NutritionFacts.org http://nutritionfacts.org The Latest in Nutrition Research Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:36:31 +0000 en-US hourly 1The latest in nutrition related research delivered in easy to understand video segments brought to you by Michael Greger M.D. Michael Greger, M.D. clean Michael Greger, M.D. mhg1@cornell.edu mhg1@cornell.edu (Michael Greger, M.D.) Copyright 2013 - NutritionFacts.org - All Rights Reserved The Latest in Nutrition Research NutritionFacts.org http://nutritionfacts.org/wp-content/themes/nutritionfacts/images/nutritionfacts_podcast.pnghttp://nutritionfacts.org TV-G Tri-Weekly Orange Aromatherapy for Anxietyhttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/31/does-orange-aromatherapy-reduce-anxiety/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=does-orange-aromatherapy-reduce-anxiety http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/31/does-orange-aromatherapy-reduce-anxiety/#comments Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:00:51 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=25837 Aromatherapy — the use of concentrated essential oils extracted from plants to treat disease — is commonly used to treat anxiety symptoms. Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent class of psychiatric disorders in the general population. However, their treatment is challenging, because the drugs used for the relief of anxiety symptoms can have serious side […]]]>

Aromatherapy — the use of concentrated essential oils extracted from plants to treat disease — is commonly used to treat anxiety symptoms. Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent class of psychiatric disorders in the general population. However, their treatment is challenging, because the drugs used for the relief of anxiety symptoms can have serious side effects.

Thankfully, credible studies that examine the effect of essential oils on anxiety symptoms are gradually starting to appear in the medical literature. However, in most of these studies, exposure to the essential oil odor was accompanied by massage. This makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the effect of the aroma itself.

A typical example includes this study where patients in the intensive care unit the day after open-heart surgery got foot massages with orange-scented oil. Why not back massages? Because they just had their chests cracked open so they have huge sternotomy wounds. Patients showed a significant psychological benefit from the aromatherapy massage.

But how do we know the essential oil had anything to do with it? Maybe it was just the massage. If that’s the case, then great—let’s give people massages! I’m all for more ICU foot rubs. “There is considerable evidence from randomized trials that massage alone reduces anxiety, so if massage is effective, then aromatherapy plus massage is also effective.” One study where cancer patients got massaged during chemo and radiation even found that the massage without the fragrance may be better. The researchers thought it might be a negative Pavlovian response: the patient smells the citrus and their body thinks, “Oh no, not another cancer treatment!”

More recently the ambient odor of orange was tested in a dental office to see if it reduces anxiety and improves mood. Ambient odor of orange was diffused in the waiting room and appeared to have a relaxant effect—less anxiety, better mood, and more calmness—compared to a control group where there was no odor in the air. No odor, that is, except for the nasty dentist office smell. Maybe the orange scent was just masking the unpleasant odors. Maybe it had nothing to do with any orange-specific molecules. More research was necessary.

So in another study, highlighted in my video, Orange Aromatherapy for Anxiety, researchers exposed some graduate students to an anxiety-producing situation and tested the scent of orange, versus a non-orange aroma, versus no scent at all. The orange did appear to have an anxiety-reducing effect. Interestingly, the observed anxiety-reducing effects were not followed by physical or mental sedation. On the contrary, at the highest dose, the orange oil made the volunteers feel more energetic. So orange aromatherapy may potentially reduce anxiety without the downer effect of Valium-type drugs. Does that mean we can get the benefits without the side effects? I’ve talked about the concerns of using scented consumer products before, even ones based on natural fragrances (Throw Household Products Off the Scent), and there have been reports of adverse effects of aromatherapy.

Alternative medicine isn’t necessary risk-free. For example, there are dozens of reported cases of people having their hearts ruptured by acupuncture. Ouch.

But the adverse effects of aromatherapy were mostly from skin irritation from essential oils being applied topically, or even worse swallowed. Certain citrus oils can also make your skin sensitive to sunlight.

Lavender may also help for both anxiety (Lavender for Generalized Anxiety Disorder) and migraines (Lavender for Migraine Headaches).

The only other aromatherapy-related video is Wake Up and Smell the Saffron, though I have others on natural ways do reduce anxiety, including:

 Natural, though, doesn’t always mean safe. See, for example:

Of course eating citrus is good too! I have videos on Reducing Muscle Fatigue With Citrus and Keeping Your Hands Warm With Citrus, but Tell Your Doctor If You Eat Grapefruit.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Tim Sackton / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/31/does-orange-aromatherapy-reduce-anxiety/feed/ 6
Peeks Behind the Egg Industry Curtainhttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/26/peeks-behind-the-egg-industry-curtain/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=peeks-behind-the-egg-industry-curtain http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/26/peeks-behind-the-egg-industry-curtain/#comments Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:00:42 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=25509 The American Egg Board is a promotional marketing board appointed by the U.S. government whose mission is to “increase demand for egg and egg products on behalf of U.S. egg producers.” If an individual egg company wants to run an ad campaign, they can say pretty much whatever they want. But if an egg corporation […]]]>

The American Egg Board is a promotional marketing board appointed by the U.S. government whose mission is to “increase demand for egg and egg products on behalf of U.S. egg producers.” If an individual egg company wants to run an ad campaign, they can say pretty much whatever they want. But if an egg corporation wants to dip into the 10 million dollars the American Egg Board sets aside for advertising every year, because the board is overseen by the federal government, corporations are not allowed to lie with those funds. This leads to quite revealing exchanges between egg corporations that want to use that money and the USDA on what egg companies can and cannot say about eggs.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act I was able to get my hands on some of those emails. Of course a lot of what I got were pages with nearly all of the text blacked out (you can see these in my video, Who Says Eggs Aren’t Healthy or Safe?). But I did find some illuminating correspondence. For example, one email shows an egg company trying to put out a brochure on healthy snacking for kids. But because of existing laws against false and misleading advertising, the head of the USDA’s poultry research and promotion programs reminds the company that eggs or egg products cannot be couched as being healthy or nutritious. “The words nutritious and healthy carry certain connotations, and because eggs have the amount of cholesterol they do, plus the fact that they’re not low in fat, [the words healthy and nutritious] are problematic.” This is the United States Department of Agriculture saying this!

However, the USDA official helpfully suggests, “I believe you can say something that’s just as strong if not stronger, that is ‘naturally nutrient-dense.’” Why can we say eggs are nutrient-dense but not nutritious? Because there’s no legal definition of nutrient-dense. We can say Twinkies and Coca Cola are nutrient dense, but legally, we can’t say something is nutritious unless it’s actually… nutritious.

For example, the egg industry wanted to run an ad calling eggs a nutritional powerhouse that aids in weight loss. The USDA had to remind the industry that they can’t portray eggs as a diet food because of the fat and cholesterol content. In fact, eggs have nearly twice the calories of anything that can be called “low-calorie.”

“Nutritional powerhouse” can’t be used either. Fine, the industry said, they’ll move to plan B, and headline the ad “Egg-ceptional Nutrition.” They couldn’t say that either because, again, given the saturated fat and cholesterol you can’t legally call eggs nutritious. So the headline ended up as, “Find true satisfaction,” and instead of weight loss they had to go with “can reduce hunger.” The USDA congratulated them on their cleverness. Yes, a food that when eaten can reduce hunger—what a concept!

They can’t even say eggs are “relatively” low in calories. Can’t say eggs are low in saturated fat—they’re not. Can’t say they’re relatively low in fat, they’re not. Can’t even call them a rich source of protein, because, according to the USDA, they’re not.

It’s illegal to advertise that eggs pack a nutritional wallop, or that they have a high nutritional content. Eggs have so much cholesterol, we can’t even say they “contribute nutritionally.” Can’t say eggs are “healthful,” certainly can’t say they’re “healthy.” Can’t even say eggs contribute “healthful components.”

Since we can’t say eggs are a healthy start to the day, the USDA suggests a “satisfying start.” Egg corporations can’t call eggs a healthy ingredient, but they can call eggs a “recognizable” ingredient. Can’t truthfully say eggs are good for us, either. By law, according to the USDA, the egg industry “needs to steer clear of words like ‘healthy’ or ‘nutritious.’”

For a food to be labeled “healthy” under FDA rules, it has to be low in saturated fat (eggs fail that criteria) and have less than 90mg of cholesterol per serving (even half an egg fails that test). For the same reason we can’t tout ice cream for strong bones, we can’t say eggs are healthy because they exceed the threshold for cholesterol.

Egg corporations aren’t even allowed to say things like “Eggs are an important part of a well balanced, healthy diet” on an egg carton because it would be considered misleading according to the USDA’s National Egg Supervisor, since eggs contain significant amounts of fat and cholesterol and therefore can contribute to the leading killer in the United States, heart disease.

The industry can’t afford to tell the truth about the eggs, or even the hens that lay them. The industry crams five to ten birds in cages the size of a file cabinet their whole lives, but when providing footage to the media, the American Egg Board instructs, “do not show multiple birds in cages—they look too crowded and open us up to activist criticism.”

Not only is the industry barred from saying eggs are healthy, they can’t even refer to eggs as safe because more than a hundred thousand Americans are food poisoned by Salmonella from eggs every year.

The egg board’s response to this egg-borne epidemic is that Salmonella is a naturally occurring bacterium. An internal egg industry memo didn’t think that should necessarily be the key message, fearing that “it may be counterproductive by implying there is no avoiding Salmonella in eggs aside from avoiding eggs altogether.”

The food poisoning risk is why the American Egg Board can’t even mention anything but eggs cooked hard and dry. No soft-boiled, no over-easy, no sunny-side up—because of the Salmonella risk. The American Egg Board’s own research showed that the sunny-side up cooking method should be considered “unsafe.”

In light of bird flu viruses, both the white and yolk must be cooked firm. The VP of marketing for the Egg Board complained to the USDA saying they’d “really like to not have to dictate that the yolks are firm,” and cites a Washington Post article saying runny yolks may be safe for everyone except pregnant women, infants, elderly, or those with chronic disease. It turns out it was a misquote—eggs can’t be considered safe for anyone.

Instead of safe, they can call eggs “fresh,” the USDA marketing service helpfully suggests. But they can’t call eggs safe, and they can’t say eggs are “safe to eat.” They can’t even mention safety at all.

Wait a second, not only can eggs not be called healthy they can’t even be called safe? Says who? Says the United States Department of Agriculture.

For more peeks behind the egg industry curtain see:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/26/peeks-behind-the-egg-industry-curtain/feed/ 36
What’s Driving America’s Obesity Problem?http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/24/whats-driving-americas-obesity-problem/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=whats-driving-americas-obesity-problem http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/24/whats-driving-americas-obesity-problem/#comments Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:00:46 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=25507 Currently, nearly two-thirds of Americans are overweight. By 2030 it is estimated more than half our population may be clinically obese. Childhood obesity has tripled, and most children will grow up to be overweight as well. The United States may be in the midst of raising the first generation since our nation’s founding that will […]]]>

Currently, nearly two-thirds of Americans are overweight. By 2030 it is estimated more than half our population may be clinically obese. Childhood obesity has tripled, and most children will grow up to be overweight as well. The United States may be in the midst of raising the first generation since our nation’s founding that will have a shorter predicted life span than that of the previous generation.

The food industry blames inactivity. We just need to move more, they say. But what is the role of exercise in the treatment of obesity?

“There is considerable debate in the medical literature today about whether physical activity has any role whatsoever in the epidemic of obesity that has swept the globe since the 1980s.” The increase in calories per person is more than sufficient to explain the U.S. epidemic of obesity. In fact, if anything, the level of physical activity over the last few decades has actually gone up in both Europe and North America.

This has important policy implications. We still need to exercise more, but the priorities for reversing the obesity epidemic should focus on the overconsumption of calories (See How Much Exercise to Sustain Weight Loss?). American children are currently eating about an extra 350 calories (equal to about a can of soda and small fries), and adults are eating about an extra 500 calories (equal to about a Big Mac).  We’d have to walk two hours a day, seven days a week to burn off those calories. So exercise can prevent weight gain, but the amount required to prevent weight gain may be closer to twice the current recommendations. It’s more effective to stick to foods rich in nutrients but poor in calories: see my video Calculate Your Healthy Eating Score. It’s cheaper too, see Best Nutrition Bang For Your Buck.

Public health advocates have been experimenting with including this kind of information. One study found that fast food menus labeled with calories and the number of miles to walk to burn those calories appeared the most effective in influencing the selection of lower calorie meals.

Exercise alone may have a small effect, and that small effect can make a big difference on a population scale. A 1% decrease in BMI nationwide might prevent millions of cases of diabetes and heart disease and thousands of cases of cancer. But why don’t we lose more weight from exercise? It may be because we’re just not doing it enough. “The small magnitude of weight loss observed from the majority of exercise interventions may be primarily due to low doses of prescribed exercise.”

People tend to overestimate how many calories are burned by physical activity. For example, there’s this myth that a bout of sexual activity burns a few hundred calories. So may think, “Hey, I could get a side of fries with that.” But if we actually hook people up and measure energy expenditure during the act (and the study subjects don’t get too tangled up with all the wires and hoses) it may be only close to the metabolic equivalent of calisthenics. Given that the average bout of sexual activity only lasts about six minutes, a young man might expend approximately 21 calories during sexual intercourse. Due to baseline metabolic needs, he would have spent roughly one third of that just lying around watching TV, so the incremental benefit is plausibly on the order of 14 calories. So maybe he could have one fry with that.

I previously touched on this in my video Diet or Exercise, What’s More Important For Weight Loss?

Don’t get me wrong–exercise is wonderful! Check out, for example:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Glamhag / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/24/whats-driving-americas-obesity-problem/feed/ 28
Food Manufacturers Get to Decide if Their Own Additives Are Safehttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/19/food-manufacturers-get-to-decide-if-their-own-additives-are-safe/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=food-manufacturers-get-to-decide-if-their-own-additives-are-safe http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/19/food-manufacturers-get-to-decide-if-their-own-additives-are-safe/#comments Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:00:35 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=25503 In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced their plans to all but eliminate trans fats from processed foods, citing a CDC statistic that the elimination of partially hydrogenated oils from the food supply could prevent more than 10,000 heart attacks and thousands of deaths every year. Up until that point, trans fats enjoyed […]]]>

In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced their plans to all but eliminate trans fats from processed foods, citing a CDC statistic that the elimination of partially hydrogenated oils from the food supply could prevent more than 10,000 heart attacks and thousands of deaths every year. Up until that point, trans fats enjoyed their so-called “GRAS” status: “Generally Recognized As Safe.” How did these killer fats get labeled as safe?

Who decides what’s safe? Currently, a “generally recognized as safe” determination is made when the manufacturer of a food substance evaluates the safety of the substance themselves and concludes that the use of the substance is safe. In other words, the company that manufactures the substance gets to determine if it is safe or not. This approach is commonly referred to as ”GRAS self-determination.” To make matters worse, not only do companies not have to inform the public, they don’t even have to inform the FDA. A company may voluntarily tell the FDA they just came up with a new food additive that they’ve decided is safe, but are not required to do so.

The cumulative result is that there are an estimated 6,000 current affirmative safety decisions which allow for more than an estimated 10,000 substances to be used in food (See Who Determines if Food Additives are Safe?). In addition, an estimated 1,000 manufacturer safety decisions are never reported to FDA or the public. “Manufacturers and a trade association made the remaining decisions without FDA review by concluding on their own that the substances that they themselves were selling were safe.”

While manufacturers are not required to notify the FDA of a “safe determination,” sometimes they do voluntarily notify the agency. From these notifications, researchers have been able to see which individuals companies select to make these determinations. Of the 451 GRAS notifications voluntarily submitted to the FDA, 22.4% were made by someone directly employed by the company; 13.3% were made by someone directly employed by a firm hand-picked by the company; and 64.3% were made by a panel hand-picked by the corporation or the firm the corporation hired. Are you doing the math? Yes, that means zero safety decisions were made independently.

An astonishing 100% of the members of expert panels worked directly or indirectly for the companies that manufactured the food additive in question. And those are just the ones the food companies let the FDA know about. The companies also used the same in-the-pocket rent-a-scientist “experts” over and over, leading food industry watchdog Marion Nestle to ask “How is it possible that the FDA permits manufacturers to decide for themselves whether their food additives are safe?” It may be because many of the companies providing our daily food are corporate giants with “political muscles that national governments would envy.” PepsiCo alone spent more than $9 million in a single year to lobby Congress. The fact that food additives like trans fats have been allowed to kill thousands of Americans year after year comes as less of a surprise to those who realize that “three of Washington’s largest lobbying firms reportedly now work for the food industry.”

I’ve got three dozen videos on food additives. Here are a few highlights:

Artificial Colors:

Phosphates:

Preservatives:

Sweeteners:

Others:

Just as the food additive industry gets to decide which food additives are safe, the food industry holds sway over which foods are considered safe. See, for example, my video The McGovern Report.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: John Fischer / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/19/food-manufacturers-get-to-decide-if-their-own-additives-are-safe/feed/ 11
Meat Industry Wins Right to Sell Tainted Meathttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/17/meat-industry-wins-right-to-sell-tainted-meat/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=meat-industry-wins-right-to-sell-tainted-meat http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/17/meat-industry-wins-right-to-sell-tainted-meat/#comments Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:00:12 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=25536 In my last post, I talked about a particularly virulent strand of Salmonella traced to Foster Farms. But while even Mexico banned the importation of Foster Farms’ chicken on public health grounds, it was still sold in the United States. Why wasn’t there a recall? How could Foster Farms continue to legally sell chicken contaminated […]]]>

In my last post, I talked about a particularly virulent strand of Salmonella traced to Foster Farms. But while even Mexico banned the importation of Foster Farms’ chicken on public health grounds, it was still sold in the United States. Why wasn’t there a recall? How could Foster Farms continue to legally sell chicken contaminated with this virulent strain of Salmonella? It all goes back to Supreme Beef v. USDA, a court case in which the meat industry sued the USDA after they had the audacity to try to shut down a slaughter plant that was repeatedly found violating Salmonella standards. The meat industry won. The Federal Appeals Court ruled that it wasn’t illegal to sell contaminated meat; what was illegal was the USDA trying to protect the public by shutting down the plant. Because normal cooking practices destroy Salmonella, the presence of Salmonella in meat does not render the meat “injurious to health.” Salmonella-infected meat is thus legal to sell to the consumer.

We can get infected no matter how well the meat is cooked though. According to researchers, even though consumers “may eliminate Salmonella on ready-to-cook chicken by proper cooking, they could still be exposed to and acquire a Salmonella infection from cross-contamination of other foods with Salmonella from raw chicken during meal preparation.” If we measure the transfer rate from naturally contaminated poultry legs purchased in supermarkets to cutting boards in the kitchen, overall, 80% of the leg skins in contact with the cutting board for ten minutes transferred Campylobacter (another dangerous bacteria found in chicken feces) infection to the cutting board. And then if we put cooked chicken back on that same cutting board, there’s about a 30% chance it too will become contaminated.

Even though people know that washing hands can decrease the risk of food poisoning, only about 2/3 say they actually do it. Even though most people know about cross contamination, 1/3 don’t even say they wash their cutting boards. Though awareness appears to be growing, even when people wash the cutting boards with hot soapy water we can still find Salmonella and Campylobacter (see Avoiding Chicken to Avoid Bladder Infections). The reason most people have more bacteria from feces in their kitchen than their bathroom is because people rinse their chickens in the sink, not the toilet .

Foster Farms swore they’d try to reduce the number of chickens they were producing with this virulent strain of Salmonella from 1 in 4 to just 1 in 20. Why not a zero tolerance policy in countries such as Sweden? Because then, as the head of food safety for Costco noted, “you wouldn’t have a poultry industry.”

Other countries have been able to raise chickens without Salmonella. One industry-funded scientist complained that if the entire onus to produce safe products is placed on industry, “it then gives the consumer no personal responsibility to handle their product correctly.” That’s like a car company saying we can’t make safe cars because then no one will wear a seat belt.

I’ve touched on this topic before in my videos Salmonella in Chicken and Turkey Deadly but Not Illegal, Zero Tolerance to Acceptable Risk, and Unsafe at Any Feed.

More on the issue of cross-contamination in:

Note when it comes to egg-borne infection the issue is not just cross-contamination, given Salmonella can survive the most common egg cooking methods. Check out my video Total Recall.

Though some meat additives may make meat safer (Viral Meat Spray and Maggot Meat Spray), others may increase the food safety risk. See my video Phosphate Additives in Chicken.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videoshere and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Danny Huizinga / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/17/meat-industry-wins-right-to-sell-tainted-meat/feed/ 19
Chicken Salmonella Outbreaks Show Food Safety Systems Failurehttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/12/chicken-salmonella-outbreaks-show-food-safety-systems-failure/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=chicken-salmonella-outbreaks-show-food-safety-systems-failure http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/12/chicken-salmonella-outbreaks-show-food-safety-systems-failure/#comments Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:00:03 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=25499 Salmonella causes more hospitalizations and more deaths than any other foodborne illness, and it’s been on the rise. Salmonella causes a million cases of food poisoning every year in the U.S., and over the last decade or so the number of cases has increased by 44%, particularly among children and the elderly. And chicken is […]]]>

Salmonella causes more hospitalizations and more deaths than any other foodborne illness, and it’s been on the rise. Salmonella causes a million cases of food poisoning every year in the U.S., and over the last decade or so the number of cases has increased by 44%, particularly among children and the elderly. And chicken is the number one cause of Salmonella poisoning.

Starting in Spring 2012, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) documented more than 600 individuals infected across 29 states with a particularly virulent strain of Salmonella (one in three were hospitalized). Investigations pointed to Foster Farms—the sixth largest chicken producer in the US—as the most likely source of the outbreak. The CDC warned people, but nothing was done. Foster Farms apparently continued to pump out contaminated meat for 17 months.

Though there’s only been a few hundred cases confirmed, for every confirmed case the CDC estimates 38 cases slip through the cracks. So Foster Farms chicken may have infected and sickened more than 15,000 people.

When USDA inspectors went to investigate, they found 25% of the chicken they sampled was contaminated with the outbreak strain of Salmonella, presumed to be because of all the fecal matter they found on the carcasses.

In their February 2014 issue, Consumer Reports published a study on the high cost of cheap chicken, finding 97% of retail chicken breast off store shelves was contaminated with bacteria that can make people sick. 38% of the salmonella they found was resistant to multiple antibiotics (considered a serious public health threat by the CDC). Consumer Reports suggested the cramped conditions on factory chicken farms may play a role, and indeed new research shows the stress of overcrowding can increase Salmonella invasion.

The Pew Commission released a special report on the Foster Farms outbreaks, concluding that the outbreaks bring into sharp focus the ineffectiveness of USDA’s approach to minimizing Salmonella contamination in poultry products. The agency’s response “was inadequate to protect public health,” and to this day thousands of people are getting sick with this preventable foodborne illnesses. One of the Pew Commission’s recommendations is to close facilities that are failing to produce safe food and keep them closed until their products stop sending people to the hospital.

What did Foster Farms have to say for itself? They said that their chicken was “safe to eat,” that there’s “no recall in effect,” and that it is “Grade A wholesome.” In the same breath, though, they say Salmonella on chicken happens all the time. Their chicken is “Grade A wholesome,” but might kill us if we don’t handle it right. (See Foster Farms Responds to Chicken Salmonella Outbreak).

As outspoken food safety advocate Bill Marler put it, the poultry industry’s reaction to the presence of fecal contamination on chicken is that… sh*t happens.

Salmonella contamination is also a problem in the U.S. egg supply, sickening more than 100,000 people every year. See my video Total Recall.

Other pathogens in meat include Yersinia enterocolitica in pork (Yersinia in Pork), Staphylococcus (U.S. Meat Supply Flying at Half Staph), MRSA (MRSA in U.S. Retail Meat), Hepatitis E (Hepatitis E Virus in Pork), bladder-infecting E coli (Avoiding Chicken To Avoid Bladder Infections), Clostridium difficile (Toxic Megacolon Superbug), and Campylobacter, the most common bacterial chicken pathogen (Poultry and Paralysis).

Poultry appears to cause the most outbreaks, but is all chicken to blame equally? See my video Superbugs in Conventional vs. Organic Chicken.

How was it legal for Foster Farms to continue to ship our meat known to be contaminated with a dangerous pathogen? See my videos Why is selling Salmonella tainted chicken still legal? and Chicken Salmonella Thanks to Meat Industry Lawsuit.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day,and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: zoomar / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/12/chicken-salmonella-outbreaks-show-food-safety-systems-failure/feed/ 4
Viral Food Poisoning from Pesticides?http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/10/viral-food-poisoning-from-pesticides/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=viral-food-poisoning-from-pesticides http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/10/viral-food-poisoning-from-pesticides/#comments Tue, 10 Mar 2015 12:00:42 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=25496 Although the most serious causes of food poisoning like Salmonella come largely from animal products (for example, most foodborne-related deaths have been attributed to poultry), millions of Americans are sickened by produce every year, thanks to noroviruses. Noroviruses can spread person-to-person via the fecal-oral route or by the ingestion of aerosolized vomit, which together may […]]]>

Although the most serious causes of food poisoning like Salmonella come largely from animal products (for example, most foodborne-related deaths have been attributed to poultry), millions of Americans are sickened by produce every year, thanks to noroviruses. Noroviruses can spread person-to-person via the fecal-oral route or by the ingestion of aerosolized vomit, which together may explain most norovirus food outbreaks. But a substantial proportion remained unexplained. How else can fecal viruses get on our fruits and veggies?

The pesticide industry may be spraying them on (See Norovirus Food Poisoning from Pesticides).

The water that’s used to spray pesticides on crops may be dredged up from ponds contaminated with fecal pathogens. When you hear of people getting infected with a stomach bug like E. coli from something like spinach, it’s important to realize that the pathogen didn’t originate from the spinach. Intestinal bugs come from intestines. Greens don’t have guts; plants don’t poop.

“The application of pesticides may therefore not only be a chemical hazard, but also a microbiological hazard for public health.” What is the industry’s solution? To add more chemicals! “The inclusion of antiviral substances in reconstituted pesticides,” researchers assert, “may be appropriate to reduce the virological health risk posed by the application of pesticides.” Or we could just choose organic.

Likewise the Salmonella in alfalfa sprout seeds (See Don’t Eat Raw Alfalfa Sprouts) likely came from manure run-off or contaminated irrigation water. But this pesticide angle adds a whole new route for fecal pathogens to pollute produce. Broccoli Sprouts are safer, and organic sprouts may therefore be safer still (See Broccoli Sprouts).

Organic foods may also be healthier (see Cancer Fighting Berries) and don’t carry the potential chemical hazards associated with pesticides. See my videos:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: jetsandzeppelins / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/10/viral-food-poisoning-from-pesticides/feed/ 30
The Reversal on Fish Oilhttp://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/05/the-reversal-on-fish-oil/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-reversal-on-fish-oil http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/05/the-reversal-on-fish-oil/#comments Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:00:34 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=25493 Are the purported benefits of fish oil supplementation for the prevention and treatment of heart disease just a “fish tale“? Thanks to recommendations from organizations such as the American Heart Association that individuals at high risk for heart disease ask their physicians about fish oil supplementation, fish oil has grown into a multibillion dollar industry. […]]]>

Are the purported benefits of fish oil supplementation for the prevention and treatment of heart disease just a “fish tale“? Thanks to recommendations from organizations such as the American Heart Association that individuals at high risk for heart disease ask their physicians about fish oil supplementation, fish oil has grown into a multibillion dollar industry. We now consume over 100,000 tons of fish oil every year.

But what does the science say? A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, highlighted in my video Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil? looked at all the best “randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of omega-3’s on lifespan, cardiac death, sudden death, heart attack, and stroke.” The studies told the subjects to either eat more oily fish or to take fish oil capsules. What did the study find? Overall, the researchers found no protective benefit for all-cause mortality, heart disease mortality, sudden cardiac death, heart attack, or stroke.

What about for those who already had a heart attack and are trying to prevent another? Still no benefit. Where did we even get this idea that omega 3’s were good for the heart? If we look at some of the older studies, the results seemed promising. For example, there was the famous DART trial back in the 80s involving 2,000 men. Those advised to eat fatty fish had a 29% reduction in mortality. Pretty impressive—no wonder it got a lot of attention. But people seemed to have forgotten the sequel, the DART-2 trial. The same group of researchers, and an even bigger study (3,000 men). In DART-2 “those advised to eat oily fish and particularly those supplied with fish oil capsules had a higher risk of cardiac death.”

Put all the studies together, and there’s no justification for the use of omega 3s as a structured intervention in everyday clinical practice or for guidelines supporting more dietary omega-3’s. So what should doctors say when their patients follow the American Heart Association advice to ask them about fish oil supplements? Given this and other negative meta-analyses, “our job as doctors should be to stop highly marketed fish oil supplementation in all of our patients.”

I’ve previously discussed fish oil supplements in the context of risks versus purported cardiovascular benefits:

But if the benefits aren’t there, then all one is left with are concerns over the industrial pollutants that concentrate in the fish fat (even in distilled fish oil, see Is Distilled Fish Oil Toxin-Free?).

These same contaminants are found in the fish themselves. This raises concern for adults (Fish Fog), children (Nerves of Mercury), and pregnant moms:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day ,and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Jo Christian Oterhals / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/05/the-reversal-on-fish-oil/feed/ 186
Introducing Joseph Gonzales, R.D.http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/03/introducing-joseph-gonzales-r-d/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=introducing-joseph-gonzales-r-d http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/03/introducing-joseph-gonzales-r-d/#comments Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:00:11 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=26075 First, I want to thank all those that applied for the Nutrition Director position. I am so thrilled my work attracts such talented folks! We received dozens of applications from doctors and nurses and dietitians who dedicated days of their lives slogging through a grueling application process all for the honor of serving you. And […]]]>

First, I want to thank all those that applied for the Nutrition Director position. I am so thrilled my work attracts such talented folks! We received dozens of applications from doctors and nurses and dietitians who dedicated days of their lives slogging through a grueling application process all for the honor of serving you. And that honor goes to Joseph Gonzales, R.D.

Let me turn it over to him so he can introduce himself:


Untitled.001Hello everyone!
 
I am so thrilled to join the team. It’s always been a passion of mine to help others. Let me tell you a little about my background:
 
Professionally, I started working as the Health Coordinator for Head Start – a federal program providing early childhood education, health, and nutrition for children. To focus on more nutrition-related efforts, I took a position in Washington, D.C., as Staff Dietitian with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). There, I helped organize their Food for Life Programs, where certified instructors teach cooking classes dedicated to nutrition education for disease prevention. I also helped coordinate and publish clinical research studies, working closely with research study participants for nearly 4 years. I left the Physicians Committee to pursue medical school but took a detour and ended up working with the University of Texas – MD Anderson Cancer Center’s Integrative Medicine Program, specifically, as a dietitian in a comprehensive lifestyle study for women with breast cancer. It’s been a privilege to work alongside such courageous women.
 
My passion for both nutrition and helping others is perhaps best exemplified by my volunteer work in the Marshall Islands. I served at the Diabetes Wellness Center with the Director of Nutrition, Brenda Davis, R.D., helping people to control (and in some cases even reverse) type 2 diabetes with dietary changes.

For years, I have witnessed the power of eating healthy in my own life, and through the lives of many friends, family, and research study participants. As NutritionFacts.org Nutrition Director, my hope is to forward the mission of making advances in the field freely available and accessible to all by helping people wherever they are at with improving their diets.
 
I may not have all the answers to your questions, but I can help find them for you. Please leave a question in the comments section under any of the videos or blogs and I’ll do my best to help.
 
Sincerely,
Sig
Joseph Gonzales, R.D.
Nutrition Director


I can’t tell you how excited I am to have Joseph on board! I’ve always envisioned NutritionFacts.org would someday become a place where people can not only learn about the latest research but get all their nutrition questions answered. I can share the why’s of eating healthy, but what about the how’s?  What Joseph can bring is helping to translate  what I present into practical advice on incorporating the best available science into our day-to-day lives. I think we’re going to make a great team.

This is all for you, and all thanks to you. It was everyone’s donations last year that put us in the position to offer even more free resources for everyone on how to best feed ourselves and our families to lead long healthy productive lives.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/03/03/introducing-joseph-gonzales-r-d/feed/ 104
Are Multivitamins Just a Waste of Money?http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/02/26/are-multivitamins-just-a-waste-of-money/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=are-multivitamins-just-a-waste-of-money http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/02/26/are-multivitamins-just-a-waste-of-money/#comments Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:00:50 +0000 http://nutritionfacts.org/?p=25487 About one in three Americans take a multivitamin. Is that helpful, harmful, or just a harmless waste of money? In 2011, the Iowa Women’s Health Study reported that multivitamin use was associated with a higher risk of total mortality, meaning that women who took a multivitamin appeared to be paying to live shorter lives. But […]]]>

About one in three Americans take a multivitamin. Is that helpful, harmful, or just a harmless waste of money? In 2011, the Iowa Women’s Health Study reported that multivitamin use was associated with a higher risk of total mortality, meaning that women who took a multivitamin appeared to be paying to live shorter lives. But this was just an observational study—researchers didn’t split women up into two groups and put half on multivitamins to see who lived longer. All they did was follow a large population of women over time, and found that those that happened to be taking multivitamins were more likely to die. But maybe they were taking multivitamins because they were sick. The researchers didn’t find any evidence of that, but ideally we’d have a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial, where thousands were followed for over a decade, with half given a multivitamin and half a placebo. That’s what we got the following year in 2012 with the Harvard Physicians’ Study II. And after a decade, the researchers found no effect on heart attack, stroke, or mortality.

The accompanying editorial concluded that multivitamins are a distraction from effective cardiovascular disease prevention. The message needs to remain simple and focused: heart disease can be largely prevented by healthy lifestyle changes.

The researchers did, however, find that for men with a history of cancer, the multivitamin appeared to be protective against getting cancer again, though there was no significant difference in cancer mortality or cancer protection in those who’ve never had cancer before. Still, that’s pretty exciting. It is just one study, though. Ideally we’d have maybe 20 of these placebo-controlled trials and then compile all the results together. That’s what we got in 2013—a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that analyzed twenty-one trials and more than 90,000 individuals. The analysis found no influence on mortality either way. Some found more cancer mortality, some found less cancer mortality, but all in all it was a wash.

And that was heralded as good news. After the Iowa Women’s Health Study came out we were worried multivitamins could be harming millions of people, but instead they don’t appear to have much effect either way. The accompanying editorial asked whether meta-analyses trump observational studies. The Iowa Women’s Health Study followed tens of thousands of women for nearly 20 years. What if we put all the studies together, the big observational studies along with the experimental trials? And that’s what we got in December 2013. The review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, highlighted in my video, Should We Take a Multivitamin? found that multivitamins appear to offer no consistent evidence of benefit for heart disease, cancer, or living longer.

But aren’t vitamins and minerals good for us? One explanation for this result could be that our bodies are so complex that the effects of supplementing with only one or two components is generally ineffective or actually does harm. Maybe we should get our nutrients in the way nature intended, in food.

The accompanying editorial to the December 2013 review concluded that enough is enough. We should stop wasting our money on vitamin and mineral supplements. Americans spend billions on vitamin and mineral supplements. A better investment in health would be eating more fruits and vegetables. Imagine if instead we spent those billions on broccoli?

I’ve previously addressed multivitamins in my videos Are Multivitamins Good For You? and Multivitamin Supplements and Breast Cancer (with a follow-up in my Q&A Is multivitamin use really associated to an increased risk of breast cancer?). I also touched on potential risks in Dietary Theory of Alzheimer’s.

With the exception of vitamins D and B12 (Vitamin Supplements Worth Taking), we should strive to get our nutrients from produce, not pills.

What about fish oil supplements? Check out Is Fish Oil Just Snake Oil?

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Tom Magliery / Flickr

]]>
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/02/26/are-multivitamins-just-a-waste-of-money/feed/ 55