Food

Blame the Bagel

Chemical Institute of Canada — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:34:03 GMT

I’m grumpy now. Maybe it’s because I had a bagel for breakfast. Or maybe it’s because I just read an excerpt from a book that claims that eating a bagel can make one grumpy. The book is called “The Happiness Diet: A Nutritional Prescription for a Sharp Brain, Balanced Mood, and Lean, Energized Body.” What is that wondrous prescription? It seems simple enough. If you want to be happy, stay away from bagels, egg whites, sugary soft drinks, margarine, soy yogurt, fruit smoothies, canned soup, agave nectar and deli meats. Who says this? Dr. Drew Ramsey, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.

The idea that happiness is to be found in eating the right foods is a pretty appealing one. I’m game to try a happiness diet, but first, I say, show me the science. The evidence against bagels, according to Dr. Ramsey, is as follows: “At first bagels boost a person’s energy, but after a few hours you come crashing down looking for another fix in the modern American diet. That crash can cause people to feel irritable, lightheaded or sad.” Really? Has anyone ever studied such a bagel effect? Nope. But there are studies that show a low carbohydrate diet is associated with irritability, tension and depression. MIT researchers have found that carbohydrate intake is one of the factors that controls the brain’s production of serotonin, a chemical that plays an important role in the control of our mood. Starchy foods increase serotonin production, so one could argue that bagels can actually elevate mood. So where then does the idea that bagels wreak havoc with mood come from? Confusion about complex carbs such as found in bagels and simple sugars as in let’s say, doughnuts. A high intake of simple sugars can cause a quick release of insulin that prompts cells to absorb the sugar leaving low levels in the bloodstream. A drop in blood sugar can cause irritability in some people, although this is certainly not universal.

What about those egg whites? Well here, the problem isn’t what is in them but what is not. The yolk! The claim is that people who don’t eat the yolk because of a fear that the cholesterol it contains is poison for the heart are missing out on omega-3 fats, vitamin D, vitamin B12 and folate which “regulate mood by improving the health of brain cells and contribute to feeling more stable, energetic, and less blue.” Yes, it is true that these nutrients play a role in brain function. But you certainly do not have to rely on eggs to supply them. The omega-3 content of eggs is negligible, and as far as folate goes, an egg yolk has about 25 micrograms whereas a serving of broccoli has 300. But that is hardly the point.

The point is that diet is a very complicated business and foods are composed of a complex array of chemicals and a suggestion that ten specific foods can interfere with our happiness is enough to make one grumpy. Or maybe it’s just that I’ve been eating too much non-organic celery. Dr. Ramsey claims that 57 different pesticides have been found on celery and at “least 12 are neurotoxins, and anything that is toxic for the brain is toxic for a stable well-balanced mood.” Well 57 pesticides may be permissible but that doesn’t mean that they are present on every celery stick we eat. Very few actually are, and they are found in trace amounts. Maybe I should suggest to Dr. Ramsey that he investigate what Snow White fed to the seven dwarfs. Did she sneak some non-organic celery into Grumpy’s supper and keep Happy from eating bagels? Dr. Ramsey seems to enjoy dealing with fables.

Chaga-The Not-So-Magical Mushroom

Chemical Institute of Canada — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:32:30 GMT

If you wanted to find some “Chaga” mushroom you would tromp through a forest looking for a birch tree with an unusual growth on its trunk. Although it is classified as a mushroom, Chaga doesn’t look like one. Instead of having gills, this mushroom is permeated with numerous pores. Under pressure it crumbles readily, revealing a brownish inside with cream coloured veins.

Why would anyone seek out this ugly parasite that grows from a wound on the bark of a birch tree? Probably because of stories that circulate about the mushroom being prized for ages by natives in northern Asia, Europe and America for its medicinal powers. Folklore speaks of the Chaga mushroom treating virtually every known ailment ranging from intestinal worms and heart disease to diabetes and cancer. It has been around for 4000 years, the story goes, and has been alluringly referred to as “Nature’s Silver Bullet” and “Gift from God.” Largely ignored by the western world for hundreds of years, the tale continues, Chaga is now being recognized for its energy boosting, immune system improving, stress reducing, detoxifying and anti-cancer properties. And where are these revelations about the wonders of Chaga to be found? Mostly on web sites that sell an array of Chaga pills and extracts.

The marketing of Chaga follows a popular and effective formula. An obscure natural substance that virtually nobody has heard about is touted as a non-toxic answer to our health problems. On what basis? There are the usual personal testimonials, there’s reference to historical use and to studies that have shown some sort of biological activity in some sort of laboratory study. Of course, many mushrooms contain compounds that have biological activity. That doesn’t necessarily imply desirable activity. Amanita muscaria, for example, is highly toxic and psilocybe mushrooms can cause hallucinations. But certainly some fungi have been found to contain pharmacologically useful compounds. It may even be that Chaga has such. But before swallowing the idea that swallowing Chaga pills or extracts or teas is a good thing to do, we had better look at the evidence.

Anecdotes about arthritis symptoms improving after drinking Chaga tea, or eczema resolving, or sleep improving, or blood pressure dropping do not amount to scientific evidence. So what kind of scientific evidence exists? One study that is commonly quoted reports the effect of a Chaga mushroom extract on human white blood cells exposed to the oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide in the laboratory. The cells treated with the extract showed a 40% reduction in DNA damage. This is often described as “promising anti-cancer activity.” That’s a big stretch. The reduction in DNA damage is an interesting observation, but is essentially meaningless. Such effects can be seen with virtually any fruit or vegetable extract that contains antioxidants. It doesn’t translate to anything meaningful in terms of ingestion of any Chagas preparation.

Laboratory studies have also shown that Chaga, like any other plant material, contains an array of triterpenes, sterols, beta-glucans, flavonoids, melanins, polyphenols, saponins, amino acids, vitamins, minerals and fiber. In some context all of these have biological activity, and with clever writing and selective reporting they can be made to look like miraculous ingredients. For example, one bit of supporting evidence offered for the use of Chaga extracts is that during the 1917 influenza epidemic, while the white population was dropping like flies, physicians noted that the Native American population was virtually unaffected. “After close inspection, these physicians attributed the herbs that the Indians were ingesting to their heightened immunity.” First, there is no evidence that natives were specially protected, and even if they were, it cannot be concluded that it was because of any natural products they were taking, and there is certainly no evidence that they were indulging in any Chaga preparations.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that ingesting any form of Chaga is beneficial. There are no placebo-controlled randomized trials of Chaga pills or extracts. Pills are available, but as with any such product there is no standardization, there is no way to tell what the pills really contain. As far as Chaga teas go, there are numerous recipes that undoubtedly result in different compositions of the final product. It is certainly possible that future research will show that some standardized preparation of Chaga, or a specific dose of a compound found in Chaga, has a therapeutic effect. But so far nothing like that has been shown.

I know that anytime I make such comments I am barraged with emails claiming that evidence for Chaga benefits is being suppressed by Big Pharma in order to protect its interests. I am also treated to a plethora of anecdotal accounts of pain disappearing, stomach problems resolving, waning energy being restored and skin taking on a youthful appearance.

The only truly documented evidence I’ve been able to come up with refers to the combustibility of the fungus. Chaga is sometimes justifiably referred to as a “tinder fungus.” That’s because its porous nature gives it a very large surface are and makes it very easy to light. It seems to be just the right substance with which to start a fire. A useful thing to know for people interested in wilderness survival. Unfortunately its use in disease survival is a different matter.

Taking a Look At Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

Chemical Institute of Canada — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:45:49 GMT

Your grandmother, if you were lucky enough to have one, probably told you to eat your fruits and veggies. And now it seems that those grandmothers who meddled with our dietary habits and urged kids to eat their peas and carrots were bang on. Grandmas have been joined by a plethora of scientists who tell us that we should be eating anywhere between five and ten servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Grandmothers went by instinct, but science progresses through studies. So what evidence do the scientists have for providing their advice?

The strongest evidence would come from randomized, controlled trials in which two groups of people are followed for years with one group being subjected to some sort of intervention. In this case, one group would eat a limited amount of fruits and vegetables, the other would consume the recommended amount. All other lifestyle factors such as exercise, smoking, total calorie intake, exposure to pollutants and medications would have to be the same. Ideally the average age of the two groups would be the same and they would be drawn from the same socio-economic background. Such studies are expensive and very difficult to organize and none for fruit and vegetable intake have been carried out.

The closest is the study that compared the DASH diet (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) to a typical North American diet. The DASH diet featured more fruits and vegetables but it was also lower in refined carbohydrates, higher in fiber, higher in low fat dairy products, nuts and poultry at the expense of red meat. Blood pressure decreased with the DASH diet but fruits and vegetables were not the only distinguishing difference. So for the overall benefits of fruits and vegetables we are left with “observational studies.” These fall into two categories: case-control or cohort studies. In either case there is no intervention by the researchers, they just observe a group of subjects and note their exposure to some factor of interest and record disease outcomes.

In a case-control study subjects with a certain disease are compared to a group that is matched in every way except for the presence of the disease in question. A classic example is smoking. When groups of lung cancer patients were compared to healthy people, it became clear that the cancer patients were much more likely to be smokers. Cohort studies furthered this link. In these studies, groups of smokers and groups of non-smokers were recruited and were followed for years. The smokers were more likely to develop lung cancer.

Another type of cohort study involves following a large group of subjects for many years, evaluating their lifestyles usually through elaborate questionnaires, and recording cases of disease. A classic example is the Nurses Health Study that began in 1976 by recruiting over 120,000 registered nurses. Some interesting findings have emerged in terms of diet. For example, higher intake of red meat was associated with an increased the risk of premenopausal breast cancer. A Mediterranean type of diet with vegetables, nuts and fish reduced the risk of heart disease and stroke, a high intake of green leafy vegetables reduced the risk of cognitive impairment, and high intakes of folate, vitamin B6, calcium and vitamin D reduced the risk of colon cancer. Numerous other case-control and cohort studies have shown an association between increased fruit and vegetable intake and reduced risk of various diseases.

One can always argue that an observational association can never prove cause and effect, that only a randomized controlled trial can do that. But in this case we have such an overwhelming number of observational studies that show the benefits of fruit and vegetable intake that it would be a waste of energy and money to organize randomized trials. Grandmas were right. Eat those fruits and veggies.

Cranberries and Urinary Tract Infections

Chemical Institute of Canada — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:48:32 GMT

Mention cranberry juice and “urinary tract infection” springs to mind. Most women and many men are familiar with the frequent urination and accompanying burning sensation that signals a bacterial invasion of the urinary tract. Today antibiotics solve the problem, but what did people do before? “Flushing the system” seemed a logical approach. All sorts of beverages were tried, but by the mid-1800s books on folkloric medicine were suggesting the use of cranberry juice. Based on anecdotal evidence, the juice developed a solid reputation for treating and preventing urinary tract infections.

Once bacteria had been identified as the cause of UTIs, scientists began to explore possible mechanisms by which cranberry juice could offer relief. Acidifying the urine to make it more inhospitable to bacteria was a possibility, as was the antibacterial action of hippuric acid, a component of cranberries. But trying to explain how cranberry juice worked before clearly demonstrating that it did was putting the cart before the horse. Finally, in 1994, Harvard researchers decided to mount a proper clinical study of the claims. They enrolled 153 older women, half of whom were given 10 ounces (285 millilitres) of cranberry juice every day, while the other half were given a look-alike drink containing no cranberry. The women who drank cranberry juice were 58 percent less likely to have levels of bacteria in their urine that would be expected to cause infections. As we would eventually learn, the effect was not due to acidity of the urine, nor to the antibacterial effect of hippuric acid. It had to do with compounds that prevented bacteria from adhering to the lining of the urinary tract.

Bacteria produce adhesives that enable them to stick to tissues so they can pick up nutrients more readily. These molecules fit into specific receptor sites on the epithelial cells that line the urinary tract. As was cleverly shown by Yale University researchers in 1994, compounds in cranberries block these receptors. Urine samples were collected from volunteers who were then given four ounces (115 millilitres) of cranberry juice to drink. Four to six hours later urine was again collected and incubated with E. coli bacteria, the kind that normally are responsible for urinary tract infections. The experiment was then repeated with eight ounces (230 millilitres) of juice. Separately, the scientists cultured cells taken from the lining of the human bladder and then mixed them with the urine samples. Lo and behold, the bacteria did not stick as effectively to the cells when the urine samples came from women who had consumed cranberry juice! Furthermore, the more juice consumed, the less the bacteria adhered to the cells.

Although the specific ingredients in the juice responsible for this effect have not been conclusively identified, speculation is that substances known as trimeric procyanidins may be responsible. Unfortunately, however, not every study has shown that cranberry juice acts favourably on UTIs. In some it worked no better than placebo. And there’s no question that in women with a history of UTIs, antibiotics (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) prevent recurrence far better than cranberry juice. But of course with antibiotics there is the problem of resistance.

These procyanidins may do more than prevent urinary tract problems. Most ulcers are caused by infection with the Helicobacter pylori bacterium. Well, it seems that the procyanidins may also prevent these bacteria from infecting the stomach. Researchers in China chose a population with a high rate of Helicobacter infection, and in a placebo-controlled double-blind study, gave 97 people 500 millilitres (just over two cups) of cranberry juice for 90 days, while 92 others got a placebo. They found that H. pylori was eradicated in 14 people in the cranberry group but in only five in the placebo group. Not an earth-shaking difference, but significant nevertheless, especially given the resistance issues we are now encountering with antibiotics.

Polyglycerol polyricinoleate

Chemical Institute of Canada — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:15:46 GMT

Don’t get scared just because you can’t pronounce it. If you like chocolate you’ve probably eaten it. Let me fill you in on the story.

I think the first medicine I ever heard of was “Ricinus,” a liquidy concoction that came in a brown bottle. My mother would ply me with it when she suspected I was constipated. Although I can’t imagine why as a child I would have had such a problem since our diet in Hungary back then included generous doses of goose fat. That should have allowed everything to slide through at a pretty regular pace. But why am I telling you about my youthful bowel habits? Because these memories were triggered by a question that has come up about a substance called “polyglycerol polyricinoleate” that has appeared on the labels of chocolate bars.

As one might guess from the name, there is a connection to “Ricinus.” That connection is forged through the castor bean plant, botanically known as Ricinus communis. It is a pretty plant, sometimes grown ornamentally, but mostly cultivated for the seeds found in the plant’s fruit. The seeds can be pressed to produce an oil that has industrial value in paints, glues, brake fluids and various lubricants. And the oil can be used to produce polyglycerol polyricinoleate, an emulsifier that is now used extensively by chocolate manufacturers. Chocolate lovers of course look for taste, but they also seek smoothness. A gritty product just won’t do. And therein lies a challenge. Chocolate is basically a mixture of cocoa butter, cacao particles, sugar, and in the case of milk chocolate, milk. The texture of the final product depends on how well these components can be blended together, which in turn depends on how effectively the friction between the ingredients can be reduced. This is where emulsifiers come in. These chemicals serve as internal lubricants, leading to a smoother consistency and easier flow when the chocolate is melted. That is of great importance when producing chocolate coatings.

The classic emulsifier used in chocolate manufacture has been lecithin, mostly derived from soy oil. But it is increasingly being replaced by polyglycerol polyricinoleate because of its greater effectiveness at reducing the viscosity of the chocolate, and perhaps more importantly, this chemical allows for less cocoa butter to be used and therefore makes for lower fat chocolate. Increasing cocoa butter content increases smoothness, but cocoa butter is expensive. The use of polyglycerol polyricinoleate allows for the production of cheaper chocolate without sacrificing texture.

Of course consumers wonder if anything else is being sacrificed, such as safety. A virtually unpronounceable chemical name raises skepticism in many minds. Especially in this case, when people discover that castor beans contain one of the most toxic natural substances known, a protein called ricin. This chemical is so toxic that prior to World War I the U.S investigated its use as a coating for bullets. When ricin gets into the bloodstream it can kill in incredibly tiny doses. Since ricin can be inhaled, it was investigate During World War II for possible use in cluster bombs. The Soviet KGB put ricin to a practical use, supplying the Bulgarian secret police with the tiny ricin containing pellets that were used to assassinate dissident Georgi Markov in London in 1978 with a modified umbrella using compressed gas to fire the pellet. And today there is concern that terrorist groups are looking to extract ricin from castor seeds. But there is no need to worry about chocolate. Ricin is not soluble in fat at all and does not end up in the oil when the castor beans are pressed. And of course the polyglycerol polyricinoleate produced from the oil has undergone the stringent regulatory process required for a food additive. You may not be able to pronouce the complex term, but you can consume polyglycerol polyricinoleate safely.

Paradoxe blanc - Mon dieu!

Chemical Institute of Canada — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:45:11 GMT

If you take a look at all the literature put out by the French wine industry, you'll start to wonder whether you should replace wine drinking by intravenous infusions of red wine. They make a case for wine being virtually a drug to prevent heart disease. They offer reams of scientific evidence about neutralizing free radicals and preventing cholesterol from damaging the walls of arteries. Of course, that doesn't prove that wine is responsible for the French Paradox. That paradox is the low rate of heart disease compared to North America in spite of a high fat diet.

Red wine may indeed be part of the answer because the skin of red grapes contains compounds called polyphenols which do have antioxidant properties and which may prevent cholesterol from being converted into a damaging form. But what about people who favor white wine? This has a far smaller antioxidant capacity than red wine. Leave it to French ingenuity though. A team of wine researchers at Montpelier University have come up with a Chardonnay that has almost the same antioxidant potential as red wine. They found that if the grapes were macerated with the skins and seeds and the fermentation temperature increased, the polyphenol content of the wine increased dramatically.

Furthermore, these scientists managed to show that the wine really has an effect on the antioxidant potential of the blood. They destroyed some of the insulin producing cells in the pancreas of rats to make the animals diabetic. This is because diabetes is known to reduce the antioxidant capacity of the blood. Then they administered the new Chardonnay to the critters for six weeks and found that the antioxidant capacity was restored. And they say laboratory rats don't lead good lives. The special polyphenol enriched Chardonnay is supposedly available in France but I’ve been unable to track down a sample in Canada. Of course the real paradox is why people just don't eat more fruits and vegetables which have more antioxidants than red or white wine!

Arginine - Hype or Hope?

Chemical Institute of Canada — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 03:15:17 GMT

Walk into a health food store these days and chances are you won’t find much food. But you will find a bewildering array of dietary supplements, often shelved in alphabetical order. One of the first ones you’ll encounter is L-Arginine. The label won’t be very informative. It may say something like “dietary supplement,” or “conditionally essential amino acid,” or “support for healthy cardiovascular function” or “supports circulation.” However, if you stroll over to the aisle where books, magazines and brochures are displayed, you’ll quickly find far bolder claims about the benefits of taking arginine supplements. There will be claims about helping with heart disease, erectile dysfunction, cramps due to blocked arteries in the leg, wound healing, high blood pressure, migraines, senile dementia, athletic performance and interstitial cystitis, a painful bladder condition. On top of all that, it is supposed to treat herpes simplex infection and prevent the common cold.

Anytime such an abundance of claims are made on behalf of a single substance, a degree of skepticism is warranted. If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. But there is only one way to check it out. Forget the books, the magazines, the brochures, the ads on the web or the compelling stories from the neighbour. The thing to do is to turn to the peer-reviewed literature. And since arginine has been extensively studied, there is plenty of it. Much of it is confusing, but about one aspect of arginine’s role in health there is no doubt. This amino acid is a building block of various essential proteins in the body and therefore we cannot live without it. But a deficiency is unlikely since arginine occurs widely in meat, dairy products, soy and nuts. Furthermore, our body can synthesize it from other amino acids in the diet.

But what about all the other health claims? Are they supported by proper evidence? That depends on where one draws the line for “proper evidence.” The most interesting therapeutic connection is arginine’s role as a precursor to nitric oxide, a compound that relaxes blood vessels, and thereby improves blood flow. This would explain claims of benefit for high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, leg pain, erectile dysfunction and decreased mental capacity in the elderly, all conditions that would be expected to improve with enhanced circulation. These claims are indeed substantiated by some peer-reviewed studies, but while the results are statistically significant, they are not very compelling. Best description would be that arginine is “possibly effective.”

Some limited evidence supports arginine’s role in the formation of L-proline, an amino acid that is essential for the synthesis of collagen, a protein needed in would healing. And a few studies have indicated help with interstitial cystitis. The usual dose for any of these conditions is around five grams per day. Side effects are rare, but stomach irritation due to increased acid secretion is possible. In some cases, especially in combination with blood pressure lowering drugs, arginine may cause blood pressure to fall too low. The same may happen when taken with nitrates or sildenafil (Viagra). However, the most significant problem that has cropped up involves taking arginine after a heart attack. A clinical trial found an increased risk of death! In patients who suffer from kidney or liver disease, arginine can cause a life threatening rise in potassium. Bottom line is that arginine may help with some conditions, but not in a dramatic fashion. Whether it is worth the usual cost of roughly three dollars a day is debatable.

Yikes! There Are Hormones in My Bottled Water!

Chemical Institute of Canada — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:28:16 GMT

For scientists and physicians, the Internet has been both a blessing and a curse. Journal articles are at our fingertips and information about virtually any subject is just a few keystrokes away. But not all of the available information is reliable. A frightening amount of pseudo-scientific drivel permeates the web and spreads like wildfire when attached to emails. Either we are warned about some nasty chemical that is unraveling the very fabric of society, or we are alerted to the discovery of some miraculous natural healing agent that can cure virtually any disease.

The warnings often begin with the phrase “this is no joke,” and then continue with some ghastly revelation about the dangers of some substance in our daily life. Like plastic water bottles that leach a dangerous hormone called diethylhydroxylamine (DEHA) into their contents to make people feel younger and stimulate them to buy more bottled water. Where does the idea that bottled water is laced with hormones come from? The essence of the message is as follows: “the plastic used to make these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA)” which leaches out of the plastic on repeated washing and rinsing.” Consumers are then warned that such water bottles should not be refilled but be discarded after a single use.

The seed from which this story germinated can be traced to a scare circulating on the Internet about the migration of a chemical commonly referred to as DEHA into water from plastic water bottles. Of course, DEHA is not an “element,” it is a compound. And in any case, the author of this epic epistle has the wrong compound. Diethylhydroxylamine is indeed sometimes abbreviated as DEHA, but it has nothing to do with plastic water bottles. The chemical in question is diethylhexyladipate, commonly and perhaps confusingly, also abbreviated as DEHA. This is an approved plasticizer, a substance added to certain plastics to make them soft and pliable. Furthermore, neither of the “DEHAs” is classified as a carcinogen. But there is yet a further problem with the scare. While diethylhexyladipate is commonly used as an additive in certain plastics, it is not an ingredient in the polyester used to make water bottles! Polyester is innately flexible and does not require plasticizers.

So how did a compound that isn’t even present in plastic bottles trigger an alarm? The scare seems to have been spawned by an abstract of a talk given by a Master’s student from the University of Idaho at a scientific conference. Such abstracts are not subjected to peer review and are not considered to be a form of scientific publication. The intent is that the information presented will eventually be submitted as a paper to a journal where it will undergo appropriate peer review by experts in that field of research. This never happened in this case, probably because the study performed did not have the scientific rigor required for publication. The student investigated contaminants in bottled water and found a number of organic compounds, including diethylhexyladipate. Apparently unaware that this is not used in polyester bottles, the author assumed it was leaching out of the plastic. Stimulated by this, the Idaho student examined a variety of other plastic bottles and found DEHA in the water they contained leading to the conclusion that “migration of DEHA was not limited to polyester bottles alone and other bottles may also pose a health hazard.”

But a critical control experiment was never performed. Was there any DEHA in water stored in glass bottles or in water that came from the tap water? The answer is yes. Because DEHA is a ubiquitous plasticizer used in the manufacture of items ranging from toys to shower curtains, it shows up in trace amounts everywhere. You can find it in food, clothing and water. We know this because the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research studied this issue extensively. All sorts of water samples that had never been in contact with any plastic bottle showed traces of DEHA! Whether the samples came from plastic bottles or glass bottles they contained the inconsequential amount of about 0.01 to 0.05 parts per billion. The World Health Organization has set a maximum of 80 ppb for DEHA in drinking water so there is simply no issue here with plastic bottles. At least not as far as DEHA goes. There may be reasons not to refill water bottles, but that has to do with possible bacterial contamination, not with the leaching of diethylhexyladipate.

So far, so good. But what about the business of DEHA making people feel younger? That’s a puzzler. But it can probably be traced to someone’s fingers dancing on the keyboard while they were “researching” the DEHA-water bottle connection. A little slip and they typed DHEA instead of DEHA. All of a sudden, claims of the potential rejuvenating properties of dehydroepiandrosterone began to frolic on the screen. A “fountain of youth,” many websites claim, a “superhormone!” And what is this miracle? DHEA is a naturally occurring compound synthesized from cholesterol in the adrenal glands. Production peaks in the 20s and then declines so that by the eight decade the amount of circulating DHEA is only 20% of that found during the vigor of youth.

Reasonably, researchers began to explore the possibility that maintaining the DHEA in the blood at levels found in young people may help avert some of the problems of aging. Animal studies showed some intriguing results in terms of delaying cancer and the hardening of arteries. A widely reported study in humans showed that taking 50 mgs of DHEA for three months resulted in an improved feeling of well-being. And then there is the other side of the coin. Researchers worry that DHEA being a relative of testosterone may increase the risk of prostate cancer in men and cause facial hair growth in women. DHEA is illegal in Canada but can be freely sold as a “dietary supplement” in the US. Curiously, people who would not consider taking prescription hormone replacement therapy, uncritically jump on the DHEA bandwagon.

Obviously, DHEA is not the same as DEHA, but neither substance is present in the polyester used to make water bottles. Manufacturers are certainly not sneaking DHEA into the plastic in order to increase sales by making people feel young. But it is interesting to explore how a collection of scientific smidgens can be blended together into meaningless hodge-podge.

Sugar and ADHD

Chemical Institute of Canada — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:25:06 GMT

How many times have you watched kids bouncing of the wall at a birthday party and heard someone remark that it must be because of all the sugar they guzzled? Well, better look elsewhere for a culprit, because it isn't the sugar. Numerous scientific studies have investigated the effects of sugar on behavior and have concluded that it either has no effect, or that it has a mild sedative effect. So why are people still convinced that sugar causes hyperactivity, or as it is now called “attention deficit disorder”? Probably because sugary foods tend to go hand in hand with occasions that are conducive to hyperactivity. Like birthday parties.

Ahh, but I can hear your mumblings out there. You're disturbed by what I just said. Some of you have children who suffer from attention deficit disorder and you’ve tried putting them on a low sugar diet. And you’ve seen an improvement in their behavior! I don't doubt that happened, but I don't think it was because sugar was eliminated. I think the answer is to be found in altered family dynamics. When parents make an effort to alter a child's diet there often is a change in behavior. And it doesn't seem to matter much what is done, as long as something is done. We know from surveys among parents who have children with behavioral problems ranging from mild attention deficit disorder to autism, that they will try all kinds of remedies. These will range from drugs such as ritalin or risperidal to a wide array of dietary interventions.

Desperation drives parents to try diets that are free of gluten, or chocolate, or eggs, or wheat, or food dyes, or dairy or sugar. The statistics are remarkably consistent. About 50% of the children show no effect, 2-3% get worse, and 45-48% improve. Obviously these interventions are totally different in their biochemical effects so how can they produce the same result? There are two points to be aware of. Behavior often improves when parents spend more time with the children and give them more attention. But we also have to consider the possibility that perception does not always match reality. Studies have shown that when parents initiate dietary changes they often report positive effects on behavior, effects that are not noted by an objective observer. There is no doubt that is some cases behavioral problems may be exacerbated by certain foods or food components, but anyone who thinks that sugar makes kids bounce of the wall better take a swig of a sugary beverage to calm down! Just brush your teeth after. Sugar is linked to cavities, and that, unlike the sugar-ADHD link, is a fact.

Lots of Clucking about Chicken McNuggets!

Chemical Institute of Canada — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:13:41 GMT

I felt I had to write a response to the numerous emails I received after writing a science-based column on Chicken McNuggets. There were some 200 emails, attributable to the column making it onto Yahoo.ca. Some accused me of being paid by McDonalds, some suggested that I must have been paid by the health food industry to attack the company. Here is my response:

I’m shocked. And that doesn’t happen easily. My columns do tend to generate comments, but last week’s piece about Chicken McNuggets has unleashed an unprecedented deluge. The vast majority of comments (95%) were highly favourable, expressing gratitude for a “well written poignant article,” one “that wasn’t filled with fear mongering and extravagant exaggerations” and provided “an objective analysis of the subject.”

But there were a few that were vitriolic in their disagreement. One questioned the marital status of my parents, another ranked my IQ in the lowest possible category on a now discarded mental retardation scale. My mental insufficiency was also associated with a common form of sexual activity. But that was mild relative to the enlightened soul who paradoxically ended his outburst of anti-semitic remarks by calling me a Nazi, as well as a fascist with a proclivity for unusual carnal practices. This beacon of intelligence also informed me that the chemicals in Chicken McNuggets are placed there “either out of greed from Ray Kroc or to kill middle class populations.” Nice guy.

One progressively minded correspondent thinks I should be facing charges of child endangerment for recklessly leading kids down the wrong nutritional path, and another claims that either I’m delusional, or that I’m compelled to write a misleading article because somehow I stand to profit by being in cahoots with some industrial food provider. The absurd allegation that I must have been paid by McDonalds to write this “ill-informed” piece was popular, as were comparisons between the size of my brain and that of various insects and rodents, decidedly not to my advantage. Then there was the gentleman who showed off his colourful, if somewhat limited, mastery of the English language in speculating about what my body was actually filled with. I was also given advice about improving my skimpy knowledge of chemistry by a number of people who had amassed their scientific wisdom by sporadically attending the University of Google.

I was amazed by many of the comments, but perhaps the most striking feature was the different conclusions that people arrived at by reading the same piece. It seems that once minds are made up, they will not be altered. Don’t let facts get in the way of a good argument, as the saying goes. Some people thanked me for exposing the horrors of Chicken McNuggets , while others condemned me for inflating its dangers. Of course, I did neither. I pointed out that McNuggets were not high on the list of nutritious foods, but the fact that they contained an antioxidant additive and an anti-foaming agent were not a reason to shun them.

My dismissal of the relevance of the antioxidant added to the frying oil being derived from petroleum irritated one reader who asked if I would like to drizzle motor oil on my pasta. No, I wouldn’t. But I would have no problem taking a statin drug or an ulcer medication made from petroleum. Petroleum is a complex mixture of hundreds of compounds which can be separated into various classes through refining by virtue of boiling point differences. Then through "catalytic cracking," the different fractions can be broken down into simple compounds that serve as raw materials for the synthesis of a large variety of organic compounds that include drugs, vitamins and food additives such as TBHQ. These have nothing in common with petroleum, the only link to petroleum is their ancestry, which has nothing to do with the risk-benefit ratio. That can only be determined by proper study.

There were also a number of reasonable comments. One correspondent pointed out disturbing facets of factory farming, but as I understand it, McDonalds will not buy chickens from farmers who use the controversial practice of withholding food and water to increase egg production. Another called attention to my complaint about the high fat content of McNuggets to make the point that not all fats are bad. The “fat makes you fat” fallacy is a major catalyst in the obesity epidemic, he opined. There is something to that, but the fact is that in McNuggets 57% of the calories come from fat and that is too much no matter how you look at it.

Many took issue with my challenging Dr. Marion Nestle’s advice to stay away from foods that list unpronounceable ingredients on the label. I stated that the potential toxicity of a substance has nothing to do with the complexity of its chemical name, which is of course correct. While not contesting the validity of this statement, some readers argued that the “unpronounceable” names are a hallmark of processed foods that are generally of poor nutritional quality, and that therefore their presence on a label serves as an effective “shopping guide” for foods to avoid. I have the same problem with that as I have with telling children to behave, because if they don’t, the bogeyman will get them. It may be effective, but it is not the right way to go about affecting behavior. Education is.

Food additives are subjected to stringent safety requirements, including possible long term consequences. They are not callously added to foods by producers bent on maximizing profits at the risk of forsaking public health. While scaring consumers away from foods that are laden with additives may drive them towards consuming more fruits and vegetables, which of course is highly desirable, it also feeds the current frenzy of chemophobia. That, as I learned from some of the uncivilized responses to my column, has some very troublesome consequences.

I would suggest that the lurid, vicious emails speckled with obscenities and reeking of ignorance that I received are a testimonial not only to the extent of scientific illiteracy out there, but also to the shocking, out-of-perspective hate-mongering it precipitates. Clearly we have a societal problem when a piece about a few pieces of chicken unleashes a torrent of vile personal attacks. A few, to their credit, apologized after I responded to their comments at length. This experience has certainly strengthened my resolve to push for more scientific education at all levels and to put up with disparaging remarks such as the ones this column will now incite.