No Purveyor of Unhealthy Products Wants the Public to Know the Truth

In 2011, Denmark introduced the world’s first tax on saturated fat. “After only 15 months, however, the fat tax was abolished,” due to massive pressure from farming and food company interests. “Public health advocates are weak in tackling the issues of corporate power…A well-used approach for alcohol, tobacco, and, more recently, food-related corporate interests is to shift the focus away from health. This involves reframing a fat or soft drinks tax as an issue of consumer rights and a debate over the role of the state in ‘nannying’ or restricting people’s choices.” I discuss this in my video The Food Industry Wants the Public Confused About Nutrition.

“The ‘Nanny State’ is a term that is usually used in a pejorative way to discourage governments from introducing legislation or regulation that might undermine the power or actions of industry or individuals…Public health advocacy work is regularly undermined by the ‘Nanny State’ phrase.” But those complaining about the governmental manipulation of people’s choices hypocritically tend to be fine with corporations doing the same thing. One could argue that “public health is being undermined by the ‘Nanny Industry’…[that] uses fear of government regulation to maintain its own dominance, to maintain its profits and to do so at a significant financial and social cost to the community and to public health.”

The tobacco industry offers the classic example, touting “personal responsibility,” which has a certain philosophical appeal. As long as people understand the risks, they should be free to do whatever they want with their bodies. Now, some argue that risk-taking affects others, but if you have the right to put your own life at risk, shouldn’t you have the right to aggrieve your parents, widow your spouse, and orphan your children? Then, there’s the social cost argument. People’s bad decisions can cost the society as a whole, whose tax dollars may have to care for them. “The independent, individualist motorcyclist, helmetless and free on the open road, becomes the most dependent of individuals in the spinal injury ward.”

But, for the sake of argument, let’s forget these spillover effects, the so-called externalities. If someone understands the hazards, shouldn’t they be able to do whatever they want? Well, “first, it assumes individuals can access accurate and balanced information relevant to their decisions…but deliberate industry interference has often created situations where consumers have access only to incomplete and inaccurate information…For decades, tobacco companies successfully suppressed or undermined scientific evidence of smoking’s dangers and down played the public health concerns to which this information gave rise.” Don’t worry your little head, said the nanny companies. “Analyses of documents…have revealed decades of deception and manipulation by the tobacco industry, and confirmed deliberate targeting of…children.” Indeed, it has “marketed and sold [its] lethal products with zeal…and without regard for the human tragedy….”

“The tobacco industry’s deliberate strategy of challenging scientific evidence undermines smokers’ ability to understand the harms smoking poses” and, as such, undermines the whole concept that smoking is a fully informed choice. “Tobacco companies have denied smokers truthful information…yet held smokers [accountable] for incurring diseases that will cause half of them to die prematurely. In contexts such as these, government intervention is vital to protect consumers from predatory industries….”

Is the food industry any different? “The public is bombarded with information and it is hard to tell which is true, which is false and which is merely exaggerated. Foods are sold without clarity about the nutritional content or harmful effects.” Remember how the food industry spent a billion dollars making sure the easy-to-understand traffic-light labeling system on food, which you can see at 4:26 in my video, never saw the light of day and was replaced by indecipherable labeling? That’s ten times more money than the drug industry spends on lobbying in the United States. It’s in the food industry’s interest to have the public confused about nutrition.

How confused are we about nutrition? “Head Start teachers are responsible for providing nutrition education to over 1 million low-income children annually…” When 181 Head Start teachers were put to the test, only about 4 out of the 181 answered at least four of the five nutrition knowledge questions correctly. Most, for example, could not correctly answer the question, “What has the most calories: protein, carbohydrate, or fat?” Not a single teacher could answer all five nutrition questions correctly. While they valued nutrition education, 54 percent “agreed that it was hard to know which nutrition information to believe,” and the food industry wants to keep it that way. A quarter of the teachers did not consume any fruits or vegetables the previous day, though half did have french fries and soda, and a quarter consumed fried meat the day before. Not surprisingly, 55 percent of the teachers were not just overweight but obese.

When even the teachers are confused, something must be done. No purveyor of unhealthy products wants the public to know the truth. “An interesting example comes from the US ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and the tobacco advertising experience of the 1960s. Before tobacco advertising was banned from television in the US, a court ruling in 1967 required that tobacco companies funded one health ad about smoking for every four tobacco TV advertisements they placed. Rather than face this corrective advertising, the tobacco industry took their own advertising off television.” They knew they couldn’t compete with the truth. Just “the threat of corrective advertising even on a one-to-four basis was sufficient to make the tobacco companies withdraw their own advertising.” They needed to keep the public in the dark.

The trans fat story is an excellent example of this. For more on that, see my videos Controversy Over the Trans Fat Ban and Banning Trans Fat in Processed Foods but Not Animal Fat.

Isn’t the Fairness Doctrine example amazing? Just goes to show how powerful the truth can be. If you want to support my efforts to spread evidence-based nutrition, you can donate to our 501c3 nonprofit here. You may also want to support Balanced, an ally organization NutritionFacts.org helped launch to put this evidence into practice.


More tobacco industry parallels can be found in Big Food Using the Tobacco Industry Playbook, American Medical Association Complicity with Big Tobacco, and How Smoking in 1959 Is Like Eating in 2016.

Want to know more about that saturated fat tax idea? See Would Taxing Unhealthy Foods Improve Public Health?.

Also check:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:

What About the Trans Fat in Animal Fat?

The years of healthy life lost due to our consumption of trans fats are comparable to the impact of conditions like meningitis, cervical cancer, and multiple sclerosis. But, if “food zealots” get their wish in banning added trans fats, what’s next? I explore this in my video Banning Trans Fat in Processed Foods but Not Animal Fat.

Vested corporate interests rally around these kinds of slippery slope arguments to distract from the fact that people are dying. New York Mayor Bloomberg was decried as a “meddling nanny” for his trans fat ban and attempt to cap soft drink sizes. How dare he try to manipulate consumer choice! But isn’t that what the food industry has done? “Soft drink portion sizes have grown dramatically, along with Americans’ waistlines.” In 1950, a 12-ounce soda was the king-sized option. Now, it’s the kiddie size. Similarly, with trans fats, it was the industry that limited our choice by putting trans fats into everything without even telling us. Who’s the nanny now?

New York City finally won its trans fat fight, preserving its status as a public health leader. “For example, it took decades to achieve a national prohibition of lead paint, despite unequivocal evidence of harm,” but New York City’s Board of Health led the way, banning it “18 years before federal action.”

There’s irony in the slippery slope argument: First, they’ll come for your fries; next, they’ll come for your burger. After the trans fat oil ban, one of the only remaining sources of trans fat is in the meat itself. “Trans fats naturally exist in small amounts in the fat in meat and milk,” as I’ve discussed before in my video Trans Fat in Meat and Dairy. Before the trans fat ban, animal products only provided about one fifth of America’s trans fat intake, but since the U.S. trans fat ban exempts animal products, they will soon take over as the leading source. As you can see at 2:09 in Banning Trans Fat in Processed Foods but Not Animal Fat, now that added trans fats are banned in Denmark, for example, the only real trans fat exposure left is from animal products found in the U.S. dairy, beef, chicken fat, turkey meat, lunch meat, and hot dogs, with trace amounts in vegetable oils due to the refining process.

The question is: Are animal trans fats as bad as processed food trans fats? As you can see at 2:38 in my video, a compilation of randomized interventional trials found that they both make bad cholesterol go up and they both make good cholesterol go down. So, both animal trans fats and processed food trans fats make the ratio of bad to good cholesterol go up—which is bad. Therefore, all trans fats cause negative effects “irrespective of their origin.” The researchers suspect that also removing natural trans fats from the diet could prevent tens of thousands of heart attacks, but unlike processed foods, you can’t remove trans fats from milk and meat because trans fats are there naturally.

The livestock industry suggests that a little bit of their trans fats might not be too bad, but you saw the same everything-in-moderation argument coming from the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils after industrial trans fats were first exposed as a threat. The bottom line is “that intake of all sources of trans fat should be minimized.” The trans fat in processed foods can be banned, and just adhering to the current dietary guidelines to restrict saturated fat intake, which is primarily found in meat and dairy, would automatically cut trans fat intake from animal fats.

The reason no progress may have been made on animal trans fat reduction in Denmark is because The Danish Nutrition Council that pushed for the trans fat ban was a joint initiative of The Danish Medical Association and The Danish Dairy Board. They recognized that “the economic support from The Danish Dairy Council could be perceived as problematic” from a scientific integrity point of view, but, not to worry—“The Danish Medical Association expanded the Executive Board and the funding members to also include the Danish pork industry, the Danish meat industry, The Poultry and Egg Council and The Danish Margarine Industry Association.”

If people want to eat trans fat, isn’t that their right? Yes, but only if they’re informed about the risks—yet The Food Industry Wants the Public Confused About Nutrition.

For more on the industry pushback, see my video Controversy Over the Trans Fat Ban.

There does not appear to be a safe level of exposure to trans fat—or to saturated fat or dietary cholesterol, for that matter. See Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero.


If you find these videos about industry influence on public policy compelling, check out my many others, including:

Note that the concept of raising or lowering HDL (the so-called good cholesterol) playing a causal role in heart disease has come into question. See Coconut Oil and the Boost in HDL “Good” Cholesterol.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:

Eating to Block Lead Absorption

Intake of certain nutrients has been associated with lower lead levels in the body. For example, women with higher intake of thiamine, also called vitamin B1, tended to have lower blood lead levels, and the same was found for lead-exposed steel workers—and not just with thiamine, as “content of dietary fiber, iron, or thiamine intake each correlated inversely with blood lead concentrations in workers…” The thinking is that the fiber might glom onto the lead and flush it out of the body, the iron would inhibit the lead absorption, and the thiamine may accelerate lead removal through the bile. So, researchers suggest that eating lots of iron, fiber and especially thiamine-rich foods “may induce rapid removal and excretion of the lead from the tissues.” But thiamine’s never been put to the test by giving it to people to see if their lead levels drop. The closest I could find is a thiamine intervention for lead-intoxicated goats.
 

And much of the fiber data are just from test tube studies. In one, for example, researchers used simulated intestinal conditions, complete with “flasks” of feces, and both soluble and insoluble dietary fiber were able to bind up large amounts of mercury, cadmium, and lead to such an extent that they may have been able to block absorption in the small intestine. But, when our good gut flora then eat the fiber, some of the heavy metals may be re-released down in the colon, so it’s not completely fail safe. And, as with thiamine, there haven’t been controlled human studies.

But where is thiamine found? At 1:47 in my video How to Lower Lead Levels with Diet: Thiamine, Fiber, Iron, Fat, Fasting?, I feature a list of some of the healthiest sources of thiamine-rich foods that also contain fiber, which include highly concentrated, super healthy foods like beans and greens—foods we should all be eating anyway. So, even if thiamine- and fiber-rich foods don’t actually lower lead levels, we’ll still end up healthier.

What happened when iron was put to the test? It failed to improve the cognitive performance of lead-exposed children and failed to improve behavior or ADH symptoms, which is no surprise, because it also failed to bring down lead levels, as did zinc supplementation. It turns out that while iron may limit the absorption of lead, “it may also inhibit excretion of previously absorbed lead” that’s already in your body. What’s more, iron may not even inhibit lead absorption in the first place. That was based on rodent studies, and it turns out we’re not rodents.

We get the same story with zinc. It may have helped to protect rat testicles, but didn’t seem to help human children. “Nevertheless, iron is routinely prescribed in children with lead poisoning.” But, “given the lack of scientific evidence supporting the use of iron [supplementation] in…children with lead poisoning, its routine use should be re-examined.” Though, obviously, supplementation may help if you have an iron deficiency.

High fat intake has been identified as a nutritional condition that makes things worse for lead-exposed children. In fact, dietary fat has been associated with higher lead levels in cross-sectional, snapshot-in-time type studies, and there is a plausible biological mechanism: Dietary fat may boost lead absorption by stimulating extra bile, which in turn may contribute to lead absorption, but you really don’t know until you put it to the test.

In addition to testing iron, researchers also tested fat. They gave a group of intrepid volunteers a cocktail of radioactive lead and then, with a Geiger counter, measured how much radiation the subjects retained in their bodies. Drinking the lead with iron or zinc didn’t change anything, but adding about two teaspoons of vegetable oil boosted lead absorption into the body from about 60 percent up to around 75 percent, as you can see at 4:17 in my video.

The only thing that seemed to help, dropping lead absorption down to about 40 percent, was eating a light meal with the lead drink. What was the meal? Coffee and a donut. I think this is the first donut intervention I’ve ever seen with a positive outcome! Could it have been the coffee? Unlikely, because if anything, coffee drinking has been associated with a tiny increase in blood lead levels. If fat makes things worse, and the one sugar they tried didn’t help, the researchers figured that what made the difference was just eating food—any food—and not taking in lead on an empty stomach. And, indeed, if you repeat the study with a whole meal, lead absorption doesn’t just drop from 60 percent to 40 percent—it drops all the way down to just 4 percent! That’s extraordinary. That means it’s 15 times worse to ingest lead on an empty stomach.

Lead given 12 hours before a meal was absorbed at about 60 percent, so most of it was absorbed. When the same amount of lead was given three hours after a meal and also seven hours after a meal, most of it was absorbed at those times, too. But, if you get some food in your stomach within a few hours of lead exposure, you can suppress the absorption of some or nearly all of the lead you ingested, which you can see at 0:11 in my video How to Lower Lead Levels with Diet: Breakfast, Whole Grains, Milk, Tofu?.

This is why it’s critical to get the lead out of our tap water. Although it’s estimated that most of our lead exposure comes from food, rather than water, it’s not what we eat that matters, but what we absorb. If 90 percent of the lead in food is blocked from absorption by the very fact that it’s in food, 10 to 20 times more lead could be absorbed into your bloodstream simply by consuming the same amount of lead in water drank on an empty stomach.

And, since children empty their stomachs faster than adults because kids “have more rapid gastric emptying times,” the timing of meals may be even more important. With little tummies emptying in as few as two hours after a meal, offering midmorning and midafternoon snacks in addition to breakfast and regular meals may cut down on lead absorption in a contaminated environment. And, of course, we should ensure that children wash their hands prior to eating.

So, do preschoolers who eat breakfast have lower levels of lead in their blood? In the first study of its kind, researchers found that, indeed, children who ate breakfast regularly did appear to have lower lead levels, supporting recommendations to provide regular meals and snacks to young children at risk for lead exposure.

Is there anything in food that’s particularly protective? Researchers tested all sorts of foods to find out, and it turns out the “effect of a meal was probably largely due to its content of calcium and phosphate salts but lead uptake was probably further reduced by phytate which is plentiful in whole cereals,” but if calcium and phosphates are protective, you’d think dairy would work wonders. And, indeed, they started giving milk “to workers to prevent lead exposure” ever since calcium was shown to inhibit lead absorption in rats. But, in humans, there’s something in milk that appeared to increase lead uptake, and it wasn’t the fat because they found the same problem with skim milk.

“For over a century milk was recommended unreservedly to counteract lead poisoning in industry,” but this practice was abandoned in the middle of the last century once we learned that milk’s “overall effect is to promote the absorption of lead from the intestinal tract.” What’s the agent in milk that promotes the absorption of lead from the gut? It may be the milk sugar, lactose, though the “mechanism by which lactose enhances lead absorption is not clear.”

The bottom line? “In the past…milk was used as a prophylactic agent to protect workers in the lead industry. Recent studies, however, suggest that this practice is unjustified and may even be harmful.” So, giving people whole grains may offer greater protection against lead uptake.

However, the most potently calcium and phytate-rich food would be tofu. Isolated soy phytonutrients may have a neuroprotective effect, at least this was the case in petri dish-type studies. As you can see at 3:45 in my video, if you add a little lead to nerve cells, you can kill off about 40 percent of them, but if you then give more and more soy phytonutrients, you can ameliorate some of the damage. This is thought to be an antioxidant effect. If you add lead to nerve cells, you can get a big burst of free radicals, but less and less as you drip on more soy compounds.

Nevertheless, even if this worked outside of a lab, cutting down on the toxic effects of lead is nice, but cutting down on the levels of lead in your body is even better. “Because tofu has high content of both calcium and phytic acid phytate…it is biologically plausible that tofu may inhibit lead absorption and retention, thus reducing blood lead levels.” But you don’t know, until you put it to the test.

Tofu consumption and blood lead levels were determined for about a thousand men and women in China. For every nine or so ounces of tofu consumed a week, there appeared to be about four percent less lead in their bloodstream. Those who ate up to two and a half ounces a day had only half the odds of having elevated lead levels, compared to those eating less than about nine ounces a week. Those consuming nearly four ounces a day appeared to cut their odds by more than 80 percent. This was just a cross-sectional study, or snapshot in time, so it can’t prove cause and effect. What you need is an interventional study where you randomize people into two groups, giving half of them some food to see if it drives down lead levels. I cover this in my video Best Food for Lead Poisoning: Chlorella, Cilantro, Tomatoes, Moringa?.


Where does all this lead exposure come from anyway? Check out the first five videos on this series:

For more about blocking lead absorption, as well as what to eat to help rid yourself of the lead you’ve already built up, see:

Or, even better, don’t get exposed in the first place. Find out more in these videos:

Some of my other videos on lead include:

And what about lead levels in women? See:

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations: