Addiction Commonality

Alcohol, Opiates, Fat and Sugar are all Addictive Substances: this blog is about that "addiction sameness".

Butter Pig Family

* A butter sculpture of a sow and her piglets

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Poisoned Nail Salon Employees: cancer, miscarriages, lung diseases and other ailments.


Perfect Nails, Poisoned Workers


Some ingredients used in nail products have been tied to cancer, miscarriages, lung diseases and other ailments. The industry has long fought regulations.

By SARAH MASLIN NIR MAY 8, 2015


Each time a customer pulled open the glass door at the nail shop in Ridgewood, Queens, where Nancy Otavalo worked, a cheerful chorus would ring out from where she sat with her fellow manicurists against the wall: “Pick a color!”

Ms. Otavalo, a 39-year-old Ecuadorean immigrant, was usually stationed at the first table. She trimmed and buffed and chatted about her quick-witted toddler, or her strapping 9-year-old boy. But she never spoke of another dreamed-for child, the one lost last year in a miscarriage that began while she was giving a customer a shoulder massage.

At the second table was Monica A. Rocano, 30, who sometimes brought a daughter to visit. But clients had never met her 3-year-old son, Matthew Ramon. People thought Matthew was shy, but in fact he has barely learned how to speak and can walk only with great difficulty.

A chair down from Ms. Rocano was another, quieter manicurist. In her idle moments, she surfed the Internet on her phone, seeking something that might explain the miscarriage she had last year. Or the four others that came before.

Con

Articles in this series are examining the working conditions and potential health risks endured by nail salon workers.

Similar stories of illness and tragedy abound at nail salons across the country, of children born slow or “special,” of miscarriages and cancers, of coughs that will not go away and painful skin afflictions. The stories have become so common that older manicurists warn women of child-bearing age away from the business, with its potent brew of polishes, solvents, hardeners and glues that nail workers handle daily.

A growing body of medical research shows a link between the chemicals that make nail and beauty products useful — the ingredients that make them chip-resistant and pliable, quick to dry and brightly colored, for example — and serious health problems.

Whatever the threat the typical customer enjoying her weekly French tips might face, it is a different order of magnitude, advocates say, for manicurists who handle the chemicals and breathe their fumes for hours on end, day after day.

The prevalence of respiratory and skin ailments among nail salon workers is widely acknowledged. More uncertain, however, is their risk for direr medical issues. Some of the chemicals in nail products are known to cause cancer; others have been linked to abnormal fetal development, miscarriages and other harm to reproductive health.

A number of studies have also found that cosmetologists — a group that includes manicurists, as well as hairdressers and makeup artists — have elevated rates of death from Hodgkin’s disease, of low birth-weight babies and of multiple myeloma, a form of cancer.

But firm conclusions are elusive, partly because the research is so limited. Very few studies have focused on nail salon workers specifically. Little is known about the true extent to which they are exposed to hazardous chemicals, what the accumulated effect is over time and whether a connection can actually be drawn to their health.

The federal law that regulates cosmetics safety, which is more than 75 years old, does not require companies to share safety information with the Food and Drug Administration. The law bans ingredients harmful to users, but it contains no provisions for the agency to evaluate the effects of the chemicals before they are put on shelves. Industry lobbyists have fought tougher monitoring requirements.

Industry officials say their products contain minuscule amounts of the chemicals identified as potentially hazardous and pose no threat.

Every worker has the right to come home safely at the end of every day. They shouldn’t be coming home
and getting sick.


DR. DAVID MICHAELS

“What I hear are insinuations based on ‘linked to,’” said Doug Schoon, co-chairman of the Professional Beauty Association’s Nail Manufacturers Council on Safety. “When we talk about nail polish, there’s no evidence of harm.”

Health advocates and officials disagree, pointing to the accumulated evidence.

“We know that a lot of the chemicals are very dangerous,” said David Michaels, the assistant labor secretary who heads the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which oversees workplace safety. “We don’t need to see the effect in nail salon workers to know that they are dangerous to the workers.”

So many health complaints were cropping up among the mostly Vietnamese manicurists in Oakland, Calif., that workers at Asian Health Services, a community organization there, decided on their own to investigate about a decade ago.

“It was like, ‘Oh wow, what’s happening in this community?’” said Julia Liou, who is now the health center’s director of program planning and development and a co-founder of the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative. “We are seeing this epidemic of people who are sick.”

The organization helped form a coalition in California that pushed for restrictions on chemicals used in nail salons, but the cosmetics industry succeeded in blocking a ban.

In recent years, in the face of growing health concerns, some polish companies have said that they have removed certain controversial chemicals from their products. But random testing of some of these products by government agencies showed the chemicals were still present.

Some states and municipalities recommend workers wear gloves and other protection, but salon owners usually discourage them from donning such unsightly gear. And even though officials overseeing workplace safety concede that federal standards on levels of chemicals that these workers can be exposed to need revision, nothing has been done.

So manicurists continue to paint fingertips, swipe off polish and file down false nails, while absorbing chemicals that are potentially hazardous to their health.

“There are so many stories but no one that dares to tell them; no one dares to tell them because they have no one to tell,” Ms. Otavalo said in an interview on a day off from the Ridgewood salon, babysitting for her colleague’s developmentally disabled son, Matthew. (Ms. Otavalo left her job at the salon a few months ago.) “There are thousands of women who are working in this, but no one asking: ‘What’s happening to you? How do you feel?’ We just work and work.”

‘They Cannot Breathe’

The walls of Dr. Charles Hwu’s second-story office in Flushing, Queens, are decorated with Chinese calligraphy, gifts from patients he has cared for from cradle to adulthood. Over his decades as an internist in this predominantly Asian enclave, Dr. Hwu has repeatedly encountered a particular set of conditions affecting otherwise healthy women.

“They come in usually with breathing problems, some symptoms similar to an allergy, and also asthma symptoms — they cannot breathe,” he said during a break between patients this winter. “Judging from the symptoms with these women, it seems that they are either smokers, secondhand smokers or asthma patients, but they are none of the above. They work for nail salons.”

In interviews with over 125 nail salon workers, airway ailments like those in Dr. Hwu’s office were ubiquitous. Many have learned to simply laugh them off — the nose that constantly bleeds, the throat that has ached every day since the manicurist started working.


Dr. Charles Hwu, in Flushing, Queens, has noticed a particular set of symptoms among the nail salon workers he treats: “They come in usually with breathing problems, some symptoms similar to an allergy, and also asthma symptoms — they cannot breathe.”

In the nail salon she owned in Mill Basin, Brooklyn, Eugenia Colon spent years molding sometimes 30 sets of talon like nails a day in a haze of acrylic powder, ignoring a persistent cough that grew more pronounced over time. She was found to have sarcoidosis, an inflammatory disease, in her lungs. In scans, they appeared as if covered with granules of sand, streaked by tiny scars.

The doctor who diagnosed her condition asked Ms. Colon what she did for a living. When she told him, he was frank: As she beautified other women, she inhaled clouds of acrylic and other dust, tiny particles that gouged the soft tissue of her lungs

“We made money off it, but was it worth it?” Ms. Colon, 52, now an aesthetician in a Manhattan spa. “It came with a price...

Of the 20 common nail product ingredients listed as causing health problems in the appendix of a safety brochure put out by the Environmental Protection Agency, 17 are hazardous to the respiratory tract, according to the agency. Overexposure to each of them induces symptoms such as burning throat or lungs, labored breathing or shortness of breath

A 2006 study published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine that included more than 500 Colorado manicurists found about 20 percent of them had a cough most days and nights. The same examination showed those who worked with artificial nails were about three times as likely to get asthma on the job as someone not in the industry

Malcom Wy New York

Anyone who thinks an industry can self-regulate needs to study their history. There will always be jobs at stake, but we should choose lives over jobs.

Skin disorders are also omnipresent among nail salon workers. Many of the chemicals in nail salon products are classified by government agencies as skin sensitizers, capable of provoking painful reactions.

Some veteran manicurists say they can recognize one another on the street: They have the same coffee-colored stains on their cheeks. Certain cosmetic color additives — particularly a type of brilliant red — have been shown by researchers to cause such skin discoloration.





When Ki Ok Chung, a manicurist for almost two decades, had her fingerprints taken in the early 2000s for her United States citizenship, her prints were almost nonexistent. She says constant work with files, solvents and emollients is responsible. CreditYeong-Ung Yang for The New York Times

When Ki Ok Chung, a manicurist who worked in salons for almost two decades, had her fingerprints taken in the early 2000s for her United States citizenship, she made an upsetting discovery: Her prints were almost nonexistent. They had to be taken seven times. She says constant work with files, solvents and emollients is responsible.

“I realized my fingerprints had been disappearing,” she said.

Today, she cannot touch hot or cold dishes without searing pain.

Even as the weather warmed into spring last year, Zoila Calle, a manicurist, then 22, who worked in Harlem, wore wool gloves indoors and out. Underneath were black pustules so painful she could not grasp a polish bottle or text on her phone. It was the second time her hands had erupted in the warts, a common occurrence for nail salon workers. While customers often fret about salon hygiene, it is manicurists who appear truly at risk, suffering through endless fungal infections and other skin diseases from the blur of hands and feet they touch every day.

“It’s a beautiful industry, it makes people feel better,” Ms. Colon, who owned the salon in Mill Basin, said in an interview, a faint wheeze just audible behind her ready laugh. “But if a lot of people knew the truth behind it, it wouldn’t happen. They wouldn’t go.”

Miscarriages and Warnings

In a way, Ms. Rocano, one of the manicurists in the Ridgewood salon, felt herself lucky. Her colleagues seated on either side of her had each lost a pregnancy last year, hoped-for babies whom they separately described exactly the same way: “Like losing a dream.”

She, however, has her toddler, Matthew.

A dark-haired bundle with amber skin when he was born, Matthew was an infant laden with his mother’s hopes. Holding him in her arms, she was reminded of the daughter she had left behind in Ecuador and still has not seen in more than six years. This time, she felt, she could do right by her child.



Nancy Otavalo with her daughter, 4, at bottom of window, and her niece. CreditNicole Bengiveno/The New York Times

Yet as he grew, something seemed off. His legs were weak; they buckled when he tried to stand. By age 3 he still could not say his name. In visits to her pediatrician, she learned that Matthew was delayed on almost every measure, both physically and cognitively.

At one point, his doctor asked her what she did for a living. When she told him, he asked how long she had worked in the nail salon while pregnant. Six months, she responded.

The doctor told her, “When babies are forming in your womb, they absorb everything, and if they are exposed to anything, it can cause them harm,” she recalled.

On a day five years ago, a doctor gave a similar warning to the manicurist who works at the table to Ms. Rocano’s right, as she sat in the obstetrics unit at Wyckoff Heights Medical Center in Brooklyn. There she learned she had miscarried a

“I went to the hospital, and I told him, ‘I’m a manicurist,’” said the woman, who declined to give her name because she wanted her medical history to remain private. Her doctor urged her to change jobs. “The chemicals are not healthy for your lungs, your liver, and sometimes they begin cancer,” she recalled. “I was laughing. I said, ‘Who is going to pay my bills?’” She has since miscarried twice more.

In scientific circles, the three chemicals in nail products that are associated with the most serious health issues are dibutyl phthalate, toluene and formaldehyde. They are known as the “toxic trio” among worker advocates.

Dibutyl phthalate, called DBP for short, makes nail polish and other products pliable. In Australia, it is listed as a reproductive toxicant and must be labeled with the phrases “may cause harm to the unborn child” and “possible risk of impaired fertility.” Starting in June, the chemical will be prohibited from cosmetics in that country. It is one of over 1,300 chemicals banned from use in cosmetics in the European Union. But in the United States, where fewer than a dozen chemicals are prohibited in such products, there are no restrictions on DBP.

Toluene, a type of solvent, helps polish glide on smoothly. But the E.P.A. says in a fact sheet that it can impair cognitive and kidney function. In addition, repeated exposure during pregnancy can “adversely affect the developing fetus,” according to the agency.

Formaldehyde, best known for its use in embalming, is a hardening agent in nail products. In 2011, the National Toxicology Program, part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, labeled it a human carcinogen. By 2016, it will be banned from cosmetics in the European Union.

Cosmetics industry officials say linking the chemicals to manicurists’ health complaints amounts to faulty science.

Dibutyl phthalate, toluene and formaldehyde “have been found to be safe under current conditions of use in the United States,” said Lisa Powers, a spokeswoman for thePersonal Care Products Council, the main trade association and lobbying group for the cosmetics industry.

The Dangers of Manicure Products The ingredients that make nail products useful have been linked to various health pro

“The safe and historical use of these ingredients is not questioned by F.D.A.,” she continued.

In reality, the responsibility for evaluating the safety of the chemicals as they are used in cosmetics is left with the companies themselves.

Even while insisting they are safe, some polish companies have voluntarily begun to remove certain chemicals from formulations. By 2006, several prominent brands had announced their products would no longer contain any of the three. The new products were labeled “3-free” or “5-free,” referring to the number of chemicals that are ostensibly no longer in

But a 2010 study by the F.D.A. and another in 2012 by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Department of Toxic Substance Control found in random tests that some products, even ones labeled “3-free” or “5-free,” in fact contained those very chemicals.

It was from routine community outreach trips to local nail salons in Oakland that Ms. Liou and her colleagues from Asian Health Services, as well as Thu Quach, a research scientist, became alarmed: Almost all of the manicurists interviewed had health complaints; some were terribly ill.

Dr. Quach, with the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, set out to conduct a health survey of nail salon workers in Alameda County, which includes Oakland.

Le Thi Lam, a Vietnamese immigrant who came to the United States in 1988 after fleeing the Communist government in her country, was among the first. She had started out in a Sacramento nail salon, becoming proficient in acrylic nails, sculpting them all day long from a slurry of solvent and plastic polymers.

In 1991, she learned she had a thyroid condition. She had also developed asthma. She quit, too sickened to work and concerned about the chemicals she was handling. But she soon returned, unable to find another job with her limited English. Ten years later, she had breast cancer.

“I know that manicurists like me are also going through the same things and having major health problems,” she said, seated in a conference room at Asian Health Services last summer, a blouse hiding a red scar from her breastbone to her armpit. “But they still hang on to their jobs to earn their living.”

Dr. Quach kept going with her research, undertaking several other studies. One found manicurists had an increased risk for gestational diabetes and for having undersize babies. Another, looking at cancer, found no correlation. Both studies were hampered by data limitations. Mostly, they point to the need for further study.

“What we know is what’s reported by the women again and again: that there is something here,” Dr. Quach said. “Those chemicals they are dealing with are chemicals that we know people react to, and we are hearing the stories from these workers that they are reacting to them. It’s all there.”

‘Fox Guarding the Henhouse’

The regulation of chemicals in nail products is dictated by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. The part of the law that deals with cosmetics totals just 591 words.

The Food and Drug Administration explains the limitationsit faces under the law on its website: “Cosmetic products and ingredients do not need F.D.A. premarket approval, with the exception of color additives.” It continues, “Neither the law nor F.D.A. regulations require specific tests to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients.” In addition, “The law also does not require cosmetic companies to share their safety information with F.D.A.”

In 1976, the cosmetics industry itself established the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, a panel that is supposed to “review and assess the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics in an open, unbiased and expert manner,” according to its website. But the panel is financed entirely by the Personal Care Products Council, the industry lobbying group. The panel’s offices are also in the same building in Washington as the products council.

Even so, Ms. Powers said the panel was independent. She is the official spokeswoman for the industry lobby, but all questions to the review panel were handled by her.


Toan Ngoc Do, left, a manicurist student, worked on the nails of a fellow student, Tien Dang Thuy, during a class at the International College of Cosmetology in San Francisco last May.CreditRamin Rahimian for The New York Times

Since its founding, the panel has reviewed only a small fraction of the substances in use in cosmetics today. Among them were dibutyl phthalate and toluene; the panel determined that they are safe the way they are used in nail products — on nails, not skin.

“It’s a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse,” says Janet Nudelman, the director of program and policy at the Breast Cancer Fund, which has argued for more stringent regulation. “You’ve got an industry-funded review panel that’s assessing the safety for the very industry that’s funding the review panel.”

There have been efforts in recent years to overhaul the 1938 law and more strictly regulate cosmetic chemicals, but none made headway in the face of industry resistance. Since 2013, the products council, just one of several industry trade groups, has poured nearly $2 million on its own into lobbying Congress.

After talks between the cosmetics industry and the F.D.A. broke down last year, Michael R. Taylor, the agency’s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, rebuked the industry in an unusual open letter for pushing a measure that would have declared a wide range of potentially dangerous chemicals safe “without a credible scientific basis” and others safe that are known to pose “real and substantial risks to consumers.”

Ms. Powers said the letter mischaracterized the industry’s stance. “The law was created or passed in 1938,” she said. “Nobody is saying that we shouldn’t look at that now and say: ‘Is it a contemporary approach? Does it need to bring us into the 21st century?’ We all agree to that. But that doesn’t make for a sexy headline.”

The council, in fact, said it supported a bipartisan bill introduced in April by Senators Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, that would broaden F.D.A. oversight of cosmetics, including giving the agency recall ability. But some health advocates said the bill would continue to permit the industry to largely regulate itself; it would also pre-empt states’ abilities to create stronger rules.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is the federal agency that sets chemical exposure limits in workplaces. The studies that have examined the chemical exposure levels for manicurists have found them to be well below these standards. Health advocates say the safety administration’s standards are badly out of date and flawed.

Even Dr. Michaels, the head of the safety administration, said his agency’s standards needed revision. Currently, he said, workers “can be exposed to levels that are legal according to OSHA but are still dangerous.”

The agency makes illustrated pamphlets warning manicurists about the chemical hazards they face and urges them to wear gloves and ventilate their shops. These steps and others become mandatory when exposure limits are exceeded. But in practical terms, with the standards set so high, salons are free to do nothing. Dr. Michaels said the agency was hamstrung by its own cumbersome rule-making process.

“Every worker has the right to come home safely at the end of every day,” Dr. Michaels said. “They shouldn’t be coming home and getting sick.”

The debate over the chemicals has also unfolded at the state level. In 2005, lawmakers in California proposed banning DBP from cosmetic products sold or manufactured in the state. Industry lobbyists flooded the State Capitol (some bearing gift baskets of lipstick and nail polish), spending over a half-million dollars fighting the ban, according to state records. Some of the country’s best-known cosmetics companies — Estée Lauder, Mary Kay and OPI, among others — weighed in against it. The bill ultimately failed. A much more limited measure passed — over the industry’s objections — that required cosmetics companies to disclose certain hazardous chemicals to the California Department of Public Hea

Blocked by an industry with deep pockets, the California advocates say they had to scale back their goals. They introduced a grass-roots program that officially recognizes “healthy nail salons,” those that carry “greener” products and that ventilate. The New York City Council held a hearing this month on a measure that would establish a similar voluntary program

Today, out of several thousand salons in California, however, there are just 55 salons in the program.

One of them is Lulu Nail Spa, a tiny salon with a dusky rose wall and white-leather pedicure chairs in Burlingame, Calif. The shop earned the designation in May by switching certain products, using gloves and opening the doors to sweep out fumes. The owner, Hai Thi Le, a Vietnamese immigrant, said she hoped the new decal she placed on her window would draw green-minded customers.

But she did not make the changes just for business. As a young woman working in her brother’s nail shop, Ms. Le said she breathed in so much acrylic powder that when she kissed her husband after work, he complained her breath smelled of solvent and plastic dust.

Standing in the Breeze

On her days off from the salon in Ridgewood, Queens, Nancy Otavalo ran for a time an ad hoc day care center at her home a few blocks away with her sister, another manicurist. The sisters would pick up salon workers’ children after school for a fee, entertaining them in the basement apartment the sisters shared with their families.

Matthew, her colleague’s son who can barely speak, got special treatment, spending time curled on the gleaming black leather couch — bought with tips — that is the centerpiece of her home.

After Ms. Otavalo miscarried last year, she lay for hours on the same black leather couch, in silence, the lights darkened, unable to summon the willpower to get up.

A week after a procedure to remove the fetus at Woodhull Medical Center in Brooklyn, she rose, put on the lavish makeup her sister says makes her feel confident and went back to work at her manicure table.

Clients who stopped by for their weekly manicures knew nothing about what happened; everything appeared the same.

Except every so often, after Ms. Otavalo had painted the last stroke of top coat on a customer’s hand, she scraped back her chair and walked to the front of the shop. She pulled open the salon’s glass door to stand in the breeze for a while.





Reporting was contributed by Jiha Ham, Yuhan Liu, Julie Turkewitz, Isvett Verde, Yeong-Ung Yang and Heyang Zhang, and research by Susan C. Beachy.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/nyregion/nail-salon-workers-in-nyc-face-hazardous-chemicals.html?emc=edit_th_20150509&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=59725256&_r=0


Sunday, August 9, 2015

Scotland to issue formal ban on genetically modified crops


NassimNicholasTaleb

NassimNicholasTaleb ‏@nntaleb  
Scotland invoking the Precautionary Principle for GMOs.  
Our paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787  (Cornell University)


NassimNicholasTaleb Verified account
@nntaleb

Flaneur, with focus on probability (philosophy), probability (mathematics), probability (logic), probability (real life) and Lebanese wine (and ancient languages).
facebook.com/pages/Nassim-N…

Joined September 2011
https://twitter.com/nntaleb

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)

We present a non-naive version of the Precautionary (PP) that allows us to avoid paranoia and paralysis by confining precaution to specific domains and problems. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans", unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence. We formalize PP, placing it within the statistical and probabilistic structure of ruin problems, in which a system is at risk of total failure, and in place of risk we use a formal fragility based approach. We make a central distinction between 1) thin and fat tails, 2) Local and systemic risks and place PP in the joint Fat Tails and systemic cases. We discuss the implications for GMOs (compared to Nuclear energy) and show that GMOs represent a public risk of global harm (while harm from nuclear energy is comparatively limited and better characterized). PP should be used to prescribe severe limits on GMOs.
Subjects:General Finance (q-fin.GN); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph)
Cite as:arXiv:1410.5787 [q-fin.GN]
 (or arXiv:1410.5787v1 [q-fin.GN] for this version)

Submission history

From: Nassim Nicholas Taleb [view email]
[v1] Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:30:43 GMT (482kb,D)

 Our paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787  (Cornell University)

Scotland to issue formal ban on genetically modified crops

Severin Carrell Scotland editor
Sunday 9 August 2015 

Scottish ministers are planning to formally ban genetically modified crops from being grown in Scotland, widening a policy divide with the Conservative government in London.

The move will reinforce a long-standing moratorium on planting GM crops in Scotland and allow the Scottish National party to further distance itself from the UK government.

Backed by agribusiness, scientific bodies and the National Farmers Union, ministers in London have already signalled that they plan to allow commercial cultivation of GM crops such as maize and oilseed rape in England, despite significant resistance from consumers and environmental groups. .

Scottish scientists, including those at the James Hutton Institute and the Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, have taken a leading role in GM research. The Scottish government’s former chief scientific officer, Dame Anne Glover, who became the European commission’s chief scientific adviser before the position was abolished, is a keen advocate of GM crops.

The spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: “These changes would not affect research as it is currently carried out in Scotland, where the contained use of GM plants is permitted for scientific purposes, for example in laboratories or sealed glasshouse facilities.

Unlike George W. Bush 'banning stem cell research' and driving scientists out of America to other countries carrying on this valuable research!!!!

Richard Lochhead, Scotland’s environment secretary, said he wanted to uphold the precautionary principle – that the potential risks to other crops and wildlife from GMOs outweighed the likely benefits of the technology – by banning the commercialisation of GM crops.





The Sweet Life


The flâneur was, first of all, a literary type from 19th century France, essential to any picture of the streets of Paris. The word carried a set of rich associations: the man of leisure, the idler, the urban explorer, the connoisseur of the street. It was Walter Benjamin, drawing on the poetry of Charles Baudelaire, who made this figure the object of scholarly interest in the 20th century, as an emblematic archetype of urban, modern experience. Following Benjamin, the flâneur has become an important symbol for scholars, artists and writers.



Monday, July 27, 2015

Weaning Off Prescription Meds

Yann Kebbi
OPINIONATOR | ANXIETY
10 Things I'd Tell My Former (Medicated) Self
By DIANA SPECHLER
I've been drug-free for nearly a month. Here is what I learned about my own seven-month weaning process.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Sugar is fuelling the biggest health crisis of our time



Death by sugar

How the sweet killer is fuelling the biggest health crisis of our time
Kate Lunau
May 6, 2014

Health Canada has announced a new food label proposal that would, among other changes, group all types of sugar together on a label. The idea is to make the amount of sugar in packaged foods more clear to consumers. The proposal would also set a recommendation of a daily maximum intake of 100 grams of sugar per day, something that did not exist before. However, the proposed changes have to make it through a series of public consultations before they come into effect.
In May, Kate Lunau wrote about the staggering amount of sugar Canadians consume on an annual basis. 

Here’s her story:

At just 12 years old, Maggie Valentine weighs over 200 lb. “My doctor said I’m a statistic,” says Maggie, who has short, wavy blond hair. “I think it has something to do with my weight.” She’s trying hard to shed pounds, following the same advice we’ve all heard countless times. Maggie jogs and kayaks; she regularly swims laps, and walks her dogs. She also does her best to watch what she eats. Her mom buys her “reduced fat foods” in the supermarket, like Triscuit crackers and certain cereals. Despite their best efforts, though, Maggie’s weight stays the same. “Sometimes, it gets a little bit frustrating,” the preteen says quietly.

Maggie is one of several kids and teens featured in Fed Up, a new documentary from executive producer Laurie David, who was behind the Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth.
 

It is a powerful call to arms about obesity—a message we’ve been hearing for years, and apparently have yet to heed. Between 1985 and 2011, the obesity rate among Canadian adults more than tripled; by 2019, overweight and obese adults will outnumber those of normal weight in half of our provinces, predicts a new report in Canadian Medical Association Journal Open. 

Childhood obesity, too, has risen significantly in the past few decades. Obesity is now seen in babies as young as six months old, and it’s become a global crisis. We all know we’re supposed to eat less and exercise more, but that mantra doesn’t seem to be working. 

What if the accepted wisdom on obesity—that to lose weight, we simply need to burn off more calories than we consume—is dead wrong?

That’s the case presented in Fed Up, and by a number of doctors and experts. Despite what we’ve heard for years, they say that not all calories are created equal, and that some may be worse for us than others.

Beyond that, one of our favourite ingredients might be making us sick. It’s something we’re hard-wired from birth to seek out, and it’s been described as addictive. 

Yet it seems to be spurring on not only obesity, but—if the emerging science is right—other plagues of modern society like heart disease, diabetes, and perhaps even Alzheimer’s. The culprit, these doctors and scientists say, is sugar.

Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California at San Francisco, who appears in Fed Up, is the most vocal and visible proponent of this way of thinking: that sugar is, as he puts it, a “toxin.” Even a “poison.” If that’s true, we’re in trouble. We consume it in astounding quantities. According to the latest Statistics Canada figures, Canadians downed 110 grams of sugar a day in 2004, from all sources.
That’s the equivalent of 26 teaspoons, amounting to over 21 per cent of our daily calorie intake, and it’s surely gone up since then. Canadianseat, on average, 88 lb. of sugar per year; the average nine-year-old boy will consume a whopping 123 lb. of sugar per year, and male teens, 138 lb. A Canadian teen’s primary source of sugar, according to the report, is soft drinks. Americans, meanwhile, have a mean daily intake of about 28 teaspoons; over a year, they’ll consume 96 pounds of sugar, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson.

Even for people with the best of intentions, who refrain from eating ice cream, candy and chocolate bars, sugar is almost impossible to avoid. According to Fed Up, of the 600,000 food items sold in U.S. grocery stores, 80 per cent have added sugar. S

ugar and its ilk (including high-fructose corn syrup) are added to nearly everything we consume. Pasta sauce. Bread. Salad dressing. Peanut butter. One tablespoon of ketchup can contain as much as a teaspoon of sugar. “Low fat” products, especially those intended for kids, are often the biggest sugar bombs of all. Sugar-laden processed foods are everywhere: even at the local health food store, it’s truly a matter of buyer beware. Honey, agave syrup, fruit juices, and other sweeteners that often appear in “healthier” options—all are sugars.

Amid growing alarm about sugar, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently released new draft guidelines on how much of it we should consume. Sugars should make up less than 10 per cent of our total energy intake per day, it states, a number we already exceed. It further adds that cutting this below five per cent—less than half what Canadians currently consume—would have “additional benefits.” (The guidelines refer to almost all sugars in our diet, not including what’s in whole fruits, vegetables, or dairy.) “The evidence [against sugar] is expanding by the day,” the WHO’s Dr. Francesco Branca said of the new recommendations, voicing particular concern about the “hidden” sugars in processed foods.

Woe to the average Canadian, who almost reaches the WHO’s upper 10 per cent limit with just one can of regular pop, and gets within spitting distance of the five per cent lower cutoff after a four-ounce serving of regular Activia yogourt. Still, they wouldn’t know it from checking the nutrition information listed on the product. On the “nutrition facts” panel on Canadian food labels, the grams of sugar in a serving is listed. But what percentage that represents of our daily intake remains a vacant space, as it does in the U.S. Health Canada doesn’t set a recommended limit on sugar consumption (although it says it’s reviewing the WHO’s proposal). A number of experts and groups, like the Childhood Obesity Foundation, are calling on Health Canada to set a daily recommended sugar limit.“It’s so revealing of how the processed-food companies are more powerful than the regulators, supposedly watching them on our behalf,” says Michael Moss, Pulitzer prize-winning author of Salt Sugar Fat: How The Food Giants Hooked Us. “Look at that nutrition fact box—there’s a huge gaping hole next to sugar. They’ll tell you how much is in the product, but not how much is added, and how much is natural. And they won’t tell you how much sugar to eat.”

Industry maintains there’s good reason for this. “Science hasn’t found a specific level of sugar that causes harm,” says Sandra Marsden, president of the Canadian Sugar Institute (CSI), which represents our country’s sugar manufacturers. As part of the WHO’s public consultation, which wrapped up in March and will lead to a final report, the CSI swiftly submitted comments listing perceived problems with the new guidelines, as did other industry groups, including the Canadian Beverage Association (CBA) and Food and Consumer Products of Canada (FCPC). “There is no evidence for a five per cent limit,” adds Maisie Vanriel of FCPC, which represents our food product manufacturers. “Even as a dietician, it would be a toughie for me.”


How much sugar do you eat in a year? Click to view our infographic.

Critics accuse food and drink companies of putting the bottom line ahead of consumer health. The fiercest critics draw a comparison they surely dread. “The industry is responding to obesity exactly how tobacco responded to concerns about lung cancer,” says New York University dietician Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. “Attack the science, undermine the critics, [pay for] industry-funded studies.” In a study published in PLOS Medicine in December, researchers looked at 17 papers on sugar-sweetened drinks and their relationship to weight gain and obesity. They concluded that those papers in which authors had a “financial conflict of interest with [the] food industry” were five times more likely to find no association between sugary drinks and obesity.

David Moran of Coca-Cola Canada counters: “Tobacco cannot be consumed in a healthy manner whatsoever. We’re a beverage company. Beverages fit into a healthy lifestyle, but it depends on how active you are, and how many calories you consume.”

There’s a war under way, and consumers are at the heart of it. Heather Reisman, CEO of Indigo Books & Music and an executive producer of Fed Up, is hoping to spark a cross-country movement toward healthier eating, a decision that will impact her company’s bottom line. “We’re eating way more [sugar] than we used to, and it has this really bad effect,” she says. Indigo is removing all sweets from its impulse section (although they will still be sold further back, with teas), which is expected to cost the company $3 million per year. “We know that has a financial impact,” says Reisman. “It’s a small step we can take to show leadership.”

The danger that sugar presents “has nothing to do with the calories,” Lustig says in a YouTube video called “The bitter truth,” which has been viewed over 4.6 million times. “It’s a poison by itself.” Poison or not, we’re programmed to seek it out, and our brains are wired to crave more. It’s a craving that industry understands and anticipates.

Forty years ago, a similar fear gripped consumers in Canada and the U.S., but back then, the enemy was dietary fat. With heart disease rampant, groups like the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association called for a reduction in fats. Food companies rolled out new lines of health-conscious, “low fat” products. (A low-fat label, it turns out, persuades us to eat as much as 50 per cent more, according to Cornell University’s food and brand lab.)

The problem was, these new foods tasted “like cardboard,” Lustig says. To make their offerings more appealing, manufacturers added sugar, or high-fructose corn syrup (“glucose-fructose” on Canadian food labels), which made its appearance on North American store shelves in the 1970s. Not only is high-fructose corn syrup much sweeter than refined sugar, it’s also way cheaper, and soon it was in all sorts of foods that shoppers might not expect, from pretzels to deli meat to processed cheese.

It’s human nature to seek out a sugar rush. High-calorie food stimulates the same parts of our brain as drugs and alcohol, brain-scan studies have shown. “Sugar, fat and salt are the basic drivers for survival,” says Dr. David Jenkins of the University of Toronto, who holds the Canada Research Chair in nutrition and metabolism. For most of our history, “we’ve struggled like mad to get sugar,” and now, within just a few decades, we’ve become buried in it. Before food processing, when we got sugar mainly from fruits and vegetables, we consumed about 30 grams per day of it, according to Lustig’s estimates. By 1977, Americans consumed more than 70 grams per day, and by 1994, it was 110 grams.

With food scientists focused on how to make their products tastier, cheaper and more convenient, resisting the lure of processed food became all but impossible. “It starts with the bench chemists,” says Moss, who’s spent years investigating the inner workings of the food industry. “Through trial and error, they determine the perfect amount of sugar, salt and fat.” Moss describes his encounters with Howard Moskowitz, the mastermind behind bestselling Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper and other blockbusters. “He coined the term ‘bliss point,’ ” Moss says, “that perfect amount of sugar that’ll send us over the moon, and will send products flying off the shelves.”

But sugar isn’t just incorporated into food and drink as a taste enhancer. “It provides so much more,” Moss continues. “It’s the preservative that allows [foods] to sit in the warehouse for months. Or the cheap substitution for other ingredients, like fresh herbs and spices, or fully ripened tomatoes.”

Soon enough, people were consuming sugar—whether they knew it or not—at breakfast, lunch and dinner. Food manufacturers “added sugar to things that didn’t used to be sweet,” Moss continues. “Flavoured yogourt can have as much sugar as ice cream,” making plain yogourt taste unforgivably bland by comparison. “It teaches us to expect sweetness all the time,” he says.

All sugar, even high-fructose corn syrup (now vilified as “unnatural”), is processed by the body in pretty much the same way. “Physiologically, sugar is sugar,” Nestle says. Refined sugar consists of glucose and fructose molecules bonded together. Sugar’s fructose component is metabolized mainly by the liver, which is what Lustig and others believe makes it uniquely dangerous. When it hits in a rapid dose, say a soft drink or a Twinkie, it’s quickly converted to fat in that organ. Doctors don’t worry about fruits and veggies, because they’re full of fibre and digest more slowly, giving the body a chance to use up stored energy. And fibre leaves us feeling full, unlike a handful of candy. (The jury’s still out on artificial sweeteners, but studies have linked them to weight gain, suggesting they prime the brain to seek out high-calorie sweets later.)


Infographic: How much sugar is in that bowl of cereal—or bottle of vitamin water? Click to view.

Of course, as a source of calories, eating lots of sugar leads to extra pounds. But it’s more complicated than that. While sugar isn’t the direct cause of diabetes, for example, it seems to spark a cascade of effects that wreak havoc in the body. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, explains: “Fat in your liver is linked to insulin resistance,” when the body no longer makes good use of that critical hormone, which helps cells throughout the body absorb glucose and use it for energy. Glucose then builds up in the bloodstream, raising the risk of Type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is now common, most alarmingly among kids—which was all but unheard of less than three decades ago. By the year 2050, according to Fed Up, one in three Americans will have diabetes.

Metabolic syndrome affects 20 per cent of Canadians. It’s a cluster of risk factors, from having a big waistline and fat packed around the abdomen, to high blood pressure, both of which raise the risk of cardiovascular disease—and again, Type 2 diabetes. In February, a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that consuming added sugar was associated with increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease. (Although the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada takes a position on several issues around nutrition, from sodium to trans fats, it has yet to make a recommendation about sugar intake. It’s working on one.)

Even the rising Alzheimer’s epidemic could be linked, at least in part, to our modern diets. Suzanne de la Monte, professor of neurosurgery at Brown University, suggests that Alzheimer’s might be a form of insulin resistance in the brain—a “Type 3 diabetes,” as she calls it. Insulin, she explains, is “the master hormone” throughout the body, including in the brain, where it plays a crucial role in plasticity, and stimulates brain cells to take up and metabolize glucose for energy. While Alzheimer’s does have a genetic component, “you can’t really explain this soaring increase in Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of genes alone,” de la Monte says. “It has to be the environment, because we’ve changed the environment and what we eat so drastically.”

Still, there’s roiling debate among scientists about whether the fructose in sugar really is the devil that Lustig and others make it out to be. Dr. John Sievenpiper, a scientist at St. Michael’s Hospital’s Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute in Toronto, has published a series of papers concluding that excess calories from fructose aren’t any worse from other sources. He believes science doesn’t justify recommending a daily limit for sugar consumption: “I don’t care if it’s five grams or 100 grams,” says Sievenpiper. “If it’s providing excess calories, it’s a problem.”

Others fire back that sugar can be a danger, but add that refined starches are just as bad, and of course we consume those in huge quantities, too. Unlike sugars, these are only made up of glucose, which isn’t metabolized like fructose in the liver. Yet if it comes in a rush, from a piece of white bread, for example, it’s converted to fat in the liver, too, says Mozaffarian. He was lead author on a 2011 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, finding that some foods are more likely to pack on pounds—and undermining the notion that all calories contribute equally to weight gain. In his paper, the foods most associated with extra weight were potato chips, sugary drinks, and the old staple of many dinner tables: potatoes. Fibre-rich foods like fruits, veggies and nuts had the opposite effect. “Eating a piece of white bread is no different than Skittles,” Mozaffarian says. “It’s basically sugar.”

Investigative health and science journalist Gary Taubes, author of Why We Get Fat: And What To Do About It, thinks that when it comes to obesity and other conditions, “sugar is probably the primary problem,” pointing to traditional Asian cultures, where white rice is a staple, and which had low rates of obesity and diabetes until recently. He’s co-founder of the Nutrition Science Initiative, a non-profit funding two upcoming studies that will track overweight and obese people, while tinkering with their diets (in the second study, virtually all carbs will be replaced with fat). These studies, Taubes says, are intended to test what he calls “the central dogma of obesity, that a calorie is a calorie.”

It’s a message we hear from the food and drink industry over and over again: that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, and that the true cause of obesity is a failure to burn them off. “Sugar is like any source of calories,” says Marsden, of the Canadian Sugar Institute. To lower the risk of obesity, she says, “you need to focus on total calories and activity.” “It’s always been very important to the sugar industry that a calorie is a calorie,” says Taubes. “As long as people think we get fat [just because] we eat too much, industry can say, eat in moderation, and exercise more,” but don’t abandon a beloved product.

The worry is that much of the debate around sugar plays right into industry’s hands. Like a game of Whac-A-Mole, as soon as one ingredient—whether it’s gluten, peanuts, trans fats, or something else—is pegged as particularly harmful, companies rush out a line of products with a reduced amount of that “problem” ingredient, but these new products aren’t necessarily healthier. “Industry loves it when we concentrate our concern on one thing, whether it’s sugar, fat or salt, because they can adjust,” Moss says. “They can lower the amount of sugar, and boost fat and salt, and put it on shelves next to the regular version. It will increase sales,” he says, “not diminish them.”

When it comes to the food industry, a consumer can feel a bit like David before Goliath. Designing the perfect products to reel us in, scientists consider everything from the ideal noise level for the crunch of a chip, to something called “vanishing caloric density,” that feeling when a food hits the tongue (think ice cream or Cheetos) and all but disappears, leaving an insatiable craving for more. Laden with sugar, fat and salt, these products are palatable, convenient and cheap.

The companies’ genius extends from the lab to the shelves of our local grocery store. Take the cereal aisle. In a new study that looked at 65 cereals in 10 different U.S. supermarkets, researchers from Cornell found that those intended for kids are placed half as high on shelves: about 58 cm, compared to 122 for adults. What’s truly unnerving, though, is their second finding—that the colourful mascots on those boxes gaze downward, on average, at a 9.6-degree angle, so their eyes essentially follow kids. (Characters on adult cereal, meanwhile, mostly stare straight ahead, locking eyes with us.)

Marketing to children has been, and remains, one of the most controversial practices of the food industry. In the U.S., it’s extremely hard to limit, says Kelly Brownell of Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy. “The first amendment protects speech, and one form is commercial speech,” he explains. Since 1980, Quebec has banned all marketing to kids under 13, and the province “is ahead in that regard,” says obesity expert Yoni Freedhoff, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute in Ottawa, and author of The Diet Fix: Why Diets Fail and How to Make Yours Work.

But even without Cap’n Crunch peering down from the cereal aisle, processed food, for kids, is nearly impossible to avoid. Fed Up explores its encroachment into U.S. schools where, because of cutbacks and industry pressure, fast food lunches are the norm. (In the documentary, Duke University’s Brownell compares schools to “a 7-Eleven with books.”) School lunches “are horrendous here, too,” says Freedhoff, an adviser on Fed Up, who decries “the use of junk food in fundraising, and to reward, pacify and entertain kids. It’s so normal now,” he continues, “that when we speak up against it, people get mad.”

Efforts to reduce sugar consumption can lead to friction with big companies. In 2012, Coca-Cola sent letters to Ottawa city councillors over a public health campaign urging people to cut back on sugar-sweetened drinks. Stephanie Baxter of the Canadian Beverage Association explains: “No one single food or beverage is responsible for weight gain and obesity. By targeting one category, you’re creating a false sense [of security] for consumers.” Following a meeting between public health officials, Coke representatives and the CBA, the Ottawa campaign, which emphasizes nutrition and activities like walking, continues. “At the time, there was some misinterpretation we were targeting particular companies or products, which was unfortunate,” says Sherry Nigro of Ottawa Public Health.

Brownell is buoyed by a renewed push to remove junk food from U.S. schools—one that began at the local level, with individual districts. Ontario, too, introduced its new school food and beverage policy in 2011, which includes beefed-up nutrition standards.

Although New York’s famous “soda ban,” which would have limited the size of sugary drinks, is stalled before the courts, the ideas of taxes and bans are no longer so far-fetched. In November, for example, voters in San Francisco will decide whether to support a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

Last year, for the first time, Coca-Cola addressed obesity in a global television campaign. Its ad highlights the company’s more than “70 low- and no-calorie choices,” smaller portion sizes, and the move to post calorie content on the front of the can or bottle. (This initiative was launched by the Canadian beverage industry in 2011.) In schools, Coke offers healthier choices like water, juice and diet drinks, it notes. The ad concludes with a familiar message. “All calories count,” the female narrator says over images of kids and teens dancing, jogging and playing hockey. “No matter where they come from, including Coca-Cola and everything else with calories. If you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you’ll gain weight.”

Observers like Freedhoff insist we can’t expect the food and drink industry to solve the obesity crisis. Companies are out to make a profit—and will keep selling us products we’re willing to buy. “These aren’t social service organizations,” he says. Change has to come, Freedhoff maintains, from “empowering the individual to understand the marketplace, whether it’s calorie counts on menu boards, banning certain claims on the front of packages,” or issuing clear guidelines on how much sugar we should have in a day.

Following its public consultation, the WHO is now finalizing its updated guidelines on sugar. Earlier this year, Health Canada launched a public consultation of its own: one aimed at improving our country’s nutrition labels. Many will be watching to see what is said about sugar. For now, though, that space on every nutrition label in the country remains troublingly blank.

Get Maclean’s on Next Issue—Your gateway to the world’s best news stories. Sign up for a FREE trial.



Filed under:
Long Reads
Nutrition
Sugar

ADVERTISEMENT


ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Kate Lunau

Kate Lunau is a health and science writer at Maclean's Magazine, who previously reported for the Montreal Gazette. She's the recipient of several journalism awards, including the 2014 Yves Fortier Earth Science Journalism Award, and has been nominated for two National Magazine Awards. Like Elon Musk, she hopes to retire on Mars.

OTHER ARTICLES
One giant peek into mankind: What's inside an astronaut?
Light in the dark: What if vegetative patients are actually conscious?
All articles

Related:
Infographic: How much sugar do you eat in a year?

How much sugar is in that bowl of cereal—or bottle of vitamin water?







Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Western Diet


Step away from the burger: 
Why a 'Western' diet is bad for your health

Meera Senthilingam, for CNN


Sugary drinks are the epitome of the fast food diet. Their high sugar content increases likelihood of obesity, diabetes and other health conditions.

The Mediterranean diet is renowned for its health benefits. It contains low levels of red meat, sugar and saturated fats and is high in fish, unsaturated fats such as olive oil, fruits, vegetables and legumes.

Diets low in fruit and vegetables can be low in vitamins, minerals and fiber crucial to growth and health.


The Japanese diet is also known for its healthy components -- high in soy protein and vegetables. Japanese people are more likely to reach 100 years old than anyone else in the world.

The longest-lived population live on the Southern Japanese Okinawa islands, where diets contain large amounts of fish, whole grains, soy protein and vegetables.


The "Western" diet is spreading across the world. It's characterized by a high intake of red meat, refined sugars and saturated fat -- but little fiber.


A common feature of Western diets is processed fast food. Pictured, a pepperoni pizza high in fat and carbohydrate and topped with cured, processed meat.

Candy bars have been highlighted as a key example of processed foods. Ingredients such as fructose and palmitic acid mean may initiate a low-level immune response in the body distracting the immune system from other infections.

Some studies have linked eating too much red meat with a shortened lifespan.


Sugary drinks are the epitome of the fast food diet. Their high sugar content increases likelihood of obesity, diabetes and other health conditions.

The Mediterranean diet is renowned for its health benefits. It contains low levels of red meat, sugar and saturated fats and is high in fish, unsaturated fats such as olive oil, fruits, vegetables and legumes.

Diets low in fruit and vegetables can be low in vitamins, minerals and fiber crucial to growth and health.
 
The Japanese diet is also known for its healthy components -- high in soy protein and vegetables. Japanese people are more likely to reach 100 years old than anyone else in the world.

The longest-lived population live on the Southern Japanese Okinawa islands, where diets contain large amounts of fish, whole grains, soy protein and vegetables.

The "Western" diet is spreading across the world. It's characterized by a high intake of red meat, refined sugars and saturated fat -- but little fiber.


A common feature of Western diets is processed fast food. Pictured, a pepperoni pizza high in fat and carbohydrate and topped with cured, processed meat.




Candy bars have been highlighted as a key example of processed foods. Ingredients such as fructose and palmitic acid mean may initiate a low-level immune response in the body distracting the immune system from other infections.


Some studies have linked eating too much red meat with a shortened lifespan.

Sugary drinks are the epitome of the fast food diet. Their high sugar content increases likelihood of obesity, diabetes and other health conditions.


Story highlights

A 'Western' diet is high in sugars, saturated fats, and animal protein yet low in fiber.
Highly processed and refined foods are disliked by the body, creating an immune response
Eating processed foods can cause the good bacteria in your gut to be pushed out
Recent studies have linked Western diets with increased risks of colon and prostate cancer



Vital Signs is a monthly program bringing viewers health stories from around the world.


(CNN)The developing world is seeing rapid urbanization, with more than half of the world's population now living in cities and this figure expected to reach 70% by 2050.

But with this progression comes an urban lifestyle -- often meaning less physical activity and the consumption of a "Western" diet.

"[There's a] nutrition transition occurring around the world," says David Tilman, professor of Ecology at the University of Minnesota. In a recent study, Tilman explored global trends in diet choices and the link between these diets and health.

"People around the world, as incomes go up, choose more calories and meat in their diet," says Tilman. The result? Potentially disastrous consequences on health and an increased risk of disease.

"We have a whole new group of people who are malnourished because they eat foods that are no good for them, that have no nutritional benefit," says Tilman. The trend contradicts the more traditional causes of malnutrition.

Also on the rise is access to, and consumption of, processed foods.

"Processed foods have low nutritional value," says Tilman, who describes processed food as having empty calories. "Diets low in fruit and vegetables have a strong negative health impact," he says.

And a diet high in processed foods -- and generally a modern "Western" diet -- is even worse.


What is a Western diet?

"The biggest features [of a Western diet] are overconsumption of over-refined sugars, highly refined and saturated fats, animal protein and a reduced intake of plant-based fibers," says Ian Myles, from the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. This translates to a diet high in fat, red meat, salt and sugars, and low in fiber.

"Too many calories in general," says Myles -- a trend aided by the move towards a culture of fast food.

But what impact can this diet have on your health?
Increasing your risk of infection

According to Myles, highly processed and refined foods, common to Western meals, are disliked by the body. "It throws your immune system off kilter," he says.

The biggest culprits in Myles' eyes are foods containing fructose and palmitic acid -- ingredients found commonly in candy bars -- which can kick-start an immune reaction.

"[Palmitic acid] can be confused by the body with bacteria like E.Coli," says Myles. The body then starts an immune attack against the supposed bacteria, which results in a low level of inflammation.

Distracting the immune system in this way means immune cells won't be as ready to attack when facing a real infection. "It throws off the way your body responds...and by the time you recognize it, it will have gotten worse," says Myles.

However, the effect is reversible.

A change in diet to remove exposure to these food components can restore immune activity back to its normal state, according to Myles. "That low-grade inflammation will change," he says.

Changing your gut bacteria
Your gut microbes play a crucial role in the health and wellbeing of not only your gut, but your whole body.

"Every person carries about 1kg of microbes inside them," says Jeremy Nicholson, head of the department of surgery and cancer at Imperial College London. According to Nicholson, the body's gut microbes are heavily connected with the control of the immune system, which in turn controls inflammation.

Eating processed foods can cause the good bacteria in your gut to be pushed out -- leaving you more exposed to the bad ones. "The good bacteria don't survive as well," says Myles.

Obesity and diabetes

The global increase in diets high in fat and calories is seeing rates of obesity and diabetes rise rapidly across the world. "There is soaring obesity," says Nicholson.

In 2014, more than 600 million adults were obese globally, and almost 2 billion adults were overweight, according to the World Health Organization.

"Obesity predisposes you to disease," says Nicholson. Inflammation within the body is also high in obese individuals, increasing their risk of developing diseases such as heart disease, stroke, cancer and joint conditions such as arthritis. "All of these are inflammatory conditions," says Nicholson.

Increased obesity levels are also thought to contribute to a rise in cases of joint conditions and replacements, due to the extra pressure and wear placed on the joints. "Obese people need hip and knee replacement much earlier in their lives," says Nicholson.

Linked to obesity, another disease with rates now soaring globally is diabetes, affecting 374 million people in 2014. The development of Type II diabetes is linked with diet and numbers are rising in every country, according to the IDF diabetes atlas.


Cancer risk
Recent studies have linked Western diets with increased risks of colon and prostate cancer. Men eating mostly a Western diet were found to have 2.5 times the risk of dying from prostate cancer whilst the risks associated with colon cancer again linked back to inflammation and a change in the activities of gut bacteria.

"In obese individuals you get different microbial compositions to produce something that can impact cancer," says Nicholson, who led the recent research exploring risks of colon cancer. In his study, he compared the impact of diet in a group of South Africans and African Americans and found the African Americans to have 50 times more risk of developing colon cancer. "The implications is that ... this is related to their Western diet," he says. By working with African Americans, the team reduced the impact of genetic variation which also plays a role in disease development.

Increased inflammation levels can also damage cells in the region affected -- such as the colon -- causing higher turnover of cells. The more cells replicate, the more chances there are for mutations in the genes they contain -- which increases the risk of cancer.

"Cancer arrives more readily in cells with relatively high turnover," explains Nicholson.

But Nicholson warns that cancer is not a simple disease: "Hundreds of genes are involved," he says. "Your microbes are part of the process but not entirely the cause."


Choices

Clearly, diet plays a large role in the health of a population and when it comes to improving personal health, experts stress the need for people to take more note of what they are eating.

"This is going to have to be voluntary choices people make," says Tilman.

What will you choose?




Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/health/western-diet-health/index.html

Friday, May 22, 2015

Fast Food Tattoos

5
Not really sure what to say about this guy! Is he sharing his obviously love for unhealthy junk food or is he being paid as a human advertising board by the many chains?



Monday, May 11, 2015

Refridgerate Chocolat

"Fat bloom" in chocolate

An article at Chemistry Matters explains that chocolate tastes better if it is kept in a refrigerator.


This is all to do with a phenomenon known as polymorphism, which is the ability for a solid to exist in more than one crystal structure. Each crystal structure is called a polymorph, and each polymorph has its own set of distinct properties. The main ingredient in chocolate, cocoa butter, has six polymorphs which can be distinguished between each other by measuring their melting points...

...at room temperature, the fatty molecules in polymorph V have enough energy to slowly (days/weeks scale) convert to polymorph VI. This transformation in in the crystal structure is facilitated by the vibrational energy stored in the molecules which allow the molecules to wriggle about and realign with each other. This can be stopped by keeping your chocolate in a cool, dark place...Next the "fat bloom" is described

The change in crystal structure is usually accompanied by something called ‘fat bloom,’ which is where the chocolate begins to look dusty, and pale spots appear on the surface... It’s off putting, but still safe to eat. It happens because of partial melting in the solid which cases the fats within it to rise to the surface.

 



Source: http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.ca/2015/05/fat-bloom-in-chocolate.html





Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Karen Armstrong Julian Barnes