Guest guest Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/oiling3.html > >> > The Oiling Of America Part 3 > Cholesterol screening for everyone > In November of 1986, the Journal of the American Medical Association > published a series on the Lipid Research Clinics trials, > including " Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease: A New Era " by > longtime American Heart Association member Scott Grundy, MD, PhD.35 > The article is a disturbing combination of euphoria and agony— > euphoria at the forward movement of the lipid hypothesis juggernaut, > and agony over the elusive nature of real proof. " The recent > consensus conference on cholesterol. . . implied that levels between > 200 and 240. . carry at least a mild increase in risk, which they > obviously do. . . " said Grundy, directly contradicting an earlier > statement that " Evidence relating plasma cholesterol levels to > atherosclerosis and CHD has become so strong as to leave little doubt > of the etiologic connection. " Grundy called for " . . . the simple > step of measuring the plasma cholesterol level in all adults. . . > those found to have elevated cholesterol levels can be designated as > at high risk and thereby can enter the medical care system. . . an > enormous number of patients will be included. " Who benefits from " the > simple step of measuring the plasma cholesterol level in all adults? " > Why, hospitals, laboratories, pharmaceutical companies, the vegetable > oil industry, margarine manufacturers, food processors and, of > course, medical doctors. " Many physicians will see the advantages of > using drugs for cholesterol lowering. . . " said Grundy, even > though " a positive benefit/risk ratio for cholesterol-lowering drugs > will be difficult to prove. " The cost in the US of cholesterol > screening and cholesterol-lowering drugs alone now stands at sixty > billion dollars per year, even though a positive risk/benefit ratio > for such treatment has never been established. Physicians, however, > have " seen the advantages of using drugs for cholesterol lowering " as > a way of creating patients out of healthy people. > > Grundy was equally schizophrenic about the benefits of dietary > modification. " Whether diet has a long term effect on cholesterol > remains to be proved, " he stated, but " Public health advocates > furthermore can play an important role by urging the food industry to > provide palatable choices of foods that are low in cholesterol, > saturated fatty acids and total calories. " Such foods, almost by > definition, contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oils that > imitate the advantages of animal fats. Grundy knew that the trans > fats were a problem, that they raised serum cholesterol and > contributed to the etiology of many diseases—he knew because a year > earlier, at his request, Mary Enig had sent him a package of data > detailing numerous studies that gave reason for concern, which he > acknowledged in a signed letter as " an important contribution to the > ongoing debate. " > > Other mouthpieces of the medical establishment fell in line after the > Consensus Conference. In 1987 the National Academy of Science (NAS) > published an overview in the form of a handout booklet containing a > whitewash of the trans problem and a pejorative description of palm > oil—a natural fat high in beneficial saturates and monounsaturates > that, like butter, has nourished healthy population groups for > thousands of years, and, also like butter, competes with hydrogenated > fats because it can be used as a shortening. The following year the > Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health emphasized the > importance of making low-fat foods more widely available. Project > LEAN (Low-Fat Eating for America Now) sponsored by the J. Kaiser > Family Foundation and a host of establishment groups such as the > America Heart Association, the American Dietetic Association, the > American Medical Association, the USDA, the National Cancer > Institute, Centers for Disease Control and the National Heart, Lung > and Blood Institute announced a publicity campaign to " aggressively > promote foods low in saturated fat and cholesterol in order to reduce > the risk of heart disease and cancer. " > > National Food Processors Association Conference > The following year, Enig joined Frank McLaughlin, Director of the > Center for Business and Public Policy at the University of Maryland, > in testimony before the National Food Processors Association. It was > a closed conference, for NFPA members only. Enig and McLaughlin had > been invited to give " a view from academia. " Enig presented a number > of slides and warned against singling out classes of fats and oils > for special pejorative labeling. A representative from Frito-Lay took > umbrage at Enig's slides, which listed amounts of trans fats in Frito- > Lay products. Enig offered to redo the analyses if Frito-Lay would to > fund the research. " If you'd talk different, you'd get money, " he > said. > > Enig urged the association to endorse accurate labeling of trans fats > in all food items but conference participants—including > representatives from most of the major food processing giants— > preferred a policy of " voluntary labeling " that did not unnecessarily > alert the public to the presence of trans fats in their foods. To > date they have prevailed in preventing the inclusion of trans fats on > nutrition labels. > > Enig's cat and mouse game with Hunter and Applewhite of the Institute > of Shortening and Edible Oils continued throughout the later years of > the 1980's. Their modus operandi was to pepper the literature with > articles that downplayed the dangers of trans fats, to use their > influence to prevent opposing points of view from appearing in print > and to follow-up the few alarmist articles that did squeak through > with " definitive rebuttals. " In 1987 Enig submitted a paper on trans > fatty acids in the US diet to the American Journal of Clinical > Nutrition, as a reply to the erroneous 1985 FASEB report as well as > to Hunter and Applewhite's influential 1986 article, which by even > the most conservative analysis underestimated the average American > consumption of partially hydrogenated fats. Editor-in-chief Albert > Mendeloff, MD rejected Enig's rebuttal as " inappropriate for the > journal's readership. " His rejection letter invited her to resubmit > her paper if she could come up with " new evidence. " In 1991, the > article finally came out in a less prestigious publication, the > Journal of the American College of Nutrition,36 although Applewhite > did his best to coerce editor Mildred Seelig into removing it at the > last minute. Hunter and Applewhite submitted letters and then an > article of rebuttal to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,37 > which were published shortly thereafter. In the article, > entitled " Reassessment of trans fatty acid availability in the US > diet, " Hunter and Applewhite argued that the amount of trans in the > American diet had actually declined since 1984, due to the > introduction of soft margarines and tub spreads. The media fell in > line with their pronouncements, with numerous articles by food > writers recommending low-trans tub spreads, made from polyunsaturated > vegetable oils, as the sensible alternative to saturated fat from > animal sources—not surprising as most newspapers rely on the > International Food Information Council, an arm of the food processing > industry, for their nutrition information. > > Other research on trans fats > Enig and the University of Maryland group were not alone in their > efforts to bring their concerns about the effect of partially > hydrogenated fats before the public. Fred Kummerow at the University > of Illinois, blessed with independent funding and an abundance of > patience, carried out a number of studies that indicated that the > trans fats increased risk factors associated with heart disease, and > that vegetable-oil-based fabricated foods such as Egg Beaters cannot > support life.38 George Mann, formerly with the Framingham project, > possessed neither funding nor patience—he was, in fact, very angry > with what he called the Diet/Heart scam. His independent studies of > the Masai in Africa,39 whose diet is extremely rich in cholesterol > and saturated fat, and who are virtually free of heart disease, had > convinced him that the lipid hypothesis was " the public health > diversion of this century. . . the greatest scam in the history of > medicine. " 40 He resolved to bring the issue before the public by > organizing a conference in Washington DC in November of 1991. > > " Hundreds of millions of tax dollars are wasted by the bureaucracy > and the self-interested Heart Association, " he wrote in his > invitation to participants. " Segments of the food industry play the > game for profits. Research on the true causes and prevention is > stifled by denying funding to the `unbelievers.' This meeting will > review the data and expose the rascals. " > > The rascals did their best to prevent the meeting from taking place. > Funding promised by the Greenwall Foundation of New York City was > later withdrawn, so Mann paid most of the bills. A press release sent > as a dirty trick to speakers and participants wrongly announced that > the conference had been cancelled. Several speakers did in fact > renege at the last minute on their commitment to attend, including > the prestigious Dr. Roslyn Alfin-Slater and Dr. Peter Nixon of > London. Dr. Eliot Corday of Los Angeles cancelled after being told > that his attendance would jeopardize future funding. > > The final pared-down roster included Dr. George Mann, Dr. Mary Enig, > Dr. Victor Herbert, Dr. Petr Skrabenek, William B. Parsons, Jr., Dr. > James McCormick, a physician from Dublin, Dr. William Stehbens from > New Zealand, who described the normal protective process of arterial > thickening at points of greatest stress and pressure, and Dr. Meyer > Texon an expert in the dynamics of blood flow. Mann, in his > presentation, blasted the system that had foisted the lipid > hypothesis on a gullible public. " You will see, " he said, " that many > of our contributors are senior scientists. They are so for a reason > that has become painfully conspicuous as we organized this meeting. > Scientists who must go before review panels for their research > funding know well that to speak out, to disagree with this false > dogma of Diet/Heart, is a fatal error. They must comply or go > unfunded. I could show a list of scientists who said to me, in > effect, when I invited them to participate: `I believe you are right, > that the Diet/Heart hypothesis is wrong, but I cannot join you > because that would jeopardize my perks and funding.' For me, that > kind of hypocritical response separates the scientists from the > operators—the men from the boys. " > > 90s see the nation well oiled > By the nineties the operators had succeeded, by slick manipulation of > the press and of scientific research, in transforming America into a > nation that was well and truly oiled. Consumption of butter had > bottomed out at about 5 grams per person per day, down from almost 18 > at the turn of the century. Use of lard and tallow had been reduced > by two-thirds. Margarine consumption had jumped from less than 2 > grams per person per day in 1909 to about 11 in 1960. Since then > consumption figures had changed little, remaining at about 11 grams > per person per day—perhaps because knowledge of margarine's dangers > had been slowly seeping out to the public. However, most of the trans > fats in the current American diet come not from margarine but from > shortening used in fried and fabricated foods. American shortening > consumption of 10 grams per person per day held steady until the > 1960's, although the content of that shortening had changed from > mostly lard, tallow and coconut oil—all natural fats—to partially > hydrogenated soybean oil. Then shortening consumption shot up and by > 1993 had tripled to over 30 grams per person per day. > > But the most dramatic overall change in the American diet was the > huge increase in the consumption of liquid vegetable oils, from > slightly less than 2 grams per person per day in 1909 to over 30 in > 1993—a fifteen fold increase. > > Dangers of polyunsaturates > The irony is that these trends have persisted concurrently with > revelations about the dangers of polyunsaturates. Because > polyunsaturates are highly subject to rancidity, they increase the > body's need for vitamin E and other antioxidants. Excess consumption > of vegetable oils is especially damaging to the reproductive organs > and the lungs—both of which are sites for huge increases in cancer in > the US. In test animals, diets high in polyunsaturates from vegetable > oils inhibit the ability to learn, especially under conditions of > stress; they are toxic to the liver; they compromise the integrity of > the immune system; they depress the mental and physical growth of > infants; they increase levels of uric acid in the blood; they cause > abnormal fatty acid profiles in the adipose tissues; they have been > linked to mental decline and chromosomal damage; they accelerate > aging. Excess consumption of polyunsaturates is associated with > increasing rates of cancer, heart disease and weight gain; excess use > of commercial vegetable oils interferes with the production of > prostaglandins leading to an array of complaints ranging from > autoimmune disease to PMS. Disruption of prostaglandin production > leads to an increased tendency to form blood clots, and hence > myocardial infarction, which has reached epidemic levels in > America.41 > > Vegetable oils are more toxic when heated. One study reported that > polyunsaturates turn to varnish in the intestines. A study by a > plastic surgeon found that women who consumed mostly vegetable oils > had far more wrinkles than those who used traditional animal fats. A > 1994 study appearing in the Lancet showed that almost three quarters > of the fat in artery clogs is unsaturated. The " artery clogging " fats > are not animal fats but vegetable oils.42 > > Those who have most actively promoted the use of polyunsaturated > vegetable oils as part of a Prudent Diet are well aware of their > dangers. In 1971, William B. Kannel, former director of the > Framingham study, warned against including too many polyunsaturates > in the diet. A year earlier, Dr. William Connor of the American Heart > Association issued a similar warning, and Frederick Stare reviewed an > article which reported that the use of polyunsaturated oils caused an > increase in breast tumors. And Kritchevsky, way back in 1969, > discovered that the use of corn oil caused an increase in > atherosclerosis.43 > > As for the trans fats, produced in vegetable oils when they are > partially hydrogenated, the results that are now in the literature > more than justify concerns of early investigators about the relation > between trans fats and both heart disease and cancer. The research > group at the University of Maryland found that trans fatty acids not > only alter enzymes that neutralize carcinogens, and increase enzymes > that potentiate carcinogens, but also depress milk fat production in > nursing mothers and decrease insulin binding.44 In other words, trans > fatty acids in the diet interfere with the ability of new mothers to > nurse successfully and increase the likelihood of developing > diabetes. Unpublished work indicates that trans fats contribute to > osteoporosis. Hanis, a Czechoslovakian researcher, found that trans > consumption decreased testosterone, caused the production of abnormal > sperm and altered gestation.45 Koletzko, a German pediatric > researcher found that excess trans consumption in pregnant mothers > predisposed them to low birth weight babies.46 Trans consumption > interferes with the body's use of omega-3 fatty acids found in fish > oils, grains and green vegetables, leading to impaired prostaglandin > production.47 George Mann confirmed that trans consumption increases > the incidence of heart disease.48 In 1995, European researchers found > a positive correlation between breast cancer rates and trans > consumption.49 > > Until the 1995 study, only the disturbing revelations of Dutch > researchers Mensink and Katan, in 1990, received front page coverage. > Mensink and Katan found that margarine consumption increased coronary > heart disease risk factors.50 The industry—and the press—responded by > promoting tub spreads, which contain reduced amounts of trans > compared to stick margarine. For the general population, these trans > reductions have been more than offset by changes in the types of fat > used by the fast food industry. In the early 1980's, Center for > Science in the Public Interest campaigned against the use of beef > tallow for frying potatoes. Before that they campaigned against the > use of tallow for frying chicken and fish. Most fast food concerns > switched to partially hydrogenated soybean oil for all fried foods. > Some deep fried foods have been tested at almost 50% trans.51 > > Epidemiologist Walter Willett at Harvard worked for many years with > flawed data bases which did not identify trans fats as a dietary > component. He found a correlation with dietary fat consumption and > both heart disease and cancer. After his researchers contacted Enig > about the trans data, they developed a more valid data base that was > used in the analysis of the massive Nurses Study. When Willett's > group separated out the trans component in their analyses, they were > able to confirm greater rates of cancer in those consuming margarine > and vegetable shortenings—not butter, eggs, cheese and meat.52 The > correlation of trans fat consumption and cancer was never published, > but was reported at the Baltimore Data Bank Conference in 1992. > > In 1993 Willett's research group at Harvard found that trans > contributed to heart disease,53 and this study was not ignored, but > received much fanfare in the press. Willett's first reference in his > report was Enig's work on the trans content of common foods. > > The industry continues to argue that American trans consumption is a > low six to eight grams per person per day, not enough to contribute > to today's epidemic of chronic disease. Total per capita consumption > of margarine and shortening hovers around 40 grams per person per > day. If these products contain 30% trans (many shortenings contain > more) then average consumption is about 12 grams per person per day. > In reality, consumption figures can be dramatically higher for some > individuals. A 1989 Washington Post article documented the diet of a > teenage girl who ate 12 donuts and 24 cookies over a three day > period. Total trans worked out to at least 30 grams per day, and > possibly much more. The fat in the chips that teenagers consume in > abundance may contain up to 48% trans which translates into 45.6 > grams of trans fat in a small ten-ounce bag of snack chips—which a > hungry teenager can gobble up in a few minutes. High school sex > education classes do not teach American teenagers that the altered > fats in their snack foods may severely compromise their ability to > have normal sex, conceive, give birth to healthy babies and > successfully nurse their infants. > > Part 4 > > References Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.