history of food additives is riddled with additives that, after many years of use, were found to pose health risks. Those listed below have been banned. The moral of the story is that when someone says that all food additives are well tested and safe you should take their assurances with a grain of salt.
The food and chemical industries have said for decades that all food additives are well tested and safe. And most additives are safe. However, the history of food additives is riddled with additives that, after many years of use, were found to pose health risks. Those listed below have been banned. The moral of the story is that when someone says that all food additives are well tested and safe you should take their assurances with a grain of salt.
Additive Function Natural or Synthetic Year Banned Problem
Agene (nitrogen trichloride) flour bleaching and aging agent synthetic 1949 dogs that ate bread made from treated flour suffered epileptic-like fits; the toxic agent was methionine sulfoxime
Artificial colorings:
* Butter yellow
artificial coloring synthetic 1919 toxic, later found to cause liver cancer
* Green 1
artificial coloring synthetic 1965 liver cancer
* Green 2
artificial coloring synthetic 1965 insufficient economic importance to be tested
* Orange 1
artificial coloring synthetic 1956 organ damage
* Orange 2
artificial coloring synthetic 1960 organ damage
* Orange B
artificial coloring synthetic 1978 (ban never finalized) cancer
* Red 1
artificial coloring synthetic 1961 liver cancer
* Red 2
artificial coloring synthetic 1976 possible carcinogen
* Red 4
artificial coloring synthetic 1976 high levels damaged adrenal cortex of dog; after 1965 it was used only in maraschino cherries and certain pills; it is still allowed in externally applied drugs and cosmetics
* Red 32
artificial coloring synthetic 1956 damages internal organs and may be a weak carcinogen; since 1956 it continues to be used under the name Citrus Red 2 only to color oranges (2 ppm)
* Sudan 1
artificial coloring synthetic 1919 toxic, later found to be carcinogenic
* Violet 1
artificial coloring synthetic 1973 cancer (it had been used to stamp the Department of Agriculture’s inspection mark on beef carcasses)
* Yellow 1 and 2
artificial coloring synthetic 1959 intestinal lesions at high dosages
* Yellow 3
artificial coloring synthetic 1959 heart damage at high dosages
* Yellow 4
artificial coloring synthetic 1959 heart damage at high dosages
Thanks to Doug Pierce at Threshold Media for his assistance. Threshold Media, 13268 Country Ridge Dr., Germantown, MD 20874
Source: http://www.alternativehealth.co.nz/food%20additives/index.htm
The Hidden Hazards of Microwave Cooking
Recent research shows that microwave oven-cooked food suffers severe molecular damage. When eaten, it causes abnormal changes in human blood and immune systems. Not surprisingly, the public has been denied details on these significant health dangers.
Back in May of 1989, after Tom Valentine first moved to St Paul, Minnesota, he heard on the car radio a short announcement that bolted him upright in the driver's seat. The announcement was sponsored by Young Families, the Minnesota Extension Service of the University of Minnesota:
"Although microwaves heat food quickly, they are not recommended for heating a baby's bottle," the announcement said. The bottle may seem cool to the touch, but the liquid inside may become extremely hot and could burn the baby's mouth and throat. Also, the buildup of steam in a closed container such as a baby's bottle could cause it to explode.
"Heating the bottle in a microwave can cause slight changes in the milk. In infant formulas, there may be a loss of some vitamins. In expressed breast milk, some protective properties may be destroyed."
The report went on.
"Warming a bottle by holding it under tap water or by setting it in a bowl of warm water, then testing it on your wrist before feeding, may take a few minutes longer, but it is much safer."
Valentine asked himself: If an established institution like the University of Minnesota can warn about the loss of particular nutrient qualities in microwaved baby formula or mother's milk, then somebody must know something about microwaving they are not telling everybody.
A Lawsuit
In early 1991, word leaked out about a lawsuit in Oklahoma. A woman named Norma Levitt had hip surgery, only to be killed by a simple blood transfusion when a nurse "warmed the blood for the transfusion in a microwave oven"!
Logic suggests that if heating or cooking is all there is to it, then it doesn't matter what mode of heating technology one uses. However, it is quite apparent that there is more to 'heating' with microwaves than we've been led to believe.
Blood for transfusions is routinely warmed-but not in microwave ovens! In the case of Mrs. Levitt, the microwaving altered the blood and it killed her.
Does it not therefore follow that this form of heating does, indeed, do 'something different' to the substances being heated? Is it not prudent to determine what that 'something different' might do?
A funny thing happened on the way to the bank with all that microwave oven revenue: nobody thought about the obvious. Only 'health nuts' who are constantly aware of the value of quality nutrition discerned a problem with the widespread 'denaturing' of our food. Enter Hans Hertel.
Hans Hertel
In the tiny town of Wattenwil, near Basel in Switzerland, there lives a scientist who is alarmed at the lack of purity and naturalness in the many pursuits of modern mankind. He worked as a food scientist for several years with one of the many major Swiss food companies that do business on a global scale. A few years ago, he was fired from his job for questioning procedures in processing food because they denatured it.
"The world needs our help," Hans Hertel told Tom Valentine as they shared a fine meal at a resort hotel in Todtmoss, Germany.
"We, the scientists, carry the main responsibility for the present unacceptable conditions. It is therefore our job to correct the situation and bring the remedy to the world. I am striving to bring man and techniques back into harmony with nature. We can have wonderful technologies without violating nature."
Hans is an intense man, driven by personal knowledge of violations of nature by corporate man and his state-supported monopolies in science, technology and education. At the same time, as the two talked, his intensity shattered into a warm smile and he spoke of the way things could be if mankind's immense talent were to work with nature and not against her.
Hans Hertel is the first scientist to conceive of and carry out a quality study on the effects of microwaved nutrients on the blood and physiology of human beings. This small but well-controlled study pointed the firm finger at a degenerative force of microwave ovens and the food produced in them. The conclusion was clear: microwave cooking changed the nutrients so that changes took place in the participants' blood; these were not healthy changes but were changes that could cause deterioration in the human systems.
Working with Bernard H. Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry, Hertel not only conceived of the study and carried it out, he was one of eight participants.
"To control as many variables as possible, we selected eight individuals who were strict macrobiotic diet participants from the Macrobiotic Institute at Kientel, Switzerland," Hertel explained. "We were all housed in the same hotel environment for eight weeks. There was no smoking, no alcohol and no sex."
One can readily see that this protocol makes sense. After all, how could you tell about subtle changes in a human's blood from eating microwaved food if smoking, booze, junk food, pollution, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and everything else in the common environment were also present?
"We had one American, one Canadian and six Europeans in the group. I was the oldest at 64 years, the others were in their 20s and 30s," Hertel added.
Valentine published the results of this study in Search for Health in the Spring of 1992. But the follow-up information is available only in a later edition, and also in Acres, USA.
In intervals of two to five days, the volunteers in the study received one of the food variants on an empty stomach. The food variants were: raw milk from a biofarm (no. 1); the same milk conventionally cooked (no. 2); pasteurized milk from Intermilk Berne (no. 3); the same raw milk cooked in a microwave oven (no. 4); raw vegetables from an organic farm (no. 5); the same vegetables cooked conventionally (no. 6); the same vegetables frozen and defrosted in the microwave oven (no. 7); and the same vegetables cooked in the microwave oven (no. 8). The overall experiment had some of the earmarks of the Pottenger cat studies, except that now human beings were test objects, the experiment's time-frame was shorter, and a new heat form was tested.
Once the volunteers were isolated at the resort hotel, the test began. Blood samples were taken from every volunteer immediately before eating. Then blood samples were taken at defined intervals after eating from the above-numbered milk or vegetable preparations.
Significant changes were discovered in the blood of the volunteers who consumed foods cooked in the microwave oven. These changes included a decrease in all hemoglobin values and cholesterol values, especially the HDL (good cholesterol) and LDL (bad cholesterol) values and ratio.
Lymphocytes (white blood cells) showed a more distinct short-term decrease following the intake of microwaved food than after the intake of all the other variants. Each of these indicators point in a direction away from robust health and toward degeneration. Additionally, there was a highly significant association between the amount of microwave energy in the test foods and the luminous power of luminescent bacteria exposed to serum from test persons who ate that food. This led Hertel to the conclusion that such technically derived energies may, indeed, be passed along to man inductively via consumption of microwaved food.
"This process is based on physical principles and has already been confirmed in the literature," Hertel explained. The apparent additional energy exhibited by the luminescent bacteria was merely extra confirmation.
"There is extensive scientific literature concerning the hazardous effects of direct microwave radiation on living systems,"
Hertel continued.
"It is astonishing, therefore, to realize how little effort has been made to replace this detrimental technique of microwaves with technology more in accordance with nature.
"Technically produced microwaves are based on the principle of alternating current. Atoms, molecules and cells hit by this hard electromagnetic radiation are forced to reverse polarity 1 to 100 billion times a second. There are no atoms, molecules or cells of any organic system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any extended period of time, not even in the low energy range of milliwatts.
"Of all the natural substances—which are polar-the oxygen of water molecules reacts most sensitively. This is how microwave cooking heat is generated—friction from this violence in water molecules. Structures of molecules are torn apart, molecules are forcefully deformed (called structural isomerism) and thus become impaired in quality.
Heating Food
"This is contrary to conventional heating of food, in which heat transfers convectionally from without to within. Cooking by microwaves begins within the cells and molecules where water is present and where the energy is transformed into frictional heat."
The question naturally arises: What about microwaves from the sun? Aren't they harmful?
Hertel responded: "The microwaves from the Sun are based on principles of pulsed direct current. These rays create no frictional heat in organic substance"
In addition to violent frictional heat effects (called thermic effects), there are also athermic effects which have hardly ever been taken into account, Hertel added.
"These athermic effects are not presently measurable, but they can also deform the structures of molecules and have qualitative consequences. For example, the weakening of cell membranes by microwaves is used in the field of gene altering technology. Because of the force involved, the cells are actually broken, thereby neutralizing the electrical potentials—the very life of the cells—between the outer and inner sides of the cell membranes. Impaired cells become easy prey for viruses, fungi and other micro-organisms. The natural repair mechanisms are suppressed, and cells are forced to adapt to a state of energy emergency: they switch from aerobic to anaerobic respiration. Instead of water and carbon dioxide, hydrogen peroxide and carbon monoxide are produced."
It has long been pointed out in the literature that any reversal of healthy cell processes may occur because of a number of reasons, and our cells then revert from a "robust oxidation" to an unhealthy "fermentation".
The same violent friction and athermic deformations that can occur in our bodies when we are subjected to radar or microwaves, happens to the molecules in the food cooked in a microwave oven. In fact, when anyone microwaves food, the oven exerts a power input of about 1,000 watts or more. This radiation results in destruction and deformation of molecules of food, and in the formation of new compounds (called radiolytic compounds) unknown to man and nature.
Today's established science and technology argues forcefully that microwaved food and irradiated foods do not have any significantly higher "radiolytic compounds" than do broiled, baked or other conventionally cooked foods—but microwaving does produce more of these critters. Curiously, neither established science nor our ever-protective government has conducted tests—on the blood of the eaters—of the effects of eating various kinds of cooked foods. Hertel and his group did test it, and the indication is clear that something is amiss and that larger studies should be funded. The apparently toxic effects of microwave cooking is another in a long list of unnatural additives in our daily diets.
However, the establishment has not taken kindly to this work.
"The first drawing of blood samples took place on an empty stomach at 7:45 each morning," Hertel explained. "The second drawing of blood took place 15 minutes after the food intake. The third drawing was two hours later."
From each sample, 50 milliliters of blood was used for the chemistry and five millimeters for the hematology and the luminescence. The hematological examinations took place immediately after drawing the samples. Erythrocytes, hemoglobin, mean hemoglobin concentration, mean hemoglobin content, leukocytes and lymphocytes were measured. The chemical analysis consisted of iron, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol.
The results of erythrocyte, hemoglobin, haematocrit and leukocyte determinations were at the "lower limits of normal" in those tested following the eating of the microwaved samples.
"These results show anemic tendencies. The situation became even more pronounced during the second month of the study," Hertel added. "And with those decreasing values, there was a corresponding increase of cholesterol values."
Hertel admits that stress factors, from getting punctured for the blood samples so often each day, for example, cannot be ruled out, but the established baseline for each individual became the "zero values" marker, and only changes from the zero values were statistically determined.
With only one round of test substances completed, the different effects between conventionally prepared food and microwaved food were marginal—although noticed as definite "tendencies". As the test continued, the differences in the blood markers became "statistically significant". The changes are generally considered to be signs of stress on the body. For example, erythrocytes tended to increase after eating vegetables from the microwave oven. Hemoglobin and both of the mean concentration and content hemoglobin markers also tended to decrease significantly after eating the microwaved substances.
Leukocytosis
"Leukocytosis," Hertel explained, "which cannot be accounted for by normal daily deviations such as following the intake of food, is taken seriously by hematologists. Leukocyte response is especially sensitive to stress. They are often signs of pathogenic effects on the living system, such as poisoning and cell damage. The increase of leukocytes with the microwaved foods was more pronounced than with all the other variants. It appears that these marked increases were caused entirely by ingesting the microwaved substances."
The cholesterol markers were very interesting, Hertel stressed:
"Common scientific belief states that cholesterol values usually alter slowly over longer periods of time. In this study, the markers increased rapidly after the consumption of the microwaved vegetables. However, with milk, the cholesterol values remained the same and even decreased with the raw milk significantly."
Hertel believes his study tends to confirm newer scientific data that suggest cholesterol may rapidly increase in the blood secondary to acute stress. "Also," he added, "blood cholesterol levels are less influenced by cholesterol content of food than by stress factors. Such stress-causing factors can apparently consist of foods which contain virtually no cholesterol—the microwaved vegetables."
It is plain to see that this individually financed and conducted study has enough meat in it to make anyone with a modicum of common sense sit up and take notice. Food from the microwave oven caused abnormal changes, representing stress, to occur in the blood of all the test individuals.
Biological individuality, a key variable that makes a mockery of many allegedly scientific studies, was well accounted for by the established baselines.
So, how has the brilliant world of modern technology, medicine and 'protect the public' government reacted to this impressive effort?
A Gag Order
As soon as Hertel and Blanc announced their results, the hammer of authority slammed down on them. A powerful trade organization, the Swiss Association of Dealers for Electroapparatuses for Households and Industry, known simply as FEA, struck swiftly. They forced the President of the Court of Seftigen, Kanton Bern, to issue a 'gag order' against Hertel and Blanc. The attack was so ferocious that Blanc quickly recanted his support—but it was too late. He had already put into writing his views on the validity of the studies where he concurred with the opinion that microwaved food caused the blood abnormalities.
Hertel stood his ground, and today is steadfastly demanding his rights to a trial. Preliminary hearings on the matter have been appealed to higher courts, and it's quite obvious the powers that be do not want a 'show trial' to erupt on this issue.
In March 1993, the court handed down this decision based upon the complaint of the FEA:
"Consideration.
1. Request from the plaintiff (FEA) to prohibit the defendant (Dr Ing. Hans Hertel) from declaring that food prepared in the microwave oven shall be dangerous to health and lead to changes in the blood of consumers, giving reference to pathologic troubles as also indicative for the beginning of a cancerous process. The defendant shall be prohibited from repeating such a statement in publications and in public talks by punishment laid down in the law.
2. The jurisdiction of the judge is given according to law.
3. The active legitimacy of the plaintiff is given according to the law.
4. The passive legitimacy of the defendant is given by the fact that he is the author of the polemic published study in question, especially since the present new and revised law allows to exclude the necessity of a competitive situation, therefore delinquents may also be persons who are not co-competitors, but may damage the competing position of others by mere declarations.
Apparently, Swiss corporations have lobbied in a law that nails "delinquents" who disparage products and might do damage to commerce by such remarks. So far, the U.S. Constitution still preserves freedom of the press.
5. Considering the relevant situation it is referred to three publications: the public renunciation sic of the so-called co-author Professor Bernard Blanc, the expertise of Professor Teuber expert witness from the FEA about the above-mentioned publication, the opinion of the public health authorities with regard to the present stage of research with microwave ovens as well as to repeated statements from the side of the defendant about the danger of such ovens.
6. It is not considered of importance whether or not the polemic of the defendant meets the approval of the public, because all that is necessary is that a possibility exists that such a statement could find approval with people not being experts themselves. Also, advertising involving fear is not allowed and is always disqualified by the law. The necessity for a fast interference is in no case more advised than in the processes of competition. Basically, the defendant has the right to defend himself against such accusations. This right, however, can be denied in cases of pressing danger with regard to impairing the rights of the plaintiff when this is requested.
Court Conclusion
On grounds of this pending request of the plaintiff, the court arrives at the conclusion that because of special presuppositions as in this case, a definite disadvantage for the plaintiff does exist, which may not easily be repaired, and therefore must be considered to be of immediate danger. The case thus warrants the request of the plaintiff to be justified, even without hearing the defendant. Also, because it is not known when the defendant will bring further statements into the public.
The judge is also of the opinion that because the publications are made up to appear as scientific, and therefore especially reliable-looking, they may cause additional bad disadvantages. It must be added that there does obviously not exist a just reason for this publication because there is no public interest for pseudo-scientific unproved declarations. Finally, these ordered measures do not prove to be disproportionate.
The defendant is prohibited, under punishment of up to F5,000, or up to one year in prison, to declare that food prepared in microwave ovens is dangerous to health and leads to pathologic troubles as also indicative for the beginning of a cancerous process.
The plaintiff pays the costs.
(Signed) President of the Court of Seftigen Kraemer."
If you cannot imagine this kind of decision coming from a court in the United States, you have not been paying attention to the advances of administrative law.
Hertel defied the court and has loudly demanded a fair hearing on the truth of his claims. The court has continued to delay, dodge, appeal and avoid any media-catching confrontation. As of this writing, Hans is still waiting for a hearing with media coverage—and he's still talking and publishing his findings.
"They have not been able to intimidate me into silence, and I will not accept their conditions," Hertel declared. "I have appeared at large seminars in Germany, and the study results have been well-received. Also, I think the authorities are aware that scientists at Ciba-Geigy the world's largest pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Switzerland have vowed to support me in court."
As those powerful special interests in Switzerland who desire to sell microwave ovens by the millions continued to suppress open debate on this vital issue for modern civilization, new microwave developments blossomed in the United States.
Infant Danger
In the journal Pediatrics (vol. 89, no. 4, April 1992), there appeared an article titled, "Effects of Microwave Radiation on Anti-infective Factors in Human Milk". Richard Quan, M.D. from Dallas, Texas, was the lead name of the study team. John A. Kerner, M.D., from Stanford University, was also on the research team, and he was quoted in a summary article on the research that appeared in the 25 April 1992 issue of Science News. To get the full flavor of what may lie ahead for microwaving, here is that summary article:
"Women who work outside the home can express and store breast milk for feedings when they are away. But parents and caregivers should be careful how they warm this milk. A new study shows that microwaving human milk—even at a low setting—can destroy some of its important disease-fighting capabilities.
"Breast milk can be refrigerated safely for a few days or frozen for up to a month; however, studies have shown that heating the milk well above body temperature—37°C—can break down not only its antibodies to infectious agents, but also its lysozymes or bacteria-digesting enzymes. So, when pediatrician John A. Kerner, Jr., witnessed neonatal nurses routinely thawing or reheating breast milk with the microwave oven in their lounge, he became concerned.
"In the April 1992 issue of Pediatrics (Part I), he and his Stanford University co-workers reported finding that unheated breast milk that was microwaved lost lysozyme activity, antibodies and fostered the growth of more potentially pathogenic bacteria. Milk heated at a high setting (72°C to 98°C) lost 96 per cent of its immunoglobulin-A antibodies, agents that fend off invading microbes.
"What really surprised him, Kerner said, was finding some loss of anti-infective properties in the milk microwaved at a low setting—and to a mean of just 33.5°C. Adverse changes at such low temperatures suggest 'microwaving itself may in fact cause some injury to the milk above and beyond the heating'.
"But Randall M. Goldblum of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston disagrees, saying:
'I don't see any compelling evidence that the microwaves did any harm. It was the heating.'
Lysozyme and antibody degradation in the coolest samples may simply reflect the development of small hot spots—-potentially 60°C or above—during microwaving, noted Madeleine Sigman-Grant of Pennsylvania State University, University Park. And that's to be expected, she said, because microwave heating is inherently uneven—and quite unpredictable when volumes less than four milliliters are involved, as was the case in the Kerner's study.
"Goldblum considers use of a microwave to thaw milk an especially bad idea, since it is likely to boil some of the milk before all has even liquefied. Stanford University Medical Center no longer microwaves breast milk, Kerner notes. And that's appropriate, Sigman-Grant believes, because of the small volumes of milk that hospitals typically serve newborns—especially premature infants."
Chasing a Story
Journalist Tom Valentine, after chasing this story, found it interesting that 'scientists' have so many 'beliefs' to express rather than prove fact. Yet facts eventually snuff out credential-based conjecture.
Researcher Quan, in a phone interview, said that he believed the results of research so far warranted further detailed study of the effects of microwave cooking on nutrients. The summary sentence in an abstract of the research paper is very clear:
"Microwaving appears to be contra-indicated at high temperatures, and questions regarding its safety exist even at low temperatures."
The final statement of the study conclusion reads:
"This preliminary study suggests that microwaving human milk could be detrimental. Further studies are needed to determine whether and how microwaving could safely be done."
Unfortunately, further studies are not scheduled at this time.
If there are so many indications that the effects of microwaves on foods can degrade the foods far above the known breakdowns of standard cooking, is it not reasonable to conduct exhaustive studies on living, breathing human beings to determine if it's possible that eating microwaved foods continuously, as many people do, can be significantly detrimental to individual health?
If you wanted to introduce a herbal supplement into the American mainstream and make any health claims for it, you would be subjected to exhaustive documentation and costly research. Yet the microwave-oven industry had only to prove that the dangerous microwaves could, indeed, be contained within the oven and not escape into the surrounding area where the radiation could do damage to people. The industry must admit that some microwaves escape even in the best-made ovens. So far, not one thought has been given by the industry to the possibility that the nutrients could be so altered as to be deleterious to health.
Well, this makes sense in a land that encourages farmers to poison crops and soils with massive amounts of synthesized chemicals, and encourages food processors to use additives that enhance shelf-life of foods regardless of the potential for degrading the health of the consumer.
Extracted from NEXUS Magazine, Volume 2, #25 (April-May '95.
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. nexus@peg.apc.org
Their web page: http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/
Originally printed from the April 1994 edition of Acres, USA.
PO Box 8800, Metairie, Louisiana, 70011 USA
How many hundreds of pounds of microwaved food per capita is consumed in America each year? Are we going to continue to take it from established authority, without question, on the premise that they know best?
Back in May of 1989, after Tom Valentine first moved to St Paul, Minnesota, he heard on the car radio a short announcement that bolted him upright in the driver's seat. The announcement was sponsored by Young Families, the Minnesota Extension Service of the University of Minnesota:
"Although microwaves heat food quickly, they are not recommended for heating a baby's bottle," the announcement said. The bottle may seem cool to the touch, but the liquid inside may become extremely hot and could burn the baby's mouth and throat. Also, the buildup of steam in a closed container such as a baby's bottle could cause it to explode.
"Heating the bottle in a microwave can cause slight changes in the milk. In infant formulas, there may be a loss of some vitamins. In expressed breast milk, some protective properties may be destroyed."
The report went on.
"Warming a bottle by holding it under tap water or by setting it in a bowl of warm water, then testing it on your wrist before feeding, may take a few minutes longer, but it is much safer."
Valentine asked himself: If an established institution like the University of Minnesota can warn about the loss of particular nutrient qualities in microwaved baby formula or mother's milk, then somebody must know something about microwaving they are not telling everybody.
A Lawsuit
In early 1991, word leaked out about a lawsuit in Oklahoma. A woman named Norma Levitt had hip surgery, only to be killed by a simple blood transfusion when a nurse "warmed the blood for the transfusion in a microwave oven"!
Logic suggests that if heating or cooking is all there is to it, then it doesn't matter what mode of heating technology one uses. However, it is quite apparent that there is more to 'heating' with microwaves than we've been led to believe.
Blood for transfusions is routinely warmed-but not in microwave ovens! In the case of Mrs. Levitt, the microwaving altered the blood and it killed her.
Does it not therefore follow that this form of heating does, indeed, do 'something different' to the substances being heated? Is it not prudent to determine what that 'something different' might do?
A funny thing happened on the way to the bank with all that microwave oven revenue: nobody thought about the obvious. Only 'health nuts' who are constantly aware of the value of quality nutrition discerned a problem with the widespread 'denaturing' of our food. Enter Hans Hertel.
Hans Hertel
In the tiny town of Wattenwil, near Basel in Switzerland, there lives a scientist who is alarmed at the lack of purity and naturalness in the many pursuits of modern mankind. He worked as a food scientist for several years with one of the many major Swiss food companies that do business on a global scale. A few years ago, he was fired from his job for questioning procedures in processing food because they denatured it.
"The world needs our help," Hans Hertel told Tom Valentine as they shared a fine meal at a resort hotel in Todtmoss, Germany.
"We, the scientists, carry the main responsibility for the present unacceptable conditions. It is therefore our job to correct the situation and bring the remedy to the world. I am striving to bring man and techniques back into harmony with nature. We can have wonderful technologies without violating nature."
Hans is an intense man, driven by personal knowledge of violations of nature by corporate man and his state-supported monopolies in science, technology and education. At the same time, as the two talked, his intensity shattered into a warm smile and he spoke of the way things could be if mankind's immense talent were to work with nature and not against her.
Hans Hertel is the first scientist to conceive of and carry out a quality study on the effects of microwaved nutrients on the blood and physiology of human beings. This small but well-controlled study pointed the firm finger at a degenerative force of microwave ovens and the food produced in them. The conclusion was clear: microwave cooking changed the nutrients so that changes took place in the participants' blood; these were not healthy changes but were changes that could cause deterioration in the human systems.
Working with Bernard H. Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry, Hertel not only conceived of the study and carried it out, he was one of eight participants.
"To control as many variables as possible, we selected eight individuals who were strict macrobiotic diet participants from the Macrobiotic Institute at Kientel, Switzerland," Hertel explained. "We were all housed in the same hotel environment for eight weeks. There was no smoking, no alcohol and no sex."
One can readily see that this protocol makes sense. After all, how could you tell about subtle changes in a human's blood from eating microwaved food if smoking, booze, junk food, pollution, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and everything else in the common environment were also present?
"We had one American, one Canadian and six Europeans in the group. I was the oldest at 64 years, the others were in their 20s and 30s," Hertel added.
Valentine published the results of this study in Search for Health in the Spring of 1992. But the follow-up information is available only in a later edition, and also in Acres, USA.
In intervals of two to five days, the volunteers in the study received one of the food variants on an empty stomach. The food variants were: raw milk from a biofarm (no. 1); the same milk conventionally cooked (no. 2); pasteurized milk from Intermilk Berne (no. 3); the same raw milk cooked in a microwave oven (no. 4); raw vegetables from an organic farm (no. 5); the same vegetables cooked conventionally (no. 6); the same vegetables frozen and defrosted in the microwave oven (no. 7); and the same vegetables cooked in the microwave oven (no. 8). The overall experiment had some of the earmarks of the Pottenger cat studies, except that now human beings were test objects, the experiment's time-frame was shorter, and a new heat form was tested.
Once the volunteers were isolated at the resort hotel, the test began. Blood samples were taken from every volunteer immediately before eating. Then blood samples were taken at defined intervals after eating from the above-numbered milk or vegetable preparations.
Significant changes were discovered in the blood of the volunteers who consumed foods cooked in the microwave oven. These changes included a decrease in all hemoglobin values and cholesterol values, especially the HDL (good cholesterol) and LDL (bad cholesterol) values and ratio.
Lymphocytes (white blood cells) showed a more distinct short-term decrease following the intake of microwaved food than after the intake of all the other variants. Each of these indicators point in a direction away from robust health and toward degeneration. Additionally, there was a highly significant association between the amount of microwave energy in the test foods and the luminous power of luminescent bacteria exposed to serum from test persons who ate that food. This led Hertel to the conclusion that such technically derived energies may, indeed, be passed along to man inductively via consumption of microwaved food.
"This process is based on physical principles and has already been confirmed in the literature," Hertel explained. The apparent additional energy exhibited by the luminescent bacteria was merely extra confirmation.
"There is extensive scientific literature concerning the hazardous effects of direct microwave radiation on living systems,"
Hertel continued.
"It is astonishing, therefore, to realize how little effort has been made to replace this detrimental technique of microwaves with technology more in accordance with nature.
"Technically produced microwaves are based on the principle of alternating current. Atoms, molecules and cells hit by this hard electromagnetic radiation are forced to reverse polarity 1 to 100 billion times a second. There are no atoms, molecules or cells of any organic system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any extended period of time, not even in the low energy range of milliwatts.
"Of all the natural substances—which are polar-the oxygen of water molecules reacts most sensitively. This is how microwave cooking heat is generated—friction from this violence in water molecules. Structures of molecules are torn apart, molecules are forcefully deformed (called structural isomerism) and thus become impaired in quality.
Heating Food
"This is contrary to conventional heating of food, in which heat transfers convectionally from without to within. Cooking by microwaves begins within the cells and molecules where water is present and where the energy is transformed into frictional heat."
The question naturally arises: What about microwaves from the sun? Aren't they harmful?
Hertel responded: "The microwaves from the Sun are based on principles of pulsed direct current. These rays create no frictional heat in organic substance"
In addition to violent frictional heat effects (called thermic effects), there are also athermic effects which have hardly ever been taken into account, Hertel added.
"These athermic effects are not presently measurable, but they can also deform the structures of molecules and have qualitative consequences. For example, the weakening of cell membranes by microwaves is used in the field of gene altering technology. Because of the force involved, the cells are actually broken, thereby neutralizing the electrical potentials—the very life of the cells—between the outer and inner sides of the cell membranes. Impaired cells become easy prey for viruses, fungi and other micro-organisms. The natural repair mechanisms are suppressed, and cells are forced to adapt to a state of energy emergency: they switch from aerobic to anaerobic respiration. Instead of water and carbon dioxide, hydrogen peroxide and carbon monoxide are produced."
It has long been pointed out in the literature that any reversal of healthy cell processes may occur because of a number of reasons, and our cells then revert from a "robust oxidation" to an unhealthy "fermentation".
The same violent friction and athermic deformations that can occur in our bodies when we are subjected to radar or microwaves, happens to the molecules in the food cooked in a microwave oven. In fact, when anyone microwaves food, the oven exerts a power input of about 1,000 watts or more. This radiation results in destruction and deformation of molecules of food, and in the formation of new compounds (called radiolytic compounds) unknown to man and nature.
Today's established science and technology argues forcefully that microwaved food and irradiated foods do not have any significantly higher "radiolytic compounds" than do broiled, baked or other conventionally cooked foods—but microwaving does produce more of these critters. Curiously, neither established science nor our ever-protective government has conducted tests—on the blood of the eaters—of the effects of eating various kinds of cooked foods. Hertel and his group did test it, and the indication is clear that something is amiss and that larger studies should be funded. The apparently toxic effects of microwave cooking is another in a long list of unnatural additives in our daily diets.
However, the establishment has not taken kindly to this work.
"The first drawing of blood samples took place on an empty stomach at 7:45 each morning," Hertel explained. "The second drawing of blood took place 15 minutes after the food intake. The third drawing was two hours later."
From each sample, 50 milliliters of blood was used for the chemistry and five millimeters for the hematology and the luminescence. The hematological examinations took place immediately after drawing the samples. Erythrocytes, hemoglobin, mean hemoglobin concentration, mean hemoglobin content, leukocytes and lymphocytes were measured. The chemical analysis consisted of iron, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol.
The results of erythrocyte, hemoglobin, haematocrit and leukocyte determinations were at the "lower limits of normal" in those tested following the eating of the microwaved samples.
"These results show anemic tendencies. The situation became even more pronounced during the second month of the study," Hertel added. "And with those decreasing values, there was a corresponding increase of cholesterol values."
Hertel admits that stress factors, from getting punctured for the blood samples so often each day, for example, cannot be ruled out, but the established baseline for each individual became the "zero values" marker, and only changes from the zero values were statistically determined.
With only one round of test substances completed, the different effects between conventionally prepared food and microwaved food were marginal—although noticed as definite "tendencies". As the test continued, the differences in the blood markers became "statistically significant". The changes are generally considered to be signs of stress on the body. For example, erythrocytes tended to increase after eating vegetables from the microwave oven. Hemoglobin and both of the mean concentration and content hemoglobin markers also tended to decrease significantly after eating the microwaved substances.
Leukocytosis
"Leukocytosis," Hertel explained, "which cannot be accounted for by normal daily deviations such as following the intake of food, is taken seriously by hematologists. Leukocyte response is especially sensitive to stress. They are often signs of pathogenic effects on the living system, such as poisoning and cell damage. The increase of leukocytes with the microwaved foods was more pronounced than with all the other variants. It appears that these marked increases were caused entirely by ingesting the microwaved substances."
The cholesterol markers were very interesting, Hertel stressed:
"Common scientific belief states that cholesterol values usually alter slowly over longer periods of time. In this study, the markers increased rapidly after the consumption of the microwaved vegetables. However, with milk, the cholesterol values remained the same and even decreased with the raw milk significantly."
Hertel believes his study tends to confirm newer scientific data that suggest cholesterol may rapidly increase in the blood secondary to acute stress. "Also," he added, "blood cholesterol levels are less influenced by cholesterol content of food than by stress factors. Such stress-causing factors can apparently consist of foods which contain virtually no cholesterol—the microwaved vegetables."
It is plain to see that this individually financed and conducted study has enough meat in it to make anyone with a modicum of common sense sit up and take notice. Food from the microwave oven caused abnormal changes, representing stress, to occur in the blood of all the test individuals.
Biological individuality, a key variable that makes a mockery of many allegedly scientific studies, was well accounted for by the established baselines.
So, how has the brilliant world of modern technology, medicine and 'protect the public' government reacted to this impressive effort?
A Gag Order
As soon as Hertel and Blanc announced their results, the hammer of authority slammed down on them. A powerful trade organization, the Swiss Association of Dealers for Electroapparatuses for Households and Industry, known simply as FEA, struck swiftly. They forced the President of the Court of Seftigen, Kanton Bern, to issue a 'gag order' against Hertel and Blanc. The attack was so ferocious that Blanc quickly recanted his support—but it was too late. He had already put into writing his views on the validity of the studies where he concurred with the opinion that microwaved food caused the blood abnormalities.
Hertel stood his ground, and today is steadfastly demanding his rights to a trial. Preliminary hearings on the matter have been appealed to higher courts, and it's quite obvious the powers that be do not want a 'show trial' to erupt on this issue.
In March 1993, the court handed down this decision based upon the complaint of the FEA:
"Consideration.
1. Request from the plaintiff (FEA) to prohibit the defendant (Dr Ing. Hans Hertel) from declaring that food prepared in the microwave oven shall be dangerous to health and lead to changes in the blood of consumers, giving reference to pathologic troubles as also indicative for the beginning of a cancerous process. The defendant shall be prohibited from repeating such a statement in publications and in public talks by punishment laid down in the law.
2. The jurisdiction of the judge is given according to law.
3. The active legitimacy of the plaintiff is given according to the law.
4. The passive legitimacy of the defendant is given by the fact that he is the author of the polemic published study in question, especially since the present new and revised law allows to exclude the necessity of a competitive situation, therefore delinquents may also be persons who are not co-competitors, but may damage the competing position of others by mere declarations.
Apparently, Swiss corporations have lobbied in a law that nails "delinquents" who disparage products and might do damage to commerce by such remarks. So far, the U.S. Constitution still preserves freedom of the press.
5. Considering the relevant situation it is referred to three publications: the public renunciation sic of the so-called co-author Professor Bernard Blanc, the expertise of Professor Teuber expert witness from the FEA about the above-mentioned publication, the opinion of the public health authorities with regard to the present stage of research with microwave ovens as well as to repeated statements from the side of the defendant about the danger of such ovens.
6. It is not considered of importance whether or not the polemic of the defendant meets the approval of the public, because all that is necessary is that a possibility exists that such a statement could find approval with people not being experts themselves. Also, advertising involving fear is not allowed and is always disqualified by the law. The necessity for a fast interference is in no case more advised than in the processes of competition. Basically, the defendant has the right to defend himself against such accusations. This right, however, can be denied in cases of pressing danger with regard to impairing the rights of the plaintiff when this is requested.
Court Conclusion
On grounds of this pending request of the plaintiff, the court arrives at the conclusion that because of special presuppositions as in this case, a definite disadvantage for the plaintiff does exist, which may not easily be repaired, and therefore must be considered to be of immediate danger. The case thus warrants the request of the plaintiff to be justified, even without hearing the defendant. Also, because it is not known when the defendant will bring further statements into the public.
The judge is also of the opinion that because the publications are made up to appear as scientific, and therefore especially reliable-looking, they may cause additional bad disadvantages. It must be added that there does obviously not exist a just reason for this publication because there is no public interest for pseudo-scientific unproved declarations. Finally, these ordered measures do not prove to be disproportionate.
The defendant is prohibited, under punishment of up to F5,000, or up to one year in prison, to declare that food prepared in microwave ovens is dangerous to health and leads to pathologic troubles as also indicative for the beginning of a cancerous process.
The plaintiff pays the costs.
(Signed) President of the Court of Seftigen Kraemer."
If you cannot imagine this kind of decision coming from a court in the United States, you have not been paying attention to the advances of administrative law.
Hertel defied the court and has loudly demanded a fair hearing on the truth of his claims. The court has continued to delay, dodge, appeal and avoid any media-catching confrontation. As of this writing, Hans is still waiting for a hearing with media coverage—and he's still talking and publishing his findings.
"They have not been able to intimidate me into silence, and I will not accept their conditions," Hertel declared. "I have appeared at large seminars in Germany, and the study results have been well-received. Also, I think the authorities are aware that scientists at Ciba-Geigy the world's largest pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Switzerland have vowed to support me in court."
As those powerful special interests in Switzerland who desire to sell microwave ovens by the millions continued to suppress open debate on this vital issue for modern civilization, new microwave developments blossomed in the United States.
Infant Danger
In the journal Pediatrics (vol. 89, no. 4, April 1992), there appeared an article titled, "Effects of Microwave Radiation on Anti-infective Factors in Human Milk". Richard Quan, M.D. from Dallas, Texas, was the lead name of the study team. John A. Kerner, M.D., from Stanford University, was also on the research team, and he was quoted in a summary article on the research that appeared in the 25 April 1992 issue of Science News. To get the full flavor of what may lie ahead for microwaving, here is that summary article:
"Women who work outside the home can express and store breast milk for feedings when they are away. But parents and caregivers should be careful how they warm this milk. A new study shows that microwaving human milk—even at a low setting—can destroy some of its important disease-fighting capabilities.
"Breast milk can be refrigerated safely for a few days or frozen for up to a month; however, studies have shown that heating the milk well above body temperature—37°C—can break down not only its antibodies to infectious agents, but also its lysozymes or bacteria-digesting enzymes. So, when pediatrician John A. Kerner, Jr., witnessed neonatal nurses routinely thawing or reheating breast milk with the microwave oven in their lounge, he became concerned.
"In the April 1992 issue of Pediatrics (Part I), he and his Stanford University co-workers reported finding that unheated breast milk that was microwaved lost lysozyme activity, antibodies and fostered the growth of more potentially pathogenic bacteria. Milk heated at a high setting (72°C to 98°C) lost 96 per cent of its immunoglobulin-A antibodies, agents that fend off invading microbes.
"What really surprised him, Kerner said, was finding some loss of anti-infective properties in the milk microwaved at a low setting—and to a mean of just 33.5°C. Adverse changes at such low temperatures suggest 'microwaving itself may in fact cause some injury to the milk above and beyond the heating'.
"But Randall M. Goldblum of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston disagrees, saying:
'I don't see any compelling evidence that the microwaves did any harm. It was the heating.'
Lysozyme and antibody degradation in the coolest samples may simply reflect the development of small hot spots—-potentially 60°C or above—during microwaving, noted Madeleine Sigman-Grant of Pennsylvania State University, University Park. And that's to be expected, she said, because microwave heating is inherently uneven—and quite unpredictable when volumes less than four milliliters are involved, as was the case in the Kerner's study.
"Goldblum considers use of a microwave to thaw milk an especially bad idea, since it is likely to boil some of the milk before all has even liquefied. Stanford University Medical Center no longer microwaves breast milk, Kerner notes. And that's appropriate, Sigman-Grant believes, because of the small volumes of milk that hospitals typically serve newborns—especially premature infants."
Chasing a Story
Journalist Tom Valentine, after chasing this story, found it interesting that 'scientists' have so many 'beliefs' to express rather than prove fact. Yet facts eventually snuff out credential-based conjecture.
Researcher Quan, in a phone interview, said that he believed the results of research so far warranted further detailed study of the effects of microwave cooking on nutrients. The summary sentence in an abstract of the research paper is very clear:
"Microwaving appears to be contra-indicated at high temperatures, and questions regarding its safety exist even at low temperatures."
The final statement of the study conclusion reads:
"This preliminary study suggests that microwaving human milk could be detrimental. Further studies are needed to determine whether and how microwaving could safely be done."
Unfortunately, further studies are not scheduled at this time.
If there are so many indications that the effects of microwaves on foods can degrade the foods far above the known breakdowns of standard cooking, is it not reasonable to conduct exhaustive studies on living, breathing human beings to determine if it's possible that eating microwaved foods continuously, as many people do, can be significantly detrimental to individual health?
If you wanted to introduce a herbal supplement into the American mainstream and make any health claims for it, you would be subjected to exhaustive documentation and costly research. Yet the microwave-oven industry had only to prove that the dangerous microwaves could, indeed, be contained within the oven and not escape into the surrounding area where the radiation could do damage to people. The industry must admit that some microwaves escape even in the best-made ovens. So far, not one thought has been given by the industry to the possibility that the nutrients could be so altered as to be deleterious to health.
Well, this makes sense in a land that encourages farmers to poison crops and soils with massive amounts of synthesized chemicals, and encourages food processors to use additives that enhance shelf-life of foods regardless of the potential for degrading the health of the consumer.
Extracted from NEXUS Magazine, Volume 2, #25 (April-May '95.
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. nexus@peg.apc.org
Their web page: http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/
Originally printed from the April 1994 edition of Acres, USA.
PO Box 8800, Metairie, Louisiana, 70011 USA
How many hundreds of pounds of microwaved food per capita is consumed in America each year? Are we going to continue to take it from established authority, without question, on the premise that they know best?
THE VITAMIN C FANATICS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Labeled as “health fanatics” and “vitamin whackos,” the users of mega-dose vitamin C pills are about to be vindicated. No more hiding their vitamin C pills from their doctors. No more condescending glances from their friends when they say they are taking a few grams of vitamin C every day. According to newly revealed science, the belittled mega-dose vitamin C users may be purchasing the cheapest and most effective health insurance one can buy.
The prevalent belief is that vitamin C is an essential nutrient but excessive amounts consumed from mega-dose vitamin pills produce expensive urine since excesses are excreted. This flawed idea emanates from studies conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1996. [Proceedings Natl Acad Sci 93:14344-8, 1996] Ever since then physicians, pharmacists, dietitians and other health practitioners have echoed the same mistaken chorus --- you’re wasting your money by taking mega-dose vitamin C pills.
Health authorities claim mega-dose vitamin C pills are worthless
The current Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin C, 75 milligrams for males, 90 milligrams for females, and an additional 35 mg for smokers, is based on the amount of vitamin C needed to prevent a person from getting scurvy and provide body stores for about 30 days, with a margin of safety. [Proceedings Natl Academy Sciences 98: 9842-46, 2001] An NIH press release states “at 200 mg oral intake, blood plasma had more than 80 percent maximal concentration of vitamin C and tissues were completely saturated. Doses of 500 mg and higher are completely excreted in urine.” [National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH Press release April 15, 1996]
A study conducted by NIH investigators emphatically states that doses of supplemental vitamin C above 200 milligrams daily are “nearly completely excreted in urine.” Furthermore, the concentration of ascorbic acid (the technical name for vitamin C) in blood plasma never exceeds much more than 70-85 micromole per deciliter of blood regardless of the dosage of vitamin C consumed, so said NIH researchers. [Biofactors 15: 71-74, 2001] (Micromole is a measure of concentration of substances in liquids.) So NIH investigators assert 5 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables provide about 200 milligrams of vitamin C and that the diet should be sufficient to reach optimal blood levels. Vitamin C pills are not required, period.
What about the half life?
This is not so, says a new book, Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C,* written by Drs. Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts, University of Manchester graduates in pharmacology in England. The book exposes the many flaws involved in the establishment of the Recommended Daily Allowance for vitamin C, and the revelations are alarming. Millions of people could have delayed or avoided health problems such as cataracts, cancer, blood vessel disease, aneurysms, gall stones and more had NIH researchers properly conducted tests to determine the human need for vitamin C.
Hickey and Roberts note indisputable flaws in the RDA for vitamin C. NIH scientists waited 12 hours before measuring the concentration of ascorbic acid in the blood circulation to develop an RDA for 280 million people. Hickey and Roberts show that NIH investigators failed to calculate for the half life of vitamin C, which is about 30 minutes in humans. (The half life is the time it takes for something to disappear from the human body.) “To be blunt,” says Hickey, “the NIH gave a dose of vitamin C, waited until it had been excreted, and then measured blood levels.” Then, 24 half-lives later, NIH researchers concluded this was the saturation level.
Other flaws
It’s also obvious there weren’t enough subjects tested to develop adequate conclusions. The NIH only studied 7 and 15 subject in the two studies they used to develop the RDA. Also, there was the false assumption that concentrations of vitamin C in blood plasma reflect the need for vitamin C in other tissues throughout the body. The brain has ten times greater vitamin C concentration than the blood plasma. A 1991 study found that 2000 mg of daily vitamin C increased vitamin C levels by 22-32 percent in the human eye over levels achieved by taking 148 milligrams.
RDA itself is misleading
Furthermore, the RDA itself is misleading because it is intended to set a level of nutrient consumption that would prevent disease (scurvy) among the vast majority (95%+) of the population. The RDA for vitamin C is established for healthy people. Yet smokers (50 million), estrogen or birth control pill users (13 million and 18 million), diabetics (16 million), pregnant females (4 million) and people taking aspirin (inestimable millions) or other drugs, have increased need for vitamin C and comprise more than 35 percent of the population. The current RDA wouldn’t meet the needs of these large subpopulations. Every time the RDA is printed on dietary supplements and food labels it should be accompanied by an asterisk that *This RDA intake level was established for healthy people only and it is likely more vitamin C may be needed by smokers, diabetics, senior adults, pregnant females, and individuals taking certain medications (steroids, estrogen, birth control pills, aspirin).
How did NIH researchers box themselves into a corner?
How did the NIH researchers so emphatically claim that mega-dose vitamin C was worthless and then later box themselves into a corner with their own data? What NIH researchers set out to do was further investigate the difference between oral and intravenous absorption of vitamin C. Their report, which was published in the March 2004 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, contradicted their earlier published studies.
Dr. Linus Pauling vindicated
First, the study revealed that concentrations of vitamin C in blood plasma are six times greater when given intravenously over oral doses (885 vs 134 micromolar concentration). This caused the investigators to suggest intravenous vitamin C may achieve concentrations that “might have antitumor activity” and that the “role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should be evaluated.” [Annals Internal Medicine, April 6, Volume 140: pages 533-37, 2004] Heavens to Betsy! This revelation validated the work of Dr. Linus Pauling who used intravenous vitamin C to more than double the survival rates among terminal cancer patients in 1976. [Proc Natl Acad Sci 73:3685-9, 1976] Later Dr. Pauling’s published studies using intravenous vitamin C were discredited by Mayo Clinic researchers. The news media missed this important story. It should have made worldwide headlines, particularly because oncologists have not been able to significantly improve survival times for cancer for the past few decades.
The second half of the study
Second, the comparative oral-dosing data in the Annals of Internal Medicine study revealed a more important shocker. When 3000 milligrams was given orally every 4 hours, concentrations were nearly three times greater (220 micromole) than what was believed to be the maximum that could be achieved through oral consumption (70-85 micromole). What happened to the claim that that body tightly controls blood plasma vitamin C concentrations with excesses dumped into urine? In the researchers own words, “single one gram supplement doses can produce transient plasma concentrations that are 2 to 3-fold higher than those from vitamin C-rich foods (200-300 milligrams daily)!” Hold your horses. The NIH researchers should have retracted previously published papers, asking medical journal editors to publish erratum, and they should have called for a re-evaluation of the RDA for vitamin C. This didn’t happen, says Hickey.
In March of 2004 another scientific paper was being published, again co-authored by NIH researchers, which remarkably showed that 2000 milligrams of oral vitamin C produced 143 micromole concentrations in blood plasma. The researchers remarked that numbers rose even among subjects with already had relatively high blood concentrations (87 micromole). Plasma concentrations rose progressively with increasing vitamin C doses up to 1000 milligrams per day! [Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 423, 109-115, 2004] The researchers concluded that “optimizing vitamin C intake appears warranted” given the relationship of low vitamin C status with stroke, coronary heart disease, cancer and brain disease.
NIH researchers said blood plasma concentrations cannot reach beyond 70-85 micromole from oral vitamin C because amounts over 200 milligrams per day are excreted in the urine. But the above chart, reproduced from an NIH study reveals that oral vitamin C attained 220 micromole concentrations in blood plasma, three times greater than what the National Institutes of Health said could not be achieved.
The impact of a bogus RDA
These revelations are likely to have a far-reaching impact beyond the RDA. The U.S. is deliberating approval of a worldwide trade agreement known as CODEX which would restrict essential nutrients in dietary supplements to certain minimums and maximums (the so-called safe upper limit), which are based upon an obviously flawed RDA. The CODEX vote must now be halted until this matter over the validity of the RDA for vitamin C is clarified.
A reversal the vitamin supplement nay-sayers may never live down
Such a reversal of events is likely to awaken the polarized camps that advocate or oppose high-dose vitamin C supplementation. For example, Quackwatch advises consumers that among things to watch for in detecting health quackery are claims that the RDAs are too low. Up till now, every health practitioner who espoused mega-dose vitamin C therapy has been labeled as a quack. Now the vitamin C advocates are likely to go on the offensive. [Twenty-Five Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers, Stephen Barrett, M.D., Victor Herbert, M.D., J.D.]
Here is a quotation from a university-based website which describes a prevalent attitude by scientists about vitamin supplements:
“Vitamin hucksters spend millions promoting fear that you are not getting enough vitamins and minerals. They recommend vitamin, mineral and nutritional supplements as ‘vitamin insurance.’ The American Dietetic Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council and other major medical societies all agree that you should get the vitamins and minerals you need through a well-balanced diet.”
There is going be an adjustment period required for sure. How will the vitamin C nay sayers live this down?
The greater tragedy
In retrospect, now that it is apparent the RDA for vitamin C is flawed, the greater tragedy lies in the effect vitamin C supplementation could have upon mortality rates. An epidemiological study published by the NIH in the year 2000 showed that adults whose blood plasma concentrations exceeded the 73.8 micromole level experienced a 57 percent reduced risk of dying from any cause and a 62 percent reduced relative risk of dying of cancer when compared to adults who consumed low amounts of vitamin C (28 micromole). [Am J Clinical Nutrition 72: 139-45, 2000]
Another study found that for every 500 microgram increase in blood serum concentration of vitamin C an 11 percent reduction in coronary heart disease and stroke prevalence could be anticipated. [Epideminology 9: 316-21, 1998] Now that we know that much higher blood concentrations of ascorbic acid can be achieved through oral consumption than previously recognized, Dr. Hickey estimates 500 milligrams of vitamin C taken orally in 5 divided doses every three waking hours daily (2500 mg total per day) could reduce the cardiovascular mortality risk by 55 percent compared to people consuming low doses of vitamin C!
Millions of Americans have been misled by health authorities and have received errant advice in the development of their personal health regimens. Consumers read labels on vitamin bottles which said it supplied “100 percent of the RDA” and believe that is all they needed to stay healthy. This no longer holds for vitamin C. Consumers are likely to be angry once these revelations are aired in public.
Calculating the aftermath of the error
Aside from the decreased risk for cardiovascular disease and cancer, what else would have happened had the RDA for vitamin C be set much higher, an RDA for optimal health, like the 2500 mg per day in divided doses as suggested by Drs. Hickey and Roberts?
Had the public responded to this knowledge in a widespread manner and begun to consume vitamin C pill en masse, one could expect all manner of human disease to decline. For example, the incidence of cataracts would likely drop significantly, or at least they would be delayed by quite a few years. [J Clinical Epidemiology 52: 1207-11, 1999; Am J Clin Nutrition 66: 911-16, 1997] Arthritic symptoms would diminish in the population at large due to the maintenance of collagen. [Arthritis Rheumatism 39: 648-56, 1996] Rates of skin cancer might drop. The number of days in a year that people would be hampered with cold symptoms might be reduced, which would likely improve productivity in society overall. [Advances Therapy 19: 151-59, 2002] Viral eruptions such as herpes and SARS would be better controlled or even averted. [J Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 52: 1049-50, 2003] Smokers might live longer and not exhibit much of the pathology they develop. [J Am College Nutrition 22: 372-78, 2003] Rates of gall bladder disease would drop by about 25 percent. [J Clinical Epidemiology 51: 257-65, 1998] The incidence of aortic aneurysms (bulging and possible rupture) would be virtually eliminated. [Med Sci Monitor 10: 1-4, 2004]
A study published in the March 2004 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology indicates males taking high-dose vitamin C exhibit 2.68 times less calcification in their arteries compared to males who consume low doses of vitamin C. The risk for angina among adults who consume significant amounts of alcohol would be cut in half. [Ann Epidemiology. 9: 358-65, 1999] One study concluded that 3000 mg of oral vitamin C daily even increases the frequency of sexual intercourse. [Biological Psychiatry. 2002 52:371-4, 2002]
All of these potential health benefits can only be achieved with consumption of vitamin C at levels exceeding what the best diet provides. For taking just ¼ teaspoon of vitamin C five times a day, at an estimated cost of 25 cents per day, Americans can achieve a level of health never achieved by large populations groups.
Inexplicably, Linus Pauling scientists agree with current RDA
Surprisingly, researchers at the Linus Pauling Institute haven’t fully bought into the idea yet that high-dose vitamin C may produce exceptional health benefits. Instead, they followed along with the errant NIH recommendations. Anita Carr, a research associate with the Linus Pauling Institute, says this about the current RDA for vitamin C: "Based upon a preliminary review of many studies done over the past 15 years, a number that seems to stand out right now is about 100 milligrams per day." [Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University, June 2, 1998] Dr. Linus Pauling supplemented his diet with about 6000 milligrams of vitamin C daily.
Safety not an issue
Safety is not an issue when it comes to mega-dose vitamin C supplements. Eight placebo-controlled, double-blind studies and six non-placebo controlled clinical trials in whih up to 10,000 milligrams of vitamin C was consumed daily for up to three years, confirm the safety of vitamin C pills in excess of the RDA. [J Am College Nutrition 14: 124-36, 1995] Frequent allegations are made that vitamin C supplements may increase the risk of kidney stones, but are poorly founded. Additionally, the false notion that withdrawal from high-dose vitamin C may cause “rebound scurvy” has also been dispelled. While vitamin C increases the absorption of iron, it has not been shown to induce iron overload in humans. [Nutrition Reviews 57: 71-77, 1999]
Vitamin C supplement users
The question is, do Americans consume enough vitamin C for optimal health? Vitamin C is the most common dietary supplement consumed by American consumers. About 45 percent of dietary supplements used by consumers contain vitamin C. [Archives Family Medicine 9: 258-62, 2000] A 1990 report indicates the average intake of vitamin C from supplements is about 60 milligrams, however, about 5 to 10 percent of supplement users (about 2 percent of the US population) consume more than 1000 mg from pills. [Am J Epidemiology 132: 1091-101, 1990]
The blood plasma vitamin C concentration among vitamin C supplement users is about 60 to 70 percent higher than adults who do not take supplements (75-80 vs. 45-50 micromole). [J Am College Nutrition 13: 22-32, 1994] A daily intake of 1000 mg is needed to maintain plasma vitamin C concentration in the range of 75-80 micromole. Only 4.2 percent of the US population 3 to 74 years of age is likely to have plasma vitamin C levels above the 80 micromole point. [National Health Survey, Series 11, No. 232, DHHS Publication No 83-1682, 1982]
One widely acclaimed study published in 1992 indicated that vitamin C, in oral doses exceeding 750 milligrams per day, increased the lifespan of males by about 6 years. [Epidemiology 3: 194-202, 1992]
For optimal health, what is overlooked is the half life of vitamin C and the importance of divided doses that Drs. Hickey and Roberts now emphasize in order to achieve steady blood levels. Health minded consumers owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Hickey and Roberts for breaking ranks among scientists who appear to be frozen in their tracks. Despite recently published data that stands in stark contrast to the RDA and the claim that mega-dose vitamin C supplementation is of no benefit, public health authorities are not forthcoming about their past mistakes. The RDA for vitamin C must be re-evaluated. Mega-dose vitamin C supplementation should no longer be demeaned. Hickey and Roberts have confronted the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institutes of Medicine directly, with little success. Now they are taking the issue to the public in their newly released book. Only the public’s demand for reform is likely to overcome inaction by health authorities. Everyone needs to read Hickey and Roberts’ book. ####
By Bill Sardi
Copyright 2004 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.
*Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, Steve Hickey, Hilary Roberts, e-book and softcover, 264 pages, referenced, 2004, available at www.lulu.com/ascorbate
The prevalent belief is that vitamin C is an essential nutrient but excessive amounts consumed from mega-dose vitamin pills produce expensive urine since excesses are excreted. This flawed idea emanates from studies conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1996. [Proceedings Natl Acad Sci 93:14344-8, 1996] Ever since then physicians, pharmacists, dietitians and other health practitioners have echoed the same mistaken chorus --- you’re wasting your money by taking mega-dose vitamin C pills.
Health authorities claim mega-dose vitamin C pills are worthless
The current Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin C, 75 milligrams for males, 90 milligrams for females, and an additional 35 mg for smokers, is based on the amount of vitamin C needed to prevent a person from getting scurvy and provide body stores for about 30 days, with a margin of safety. [Proceedings Natl Academy Sciences 98: 9842-46, 2001] An NIH press release states “at 200 mg oral intake, blood plasma had more than 80 percent maximal concentration of vitamin C and tissues were completely saturated. Doses of 500 mg and higher are completely excreted in urine.” [National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH Press release April 15, 1996]
A study conducted by NIH investigators emphatically states that doses of supplemental vitamin C above 200 milligrams daily are “nearly completely excreted in urine.” Furthermore, the concentration of ascorbic acid (the technical name for vitamin C) in blood plasma never exceeds much more than 70-85 micromole per deciliter of blood regardless of the dosage of vitamin C consumed, so said NIH researchers. [Biofactors 15: 71-74, 2001] (Micromole is a measure of concentration of substances in liquids.) So NIH investigators assert 5 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables provide about 200 milligrams of vitamin C and that the diet should be sufficient to reach optimal blood levels. Vitamin C pills are not required, period.
What about the half life?
This is not so, says a new book, Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C,* written by Drs. Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts, University of Manchester graduates in pharmacology in England. The book exposes the many flaws involved in the establishment of the Recommended Daily Allowance for vitamin C, and the revelations are alarming. Millions of people could have delayed or avoided health problems such as cataracts, cancer, blood vessel disease, aneurysms, gall stones and more had NIH researchers properly conducted tests to determine the human need for vitamin C.
Hickey and Roberts note indisputable flaws in the RDA for vitamin C. NIH scientists waited 12 hours before measuring the concentration of ascorbic acid in the blood circulation to develop an RDA for 280 million people. Hickey and Roberts show that NIH investigators failed to calculate for the half life of vitamin C, which is about 30 minutes in humans. (The half life is the time it takes for something to disappear from the human body.) “To be blunt,” says Hickey, “the NIH gave a dose of vitamin C, waited until it had been excreted, and then measured blood levels.” Then, 24 half-lives later, NIH researchers concluded this was the saturation level.
Other flaws
It’s also obvious there weren’t enough subjects tested to develop adequate conclusions. The NIH only studied 7 and 15 subject in the two studies they used to develop the RDA. Also, there was the false assumption that concentrations of vitamin C in blood plasma reflect the need for vitamin C in other tissues throughout the body. The brain has ten times greater vitamin C concentration than the blood plasma. A 1991 study found that 2000 mg of daily vitamin C increased vitamin C levels by 22-32 percent in the human eye over levels achieved by taking 148 milligrams.
RDA itself is misleading
Furthermore, the RDA itself is misleading because it is intended to set a level of nutrient consumption that would prevent disease (scurvy) among the vast majority (95%+) of the population. The RDA for vitamin C is established for healthy people. Yet smokers (50 million), estrogen or birth control pill users (13 million and 18 million), diabetics (16 million), pregnant females (4 million) and people taking aspirin (inestimable millions) or other drugs, have increased need for vitamin C and comprise more than 35 percent of the population. The current RDA wouldn’t meet the needs of these large subpopulations. Every time the RDA is printed on dietary supplements and food labels it should be accompanied by an asterisk that *This RDA intake level was established for healthy people only and it is likely more vitamin C may be needed by smokers, diabetics, senior adults, pregnant females, and individuals taking certain medications (steroids, estrogen, birth control pills, aspirin).
How did NIH researchers box themselves into a corner?
How did the NIH researchers so emphatically claim that mega-dose vitamin C was worthless and then later box themselves into a corner with their own data? What NIH researchers set out to do was further investigate the difference between oral and intravenous absorption of vitamin C. Their report, which was published in the March 2004 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, contradicted their earlier published studies.
Dr. Linus Pauling vindicated
First, the study revealed that concentrations of vitamin C in blood plasma are six times greater when given intravenously over oral doses (885 vs 134 micromolar concentration). This caused the investigators to suggest intravenous vitamin C may achieve concentrations that “might have antitumor activity” and that the “role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should be evaluated.” [Annals Internal Medicine, April 6, Volume 140: pages 533-37, 2004] Heavens to Betsy! This revelation validated the work of Dr. Linus Pauling who used intravenous vitamin C to more than double the survival rates among terminal cancer patients in 1976. [Proc Natl Acad Sci 73:3685-9, 1976] Later Dr. Pauling’s published studies using intravenous vitamin C were discredited by Mayo Clinic researchers. The news media missed this important story. It should have made worldwide headlines, particularly because oncologists have not been able to significantly improve survival times for cancer for the past few decades.
The second half of the study
Second, the comparative oral-dosing data in the Annals of Internal Medicine study revealed a more important shocker. When 3000 milligrams was given orally every 4 hours, concentrations were nearly three times greater (220 micromole) than what was believed to be the maximum that could be achieved through oral consumption (70-85 micromole). What happened to the claim that that body tightly controls blood plasma vitamin C concentrations with excesses dumped into urine? In the researchers own words, “single one gram supplement doses can produce transient plasma concentrations that are 2 to 3-fold higher than those from vitamin C-rich foods (200-300 milligrams daily)!” Hold your horses. The NIH researchers should have retracted previously published papers, asking medical journal editors to publish erratum, and they should have called for a re-evaluation of the RDA for vitamin C. This didn’t happen, says Hickey.
In March of 2004 another scientific paper was being published, again co-authored by NIH researchers, which remarkably showed that 2000 milligrams of oral vitamin C produced 143 micromole concentrations in blood plasma. The researchers remarked that numbers rose even among subjects with already had relatively high blood concentrations (87 micromole). Plasma concentrations rose progressively with increasing vitamin C doses up to 1000 milligrams per day! [Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 423, 109-115, 2004] The researchers concluded that “optimizing vitamin C intake appears warranted” given the relationship of low vitamin C status with stroke, coronary heart disease, cancer and brain disease.
NIH researchers said blood plasma concentrations cannot reach beyond 70-85 micromole from oral vitamin C because amounts over 200 milligrams per day are excreted in the urine. But the above chart, reproduced from an NIH study reveals that oral vitamin C attained 220 micromole concentrations in blood plasma, three times greater than what the National Institutes of Health said could not be achieved.
The impact of a bogus RDA
These revelations are likely to have a far-reaching impact beyond the RDA. The U.S. is deliberating approval of a worldwide trade agreement known as CODEX which would restrict essential nutrients in dietary supplements to certain minimums and maximums (the so-called safe upper limit), which are based upon an obviously flawed RDA. The CODEX vote must now be halted until this matter over the validity of the RDA for vitamin C is clarified.
A reversal the vitamin supplement nay-sayers may never live down
Such a reversal of events is likely to awaken the polarized camps that advocate or oppose high-dose vitamin C supplementation. For example, Quackwatch advises consumers that among things to watch for in detecting health quackery are claims that the RDAs are too low. Up till now, every health practitioner who espoused mega-dose vitamin C therapy has been labeled as a quack. Now the vitamin C advocates are likely to go on the offensive. [Twenty-Five Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers, Stephen Barrett, M.D., Victor Herbert, M.D., J.D.]
Here is a quotation from a university-based website which describes a prevalent attitude by scientists about vitamin supplements:
“Vitamin hucksters spend millions promoting fear that you are not getting enough vitamins and minerals. They recommend vitamin, mineral and nutritional supplements as ‘vitamin insurance.’ The American Dietetic Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council and other major medical societies all agree that you should get the vitamins and minerals you need through a well-balanced diet.”
There is going be an adjustment period required for sure. How will the vitamin C nay sayers live this down?
The greater tragedy
In retrospect, now that it is apparent the RDA for vitamin C is flawed, the greater tragedy lies in the effect vitamin C supplementation could have upon mortality rates. An epidemiological study published by the NIH in the year 2000 showed that adults whose blood plasma concentrations exceeded the 73.8 micromole level experienced a 57 percent reduced risk of dying from any cause and a 62 percent reduced relative risk of dying of cancer when compared to adults who consumed low amounts of vitamin C (28 micromole). [Am J Clinical Nutrition 72: 139-45, 2000]
Another study found that for every 500 microgram increase in blood serum concentration of vitamin C an 11 percent reduction in coronary heart disease and stroke prevalence could be anticipated. [Epideminology 9: 316-21, 1998] Now that we know that much higher blood concentrations of ascorbic acid can be achieved through oral consumption than previously recognized, Dr. Hickey estimates 500 milligrams of vitamin C taken orally in 5 divided doses every three waking hours daily (2500 mg total per day) could reduce the cardiovascular mortality risk by 55 percent compared to people consuming low doses of vitamin C!
Millions of Americans have been misled by health authorities and have received errant advice in the development of their personal health regimens. Consumers read labels on vitamin bottles which said it supplied “100 percent of the RDA” and believe that is all they needed to stay healthy. This no longer holds for vitamin C. Consumers are likely to be angry once these revelations are aired in public.
Calculating the aftermath of the error
Aside from the decreased risk for cardiovascular disease and cancer, what else would have happened had the RDA for vitamin C be set much higher, an RDA for optimal health, like the 2500 mg per day in divided doses as suggested by Drs. Hickey and Roberts?
Had the public responded to this knowledge in a widespread manner and begun to consume vitamin C pill en masse, one could expect all manner of human disease to decline. For example, the incidence of cataracts would likely drop significantly, or at least they would be delayed by quite a few years. [J Clinical Epidemiology 52: 1207-11, 1999; Am J Clin Nutrition 66: 911-16, 1997] Arthritic symptoms would diminish in the population at large due to the maintenance of collagen. [Arthritis Rheumatism 39: 648-56, 1996] Rates of skin cancer might drop. The number of days in a year that people would be hampered with cold symptoms might be reduced, which would likely improve productivity in society overall. [Advances Therapy 19: 151-59, 2002] Viral eruptions such as herpes and SARS would be better controlled or even averted. [J Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 52: 1049-50, 2003] Smokers might live longer and not exhibit much of the pathology they develop. [J Am College Nutrition 22: 372-78, 2003] Rates of gall bladder disease would drop by about 25 percent. [J Clinical Epidemiology 51: 257-65, 1998] The incidence of aortic aneurysms (bulging and possible rupture) would be virtually eliminated. [Med Sci Monitor 10: 1-4, 2004]
A study published in the March 2004 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology indicates males taking high-dose vitamin C exhibit 2.68 times less calcification in their arteries compared to males who consume low doses of vitamin C. The risk for angina among adults who consume significant amounts of alcohol would be cut in half. [Ann Epidemiology. 9: 358-65, 1999] One study concluded that 3000 mg of oral vitamin C daily even increases the frequency of sexual intercourse. [Biological Psychiatry. 2002 52:371-4, 2002]
All of these potential health benefits can only be achieved with consumption of vitamin C at levels exceeding what the best diet provides. For taking just ¼ teaspoon of vitamin C five times a day, at an estimated cost of 25 cents per day, Americans can achieve a level of health never achieved by large populations groups.
Inexplicably, Linus Pauling scientists agree with current RDA
Surprisingly, researchers at the Linus Pauling Institute haven’t fully bought into the idea yet that high-dose vitamin C may produce exceptional health benefits. Instead, they followed along with the errant NIH recommendations. Anita Carr, a research associate with the Linus Pauling Institute, says this about the current RDA for vitamin C: "Based upon a preliminary review of many studies done over the past 15 years, a number that seems to stand out right now is about 100 milligrams per day." [Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University, June 2, 1998] Dr. Linus Pauling supplemented his diet with about 6000 milligrams of vitamin C daily.
Safety not an issue
Safety is not an issue when it comes to mega-dose vitamin C supplements. Eight placebo-controlled, double-blind studies and six non-placebo controlled clinical trials in whih up to 10,000 milligrams of vitamin C was consumed daily for up to three years, confirm the safety of vitamin C pills in excess of the RDA. [J Am College Nutrition 14: 124-36, 1995] Frequent allegations are made that vitamin C supplements may increase the risk of kidney stones, but are poorly founded. Additionally, the false notion that withdrawal from high-dose vitamin C may cause “rebound scurvy” has also been dispelled. While vitamin C increases the absorption of iron, it has not been shown to induce iron overload in humans. [Nutrition Reviews 57: 71-77, 1999]
Vitamin C supplement users
The question is, do Americans consume enough vitamin C for optimal health? Vitamin C is the most common dietary supplement consumed by American consumers. About 45 percent of dietary supplements used by consumers contain vitamin C. [Archives Family Medicine 9: 258-62, 2000] A 1990 report indicates the average intake of vitamin C from supplements is about 60 milligrams, however, about 5 to 10 percent of supplement users (about 2 percent of the US population) consume more than 1000 mg from pills. [Am J Epidemiology 132: 1091-101, 1990]
The blood plasma vitamin C concentration among vitamin C supplement users is about 60 to 70 percent higher than adults who do not take supplements (75-80 vs. 45-50 micromole). [J Am College Nutrition 13: 22-32, 1994] A daily intake of 1000 mg is needed to maintain plasma vitamin C concentration in the range of 75-80 micromole. Only 4.2 percent of the US population 3 to 74 years of age is likely to have plasma vitamin C levels above the 80 micromole point. [National Health Survey, Series 11, No. 232, DHHS Publication No 83-1682, 1982]
One widely acclaimed study published in 1992 indicated that vitamin C, in oral doses exceeding 750 milligrams per day, increased the lifespan of males by about 6 years. [Epidemiology 3: 194-202, 1992]
For optimal health, what is overlooked is the half life of vitamin C and the importance of divided doses that Drs. Hickey and Roberts now emphasize in order to achieve steady blood levels. Health minded consumers owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Hickey and Roberts for breaking ranks among scientists who appear to be frozen in their tracks. Despite recently published data that stands in stark contrast to the RDA and the claim that mega-dose vitamin C supplementation is of no benefit, public health authorities are not forthcoming about their past mistakes. The RDA for vitamin C must be re-evaluated. Mega-dose vitamin C supplementation should no longer be demeaned. Hickey and Roberts have confronted the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institutes of Medicine directly, with little success. Now they are taking the issue to the public in their newly released book. Only the public’s demand for reform is likely to overcome inaction by health authorities. Everyone needs to read Hickey and Roberts’ book. ####
By Bill Sardi
Copyright 2004 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.
*Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, Steve Hickey, Hilary Roberts, e-book and softcover, 264 pages, referenced, 2004, available at www.lulu.com/ascorbate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)