The free-from-fear diet

Screen Shot 2015-11-24 at 13.33.5023 November 2015 for the Observer as “What is Healthy Eating?“:

It’s easy to develop a case of the latest psychiatrically acknowledged eating disorder, orthorexia nervosa – an obsession with avoiding foods perceived to be unhealthy. I got one for just £65. That’s the price of an introductory session at London’s Hale Clinic, an alternative therapy centre a couple of stuccoed blocks from Harley Street.

The Hale was opened by Prince Charles back in the 80s, and celebrities have been aromatherapied, ear-candled and detoxed there ever since. As you pass through its Grecian columns you cannot but ponder the fact that here Princess Diana’s colon was regularly irrigated. I arrive for something simpler: a consultation on my diet. I am a normal 50-something foodie whose diet philosophy has long been “Don’t eat crap” (with occasional cheesy Wotsits permitted). My complaints are pretty normal for my age cohort, too: a little joint pain, a desire to snooze after lunch, a failure to tolerate the quantities of alcohol I once enjoyed. Oh, and those close to me might mention a mild tendency towards flatulence. Like the bulk of the British public, I have a somewhat troubled relationship with my gut.

Today I have an appointment with the much-recommended Linda Crawford, a Hale Clinic veteran who is also principal of the College of BioEnergetic Medicine and director of the London Shyness Centre. She is cheerful and charming as well as multitalented: a psychotherapist, hypnotherapist, neurofeedback practitioner, kinesiologist, treater of chronic fatigue syndrome, dietary problems and – according to a recent promotional email – able to treat the potentially fatal Lyme’s disease by homeopathy.

In an upper room that reeks of burning herbs, Linda straps a velcro band round my head. A lead runs from it to the back of her PC. She tells me to relax while she measures my body’s “stress response to certain hertz wave frequencies”. This is painless and a lot less hassle than a stool sample (I offered; it wasn’t needed). After 10 minutes or so my magnetic resonances have been fully read. Linda, with an I-told-you-so smile, prints out a sheet and hands it to me.

It is amazing. I have won the hypochondriac lottery. I’m the owner of 29 different allergies, sensitive to substances from MSG to strawberries and including such regulars in my life as milk, chicken, wheat dust, red and green peppers, cheese, peanuts, honey, lentils, brewer’s yeast, lactose, various grasses, cat hair, tobacco and “summer and fall pollens”. The fact that I believe I have no hay fever or allergy is not of importance.

I am aghast. I don’t know where to start. Cheese? I love cheese. “But your body doesn’t,” says Linda, wagging a finger.

2-Lucky-Strike–To-Keep-A-Slender-Figure-No-One-Can-Deny

Peering at her computer screen, a seer into a crystal ball, she finds other problems. “I see a lot of stress… I’m seeing insomnia, depression, constipation… Very stressed in the cranial nerve, the large and small intestine. Do you get constipated?” “No,” I say. “Hmmm… Is your memory poor?” “I’m a middle-aged man,” I say. “We tend to worry about our memories.” “That’s what I thought! I’m seeing stressed kidneys, which would affect your memory.”

This sparks my scepticism, not a common reaction at the Hale. But the diagnosis all seems a bit “You’ve met a tall dark stranger”. Ask any adult in later life if they are ever stressed or have sleeping problems, memory issues or depression and you are likely to get at least one positive. And whether it’s constipation or flatulence or irritable bowel syndrome, an astonishing 80% of adults are not happy with the workings of their bowels.

Read more here

Don’t eat crap. Three times a day.

Actually, the fruit bit isn't so great after all (Getty/Guardian)

Actually, the fruit bit isn’t so great after all (Getty/Guardian)

6 April 2014: Published in the Observer, my piece on the “5 a day” debate got an amazing 900+ comments. Some of them quite well-tempered (must be something in the diet).

 

So now it’s seven a day? Here’s my easy alternative: just stop eating rubbish

Nanny Britain’s fruit and veg regime will never work while the list includes fruitcake and sugar-laden drinks

My children are apple-cheeked and glossy-haired, strong and slender as willow wands. Not a filling in their heads, either. All the same, we had a family council on diet last week. A study by the epidemiologists of University College, London found that the five-a-day diet is inadequate. Seven or even 10 portions of fruit and veg is more like it and might reduce our chances of early death by 42% or more. Odds worth having: so I asked them to audit their intake.

My daughter confessed that while she has a banana most breaks, she didn’t like the school lunch fruit salad. She is probably getting four a day, tops. My son said he easily ate five a day. You don’t count chips, I countered, because they are made from potatoes (he did know that) and a potato, being largely starch, does not make the NHS five-a-day lists. I think his score is perhaps three – as bad as mine.

Suddenly, I saw developmental disorders all around. The failure to learn Mandarin. The trouble with long division. The severe allergic reaction to the word “walk”. Might there be scurvy lurking there too? Rickets? And how the hell were we going to get up to seven a day? That’s 2,555 portions of fruit and veg a year for each of us, and we’d be living longer, too. Should we marry the kids to greengrocers?

+++ Continue reading

Boycott the bullying whisky barons

Update, 1 May 2014. The booze giants won a ruling yesterday allowing them to take their challenge over minimum pricing to the European Court. It’s now 13 months since the law passed by the Scottish parliament should have come  into effect, and started saving lives and livers. Latest briefingfrom Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems here . The challenge will now take 16 months minimum to be heard in Europe.

If you want to boycott the alcohol manufacturers who are backing the endless legal challenge against minimum alcohol pricing, there’s not much left to drink. But these whiskies are NOT members of the Diageo’s proxy, the Scottish Whisky Association, which leads the lobbying and legal battle:

Good whiskies

Bruichladdich, Springbank. GlenDronach, Glen Grant, Arran, Glengyle, Tomintoul and Tullibardine.

Any others? Please let me know.

 

3 Feb 2014: Back in court this week, Scottish whisky manufacturers now hope to postpone Scotland’s minimum alcohol price law, passed in 2012, to 2017 at the earliest. That’s an obstruction of democracy – and the measure wouldn’t even affect whisky. Just the cheap super-strength cider, strong beer and grain spirits that are killing young people and the poor.

Image

Some Diageo labels – it owns 24 Scottish whisky brands

Evidence from Canada is that a minimum price could save more than 300 Scottish lives a year. It would also help with the huge social damage that cheap alcohol – 44% more affordable than it was 30 years ago – does in Scotland.

A petition to Diageo and the Scotch Whisky Association here, asking them to call off their court challenge to minimum alcohol pricing.

Join the boycott: a list of Diageo brands  here. Scotch Whisky Association brands here.

“Cheap alcohol causes poverty” My piece for Bella Caledonia  here.

My opinion piece in the Independent, 2 Feb 2014:

Talisker and Knockando, Cragganmore and Lagavulin – the lovely names please the tongue as the malts do the palate. But for me and many Scottish friends these joys are off the table from next week. We’re protesting against their proprietor, the giant boozemaker Diageo – owner of 24 whisky brands and, in their name, guilty of cynical obstruction of democracy and callous disregard for the toll of cheap alcohol in Scotland.

I live in Leith, a mile or so from where the Scotch Whisky Association, Diageo’s lobbying proxy, has it headquarters on Edinburgh’s calm and elegant Atholl Crescent. Things are rather different at our end of town: it’s one of Scotland’s poorest postcodes, and the damage done by alcohol is visible on prematurely aged faces, in the crime rates and on the streets. On Friday and Saturday nights Leith is loud with drunks, most of whom are young, and then with ambulances picking up the comatose. Some of them will be among the 20 people who die every week in Scotland of alcohol abuse.

The kids are not drinking malt whisky, of course. They are “pre-loading” at home on cheap schnapps and super-strength cider bought in supermarkets, before going on to pubs and clubs that advertise cocktails at £1 each.

In the Iceland supermarket on Easter Road, Leith, people queue for bargain frozen food and bargain booze. This is where Diageo and its friends make their real profits. There’s all the cheapo brands – Fosters, Skol, San Miguel, strong Carlsberg Export (which Diageo makes in Ireland) all at pocket-money prices. There’s also a “schnapps”, V-Kat, which is 22 per cent alcohol, more than half the strength of vodka, at just £7.50 a litre and Frosty Jack’s cider, 7.5 per cent alcohol at an amazing £3.50 for a 3-litre bottle.

Continue reading

The sugar corps: scientists for sale?

20140119-090431.jpg

An ongoing discussion of Big Sugar and its spending in academia 

24 January 2016: BBC1’s The Big Questions held a live debate in Edinburgh on sugar and health. During it I stated that Professor Mike Lean, chair of human nutrition at Glasgow University, was funded by Coca-Cola for some of his research. He objected.

I based my assertion on a 2012 Coca-Cola-funded study of orange juice polyphenols done at Glasgow, for which Mike Lean was listed as “main contact”. The study led to a 2014 paper published in America, on which Mike Lean is one of nine authors. Three of them are Coca-Cola-funded scientists and/or employees, including Professor Alan Crozier. Materials for the research were also provided by Coca-Cola.

However Mike Lean says that no funds for the study went to him: he has never benefited, personally or in his work, from Coca-Cola funding and he would refuse such funds. Given his proven record of advocacy against sugary drinks marketing and his other public stances, I accept that assurance. Glasgow University has confirmed that Mike Lean has not had money from Coca-Cola for his research. Further, he tells me he is in favour of a tax on sugary drinks.

39fae85a-6dfc-11e5-_990537c.jpg

Rita Ora poses to celebrate 100 years of the hourglass Coca-Cola bottle

British universities, not least Glasgow, have benefited hugely from research investment by the big food and drink corporations. Professor Alan Crozier, Mike Lean’s former Glasgow colleague, co-author with him on 30 papers, has had “almost  £3m” (boasts the university) from Coca-Cola, Nestle and other food and drink corporations. Crozier’s research is largely into soft drinks, including tea, coffee and fruit juices.

 

Some of the millions Coca-Cola and other corporations spend in academia is of course to try and sway arguments about links between their products and public health problems – see last year’s Times investigations below. As pressure for a tax on sugary drinks to fund health education has grown in the past years, so has the money on offer. In the States it is claimed that the soda industry has spent $106m in recent years merely in lobbying against proposed taxes on sugary drinks.

Some scientists, not least in nutrition, appear to believe they are are immune from influence by their sponsors. They are not: a recent meta-analysis showed that when industry funds research into sugar and obesity it is much more likely to find no link between the two than is independent or government-funded research.

  • “Scientists for sale!” My 2014 Daily Mail article on links between Big Sugar and the scientists who were then on the government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.

 

22 January 2016: Food Standards Scotland – a government agency  – comes out for a sugary drinks tax, and a range of other measures. (Here is a list of the FSS’s latest recommendations on health and diet). The Times (£) – consistently he best national on the issue – singles out the FSS charge that sugar removed from drinks is being “recycled” into foods.

 

20 January 2016: Meeting in Edinburgh of chefs, food journalists and policy people to discuss a sugary drinks tax for Scotland, organised by Source. It was largely in favour, with the tax seen as one in a range of interventions, as laid out by the lobbying coalition led by Sustain and British Heart Foundation. Action on marketing frauds, targeting of children and transparency over science could be part of it. Nicely summed up here.

I spoke about the countries around the world that have introduced sugar taxes. It will be years before any link with health improvements can be proved, but there is new evidence of the success of the Mexican tax in reducing consumption. Here’s the Food Research Network’s useful run-down of current state of play, stated aims of the taxes, and lobbying positions in countries round the world.

 

10 December 2015: Alexi Mostrous’s ongoing investigation in The Times (£) states that Coca-Cola has spent £10m in five years on British scientists largely to help counter claims of links between sugar and obesity.

The advisers include Stuart Biddle, of Loughborough University, who was chairman of a health department group on obesity in 2010; Alan Boobis, a director at Public Health England, who stopped receiving funding in 2013; Ken Fox, who advised the government on obesity in 2009; and Carrie Ruxton, now on the board of Food Standards Scotland. In 2010 Dr Ruxton co-wrote a study sponsored by the UK Sugar Bureau, an industry group, that found no proven association between sugar intake and obesity. On her website she states separately: “When I correlated sugar consumption with obesity levels, there didn’t appear to be any relationship.”

The data reveal that Coca-Cola paid £8.9 million to organisations including £224,769 to the British Nutrition Foundation, £67,300 to the National Obesity Forum, £30,000 to the Science Media Centre, which promotes the “voices and views of the UK scientific community to the news media”, and £80,000 to ukactive, which promotes physical activity. The list does not include €6.6 million (£4.8 million) paid to the European Hydration Institute, a research foundation which has recommended that people consume soft drinks of the sort the company sells, because its headquarters are in Spain.

 

9 October 2015: “Giants of the health lobby funded by Coca-Cola”. Gripping investigation in the Times (£) into Coca-Cola’s funding of the European Hydration Institute and Loughborough University’s Ron Maughan.

In April, a Loughborough University study made headlines around the world with a surprising conclusion: that not drinking enough fluids before driving was as dangerous, in some circumstances, as driving while drunk.

Press coverage quoted Ron Maughan, professor of sport and exercise nutrition, who warned that dehydration was an “unrecognised danger” for drivers. Most stories failed to mention that the study was funded by the European Hydration Institute (EHI), a non-profit body set up to promote the benefits of hydration.

None disclosed that the EHI was funded to the tune of €6.6 million by Coca-Cola.

 

21 January 2014: “Top scientists for sale!” My comment piece in the Daily Mail on the sugar lobby, bought science and corporate capture of government advisors.

In this I mention some academic research on scientists in these fields with apparent conflicts of interest. It shows they tend to produce biased research – but you may judge this simplistic. Here are the two papers:

1.   Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA (2013) Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. PLoS Med 10(12): e1001578. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578. Read it here.

2.      Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med 4(1): e5. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005.  Read it here

Sugar watchdog works for Coca-Cola and Mars
Published 19 January 2014, copyright Sunday Times, UK . Original here

ONE of the country’s leading nutritional experts, tasked by the government with proposing new limits for the nation’s sugar consumption, is working as a paid adviser to Coca-Cola and Mars.

Professor Ian Macdonald chairs a government panel examining the health impact of sugar consumption, amid growing concern that excessive amounts in food are fuelling the obesity epidemic.

It will recommend to the government later this year what level of sugar in our diet is healthy, helping to frame the national guidance.

However, the Nottingham University scientist confirmed last week that he provided monthly advice to Mars “at board level” and also advised Coca-Cola on diet, obesity and exercise. He said the annual payment of £6,100 from Coca-Cola went into his personal income — it “goes into [my] tax return” — while the larger payment from Mars helped to fund his university research.

The disclosure of his links to the companies, in an investigation by Channel 4 Dispatches to be shown tomorrow, prompted demands this weekend that Macdonald should resign from the chairmanship of the panel because of the “unacceptable” conflict of interests.

Simon Capewell, a Liverpool University professor and founding member of the Action on Sugar campaign, said Macdonald’s role was untenable. “I am shocked,” he said. “This is a scandal for public health. It’s like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. It’s clearly an outrageous conflict of interest.

“If Ian Macdonald doesn’t step down [from the panel], there will be real concerns that their recommendations will be prejudiced by commercial factors rather than scientific public health priorities.”

It will be the second time that Macdonald’s interests have drawn him into controversy. Macdonald stood down from a paid advisory role with Coca-Cola and Mars in 2009 after concerns were raised with health officials about his potential conflict of interest.

Dispatches has, however, established that he started working for the two companies again in 2012 after successfully seeking approval from officials.

Macdonald said: “I do understand people saying, ‘You are so close to those companies you should not have anything to do with gathering the evidence for UK policy to be decided’. I just disagree.”

MacDonald, who sits on the Coca-Cola European Scientific Advisory Council and the Mars Scientific Advisory Council, said he believed it was important to have a dialogue with industry. He said he never discussed any aspect of his government work on sugar with Coca-Cola and Mars.

The details of Macdonald’s close links to the food industry have emerged after a campaign was launched this month by Action on Sugar which claimed sugar was the “new tobacco”.

Macdonald is known to be sceptical of some of the claims made by the anti-sugar lobby. He says the evidence does not support the claim that fructose has a specific and adverse impact on health.

His work for the food industry and the work of his panel is now likely to come under close scrutiny. Macdonald is chairman of the carbohydrate working group, which is part of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN). It was requested nearly six years ago to “provide clarification of the relationship between dietary carbohydrate and health and make public health recommendations”.

Under current government recommendations, added sugars should comprise no more than 11% of total energy consumption. Some experts, however, believe this upper limit should be reduced significantly.

Five members of Macdonald’s eight-strong panel disclosed links to the food industry in the most recent register of interests published in the 2012 annual report.

The recommendations of Macdonald’s panel need to be approved by the SACN and will then be published for consultation. The Department of Health will then review the recommendations and decide on any changes in policy.

A spokesman for Public Health England said: “Professor Ian Macdonald has fully declared his interests in accordance with the code of practice for scientific advisory committees guidance.”

The spokesman said that throughout the deliberation on carbohydrates and health there had been processes in place to ensure “the transparency and integrity” of the review. The work was overseen by independent experts and government officials.

Are “superfruits” a scam? A potato might do the same job at a tenth the price…

Image

Pomegranate – lots of fibre, if you can eat all those seeds.

30 December 2013: fruit sold on health promises, my story published in the UK’s Daily Mail.

Believe the hype and they’ll solve all your health issues.  They are the natural solution for everything from cancer, heart disease and dementia through to ageing skin, poor eyesight and interrupted sleep. No wonder “superfruits” now pop up everywhere: in cereal, desserts, snack bars, breakfast juice, desserts, face cream – even designer gin.

But though goji berries, acai juice, pomegranates and cranberries often claim their healing properties are rooted in ancient medicine, the explosion in their use is a very modern phenomenon.

Marketing gurus in the United States invented the word less than a decade ago, to profit from the boom in so-called “functional foods” – the industry’s term for staples – like yoghourt or snack bars –  that can be sold at a premium by pushing health benefits.

The labelling tactic worked. Superfruit products worth hundreds of millions of pounds are now sold in Britain every year. The global market in superfruit juices alone will be worth over £6bn by 2017, according to food market analysts Euromonitor .

As you’d expect, the fruit and health foods industries have gone bananas (rich in potassium and fibre, these might be a superfruit if they weren’t so old-fashioned). Since there’s no regulation or even definition of the term, anything you like can be a superfruit – and millions can be made if you get the marketing right.

In Britain, two out of three new juice products launched last year claimed to contain superfruit, and new ones are being announced every week. A big launch in 2011 was Cherrygood, a fruit juice made in part from an imported American cherry supposedly very high in antioxidants. One glass will give “the equivalent health benefits of around 20 portions of fruit and vegetables”. Though the company offers no proof of that extraordinary boast, Cherrygood has been a hit, according to the food analyst agencies, and by 2013 all the supermarkets and health stores were stocking it.

Continue reading

Is “health bread” a scam?

Bakery firms are making big promises: touting premium loaves to help with everything from dieting and flatulence to memory loss and the symptoms of menopause. I enlisted some experts and we took apart 12 supermarket loaves to ask: are health breads a big gluten-loaded con?

Image

(Extended version of an investigation for the Daily Mail, published 21 Feb 2013)

Once there was white bread, which was nicer, and there was brown bread, which was better for you.

Now most supermarkets stock 40 or more different breads. They’re far more than the building blocks of a sandwich: some “health breads” claim to make you fitter, slimmer, to improve your memory or even to stop you eating so much bread.

Some of the designer health breads cost five or six times what a normal loaf does. They are imported from France, Italy and Germany. Yet many of the products have little or no health value at all – and the claims may be in contravention of labeling law.

Many of these breads also taste horrible. But people don’t buy them first for flavour.

One of the brands, Burgen,  calls itself “bread shaped health food”. One of the loaves is flavoured with linseed and soya and claims to help with symptoms of the menopause through adding natural hormones to the diet.

But medical professionals told us that was “extremely unlikely”.

Burgen, which is owned by Britain’s biggest bakery company, ABF, claims a whole range of medical benefits for its loaves, but our experts poured cold water on most of the promises. We requested scientific evidence from Burgen, but it didn’t provide any.

Burgen breads cost £1.40 each in supermarkets, more than twice as much as basic bread.

There are breads that promise healthier bones and better brain function and memory, and of course, relief for a range of allergies to gluten, wheat or excess yeast. But many of the claims are misleading or unproven.

Our survey found that expensive slimmers’ bread from WeightWatchers and Nimble is almost identical to and just as fattening as budget white bread at less than a third the price.

Some of these breads address problems – like healthy bones – that hardly exist among the sort of people able to pay for designer loaves.

Continue reading