Domain for sale

I'm selling the domain www.nutritionalnonsense.com I'll sell it to the highest bidder. To make me an offer, contact me: adams.sj@gmail.com

Slightly more crap than Today Tonight - ACA's latest food additive scare story

Both A Current Affair (ACA) and Today Tonight (TT) are guilty of frequently running exaggerated scare stories on various nutrition related issues. (See here for the former and here for the latter) In fact, you’d probably have to be living in a different part of the world not to have seen their sound bites warning of all the shocking things “they’re putting in our foods” these days. I’m not too sure which one is worse, but given ACA’s most recent attempt, I’d have to question how much they deserve the ‘Slightly Less Crap than Today Tonight’ award the Chaser presented them with late last year.

In summary, they interviewed an unqualified food additive scare campaigner and took her extreme claims as facts, without interviewing anyone really authoritative on the topic to give a more sensible position. You can view a video of the segment here. (Only on IE – apparently it doesn’t like us Firefoxers). Below I have printed the transcript, with my interjections in bold.

[Tracey Grimshaw] “But first the warning bells are getting louder about the hidden additives in almost all the foods we buy.”

The only alarm bells that are getting louder about ‘hidden additives’ (I’m not sure why she said they’re hidden when they are always listed as ingredients on labels) are those being rung by ACA and TT when they feel like running a food scare story from time to time when they run out of stories on welfare cheats, neighbour disputes, dodgey tenants or landlords and miracle weight loss treatments.

“The list of health problems being blamed on these common ingredients will shock you, and experts say its children who are most at risk. Ben McCormack has more.”

What experts? Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)? Nutrition Australia? The Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) maybe? The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) perhaps? Any food or health authority at all?

[Julie Eady] “Food additives use has just skyrocketed to the point where very few of us have got any idea what’s in the foods were actually eating or the foods we’re feeding our family.”

I’m not sure about additive use skyrocketing, but given many consumers confusion (largely due to nonsense media reports like this one) about nutrition related issues, I wouldn’t disagree that many do have little idea what is in their food. I wouldn’t rely on ACA to tell us about it though…..

[Geralide Georgiou] “I do see more and more sick children presenting with allergies, eczema , asthma"

Well there we go – a statement about food additives by one person followed by a statement about increased immunological problems by another. The two must be connected!

[Mum Melanie] “He cant sit and build something out of leggo he’ll just throw it all around the room.”

[Ben McCormak] “Raven Olson is like any other normal 5 year old. Give him processed food like pasta sauce or chocolate biscuits, and mum Melanie says he turns into a terror.”

McCormack pulls the age old jounro’s trick here of putting across a misleading message, not by making the claim himself, but by stating that someone else believes it.

[Mum Melanie] “He’ll just run room to room, so we try and let him go outside to blow off some steam and he’ll just around and it seems to last for a good couple of hours, 2 or 3 hours, until its really out of his system.”

Okay, so has Raven (perhaps its Raymond, the sound quality was bad) been taken to a doctor about this problem? We don’t know because ACA didn’t bother to get a medical opinion of Ravens problems.

[Ben McCormack] "Melanie is convinced; Ravens erratic behaviour is caused by a chemical cocktail of preservatives and colours that are contained in the everyday food that we all eat."

What convinced her of this? Did she have Raven assessed by a medical expert to get this diagnosis, or has she diagnosed it herself after being mislead by nonsense food additive scare mongers?

[Melanie] “I’ve really noticed if I give him too much in the way of highly processed foods, you can really see the reaction it becomes really really hyperactive it just runs around and he just doesn’t listen and he just completely loses concentration Its really stressful for the whole family.”

I should probably mention here that controlled studies often find that parents ‘notice’ different changes in their children’s behaviour given certain treatments than more objective sources such as school teachers do. Someone I know refers to this as ‘third party placebo’. Unfortunately ACA didn’t bother getting any objective perspective about Ravens problem.

[Julie Eady] “The average Australian child today would easily be eating about a hundred and fifty to two hundred additives every day.”

This statement seems exaggerated, but even if it weren’t, Id like to know a.) so is this a bad thing? and b.) given the very small number of them this report warns us about, why be concerned about the other 195? Oh, dramatic effect…I forgot.


[At this point in the background we hear sinister sounding music playing whilst a voiceover calls out a list of nasty sounding chemicals such as tartrazine, quinolin, titanium dioxide (?), preservative 202 and calcium lactate to name a few – all sounding very ‘chemicaly’ and unnatural to the audience I’m sure.]

[Ben McCormack] “The sheer number and different types of chemicals in our packaged food is mind boggling. And if you’ve read the labels, you’ll know they’re almost impossible to understand.”

Yes, given the nasty long words they use or unnatural sounding numbers they can be abbreviated to, it’s no wonder consumers can be confused about them. But McCormack hasn’t actually said that they’re bad for us yet.

“But more and more experts believe it’s these additives that are making our kids sick.”

Ah, and there it is. But rather than actually making the claim himself or citing reliable sources, he simply says ‘more and more experts’. Given that hundreds of thousands of understandably concerned parents may be watching this story looking for reliable advice on such a controversial issue, which of these ‘experts’ did ACA chose to consult on this topic?

[Julie Eady] “….are linked to asthma, behaviour problems, sleeping problems, and they are really something that people need to avoid for their children wherever
possible."

A very concerning statement given that the major health authorities I cited earlier seem to have no gripe with them. So who is this ‘expert’?

[Ben McCormack] "Julie Eady is the author of Additive Alert and says that children are eating more chemicals than ever before."

She’s wrote a book? I guess she must be an expert then. Julie’s website lists her qualifications as being a full time Mum, which is great, but shouldn’t someone being cited as an expert who is making such extreme claims about the safety of our food supply on national television have greater credentials than simply being able to reproduce?

[Julie Eady] “School lunchboxes have just become packed with prepackaged goods, so the little packets which fit nicely into lunchboxes, nice and convenient, and we’ve gone right away from the salad sandwich and the apple and a drink of water, and were now having the prepackages stuff, and that’s where kids are getting lots and lots of additives”

Whilst I wouldn’t disagree with this statement too much, my concern here is that they are implying these additives are bad for us and a significant children’s nutrition concern.

[Geralide Georgiou] “I think just in our fast life and the world that we’ve got out there, that parents are very time poor an on the run, so socially and out and about, we have to have foods quick and easy”

No qualms there, but what does this have to do with food additives being harmful?

[McCormack] "Nutritionist Geralide Georgiou says she’s seeing more and more children suffering food intolerance and immune problems, and believes parents need to get back to basics."

They’re McCormacks words, not hers, but even if she said this, what does it have to do with food additives being a threat to our children’s health?

[Geraldine Georgiou] “Look at the dietary guidelines, 2 serves of fresh fruits,

They don’t have to be ‘fresh’

“5 serves plus vegetables not to forget about lean red meats including lean protein, and good fats, low fats with wholegrain breads and cereals”

Sounds like some pretty good advice. I wonder if Geraldine realized she was being taken out of context by her advice being put in amongst a story on additives being bad. In fact, I wonder if McCormack even asked her about additives at all. Given that they didn’t show her mentioning additives, I’d like to have seen the full footage and to get Geraldines perspective, but I can’t find her contact details. This bring up the question I asked earlier though – given that Geraldine is the only healthcare professional ACA consulted and she didn’t even mention additives at all, is this to say that they are going entirely on the word of a 'mum' as an ‘expert’?

[Julie Eady] “It’s really not that hard to find products that do not contain the harmful additives, you’ve just got to know which ones to look for”

What a nice promo for her book.

[McCormack] "Julie says when you’re shopping, you should watch out for food with colours”

Julie says? Why? What’s so evil about colours?

[Julie Eady] "Now these really bright food colours are not just in lollies anymore, they’re in every day healthy foods like our fruit juices, like our yoghurts, like our muesli bars”

Okay, but why should we avoid them? Perhaps we’re supposed to buy her book to find out why.

[Ben McCormack] “Avoid preservatives in fruit juices”

What,like lots of added sugar? That might be a fair call given what it does to children’s teeth.

[Julie Eady] “A lot of fruit juices these days are preserved using a chemical called sodium benzoate which is one of the worst additives for asthma, and it’s also known, proven to cause behaviour and learning problems in most kids."

Oh, no menton of sugar (that's nice and natural). Well now she’s making very specific claims at least. So lets look at them more closely.

There is little substantial evidence to suggest that sodium benzoate triggers asthma. The most recent study to look at sodium benzoate and asthma comes from way back in 1989, where a small uncontrolled trial found bronchoconstrictions among people when challenged with a variety of food additives, though the abstract doesn’t say whether they responded specifically to sodium benzoate, and to what extend they responded.

Whilst Julie may have been a bit confused about benzoates, sulphites however have been recognised to be a trigger in a small number of allergy sufferers. This concern has been adequately addressed by FSANZ here, where they state:

“FSANZ is aware that sulphites are of particular concern to those suffering from asthma. This concern is already addressed by the mandatory labelling of all foods with sulphite concentrations of 10 mg/kg or more. The issue of sulphite sensitivity has been considered previously by FSANZ and resulted in the wide distribution of a brochure entitled “For Asthma Sufferers: The Facts About Sulphites in Food” which is available on the FSANZ web site.There is little evidence to suggest that sulphites are a concern for non-asthmatics.

“In relation to other potential health consequences, there is currently no clinical evidence to suggest that high dietary intake of sulphites and benzoates can cause adverse effects in people.”

The Asthma Foundation NSW says:

“Food additives, colourings and flavourings can be a particular problem for children. Generally however, food is a very rare trigger for asthma.”

I’m sure respiratory specialists would warn parents of asthmatic children about sulphite sensitivity anyway, which makes us wonder why it was necessary for ACA to give us the impression that ‘hidden’ ‘chemicals’ (even though they are listen on the labels and no more a ‘chemical’ than any other substance the universe) are giving our kids asthma. I wonder why Julie didn’t tell us that the most common food components to trigger asthma are actually naturally occurring things such as salicylates. Oh that’s right….dramatic effect, I forgot again.

It was the next statement she made on ACA as well as her website that is particularly concerning.

“proven to cause behaviour and learning problems in most kids.’”

That’s a pretty big claim. Is it based on systematically reviewed studies with reproduced results? No, it’s based on one study in the UK a few years ago which found that giving 3 year old children 45mg of sodium benzoate per day increased the incidence of parents who noticed hyperactive behaviour in their kids, despite an objective clinical assessments finding no affect.

Enough concern to test it again, though given that many studies find conflicting results when reproduced (which is why systematically reviewed data is necessary) it’s hardly ‘proof’ that it cause “behaviour and learning problems in most kids”

[McCormack] "Buy preservative free bread”

[Julie Eady] “Bread in Australia now days contains a preservative called preservative 282 calcium propionate and it is a really bad additive again for kids behaviour and learning, again for asthma, sleeping problems, migranes, skin & gut problems”

This comes from an Australian study a few years back conducted by an additive alarmist friend of Eady’s named Sue Dengate, an ex school teacher (who now calls herself a “food intolerance expert”) hell bent on a mission to prove additives are the root of all evil, who, incidentally, is also an author of a book selling additive fears to parents as well as the alarmist ‘Food Intolerance Network’. (The url alone can tell us how she feels about food additives). Dengates study found that some childrens behaviour got worse when given the preservative, some got better, and some didn't change. Overall there was no statisically significant result.

The study was criticized (by real experts incidentally) in the subsequent issue of the journal it was published in, for significant methodological flaws. In her response, Dengate admitted that her statistically insignificant results was far from conclusive and that further research should be conducted, stating “we leave it for the readers to decide whether the association we found warrants further attention”

She takes a very different tone in her ‘facts sheets’ such as the one on propiaonates, where her claims about its effects seem much more certain:

“Reactions can be anything from the usual range of food intolerance symptoms: migraine and headaches; gastro-intestinal symptoms including stomach aches, irritable bowel, diarrhoea, urinary urgency, bedwetting; eczema and other itchy skin rashes; nasal congestion (stuffy or runny nose); depression, unexplained tiredness, impairment of memory and concentration, speech delay; tachycardia (fast heart beat); growing pains, loud voice (no volume control); irritability, restlessness, inattention, difficulty settling to sleep, night waking and night terrors”

A pubmed search for "calcium propionate" + asthma turns up nothing, nor does “calcium propionate” + gut, or "calcium propionate" + migraine and the only results for “calcium propionate" + skin, brings up a study to look at the effect calcium propionate has on Salmonella growth on chicken skin.

Perhaps a bit of made up nonsense can be easily camouflaged amongst a bit of bad science.

[McCormack] “stay away from flavour enhancers”

[Julie Eady] “MSG, now days these additives have been added to a whole rang of products, especially kids products like chips, and crisps and savoury biscuits, but also sausages and processed lunch meat, pies, sausage rolls, all those sought of meat products.”

Eady doesn’t actually tell us her version of what she thinks MSG does to us here, though searching for MSG on her website reveals:

“Asthma, hyperactivity, depression, mood changes, sleeplessness, nausea, migraine, linked to infertility, teratogen, convulsions, abdominal discomfort. See text re other hidden sources of MSG”

You can see FSANZ’s fat sheet on MSG here.

[Ben McCormack] "Melanie is still trying to work out exactly what additives trigger Ravens bad behaviour, and wants manufacturers to make more of an effort."

To do what? They are already compelled to list all their ingredients on the label, and anyone diagnosed (by a real doctor) with specific food sensitivities would know precisely what to look out for.

[Mum Melanie] “I’d be prepared to pay more for a simple every day product that was healthy for my kids”

Yes, in fact it's nonsense like this from ACA & TT that have fuelled the growth of ‘natual’ health claims made by makers of junk food. As I have mentioned in previous posts, food companies conduct surveys and focus group studies to find out what their consumers believe are significant areas of nutrition related concern. Given scare mongering stories like this from ACA, it’s not difficult to see why so many lay consumers become scared of additives, and anything that sounds 'unnatural’. As a result, food companies will go to great lengths not to make products that really are healthier, but to produce products that their market will believe is healthier. This often sees junk foods finding non synthetic additives to use simply because they know the words ‘no artificial colours or preservatives’ etc can make a significant difference to their sales. They can of course (and do) add lots of salt and or sugar to use as preservatives, because they’re ‘natural’. Even childrens Panadol and Neurofen come in ‘colourless’ versions just so that they don’t miss out on the portion of the market who believes that colours are bad for their kids (heaven forbid they find out what ibuprofen does to the gasrtic mucosa).

A food techie friend of mine works for a well known Australian food company and informs me that they use a red food colouring called 'cochniel’ which is actually derived from an insect that lives on cacti in South America. This colouring agent is significantly more expensive than the synthetic version, but the food industry knows that being able to claim ‘no artificial colours’ will mean a big difference to the misled health conscious sector of the market, despite being complete absurd (I wonder what they would think if they knew they were consuming insect bits and pieces)

The silliest example of all would be the ‘Natural Confectionary Company’. I have sadly known parents who, despite not wanting to give their children lollies, feel okay about giving them Natural Confectionary Company products because they feel they must be healthier.

So here’s the bottom line: Could certain food additives be problematic to some people? Sure, it’s not impossible, but most of the claims made by anti additive extremist like Julie Eady are either exaggerated, based on very scant evidence, or simply made up. My problem in this particular case is that ACA didn’t get an expert opinion at all, and given that the views expressed by the person they did interview are not supported by major health authorities, why did they not seek any alternate view on the matter at all, and simply pass it all off as fact? Moreover, their website states:

“A growing number of nutritionists argue that the food additives contained in highly processed foods are bad for children.”

It may have made a good story with lots of dramatic effect, but journalistic morons like Ben McCormack don’t have to deal with confused parents who just want a reliable source of information on nutrition related issues because they want the best for their children’s health. Bad advice like this simply steers health conscious parents in the wrong direction and turns their attention away from the more significant childhood nutrition related problems. I’m sure even nut jobs like Julie Eady probably think they are doing the right thing. McCormack however has no excuse.

Ben, you truly are a shitbag of a journalist.

Post Script:

Inevitably, Sue Dengate & Julie Eady will be cranky with what I have said about them and possibly try to claim that I have unfairly misrepresented their claims and intentions. I have however provided several links to their websites, so readers are encouraged to click on them to go and check out their claims and intentions for themselves. Somehow I doubt Eady and Dengate will be providing any free hyperlinks to apposing opinions such as mine.

What does it take to work in a pharmacy?

As I have mentioned on this website previously, I have had a couple of unfavourable experiences working in pharmacies where I was pressured into trying to sell unnecessary, often useless and potentially harmful 'complementary medicines' to pharmacy customers, who subsequently believed what I was telling them because they assumed that pharmacies are places of reliable health care advice. In previous articles, I suggested that perhaps these were isolated experiences, so out of curiosity I recently decided to see what kind of criteria pharmacies are looking for when hiring pharmacy assistant staff. Here's what I found:

* Ozepharmacy at Penrith and Hornsby are looking for "someone who has experience in or a passion for, vitamins or natural therapies" to help them sell their "Vitamins, homeopathic remedies, aroma therapy, weight loss, arthritis, mens/womens health, protein supplements and practitioner only ranges".


* Pulse Pharmacy at Bondi Junction and Rockdale are specifically looking for a Naturopath to "manage all aspects of vitamins and natural therapies within the pharmacy"

* Newtons Pharmacy in the city are apparently "specialising in complementary medicine" and are looking for someone with previous experience in "alternative health therapies including western herbalism, aromatherapy, iridology, naturopathy or nutrition" (presumably not real nutrition).

* Pharmacies outside of Sydney are also looking to sell quackery, for example, Good Price Pharmacy Warehouse in Slacks Creek Brisbane are looking for a "Naturopath/ vitamin consultant" (apparently so urgently they placed two adds, (see here and here) one which doesn’t specify their store name or location) whilst Carousel Pharmacy in Perth are looking for an enthusiastic Naturopath.


* If however you are a quack or unqualified person looking to make people think you're some kind of health care professional, you can always join the Tony Ferguson crew to work either in one of their 'weightloss and wellbeing centres' or in a Terry White outlet. For example, the Belconnen ACT store are looking for a "Weight Management Practitioner", but don't let the work 'practitioner' turn you off if you have no qualifications - nor the fact that you will be required to "counsel and educate [the] customers on appropriate diets (well, so long as its compliant with the restrictive Ferguson fad), menu planning and preparation to maintain and enhance optimum health". The only thing you must have are "strong selling skills", a "mature outlook and a 'can do' attitude". (Phew, I thought they might have been looking for someone with a degree).

* The Tony Ferguson Weightloss and Wellbeing Centre in Bondi and Maroborough are also looking for "weight loss consultants" to be "counselling clients in the control of their weight," but fortunately, experience is not essential, however "prior nutritional, dietetic or vitamin training will be advantageous". That doesn't mean you need to actually be a nutritionist or dietitian, in fact, all you really need to be is a "people person".


* Victorian quacks will be excited to learn that the Tony Ferguson Weightloss and Wellbeing Centre in Ballarat is also looking for Naturopaths and even "Nutritionalists" to become a weight loss consultant. (I'm not sure if the latter term means a cross between a nutritionist and a journalist, or they really have so little idea what they are talking about they just can't even spell nutritionist). Even if you’re not a naturopath or a confused and illiterate nutritionist, they are also taking "people who have a passion for health"


* Likewise, the Tony Ferguson crew in Casurina need a weight loss consultant, and whilst a background in "nutrition, vitamins or pharmacy" would be "advantageous", it's "not essential", just so long as you "enjoy interacting with the public"


And I thought that my experiences were the only ones that involved pharmacies trying to exploit customers by getting their staff to push useless healthcare products.......

What's been going on?

I haven't updated this blog since December 2006 - largely because I became very busy with work and study and pretty much decided to give up on it. Here's a quick run down of what's been going on for me of late in the world of Nutritional Nonsense:

* I was asked to contribute regular articles to the online magazine Information 2 Pharmacists (www.i2p.com.au). You can read my contributions here:

• Issue 59: April 2007 - Weight Loss Supplements Don't Work
• Issue 58: March 2007 - Ask Your Pharmacist? - I Don’t Think So! PART TWO of a critical look at the role of the pharmacist as a reliable healthcare provider
• Issue 57: February 2007 - Ask Your Pharmacist? - I Don’t Think So! PART ONE of a critical look at the role of the pharmacist as a reliable healthcare provider
• Issue 56: December 2006 - Money Down the Toilet

* I made a few appearances on radio 2MFM, discussing nutrition myths as well as news in nutrition.

* I was interviewed by a local paper about McDonald's new controversial Heart Foundation tick approved meals. (Read here)

* I was approached by sexologist turned opinion columnist Bettina Arndt who sought my opinion on organic foods after being referred to me by the Australian Skeptics. Later in the week she published an article discussing this topic in remarkably similar words that I had used to educate her on the subject, though funnily enough she forgot to cite me as a source. You can read her version here. (I might add that personally, I found she took a very biased and cynical perspective on this topic, which doesn't do the sceptical side of the argument any favours. Then and again, discussing a scientific issue from a scientific perspective doesn't earn anyone a living as an 'opinion' columnist now does it.)

* This is not so much related to me, but after discussing this topic with me on radio (listen here and here), sceptic Loretta Marron (aka the Jelly Bean Lady) was asked to present the Australian Skeptics 'Bent Spoon Award" to the Pharmacists of Australia who sell quackery. Well done Loretta.

* After publishing an article in a local newspaper about how there is no good evidence to suggest that diet is related to acne, the lead Mann (pardon the pun) of a recent study which found a link between diet and acne contacted me to tell me that he had experimentally proven it. Back when I was an undergraduate, I learnt that good evidence occured when after systematically reviewing all good studies, the same results kept coming through. It's a sad day for science when a professor and leader in his field considers 1 study 'proof' because it was he who conducted it. I believe they refer to that as bias. (This reminds me of an argument I had with a sociology acadmic recently who held a distorted belief about what science is, due largely to biases she has observed by scientists. I argued that science is perfect - scientists are far from it, though in this Manns case - way off by a country mile).

* And in other news - after arranging to write a regular nutrition column in a state wide magazine for parents of toddlers, I became frustrated by the way a complaint was handled, as even after editing my initial version considerably to be more in line with their sensitive positions, someone apparently authoritative in the organisation I wrote it on behalf of wanted to address the complaint more seriously than I did by writing a reply to the complainant. When I mentioned that I would simply discuss it with the magazines editor, the same person insisted that they discuss it with them instead, essentially silencing any voice I may have on the matter altogether, even though the article was authored by me. I have never been someone terribly happy to put political correctness and sensitivity above saying it as it is, so as a result, I decided that I would only continue writing for the magazine if it were not on behalf of the organisation I am affiliated with. Apparently however, the editor considers the two words following "by Stuart Adams from...." to be more significant than the other 1600 words on the page, so evidently I will not be writing anything for that publication again. You can read the first and only time here. (I can't give too many details here by those interested can ask me by emailing info at nutra-smart.net) This is a shame as both organisations rely largely on volunteers and work for a good cause. Apparently even good causes are not without 'office politics' for a lack of a better description.

Radio Interviews

I've been meaning to post these here for a long time but took seveal months to be sent a copy of the recording. The first interview is on 4OUR back in about July, discussing problems associated with pharmacies selling nutritional supplements and weight loss products. The second interview was on 4BC more recently, and involves a similar topic.

Enjoy.

A Challenge to McDonalds

Not too long ago I had the pleasure of dealing with a considerably large PR firm who represent various food companies, including McDonalds. One of their claims to fame is that due to their marketing brilliance, McDonalds did not suffer a net loss following bad publicity they gained when "Super Size Me" was released. I wonder if they represent the tobacco industry as well.

When Super Size Me was released in Australia, McDonalds responded with a television commercial arguing that the increase in weight and cholesterol levels experienced by documentary maker Morgan Spurlock during the film were not unexpected given that he consumed excessive amounts of the restaurant giants products. McDonalds quite rightly argued the "dose makes the poison" line of reasoning, and appeared to be giving the suggestion that it was not their intention for people to consume excessive amounts of McDonalds food, but that in moderation, McDonalds meals are relatively harmless as part of an otherwise balanced diet. This is technically true, and even I enjoy a fillet-a-fish and chocolate sundae once in a blue moon.

Their other major response to the film was to introduce the "deli choices / salads" menu, consisting of slightly less unhealthy but significantly more expensive rolls, salads, wraps and burgers. I'm not sure how things go in other areas, but in my neck of the woods, those salady rolls aren’t exactly flying off the shelves; if you do ask for one, they almost never have one already made (as they do their junk burgers) you have to wait "60 seconds" for it (which ends up being about 10 minutes). I do not know what proportion of McDonalds profits come from selling these newly introduced menu items, but I can be relatively certain that it is very insignificant, and given that almost all their recent television advertising expenses go into promoting them, am I the only one who finds this a bit odd? Wanna know what I think?

Well, my suspicion is that they know full well that these "deli choices rolls" etc contribute negligible profits to them, but insist on making them the subject of every single one of their television commercials simply to avoid public criticism and make them appear to be promoting healthier alternatives. And is it working? Well, before the time of the "deli choices", McDonalds was frequently the topic of public health debate and criticism from public health experts, on account of their major contribution to the growing obesity epidemic. Now that they give the public impression of offering a healthier menu, how much criticism have they subsequently endured? Not bloody much; after all, they have the perfect defense - "but now we give people the choice" they say - coughbullshitshitcough.

If you're already intoxicated, it is against the law for a bar tender to serve you additional alcohol, but if a morbidly obese, hyperlipidemic, hypertensive and type 2 diabetic patron walks into McDonalds, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from being served enough kilojoules, saturated and trans fats to kill a brown dog. I really don't think that McDonalds cares much about the health of their patrons, nor the population, I do however think that they are particularly concerned about their image. They may openly say that they don't encourage people to scoff down excessive amounts of burgers and fries, but how serious are they about doing something about it?

So here’s a challenge. If they do honestly admit that excessive amounts of McDonalds is harmful to ones health but is harmless if consumed only in moderation and part of a healthy balanced diet, why not write that on the label of their foods? How’s this sound:

"This food product should be consumed only in moderation, as excessive amounts may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and other health complications."

If of course Maccas were serious about promoting their more unhealthful product only in moderation as they say, then they should have no problem with printing words to this effect on the label of their foods. Anyone with a food marketing background however will know that printing words like "cardiovascular disease" on a product will make consumers run a mile, which is why I have no doubt that McDonalds hypocritical message is nothing but a load of PR horseshit.

Don't get me wrong; I know that McDonalds is no less problematic than other fast food joints. The difference is however, that McDonalds competitors don't try misleading people with deliberate diversionary tactics to avoid criticism; even tobacco companies have to print warnings on their labels, which makes them less misleading than McDonalds. Come to think of it, let’s compare the similarities and differences between McDonalds and a heroin dealer.

Similarities

* Both sell a product which can be relatively harmless if used in very low doses, in moderation and only on a rare occasion.

* Both sell products which, when used frequently and in excessive doses (which is the more likely habit among both customers) can be addictive and cause damage to a persons health.

Differences

* Heroin dealers don't try kidding their customers that their product is anything but bad for them

* The law tries to stop heroin dealers from harming vulnerable victims.

In anticipation of the film “Fast Food Nation” being released in Australia today, McDonalds have come out with a new set of television commercials promoting the website “makeupyourownmind.com.au”, dedicated to dispelling health myths about McDonalds foods. Unfortunately for consumers, if the myths McDonalds appear to be refuting were actually true but the only problems associated with McDonalds food (such as the meats containing preservatives, which are harmless anyway) then there really would be nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, the web site doesn’t appear to be refuting the myths that their products are enormously energy dense and full of hyperlipidemic fats (things which are actually harmful). Oh wait, that’s not a myth

I wrote a weight loss (e)book

I wrote a bloody long explanation about this and it all got lost when I hit "preview", then the back button, so I'm not going to repeat myself over again. Suffice it to say, that my eBook can be bought by clicking on the picture of it below.

What I went off into a long explanation about was that after looking at the names of a multitude of other diet books, I figured it would have been much more marketable had I hjave called the book this:

Go to the bookstore, look in the diet section and you'll see what I mean.

I'ts been a while since my last entry because I've been busy trying to fnish my damn book before I do a newspaper interview tomorow; the same paper which I'll be writing a regular nutiriton column in soon. I'd rather be able to say that I've written a book, rather than have to say that I'm still writing one. For this weeks update, I thought I'd just post part of a chapter I was up to. Enjoy:

Weight Loss Supplements Don't Work - Sorry

What about weight loss supplements?

Okay, so maybe the supplements sold in pharmacies and health food stores (I wonder why they call themselves “health food” stores when it’s not “food” they sell it at all, its’ supplements) aren’t all good, and the advice you may receive from people trying to sell them may not be all that reliable. But what about the popular weight loss supplements we see them selling?
Whilst pharmacies, health foods stores and even Multilevel Marketing (the newer version of pyramid schemes) ventures sell meal replacement shakes which do work short term (which I’ll discuss in the next chapter) the products I am talking about there are the weight loss pills, which are supposed to “boost your metabolism”, “burn extra fat” or even “block carbohydrate absorption”.

You’d think no one would be silly enough to buy them, though if sales in the pharmacies I have worked in are any litmus, they would be very popular indeed. Occasionally, someone would ask me “do these things actually work?” I explained to them that they probably did very little if any good, were ridiculously expensive and would be almost completely worthless by comparison with healthy dietary modifications and an increase in exercise. When I then began trying to suggest how they could improve their diet and exercise habits, they would generally say “oh, okay”, before taking the weight loss pills to the counter and purchasing them regardless of what I just told them, which obviously wasn’t what they wanted to hear.

The thing that appeals so much about these pills is that they are the quickest and easiest of all the “quick fixes”. You don’t have to change your diet, you don’t have exercise, and you don’t have to undertake any effort other than having to pop a pill. How easy is that!? No wonder they are popular and no wonder people would prefer to try them instead of changing their diet or exercise (and ignoring my advice). But do they actually work?

Well, according to systematic reviews published by nutrition experts in the December 1999 issue of the Medical Journal of Australia, the January 2003 issue of Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, the November 2004 issue of the American Family Physician, the April 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition as well as more recent studies, the answer is; no, not really. The only people who will be able to honestly say that they have lost a significant amount of weight whilst using them are people who were using them IN COMBINAION with other weight loss efforts such as diet and exercise, in which case it was their diet and exercise changes which caused them to lose weight; not the pills.

Most popular weight loss supplements do not contain 1 special ingredient; they usually consist of a variety of vitamins, minerals and herbs. None of them are really that much different from each other, and all pretty much contain similar combinations of ingredients whilst charging outrageous prices. It wouldn’t do much good to discuss each of the individual products separately, as they are all essentially the same thing. What I’ll do instead is discus each of the most popular ingredients you’d be likely to find in them instead. Here goes:

Bitter Orange

Bitter orange contains alkaloid compounds similar to that found in Ephedra (a popular herbal weight loss supplement banned in most areas in the world as it was responsible for several deaths man many other dangerous side effects). Bitter orange has even been promoted as the “safer alternative to Ephedra” by some supplement companies pushing it as a weight loss supplement.

Bitter orange is supposed to help increase energy expenditure, though this claim does not appear to be supported by any scientific evidence. The only clinical trials which have tested the effect of Bitter orange on weight loss were small, contained methodological flaws and used it only as one of several combined ingredients; most often accompanied with caffeine and or ephedra (as described in a review study published in the February 2006 issue of Obesity Reviews) Consequently, there is no good evidence to this date to suggest that it can help with weight loss. There have been no studies to evaluate whether it is safe to take long term.

Brindleberry (Garcinia cambogia/indica)

Brindelberry contains a compound called hydroxycitric acid which is supposed to act as an appetite suppressant as well as being able to inhibit the body from taking excess energy and turning it into fat. A handful of small, poorly designed studies which often used Brindelberry in combination with other constituents such as caffeine, reported small improvements in weight loss, however a larger study published in the 280th issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that it was not more effective than a placebo (a dummy pill).

Even if Brindelberry could somehow manage to stop the body from turning excess energy into body fat, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to simply avoid consuming excess energy? It would make more sense of course, but that would require a bit of effort. Popping a pill is much simpler isn’t it?

Caffeine

Caffeine can help spare carbohydrate and instead utilize fat as an energy source. This is great if you are a long distance athlete, but whether or not it can actually help you burn a greater amount of total energy (which is, after all, the most important aspect to losing weight) or not is surely questionable. Most studies to examine the effect which caffeine has on weight loss have yielded conflicting results, and have usually included other ingredients such as ephedrine, which is banned in Australia due to it’s potential for harm.

The only well designed study to test the effect of caffeine alone, was published in the April 1992 issue of the International Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorders. The study found that after 24 weeks, subjects given 200mg of caffeine (equivalent to about 2-3 cups of coffee) had lost no more weight than those on the placebo.

Even if caffeine did help lose body fat and was not associated with unpleasant side effects (such as nervousness, irritability, heart burn, insomnia, raised blood pressure etc) wouldn’t it be easier and less expensive to just have some tea or coffee? Some herbal weight loss supplements now contain Guarana, which is simply another source of caffeine; nothing to get excited about at all.

Capsaicin

Capsaicin is the substance in chilies which gives them their hot, spicy taste. It is supposed to have a an appetite suppressing effect as well as a thermogenic effect, which is the ability to exhaust extra energy (Calories / kilojoules) as heat rather than store it as body fat.
One recent study published on April 25, in the International Journal of Obesity found that people who took a supplement containing capsaicin as well as other ingredients (including caffeine and catechins) had lost less than 1kg more than those taking the placebo after 2 months. Hardly impressive, especially given that spicy foods may aggravate gastro esophageal reflux (heart burn) cause pain and even affect the quality of ones sleep.

There is no convincing evidence that capsaicin on it’s own can have this effect, though even if it could; wouldn’t it be better to simply add a bit of chili sauce to your dinner than forking out for expensive supplements?

L-Carnitine

Carnitine is a non-essential amino acid involved in the metabolism of fat. The hypothetical basis for its use in weight loss was that excess amounts could help promote the break down of fat. Quite simply, it doesn’t.

Two studies have found that L-carnitine supplementation does not promote the break down of fat, and to this date, no studies have examined whether it can promote weight loss. Evidently, this hasn’t stopped supplement companies from promoting it as a weight loss treatment though.

Chitosan

Chitosan is a substance derived from crustacean shells which is purported to be able to “trap” or bind with fat in the intestines, therefore making it unavailable for absorption. Although animal studies have showed that it has this effect, a study published in the May 2003 issue of Obesity Research tested this theory by giving men approximately 133 g of fat to eat whilst taking 10 chitosan capsules per day. The results showed that only about 1g of fat was “trapped” and therefore not absorbed. Wow. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to just eat a bit less fat each day?

A systematic review published in the Februrary 2005 issue of Obesity Reviews which examined the results of clinical trials evaluating the effect of chitosan on weight loss concluded that among high quality studies, “the effect of chitosan on body weight is minimal and unlikely to be of clinical significance.”

Chromium

Chromium is a trace mineral involved in maintaining proper insulin function. The intake of chromium among the Australian population is poorly understood, but it is hypothesized that if additional chromium could help to sensitize insulin more than usual, it may help to regulate blood sugar levels and therefore help minimize the occurrence of hunger associated with rapid blood sugar changes Due to its superior absorbability, chromium picolinate has been the supplement of choice for people trying to burn fat and or build muscle over the past decade or so, despite being found to be potentially clastogenic (damages DNA) in certain doses.
A meta-analysis of the 10 best designed clinical trials testing the effect of chromium picolinate on weight loss published in the April issue of the International Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorders found that supplementing with large doses for about 3 months produced a very insignificant average loss of only 1.1kg.

Basically, it’s not worth it; especially given the potential for harm (many case reports have been noted of people who have experienced unfavourable side effects from large doses)

Coleus Forskolin

Coleus Forskolin is another herbal medicine purported to “help support the metabolism of fat.” Only one, small clinical trial has ever been conducted to my knowledge. The results showed that the subjects given the supplement did not lose or gain any weight whilst those on the placebo did gain a little. The results were not clinically significant, and there have been no studies to test its long-term safety.

Fucus Visticulosis (Kelp)

Kelp is a type of seaweed which provides a source of iodine; a trace mineral needed for proper thyroid function. Whilst hypothyroidism (which promotes obesity) can result from inadequate iodine intake, there is certainly no evidence to suggest that consuming additional iodine can promote weight loss in people with normal intakes. In most parts of Australia, this is not a problem.

Green Tea

Green tea is probably good for you, but there is no evidence that it will promote weight loss. A study published in the December 2005 issue of the British Journal of Nutrition found no difference in body weight among women given ghree tea or a placebo for 87 days.

Phaseolus vulgaris (White Kidney Bean)

White Kidney Bean is supposed to inhibit amylase; the enzyme responsible for breaking down starch into glucose so that it can be absorbed in the small intestine. Only one small study involving 27 people has been conducted using white kidney bean, and was published in the March 2004 issue of Alternative Medicine Reviews. After 8 weeks, the subjects given the White Kidney Bean supplement has lost about 1.7kg’s whilst those on the placebo had lost about .7 kg’s; a difference which was not considered statistically significant.

Even if White Kidney Bean could help to stop excess starch being absorbed to contribute towards body fat storage, so long as you consume less energy (from any source) than what you use, you will lose weight. Wouldn’t it therefore make more sense to simply avoid eating excessive amounts of starch in the first place? (Especially considering the cost of these supplements)

Psyllium Husk (Plantago ovata) and Guar Gum

Foods rich in soluble such as psyllium and guar gum tend to absorb water in the gut, slow gastric emptying and stabilize blood sugar. In significant portions, it is certainly plausible that a diet rich in these fibres may help control satiety. The tiny portions pound in weight loss pills however is so small and insignificant it is almost laughable.

Furthermore, whilst a diet rich in soluble fibre may help with you r long-term healthy weight loss goals, relying on psyllium and guar gum in the absence of other fibre-rich foods is unlikely to be of much assistance. Psyllium husk may help improve blood glucose and cholesterol levels; however a large clinical trial published in the September 1998 issue of the Journal of Diabetes and its Complications found that it did not result in weight loss. Likewise, a meta analysis of clinical trials using guar gum for weight loss published in the June 2001 issue of The American Journal of Medicine found that it was ineffective for weight loss.

Others

There are various other ingredients which weight loss snake oil salesman will throw in every now and then, usually various vitamins as well as other herbs such as pyruvate, Gymnema Sylvestre, Ginger, Ginkgo biloba, soy extract, grape seed extract, lecithin, yohimbe and many others for which there is no good scientific evidence to suggest the ability to promote weight loss.
The bottom line

Whilst these ingredients may not necessarily utterly useless, it is not reasonable to expect that either alone or combined, they are likely top help you lose any more than about 1 kg ever couple of months or so. They are extremely expensive, even by comparison with other dietary supplements, and their benefit is barely significant by comparison with healthy eating and regular exercise. They appeal to people because they seem simple and effortless. Put simply, if you are really so lazy that you are going to rely on weight loss pills instead of altering your diet and exercise habits, then I can assure you; nothing is going to help you. You are going to lose a lot of money and waste a lot of time and effort until you decide to get your priorities right and realize that there are no short cuts to long term healthy weight loss, so stop looking for them
If you are adopting healthier eating and exercise habits, then you are going to be well on the way to reaching your weigh loss goals. Even if taking these pills could enhance your efforts by about 1%, why waste your money? If you are doing these things then you are going to lose the weight anyway. If you’re in a hurry and think that this is going to help speed the process, then you’re not thinking enough about long-term issues,, in which case it isles likely that your new weigh loss attempts will be permanent, and more likely that they are just another yo-yo phase you’re going to grow out of soon.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that’s the way it is. Accept it and move on.

Watch out for fallacious arguments!

There are a few common argument made by promoters of herbal treatments, including (but not limited to) those supposed to help you lose weight. The most common fallacies these people use however is the argument that “natural” must be best, as well as the argument that they have been used for “thousands of years” by “wise, ancient cultures”

When I hear these people use this fallacious yet very effective marketing tool, I often think of a wonderfully natural herbal medicine used for thousands of years by the wise, ancient American Indians. European settlers soon began using it, and it became one of the most popular herbs used throughout the world. In the early part of last century however, some modern day scientists began to suspect that the herb may be harmful, but given that it was natural and had been used for thousands of years by wise ancient cultures, (the value of which is often regarded far more highly by new age followers than what science is) the initial claims were scoffed at by its proponents and especially the companies who sold it.

It took many decades of intense, scientific research to prove conclusively that it was harmful, after which time not only were the companies who sold it denying this evidence, but it still to this day has not been banned, despite being responsible for more deaths than any war has ever claimed. The wonderfully natural herb I am talking about of course is called tobacco, and unlike popular belief, the chemicals which cause heart disease, cancer and every of the disease in the book are not those added by the cigarette companies; they are those found naturally in the tobacco leaf.

Some of the most toxic substances known to man are perfectly natural. Anything can be harmful or harmless, depending on the dose in which you are exposed ot it. Whether it occurs naturally or not is completely arbitrary, yet it boggles the mind to come across so many people who prefer “natural” approaches because of their misbelieve that they must be safer; they aren’t. So why then do they not carry the horrible warnings on their labels like many prescription drugs do?
There are two reasons for this. The first is that in this country, so long as they are considered a “listed” therapeutic good (as apposed to a registered one) they get to enjoy a different category or regulation. They do not need to be studied to be able to be sold, so long as they have been used for “thousands of years by wise ancient cultures”, even is these wise ancient cultures certainly never used them in the highly concentrated mega-doses available in the”health food “s store, nor did they use them as a daily supplement as we seem to think is okay to do. Some of the substances sold as listed therapeutic goods have not even been studied in animals for goodness sake. Even if they were harmful, unless they were intensely studied, no one would know, especially if the harm came from chronic exposure (similar to that which occurs from years of smoking tobacco, which incidentally, took many years to prove it’s harm).
The other reason is that as a listed therapeutic good (which supplements are) they are not required to list warnings on the labels with the exception of selenium and retinol. Depending on the dose, there is evidence to suggest that many of the most popular vitamins, minerals and herbs may be potentially toxic if taken long term. Because supplement companies are not forced to list warnings on the labels, they don’t; it would only turn away potential customers under the impression that they must be safe.

If you’re really intent on using dietary supplements or herbal medicines, see an appropriately qualified health care professional; preferably one who doesn’t have a financial interest in selling you things you don’t need.

V Shots (there, I said it)

A few weeks ago I was walking along in my local shopping centre when I noticed a bunch of people sitting down talking to a bunch of other people behind laptops. I recalled from a few weeks earlier, my wife said she had been stopped by these people to do some market research, and was rewarded with a free ice cream (as the survey was about ice creams). Given that these market research companies sell this research for a lot of money to the food companies who then use it to increase their profits, I would ordinarily think that exploiting people for a couple of bucks (which is all the ice cream is worth) was pretty stingy, but on this particular occasion, I was starving and felt like a free feed and a sit down.

It turned out that this survey was about a new juice product called "V Shots", which are mixed fruit and veggie juices in 100ml "shot" packages, similar to probiotic drinks. (The juicing fad really is all the trend at the moment. Unfortunately, the consumers buying these things who are more health conscious than they are health-educated, don't realize that the best part gets left behind in the juicer and thrown into the bin.)

Anyway, the survey involved the usual stuff food companies want to know about their customers thoughts, though I was waiting for the typical "which of the following issues do you consider the most important" to come along.

Low and behold, it did.

The question asked: Rank the following in order from most to least important:
1. Eat less carbohydrate
2. Eat less salt
3. Eat less processed foods
4. Eat less food additives
5. Eat less fat
6. Have more calcium
7. Have more protein
8. Eat more fruit and vegetables
9. Get more exercise
10. Have less preservatives

Just out of interest, I ranked them: 9,8,2,5,3,6,7,4,10,1 Of course, which of these issues truly are the most important and which are the least important, are completely arbitrary to the food companies. As I tell my audiences when I speak on this topic; food companies are not particularly interested in making foods that are really good for you - they're interested in making foods that you believe will be good for you. I have no doubt that one of the most popular high ranking responses would have included "eat less preservatives" and "eat less food additives". This is why the whole "natural" thing is a great marketing ploy, and why food companies can splash "no artificial colours", "no artificial flavours" and "no preservatives" across their labels and know that in doing so, they are going to boost sales.

You can even get cough mixture with no colours. Does it actually make a difference? No, 9unless you happen to have an easily diagnosable allergy to specific food colours, though there are far more allergies to "natural" food stuffs such as shellfish, peanuts etc) but lots of parents fear that anything artificial must be bad (what the hell do they think is the active ingredient in the bloody things which treats the cough?).

In fact, the "floor manager" at one pharmacy I worked at even recommended the colourless version to parents, because she even believed that it was a healthier version (having said that, she also believes in Tarot readings as well, so go figure).

The silliest of all examples is the "natural confectionary company". You would think that as human beings, we'd be more intelligent than to be fooled into thinking that some kind of confectionary can actually be healthier, but you'd be wrong. The Natural Confectionary Company has taken advantage of this area of the market; the name of their company is so silly in fact, you'd almost think it were some kind of satire making fun of people’s gullibility. Of course, they don't use any of that artificial stuff like aspartame - no, they only use good old tooth rotting, obesity promoting, insulin resisting SUGAR! But hey; it's natural!

When I was back in uni and doing food product development, I recall sitting in on a guest lecturer who was a flavourer from a chemical company. He told us that if you extracted the chemical compound from a natural source which gave a particular thing its characteristic flavour, you could get away with calling it "natural". If however you synthesized the same compound in a lab, you couldn't. Keep in mind that it is the precise same compound, in the precise same dose which will be metabolized through the precise same pathways in the body. Guess which one you can sell for more than 10 times to the food companies in order for them to be able to make claims about having no artificial ingredients in it.

As nutritionist and food technologists, we all had a bit of a giggle about this silliness, but seeing not only that people actually fall for this trickery and that food companies have no problem in exploiting their ignorance; I'm now more inclined to cry than laugh.

Oh by the way, after completing the survey (which took almost half an hour) I was then told that had I have given more positive responses to the questions (about the "V Shot" survey) then I would have been given a free sample to try, but because I was so negative about it, I got nothing. I asked the person who had just interviewed me: 'This is your job, so you make money out of this right? And the market research company you work for will make money from this, and the food company they sell it to will make money from this - yet I get absolutely nothing for my time?" She reiterated that from the results of my survey, I obviously wasn't interested in the product enough to get a free sample (which would have been to the value of about $1) and was told to go away. And by the way; to be eligible to even start the survey, I was not allowed to have any ties to the food industry at all (it said nothing about running a blog that criticized it).

Furthermore, once I was done, I had to sign a document promising that I would not mention anything about the contents of the survey or the name of the product (that's "V Shots") to anyone else, as it was a product ("V Shots") which had not yet hit the shelves and they did not want competitor companies to know about it. ("V Shots" that is) Wouldn't it be a shame if someone were to write to every food company in the country and tell them that a single serve 100ml "shot" of mixed fruit and veggie juice was about to be released onto the market ("V shots")

Ask your pharmacist? No thanks!

If you live in Australia, then I'm sure you've heard the phrase "ask your pharmacist". Having worked in pharmacies myself, I can tell you that a pharmacist’s job is extremely dull. They pretty much just take prescriptions, type up the doctors instructions, print it out, stick it on the pack and hand it to the customer. Imagine going to university for several years just to do that!

To give them something to do, occasionally they will ask something along the lines of "have you taken this medication before" etc. They just love it when people actually talk to them about their health, probably because it makes them feel less like a person who just types up doctors instructions all day, and more like a real health care professional (which is why they wear the white coats - do you really think that they are dealing with messy chemicals they need a white coat to protect themselves from?). Think about how you would feel if you'd just gone to university for a long time to become an expert on medicines, you go out into a clinical setting decked out in the white coat, and nobody treats you like a health care professional. It would suck.

I'm sure that with the large numbers of people who are taking combinations of medications and over the counter pharmacy only medicines, its a good idea to get people to discuss it with their pharmacist (especially given that a lot of people won't bother going to a doctor just to discuss over the counter medicines). No doubt this is the reason the pharmacists guild would like to promote as their reason to start the "ask your pharmacist" campaign, though I highly suspect that a large contributing reason is simply to give pharmacists something to do and help them feel a bit more important.

If it sounds like I'm pharmacist bashing, well I'm not; not yet anyway. I'm sure there are plenty of very good, very honest and very knowledgably pharmacists out there, and I am all for people discussing their medicines with their pharmacist. Anyway, my gripe is not with pharmacists just for being pharmacists. My gripe comes with the fact that here we have a profession of people which we are supposed to trust as reliable health care professionals, when in fact a lot of them (that I now at least) are becoming not much more than glorified naturopaths.

A large portion of dietary supplements, herbal medicines, homeopathic remedies and weight loss scams are sold in pharmacies. Remember the fact that a pharmacy is a shop, not a clinic, and that it is a business, not a non-profit organization. The more the proprietor (usually the head pharmacist) sells, the more he or she takes home in their pay check. Keeping this in mind, answer me this: what incentive would they have to give honest advice if it means that they are going to earn less money?

The first popper job I got when I first left uni was in a pharmacy; a fairly large one who like many others now, focused largely on nutritional supplements (the business even had the word "nutrition" in its title, and when you walked into the store, there were signs all over the place saying "ask to speak to one of our nutritionists").

Essentially, the plan was that when a person came to the counter to get the prescription filled (usually an elderly pensioner) the pharmacist was to bring them over to me who was supposed to fill their basket up with "natural remedies" for whatever condition they had. I was supposed to learn from the boss, a pharmacist with a "Diploma" in nutrition, who therefore thought it was alright for him to call himself a nutritionist.

The first few days involved me following him around giving advice to customers (sorry, patients) firstly about pharmacy only medicines, and then follow as they went over to the vitamin isle to stock up on herbs and supplements. I even recall a woman complaining of insomnia who was sensitive to Valerian, so he sold her an iron and herb elixir with a homeopathic melatonin remedy (an extra $30 or so in his pocket in one hit!). He never really asked about their other symptoms or existing medical history, but instead was too busy explaining how these magical herbs and vitamins helped restore energy to the body to get it working well again.

A few weeks later, one poor woman came into the stall telling me she had been diagnosed with depression (which was obvious by talking to her) but she hated "drugs" so she had come to our shop because she new that she could get a naturopathic approach. She was asking me for the mega dose B vitamins and the ginseng, because that’s what the boss had told her to take last time she was in the store. I tried to talk her into following her doctor’s instructions instead, but to little avail.

Essentially, I was not employed to give honest advice. I did anyway; so suffice it to say, the job didn't last long. I wonder why.The next interview was at another major pharmacy in the western Sydney area, which is renowned for its weight loss program. Whilst I was waiting for the boss to interview me, I sat in the call centre for a while both to listen in on the calls and to read the bosses instructional booklet he sold to "patients" (which was full of inaccuracies). Despite many of the "consultants" being trained nutritionists (most if them were students I suspected) their advice to callers simply involved reading the instructions the boss had written down for them. They were walking, talking puppets.

I didn't go to uni for 5 years to become a puppet. If the weight loss program has have been something actually worthwhile, then maybe I'd have shown a bit of enthusiasm, but it wasn't; it was yet another bloody pharmacy based meal replacement shake program. Of all the weight loss strategies which actually make people lose weight, this is the type I despise the most. I'll discuss this in more detail in a future post, but basically; they are nutritionally inadequate, they contain as many Calories as a low calorie meal (which would be much healthier but not give money to the pharmacy) and can not be followed long term. Once people have lost weight using these schemes, they will inevitably put it all back on because during this time, they learnt no new skills or motivation (it only made things even simpler for them temporarily). The pharmacy walks away with their money of course, which is all that really matters.

In fact, when I was in the process of setting up my personal consulting business, I contacted few pharmacies in the local area to see if they would be interested in contracting a real nutritionist to give real dietary advice to people instead of the typical quick fix meal replacement approach. At one pharmacy, when I asked whether they had a nutritionist or dietitian there, I was told "umm...yes, no, well, umm...err..kind of..sort of..well..what was it in regards to?" I replied "it’s to lose weight, but my doctor told me I should see a qualified nutritionist” They then told me that yes, they had an optislim program there, and two of the pharmacists had "done the optislim course with the whole, nutrition thing". I should have told them that I have read a book on pharmacology and read the labels on my medicines and asked whether that makes me a pharmacist..

As another pharmacists informed me, it would be unlikely if I found any pharmacy willing to take on the idea I was proposing, because as I had rightly said, people were looking for a "quick fix" and it's the quick fix that generates a lot of money in a short amount of time.

This annoyance came to a peak only a few weeks ago when I saw an advertisement on television discussing childhood obesity and the importance of good nutrition. The thing that annoyed me however was when the commercial ended by saying "talk you your doctor, or ask your pharmacists". Ask your pharmacist about nutrition? You must be joking right! I wrote the following letter to the Daily Telegraph. (I think it pretty much sums up my thoughts on this matter) I'm not sure if it was ever printed, though given that the ad didn't last long, I doubt it would have.

Being a nutritionist and having worked closely with parents, teachers and
schools, I am well aware of the problems associated with the growing epidemic of
childhood obesity. Consequently, my ears pricked up and I began to utter a quiet
"thank goodness" the other day when a television commercial popped onto my
screen which started discussing the growing problem of childhood obesity and the
importance of good nutrition. My temporary relief however quickly turned to
concern when instead of advising telling people seek advice from their doctor or
dietitian, the commercial ended by advising us all to discuss this issue with
our doctor or pharmacist.

Unfortunately, pharmacies are often the most commonly purchased source of useless supplement pills, diet powders and snake oil potions, as many pharmacists have come to realize that that their income can be significantly enhanced by selling these products; sales of which have been growing enormously over the past two decades. Not all dietary supplements are useless of course, but asking some pharmacists about nutrition would be akin to asking a motor mechanic about your kitchen plumbing, though at least the mechanic would be unlikely to try to sell you unnecessary plumbing material.

I am all for people discussing weight loss and nutrition-related issues with their doctor. Having worked with pharmacists however, I have little confidence in their judgment on this issue; firstly because many have inadequate nutrition training to begin with, and secondly because they have little or no incentive to give honest advice to their customers when it comes to diet-related problems.

By all means, when it comes to pharmacy-only medicines, "ask your pharmacist" as they say. Not all pharmacists nutrition advice in unreliable of course, however if a pharmacist starts recommending you buy diet supplements or weight loss powders, my advice would be to grab your wallet and run; preferably to your doctor or a dietitian.

Stuart Adams
Nutrition Australia, NSW Committee Member

I must admit that the major problem here is when you are getting advice from a pharmacist who is the business proprietor. I do know a handful of pharmacists who exert a scientific view of complementary medicines, though they are simply employees in a pharmacy owned by someone else and don't make more money with more sales. My advice would be to be careful when the pharmacist or their assistant starts suggesting you buy other over the counter medicines with your prescription. This is a common tactic all pharmacies use to boost sales. Always ask your doctor first.

Funnily enough, despite one of the most popular pharmacy based very low caloric diet (VLCD) weight loss quacks ensuring us on his television commercial that his program is “medically approved” (what the hell does this actually mean?) and his literature boasting that it’s safe for children, fortunately, the pharmacists guild has issues this statement regarding the issues;

If your child is overweight is important to seek help from a health professional
as it can be dangerous for them to be placed on calorie restricted diets. You
can talk to your doctor or seek the help of a dietitian.

Maybe they read my letter.

Low on Energy? Centrum can help relieve you of your money!

Given that we live in an age and place where 2/3 of the adult population are overweight or obese, most people do not get enough exercise, many people are over stressed and most people do not get enough quality sleep, it's not at all unusual to hear an adult complain that they are feeling "low on energy".

Rather than look to their weight, exercise, stress or sleep for answers, I find that many people look first to their diet and particularly their nutritional status. Whilst there are indeed some aspects of a persons diet which may aid in "boosting" their energy levels, the first things most people want to ask me is "which supplements will give me more energy".

I'm sure that I'm not the only one that is aware of this common way of thinking among the lay public; that's what market research is for. It is therefore no surprise to see the introduction of "energy drinks" over the last few years, and especially to see multivitamin supplements marketing on the concept of "energy".

Although a lot of them either use the words "energy" or the phrase "unlock energy" in their advertisements, most of them at least give some kind of innuendo that taking their multivitamin will help give you plenty of energy to sustain you throughout the day. The main two offenders that come to mind of late are Centrum and Natures Way; the latter even having the word "energy" in the product title.

The Centrum ploy is not new; Robert DeCastella has been on their payroll for years: "Do you feel 100%" he says. "Centrum can help". No doubt there are a lot of people out there who do not feel 100%, but other than providing a nice little placebo effect, it is very unlikely that Centrum or nay other vitamin supplement is going to help.

The Bercocca campaign is not all that different; usually showing a bunch of people being active, alert and awake throughout a whole day or more, apparently thanks to Berocca. Berocca is actually one of the silliest ones, because for approximately thd same dose, you will pay about 10 times more for them for the trendy gimmick of being dissolved in water (which is actually a disadvantage as it can therefore contain only water soluble vitamins)

So am I saying that these things don't "work"? But they give you energy don't they? Or they help "unlock" energy, don't they?

To understand why this clever yet deceitful marketing strategy is utter nonsense, you first thing you need to understand is what energy actually is. There is a big difference between chemical energy, and feeling energetic.

In terms of nutrition, chemical energy is measured in kilojoules or Calories. One gram of protein or carbohydrate provides you with 4 Calories, whilst 1 gram of fat provides you with 9 Calories. According to this principle, if you wanted a boost of energy, you should go out and eat a big old block of coking lard; it's got more energy in it per serve than most foods do.

The problem is however that most people are actually consuming more energy than they need, which ends up contributing towards weight gain as fat storage. In fact, an estimated 2/3 of the Australian adult population is consuming more energy than what they need, and are therefore overweight or obese. But the common catch cry is that they help "release” or “unlock energy". What does this actually mean?

Some vitamins such as most in the B group act by influencing metabolic pathways to allow the energy in carbohydrates, fats and proteins to actually be converted into that which the body can use. If you became deficient in one of these vitamins (such as thiamine for example) then over a long period of time, you would not be able to use much of the energy you are ingesting, and would eventually become weak and fatigued, developing a deficiency disease called beri beri.

The funny thing is that a few popular weigh loss methods actually aim at interfering with these enzymes, therefore supposedly inhibiting you from "unlocking this energy". White kidney bean is supposed to (but probably doesn’t) inhibit amylase, whilst Xenical (orlistat) is very effective at inhibiting lipase, thereby inhibiting your digestive tract from catabolzing and therefore absorbing fat. So why would you want to "unlock" any more of this chemical energy than what yo need to?

Well, you probably wouldn't. The truth is that the people who market these things know that most people don't know the difference between chemical energy, and feeling energetic or emotional energy. Knowing full well that plenty of people are lacking in emotional energy, supplement companies deliberately use this ploy, firstly because it works (they know that people often turn to vitamin pills for "energy") and secondly because technically, it's not incorrect. So long as they say things like "unlocking energy" then they are technically right - they are of course referring to chemical energy, additional levels of which may actually help you store more body fat!

But maybe your lack of energy might actually be from beri beri or some other vitamin deficiency? No, that's not likely. Unlike the common misconception which vitamin pushers would like you to believe, most Australians are consuming levels of vitamins and minerals in excess of the recommended dietary intake (RDI) a level which I might add, is significantly greater than what we really need to avoid a deficiency anyway. (click here to read more about this issue)

But maybe providing the body with whopping amounts of micronutrients like B vitamins might have some kind of pharmacological effect and act like some kind of energy stimulant right? Well if it did, there is certainly no evidence to suggest that it does. Nonetheless, consumer research no doubt says that people believe that B vitamins will give them energy, so companies selling them will inevitably continue marketing upon that concept. As silly as it sounds, most naturopaths and quacks masquerading as “nutritional therapists” (and even some disgusting pharmacists which Ihave had the displeasure of knowing) recommend taking whopping doses of B vitamins to help boost energy in people who may well have a more serious underlying problem. (poor sleep, stress and poor fitness are common examples, but less common ones include a multitude of serious medical conditions even including some forms of cancer)

I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there that report feeling that they have "much more energy" after taking these things. In fact, having "much more energy" is pretty much the most common benefit reported by all sorts of snake oils and magic cures, including Alex Chiu's "Immortality Device"

There is of course no way to measure a persons "energy levels" other than by asking them, so unless their metabolism is significantly affected, the affect will be largely psychological, which is why I referred to it as "emotional energy". One might reasonably suggest that so long as a perceived benefit exists, then it doesn’t really matter that it is purely psychological. That's fine if you can afford it and if you don't mind contributing towards the wealth of professional con artists, but if you're a vulnerable elderly pensioner (which many supplement users are) then I'm sorry; I can not and will not condone this.

There are some dietary issues which can contribute towards your energy levels; a topic which I have lectured on a handful of times to various government, corporate and community audiences (including this one) The most significant tips I can give you to help boost your energy other than looking after your sleep, stress and fitness include: staying adequately hydrated, eating small, frequent low glycemic index meals, maintaining a healthy body weight and seeing your doctor to get check ups. Don’t assume that you have a nutritional deficiency, and if you do suspect that you do, go and get a blood test, especially before you decide to try and treat yourself with massive doses of B vitamins or iron; the latter of which can be very harmful if used inappropriately, even though it is among the most common supplements bought by people trying to treat themselves for “low energy” who have just assumed they must have low iron levels.

You can read more about the need (or lack thereof ) for additional vitamins here.

You can read a ciritical review of a Centrum advertisment here.

You can read about why taking advice from health food store workers is a bad idea here.

You can read more about the placebo effect here

Nestle® Club™ Dark Chocolate

Now with antioxidants, (oh yeah, and with 52% sugar and a whopping dose of Calories)

The largest food company in the world have recently been growing larger. Nestle' bought out Uncle Toby’s a few weeks ago, and have recently taken over Jenny Craig as well (I'm guessing the companys directors favourite board game is Monopoly.) Their marketing strattegies have evidently been attempting to focus more heavily on nutrition, as evidenced by their latest "good" this and "good" that campaign. (You can read their latest action plan here) Given the increasing proportion of the population becoming concerned about good nutrition, this is not a terribly surprising marketing strategy.

Something else which is not surprising is the fact that they have contracted an athlete (in this case Netballer Liz Ellis) to be the spokesperson in their television commercials. Using athletes is a common marketing ploy food and supplement companies use to promote the impression of good health, as the public typically perceive (if only subconsciously) athletes to somehow represent being healthy. When we think about it, an athlete looking to increase their income through sponsorship deals is not only NOT an expert on any medically-related issue, but they would probably say just about anything if they were handed a large enough bundle of money. That's only if we actually think about it however, which unfortunately, many of us don't. Given that Nestle is the most powerful food company in the world, I suspect their consumer research must have identified Liz Ellis being a pretty popular sports personality (I've even been involved in surveys where they try to find out which athletes you find the most credible.)

Nestle are not the only ones guilty of this sort of thing. In fact, it's difficult to spot an add for a food or supplement trying to market itself as being "healthy" which is not narrated by a sporting personality. Dennis Lillie has been bought out by BioOrganics, Robert DeCastella receives his cheques from the people who make Centrum, Kieran Perkins sold out to Fijian Noni Juice, half the Australian cricket team is on Sanitariums payroll to flog Wheat Bix, Suzie O’neils face is on a brand of eggs (are they suggesting she laid them herself?) and Ian Thorpe even has his own special brand of packaged tuna!!! As silly as it may sound to our logical brain, there will inevitably be plenty of people out there who will chose their brand of vitamins depending on whether they think Dennis Lillie or Robert DeCastella are more credible; despite the fact that both are simply reading from a bloody auto queue.

Anyway, Nestle have been doing a few questionable promotions lately. They sponsor a pet show which recommends Purina One (one of the many brands that Nestlé own) pet food for just about everything, though the ones that caught my attention the most were the recent ones which Liz Ellis has been improving her acting skills with; particularly the one for Club dark chocolate.

Although the add has only aired a handful of times (and seems to have vanished this week) we see Ellis lazily lying back looking oh-so comfortable as she snacks on some Club dark chocolate which she gives the impression we can feel comfortable about eating now because it’s got “antioxidants”. From a psychological perspective, this is very clever marketing. No doubt plenty of chocolate lovers out there feel guilty about snacking on their favorite treat because they know that its junk food and full of added Calories. The way the commercial shows Ellis lounging around laying back comfortably is no doubt designed to give the impression that we can now relax and stop worrying about feeling guilty for eating chocolate, so long as we eat Club Dark Chocolate.

And why is it that we can feel nice and relaxed about eating it? Because “now” it’s got ANTIOXIDATNS! (Well done FSANZ; yet another blunder to allow junk food companies to print misleading claims on their labels.)

Funnily enough, the issue of dark chocolate and health benefits is something I wrote about recently in a feature article published in the most recent addition of Pabulum, the national journal of Nutrition Australia. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that only a month or so later, Nestle have decided to capitalize on the latest fad: antioxidants. To explain the problem with this commercial, I need to explain why the “antioxidant” thing is not much more than just another silly fad.

In biochemistry, antioxidants are substances that protect various parts of the cell against lipid peroxidation caused by reactive oxygen species also referred to as “free radicals”. It is hypothesized that lipid peroxidation plays at least some role in the pathogenesis of diseases such as atherosclerosis (which causes cardiovascular disease), cancer, macular degeneration and Alzherimer’s Disease. The etiology of these diseases are very complex, multifactorial and very poorly understood. Even if the whole “free radical” theory did affect these pathologies, it is likely to be minimal.

Whilst lab studies have probably found great and wonderful benefits by using antioxidants to block free radicals in cells or in rodents, they don’t appear to be doing much in the human population. There have been many clinical trials conducted over the past decade or so, designed to test whether antioxidant nutrients (vitamin e, vitamin C, beta carotene and selenium) can protect against heart disease or cancer; they don’t. Some studies have even found that supplemental doses of these nutrients can even increase the risk, such as large doses of vitamin e which increased all cause mortality (death) and beta-carotene which increased the risk of lung cancer.

Population studies as well as intervention studies have found very strong evidence that diets rich in fruits, veggies and wholegrain foods can decrease the risk of heart disease and certain cancers. Although these foods contain more substances than we can count which possess more biochemical mechanisms than we can measure, for some reason when trying to explain why they work so well, it seems a lot simpler for some people to just say ‘it’s the antioxidants’. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

Above is a graph which compares the antioxidant activity of various fruits and veggies with green tea and black tea (on the far left). Notice that there is a significantly higher activity of tea. According to the antioxidant story, tea drinkers should therefore have the greatest protection against these diseases. They don’t, at least not as great as people who eat plenty of fruits and veggies. Some population studies have found that black tea may decrease the risk of heart disease, though the evidence is very conflicting and inconclusive. Lots of case-control studies among the Asian populations have found a lower risk of cancer among those who drink lots of green tea, however most prospective cohort studies (a much better design) have found no significant protection against most cancers. This doesn’t mean that tea is useless against these diseases however, but they certainly aren’t much good compared with fruits and veggies, despite the massive difference in antioxidant activity.

Now let’s look how cocoa rates. As we can see from this graph, cocoa has a higher antioxidant activity even still, whilst coffee reins supreme. If the antioxidant theory is all it’s cracked up to be, then whilst tea drinkers must be a pretty healthy bunch, us heavy coffee drinkers must be pretty much invincible. Whilst there is some weak evidence to suggest a decrease in the risk of colon cancer and type 2 diabetes among coffee drinkers, it’s not much to get excited about.

So if the benefit of antioxidants is not so beneficial after all, why is it that we keep hearing about it so much? Unfortunately, it comes down to one word: marketing. It’s new, it’s a fad, and its simple. For example, rather than explaining that the suggested cancer-protecting mechanisms of green tea are though to arise from the ability to promote apoptosis, stabilize the p53 tumour suppressor gene, inhibit angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor phosphorylation, inhibit nitrosation reactions involved in carcinogenicity, modulate cellular proliferation by inhibiting signal transduction pathways leading to the activation of important transcription factors activator protein 1 (AP-1) and nuclear factor B (NF-B), inhibit urokinase (uPA) activity, inhibiting other enzymes related to tumour promotion such as cyclooxygenase and lipoxygenase, inhibition of activator protein-1, inducing Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory drug activated Gene (NAG-1) expression, inhibition of the cancer-associated enzyme telomerase ,modulation of carcinogen-metabolizing enzymes and trapping of ultimate carcinogens and reducing the production of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2)……it’s a lot simpler for the clowns who man supplement companies stalls at the Mind Body Spirit Festival to simply tell you that “they’ve got antioxidants which protect against free radicals that cause cancer”. (Don’t even get me started on the multitude of mechanisms involved in the etiology of carcinogenesis……)

So what about Dark Chocolate? Even though the antioxidant ploy may be a bit of marketing hype, doesn’t it contain at least some benefit? Well, a handful of studies have found inconsistent results which suggest that it may help dilate the blood vessels (bad news for migraine sufferers) to promote flow mediated dilation which may be beneficial for people with hypertension. It’s effect on serum cholesterol levels have been contradictory. Two studies found it improved insulin function, whilst one study found it increased serum insulin concentrations without affecting blood glucose. In other words, we don’t know much about it’s effects, but most significantly is the fact that these studies used very rich dark chocolate, which is closer to Lindt 85% Cocoa; a taste most Australians have not acquired and would probably turn their nose up to.

So even if Cocoa was as wonderful as what some would believe, how much of it is in Nestle Club? Well it’s never good news to see a dark chocolate (which is supposed to be more rich in cocoa than milk chocolate) whose first ingredient is Sugar. The label doesn’t say how much cocoa it contains, but we do know that its major ingredient is sugar, which makes up 52%, so it’s pretty weak compared to Lindt 85% Cocoa and the versions used in those studies I mentioned.

Funnily enough when Liz was looking so comfortable with how healthy Club chocolate was, she forgot to mention that more than 52% of the product was good old teeth-rotting sugar. Still feeling relaxed? Well there’s more.

I spent quite a while tonight at my local supermarket trying to find a product which per 100g, contained more Calories than dark chocolate, and finally I found one; Allowrie cooking Lard! That was about it. Oh yeah, they also forgot to mention that per 100g, Club dark chocolate contains 2,140kj. That’s about 513 Calories. Each block is 200g, so if you were to eat the whole thing (which for a sweet tooth chocolate lover, it would be difficult not to) that’s over 1000 Calories in one go. Not too good when you consider that most people only actually burn up about 1800 – 2000 Calories per day.

Given that 2/3 of the Australian adult population are overweight or obese (which means they are consuming too many Calories as it is) I don’t think that adding dark chocolate to their diet would do anything else than turn us into a nation of fatties, or at least a nation of fatties who are even fatter than we are currently. It’s a pretty silly thing to do especially given that dark chocolate has been falsely promoted in the media as a way to protect against heart disease, hypertension and diabetes, given that obesity is the greatest risk factors for these diseases.

I wondered if Liz actually takes her own auto-queued advice and eats the stuff herself. When I picture Liz chomping down on Nestle Club (in her netball uniform of course) for some reason, Magda Szubanskis character in “Kath and Kim” comes to mind. (I wonder why)

If you would like some more info about the health effects of dark chocolate and cocoa, you can click here to read the article I published about it recently in Pabulum. If you would like to read more about the worthlessness of antioxidants and other marketing nonsense that supplement companies use to try to get use to believe things which simply aint’ so, then click here to read an article I wrote about it published recently in the Skeptic.

I should point out that Nestle' are not particularly evil, greedy bastards or anything like that; they are just doing the same thing that any other food company does or would do if they could, given the fact that they can due to inadequate legislation and general consumer ignorance. Nestle actually have a relatively good nutrition website which you can view here.

Kellogg's LCMs Bars: The "goodness" of what?

I'm sure that most parents would not consider a food containing 30% sugar to be a healthy snack to add to their children's lunchbox. Kellogg’s is probably quite sure of this as well, which is probably why they don't mention it in their latest television commercial for LCMs Rice Bubble bars. Whilst I don not really consider this particular product to be especially more unhealthy than many of the other snack bars available on the super market shelf, I do have a problem with the fact that parents viewing these commercials may be under a false impression about its nutritional value.

The commercial I am referring to involves a school teacher (presumably the principal) speaking into a microphone which can be heard by the kids throughout a primary school. She mentions that a lunch box has been found in the playground, and lists various healthy foods which she found in it (such as fruit, water bottle and wholegrain sandwich). When she says "...and a Kellogg’s LCMs bar", we see the children suddenly becoming very excited as they all bolt for the door, presumably rushing to claim the lunchbox as theirs. The commercials voice over then goes on to describe how great the product is, noting that it contains no artificial colours, is less than 10% fat and contains the "goodness of puffed rice".

I have two problems with this commercial, though both involve the fact that Kellogg’s are trying to promote this product as being healthy, specifically by targeting parents concern for the nutritional quality of the snack foods they provide, exploiting their probable ignorance of a few simple concepts, and hoping that they either don't or can't actually read the label. It's not uncommon for food companies to try to promote children’s food products as being healthy. I'm sure their consumer research reveals to them the same thing that my experience with parents has revealed to me; that parents are worried about what they give their kids and feel a lot better by thinking that their snack foods are a healthy choice. If Kellogg’s simply tried to market their product as being tasty, then I would not be so concerned, but the 'healthy' marketing trick is what got my attention.

The first issue is the fact that whilst the commercial does not say anything that is technically incorrect, they deliberately hide some of their "facts" in a manner that may potentially be misleading. The first instance is where we conveniently hear that the Kellogg’s LCMs bar has been placed in a lunch box with other healthy lunch foods such as fruit, water and whole meal bread; things which most parents participating in Kellogg’s focus group studies would have probably listed as being thought of as nutritious. By including the LCMs bar in amongst this list of other healthy foods was probably a deliberate tactic to create the subconscious impression in parents minds to think of Kellogg’s LCMs bars when they think of healthy lunch box snacks.

The other place that technical facts are cleverly snuck in among health-promoting wording (and perhaps the silliest thing about the whole add) is where the voice over mentions that the product contains "the goodness of puffed rice". Most people may think of rice as a typically healthy food, and not realise that in reality, there is nothing "good" about puffed rice at all. The reason that rice is often considered a relatively acceptable filler in young kids meals is because it provides a source of energy (not as much a problem among infants as it is among primary-school children) which is not coated in sugar or fat and is good for adding vegetables to. On its own however, there is nothing particularly nutritious about rice, especially if it has been milled (stripped of its nutritious bran layer) to produce "white rice". By sneaking the description of "puffed rice" as being prefixed by "the goodness of", the oxymoron would probably sneak by most parents ears without them questioning "what the hell is good about puffed rice?" They may as well have said "...and the goodness of 30% sugar".

And that brings me to the second problem with this commercial; what they DON'T tell you. Whilst they enjoyed creating the illusion to worried parents that they can feel comfortable about including this product in the school lunchbox by using "the goodness of" to prefix the main ingredient and listing other relatively meaningless jargon that sounds healthy such as "no artificial colours" (of all the things parents should be concerned about, this is about one of the last; but no doubt consumer research shows its something parents worry about) they conveniently forgot to leave outthe other ingredients. The product is essentially Kellogg’s rice bubbles in a solidified bar. What do you think they solidified it (stuck it together) with? Here are a few facts the commercial left out:

* The product contains 30% sugar.

* Whilst the main ingredient may be the "goodness of puffed rice" the second main ingredients is sugar, and the third is salt.

* In addition to Kellogg’s rice bubbles already being rich in sugar, to stick the rice bubbles together to form a bar, they added glucose syrup, fructose, sugar, glucose solids and invert sugar. 5 ways to rot your kid’s teeth conveniently packed into the one product.

* Another major ingredient is hydrogenated soybean oil. The product is 9% fat, only 4.4% being saturated. Although the "trans-fats" issue has probably not become as well known in Australia as it has overseas, it is sufficient to say that hydrogenated oils (which form "tans-fats") are bad news. More info available here.

* One thing particularly useful about rice as a grain food is that it is one the few cereal-based foods which can be given to pateints with Celiac Disease because it does not contain gluten. Before Celiac patients or their parents rush out to buy Kellogg's LCMs as a suitable alternative however, you may want to check the label. In addition to pumping the otherwise-not-particularly-unhealthy rice with sugar and trans fats, they decided to throw some gluten in among it.

I am by no means suggesting that Kellogg’s LCMs bars are particularly more unhealthy than many of the other sugar laden junk snacks that fill the shelves in most supermarkets. The major difference is that when it comes to the other sugar-laden junk snacks, they generally don't try to convince parents that they are anything more than sugar-laden junk snacks.

Nutrition Australia has outlined a set of criteria they deem appropriate for children’s foods to contain. For parents looking for suitable snacks and meal choices, their list is a pretty good set of criteria by which to go, though CHOICE magazine has a guide which is also fairy reasonable. To read Kellogg's version, click here.

N.B.: I have recently finished completing a food safety audit and menu audit for a Sydney child care centre, which involved evaluating both their food safety and hygiene practices as well as the nutritional quality of their menu, both of which I might add were of a very high standard(a lot higher than a high school I ran cooking demonstrations at recently where one of the staff couldn't understand why I had thrown out some food which had fallen on the ground, insisting that she could have just washed it off and used it to give the kids). The only problems I found were that their menu contained a few too many "extras" (such as corn chips and biscuits) as what would be preferable. By pointing this out, I am probably making the chef’s job a little more difficult as these foods are perhaps the most convenient, seeing as they are prepackaged and require little preparation. Admittedly, it is difficult to find suitable replacements that are equally as convenient, but I can be certain that I will not be recommending Kellogg’s LCMs bars. (The child care centre my sisters kids attend have already banned Kellogg’s LCMs bars, which tells me that at least one of their staff has mastered the ability to read a food label.)

Introduction & Disclaimer

The purpose of this Blog

Hello and welcome to the Nutra-Smart blog. The purpose of this blog is for myself, Stuart Adams, to post opinions and critical reviews regarding advertising and marketing tactics used by food and supplement companies in Australia.

Inadequate regulation and misleading marketing

I feel that at the present time, there is inadequate legislation in place to inhibit both food and dietary supplement companies from potentially misleading unsuspecting consumers. Whilst the Food Standards Code (compiled by Food Standards Australia New Zealand) and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) stipulate what can be placed on the labels of food and supplements products respectively, I believe that their standards are not strict enough nor are they adequately up-to-date, as food and supplement companies find loop holes to place images and careful wording on their labels which amy be within the stipulated boundaries, but still misleading. Moreover, whilst FSANZ and the TGA can control what food and supplement companies state on their labels, they have little control over what companies are allowed to say in their advertising and marketing material.

Confused Consumers

I believe that there is currently a lot of "grey areas" in regards to regulating how these companies are allowed to market their products. I believe that this is a problem which can leave consumers confused, vulnerable and sometimes completely mislead.

Although a significant portion of the Australian population is probably not at all concerned about nutrition and health, I know that many people (especially parents) are beginning to understand the importance of good nutrition, both for themselves and for their families. From my dealings with the community (especially schools and parents) I also understand that distinguishing the difference between reliable information and promotional hype can be very difficult for those who have little background in this field. Consequently, I have decided to provide my opinions on these issues in order to help Australians make a more informed choice when it comes to nutrition-related areas of concern.

Marketing Ploys

In addition to being a nutritionist, I am a small business owner, and have consequently obtained a business education. I think that having a mixture of nutrition and business background gives me a fairly unique insight into how nutrition and food companies think in terms of marketing.

To give an example; food and supplement companies often have little interest in creating products formulated using nutritionally optimal ingredients, especially if it is going to cost them more to make. Instead, when they create products targeting the health-conscious sector of the community, they rely on market research (consumer surveys and focus group studies) to tell them what consumers THINK is healthy. So long as they make products with ingredients that the average Australian believes is healthy, they know they will make a profit.

To give one simple example; plant-based cooking oils often tout labels reading "Cholesterol Free". For someone with a basic food chemistry background who knows that plants can not produce cholesterol anyway, this is utterly ludicrous; however it is a trick that food companies know will give their product a competitive advantage. over their competitors. Furthermore, anyone with a basic nutrition pathophysiology background would know that cholesterol in food has little effect on serum cholesterol levels (a biomarker of the risk of heart disease) and find this laughable. Market research however shows that the average consumer doesn't know the difference, and will be more likely to select a food if they think it has no cholesterol in it. I could give many more examples (and will in future postings) but this is just one to illustrate the kind of tricky marketing they use to exploit the average Australian consumer’s ignorance and successfully market their products.

Free Advice

It is often difficult to get honest advice for free on any topic. For example; if I had difficulty with my taxes, electricity or motor vehicle, it is unlikely I am going to find an expert in these areas who would be willing to give me some free, honest advice. I am not an accountant, electrician or motor mechanic, so when it comes to these areas, I would be just as confused as anyone else. I am a qualified nutritionist however, so when it comes to issues regarding nutrition and health, I am probably better informed than most. This is one particular area that I believe involves a lot of misleading marketing strategies by food and supplement companies; something which I am adequately equipped to see through and make an informed choice about. I feel therefore feel obligated to make my opinions publicly available, in order to help out consumers who may not have that same luxury. (Now to find an accountant who offers advice for free or sillier yet, a free lawyer.)

Disclaimer

As I said, food and supplement companies use a lot of clever marketing tactics in order to make consumers believe that they would benefit from purchasing their product. This often means bending the truth a bit, and not being entirely honest (unless the law inconveniently gets in the way).

In order to give honest opinions regarding these issues, it is unfortunately necessary that from time to time, I "name names" so to speak. This means mentioning specific companies, specific products and specific commercials. When you mention that specific people or organizations are not as spotlessly ethical as they would like their focus group subjects to indicate, it often means hurting someone’s feelings and risking potential threats or appearances in court.

The reason that little old me feels obligated to discuss these matters here is not because I think that my opinions are any more informed or factual than any other nutritionist (although they may bre more objective than some) it is simply because they are opinions you are unlikely to find anywhere else. Why?

The media usually has little or no incentive to give you honest advice about these issues. This is either because their company has financial ties (advertising etc) to the companies they would have to be criticizing, because they are too afraid of being sued, or because they are too interested in magnificent and fantastic stories (which brings in ratings) to bring you the often boring and not-so-black-and-white facts.

Not-for-profit organizations are often too afraid to "name names" either because they are afraid of being seen as biased, because they want to maintain good relations with these companies or because they are also afraid of trips to court.

Other independent professionals will be unlikely to bring people this information, either because there are very few of them (most nutritionists either work for a food, supplement or other company which means that their hands are tied) or because they don't have the time or motivation to do so. Either that or they don't consider it important enough to bother with. (There are a bunch of medical professionals who call themselves "Healthy Skepticism" whose goal it is to criticize misleading marketing tactics used by companies who make registered therapeutic goods (mostly prescription medication). They do a fine job, but unfortunately, there is no one who seems to think it worth doing the same thing when it comes to food and supplement companies. So here I am.)

Consequently, because I have chosen to do this and because this choice means that I have to "name names", this means that for legal reasons and to save me a few train rides to Museum station, I have to say this: (potential cranky plaintifs may want to read this very carefuly before deciding to contibute towards the private school education of their lawyers kids)

The contents of this website are purely the opinion of its author, Stuart Adams (me). The opinions I express here are honestly upheld, and are true in essence, so far as I am aware. I have no intention to disseminate information which is anything but true; consequently any parties who believe that an opinion I have expressed is inaccurate, should contact me ASAP to inform me of their position statement. So long as their communication is reasonable and well supported, I will publish it unless they request otherwise. If I am made aware of any facts which differ from my opinion, I will alter my postings ASAP to make them as factual as possible. I have no intention other than to provide accurate information, and will go to great lenghts to make sure that information here is as accurate as possible and that differing opinions on matters mentioned here are fairly represented.

No opinion I have expressed on this website has any malicious intent, and is not retaliation for any previous attack or experiences with any particular person or party. Not that it really matter any more (since recent amendments to defamation legislation) but just for the sake of mentioning it; the opinions I have expressed here are in the best interests of the public. So there.

Just so that we're clear, I have no financial interest in any people, company or product I mention on this website. The opinions expressed here are not paid for and are not based on any financial incentive.

As delightful as I find bowing to grown men wearing funny looking wigs, I would prefer that anyone who has a problem with anything I have said, contact me to discuss it on this side of the metal detectors. As I believe I have adequately stressed, I will go to great lengths to ensure that no defamation takes place (by myself) on this website. If you decide that it has and decide that a trip to Museum station will be the best way to have me change my opinion, you may want to consult a law-talkin' guy who can explain to you that I am not the only one who finds unreasonable trips to court unlikely to result in anything other than funding their yacht collection.