Food Standards Agency Calls For a Voluntary Ban on Certain Food Additives

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) last week issued its advise to
government ministers following research (funded by the FSA) into the
effects of certain food colours on children's behaviour. The Agency has
called for voluntary action by manufacturers in the UK to remove these
colours by 2009, with a view to phasing them out in food and drink
across the European Union (EU).

The specific additives, found in sweets and soft drinks commonly
consumed by children, are the artificial colours:
· Sunset yellow (E110)
· Quinoline yellow (E104)
· Carmoisine (E122)
· Allura red (E129)
· Tartrazine (E102)
· Ponceau 4R (E124)

The effect of these additives on the behavoiur of children was examinmed
in a rigourous study by researchers at the University of Southampton,
published in the Lancet last year. Average children from the general
population of Southampton (153 three-year-olds and 144 eight-year-olds)
were given identical looking daily drinks containing either a mixture of
the additives listed above plus sodium benzoate (a preservative) at
different concentrations, or pure fruit juice over a six week period.
The additive containing drinks resulted in significantly increased
hyperactivity.

The research team used a combination of reports on the children's
behaviour from teachers and parents, together with recordings of the
children's behaviour in the classroom made by an observer, and, for the
older children, a computer-based test of attention. None of the
participants – teachers, parents, the observer, or the children – knew
which drink each child was taking at any one time. Note that sodium
benzoate was not listed by the FSA. This is because its effects could
not be isolated from that of the food colourings; they stated,
therefore, that more research would be required to justify a voluntary
ban. To read the study abstract click here.

The mechanism by which the additives increase hyperactivity is not yet
understood, but since the additives have no function other than to give
the food a certain appearance the Agency believes the recommendations
are proportionate. The Agency has concluded that recent evidence has
shaken the confidence that can be placed in the safety of the specified
additives. Dame Deirdre Hutton, Chair of the Food Standards Agency,
summarises: "It is the Agency's duty to put consumers first. These
additives give colour to foods but nothing else. It would therefore be
sensible, in the light of the findings of the Southampton Study, to
remove them from food and drink products. UK industry has already taken
great strides to remove these colours from food; this decision builds on
the work already done and will encourage industry to continue down this
path."

The view of the FSA has been opposed by the Food and Drink Federation
trade body, who called it "bizarre". Certain foods, such as mushy peas,
battenberg cakes and turkish delight, would have to be temporarily
removed from the market.

Nutrition experts have been concerned about the effects of food
additives for some time; given that colourings perform no function other
than to make products often consisting of little more than sugar look
consumer friendly there is no reason not to applaud the FSA.

From Nutri's Newsletter No. 98

Probiotics May Help Alcoholic Livers

New research suggests that probiotic supplements may help to restore the
immune function of white blood cells in alcoholics.

The small study was carried out by researchers at University College
London who assigned patients with alcoholic cirrhosis to receive
probiotic supplements. At the beginning of the study, white blood cell
(neutrophil phagocyte) capacity was 25% lower in the people with
alcoholic cirrhosis compared to the healthy controls. At the end of the
study, however, this capacity was normalised in the people receiving the
probiotics. No improvements were observed in the alcoholic cirrhosis
controls.

The study results dramatically showed that neutrophil (white blood cell)
function was restored after just four weeks of probiotic supplementation.

"Patients with alcoholic cirrhosis are susceptible to infections and
once infected, they have increased in-hospital mortality, this may
relate to a defective innate immune response in conjunction with an
inappropriate inflammatory response," said the researchers.

This new study adds to the fast growing body of research on probiotics.
Previous studies have already reported benefits from probiotics for the
immune response, but no research has ever studied their potential
benefits in immune function of people with alcoholic cirrhosis, stated
the researchers.

Source: Journal of Hepatology (Elsevier)
Published online ahead of print 25 March 2008, doi:
10.1016/j.jhep.2008.02.015
"Effect of probiotic treatment on deranged neutrophil function and
cytokine responses in patients with compensated alcoholic cirrhosis"
Authors: V. Stadlbauer, R.P. Mookerjee, S. Hodges, G.A.K. Wright, N.A.
Davies, R. Jalan

From Nutri's newsletter, No. 98

New Study Links Abdominal Fat to Alzheimers Disease

Abdominal fat has long been linked to a higher risk of diabetes, stroke
and heart disease. Now, it seems that being 'apple' shaped can also put
people at a higher risk of suffering from dementia in later life.

Previous research has shown that obesity can increase the risks of
developing dementia but now, a new study has found a separate risk from
having extra fat stored around the abdominal area.

The study involved over 6,500 people who were monitored for an average
of 36 years. Compared to people with normal body weight and a low belly
measurement, people with normal body weight and high belly measurements
were 89 percent more likely to have dementia. And the risk increased
among overweight and obese people with high belly measurements.

The authors concluded: "Central obesity in midlife increases risk of
dementia independent of diabetes and cardiovascular co-morbidities. 50%
of adults have central obesity; therefore, mechanisms linking central
obesity to dementia need to be unveiled."

It's not known why abdominal fat may promote dementia, but it may
produce substances that could be harmful to the brain, the researchers said.

Sources:
Neurology March 26, 2008

From Nutri's Newsletter No. 98

Are anti-oxidants REALLY harmful to you??

Patrick Holford writes in his 100% Health e-newsletter:

Headlines in today's papers such as 'Vitamin Pills "Increase Risk of
Early Death"' claim that anti-oxidants are not good for you and could
even do you harm. But, don't believe everything you read!

What's this review about?

This is the fourth time Bjekalovic and his group have reviewed the
effects on selected studies on antioxidants. Anyone following the
science of antioxidants over the past 20 years will be aware of a vast
number of studies reporting positive results. So, how do you end up with
a headline that implies antioxidants increase mortality?

In this review, which is a rehash of their paper published last year in
the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), they first excluded
over 400 trials, that had no deaths. They then decided which trials they
liked (low risk bias) and did not like (high risk bias), a factor that
has received criticism in mainstream medical journals.

What the experts say

One of the world's leading experts in this field, Dr Balz Frei said
"This is a flawed analysis of flawed data, and it does little to help us
understand the real health effects of antioxidants, whether beneficial
or otherwise," (1)

Dr Bernadine Healey, former director of the National Institute of Health
said, "Blenderizing these diverse trials into one giant
232,606-patient-strong study to come up with a seductively simple
proclamation is just silly. When the researchers tallied up the
mortality from the 68 trials, there was no difference based on vitamin
intake. The headlines that these supplements significantly increase the
risk of death by 5 percent overall came only when the researchers pulled
out the 47 trials they deemed to have been the best executed. Actually,
in the 21 randomized trials they peeled off, mortality was decreased by
9 percent among those taking the vitamins." (2)

How did they come up with the reported results?

Not surprisingly, the selection process in today's review excluded many
of the most positive studies. For example, quoting the review itself,
'In secondary prevention trials (meaning people with disease) with
high-bias risk, mortality was significantly reduced by supplements.' In
those they called 'low-bias risk' there was no significant change in
mortality.

To report an even more negative result, which is what newspapers often
home in on, they also excluded all trials on selenium, which actually
reduced mortality the most of all the antioxidants considered.

Beta-carotene

As an example, let's look at beta-carotene, which is given the worst
rating. The review states 'Beta-carotene used singly or in combination
with other antioxidants had no significant effect on mortality when
including all 24 trials' BUT 'After exclusion of high-bias risk and
selenium trials, however, beta-carotene singly or combined significantly
increased mortality in 12 trials.'

Antioxidants and cancer

Even if we were to accept the exclusion of the so-called high-bias risk
trials let's look more closely at the apparently negative studies. A
graph of all these trials shows five that skew the results towards a
negative (p.167). I thought I'd look closer at these trials. The first
was by Dr Correa from the pathology department at the Louisiana State
University Health Sciences Centre, and showed a clear protective
effective of antioxidant supplements against gastrointestinal cancer. (3)

I decided to contact Dr Correa and he was "amazed", he said, because his
research, "far from being negative, had shown clear benefit from taking
vitamins". Correa told us there was no way the study could show anything
about mortality. "Our study was designed for evaluation of the progress
of pre-cancerous lesions", he said. "It did not intend, and did not have
the power, to study mortality and has no value to examine mortality of
cancer."

Vitamin E and statins

The next, called the DATOR trial, gave people with high cholesterol,
high dose vitamin E (750iu) and statins. (4) As nutritionists we caution
against this because statins stop you making CoQ10 which results in
vitamin E becoming a potentially harmful oxidant. That's exactly what
this trial reported, "These results indicate that the antioxidant effect
of Vitamin E is attenuated (reduced) when given in conjunction with this
statin." So these negative effects of vitamin E might actually be
because it's taken with a drug that makes it harmful! Given that the
majority of the trials included in this review were on sick people,
presumably taking medication, this kind of confounding variable really
should be taken into account. It is not.

Selenium's protective effects

The next trial, published on the Mayo Clinic's journal, that skewed the
results to a negative reported a positive outcome. (5) It investigated
the effect of selenium of oesophageal cancer. It found that 'among
subjects with mild esophageal squamous dysplasia (early stage) at
baseline, selenomethionine did have a protective effect.' For those with
more advanced cancer it did not.

In January this year the authors published a paper 'Efficacy of
antioxidant supplementation in reducing primary cancer incidence and
mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.'(6) Their conclusion was
that 'beta carotene supplementation appeared to increase cancer
incidence and cancer mortality among smokers, whereas vitamin E
supplementation had no effect. Selenium supplementation might have
anticarcinogenic effects in men and thus requires further research.'

So, what does all this mean?

Well, if you look at all the studies reviewed, strictly for reducing
mortality, not for other benefits, Bjekalovic concludes 'Beta-carotene,
vitamin A and vitamin C, used singly or in combination with other
antioxidants had no significant effect' although a number of vitamin C
studies did report reduced mortality. 'Selenium used singly or in
combination with other antioxidants significantly decreased mortality.'
(7). Beta-carotene, as we know, is best not taken singly by smokers.
Vitamin E in high dose, as we know, should not be taken by those on
statins without additional CoQ10. Selenium and vitamin C are most likely
to be beneficial.

So, should we throw away our antioxidants?

Certainly not. Personally, I haven't recommended isolated antioxidant
supplementation for 20 years and doubt they would produce much effect in
sick people with advanced disease states, except for vitamin C at high
doses - a subject not examined in this review. Antioxidants are team
players. I take a combination of vitamin E, CoQ10, vitamin C,
glutathione, anthocyanidins, resveratrol, beta-carotene, alpha lipoic
acid and selenium. There's good reason to do so if you look at what's
known about their effects in reducing markers of ageing. But these are
as well as eating loads of fruit and veg, nuts and seeds.

Wishing you the best of health, and don't forget - if you want to stay
ahead of the pack on health and nutrition news then join my 100%health Club.

References

1. http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2007/Feb07/vitaminstudy.html

2. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/070304/12healy_print.htm

3. P Correa et al, 'Chemoprevention of gastric dysplasia: Randomized
trial of antioxidant supplements and anti-Helicobacter pylori therapy',
Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2000), vol 92, pp1881-8.

4. Manuel-Y-Keenoy B et al Impact of Vitamin E supplementation on
lipoprotein peroxidation and composition in Type 1 diabetic patients
treated with Atorvastatin. Atherosclerosis. 2004 Aug;175(2):369-76]

5. Bardia et al Randomized, placebo-controlled, esophageal squamous cell
cancer chemoprevention trial of selenomethionine and
celecoxib.Gastroenterology. 2005 Sep;129(3):863-73

6. Bardia A et al Efficacy of antioxidant supplementation in reducing
primary cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and
meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Jan;83(1):23-34.

7. Bjelakovic et al, Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality
in healthy participants and patients with various diseases (Review),
Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008

From Patrick Holfords 100% Health E-News

Processed Meats Once Again Linked to Cancer

A new report suggests that eating processed meats such as those commonly
found in the traditional English breakfast, can increase the risk of
bowel cancer by 20%.

The report showed that eating processed meats such as ham, bacon,
sausages or pastrami can raise the risk.

The new alert comes from the World Cancer Research Fund, which is
recommending that people should be wary of eating processed meats.
"Whether you are talking about bacon, ham or pastrami, the safest amount
to eat is none at all. You can make a positive difference by cutting out
as much as possible," says Prof Martin Wiseman, the Fund's medical and
scientific adviser.

He also said that some processed meats have also been associated with
increasing the risk of other cancers, such as the oesophagus, lung,
stomach and prostate.

Source: http://www.wcrf-uk.org/research_science/recommendations.lasso

Report: 'Food, nutrition, physical activity and the prevention of
cancer: a Global Perspective' by The World Cancer Research Fund.
Published Nov. 2007

From the Nutri Newsletter

Are We Becoming Too Clean?

Just take a moment to think about the many different cleaning products,
anti-bacterial hand sanitisers, anti-bacterial soaps and wipes on the
market. Then add this to the antibiotics you might be exposed to, in
your food and by prescription and the fact that most of the food supply
is pasteurised or otherwise treated to remove both good and bad
bacteria. And then ask yourself; 'are we as a society becoming rather
obsessed with cleanliness and hygiene and is this really doing our
health any good?'

Alarmingly, the real truth of the matter is that as society in general
becomes more "sterile," it is causing real problems for our immune
systems, which are becoming increasingly unable to differentiate between
real threats and harmless things like pollen and dust-mites.

Before reaching for every single anti-bacterial product in existence,
think about the impact for future generations. An overly sterile immune
system is not necessarily such a good thing. Children's immune systems
are not being exposed to bacteria and viruses like they were in the
past, which may result in an excessive immune response against something
routine such as a peanut, and can result in allergies and autoimmune
diseases.

Trust your grandmother when she tells you that a little bit of dirt is
good for you.
Numerous studies have provided very compelling evidence that your body
actually benefits from regular exposure to dirt. Being exposed to a bit
of bacteria means that the immune system can do what it's supposed to:
develop a tolerance to it. This is what has been found so far:

- Children who grow up in extremely clean homes are more likely to
develop asthma and hay fever than children who grow up on farms or in
houses with a little bit of dirt, according to a 2002 study in The New
England Journal of Medicine.

- Children who are overly hygienic are at an increased risk of
developing wheezing (a symptom of asthma) and eczema. A study in the
Archives of Disease in Childhood found that children with the highest
degree of personal hygiene, i.e. those who washed their faces and hands
more than five times per day, cleaned before meals, and bathed more than
twice each day, were the most likely to develop eczema and wheezing.

- Children who are raised with pets, or who have older siblings, are
less likely to develop allergies, possibly because they are exposed to
more bacteria.

From the Nutri Newsletter

Focus On…Nutrition and Indigestion

Most people experience "heartburn", or indigestion, on occasion. It
happens when acid from the stomach leaks back up through the oesophagus
(gullet), irritating the delicate lining of the oesophagus, resulting in
a burning pain across the front of the chest (acid reflux).

Normally the sphincter, a muscle between the oesophagus and stomach,
tightens up to stop food and stomach acid coming back up out of the
stomach. Acid reflux happens when the sphincter does not work
effectively, or when the stomach is very full (for example, after a
large meal). Note that because your stomach empties into your duodenum
(the top part of your small intestine), fluids from your duodenum can
also become part of reflux. DGER, or duodenogastro-oesophageal reflux,
involves these intestinal fluids, including bile salts; "alkaline
reflux" or "bile reflux" are the older names for this condition.

When reflux occurs frequently the lining of the oesophagus can become
damaged, a condition known as Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease (GORD)
has developed. A number of circumstances can result in acid reflux.
Smoking relaxes the sphincter, increasing the risk of getting heartburn.
Similarly certain foods, in susceptible individuals, can relax the
sphincter; the most common culprits are oranges and other citrus fruits,
chocolate and fatty foods, while coffee and tomatoes can directly
irritate the oesophagus.

Acid reflux can also happen when there is a lot of pressure on your
stomach forcing the stomach contents out and back up into the
oesophagus; constipation, pregnancy, obesity, tight clothing and bending
all cause such pressure. Some medications, including aspirin and
ibuprofen, can cause heartburn.

Treatment of Heartburn
There are several different types of medications used for heartburn,
each works in a different way. Over-the-counter antacids (e.g. Rennie)
neutralise the stomach acids, histamine H2 blockers (e.g. Zantac 75)
interfere with the production of acid, and proton pump inhibitors (PPI)
suppress molecules in the glands responsible for the release of acid.
Calcium and magnesium are natural antacids and form the basis of the
Rennie formula.

Recent research indicates that prolonged use of PPI medication can
deplete vitamin B12 levels regardless of whether an RDA level supplement
is also used.

Natural Prevention and Management
The easiest way to prevent heartburn is to avoid foods that trigger it
off, which varies with the individual. Eat slowly, eat smaller, more
regular meals if you are susceptible. Do not lie down or exercise soon
after food and try not to eat or drink within 2-3 hours of going to bed.
Some more difficult preventative measures include losing weight and
avoiding stress.

Some people may find reducing acid forming foods helps; these include
eggs, meat, fish, coffee, yoghurt, cranberries, plums and prunes. Some
foods associated with heartburn (notably oranges and chocolate) are in
fact alkaline forming. It is important to remember that there are two
types of reflux, where the stomach contents are too acidic you get acid
reflux, where stomach contents are not acidic enough (too alkaline) you
get alkaline reflux.

For a natural alternative to antacids try a calcium and magnesium
supplement. Liquorice with the glycyrrhizin removed is famed for its
ability to prevent and help heal gastric ulcers, a potential
complication of acid reflux; try 250-500mg 3 times daily.

From the Nutri Newsletter

Plant Sterols . . . Could they be the Most Versatile Supplements on the Market?

A new age of nutrient-enriched functional foods has led to the increased reputation of plant compounds called phytosterols, or plant sterols. Once unheard of, more and more people are now starting to understand how important these compounds are for optimum and long-lasting health. What is news to most people though, is that there are now literally hundreds of highly regarded studies and reports that attest to the effectiveness of these natural plant derivatives in maintaining health.

You may already be using plant sterols in your practice to help with your patients' cholesterol levels, but are you really aware of the sheer versatility of these powerful plant compounds?

Click here to find out more

From the Nutri Newsletter