The Food Programme Radio 4: Transfats are poisonous. Why is the Food Industry still allowed to put them into our food?

The transfats to which I refer are the artificial transfats that are added to food products, mainly in order to increase their shelf-life. In other words, they increase the profits of the food manufacturers. Artificial transfats are not a natural constituent of any food whatsoever. The body does not have a natural way to metabolise them. It cannot use them as food, because they are not food. They are toxic to the body. Toxic is a synonym for poisonous. For most consumers it is next door to impossible to know whether some of the foods they buy contain any of these poisons or not, and if they do contain any of these poisons, how much? and how much harm will they do? They damage your body and your brain. They contribute to your risk of stroke, heart disease, memory problems, dementia and more.

On the Food Programme on Radio 4 this week "Sheila Dillon investigates the issue of trans-fats in our food, and asks whether a voluntary agreement by the food industry to eliminate them by the end of the year is enough to prevent the kind of health problems associated with a diet heavy in industrial cooking fats." - I can tell you the answer to that question right now: it isn't...)o: - No way! No! It is not!

If you listen to this programme on iPlayer you will hear Sheila Dillon ask pertinent questions and you will hear slithering responses just as oily and toxic as the transfat content the apologists seek to defend. And do not be fooled by the talk of small quantities and of small percentages of calories from these transfats. They are very harmful even in very small quantities. And the damage they do is cumulative. - Remember the old adage: poison comes in small packages!

If you eat shop-bought biscuits, cakes, bread, pizzas, margarine, vegetable shortening, ice-cream, puddings & pudding mixes, ready-made pies, some confectionery - this list is not exhaustive - then you will almost certainly have eaten artificial transfats. Some groups of people are more reliant on processed foods than others are, and some groups of people, e.g. people whose health is already compromised by degenerative disease, are more vulnerable to the harm that artificial transfats cause in the body.

Unfortunately, the groups most at risk from these transfats are of minor importance to UK legislators. Otherwise there would be a BAN on adding these poisons to our food. Adding these poisons to our food swells the profits of the Food Industry, i.e. big business. Food Manufacturers are the groups whose welfare is important to our legislators. Their welfare is paramount.

That processed foods so often contain artificial transfats is yet another reason why, as far as you can, you would do well to avoid processed food, and eat fresh food that you eat raw, or that you cook yourself.

Seriously, why are we even considering more junk additives in processed food, instead of simply banning the salt?

Seriously, why is anyone even considering more junk additives in processed food, instead of simply banning the salt? See today's Sunday Telegraph article. - Do you really fancy a bit of dental plaque(!) mixed in with your ready-meal? your cornflakes? your slice of toast? - Of course you don't!

The Food Standards Agency should stop playing about, and so should the Dept of Health and Andrew Lansley. They should all get it made illegal to add salt to processed food and thereby do what they are purportedly paid for, i.e. protect the health of UK citizens against the self-serving interests of the Food Industry. - And while they're about it, ban the addition of transfats too! - Come on, Mr Lansley! - Show us what you're made of! - Prove that you are not influenced against such a ban because of a conflict of interest that favours food manufacturers.

Junk Food Makers are targeting children on the internet

Junk Food Makers reach children on internet - Telegraph

Extract:

"Food manufacturers were criticised yesterday for targeting their advertising at children on the internet and social networking websites.

Several major food companies have begun using the sites to promote their products following a ban on junk food advertising on television.In April, Ofcom, which regulates broadcasters, outlawed all adverts to children under nine years old that promoted sugary, salty or fatty foods. At the end of the year the ban extends to 15-year-olds.

However, Ofcom has no remit to regulate the internet, and adverts on websites are self-regulated by the advertising industry. The ban on junk food advertising also does not cover the cinema.

Campaigners argue that fast food chains and sweet companies are adopting new tactics to get around the TV ban.

Skittles, which are made by the confectionery giant Mars, have a profile on the popular social networking site Bebo. The page has already been viewed more than 50,000 times and attracted more than 3,500 "friends".

Meanwhile McDonald's is also targeting children on the internet. It features a Kids Zone on its website, which lets children play games that feature the company's clown mascot, Ronald McDonald.

In cinemas, the sugary cereal Coco Pops has placed adverts before the new Harry Potter film. Kellogg's, which makes Coco Pops, admits the advert would not be allowed during a children's programme on television.

Campaigners argue that all these tactics break the spirit, if not the letter, of the new regulations. Richard Watts, who heads the Sustain campaign, which has fought against junk food advertising, said: "I don't think it is a legitimate tactic to shift their advertising in this way. If Ofcom thinks that under 16-year-olds should be protected, that is a principle that should be carried through to other media. The country has to decide - given the rates of childhood obesity - whether we make sure all marketing is regulated or whether we let the problem continue.""

It is a high salt intake that causes child obesity. - See http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/children.html

Lose weight by eating less salt! Go on! - Try it! - You will feel so much better!
How to Lose weight!

See my website http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/.html
(The site does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.)

Read my Mensa article on Obesity and the Salt Connection

See Sodium in foods and Associated health conditions

I can be contacted via my website if you need my further help. My help is free.

Salt consumption in Britain is falling but still 50 per cent higher than advised, claims Food Standards Agency.

Salt consumption falling but still 50 per cent higher than advised

Extract:

"Salt consumption in Britain has dropped but is still on average 50 per cent higher than the recommended amount, new research claims. Tests on 1,287 adults showed their average salt intake was 9g per day compared to 9.5g when tests were done in 2001.

But consumption is still higher than the Government's national target of 6g per day, the Food Standards Agency said.

The urinary sodium tests carried out in 2005-06 showed men consumed an average 10.2g of salt per day compared to 11g in 2001.

Women's average intake was less at 7.6g per day - down from 8.1g in 2005/06.

The results follow a Food Standards Agency campaign encouraging people to cut their salt intake. The campaign warns that 75 per cent of salt eaten in Britain is found in processed food."

It is scandalous that successive governments and their negligent Departments of Health delayed until 2003 warning British citizens that salt intake could be too high and could cause serious illness and early death. AND THEY ARE STILL NOT TELLING PEOPLE THAT TO LOSE EXCESS WEIGHT THEY NEED TO REDUCE SALT/SODIUM INTAKE AND NOT REDUCE CALORIES, BECAUSE OBESITY IS CAUSED BY FLUID RETENTION, NOT BY EATING TOO MANY CALORIES. - I certainly do not believe that all the expensive government advisors are so ill-informed that they do not know this to be the case. I believe that the reason we are being constantly exhorted to eat less salt is in the pious hope that obesity will thereby be reduced - but will be attributed to an increase in exercise, about which we are also being constantly exhorted. 'Experts'on eating problems have a big eating problem of their own; they do not relish having to eat their own words. - They are hoping to get away with it - get away with not being forced to admit that their calorie and overeating claims of the past are not only needless and ineffective, but are also counter-productive - more likely to cause weight gain than weight loss in obese people, because eating insufficient calories causes increased water retention in the blood stream. And of course the ones who know the truth are hoping desperately to hide the truth so that they do not get sued by the thousands and thousands of innocent people who have been greatly harmed by the misinformation the 'experts' have been giving for many years. - If the truth were to be told - that to lose excess weight the calorie myth must be abandoned and the obese person needs to cut down seriously on salt/sodium intake - then obese people could concentrate on eating less sodium instead of wasting any more of their lives on the dangerous course of eating fewer calories than the body needs. - And they would rapidly and safely lose weight - without hunger, without drugs, without strenuous exercise and without fail.

1 Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease 1994 This COMA report considered the evidence for a causal relationship between the consumption of sodium and both the level of blood pressure and the rise in blood pressure with age. A statement in the report said it recommended: "A reduction in the average intake of common salt (sodium chloride) by the adult population from the current level of about 9g/day to about 6g/day. There needs to be a gradual reduction in the amount of sodium from salt added to processed food and food manufacturers, caterers, and individuals should explore and grasp the opportunity for reducing the sodium content of foods and meals." The Chief Medical Officer at that time, accepted all the recommendations in this COMA report except for the recommendation to reduce salt. The reason for this is not clear but is believed to be pressure from industry. Department of Health (1994), "Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease", HMSO, London.

2 Dietary Reference Values 1991 This COMA report considered that: "Current sodium intakes are needlessly high and we caution against any trend towards increased intakes". It set its recommended intake for salt, as with all the other recommended intakes for nutrients, on the basis of the balance of risks and benefits, which might practically be expected to occur. The RNI for a particular population group is defined as the amount of the nutrient that is enough or more than enough for about 97% of the people in this group. The Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) for sodium for adults was set at 1600 mg/day. This is equivalent to approximately 4g of salt, if all the sodium was present in the diet as sodium chloride. This is considerably less than the present intake of 9-12g. Department of Health (1991), "Dietary Reference values for food, energy and nutrients for the United Kingdom", HMSO, London

I wonder why The Chief Medical Officer in the early '90s apparently did nothing to implement the recommendation of a maximum of 4g of salt a day, and apparently gave greater consideration to the desires of the food industry than to the health of the nation, and I wonder how many deaths and how much terrible suffering he was, therefore, personally responsible for? And I wonder why his successors in the post were so tardy in taking effective steps to give warnings about salt consumption? - Political considerations? - What though, could be more important in this matter than the health of the members of public - the electorate - the tax-payers, in fact?

I consider the failure to put pressure on food manufacturers and caterers to reduce the sodium content of foods and meals until recent times to be a dereliction of duty of successive political administrations and health departments. - I remember buying McCance and Widdowson's 'Composition of Foods' in the late '90s, at considerable cost, in order to discover how much sodium there was in food. There was no way consumers could get this information from the pack.

Here's a serious suggestion for the government: - put a punitive tax on table salt.

For fuller discussion on the political considerations that have caused the obesity epidemic you need to read the whole of page http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/story.html

Lose weight by eating less salt! Go on! - Try it! - You will feel so much better! See my website http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/ (The site does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.)

Tony Blair has a cheek! (Referring to his recent speech, urging people to take personal responsibility for their health)

I must say Tony Blair has a cheek! - His government has only demonstrated concern about salt intake and, very importantly, the provision of information about sodium content on food labels in the last few years - at a guess, I'd say since about 2003. Both Labour and Tory administrations allowed the food companies free rein year after year to ladle more and more salt into their products, thus damaging irrevocably the health of innocent salt-sensitive purchasers.

I wonder again why The Chief Medical Officer in the early 90s apparently did nothing to implement an authoritative recommendation at that time of a maximum of 4g of salt a day, and apparently gave greater consideration to the desires of industry than to the health of the nation, and I wonder how many deaths and how much terrible suffering he was, therefore, personally responsible for? And I wonder why his successors in the post were so tardy in taking effective steps to give warnings about salt consumption? Political considerations? I consider the failure to put pressure on food manufacturers and caterers to reduce the sodium content of foods and meals until recent times to be a dereliction of duty of successive political administrations and health departments. - I remember buying McCance and Widdowson's 'Composition of Foods' in the late 90s, at considerable cost, in order to discover how much sodium there was in food. There was no way consumers could find it out from the pack. - The people of this country have been very ill-served in this matter yet Tony Blair seeks to blame the innocent victims!

Past recommendations made about daily salt intake

The Department of Health's Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) was disbanded in March 2000.

The following information was taken on July 11th 2006 from
http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/recommendations.htm

Recommendations made about salt

COMA

1 Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease 1994
This COMA report considered the evidence for a causal relationship between the consumption of sodium and both the level of blood pressure and the rise in blood pressure with age. A statement in the report said it recommended:
"A reduction in the average intake of common salt (sodium chloride) by the adult population from the current level of about 9g/day to about 6g/day.
There needs to be a gradual reduction in the amount of sodium from salt added to processed food and food manufacturers, caterers, and individuals should explore and grasp the opportunity for reducing the sodium content of foods and meals."
The Chief Medical Officer at that time, accepted all the recommendations in this COMA report except for the recommendation to reduce salt. The reason for this is not clear but is believed to be pressure from industry.
Department of Health (1994), "Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease", HMSO, London.

(Note by Willow: - The Chief Medical Officer at that time appears to have been Kenneth Calman. - I wonder why he gave greater consideration to the desires of industry than to the health of the nation, and I wonder how many deaths and how much terrible suffering he was, therefore, personally responsible for? In 1996 he became a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. I myself would not have awarded him an honour like this, in view of his failure to accept that recommendation about salt. - Would you? - I consider the failure at that time to put pressure on food manufacturers and caterers to reduce the sodium content of foods and meals to be a dereliction of his duty in that job.)

2 Dietary Reference Values 1991
This COMA report considered that:
"Current sodium intakes are needlessly high and we caution against any trend towards increased intakes".
It set its recommended intake for salt, as with all the other recommended intakes for nutrients, on the basis of the balance of risks and benefits, which might practically be expected to occur. The RNI for a particular population group is defined as the amount of the nutrient that is enough or more than enough for about 97% of the people in this group.
The Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) for sodium for adults was set at 1600 mg/day. This is equivalent to approximately 4g of salt, if all the sodium was present in the diet as sodium chloride. This is considerably less than the present intake of 9-12g.
Department of Health (1991), "Dietary Reference values for food, energy and nutrients for the United Kingdom", HMSO, London.

Comment from Willow:

The official/s who KNEW all those years ago that high intake of salt causes many serious and disabling illnesses and early deaths, and had the power all those years ago to take measures to ensure lower levels of salt in processed foods and to get information about sodium/salt levels in food onto the packaging of food, and to inform the general population about the harm high salt intake was causing to many people, and decided to do none of this - were they fit to hold their high office? - And was there no-one in the vast Department of Health or in Parliament who took an interest in these matters or checked on whether the public was being well served by its highly paid officials? - What use are professional qualifications when such indefensible decisions are made?