Margarine is toxic

-->

In the 1970s, I was instructed to swap from butter to margarine. Fortunately, I did not like the taste of margarine and, over the years, the more research I conducted on the topic the more I realised that we were being lead astray and even lied to about this. Today, when I ask any of my audiences, sometimes in the hundreds, “Who thinks margarine is better for you than butter?” I rarely get a positive response. It seems most people already know that margarine is a dangerous substitute.

It appears that there is no scientific evidence that margarine is healthier than butter. In fact, evidence suggests the exact opposite is true. This is summed up first of all in one of my earlier articles that showed saturated fat is not the demon it is made out to be and may even be associated with reduced heart attack (another myth shattered). At least that is what the biggest and best studies show. Furthermore, we consume many more Omega 6 (vegetable) oils today than our ancestors did and this is having a negative impact on our health. These oils are not just in our margarine but also hidden in most of our food. We ate margarine for 50 years thinking it was made up of so-called “good fats” only to find out it was laden with the deadliest form of fat: trans fats. Finally, there is emerging evidence that margarine may not be good for our health, with or without trans fats, and is nowhere near a natural food; the push to sell more margarine has come from organisations like the Heart Foundations around the world and branches of margarine companies with strong vested interests in promoting margarine sales.

I think one of the best things to have happened to the Australian cuisine is Master Chef. It has inspired a whole generation to go back to the kitchen and start cooking again. It has also encouraged the increased use of butter over vegetable oils, something the Heart Foundation and the margarine manufacturers did not like so they had to come up with campaigns to sway people back to margarine. Interestingly one of the foundation’s ploys was to create, through a public relations company, a group called “Mums United” which pretends to be a grassroots mothers campaign against evil butter. According to David Gillespe (Sweet Poison) and the “duck test” of inductive reasoning, “It walks like a margarine advertisement and quacks like a margarine advertisement, so guess what it I think it is?” And the margarine companies fund it! Some of the group’s tactics have included offering financial support to people who pledged not to eat butter. So much for it being a grassroots organisation. It seems that margarine interests have taken some of the old tactics taught to us by the tobacco industry and big drug companies.

I want to make it very clear that I have no vested interests in anything other than people’s health and the truth.

Various heart associations around the world recommend increasing Omega 6 (vegetable) oil consumption and reducing saturated fats, based on flawed studies that have been seriously questioned due to data manipulation. This includes the omission of relevant trials with unfavourable outcomes—that is, leaving out any negative studies ^1,2,3 and including studies that combine both Omega 3 (fish oils, which are good for you) and Omega 6 consumption together under the title of “polyunsaturated fats.” The associations even included poorly done studies as long as the studies showed the desired results. This type of publication bias is well known in the research literature particularly with big drug companies trying to show that their drugs work better than they really do.

Margarine is far from being a natural product—well, as much as you can claim that plastic is natural. The major components of margarine are “vegetable” oils, obtained from foods such as sunflower seeds, rapeseed, or potentially genetically modified canola and soya beans. These oils are usually extracted using the application of pressure, heat and possibly solvents and then treated with sodium hydroxide to “neutralise” certain fats in the oil. It is then bleached, filtered and steam-treated to produce what is essentially a colourless, flavourless murky looking liquid. The liquid is converted into a solid at room temperature through esterifcation, which uses high temperature and pressure, along with enzymes or acids, to harden the oil—this is also called hydrogenation. Hydrogenation produces trans fats that are strongly linked with heart disease, cancer and other chronic illnesses. The final product is coloured and flavoured with various agents to make it feel and look like butter. Then finally ingredients like plant sterols and stanols and alpha linolenic acid is added to make it appear healthy. The finished product is not natural or healthy.

Plant stanols and sterols are added to reduce cholesterol. However, overwhelming evidence now shows cholesterol is just a poor indicator of heart attack, not the cause ⁴. It is just the warning sign or, if I can use an analogy, like a fire alarm in your home, it is not the problem itself, but a warning about the problem. You can get plenty of stanol and sterols in nuts, beans and seeds, which are not only natural but also full of other healthful benefits including vitamins, antioxidants, minerals and so much more and reduce all forms chronic illness. Margarine manufacturers can trumpet the presence of “heart-healthy” Omega 3 fats on the label, however they are putting plant-based Omega 3 fats (alpha linolenic acid) that do not act like Omega 3 from fish sources. They still have to be converted in our body to fish-like Omega 3s. It is also questionable whether they will be oxidised or not and therefore of any value. Adding a nutrient to toxic food does not make it healthy. Do you really believe the advertising?

Margarine is a major source of trans fatty acids, the intake of which has risen since the early 20th century. Trans fatty acids are synthetic fats produced as a byproduct of the hydrogenation of liquid vegetable oils, making them into solid margarine. An abundance of data indicates that consumption of trans fatty acids increases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), cancer, diabetes and other chronic illnesses. Margarine companies are now obliged to list the amount of trans fats on the side of the packet. Until recently however, margarine has been the single biggest source of these very toxic fats.

In a study of women, long-term margarine and trans fat consumption was associated with a 67% increased risk of heart disease ⁵. The decrease in intake of trans fatty acids in Denmark saw a 50% reduction in the number of deaths from ischemic heart disease ⁶. A recent study found that trans fatty acids promote cardiovascular disease by triggering inflammatory processes in the cells lining blood vessels ⁷. Increased intake of trans fatty acids has also been linked with an increase in the risk of colorectal tumours by about 86% ⁸. The potentially damaging effects of trans fats may also be passed from a mother to her child during breast feeding and can lead to an increase in cardiac insulin resistance when the kids become adults ⁹.

During the past 150 years, the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of agribusiness with processed foods, grain-fattened livestock, and hydrogenation of vegetable fats have considerably reduced the available content of Omega 3 fatty acids and increased that of Omega 6 fatty acids. While Omega 6 and 3 oils are considered essential fatty acids, the research is now showing that it is important to get the correct balance of the fats. An imbalance leads to various metabolic diseases. Western diets are now deficient in Omega 3 fatty acids and are laden with excessive amounts of Omega 6 fatty acids compared with the diet on which human beings evolved and their genetic patterns were established. Our diets now have 14 to 20 times more Omega 6 (vegetable oil) than Omega 3 fatty acids. This imbalance is now linked with diseases such as heart attack, stroke, cancer, obesity, insulin resistance, asthma, arthritis, depression, ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease and even premature ageing. The ideal balance is less than 4:1 or even 1:1 Omega 6 and 3, respectively.

Omega 6 oils such as corn, safflower, cottonseed, sunflower, and soya are now in nearly all our foods. Apart from the obvious consumption of vegetable oils and margarine you buy in the supermarket—which I hope you are now not going to buy—Omega 6 oils are hidden in most foods. You will find vegetable oils in just about every processed and semi-processed food including bread, cakes, and breakfast cereals and in lots of the plant-based drinks like almond or soya milk the main ingredient is often vegetable oil. All the takeaway foods, frozen and packaged dinners have Omega 6 oils. Even the “new” Mediterranean diet is laden with Omega 6 oils. When you buy olives, pesto sauce, sundried tomatoes or anything soaking in oil it is now vegetable oil in which it is soaked, not olive oil because vegetable oil is cheaper, unless you go to Italy where most foods are still soaked in olive oil. It is almost impossible to get away from the excess of Omega 6 oils. Time to read the labels! Factory produced eggs have 20 times more Omega 6 than Omega 3 compared to free-range eggs, which have a ratio of 1:1. Similarly, grain-fed beef (which I do not recommend you eat) has around 20:1 Omega 6 to Omega 3 oils because the cows are fed grains rich in Omega 6 oils. Alpha linolenic acid is found in the grass and is converted into the important Omega 3 oils by the animals. It is found only in grass-fed animals. Grass-fed cows are also a lot less stressed and have as a result lower levels of inflammation.

On the topic of animals fats, I have highlighted in earlier articles that despite claims by the Heart Foundation there is no scientific evidence to suggest that saturated fat through dairy consumption is associated with increased heart attack. By contrast, in a 16-year prospective study of 1,529 adult Australians, researchers found a possible beneficial association between intake of full-fat dairy and cardiovascular mortality ¹⁰. Whoops… the Heart Foundation got it wrong again.

By contrast, the Framingham study, which followed people for 20 years (a very long and comprehensive study) and recorded heart attack incidence, found margarine intake increased coronary heart disease in men ¹¹. The scientists in their very conservative language wrote, “These data offer modest support to the hypothesis that margarine intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease.” Not the opposite. In the second ten-year period of the study, the group eating the most margarine had 77% more heart attacks than the group eating none.

Studies that investigated increasing the amount of Omega 6 without a subsequent increase in animal-based Omega 3 (fish oil) consistently found an increase in coronary heart disease (CHD) and all-cause mortality. In an early study, published in 1965, researchers found that people consuming corn oil, a rich source of Omega 6, had a 4.64 times (over 400%) increased risk for both chronic heart disease and death from all causes ¹². In the conservative language of scientists, the authors of the study concluded that corn oil is “possibly harmful.” In another study, in which participants consumed more safflower oil and a safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine, participants had a 49% increased risk of death from all causes including a 91% increase from chronic heart disease and 96% from CVD ¹³.

In one study specifically on Omega 6 consumption in more than 9,000 people, the risk of non-fatal heart attack and death from coronary heart disease was significantly increased among women consuming the n-6 specific polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) diet for one year or less ¹⁴. Women consuming this n-6 specific PUFA diet for any duration had non-significant trends to increased risk of non-fatal heart attack and coronary heart disease and any cardiovascular event including death and stroke ¹⁴. In fact the Lyon Diet Heart Study found that after follow up of 27 months, non-fatal heart attack and coronary heart disease death and overall mortality were 73% and 70% lower in the experimental group who consumed lower Omega 6 oils and replaced vegetable oils with olive oil. This study also demonstrated that lowering linoleic acid (Omega 6 vegetable oil) below 50% is not harmful and may even be beneficial, producing a profound risk reduction in coronary heart disease.

A recent meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigating polyunsaturated Omega 6 oil consumption (vegetable oils and margarine) found that there is absolutely no scientific justification for recommending the increased consumption of Omega 6 oils ². Or, to quote their conclusion, “Advice to specifically increase n-6 PUFA intake … is unlikely to provide the intended benefits, and may actually increase the risks of CHD and death.” The study found for non-fatal myocardial infarction (heart attack) and death from coronary heart disease there was an increased risk of 13% for diets with increased Omega 6. The studies that substituted Omega 6 for saturated fatty acids without simultaneously increasing Omega 3 oils also produced an increase in risk of death. It seems the vegetable oils are just as bad as the trans fats and what we are really lacking are the Omega 3 fish oils.

More research shows that omega 6 fatty acids (vegetable oils-margarine) have no health benefit and in fact might be worse for you than saturated fats. This study showed people on the ‘heart-healthy’ diet were at increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease and heart disease (increases of 70 and 74 per cent respectively).

"Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction. However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit."

The Heart Foundation continues to educate people to swap to margarine. Why do they continue to do this?
this information is so widespread it is dangerous. I recently spoke to and AFL footballer who was told not to have butter and to use margarine by the club dietician.

The study also found that lower cholesterol as a result of the omega 6 heart healthy diet was also associated with more deaths not fewer. Cholesterol is not the killer. It is just a symptom of an illness.

Arachidonic acid is produced in the body from too much Omega 6 and produces chemical messengers that lead to inflammation in the body called eicosanoids and cytokines. The increase in linoleic acid (Omega 6) has been shown to increase the oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol) ¹⁵. There is nothing wrong with cholesterol until it is oxidised. The evidence from animal studies also shows that a high linoleic acid diet can promote certain cancers ¹⁶ and other inflammatory diseases. In a study of 203,193 men and women, increased intakes of Omega 6 fatty acid (linoleic acid) doubled the risk of ulcerative colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease, which has seen a rapid increase during recent decades. By contrast the highest intakes of Omega 3 were associated with 77% reduction in the risk of the disease ¹⁷. Omega 6 fatty acids are present in the cell membrane of colon cells in the form of arachidonic acid. This can be metabolised to chemical messengers in the body called prostaglandin E2, leukotriene B4 and thromboxane A2, all of which are associated with inflammation. On the other hand, Omega 3 fatty acids, including docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) may prevent colonic inflammation.

There is also research showing that too much Omega 6 oil is contributing to premature ageing. Telomeres, which are in all our cells, are thought to be markers of our ageing because they reflect cumulative oxidative stress and inflammation. The shorter they are, the more we have aged. Because the metabolites of Omega 6 promote inflammation, it is believed that an increase in Omega 6 fatty acid content in our diet decreases the leukocyte telomere length ^18,19 and hence speeds up the ageing process.

It is time to rethink our fat consumption. The research shows that fat in itself is not bad—in fact, it is essential and the move away from fat has lead to a more obese and sicker population. What we need to do however is decrease our consumption of processed oils like margarine and vegetable oils and increase our Omega 3 fish oils along with Omega 9 oils, including olive oil.

References

1.     Ramsden 2009;

2.     Ramsden et al. 2010,

3.     Ramsden et al. 2011

4.     Dingle 2011 The Great Cholesterol Deception

5.     Willett et al. 1993

6.     Stender and Dyerberg 2004

7.     Harvey et al 2008

8.     Vinikoor et al. 2010

9.     Osso et al. 2008

10. Bonthuis et al. 2010

11. Gillman 1997

12. Rose et al. 1965

13. Woodhill et al. 1978

14. Frantz et al. 1989

15. Tsimikas et al. 1999

16. Welsh 1992

17. Hart 2008

18. Kang 2010;

19. Kiecolt-Glaser 2012

The truth about nutrition

Despite years millions of dollars the Government-sponsored (and industry-influenced) food guidelines are not changing food consumption patterns, as many people do not meet current dietary recommendations,¹ and fruit and vegetable consumption (which is linked to greater protection from chronic diseases) remains low.^2,3 Two in three people in Australia don’t eat the recommended intake of fruit and four in five are not consuming the recommended vegetable intake, with children consuming less fruit and vegetables today than a decade ago.⁴ A recent U.K. Food Standards Agency report found that, among adults between the ages of 19 and 64, only 13% of men and 15% of women eat the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables every day. At the present time only 32% of Americans consume five servings of fruit and vegetables per day with only 20% and adolescents meeting this goal.⁵ Instead, our diet is being replaced with significantly increased amounts of sugar,⁶ refined carbohydrates⁷ and processed fats.

While food guidelines aim to be simplistic to reduce confusion;  this often fails. The food guidelines are too general for chronic disease prevention; if the guidelines were adjusted to be more specific, chronic disease risk could be reduced.^8,9,10

A similar problem occurs within the food pyramid, which was developed in 1992 by advertising and marketing researchers to develop an image the consumer could identify with and easily understand. The pyramid was then widely distributed and has been used as an educational tool, basis for dietary assessment, and part of policy documents. It has succeeded in creating high levels of consumer awareness and is recognised by 67% or more of American adults.¹¹ This wasn’t the first time that government and industry had made attempts to influence how Americans eat: the first U.S. guide, “Food for Young Children,” dates back to 1916. And the “four food groups” developed in the 1950s were strongly influenced by the food industry—after all, the regulators invited the food industry to help shape the guidelines. To highlight the strong influence of industry on US food guidelines, in 2011 the US Department of Agriculture, the same organisation who created the food pyramid, labeled pizza as a vegetable because it has tomato paste. Any wonder the food pyramid was so wrong.

Figure 5. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Pyramid.

Source: Chiuve and Willet 2007.¹²

The 1992 food pyramid encouraged consumers to eat a huge amount of breads, cereal products and potatoes. This could very well have resulted in a greater risk of chronic disease (including CVD, obesity and type 2 diabetes), due to the fact it lacked emphasis and detail on the recommended type of carbohydrates.^13,14 This resulted in consumer confusion^15,16 and poor eating habits.¹⁷ Food guidelines, such as the food pyramid, advocate bread consumption numerous times a day.¹⁸ Bread is a contributing factor to a higher glycaemic load, promoting chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.^19,20 Therefore bread consumption should be limited or even eliminated to promote better health. In the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating²¹ it is recommended to eat plenty of cereals (including breads, rice, pasta and noodles) but we did not evolve eating these foods.

In 2005 the food pyramid was revised into an abstract version of a pyramid called MyPyramid. This new pyramid still encouraged the consumption of grains; one of the differences was that it advised consumers to choose grains that have the word “whole” in front of the grain name. Sure it changed a little, but not enough to reflect what we should really be eating. The Harvard School of Public Health made a scathing criticism of this iteration of the food pyramid.²²

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture replaced MyPyramid with a new icon called MyPlate. The plate is divided roughly into quarters, with the largest section again being grains. Dr Andrew Weil, founder of the Arizona Centre for Integrative Medicine, wrote “there are some conceptual chips and cracks in this new dinnerware. Overall, I fear another opportunity has been lost to give Americans the best up-to-date information about what constitutes an ideal diet.”²³ Dr Weil offers as an alternative the Anti-inflammatory Food Pyramid, which promotes optimum nutrition and thus optimum health.²⁴

Another are of concern is the Recommended Daily Intakes/ Allowances (RDI/A’s) also known as the percentage of daily values on the side of your breakfast food packet depending on the country in which they are used. As nutritional research and knowledge evolves, food guidelines can become redundant if updates and revisions are not continually made. The Australian RDIs have been updated only a few times since 1954, yet the Japanese, Canadian and U.S. dietary recommendations are updated every five years to match the current scientific research.^25-28

By updating food guidelines in line with scientific research, chronic diseases can be reduced.²⁹ At the same time, not updating with current research may result in ineffective food guidelines that misinform and fail to protect the public. An example is the change in recognising the importance of omega 3 essential fatty acids for chronic disease prevention. In the 1960s it was thought that both omega 3 and omega 6 were equally important, however more recent research highlights the importance of omega 3 over omega 6³⁰ and that we are consuming far too many omega 6 oils in our diet. A food guideline that is updated regularly can make the necessary changes to promote omega 3 over omega 6; however, if updates are not made regularly, the health of consumers will suffer.

Recommended Daily Intake/Allowance (RDI/A)

Many professionals suggest that our food is o.k. because it provides the RDI. This argument has probably led people to eat poor quality food and think that’s o.k. The Recommended Dietary Intake (RDI) values were established by authorities more than 50 years ago with the aim of preventing gross nutrient deficiency diseases such as scurvy and beriberi. They provide the equivalent of the nutrient bare minimum, the lowest common denominator for health, and have no relevance at all for optimum health and the avoidance of chronic illness. Optimum health cannot be obtained by following the RDI/A. These were passable as a guideline 50 years ago but were never meant to protect us from chronic illness. Yet authorities now repeatedly refer to them as the definitive levels to achieve. They are in fact the lowest common denominator of nutrition and aiming just to achieve them is likely a major contributing factor to chronic illness in Australia.

The RDI system shows a serious lack of sensitivity toward individuals with elevated nutrient demands.³¹ It does not allow for differences in people’s nutritional needs. Various groups, including the elderly, people who experience increased physical or emotional stress, people who are of above average body weight, or pregnant women may exhibit elevated nutrient demands. The recommendations also fail to take into account geographic differences such as living in areas with nutrient-deficient soils or high levels of environmental pollution.³²

Socioeconomic factors may also affect the adequacy of RDI/A values for certain groups. For example, the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowances (U.S. RDAs) claim to represent the daily intake levels sufficient to meet the nutritional needs of 97% to 98% of all healthy individuals in a group. However, the homeless and poor are not healthy as groups and inadequate dietary quality has been documented in these sectors of society.³³

Recommended intakes don’t take into account the interactions of nutrients or toxins—in particular, the synergy and the fact that a shortage of one nutrient may bring about inefficient use of other nutrients. While most people know of vitamin C’s antioxidant effects, very few are aware of the benefits of it consumed with other antioxidants. Extra vitamin C spares the destruction of other nutrients in the body.

Professor Bruce Ames, one of the most respected names in modern nutrition and one of the early developers of toxicological standards, suggests that we need to move beyond the RDI and that age-related diseases like heart disease, cancer and dementia may be unintended consequences of mechanisms developed during evolution to protect against short-term nutrient shortages. In what he calls the “triage theory,” he suggests that because natural selection favours short-term survival—to escape from a bear or survive a cold winter—over long-term health, short-term survival was achieved by prioritising the use of these scarce nutrients that are also necessary for less urgent, but just as important, functions including healthy ageing. The nutrients are allocated to short-term essential (urgent) tasks versus keeping you healthy in the long term and avoiding chronic illness. The triage theory proposes that modest deficiency of any vitamin or mineral could increase age-related diseases. This theory has important implications for determining the optimum intake of all vitamins and minerals, as well as major implications for preventive medicine.³⁴ Current RDAs and RDIs provide for urgent short-term requirements only and not the nutrients for important tasks and optimal health.

In his recent study of vitamin K, Professor Ames and his colleagues showed that current recommendations for vitamin K, which are based on levels to ensure adequate blood coagulation, fail to ensure long-term optimal levels of the vitamin and may accelerate bone fragility, arterial and kidney calcification, cardiovascular disease and possibly cancer. So the levels approved for the short-term do not help us to avoid chronic illness, which is the biggest burden we face in the 21^st century. In another study the same group investigating selenium, reported that the same set of age-related diseases and conditions, including cancer, heart disease, and immune dysfunction and an increase risk of diseases of aging are associated with modest selenium deficiency ³⁵. The overall conclusion of this growing body of evidence is that optimizing nutrition and metabolism will delay aging and the diseases of aging in humans ^36,37.

Perhaps easier to understand a well-known and good example of the triage system is the pH (acid/alkali levels) of the blood and mineral balance. The optimal pH of the blood is around 7.35. If the pH varies slightly from this level, as a result of eating processed foods which increase the acidity of the blood, it dramatically affects many of the 90 or so enzyme functions in the blood. These enzymes literally do all the work, repair, cleaning up, transport etc in the blood. If they slow down too much we get very sick and die quickly. To make sure this doesn’t happen the body has a few mechanisms to keep the pH in perfect balance. The main mechanism is to allocate or triage alkali minerals like magnesium and calcium from where they should be working in optimal conditions, such as in the cells and in bones, to balance the pH in the blood. While this protects our urgent health requirements it increases our long risk of chronic health conditions such as heart attack, cancer and osteoporosis as a result of the shortage of these minerals. The body allocates the nutrients for short-term survival, the “essential” functions are protected from nutrient deficiency over other “nonessential” functions  needed only for long-term health.

It is time we rethink our nutritional advice to eliminate the vested interests and to come in line with the tens of thousands of nutritional studies that have been done over the past decades. The current standards do not represent the scientific evidence that is currently available.

1.     Ball et al. 2004

2.     Ziegler 1991

3.     AIHW 2002

4.     Magarey et al. 2001

5.     Ames 2001

6.     Cook et al. 2001

7.     Jenkins et al. 2004

8.     McCullogh et al. 2000a

9.     McCullogh et al. 2000b

10.  McCullogh et al. 2000c

11.  Nestle 1998

12.  Chiuve and Willet 2007

13.  Willet 1998

14.  Weinberg 2004

15.  Cotugna et al. 1992

16.  Ferrini et al. 1994

17.  Grifford 2002

18.  Nutrition Australia 2005

19.  Davis et al. 2004

20.  Villegas et al. 2004

21.  NHMRC 2003

22.  http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/pyramid-full-story/index.html

23.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/myplate-nutrition-plate_b_871045.html

24.  http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/PAG00361/anti-inflammatory-food-pyramid.html

25.  Kris-Etherton et al. 2000

26.  Cobiac et al. 1998

27.  Bush and Kirkpatrick 2003

28.  Guthrie and Smallwood 2003

29.  Jacques and Tucker 2001

30.  Holman 1998

31.  Gopalan 1997

32.  Kirchheiner nd

33.  Wiecha et al. 1991

34.  McCann and Ames 2009

35.  McCann and Ames, 2011

36.  Ames 2010

37.  Ashutosh and Ames 2011

Asthma, a different perspective

Asthma is one of the most common respiratory diseases. In Australia, New Zealand, the UK, US, Canada, many European countries, and now in many Asian countries, asthma is on the increase and has reached proportions of one in four children and one in 10 adults. The asthma rates in these countries has doubled in the last two decades and fortunately they seem to be leveling off but as other countries become westernised the rates are quickly catching up to our levels.

Asthma is a potentially life threatening and debilitating respiratory disease. Not only do asthmatics have to face potentially fatal attacks, but they may also have to deal with headaches, depression, mood swings, hyperactivity, learning difficulties, chronic fatigue and allergy related afflictions such as allergic rhinitis and eczema.

It’s unlikely that the genetics of the population has had an influence in such a short period of time, but it is likely that a degree of genetic susceptibility is being triggered by a combination of modern factors, perhaps the epigenetics factor I wrote about a few months ago. The rise of modern, Western society has brought with it many changes. Many of these appear innocent when considered in isolation, but when contemplated in combination, they present a formidable threat to our health and the health of our children.

The most probable cause of asthma and many other modern child health problems is a combination of Diet, Environment, Attitude and Lifestyle (DEAL) factors. To wait for definitive scientific proof that may never come, is to put a growing number of kids at severe risk. Asthma is not just an inconvenience, it kills.

The ‘westernised’ diet seems to be a contributing factor. Because asthma involves an immune response to various trigger substances, decreases in the average weekly consumption of fresh fruit, green and mixed vegetables and an increase in the amount of processed foods has all been linked with increasing asthma rates. And nowhere is this more evident than in Asian countries where the diet is rapidly becoming westernised. The ‘new’ diet provides fewer antioxidants, fewer minerals such as magnesium, selenium and zinc, and fewer vitamins, including Vitamins A, B, C and E - all of which are considered to be necessary co-factors in the immune function. The modern diet is also very low in methyl donors such as folate and vitamin B6 which may be having an impact on how the genes for asthma are expressed.

A number of studies have shown decreased minerals such as selenium and zinc in subgroups of asthma sufferers. There is also evidence that people with reduced intake of fresh fruit and vegetables have lower ventilatory functions (they take in less air with each breath) and other studies which link diets low in fruit and vegetables with increased rates of asthma, and more severe symptoms. There’s growing evidence of the benefits of vitamin, mineral and antioxidant supplements on the severity of asthmatic symptoms. For example, the essential fatty acids (EFA’s), particularly an increase in omega 3 oils have been shown to reduce the incidence of asthma in children in some studies. In the old days parents used to feed their kids cod liver oil and kids would eat home grown vegetables and free range eggs, all of which are a source of EFAs.

A number of studies have also shown a relationship between asthma and the mother’s eating habits. Children born to women who supplement with omega 3 oils are less likely to develop asthma. Some studies have also found reduced symptoms and rates of asthma in children who were breast-fed for longer as infants. The precise reason for this is unknown, but is probably due to the protective effect of breast milk and the detrimental effects of cows’ milk. Apart from other essential nutrients in human milk, it’s a rich source of EFAs, choline and important immune factors. And there is growing evidence mounting over the use of cows milk and increasing allergies and food intolerances.

Some of the food colourings and other food additives that our kids consume in relatively large quantities are also linked with asthma attacks. Ones that are particularly relevant include the colours 102, 110, 127, the sulphur preservatives (220- 230, sulphur dioxide, sodium sulphite and bisulphite potassium bisulphite and sodium and potassium metabisulphite) and MSG (621).

Investigations throughout the world confirm a link between asthma and a person’s sensitisation to indoor allergens, such as dust mites, pet fur and feathers, insects and mould. Nevertheless, these allergens have probably always been present in houses although the quantities of allergens and degree of exposure may have increased in many homes.

We have made our buildings more airtight through changes in design, weatherproofing and the use of air conditioning. This traps allergens and chemicals inside buildings, whereas in older homes there is greater airflow. The constant temperature and humidity also produce ideal conditions for dust mite and fungal growth. These conditions are further exacerbated by the fact that many people keep all their doors and window closed and that we spend 90% of our time indoors.
A number of studies have found a strong relationship between house dampness, fungal growth and respiratory illness. This is not only from obvious dampness such as condensation on windowpanes but also the amount of time spent in the shower and bath. Mould and mould spores are a major problem for asthmatics. Mould can usually be controlled by increasing the ventilation in bathrooms and other wet areas. Fibre cleaning is very effective in contolling mould and doesn’t involve the use of toxic chemicals.

Allergen avoidance, particularly for mould, dust mite allergens and pollen, has been shown to reduce both the onset of asthma and asthmatic symptoms. This avoidance appears to be especially important during the first twelve months of life, when the immune system is maturing. Some research also suggests the avoidance of substances that may cause reactions, even though not related to immune function . This includes some biologically active chemicals and some medications such as aspirin, sulphur dioxide, metabisulphate, coal tar dyes and flavour enhancers, such as MSG.

By contrast, while many pets produce problematic allergens, there’s increasing evidence to show that having a pet may offer some protective effect. In fact living on a farm and close to animals generally confirs some protection against asthma
Probably of greater importance is that we have dramatically increased our use of synthetic chemicals, which at higher doses are linked with asthma and respiratory disease. More and more studies are showing this link with even lower levels of exposure to chemicals, such as those found in new or renovated homes. Cleaning chemicals, spray cans, deodorants and perfumes are all increasingly being linked with contributing to the cause of asthma and potential asthma attacks. The evidence is also mounting that these chemicals may be influencing our genetic expression through epigenetics. The overuse of these chemicals may also be contributing to what is called the “hygeine hypothesis” which is that we are not being exposed to enough microorganisms and therefore not stimulating the immune system at the right stages of growth.

Unflued gas heaters (the ones that don’t have a flue or chimney) and other appliances are linked with increased respiratory illness. Many countries and some states in Australia have banned these appliances. There are now dozens of studies showing associated health problems.

There is little doubt about the effect of direct smoking and passive smoking on asthma and a litany of other diseases. While more and more people go outside to smoke, there are others who still expose their children to this cocktail of very toxic substances. Many of the thousands of chemicals found in tobacco smoke are toxic. Even worse, parents who smoke are showing their kids through their actions that smoking is okay. If you smoke you are teaching your kids to do the same, despite what you might say to them. As the old adage says, “Actions speak louder than words”.

Attitude is important because not only is it likely to reduce the risk of illnesses, but determines what an individual will do to prevent or reduce illness. Attitude is closely linked with education, the willingness to learn more and the desire to look after yourself. This does not mean ignoring the medical system. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. It means working with your doctor and asking lots of questions. Remember asthma can be a life threatening illness, so you need to understand it and take it seriously.

Our lifestyle has changed enormously over the last four decades. The structure of the family unit and how families interact, our level of physical activity and our dependence upon the car, television and computers have brought different pressures and demands. Many of these factors have negative impacts on our health and our ability to deal with asthma. Physical activity, breath control and stress management are essential for an asthmatic’s development of a healthy lifestyle. I have seen many instances where implementation of these has not only improved how a person deals with asthma but also reduced the severity and frequency of symptoms. For a small number of asthmatics strenuous physical activity can initiate an asthma attack. Be active but also understand your limits.

Unfortunately, despite the growing scientific evidence, the medical paradigm tends to prevail in our society that we can’t do anything about asthma because we don’t have the definitive proof yet of the causes. Science on the other hand shows a different perspective, that there are probably many contributing factors that need to be addressed and all can help just a little. Apart from this also being a common sense approach it also helps with many other health issues not just asthma, so isn’t it worth trying?

Author of "The DEAL for Happier Healthier Kids, a Parents Guide to 21st Century Health"