Choose Your Poisons

Food additives vary tremendously in character, from diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic female hormone used to stimulate cattle growth by 15 percent and boost efficiency of feed by 12 percent, to butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), an antioxidant used to retard or prevent rancidity and flavor deterioration. Then there is glycerol monostearate, an emulsifying agent derived from partial decomposition of fats, which is used in making ice cream, and a wide variety of artificial coloring compounds (there are now thirty-three permitted in Britain, only nineteen in the EEC, ten in the U.S., and four in the U.S.S.R.). Much of our animal food is laced with antibiotics, which are given to retard meat spoilage. They are also used to suppress evidence of disease in animals that are raised in adverse circumstances and are, therefore, prone to illness. They offer no nutritional benefits.

There are three main ways that food additives can be threats to health: they can be carcinogenic (tending to produce cancer), teratogenic (tending to harm the unborn child in the womb), and mutagenic (tending to produce changes in the gene pattern which can be passed on to future generations). One can add the danger of producing genetic changes in the cell material which promote early aging in the body—of particular concern to a woman intent on preserving her youthfulness and good looks.

Government agencies try to regulate the safety of additives in fabricated foods, but judging from the Canadian and American records of failure and the number of permitted additives that have in recent years been suddenly whisked off the market, this is an impossible task. Only 60 percent of the additives used in Britain have been tested at all and even then only for acute toxicity—that is, to determine whether or not they bring immediate adverse reactions to an organism ingesting them—not for teratogenicity nor for possible genetic effects. In fact, there is simply no way for them to be tested. The tests that are done are carried out on animals, not humans, and as the thalidomide tragedy showed, a substance can appear quite safe from teratogenic effects in laboratory animals, yet result in tragic consequences for a human fetus.

But even our methods of testing are outdated. According to Ross Flume Hall, this is because we have all our assumptions wrong. "Both the standards of nutrition by which these foods are judged and the methods of toxicology used to determine their safety are outmoded nineteenth- century models," he says. Nineteenth-century nutritional theory is based on the notion that all we need from food is protein, carbohydrates, fat, vitamins, and minerals regardless of their source. It is unaware of the interrelationships in natural foods, and of the implications of possible nutrients as yet undiscovered (as with fiber until fifteen years ago) which may be vital for good health. "This limited concept of what constitutes nourishment persists," says Hall, "even though it has been completely outmoded by the enormous advances in understanding of cell and molecular biology."

The nineteenth-century toxicology still practiced today assumes that each chemical tested has its own level of toxicity. As long as one's consumption of that chemical remains below that level, it says, one is safe. It gives no consideration to how different chemicals, tested separately, affect an organism when they are consumed together; nor is any thought given to the cumulative effects of taking a substance regularly over the years.

"What we are beginning to realize," says Hall, "is that not only can chemicals poison in the short term, they can also cause long-term subtle and undetected changes in personal biology. These changes can show themselves in devastating ways such as cancer and other degenerative diseases and birth defects."

Food additives are not the only problems with convenience foods either. Their simple nutritional worth is highly questionable. For in addition to their lack of fiber (natural fiber is largely removed in the manufacture of convenience foods), government surveys in Canada and the United States—where 80 percent of food eaten is now factory-produced —show that in spite of the great wealth of these countries and the availability to the public of a vast variety of foods, in general people are not getting enough vitamins and minerals in their diet. This is in large part because so many of the nutrients are lost in processing.

Researchers at Rutgers University experimented with frozen chicken pies to see what vitamin loss, if any, had taken place in the processing. They chose vitamin C levels. To their amazement, researchers found no vitamin C whatever in commercially prepared frozen pies. Then they added vitamin C to the pies and refroze them. When they were reheated two days later, three quarters of the vitamin had disappeared.

A random sampling of 6.5 million elderly people in Britain, in an investigation sponsored by the Ministry of Health, revealed that four out of five were suffering from vitamin deficiencies—a factor that is probably responsible for a large number of illnesses, including many mental disorders suffered by the elderly. According to Dr. Geoffrey Taylor, who has made a long study of the problem in Britain, "There is every reason to believe these deficiencies are present in other age groups of the population as well."

These are a few of the reasons why the Lifestyle Diet does not include convenience foods. For lasting health and beauty you need the very best complement of nutrients you can get. The McCarrison Society, an organization of doctors and dentists in Britain dedicated to the study of the relationship between nutrition and health, issued a directive that expresses it very well: "Food should be left as close as possible to its natural state. It should be grown on healthy soil. Stored, canned, packaged or precooked food should, whenever possible, be replaced by fresh food. The protective value of a wide range of fresh vegetables, fruits, and low-fat dairy produce is particularly important. Cereal carbohydrates should not be refined and sugar consumption should be at an absolute minimum." These are the basic principles of the Lifestyle Diet. Now let's see how to put it all into practice.

For what sugar you had?

Several different types of sugar are available, namely white, golden brown and the so-called 'speciality sugars' which include soft brown, caramel brown, multicoloured crystals, castor, icing and yellow sugar. Golden brown sugar is the end product of the milling process. Also known as raw sugar, it is from this that all the following types of sugar are produced:

• Soft brown sugar is made by adding extra molasses to raw sugar.
• Caramel brown sugar is produced by adding caramel flavouring and colouring (also made from sugar).

Yellow sugar has simply had yellow colouring added to it.

• White sugar is a refined raw sugar.
• Castor sugar is very finely ground white sugar - which is why, if you're ever stuck without it, you can make your own by grinding ordinary white sugar in your food processor.
• Icing sugar is even more finely ground white sugar, with a little cornflour added to prevent lumps forming.

Sugar and nutrition

Sugar is pure carbohydrate and as such its main contribution to the diet is food energy. One gram provides 17 kilojoules (4 calories). This energy is readily availableto the body, that is, the body can use it very quickly and efficiently. This may be either an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on the situation. For example, for anathlete taking part in an endurance event and therefore requiring a quick energy top-up, sugar is very useful. On the other hand, for diabetics - who have difficulty keeping their blood sugar level under control - the fact bloodstream relatively quickly is a

Another aspect to consider regarding sugar as an energy source is that it is inexpensive. This may not be of concern in affluent nations, but it means that sugar can be used to supplement energy-deficient diets of impoverished communities.

Despite claims to the contrary, the difference between the nutritional value of brown as opposed to white sugar is negligible. The brown variety does contain more molasses (the syrup left behind when sugar crystals are produced from sugar cane) and molasses is a rich source of certain nutrients, but in terms of the overall contribution to the diet, the amounts are insignificant. As an illustration, while molasses is considered a good source of iron, in order to meet the Recommended Daily Allowance for iron for an adult woman from brown sugar alone, one would have to eat nearly half a kilogram!

Why is sugar found in so many foods?

One of the major concerns people have about sugar is the fact that it is found in such a wide variety of foods - including foods that don't even taste sweet - which makes it easy to consume relatively large amounts of sugar without being aware of it. The reason it is used so widely is because it is a very versatile product. It has certain properties which enable it to perform numerous functions in foods - for example, it adds flavour, colour and texture and acts as a natural preservative.

Although sugar substitutes are available, none of these has all the properties of sugar and many products in which it is used would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to produce without sugar. For example, sugar may be used in the production of bread to improve its shelf life and in beer to assist with fermentation. Since South African food law states that food ingredients must be listed in descending order of quantity, you can get a good idea of the extent to which sugar has been used in a product simply by reading labels.

A spoonful of moderation

Having looked at where sugar comes from, what it does and its role in nutrition and health, it is clear that as is the case with so many other aspects of nutrition, much of what is commonly believed is not necessarily accurate. Too often, what is held to be absolute truth is in fact the result of assumptions and hearsay rather than controlled scientific research.

As far as sugar is concerned, the conclusion to which research has brought us is that, provided it is used in moderation as part of a balanced diet, it is not harmful. But what, you may ask, is moderation? It is difficult to give specific quantities because we all have different energy requirements, but the general consensus is that it is acceptable to consume up to 10% of your total energy intake in the form of simple carbohydrates (that is, all sugars). For an average adult man, this would be the equivalent of about 16 teaspoons of table sugar per day; for a woman, about 12 teaspoons. However, because (as mentioned above) so much of the sugar we consume is 'hidden' in manufactured or processed foods, it is very difficult to establish exactly how much sugar you are in fact eating. The best policy, therefore, is to have three balanced meals a day, concentrating on fresh, wholesome foods which are prepared at home wherever possible. Sugar, used sensibly to improve the palatability of such a diet, forms a useful part of good nutrition.

Drugs and weight loss

Generally speaking, drugs are of limited value in the treatment of obesity and should be used with great care (preferably under medical supervision) because of the possibility of dependence and abuse. The most commonly used are the `anorexigenic' drugs which work by suppressing appetite. However, their effect is only temporary and they do nothing to encourage changes in the eating habits which caused the problem in the first place. Also, an ever-increasing dosage is needed for sustained weight loss.

Side effects of these drugs include insomnia, excitability, dryness of the mouth, gastro-intestinal disturbances and addiction. Anorectics increase short-term weight loss but interestingly, follow-up indicates that patients treated with drugs lose less weight in the long term.

There are many other drugs which have received attention in the treatment of obesity. For example:

• thyroid hormone, which increases energy use. Unfortunately, both fat and protein losses occur when this drug is used. Also, the results of thyroid medication seem to be no better than those achieved with a balanced diet alone - and negative side effects involving the heart have been reported.
• growth hormone, which decreases fat stores without causing protein losses. This hormone, however, is in short supply and is not generally used in the treatment of obesity.
• human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG), which is injected and used along with a very low calorie (500 cal/2 100 kJ) diet. It is claimed that this hormone melts away fat and reduces hunger. However, no scientific proof for these claims has been found.
• drugs which interfere with the absorption of carbohydrates and fats. This implies that one can eat as much as you like without getting fat, because all the energy is not absorbed. More research is needed on these drugs to evaluate their long-term efficacy in humans.
• bulking agents, which are intended to fill the stomach with indigestible material in the hope that the resulting feeling of fullness will make the obese person eat less. (Research indicates that this method is not very effective and that it causes flatulence.)

Perhaps the most important point to remember regarding the use of drugs in combatting overweight is that, while they may aid the slimming process, they do not solve the underlying problem and will therefore never be effective as a sole treatment for obesity.

The surgeon's knife

Surgical treatment of obesity is usually the last resort and is generally only used on the excessively obese person when all other method have failed. Surgical procedures used include small bowel bypass and/ or stapling of the stomach, biliopancreatic bypass and jaw wiring. The chances of success are small unless the patient is highly motivated and prepared to follow a very strict diet. Also, these techniques involve considerable risk and could result in the development of other health problems as side effects.

Men and dieting part 1

A couple of years ago I was explaining my area of research at a job interview. After I had given what I considered a clear and full account of my work, the only man in the room said 'There is an obvious logical error in your work'. I was totally taken aback and meekly asked what it was. 'What about men?' he said. I had never really considered men in relation to dieting before. My interest in the area stems from being a woman myself, and I always felt that it was nice to work on something that men hadn't managed to monopolise yet. This post is a concession to that male interviewer, and to the many other men who have told me 'it's just as bad for men'.

Men also have role models and heroes. Over the centuries, literature has been full of ever changing images of the ideal man. In 1813 Jane Austen wrote in Pride and Prejudice:

Mr Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien; and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance, of his having ten thousand a year.

Attractive men were tall, straight and rich.

In the 1950s Charles Atlas used to be the ideal man. Men were sold work-out kits and body-building equipment. They had to be large, powerful and strong. They were men of few words and lots of muscles. But what is the message now? Do men have an image that they have to conform to?

It is often assumed that the media focus only on women's bodies in their attempts to sell a wide variety of products. Most adverts still have women modelling anything from clothes to cars

to cleaning fluid. I asked several men if they felt there were pressures on men to look a certain way.

One 25-year-old NHS manager immediately replied: 'Definitely' and proceeded to provide a detailed description of the ideal man:

You have to be tall, in a sharp suit (casual but smart), exuding money. The ideal body is well built, wide shoulders, a v-shaped back tapering to a firm bottom with dimples and a flat stomach.

He felt that men used to be proud of their beer guts but now they were ashamed and hid them.

Another 25-year-old man said that the ideal man was summed up by the actor Richard Gere: 'Not over-muscular, fit and at fighting weight. So that you don't really notice his body, but it is capable of doing what it's supposed to do without impairing itself' He felt that the ideal body was to do with fitness and health. He felt that the ideal body was one that was not noticeable because it was 'how a man's body should be'. Another felt that the ideal man was 'lithe, fit, stubbly and dark haired'.

I also asked several men what these images meant to them. The most common answer was that being tall, thin and fit meant that you were in control, and control was central to the 1990s' image of the ideal man. It also meant that you were healthy and confident and therefore capable of being a success in all other areas of life.

With the rise of the 1980s' work ethic, men in the media have become leaner; they look hard working and healthy. The ideal man does not self-indulge, he is in control and in command of his life. Hedonism seems to be becoming a thing of the past and this is illustrated by the contemporary ideal man.

So where do these images come from? These pressures seem to come from three sources: other men, women and the media.

One man said: 'Other men joke about putting on weight. They say "you're letting yourself go a bit" or suggest that you should take up squash at lunchtime.'

Another said, 'You overhear women talking about firm bottoms and flat stomachs and you realise that that's what they expect.' He also said: 'You know that women find certain film stars attractive. You also realise that they know nothing about them apart from how they look and what their bodies are like, so you realise that it is their bodies that make them attractive.'

The pressure also comes from the media. Over recent years there has been an increase in men used in advertising, all of whom are thin and stereotypically attractive. Media men have become less hedonistic and increasingly in control and reserved. In a recent television advert, a young man is used to advertise healthy pre-cooked meals. He is thin, healthy and represents clean living and self-control. He looks sensible. Male heroes of the 1960s and 1970s had an air of excess and debauchery about them. Now men are tame and controlled. The only media man that any of the men I interviewed could think of who was outside this image was Jack Nicholson who personifies total hedonism, self- indulgence and pleasure. Perhaps his attractiveness comes from his obvious rejection of social norms, and his ability not to conform, not to use tricks and not to be influenced by what other people expect.

Women tend to assume that men can get away with a greater variety of looks, sizes and shapes than women. It is believed that the male personality can compensate for many (but not all) physical characteristics. Woody Allen is a sex symbol; the female equivalent would never have even made it through the studio door. However, the media do seem to present an image of the ideal man of the 1980s and 1990s. How do men respond to these images? Do men feel dissatisfied with their bodies?

In 1968 Diabiase and Hjelle carried out a study to evaluate men's idea of the ideal body size. Groups of fat, average and thin men were shown silhouettes of male bodies which were also fat, thin and of average weight. The men were then asked to say which size they preferred and why. All the male subjects regardless of their own size preferred the average weight. They felt that both the thin and fat bodies represented qualities such as being shy, dependent and withdrawn, whereas the average-size body represented being active, energetic and dominant.

The men in the study showed a preference for a particular size. But was this reflected in a dissatisfaction with their own size?

Men and women were asked to rate their ideal size and their actual size. All the women subjects showed a large discrepancy between how they felt they looked and how they wanted to look, but the young men in the study did not. Regardless of their actual size, they felt satisfied with their weight.

Although men may report an ideal size and a preference for a particular body size this does not seem to be reflected in a dissatisfaction with their own size. It would seem that men are not directly affected with worries about their weight.

Put our Harvest on Hope: Hope in People

It is important that we talk, often and enthusiastically, about the positive developments that are going on around the world. For one thing, it does seem that more and more people have woken up to what has happened to our food, have begun to comprehend the almost unbelievable mess we have made. And so people are starting to protest. To protest against the insults being perpetrated, in the name of progress, against people, animals, and the environment, and the unsustainable demands that are being made on our children's future, the future of our planet. Some of these protesters took on awesome tasks: like Percy Schmeiser, who took on Monsanto; and the two New York teenagers Jazlyn Bradley and Ashley Pelman who stood up to McDonald's. Of course, there are countless cases when people have fought against injustice and lost. Robert Kennedy won his case against the pork barons, only to have the rug snatched from under his feet when the legislation was subsequently changed to allow them to continue polluting. But every time a stand is made there are more people who hear aboutwhat is going on. More people who can work in their own way to make a difference.

I find hope in the people who join forces to buy farmland to save it from development and those who pull genetically modified crops out of the ground. Others organize and operate the farmers markets and cooperatives. Some are involved in the Slow Food movement, and many restaurateurs, such as Alice Waters of Chez Panisse and Tod Murphy of the Farmers Diner, are changing the world one plate at a time. It seldom makes front-page headlines when a company opens an organic food line, when a restaurant chain commissions its produce from a local organic farmer, or a household decides to join a Community Sponsored Agriculture group, a CSA, yet these are the actions that bring me hope, for they are already making change in the world.

There is hope, also, in the resilience of nature, her ability to repair the wounds we have inflicted. TACARE, the Jane Goodall Institute's program to improve the lives of the villagers living around the Gombe National Park, is a perfect example, for innovative techniques have restored life and productivity to land that had been overfarmed and abandoned, most of the topsoil washed away. It is harder, and takes a very long time and very hard work, to rescue land that has been polluted by years of chemical poisons, but it can be done.

And there is hope in the growing number of people who care, and do something about it. The wonderful mother- daughter team, Frances Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé, in their book, Hope's Edge, describe "a new social mentality" that has been developed in Belo Horizonte, the fourth largest city in Brazil. There was a time when one fifth of the children there were malnourished and poverty was rampant. Then, in 1993, Belo became "the only city in the capitalist world that has decided to make food security a right of citizenship" (my italics).

The city improved the way the food market worked. It provided all the students in the city's schools four nutritious meals per day, with ingredients mostly from local farmers. The city set up produce stands for some forty local farmers. It owns and operates the Restaurante Popular, which serves 6,000 meals a day at less than half the market price. This is all made possible by the twenty-six warehouse-sized stores that sell local produce at fixed prices—often half the price of nearby grocers. These stores are on government-owned prime urban real estate rented out to entrepreneurs at rock- bottom prices—the government reserves the right to setthe price, and the vendors must make weekend deliveries to the poor.

There is a Green Basket program that links hospitals, restaurants, and big food buyers to local, organic growers.

There is a local food council that helps to form partnerships with church and labor groups, and advises the government on ways of improving the food system. The entire program consumes only 1 percent of the city's budget and it is reckoned to be extremely cost-effective—the children do better in school with the opportunity of being productive citizenswhen they leave, and the entire population of the city is far healthier.

Indeed, the human brain, this organ—the spongy mass of gooey cells we all house in our skulls—is capable of the most wondrous technologies. Unfortunately, when there is a disconnect between mind and heart, technology can be— and has been and is being—used for evil purposes. Unless our intellect is bonded closely with our feelings of love andcompassion, although we may still be very clever, we shall not be wise.

Fortunately, my constant traveling gives me many opportunities to meet many of the wise, such as Dr. HugoHubacec and Dr. Peter Kromer, who came to see me in Vienna in the spring of 2005 to explain their remarkable technology. "SIPIN Technology" can revolutionize farming inarid conditions and greatly reduce hunger. Because no sophisticated machinery is involved it can be used easily by the local villagers.

SIPIN is a water-absorbent, natural silicate powder that is adjusted to the local conditions and used in combination with local soils. It is applied in the area around the plant's roots, and covered with local earth or sand. Over time SIPIN turns into amorphous clay minerals and stable, natural clay-soil compounds. These show high water absorption. After treating the roots of one plant, others can be planted in the same place without further applications for at least three years. It is possible to save up to 75 percent of the water otherwise used to sustain the crops, which, in a dry area, can save lives. By using SIPIN, the available water resources can nourish three to four times more people. "We do not want SIPIN to be marketed by one of the big corporations," Dr. Hubacec told me. "This is just to help people." It was an exciting meeting and we plan to work together to take this remarkable technology to places where it is so desperately needed.

Additives are Used in Foods

If you are concerned about some of their effects, there are some very good pocket guides available that you w take with you to the supermarket.

A. Colorings

These are colours added to make a product seem more appealing. Colours can be divided into two groups. There are natural colours extracted from plants or animals, like caramels and carotene; or a tificial colours made from azo dyes or coal-tar dyes. There are people who are sensitive to some 0 these colourings.

B. Preservatives and food acids

These are added to foods to slow down or prevent spoilage from bacteria or fungi. They maintain constant acid levels in the food.

C. Antioxidants, mineral salts and food acids

Antioxidants slow down rancidity and colour change due to oxidation from air. Mineral salts increase plumpness, add texture and water-holding capacity. Food acids maintain constant acid levels.

D. Emulsifiers, stabilisers, humectants, mineral salts, vegetable gums, anti-caking agents, firming agents, flour treatment agents

Emulsifiers and stabilisers stop water and oil from separating, for example, in margarines, chocolate, pastry and confectionery. Humectants are used in things like icings, cakes, soft tortillas and muesli bars to maintain moistness. Mineral salts improve the texture of foods like deli meats and ham. Vegetable gums thicken and gel foods like ice cream and mayonnaise. Anti-caking agents ensure that foods like flavour sachets and salt flow freely from the packet and do not clump together.

E. Flavour enhancers

Fl your enhancers bring out the flavour or aroma of a product, but do not contribute any flavour of their own. Number 621 (Monosodium Glutamate - MSG) is one of the most common examples.

This chemical flavour enhancer is very questionable because of the health risks associated with it. Flavour your enhancers are used in savoury foods like crackers, stock and gravy powders, instant noodle sachets and sauces, and some children's snacks.

F. Sweetening agents, bleaching agents, propellants (aerosols), anti-foaming agents, glazing agents

Sweeteners are used as a replacement for sugar in foods like soft drinks, yoghurts, chewing gum, protein powders and weight-loss products. Aspartame (951) is one of the more commonly used, and there are questions about its safety. Sometimes two sweeteners are used together - one as an intense flavour hit and the other as a bulking agent.