The Disability-Research Discussion List

Managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds

Help for DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives


DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives


DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Home

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Home

DISABILITY-RESEARCH  September 2004

DISABILITY-RESEARCH September 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Why EU Law Says Food Can't Effect Your Mind

From:

ColRevs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ColRevs <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:00:01 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (183 lines)

From Patrick Holford, Clinical Nutritionist.... Please disseminate this
email below to all individuals and networks....

Why EU Law Says Food Can't Effect Your Mind

IN THIS ISSUE

. EU to rule out making health claims about food
. Proof that food can beat nutrition
. Why antioxidants can help prevent cardiovascular disease

WHY EU LAW SAYS FOOD CAN'T AFFECT YOUR MIND

Saying things like 'fish is good for your brain' may soon become illegal, if
a draft EU Regulation on Health and Nutrition Claims get voted through in
Brussels. This further piece of legislation has the worthy goal of making
sure that health claims made about foods and food supplements are true.
However, instead of allowing claims that are backed up with good science,
the EU Regulation states that: "There are many factors, other than dietary
ones, that can influence psychological and behavioural functions. Therefore,
it is appropriate to prohibit the use of psychological and behavioural
claims".
This argument for the exclusion of psychological or behavioural claims is
spurious. There are many factors, other than dietary ones, that influence
physiological functions (exercise, smoking, pollution, infection and sun
exposure, to name a few). Food does effect both psychology and behaviour and
the possibility of such claims, if scientifically supported, should not be
excluded. Why, for example, should it be legal to say that 'omega 3 fats
help to support cardiovascular health' and not legal to say that 'omega 3
fats help support a healthy mood', when the science is there to support such
claims?

The effect of this clause will not only counter the proposed intent of the
EU regulation - which is to allow substantiated health claims to be made -
it will severely hamper attempts to improve the public's diet. Since most
foods, for example fish or fish oils, cannot be patented, there is no
possibility - by virtue of the costs involved and the lack of return on a
non-patented food - in obtaining a medicinal licence. Nor should there be
any need to 'licence' a nutrient and to describe its health supporting
effects. The very idea would have Hippocrates turning in his grave.
The net consequence of the inclusion of this clause would be to provide a
monopoly of psychological and behavioural health claims to licensed
medicines, such as anti-depressants. This will have the effect of pushing
the public towards prescription drugs and away from choosing
health-promoting foods and food supplements for supporting mental wellbeing.
If you disagree with this EU proposal, as I do, then now is the time to
write to your MEP, whose details you can find at www.europarl.org.uk or by
calling 020 7227 4300. Attached is an example letter, which I am sending to
mine. Please feel free to amend accordingly. MEP Letter
PROOF THAT FOOD CAN BEAT DEPRESSION

According to a recent survey of 2000 people, almost half of adults in the UK
eat to stifle feelings of loneliness, boredom and stress. Yet, ironically,
eating the right foods, plus appropriate supplementation, may be the very
answer to beating the blues.
America's CBS News recently reported on the breakthroughs being made in the
treatment of depression by us at the Brain Bio Centre in London. This short
film, which was shown on Sky News, follows the success story of a
21-year-old girl who experienced severe side-effects and withdrawal effects
on anti-depressants and has found incredible improvement through the Brain
Bio Centre's diet and supplement strategy.
You can download the film and see it for yourself at
www.mentalhealthproject.com

AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION BACK IN THE DARK AGES ON ANTIOXIDANTS

Last month the American Heart Association (AHA) published a review of
clinical trials looking at antioxidant supplementation in Cardiovascular
Disease and suggested that scientific data does not justify antioxidant
supplementation to reduce risk. I strongly disagree. Why the difference of
opinion?
Firstly, the majority of the subjects in the clinical trials reviewed by the
AHA already had cardiovascular disease (CVD) and so their extrapolation that
antioxidant supplements won't help prevent disease is highly questionable.
To date, the vast majority of prevention studies show exactly the opposite.
For example, modest amounts of vitamin E (135 to 270mg) alone has been shown
to reduce risk of CVD by 30 to 40%.(1, 2). Another report - titled
'Multivitamin Use and Mortality in a Large Prospective Study' - showed that
out of over one million participants, those adults who used vitamin E or
other antioxidant vitamins, in combination with a daily multivitamin, had a
15% lower risk of dying from heart disease or stroke than those who did not
take vitamins.(3) A more recent study showed that even basic multivitamin
use has been shown to reduce risk by 20%.(4) It is highly likely that
'optimum nutrition' style supplementation will halve risk.
Secondly, contrary to the AHA's report, many trials do show that antioxidant
supplements are effective against CVD. For example, the Cambridge Heart
Antioxidant Study (CHAOS) found a 77% reduction in heart attacks over two
years by giving 270mg of vitamin E.(5) Those trials that have not been
successful are usually open to the same criticisms - too little too late and
bad study designs.

A classic example is the British Heart Foundation trial comparing the
effects of statins versus an antioxidant supplement regime providing 600mg
of vitamin E, 250mg of vitamin C and 20mg of beta-carotene.(6) I predicted
this trial would may be ineffective because the doses are too low for those
already suffering from CVD. Vitamin C is only in circulation for six hours
so I would give a person with cardiovascular disease no less than 1g every
six hours (three times a day). I would give vitamin E in the form of both
natural d-alpha tocopherol, tocotrienols and other tocopherols, not
synthetic dl-alpha tocopherol as used in this trial, probably at 800mg a
day. I would also give Co-Q, at least 100mg, and lipoic acid, at least
300mg.

This trial, and most referred to by the AHA, make one fatal error. They fail
 to measure an indicator of oxidative stress. In other words, they fail to
measure whether the supplements they were giving were effectively acting as
an antioxidant in the body. There is no question that reducing oxidation
reduces risk. Only by measuring if you have reduced oxidation can you say
whether the dose, or the form of the nutrient, was good enough to make a
difference to the people being studied. Some individuals are more responsive
to lowering homocysteine with B vitamins, while others respond best to
reducing oxidation with antioxidants. Without measuring whether the
treatment has reduced oxidation - which is the mechanism that damages
arteries and can be reversed with enough antioxidants - or reduced
homocysteine - another mechanism that leads to artery damage - you really
learn nothing. On top of this, these trials skirt around the fact that the
patients are usually on powerful medication. It is obviously wrong to assume
that vitamin E, which helps thin the blood, will have the same effect on
someone taking aspirin or warfarin, compared to someone who isn't. However,
that's exactly what almost all the trials referred to by the AHA have done.

In truth there are plenty of studies on vitamin E, C and beta-carotene -
such as the Physicians Health Study 2 (PHS2) which showed that beta-carotene
supplementation reduced subsequent cardiovascular events among 333 men with
prior angina or revascularisation (7) - plus other important antioxidants
such as tocotrienols, lipoic acid and Co-enzyme Q10, that show benefit.

Back in the 1930s, when Drs Evan and Wilfred Shute from Canada first showed
that vitamin E reduced risk of CVD, the medical profession managed to make
vitamin E illegal to important into the US, and persuaded the Postmaster
General to prohibit the sending of vitamin E from Canada to US citizens.
Today, at least, you still have the freedom to choose whether or not to
supplement antioxidants. The truth is we are still learning what the optimum
intake of antioxidants may be for those with CVD and there are many research
questions still to be answered.

The AHA imply you can get enough from your diet, by eating five or more
servings of fruits and vegetables each day. I recommend eight servings, not
five. However, the average person eats less than three portions of fruit and
vegetables a day. I believe, on the basis of the science to date, that
supplementing alongside a healthy diet can help boost antioxidant intake
towards optimum levels. I hope the AHA report does not put you off
supplementing antioxidant nutrients, as I do every day, and I hope it doesn'
t slow down the research into their optimal intake.
References:

1. Rimm EB et al. Vitamin E consumption and the risk of coronary heart
disease in men. NEJM 1993, May 20: 1450.
2. Stampfer MD et al. Vitamin E consumption and the risk of coronary heart
disease in women. NEJM 1993, May 20: 1444.
3. Christen WG, Gaziano JM and Hennekens CH. Design of Physicians' Health
Study II - a randomized trial of beta-carotene, vitamins E and C, and
multivitamins, in prevention of cancer, cardiovascular disease and eye
disease, and review of results of completed trials. Ann Epidemiol 2000, Feb;
10(2): 125-34.
4. Holmquist C, Larsson S, Wolf A and de Faire U. Multivitamin supplements
are inversely associated with risk of myocardial infarction in men and
women - Stockholm Heart Program (SHEEP). J Nutr 2003, Aug; 133(8): 2650-4.
5. Stephens NG et al. Randomised controlled trial of vitamin E in patients
with coronary disease: Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study (CHAOS). The Lancet
1996; 347: 781-786.
6. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation
20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trail. The
Lancet 2002; 360: 23-33.
7. As reference 3.




____________________________________________________________________________
This email and all attachments have been scanned by Kingston Communications'
email Anti-Virus service and no known viruses were detected.
____________________________________________________________________________

________________End of message______________________

Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:

www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html

You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager