The Truth About Caffeine: Why We Know So Little About Our Favorite Drug

  Personal Health  

Salon.com / By Lindsay Abrams

The Truth About Caffeine: Why We Know So Little About Our Favorite Drug

 

Caffeine has a stronger hold on us than we realize, says author Murray Carpenter.

Photo Credit: racorn / Shutterstock.com

March 16, 2014  |  

 

 

In a culture where we worry about unregulated chemicals and food additives, it’s shocking how little we know about one of the most common ones: caffeine. We spend a lot more time consuming the drug than we do thinking about it, says author Murray Carpenter. Meanwhile, none of the companies peddling it have been willing to talk about it. And the FDA, up until very recently, has been remiss in not regulating it.

“It is a topic that many of us feel we know a lot about,” Carpenter said. “But the more I got into it I found out that a lot surprised me.” What he found was a mixed picture: Caffeine isn’t all bad, but it certainly isn’t all good, either. And the information we need to maintain a healthy relationship with it is, for a large part, inaccessible to us.

I was several coffees in when I reached Carpenter to talk about his new book, “Caffeinated,” which delves into the history, science and industry interests surrounding the mind-sharpening white powder. As befits two addicts talking about their shared addiction, things got a bit confessional. As such, this interview has been edited for length, clarity and personal details.

Is caffeine just another drug? Is it something that people are forming real addictions to? And if not, how do we distinguish it from something that is completely unregulated or, say, bought on the street?

Well, yes to your first question. It is just another drug. It’s been well-established for over a century that people know it’s a drug that has very predictable effects when you take it.

In terms of addiction, it’s really fraught, of course. It is certainly addictive in the sense that it has a number of characteristics that we associate with addictive drugs. You crave it, develop a tolerance to it, and certainly most people who are at least moderate to heavy users will undergo some withdrawal symptoms on ceasing its use. These are qualities that we associate with addictive drugs. There are some people who, of course, argue that without some kind of really negative social connotations, a drug doesn’t really deserve the term “addiction.” So some people like to call it a “mildly addictive” drug. This is to say people aren’t missing work because they’re jonesing for caffeine or holding up a bank or ruining their family relationships because they’re addicted to caffeine.

There are also some people who — and this is another characteristic of addictive drugs — either want to moderate or eliminate their consumption of caffeine for various reasons who have a hard time doing it.

Yeah, I’ve been there.

Right, I think a lot of people have. So why did you try to quit? Was it for pregnancy, for fun or for sleep?

No. I’ve just gotten to the point where I’ll get a headache if I don’t start my day with a cup of coffee, which makes me think it can’t be healthy.

So did you quit cold turkey?

I’ve never quit cold turkey. No.

Yeah, OK. But have you gone down to zero?

Not since I really became a daily coffee drinker. I can’t. 

And, you know, this is really interesting. This is one of the things. I think you’re aware of this, but I think for a lot of people, it’s almost like wallpaper. Not just physically in our brains and in our bodies, but the habit is so reflexive that people just tend to take their coffee every day. A lot of people who don’t think about it very much don’t remember the last time they didn’t have a cup of coffee. I’ve certainly talked to people who have for decades not skipped their coffee and still don’t think caffeine is a particularly big deal to them.

You will hear this common perception, though, that it’s an unhealthy habit. And as you write, there is some evidence to the contrary …

You’re dialing in on it. All these questions are really great because I think a lot of us have this sense of unease. Well, we love coffee or we love caffeine, but we feel like, “Hey, maybe it’s not good for us.” So the question everyone wants to know is, what’s the verdict? Is it good for me or is it bad for me?

I think the simplest answer — and this is what you were getting toward, right? — the simplest answer is if you’re not pregnant or expecting or hoping to become pregnant, and you don’t have trouble with insomnia or anxiety, and you’re happy with your caffeine use, I’ve seen nothing to indicate that it’s going to shorten your life or make you less healthy. And, of course, then there are some things that suggest, specifically, that caffeinated coffee — and this is distinct from caffeine — may even have some beneficial health effects.

Is coffee even our main source of caffeine anymore?

It is. We’re taking more caffeinated soft drinks, by volume, and we’re spending more on them. But coffee remains the primary source of caffeine in our diet, by far and away, actually.

So it’s the rise of other foods and drinks being injected with caffeine that’s getting the FDA’s attention, and making people start to rethink things. Things like caffeinated gum … I think I even saw a caffeinated body spray once.

I’ve got that here on my desk. And you’re a caffeine user, so you would appreciate how unappealing this thing is. Right here in the brochure, it talks about how weak it is: “If you still don’t really get the boost you want, you may have just developed a high tolerance to caffeine, in which case we suggest abstaining from other caffeinated products for a week and tryingSprayable again.” Like, oh great, thanks, guys.

Yeah, that wouldn’t do anything for me. 

No. But in the event I quit for a week, I will try this Sprayable stuff.

Anyway, what FDA is concerned about is the new energy products that are appearing in many different forms. It was Wrigley Gum that was sort of the straw that broke the camel’s back, even though there is nothing particularly new about caffeinated gum. As the FDA explained it to me, one of the biggest, most well-known corporations in the U.S. is putting out a caffeinated gum, it’s sort of time to say, “Whoa! Let’s take a better look at this.”

One of the things that surprised me in your book was how little we know about products’ caffeine content, and how much the content can vary. Is that going to be hard for the FDA to quantify?

Yes and no. This is something I’m absolutely fascinated with. I spent a lot of time talking to people about this, trying to get a sense of how well people understand how much caffeine they use and take. So the opportunity for FDA and the manufacturers of all these different products is anything to which you add caffeine, in which case it’s precisely calibrated. So it’s no trouble at all to say, “This product contains X milligrams of caffeine.” And I think whatever else the FDA is able to do to corral caffeine — and I think the options are sort of limited at this point — really strong, quantitative mandatory labeling would be a really great first step.

Of course, tea and coffee present other problems. But for the products to which you’re adding caffeine, why not just state it upfront? “Here’s how much you have. Here’s how much is in here.” They do it for energy products in Canada.

Why don’t they do that now? Is it just because they don’t have to?

Yeah, they don’t have to. And to be clear, some companies are just starting to and some companies always have. Red Bull always has labeled the precise amount of caffeine that they have. And the larger soft drink bottlers have over the past few years started to voluntarily label the amount — the quantity — of caffeine. So Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Snapple — those products — you can see it. It’s typically small and it’s in the nutrition label section, so it’s not ideal. I think a lot of parents, if they get their kid a Sunkist, they have no idea it has caffeine in it. But still it’s heading in the right direction. But I think bigger labels with the quantity would be a great first step.

So would helping people understand what those amounts mean. I got the impression that people don’t really have a good sense of what a standard measurement of caffeine is.

Right. As opposed to a unit of alcohol or something, we don’t. That’s why I came up with this term, a “SCAD” (standard caffeine dose). I don’t know if that will stick or anything, but I’m hoping that it’s something that gets people thinking that it would be helpful to have some kind of measuring stick. A more easily understandable way to quantify a dose.

In products that naturally contain caffeine, it’s a lot harder. You wrote about the person who went to Starbucks and measured the caffeine in the same cup of coffee every day, and it varied wildly — like the difference between a glass of wine and two shots of hard alcohol. Is there any way of standardizing that?

I think it’s hard. I think it’s really, really hard. Again, the best way to do it, if you’re making your own coffee, is to stick to the same blend, use approximately the same measurement and drink the same amount. It’s going to help, but growing conditions, roasting conditions, different things can influence the coffee caffeine levels. It’s a natural product.

So, interestingly, one of the things I hadn’t really thought about before I started reporting this book is if you really want to precisely calibrate your caffeine, one of the best ways to do it is to use a soft drink that has the amount precisely marked. One of the attributes of soft drinks is you can see, for example with Coke or Diet Coke, how much caffeine you’re consuming in that product.

Why do you think people aren’t more riled up about caffeine, and the way in which it’s so unregulated?

I guess I have a couple of thoughts on that. One is, of course — and the word denial is probably too strong — but we all are conflicted about it, because the vast majority of us are taking this drug every day. So it’s already there in another category. If we were choosing, for example, to take some GMO product every day, I think we might be less up in arms about GMOs.

That’s one thought, and I think the other thing is that certainly the industry plays a role here. The industry — the coffee industry and the soft drink industry — have consistently downplayed the importance of caffeine in terms of the marketing and sales of their products.

How have they gone about doing that?

Well, I think the big tactic is just to ignore it, and when it comes up to simply say, “Caffeine’s safe. It’s been studied for a long time. Move along. Nothing to see here.” And I really don’t blame them, because it’s a tough conversation to have. But early in my reporting I approached both Coca-Cola and Starbucks as the exemplars of caffeine culture in the U.S. and said, “I’m not on deadline, I’d love to have a conversation face to face with someone about caffeine.” Neither of them would do it.

So before the FDA can get involved, it seems like there’s still a lot they need to investigate and understand. What are some of the big things they need to look into?

Great question. You probably know they had this workshop at the Institute of Medicine last summer, and they came up with an executive summary recently. One of the big ones, with the energy products, is: What are the effects of the other, noncaffeine ingredients? They often have advertised very conspicuously taurine, B vitamins and amino acids, etc. So what is the effect of all of these ingredients, either additively or synergistically?

Another question is: How are these products being marketed to different populations? And what effect do they have on vulnerable populations, like children or pregnant or nursing mothers? What kind of physiologic responses can they have in naive users — people who aren’t used to using caffeine? There’s a lot of research to be done, believe it or not, on cardiovascular effects still, and some people are concerned particularly that there may be some people who have a particular genetic susceptibility to caffeine-related heart problems.

Are you confident that the FDA is going to be able to address these things, or be able to bring serious regulations into effect? Is it possible that there’s just too much to catch up with?

I think they’ve got a very full plate at this point. They’ve got a lot to catch up with. I think it will be a slow, deliberative process and I wouldn’t want to predict what the outcome would be. But I’d say the FDA’s got a lot on its plate.

You know, caffeine is a product that presents challenges unlike anything else, because it is a drug and we all are taking it daily, so it’s automatically in just a whole different category than anything else the FDA has to deal with. One of the really interesting things in terms of regulation that did surprise me in the process of reporting the book is how many of these same questions that the FDA is asking right now came up 100 years ago in the Chattanooga Trial in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Back when there was a whole lot more caffeine in soda.

Right. It was almost exactly like a Red Bull is today. And the questions are the same. Are the effects of caffeine different when you add them to a product such as Coca-Cola — which they were doing — versus when you drink it in coffee? Should we be more protective of children? And what is the role of the federal government in regulating this? It’s really remarkable how the parallels are there 100 years later.

And we still haven’t figured any of those things out. 

Yeah, it’s true. In the interim there has been some great research. Knowing what we know now with a lot more specificity about how caffeine affects us — for most of us, it’s probably not going to kill you, and it might even be beneficial. But a lot of those questions still linger today.

Another question we now have to contend with is chemically synthesized caffeine: How concerned should we be about that? 

There’s an interesting question, and it’s also on the FDA’s plate. Now I don’t know if you’ve been following this, but FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg just got back from India and she had a press conference. A big initiative is to try to ramp up inspections on overseas pharmaceutical plants. And it’s no secret that the FDA has been way behind on this for a long time. They’re underfunded and they’re scrambling to keep up with some of these pharmaceutical plants. And it’s not just caffeine. The pharmaceutical industry has to a large extent been offshore.

So, I’ll answer your question two ways. One, synthetic caffeine versus natural caffeine, chemically, should be exactly identical. You could do stable isotope analysis or carbon dating to distinguish between the two, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that physiologically they would have any different effect on you. If one has some impurities or the other has some impurities that would be in effect. But other than that, no. What little I saw of the Chinese caffeine industry I would say, maybe consumers don’t have as much assurance that their caffeine is coming from a clean plant as it might if it was made in the U.S.

So how about you? Did you try to quit while writing the book?

I did. I did. I quit. I was writing a chapter on withdrawal and I thought, “God, this sounds horrible. Can it really be this bad?” So I tapered and went down to zero and I didn’t really like it very much and I ramped back up. So, yeah. I did it.

Yeah, but you don’t recommend it, huh?

Not unless you have a great reason to do it. I do think I’ll do it again. One of the cool things about quitting is that you do pretty quickly reset your baseline. So from zero, a Coke or a Pepsi feels pretty great. A small amount of caffeine.

Lindsay Abrams is an assistant editor at Salon and a former writer and producer for The Atlantic's Health Channel.

Why It's Impossible to Create a Top 10 List of the Most Neurotoxic Man-Made Chemicals

  Personal Health  

AlterNet / By Jill Richardson

Why It's Impossible to Create a Top 10 List of the Most Neurotoxic Man-Made Chemicals

Toxins are hard to classify, harder to regulate, and even harder to remove from the products we consume.

March 14, 2014  |

Classifying human neurotoxins can be tricky. While laboratory research has identified more than 1,000 chemicals to be animal neurotoxins, the known list for humans is small by comparison. Only 214 chemicals have been classified as human neurotoxins, and only 12 have been identified as impacting fetal and child development. 

So why is it that only a fifth of the known animal neurotoxins are identified as posing risks to humans? Even more worrisome, why are only 1% identified as hazardous to infants and fetuses? The reason lies in the ethical and practical considerations of scientific research: You can't study toxicity on humans by feeding people arsenic and comparing their levels of brain damage with a control group. So no authoritative top 10 list of the deadliest neurotoxins is possible. We're in the dark. 

Still, a new study out of Denmark argues that while human neurotoxins can be clearly identified when people who are exposed to them later become ill, it's not so easy to show whether or not small amounts of chemical exposure may have impacts on developing fetuses and infants, and what those affects may be. Or as David P. Rall, the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who is quoted in the study, says: “If thalidomide had caused a ten-point loss of intelligence quotient (IQ) instead of obvious birth defects of the limbs, it would probably still be on the market."

So, the study points out, we often do not know which chemicals can cause lost IQ points or other developmental problems in children. However, research has identified more developmental neurotoxicants in recent years — doubling the list since 2006 — as scientists do what are called “epidemiological birth cohort studies.”

These studies examine exposure levels of chemicals to fetuses and infants, while comparing growth and development of the children over time. This helps show the chemicals that may cause problems, but the method is not perfect. As individuals, we're all exposed to our own unique cocktail of potentially toxic chemicals over time, and how they may impact us may vary based on many factors.

Still, it can also be assumed the more comprehensive lists of known animal and human neurotoxins will likely have impacts to fetuses. And prenatal exposure to many of these chemicals is common, at least at low levels; more than 200 foreign chemicals have been identified in umbilical cord blood.

Moreover, the study notes that known human neurotoxins are not at all rare: About half are widely used and disseminated around the world, and they include pesticides, organic solvents, metals, and other compounds.

Even if developmental toxicity can be measured in lost IQ points during childhood, the researchers also question impacts of chemicals later in life. Could in-utero exposure increase the chance of developing neurodegenerative diseases like dementia? And if the effects do not show up until a person’s sixth or seventh decade, will we continue to expose future generations to chemicals until we can confirm their toxicity decades from now? 

Questions like these motivate Jeff Gearhart, research director at the Ecology Center. His organization's research website, HealthyStuff.org tests common consumer products and then reports the results to consumers—but also works with manufacturers to make products safer in the future.

Gearhart says the chemicals listed in the Danish study are the ones commonly identified as neurotoxins, but says there is a larger universe of chemicals used in consumer products that might pose health risks. So while we all have the common understanding that lead should not be used in consumer products, there is a considerable amount of concern about many of the chemicals used in common products, particularly in plastics.

Yet Gearhart still finds well-known neurotoxins like lead in the consumer products he tests. He notes that while we still had a significant problem with lead in toys only a decade ago, it took public outrage and federal regulations like the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to greatly reduce the number of toys with lead in them. Today, says Gearhart, only 2-3% of products they test have lead in them, a significant reduction.

But the products Gearhart still finds lead in may surprise you. His organization recently found lead in a pair of infant shoes, and found dangerous levels of lead, other toxic metals and toxic flame retardants in Mardis Gras beads.

In these enlightened times, how is it that we're still finding lead in common consumer products? Gearhart says chunks of waste electronics, which contain hazardous compounds, are being recycled, shredded and finding their way back into consumer products. In Mardis Gras beads, this toxic recycled material is used as filler.

When lead and other chemicals pop up in seemingly random ways like this, danger could lurk around any corner—or in any product. So what's the fix for this problem? Gearhart calls for a systemic approach to fix our problems.

“Our public policy on how we regulate chemicals in our material economy is not proactive,” says Gearhart, so we should come to expect lead to show up in seemingly random places. “We don't have a comprehensive way to have public policy around chemistries going into commerce. As a result, why should you be surprised about things popping up where they shouldn't be?”

“We have the right tools in place, we can actually change things. But the key thing is that we have to bring that systems approach to that," says Gearhart.

The current status quo is to react to chemicals in products when they're identified to be hazardous. For example, BPA (bisphenol A), a compound found in plastic bottles was found toxic, many manufacturers switched to a different "safer" plastic, Tritan, now suspected of posing health risks. Gearhart says were "jumping from one hazard into another."

Gearhart is proposing a systemic approach to thoroughly test chemicals before using them in consumer products. He believes that this would give the most protection to consumers.

Even pesticides, compounds created solely for their toxic properties, are not thoroughly tested before commercial use as they should. There are legal loopholes in place that allow for them to be tested after they're put on the market. 

Most other chemicals are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. But the TSCA, which is four decades old, grandfathers in the chemicals on the market before its implementation, and gives the government very little leeway to stop new chemicals from entering the market or removing them after they're already there.

Gearhart works directly with retailers and manufacturers to put safer products on the market and has found success using this approach.

“It's leap-frogging where we are in terms of policy,” Gearhart says. Companies are evolving from a chemical-by-chemical approach to product safety and are now using a systems-oriented approach. For example, a company is using flammable polyurethane foam in a product that requires them to use a chemical flame retardant, they might consider using a less flammable alternative to polyurethane to avoid the need for flame retardants. 

But Gearhart admits that appealing to retailers and manufacturers has its limits. “We've got to have the policy piece in place to make the whole market change, particularly the international component,” he says.

Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She is the author of "Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It."

New Study: Eating Meat Could Be as Harmful as Smoking

  Food  

The Guardian / By Holly Baxter

New Study: Eating Meat Could Be as Harmful as Smoking

It's time to kick the high-protein habit!

Photo Credit: racorn/Shutterstock.com

 

 

March 5, 2014  |  

 

 

Whenever I order a veggie burger, the question comes up. A member of the group will lean over between tearing meaty chunks out of their double-beef special, and make a concerted effort to feign benevolent interest as they ask: "So, you're a vegetarian, are you? Is that because you prefer it or for, well, ethical reasons?"

Here, the questioner is offering the questioned a polite way out. It is phrased so you can apologetically gesticulate towards your halloumi and mutter something self-deprecating about a weak stomach and a delicate constitution. You can chow down quietly on your balls of fried falafel and then scuttle off with your quiet personal views about factory farm conditions, global warming and antibiotic overuse like someone who secretly believes in a particularly suspect 9/11 conspiracy theory. Either that or you can admit that your food choices are, yes, "technically for ethical reasons", and then endure the 212th exhaustive conversation about exactly why you stick to them. Inevitably, this will end up with some well-informed carnivore telling you all about how you are a hypocrite for eating cheese while bacon fat drips slowly down his chin.

Personally, I am completely on board with the idea that most of my views are hypocritical while I still buy butter and enjoy mozzarella. I accept that my position on food is complicated, as well as everybody else's, and I couldn't care less about the bacon fat or the spaghetti bolognese or the rare steak being consumed next to me. Like the majority of people in Sudbury, Suffolk, I don't think that butcher's shops should have their dead animal displays censored when all they do is quite rightly draw attention to the reality of where meat comes from. And to be perfectly honest, a sizeable chunk of my reasoning for vegetarianism comes from a selfish place: I've always had the vague notion that meat – and, in particular, red meat or processed meat – doesn't do the human body much discernible good.

According to the latest study into protein consumption, it turns out that this theory may well have something to it. The National Health and Nutrition Survey has been collating data on 6,381 people across the US, and found that diets rich in animal protein (as opposed to protein routinely taken from plant sources) could be as harmful to health as other vices such as smoking. Those under the age of 65 who regularly consume a lot of meat, eggs and dairy are four times more likely to die of cancer or diabetes – although it's worth noting that, if you make it to 66, beginning to eat a high-protein diet for your remaining years is a better shout than sticking with the steamed kale.

Perhaps you would accuse me of perpetuating the "everything gives you cancer" agenda. But it's not only sensationalist carcinogenic claims that deserve attention in light of these findings. Consider the diets endlessly touted in women's magazines and the most successful self-help books of the late 20th and early 21st century: the Dukan diet, for instance; the internationally renowned Atkins plan; and of course "going paleo". All of these emphasise a drastic cut in carbohydrate intake and a regular protein overload. All of them claim to base their advice on medicine (and, in the case of the paleo diet, sketchy pseudo-scientific claims about what we are "naturally intended" to eat if we are to "mimic the diets of our caveman ancestors".) Now it turns out that losing all that weight for your health might be backfiring spectacularly, taking months of your life off with every spare tyre you shed.

Having been raised in a vehemently anti-veggie northern English city on a steady diet of chicken nuggets and turkey dinosaurs, years before Jamie Oliver began to suggest there was anything wrong with feeding kids the components of dog food, I don't expect to reap the benefits of a lifelong healthy diet anytime soon, either. But if it's true that 39% of women report being on a diet "most of the time", and that the average woman spends 31 years on a diet, then we in particular are setting ourselves up for serious middle-aged falls.

Where protein shakes for "bulking up" and adverts that demand to know whether or not a passerby is "man enough" to eat a five-tiered burger have remained masculine domains since time immemorial, the high-protein dieting phenomenon is fairly new for women. The long-term effects haven't emerged in enough numbers to draw definite conclusions, but this latest finding shouldn't be ignored. It is a credible warning about a society currently obsessed with protein and weight loss, operating in meat production hyperdrive with some of the most accessible fast food that ever existed.

Ultimately, it makes no difference whether you did it for the love of fluffy lambs in spring or deep-seated narcissism combined with a fierce survival instinct: the fact is you should probably eat less meat. You may well have to face a couple of awkward questions over a bowl of hummus, but hey, we all have our crosses to bear. And so, for the love of the NHS, please consign your well-thumbed paleo book to the dustbin. Because it turns out that you may be taking its simpering promises to make you thinner literally at your own peril.

Diet High in Meat Proteins Raises Cancer Risk for Middle-Aged People

 

 

Diet High in Meat Proteins Raises Cancer Risk for Middle-Aged People

For people aged 50 to 65, a high-protein diet increased the risk of cancer fourfold, comparable to the risk associated with smoking 

 

Mar 4, 2014 |By Bahar Gholipour and LiveScience

 

Sean Dreilinger, Flickr Creative Commons

People who eat a high-protein diet during middle age are more likely to die of cancer than those who eat less protein, a new study finds.

However, for people older than 65, a moderate protein intake may actually be beneficial, and protect against frailty, the researchers said.

The researchers looked at more than 6,000 people ages 50 and older, and followed them for 18 years. They found that people ages 50 to 65 who ate a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age were more than four times as likely to die of cancer during the study period than those who ate a low-protein diet, according to the study published today (March 4) in the journal Cell Metabolism.

"Popular diets in many cases have high proteins and low sugars. They may make you lose some weight, but that's not a good diet to increase life span," said study researcher Valter Longo, professor of biology at the University of Southern California (USC) and director of the USC Longevity Institute.

The risks of a high-protein diet are even comparable to smoking, the researchers said. People who smoke are four times more likely to die of cancer compared with nonsmokers, Longo said.

"Of course we cannot be sure of the reasons, but we have a pretty good idea, based on this study and also previous studies, as to why this is happening," Longo said.

The study also found that middle-age people who ate foods rich in animal proteins — including meat, milk and cheese — were 75 percent more likely to die of any cause than those who ate a low-protein diet within the study period. [5 Diets That Fight Diseases]

The researchers defined a "high-protein" diet as deriving at least 20 percent of daily calories from protein, a "moderate" protein diet as deriving 10 to 19 percent of calories from protein, and a "low-protein" diet as less than 10 percent of calories from protein.

However, what's bad for people at one age may be healthy at another. In the study, people older than 65 were less likely to die of cancer or other causes if they consumed more protein.

"So, not all people benefit from low protein. Older people actually seem to benefit from moderate intake of protein," Longo said. Having enough protein in the diet may be important for older people to maintain a healthy weight and protect against frailty, the researchers said.

The link between high-protein intake and risk of cancer almost vanished when the researchers considered participants whose protein mainly came from plants, such as beans.

This may be because proteins in plants have a different composition, and don't stimulate growth hormones as efficiently as meat proteins, Longo said.

The study suggests that the Mediterranean diet, which is low in animal protein and high in carbohydrates, may be best for extending life span, Longo said.

The researchers said they recommend eating about 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight every day in middle age. For example, a 130-pound person should eat about 45 to 50 grams of protein a day, with a preference for plant proteins, the researchers said.

To investigate why there may be a link between protein consumption and cancer, the researchers looked at mice that were injected with mouse skin cancer cells. They showed that a high amount of protein in the mouse diet promoted the tumor's survival and growth by increasing the levels of a growth hormone, called IGF-1.

The researchers also measured the levels of IGF-1 for 2,000 people, randomly selected among those in their study, and found that for every 10 nanograms per milliliter increase in IGF-1, those on a high-protein diet were 9 percent more likely to die of cancer than those on a low-protein diet.

"When you have a lot of protein, these growth factors go up, and we've shown that they help normal cells become cancer-like cells, and then they help the cells grow," Longo said.

• 11 Surprising Things That Can Make Us Gain Weight
• 4 Fad Diets That Don't Really Work
• 10 Do's and Don'ts to Reduce Your Risk of Cancer

 

Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Help! I’m Poor But Want to Eat Healthy!

 

By Taylor on December 27, 2012 

 

 

“I can’t eat healthy, it’s too expensive!”

Unhealthy food is indeed often more accessible and cheaper than healthy alternatives.  Unfortunately, it’s these very foods that make us unhealthy and overweight, causing all sorts of INCREDIBLY expensive medical problems down the road.

“The line must be drawn here!”

Healthy eating on a budget IS possible, it just takes a game plan and a little creativity.

Today we’re going to talk about specific foods that are a great bang for your buck. Whether you’re simply trying lose weight and get in shape, or build some muscle and put on weight without looking like Jabba the Hut, making the right dietary choices will always be 80-90% of your success.

(A Star Trek AND Star Wars reference within three sentences of each other? That’s how we roll around here.)

Let’s go!

Break conventional thinking

It’s not exactly a secret that our culture is obsessed with size: Bigger is better.

Over the last few decades we’ve been eating and drinking more and more, and we developed the idea that a “good deal” means a lot of food. In other words, we tend to associate a deal by looking at the price per calorie.

“I got SOO many fries, what a great deal!” 

Sure, you could buy pasta and ramen and live on mere dollars a day, but we want a game plan that doesn’t skip out on practically every macro and micronutrient – a strategy that builds Rebel Superheroes.

The aim will be to reshape the way you evaluate ‘good deals.’ Instead of price per calorie, we’ll be looking at the price per nutrient. We want the most nutrients for the least amount of money. The choices below will:

• Target nutrient dense foods, but understand that we’re looking for the most economical choices. If food A costs $10 and has 50 of nutrient x, we’ll pick  food B instead, which only provides 45 of x but costs just $2.
• Limit our draw to ‘good caloric deals,’ avoiding nutrient deficient options such as white bread or ramen.
• Identify foods with high caloric AND nutritional value, for those currently trying to gain weight through strength training.

Let’s do this!

Vegetables

While vegetables can often be expensive, when we looked at some of the best choices, veggies  are actually pretty awesome. One study showed:

“…that although fruits and vegetables are an expensive source of dietary energy (calories), they provide key nutrients at a reasonable cost.”

For starters, don’t be afraid to buy frozen vegetables in the freezer section of your local grocery store (or even canned vegetables).  Sure, I love fresh veggies, but since frozen veggies are picked and then frozen at peak ripeness (and thus most nutritionally dense), they are often a better value while being edible for months longer.

Kale and leafy greens (such as mustard or collard): If there is one super cheap superfood, kale and leafy greens are it! Practically nature’s multivitamin, kale is packed full of protein, vitamin K, C, and A, dietary fiber, calcium, potassium, iron, magnesium, and more (a whole lot more). The catch is that kale and leafy greens can be bitter raw, so they need to be cooked. But don’t worry, there are tons of quick and easy ways to make kale delicious. You do NOT want to miss out on one of the most economical superfoods. To get you started, check out Kale Chips or this try this kale and bacon recipe.

Cabbage: A sister food to kale and leafy greens, from antioxidant to fiber to vitamin C, cabbage is both affordable and nutritionally dense. Cabbage is extremely versatile (soup, salad, stir fry,  or sandwiches), and looks like it may have some superfood cancer fighting qualities as well.

Broccoli: I knew I was a Rebel in training when as a kid, I didn’t understand why everyone else hated Broccoli. Whether fresh or frozen, broccoli provides an excellent price per nutrient value.

Spinach: Rich in both minerals and vitamins, fiber and protein, spinach should be your go-to choice for salads over cheaper but nutritionally deficient greens like iceberg lettuce. The difference between spinach and lettuce is so large, this comparison is a great example to demonstrate why we should be making choices based on price per nutrient, rather than price per calorie.

Carrots: Carrots are one of my favorite nutritionally dense snacks. Crazy amounts of vitamin A, good carbs, and a little bit of everything else; carrots are a solid choice to supplement a salad or soup.

Be sure to check out your local farmers’ market, as you may find some great deals on fruits and veggies depending on the season and where you live.

Proteins

While Steve is a huge fan of the Paleo Diet, today we’re going to explore all cheap protein sources, Paleo or non Paleo. If you’re on a strict Paleo Diet, be sure to check out the Nerd Fitness app, Paleo Central, to determine what’s Paleo and what’s not:

Meats (chicken/turkey/beef): When we looked at prices across the U.S., chicken and turkey consistently offered better values. However, don’t count beef out; there is almost ALWAYS a specific cut of beef on sale, and by targeting cheaper (and fattier) cuts, you can usually leave the meat section with a killer deal. We aren’t targeting these cuts simply because they’re cheaper. As one of Steve’s favorite videos explains (Why You Got Fat), we understand that dietary fat is not the enemy, but an important part of a balanced diet.

Eggs: There’s a reason eggs are usually a staple among those seriously strength training: eggs are a simple yet nutritionally dense source of protein. Toss hard boiled eggs in a salad, scramble eggs in a stir fry, or prepare a regular breakfast staple, eggs are usually too cheap to pass up.

Canned Tuna:  One can of Albacore Tuna contains approximately 120 calories, 28g of protein, and can cost $1 or less. This makes canned tuna a superb value and an awesomely lean protein source. Check out other canned fish, such as salmon, for some variety. And be sure to rotate canned tuna in and out of your diet to reduce risks associated with mercury. 

Legumes: Beans, chickpeas, lentils, oh my! Legumes (especially when purchased in bags), are one of the best price per nutrient values out there. Legumes such as beans work great in a salads, soups, or even dips. Providing copious amounts of both protein and carbs, legumes offer a great value and easily satisfy macronutrient requirements. Be wary though, nutritional value will vary depending on your specific legume of choice!

Protein Powder: If the above above recommendations don’t work for you and you’re still a little short on protein, try a huge tub of protein powder online. Make yourself a quick protein shake breakfast or post workout meal.

Other cheap protein options that may be a great deal include quinoa, greek yogurt, cottage cheese, and one of the many types of nut butter.

Fruits

Fruits provide one of the biggest challenges, especially in the United States, because they are so expensive relative to other food groups. Fruits can also be tricky. Grapes, which seem to be a moderate value, end up being one of the worst price per nutrient options out there. This may lead to the completely understandable reaction that I had, “SCREW IT! I love grapes, and I’m buying them!”

But don’t worry, there are still some excellent cost efficient options for fruits:

Watermelon: I know, I know. My first thought too was, “isn’t it mostly water?” Well yes. But as it turns out, since watermelon is so darn cheap, it is an incredible value per nutrient. Packed with lycopene (antioxidant), vitamins A and C, potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus, watermelon is a wonderful and easy to eat nutritional deal.

Bananas: If you’re following the Paleo Diet and avoiding most grains, bananas are a great source of carbs. Bananas are super cheap and provide you with tons of potassium. They can be added to oatmeal, eaten as a snack, or my favorite, as a desert (frozen bananas).

Plums: Packed full great micronutrients like vitamin A, K, and C, plums are an excellent source of fiber and carbs.

Pears: Although pears possess a good amount of natural sugars, they are another great source of fiber and vitamin C…and usually even cheaper than plums.

Other fruits that may be great nutritional deals in your area: cantaloupe, apricots, kiwis, and nectarines.

Don’t forget about dried fruit – although high in sugar, bulk dried fruit can be an nutrient incredible value.

How to eat big and healthy

If you are training like crazy or are working hard to get bigger by packing on muscle and size, then chances are you’ll require more and more food (read: fuel) to reach your goals.  If you’re strength training and not getting bigger, then you’re not eating enough – it’s that simple.

We can see from this graph that as calories become more important, fats and oils, beans and legumes, and dairy products become more cost effective than vegetables and fruits (however, don’t neglect vegetables to make sure your…um…”plumbing” can handle the extra calories!).

Oats: Oats are incredibly cheap, provide ridiculous amounts of both carbohydrates and protein, and fulfill other micronutrient and mineral requirements such as thiamin, folate, magnesium, and phosphorus. Oats are simple to make, can be prepared a variety of ways (sweet or savory), and can be bought and stored easily in bulk!

Whole Milk: When Steve gained 18 pounds in a month, and then another 12 pounds while traveling, whole milk was a huge part of his diet. Although milk isn’t Paleo, its low cost combined with high amounts of protein, calcium, and vitamin D makes it an attractive option when trying to meet high calorie requirements (if your body can handle the lactose).

Avocados: Avocados are perhaps the densest food listed in this entire article, both calorically and nutritiously. Although they may appear costly, avocados can be an incredible price per nutrient value.  Put them in salads, on sandwiches, or eat them plain with a little bit of salt! When your local grocery store puts avocados on sale, be sure to stock up!

Sweet Potato: A better nutritional value than normal potatoes (plus a lower glycemic load), sweet potatoes are a great source of carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and incredible amounts of vitamin A. Steve is a huge fan of sweet potatoes sliced, covered in olive oil, and thrown in the oven at 375 for 12 minutes each side.  So simple, even a nerd could cook it.

Olive Oil: One of the best ways to add good fat without cholesterol or sodium is olive oil. Add extra olive oil to salads, meats, and legumes.  Need even more calories?  Drink it.  Seriously.  Take a few big swigs before each meal and you can add 700-1000 calories to your intake each day, no problem.

Almonds/Walnuts/Almond butter: Hailed by Mark’s Daily Apple, raw almonds are a versatile option that can serve as a great supplementary source of protein and fat. While almonds can be a great value,  be sure to buy them in bulk to optimize your price per nutrient deal. And if you haven’t tried almond butter and apple slices, one of Steve’s staples, you’re missing out.

Eat Smart

No matter what value foods you plan to buy, be sure approach eating healthy on a budget with a plan of attack. You will find that if you take advantage of healthy foods on sale (especially buy one get one free deals), many foods that aren’t listed here will suddenly become a great value!

Remember: If your goal is weight loss, the majority of your calories should come from fat and protein, NOT carbohydrates/grains!  This is the whole premise of the Paleo Diet that we’re so fond of.

Concerned about pesticides and have a bit more money to spend? Here are nine foods you should try to buy organic, and seven organic options you can pass up.  

As long as you’re no longer thinking “more is better,” but instead searching for value healthy foods, you’ll be on your way to becoming a Rebel Superhero.

What foods did I miss that you find to be an incredible value?
Leave any other healthy budget eating tips or tricks in the comments below!

-Taylor

###

photo source: piggy bank, veggies, watermelon, meat, lego cheeseburger, balance scale, mcdonalds

Mad Cow, Eye Cancer, Feces In Your Food? The Price of Cutting Back on Meat Inspectors

 

 

 

  Food  

AlterNet / By Martha Rosenberg

Mad Cow, Eye Cancer, Feces In Your Food? The Price of Cutting Back on Meat Inspectors

 

Food safety recalls and animal cruelty are increasing under government abdication of public health duties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 26, 2014  |  

 

 

The USDA is cutting back on federal meat inspectors, allowing slaughterhouses to self-police, and already questions about the program are surfacing. This month, USDA recalled  8.7 million pounds of beef products processed at Rancho Feeding Corp. which included Nestle's Philly Steak and Cheese and Croissant Crust Philly Steak and Cheese Hot Pockets, Walmart Fatburgers, Kroger Ground Beef Mini Sliders and other well-known brands.

The reason for the gigantic recall, says USDA, is that the slaughterhouse  "processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection." The multi-state recall, applying to all meat produced over a year at the facility, caused Rancho Feeding Corp. to  close.

The USDA cost-cutting, self-regulation program, called HIMP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point-Based Inspection Models Project) will eliminate  800 federal meat inspectors and is already in operation at about 25 chicken and turkey plants. It likely played a role in the Rancho Feeding Corp. recall said Stan Painter, president of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, which represents 6,000 inspectors nationwide. “In many places, managers and veterinarians are being asked to help with inspections,” because of a shortage of federal inspectors, he said.

Six years ago, Painter spoke out about cutbacks in federal inspection when undercover video of "downer" cows moved with electric prods, forklifts and water hoses at the Chino, Ca-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. slaughterhouse surfaced.   Painter warned that the government's cost-driven move toward self-regulation of private slaughterhouses amounted to the fox "guarding its own henhouse." The meat from the cows, which was supplying the National School Lunch Program, was recalled because of the high likelihood of "downer cows" carry Mad Cow disease. It became the largest meat recall in US history.

Westland/Hallmark had been cited by the USDA in 2005 for “too much electric prodding causing animals to get more excited while being driven towards [the kill] box," suggesting it was receiving sick and weak cows. But despite the USDA's "7,800 pairs of eyes scrutinizing 6,200 slaughterhouses and food processors across the nation… in the end, it took an undercover operation by an animal rights group to reveal" the abuse said the  Los Angeles Times in a  scathing 2008 editorial.  Even before the recent meat inspector cutbacks, the government was allowing  sick and diseased cattle to be processed for the US dinner table until the Humane Society of the United States intervened. Westland/Hallmark  ceased operations soon after.

One ailment in cows that could slip through as the number of federal meat inspectors declines is eye cancer, says Bill Niman, a rancher who did business for 40 years with Rancho Feeding Corp. "A farmer sends a cow in with cancer, and he knows it has cancer-eye—it's a growth on the eye, this is not a microbial situation," he told the  Village Voice. "The inspectors, they know it has cancer-eye. So the farmer shouldn't have sent it, and the inspector should have caught it."

Both the shuttered Rancho Feeding Corp. and Westland/Hallmark were slaughterhouses where farmers could send and often dump their dairy cows who could no longer walk. "The cattle are going to go down in the truck," Rod Bolcao, owner of Chino Livestock Market told the  Inland Valley Daily Bulletin who was familiar with Westland/Hallmark. They "aren't going to be strong enough to make the ride" and Westland/Hallmark was there "to pick them up," he said. Without a slaughterhouse like Westland/Hallmark for cull cattle, dairymen lose the $400 they would make on the carcass and instead have to pay "money to euthanize them and haul them out," as much as $70 to $150, he lamented.

 

Nowhere did Bolcao address the ethics of working a dairy cow until the difference between disposing of her and selling her to be slaughtered for meat is $250.

 

Rancho Feeding Corp., the only slaughterhouse in the Bay Area, was also one of the few facilities in its area to slaughter cull dairy cows, said Niman. Dairy cattle are older and sicker, and once their milking days are over they are processed into low-grade meat instead of being retired.

 

Bolcao and Niman are not the only ag voices recounting the cavalier disposal of cull dairy cows which owners try to get on the truck to the slaughterhouse even if the cows will never walk off on their own steam.  A 2010 report from the  USDA's Inspector General identified four operations that dumped 211 cows unfit for human food, calling the operators "individuals who have a history of picking up dairy cows with drugs in their system and dropping them off at the plant."

 

Two of the four Mad Cows that have been found in the US since 2003 were also downers, unable to walk. Cow number two, discovered in late 2004, was purchased at a livestock sale by an "order buyer" who sent her to the slaughterhouse four days later, according to a  government report. When the truck arrived at H&B Packing in Waco, according to the  Star-Telegram, she was already dead and so she was transported instead to Champion Pet Food, across town. Even though there were reports that the cow was unable to walk at the livestock where she was nonetheless sold for meat, the farmer who owned her told government investigators that “the cow had always been excitable and had fallen while she was being loaded to go to the market, but that this was not unusual behavior for her.” Right.

 

Cow number three, discovered in March, 2006, was  also a downer who “had at her side a 2- to 3-week old red Charolais cross female calf” at the time of her death, according to the USDA report. In both cases, the government protected the identities of the ranches and allowed them to resume operations in a month--though the cause of the Mad Cow disease was never found. With the first US mad cow, found in late 2003,  officials refused to tell the public which restaurants and outlets may have served meat containing the cow.

 

Instances of cruelty are not the only expected result of the government's cost-cutting capitulation to private industry by reducing and eliminating inspection. Federal meat inspectors are also responsible for a plant’s compliance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act and Egg Products Inspection Act. Yet since Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) was implemented in 2000 (a self-policing measure that was the precursor to HIMP) it is increasingly hard to do their jobs.

 

“My plant in Pennsylvania processed 1,800 cows a day, 220 per hour,” federal meat inspector Lester Friedlander told the press in 2004.  Stopping the line cost about $5,000 a minute, so veterinarians are pressured “to look the other way” when violations happen.

 

Dean Wyatt, a Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) supervisory public health veterinarian, reiterated Friedlander's charges in  2010 congressional hearings. Federal meat inspectors are unable to do their job on either end, he testified, because FSIS district offices often side with plant management over inspectors, reducing them to powerless figureheads who are sometimes openly laughed at by plant workers.

 

Stan Painter of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals repeated the charges in  additional congressional testimony. "Sometimes, even if we write noncompliance reports, some of the larger companies use their political muscle to get those overturned at the agency level or by going to the congressional delegation to get this inspection staff to back off," he said.

 

Soon after HACCP was implemented in 2000,  62 percent of meat inspectors in a survey admitted that they had  allowed feces, vomit and metal shards in food on a daily or weekly basis, which had not happened before HACCP. Almost 20 percent of inspectors said they’d been told not to document violations. Eighty percent of 451 inspectors said that HACCP interfered with their ability to enforce the law and the public’s right to know about food safety. (No wonder HACCP has been dubbed “Have a Cup of Coffee and Pray.”)

 

As food safety recalls increase under government abdication of its public health duties, the risk of Mad Cow disease, eye cancer and grotesque levels of cruelty to animals will only increase. February's recall of top brands let Nestle's Hot Pockets shows that industry will put profits ahead of self-policing when it can. By eliminating federal inspectors to save money, the USDA is harming food consumers, animals and the public trust. 

 

 

Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter and the author of "Born With a Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health (Random House)."

5 Messed-Up Things That Are In Your Food

  Food  

AlterNet / By Martha Rosenberg

5 Messed-Up Things That Are In Your Food

 

Many of these ingredients are banned in Europe, but here in the good old USA you'll find them on your dinner plate. 

 

 

 

 

 

February 12, 2014  |  

 

 

Two years ago, the nation's collective stomach churned when people learned they were eating a meat product called "pink slime."  Lean, finely textured beef as the industry wanted to call it, was meat scraps that were once earmarked for pet food repurposed for the human dinner table, especially the National School Lunch Program. While the product looked like human intestines, what caused the national revulsion was that pink slime was treated with puffs of ammonia to kill the bacterium E. coli. Yum.

 

Soon after the hoopla began, the main supplier of pink slime, Beef Products, Inc., announced it  was closing its production facilities. But since then, other products the public doesn't know it's consuming or  want to consume have surfaced, and the manufacturers have not necessarily been as forthcoming. There's a good chance you are eating some of the following products and byproducts.

 

1. Azodicarbonamide in Bread

 

Until a month ago, few had heard of this "dough conditioner," intended to provide strength and improve elasticity. Like pink slime, it was azodicarbonamide's industrial overtones that drove indignation—it's "the same chemical used to make yoga mats, shoe soles, and other rubbery objects," wrote food  blogger Vani Hari in a successful petition to get Subway to remove the substance from its baked products.

 

While World Health Organization tests found azodicarbonamide risks "uncertain," it has been linked to deaths in animals and allergic reactions in humans. Azodicarbonamide is banned in Europe and Australia and its use carries a prison sentence in Singapore, writes Hari. The  Center for Science in the Public Interest warns that when azodicarbonamide is baked in bread, it produces the carcinogen urethane. While Subway announced it is "in the process of removing azodicarbonamide as part of our bread improvement efforts," the dough conditioner is also used in food at McDonald's, Burger King, Starbucks, Arby's, Wendy's, Jack in the Box and Chick-fil-A. It is also in grocery store and restaurant breads, CNN says.

 

2. Plastic Microbeads in Fish and Waterways

 

For years, the consumer products industry has given us plastic microbeads in toothpaste, liquid hand soaps, skin exfoliators, other personal care products and industrial cleaners. Products like Olay's body wash, Dove Gentle Exfoliating Foaming Facial Cleanser and Clean & Clear Daily Pore Cleanser increase the plastic clogging the planet's seas, "killing millions of sea creatures every year when they swallow it, choke on it, or get tangled in it and drown," according to Slate. It was widely believed, however, that human health was spared. "Our assessment is that they will largely be removed during sewage treatment," Jay Gooch, associate director of external relations in beauty care at Procter & Gamble, reassured Slate.

 

But last year the microbeads were found in water samples in three of the Great Lakes, implying that wastewater treatment is not removing them. The remaining Great Lakes have yet to be tested. The beads, which work their way up the marine food chain, "absorb and retain chemical contaminants," says the  Chicago Tribune. Some manufacturers are phasing out the beads but consumers should avoid any products that list the ingredient polyethylene.

 

3. Brominated Vegetable Oil in Soft Drinks and Beverages

 

Like pink slime and azodicarbonamide, few had heard of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) or believed they were consuming it until recently. And like pink slime and azodicarbonamide, it is brominated vegetable oil's (BVO) connection to industrial products that sparked outrage—the oil, from corn or soy, is bonded with the element bromine which is used in couches and carpets as a  flame retardant. Bromide is an endocrine disruptor and part of the halide family which includes fluorine, chlorine and iodine. It competes for the same receptors in the body as iodine and can cause iodine deficiency.

 

Brominated flame retardants build up in people's bodies, including breast milk and animal and human research have linked them to early puberty and hormone and neurological problems. Excess consumption of drinks with BVO, used to keep flavoring dispersed in a beverage, have been  linked to headaches, fatigue, ataxia (loss of muscle coordination), memory loss and swollen hands with ulcers.

 

In late 2012, 15-year-old  Sarah Kavanagh of Hattiesburg, MS began a petition on Change.org for PepsiCo to remove BVO from Gatorade. Within a month, PepsiCo announced it planned to remove BVO from Gatorade and replace it with sucrose acetate isobutyrate, but six months later,  PepsiCo said it would  keep BVO in Mountain Dew sold in the Americas. BVO is still reportedly in Squirt, Fanta Orange, Sunkist Pineapple and some flavors of Fresca and Poweraide.

 

4. High Fructose Corn Syrup and Artificial Sweeteners in Soft Drinks

 

Scientists and health professionals cannot decide which is worse—high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or artificial sweeteners in soft drinks. HFCS, which is cheaper for soft drink makers to use and store than "real sugar," has been linked to liver damage, diabetes, heart problems, obesity and  even mercury consumption. Yet, aspartame, saccharin and acesulfame potassium, three leading artificial sweeteners, have all been linked to cancer. 

 

A 2011 study by the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine found that people who drank one diet soda every day had a 61 percent higher chance of having a heart attack or stroke. Questions also persist about artificial sweeteners’ links to Alzheimer’s disease, autism, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. (Nor do artificial sweeteners necessarily help people lose weight, some studies suggest.)

 

The plot thickened in 2012, when a Harvard study indicted both sugar and HFCS-sweetened beverages. Men who drank one soft drink a day had a 20 percent increased risk of heart disease regardless of their age, diet, family history or alcohol/tobacco use. The Harvard study was announced one month after doctors published an editorial in the journal  Nature calling for all types of sugar and HFCS to be regulated the way alcohol or tobacco are.

 

5. Transglutaminase Also Known as "Meat Glue"

 

Around the same time rumors of pink slime and BVO in the US food supply began to surface, the term "meat glue" also debuted. Meat glue is transglutaminase, an adhesive powder originally obtained from animal blood, but lately more likely to come from fermented bacteria which is cheaper. Meat glue lets chefs cobble together disparate and low-quality scraps of meat, put it in the refrigerator overnight and produce "filet mignon," a deception that is the basis of many consumers' objections.

 

Up to  35 percent of food products contain meat glue, including  tofu, milk, yogurt and even cereal according to industry accounts. Animal versions of meat glue in which the coagulation animal protein thrombin is combined with fibrin have affected blood clotting time in humans because bovine thrombin can  cross-react with human factors. Studies showed that repeat clinical applications of topical bovine thrombin increase human risk. Another risk of meat glue is bacterial growth: scraps that were outside pieces but are now glued together inside a "formed meat" are hard to cook, says microbiologist  Glenn Pener. “The amount of bacteria on a steak that’s been put together with meat glue is hundreds of times higher.”

 

Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter and the author of "Born With a Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health (Random House)."