Free to indulge in pizza?

An apple a day keeps the doctor away, as the saying goes. What about a pizza a week keeps you happy and lean? No, I didn’t think you would agree!

You still feel guilty when indulging on a weekly pizza and have to repent by half starving the rest of the week. Well, maybe it is not as bad as you thought according to new research findings. That is if you are a young, healthy male.

The rest of us have to wait until the research has been repeated by including a more representative population.

Anyway, here are the findings

The researchers at the Centre for Nutrition, Exercise and Metabolism at the University of Bath recruited fourteen men with a mean age of 28 years. The men completed two trials in a randomised crossover design, science speak for all participants interchangeably trying two different pizza diets so they in effect were their own controls. The gold standard for small experimental groups.

On each occasion, participants ate a pizza meal. One time they ate until ‘comfortably full’ (ad libitum) and on the other, until they ‘could not eat another bite’ (maximal). The average calorie intake in the all-you-can-eat trial was over 3000 kcal, roughly one and half large pizzas. However, some individuals were able to consume up to two and half large pizzas in one go.

Following each meal metabolic, endocrine, appetite and mood responses were measured. There were marked differences in mood and appetite between trials. After eating maximally, participants felt sleepy and reported no desire for dessert, which was surprising as reward centres in the brain are usually food specific, so eating pizza might not be expected to change the desire for sweet food.

But they found that even when the participants pushed beyond their usual eating limits, doubling their calorie intake, they managed to keep the amount of nutrients in the bloodstream within a normal range. This showed that if an otherwise healthy person overindulges occasionally there are no immediate, negative consequences in terms of losing metabolic control.

Has to be a caveat

Yes, there is a caveat. The researchers had to disappoint by pointing out the long-term risks of over-indulgence with food when it comes to obesity, type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

But the good news is that the body can actually cope remarkably well when faced with a massive and sudden occasional calorie excess, being it a huge birthday cake or a Christmas meal. Healthy humans can eat twice as much as ‘full’ and still deal effectively with this huge initial energy surplus.

Just becoming a bit sleepy.

Climate change and food safety

 

What has global climate change to do with food safety you ask? Well quite a lot is the unfortunate answer. In a previous blog we have already described the increased risk of finding toxic levels of arsenic in rice due to global warming. Not convinced yet? Maybe the following quotes from a range of official global organisations can provide some compelling information for you to change your mind.

Opinions expressed by some official agencies

The world Health Organization (WHO) writes:

Climate change is likely to have considerable impacts on food safety, both direct and indirect, placing public health at risk. With changing rainfall patterns and increases in extreme weather events and the annual average temperature we will begin to face the impacts of climate change. These impacts will affect the persistence and occurrence of bacteria, viruses, parasites, harmful algae, fungi and their vectors, and the patterns of their corresponding foodborne diseases and risk of toxic contamination. Alongside these impacts, chemical residues of pesticides and veterinary medicines in plant and animal products will be affected by changes in pest pressure. The risk of food contamination with heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants following changes in crop varieties cultivated, cultivation methods, soils, redistribution of sediments and long-range atmospheric transport, is increased because of climate changes.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) writes:

Climate change poses significant challenges to global food safety. Long-term changes in temperature, humidity, rainfall patterns and the frequency of extreme weather events are already affecting farming practices, crop production and the nutritional quality of food crops. The sensitivity of germs, potentially toxin-producing microorganisms and other pests to climate factors suggests that climate change has the potential of affecting the occurrence and intensity of some foodborne diseases. Also, changing conditions may favour the establishment of invasive alien species harmful to plant and animal health. Surface seawater warming and increased nutrients input leads to the profusion of toxin-producing algae causing outbreaks of seafood contamination.

The transmission of infections or diseases between animals and humans (“zoonotic diseases”) is a major source of food safety risks. Environmental factors such as temperature, rainfall, humidity levels and soil can help to explain the distribution and survival of bacteria.

The European Food Information Council (EUFIC) writes:

There is a growing consensus that human activities may be changing our planet’s climate. These changes in climate have a number of possible implications for human health and welfare, one of which could be the safety of food.

It is impossible to accurately assess the full impact of climate change on food safety. However, it is likely that some effect on microbiological and chemical hazards will be seen. The extent of the risk posed by these hazards will depend on the type of hazard and the local conditions and practices.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) writes:

Climate change does not only imply increased average global temperature. Other effects of climate change include trends towards stronger storm systems, increased frequency of heavy precipitation events and extended dry periods. The contraction of the Greenland ice sheet will lead to rising sea-levels.

These changes have implications for food production, food security and food safety. It is widely understood that the risks of global climate change occurring as a consequence of human behaviour are inequitably distributed, since most of the actions causing climate change originate from the developed world, but the less developed world is likely to bear the brunt of the public health burden.

There is reason to believe that climate change can affect infection of crops with toxigenic fungi, the growth of these fungi and the production of mycotoxins. Given the great importance of this hazard, it is necessary that we understand what changes we might expect in order to better prepare ourselves to deal with this critically important issue.

Changes in climate may be creating a marine environment particularly suited to the growth of toxic-forming species of algae. Toxin-producing algal species are particularly dangerous to humans. A number of human illnesses are caused by ingesting seafood (primarily shellfish) contaminated with natural toxins produced algae; these include amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP), diarrheic shellfish poisoning (DSP), neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (NSP), azaspiracid shellfish poisoning (AZP), paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), and ciguatera fish poisoning. These toxins may cause respiratory and digestive problems, memory loss, seizures, lesions and skin irritation, or even fatalities in fish, birds, and mammals (including humans).

Like EFSA, FAO also comments on zoonotic diseases such a hot topic with COVID-19 a prescient example:

Climate change is one of several ‘global change’ factors driving the emergence and spread of diseases in livestock and the transfer of pathogens from animals to humans.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) writes:

Climate change will have a variety of impacts that may increase the risk of exposure to chemical contaminants in food. For example, higher sea surface temperatures will lead to higher mercury concentrations in seafood, and increases in extreme weather events will introduce contaminants into the food chain through stormwater runoff.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) writes:

The assessment finds that climate change is likely to diminish continued progress on global food security through production disruptions leading to local availability limitations and price increases, interrupted transport conduits, and diminished food safety, among other causes. The risks are greatest for the global poor and in tropical regions. In the near term, some high-latitude production export regions may benefit from changes in climate.

A bleak future

As you can see a fairly bleak uniform view from many official agencies. Global efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and regional measures to adapt to changing climatic conditions will be important to mitigate the impact on food and feed safety in relation to human health and nutrition, animal and plant health, and the environment.

The previous blog on arsenic was used as an example of a an increasing human health problem of a contaminant due to climate change. In some future blogs we will cover the the increased prevalence of algal and fungal toxins due to global warming.

Beware of using mouthwash

I know, I know, mouthwash is no food and this is a blog about food. But bear with me and you will see the connection revealed at the end. Although mouth rinsing has been around for thousands of years it was not until the late 1960’s that effective antibacterial compounds started to be used. Since then commercial interest in mouthwashes has been intense.

New products have been developed that claim effectiveness in reducing bacteria and the associated build-up in dental plaque, a cause of gingivitis. They are also supposed to fight bad breath by controlling anaerobic bacteria that produce unpleasant volatile sulphur compounds.

The downside!

All good then? No, not so fast. Not only will mouthwash not live up to claims in expensive commercials and on product labels, but using a mouthwash can actually make your dental and oral health problems worse.

As the intake of oral antibiotics will disrupt the balance of bacteria in the gut, mouthwash will do the same with the important bacterial balance in the mouth. And just like we need our gut microbiome for general health, we need  our oral microbiome to protect against common issues like cavities, gingivitis and bad breath.

Contrary to popular belief, the common claim of killing “99.9% of germs” does not prevent cavity formation. The oral microbiome actually supports the natural teeth remineralisation and indiscriminately killing the constituent bacteria will eliminate a critical part of the repair mechanism.

Saliva, another key component of the remineralisation process, is typically reduced with mouthwash use. Saliva serves to disturb the oral bacteria that can cause decay, while also depositing important minerals like phosphorous and magnesium onto the teeth.

But there is more!

There is actually a connection between blood pressure and the oral microbiome. Exercise is known to reduce blood pressure, a pleasant bonus of the exertion. But the activity of bacteria in our mouths may determine whether we experience this benefit, according to new research.

Sounds far fetched but there is a plausible explanation.

It was already known that blood vessels open up during exercise, as the production of nitric oxide increases the diameter of the blood vessels, increasing blood flow circulation to active muscles.

What has remained a mystery is how blood circulation remains higher after exercise, in turn triggering a blood-pressure lowering response known as post-exercise hypotension. It might be due to the magic of nitrate metabolism and the influence of the oral microbiome as the nitric oxide in the bloodstream is quickly converted to nitrate within 10 seconds.

Enterosalivary circulation of nitrate

Normally we ingest nitrate with the food we eat; green vegetables like spinach and rocket salad are particularly high in nitrate. In the gastro-intestinal system nitrate is released and enter the blood stream. And here comes the magic. Nitrate is excreted from the bloodstream into the oral cavity by the salivary glands.

Some species of bacteria in the mouth can use nitrate and convert it into nitrite. And when nitrite is swallowed, part of this molecule is rapidly absorbed into the circulation and reduced to nitric oxide. The nitric oxide helps to maintain a widening of blood vessels and a sustained lowering of blood pressure.

Thus the researchers asked the trial participants to rinse their mouths immediately after their exercise with either a mouthwash or water. And they showed that the blood pressure-lowering effect of exercise is significantly reduced when rinsing the mouth with an antibacterial mouthwash, rather than water.

Eating your greens

This was new knowledge in relation to exercise but the overall relationship between the oral microbiome and nitrate metabolism was already well known. In 1998, three US scientists received the Nobel prize for their discoveries around the role of nitric oxide.

Several existing studies show that, exercise aside, antibacterial mouthwash can actually raise blood pressure under resting conditions, so this study followed up and showed the mouthwash impact on the effects of exercise.

But in more general terms eating your greens and avoiding the use of a mouthwash will keep your blood pressure under better control, with exercise a bonus.

And there you have your food connection!

Food fraud – olive oil

Food fraud is nothing new, but the intensity and frequency have been on the rise. From counterfeit extra-virgin olive oil to intentional adulteration of spices and the manufacturing of fake honey, food fraud has been estimated to be a $US40 billion a year industry. In a series of posts we will cover a range of recent issues.

Olive oil is second in our series on fraudulent food

Similar to honey, which we covered in a previous post, food fraud involving olive oil has been around for millennia and remains among the top five food tampering issues.

Ancient Rome established an international trade in olive oil, and instituted elaborate mechanisms to prevent fraud. Olive oil fraud continues today, though modern governments are often less thorough and effective than the Romans at preventing it.

Olive oil has long been one of the most frequently adulterated products in the European Union, and equally in America where olive oil has been adulterated with soybean and seed oils,

Examples of adulterated olive oil

In Europe, common cheating involves mixing extra virgin olive oil with lower-grade olive oil or with virgin olive oil that has been sitting around since the previous year’s harvest or longer. Although the latter is not illegal, by the time that bottle reaches the store its quality has deteriorated.

In November 2015, seven of Italy’s best-known olive oil companies were investigated for allegedly passing off inferior quality virgin olive oil as extra virgin. Of 20 brands tested in the laboratory by specialists from the Italian customs agency, nine were found to be lower quality oil.

New methods of chemical refinement, commonly known as “deodorisation,” allow unscrupulous producers to remove sensory defects found in other oils. Thus a recent study confirmed that quite a lot of the olive oil available in the USA had been fraudulently cut with other oils like peanut, canola and sunflower.

Grades of olive oil

So what is olive oil and how is the different qualities defined? Bare with me, as classification of different olive oils gets a little complicated.

First, let’s make the obvious clear that olive oil is the oil obtained solely from the fruit of the olive tree (Olea europaea L.) without the addition of any other vegetable oils (or animal fats for that matter).

Second, olive oil is classified according to the method of production and the resulting properties of the oil. Depending on the quality it can be used in cooking, whether for frying or as a salad dressing, in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and soaps, and as a fuel for traditional oil lamps.

Third, to be called olive oil in retail it cannot be extracted using solvents (see olive pomace oil) or undergo re-esterification processes.

Thus, we have the following broad categories of oils produced from olives.

Virgin olive oil obtained by mechanical means only under conditions that do not lead to alterations in the oil, and which have not undergone any treatment other than washing, decantation, centrifugation and filtration.

Refined olive oil obtained from virgin olive oils by refining methods which do not lead to alterations in the initial fat structure but unfortunately removes some of the beneficial antioxidants and polyphenols found in virgin olive oils.

Olive oil consists of a blend of refined olive oils and virgin olive oils fit for consumption.

Olive pomace oil is the oil obtained by treating olive pomace (the olive pulp left after the first press) with solvents or other physical treatments.

The different categories of olive oils and olive pomace oils are named and defined by the International Olive Council (IOC) according to physico-chemical characteristics including organoleptic quality (taste to you and me).

Extra virgin olive oil comes from virgin oil production only, and is of higher quality: it contains no more than 0.8% free acidity and it has a superior taste, having some fruitiness and no defined sensory defects. Extra virgin olive oil is better than virgin olive oil with 2% free acidity and some sensory defects allowed. And virgin olive oil is better than ordinary virgin olive oil with 3.3% free acidity and further sensory defects allowed.

Further down the quality scale we find the lampante virgin olive oil with more than 3.3% free acidity intended for technical use unless further refined, and the olive oil consisting of a blend of original and refined virgin oil fit for human consumption.

Also olive pomace oil is split into quality categories. Crude olive pomace oil is the initial output destined for further refinement producing refined olive pomace oil with not more than 0.3% free acidity or as is for technical use. Finally, olive pomace oil is the blend of refined olive pomace oil and virgin olive oil fit for human consumption with not more than 1% of free acidity.

How to avoid inferior products

After all that what can a consumer do as there is ample room for deception along the production chain.

In the USA, not an official signatory to the standards prescribed by the IOC, not much as the product could easily have been diluted by other vegetable oils. However, if you look for the “COOC Certified Extra Virgin” seal from the California Olive Oil Council for California-made oils you will be on the safe side as their standards and certification program is even stricter than the IOC’s.

In Europe, you are also on your own as olive oils claimed to originate from Italy, considered to be of the best quality, are often mixed with olive oil from large producing countries like Spain, Greece or Turkey. You could look for a third party certification seal. In particular, the European Union’s Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Italy’s Denominazione di Origine Protetta (DOP), Extra Virgin Alliance (EVA) and Consorzio Olivicolo Italiano (UNAPROL), the respected Italian olive growers’ association.

If you are in Australia or Chile or go for imported Australian or Chilean olive oil you are blessed. It is going to be fresh and untainted. Australia has the most stringent standards and a highly advanced testing system, and neither country mixes in carryover oil from the previous harvest.

Why is this important?

The most obvious fact is that you should get what you pay for.

Part of what makes virgin olive oil so valuable is its many touted health benefits. Rich in monounsaturated fats and antioxidants, olive oil can lower LDL cholesterol and blood pressure while stabilizing blood sugar levels and reducing inflammation in the body.

If you pay for extra virgin olive oil because you prefer its taste and potential health benefits this is what you should get. It is nothing inherently wrong with ordinary olive oil except that the taste is more bland and the amount of beneficial antioxidants and polyphenols is significantly reduced.

If you are after high quality olive oil go for extra virgin on the label. Avoid anything labeled “virgin,” “light,” “pure,” or just “olive oil”.

If a label indicates the producer or estate, or the variety of olive used, it’s very likely genuine.

Look for a third-party certification seal, and avoid cheap deals, although expensive doesn’t automatically mean quality.

And trust your taste buds. Fraudulent olive oil might taste greasy, rancid, flavourless, or just not pleasant. Extra virgin olive oil should smell and taste green, bright, peppery, earthy and grassy. It might be too late to avoid the bargain olive oil you already purchased but at least you can avoid the brand in the future.

Food fraud – fake honey

Food fraud is nothing new, but the intensity and frequency have been on the rise. From counterfeit extra-virgin olive oil to intentional adulteration of spices and the manufacturing of fake honey, food fraud has been estimated to be a $US40 billion a year industry. In a series of posts we will cover a range of recent issues.

First cab off the rank is fake honey.

The brutal reality is adulterated honey is big business. It is all too easy to cheat by diluting honey with cheap sugar syrup substitutes, such as rice syrups, corn syrups, high fructose corn syrups and acid inverted sugar syrups. It can also be adulterated with natural syrups such as maple, cane sugar and molasses.

This is nothing new as food fraud experts point out that honey is one of the most commonly mislabelled foods around the world. After enough scandals involving cheap adulterated Chinese honey flooding the American market, the US Federal Trade Commission imposed stiff tariffs on Chinese honey in 2001 to try to stop it from being imported. That just meant that the Chinese honey was laundered through other Asian and some European countries before finding its way to the American market.

A new scandal erupted in mid 2018 as researchers determined that almost half the honey sold on Australian supermarket shelves was fake honey.

China is a common source for the sugar syrup culprits with Chinese websites selling them with claims that they can pass various official honey tests (see below).

Destroying the good name of honey

Humans have been harvesting honey for more than 6,000 years. It has been used as both a food and a medicine. Historically, people have used it to sweeten food and make fermented beverages like mead. Today it is also used in industrial food processing of baked products, confectionary, candy, marmalades, jams, spreads, breakfast cereals, beverages, milk products and many preserved products.

Honey is also considered to carry health properties. It contains a number of antioxidants, including phenolic compounds like flavonoids, that have been linked to reduced risk of heart attacks, strokes and some types of cancer.

Honey seems to have a positive effect on cholesterol levels. It leads to modest reductions in total and “bad” LDL cholesterol while raising “good” HDL cholesterol. Several studies show that honey can lower triglyceride levels, especially when used as a sugar substitute.  Elevated triglycerides are a risk factor for heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

Honey also has antimicrobial properties. When applied to the skin, honey can be part of an effective treatment plan for burns, wounds and many other skin conditions. It is particularly effective for diabetic foot ulcers.

For children over one year of age, honey can act as a natural and safe cough suppressant. Some studies show that it is even more effective than cough medicine.

Destroying the business for beekeepers

Substituting cheap sugar syrups for honey would negate many of the positive properties of honey. If that is not bad enough it makes it difficult for beekeepers to compete and threaten the survival of bees. No bees – a starving world, it’s as simple as that.

Bees and other pollinators fertilise three-quarters of global food crops and have seen severe declines in recent decades, due to loss of habitat, disease and harmful pesticides. In the UK, wild honey bees are nearly extinct, solitary bees are declining in more than half the areas studied and some species of bumblebee have been lost altogether.

The large bee losses reported worldwide over the last decades have stimulated a lot of research on the monitoring of bees and the potential causes of the losses including pathogens, pests, diseases, nutrition, pesticides, habitat and climate changes. During this process, extensive datasets have been generated and collated on honeybee losses that have been linked to diseases, pests and pathogens in Europe and North America. Less is known about the situation for solitary bees and bumblebees.

Fake honey is a further nail in the coffin.

Beating the cheaters

Many of the syrups sold by the Chinese promises to be able to beat what’s called a C4 sugar test, which is the official test used in Australia and many other countries for testing of honey adulteration.

Sugars produced from tropical plants like sugar cane and maize/corn are produced using a photosynthetic pathway referred to as the C4 pathway.  Nectar which is collected by bees comes from plants that use a different process of photosynthesis, referred to as the C3 pathway.  There is a measurable difference in the ratio of the naturally occurring carbon-12 and carbon-13 isotopes in sugars arising from the C3 and C4 pathways, and this test uses this difference to identify whether C4 sugar appears to have been added to the honey.

But what to do when the cheaters even cheat the test? Well, there is a method called “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance” (NMR for short). The nuclei in atoms have electrical charges, and many also have a physical property known as spin. This means they are sensitive to magnetic fields in NMR machines with the nuclei of each type of atom reacting differently. By measuring how the nuclei in the sample respond to different magnetic fields a fingerprint of what is in the sample is created.

NMR is a very sensitive technique already used in other parts of the food industry, such as testing fruit juices and wines. In honey, it can distinguish between the different types of sugars and detect other components that give honey its unique flavours. It is a relatively new method that may be adopted by official bodies in the future.

A brighter future

There is hope that honey adulteration might become a cheat of the past with the new analytical methods. This will allow honey consumers to enjoy their passion and beekeepers to secure their future.

And bees will be allowed to perform their work benefiting the worlds food crops.

Spoiling the fun – no booze!

“Hygge” is a Danish word for describing a feeling of wellness and contentment, possibly after consuming a beer or two as Denmark is top of the list in the number of drinkers in a country at over 95%. But, there is also a Swedish secret to a balanced and happy life and that is described by the word “lagom”, not too little, not too much, but just right. Applied to alcohol consumption it would mean drinking in moderation.

Up to now there has been numerous studies showing that drinking in moderation can actually be good for you. We have previously described potential health effects of consuming beer, wine or liquor while acknowledging the downside of excessive drinking.

Now a new study is attempting to spoil the fun.

New study claims no safe level of alcohol consumption

A systematic review of the existing literature on alcohol consumption published in August 2018 concludes that there seems to be no safe level of drinking alcohol. The study, part of the annual Global Burden of Disease, assesses alcohol-related health outcomes and patterns between 1990 and 2016 for 195 countries and territories and by age and sex. It does not distinguish between beer, wine, and liquor consumption due to a lack of evidence when estimating the disease burden. Instead, researchers used data on all alcohol-related deaths generally and related health outcomes to determine their conclusions.

First, the researchers explored 694 data sources on individual and population-level alcohol consumption. Not surprisingly they found that alcohol use patterns varied widely by country and by sex, the average consumption per drinker, and the attributable disease burden. Globally, more than 2 billion people were current drinkers in 2016.

Second, the study reviewed 592 prospective and retrospective studies on the risk of alcohol use. Based on this vast range of data sources they built a large and complex statistical model to estimate the relative risk for 23 health outcomes associated with alcohol use.

As a result of the modelling the researchers claim that in 2016, nearly 3 million deaths globally were attributed to alcohol use, including 12% of deaths in males between the ages of 15 and 49. They conclude that while moderate alcohol consumption may be preventive for some conditions such as ischaemic heart disease and diabetes, when combined with increasing risk of cancers and other outcomes there is a steadily increasing harm from alcohol consumption. This leads them to argue that there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol consumption.

This is a rather bleak conclusion if true. Gone are the purported health effects of moderate drinking found in many other studies.

Is this as important as the authors claim?

The first consideration should be: Are the finding of significance in a real life situation and not just from a statistical point of view? To be able to gauge this the findings should be presented as absolute values rather than relative changes. If you notice above the study only presented relative risk outcomes. Thus, readers couldn’t tell how dangerous drinking alcohol really was for them.

However, this was remedied by the press office of the Lancet journal, in which the study was published. Thus, Lancet clarified that when comparing no drinks with one drink a day for 15–95 year olds, there was a 0.5% higher risk of developing one of the 23 alcohol-related health problems. This meant that the 914 in 100,000 that would develop a health condition in one year if they did not drink, would increase to 918 people in 100,000 who drank one alcoholic drink a day.

That is a difference of 4 people per 100,000 in a year.

People who drank two drinks a day had a 7% higher risk of alcohol related health problems or a difference of 63 per 100,000 in a year and people who drank five drinks every day had a 37% higher risk or a difference of 348 per 100,000 in a year.

A drink or two should be fine

It is clear that heavy drinking has its toll on health and should be avoided, but to claim that abstention is the only solution is barely supported by the facts presented.

Presumably people who choose to drink alcohol moderately get some pleasure from it, and any risk needs to be traded off against this enjoyment, as expressed by David Spiegelhalter of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, Cambridge University.

I suggest that you will feel “hygge” by sticking to “lagom” when consuming alcohol and most of us will be fine.

Counterbalancing health effects of coffee consumption

If you’re an avid coffee consumer you must have been delighted to see in the news lately that coffee can have beneficial health effects. Coffee had previously confusingly been in the bad books blamed for everything from stunting growth to causing heart disease and insomnia.

It had also been shown that high consumption of unfiltered coffee (boiled coffee popular in Scandinavian countries or espresso invented in Italy and spread all over the world) fails to catch a compound called cafestol in the oily part of coffee that can increase the bad cholesterol or LDL.

Not so good.

So what changed?

The good news was based on a scientific review aimed to dispel some of that confusion, examining the evidence presented in 218 previous studies. It’s an example of the ever more popular meta-analysis of existing research that by combining previous findings strengthen the proof of the conclusions.

In synthesising the reported findings the researchers found that coffee consumption was more often associated with benefit than harm for a range of health outcomes across exposures. Three to four cups a day seemed to be optimal.

Drinking coffee was consistently associated with a lower risk of death from all causes and a lower risk of several cancers, as well as type 2 diabetes, gallstones and gout.

Liver conditions, such as cirrhosis, saw the greatest benefit associated with coffee consumption. There also seemed to be beneficial associations between coffee consumption and Parkinson’s disease, depression and Alzheimer’s disease.

Overall, there was no consistent evidence of harmful associations between coffee consumption and health outcomes, except for those related to pregnancy and for risk of fracture in women.

Spoiling the good news story

We shouldn’t spoil a good news story, but we have previously mentioned the presence of toxic acrylamide and furan especially in coffee. Now the European Food Safety Authority has published a new opinion on furan confirming the previous suspicion that furan in food could be harmful to health. Based on animal studies they concluded that liver damage and liver cancer are the most critical health effects.

Although the average intake of food containing furan indicates a low health concern for most consumers, for high consumers exposure is up to three times what would be considered of low concern for public health.

The most exposed group of people are infants, mainly through consumption of ready-to-eat jarred or canned foods. Exposure in other population groups is mainly from consumption of grain-based foods and, here you have it, coffee, depending on age and consumer habits.

The highest concentrations of furan were found in whole roasted coffee beans, with a mean value of 4,579 µg/kg. High mean concentrations of furan were also found in ground roasted coffee (2,361 µg/kg) and instant coffee powder (310 µg/kg). This should be compared to mean values ranging from not detected to 57 µg/kg for most other foods.

All is not lost

There is a serious anomaly between the observational findings that coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of liver damage, while on the contrary animal studies link the presence of furan in the diet to liver damage. And coffee provides the highest exposure to furan in adults.

What’s to give?

As bad as the concentrations of furan seem to be in solid coffee samples, in preparing the coffee beverage there is both a dilution and an evaporative loss of furan down to typical concentrations of about 60 µg/L in the final beverage. Still bad for heavy coffee drinkers.

But there is more.

Coffee contains a complex mixture of bioactive compounds benefiting health.

It contributes a large proportion of the daily intake of dietary antioxidants, greater than tea, fruit, and vegetables. Chlorogenic acid is the most abundant antioxidant in coffee; though it is degraded by roasting, alternative antioxidant organic compounds are formed. Caffeine also has significant antioxidant effects.

Cafestol and kahweol induce enzymes involved in carcinogen detoxification and stimulation of intracellular antioxidant defence, contributing towards an anticarcinogenic effect.

These antioxidant and anti-inflammatory compounds are likely to be responsible for the  beneficial associations between coffee consumption and liver health, and might neutralise the effects of furan.

You can still drink your coffee with peace of mind

The fight is on over sugar

It is difficult even for experienced scientists to agree on the interpretation of their findings. Add to that external research funding linked to commercial interests and it is even more difficult to know what to believe.

A case in point. If you thought excessive sugar intake is the root of the evil obesity epidemic you might have to think again.

Or not….

Sugar advice questioned

There has been a scathing attack on global health advice to eat less sugar. Through industry proxies, a scientific review now claims that warnings to cut sugar are based on weak evidence and cannot be trusted.

The review identified 9 guidelines that offered 12 recommendations, all indicating a suggested decrease in the consumption of foods containing nonintrinsic sugars (that is added sugar to you and me). The recommendations were based on various health concerns, including nutrient displacement, dental caries, and weight gain. However, the reviewers claimed that no guideline met criteria for trustworthy recommendations and were all based on low-quality evidence.

The review was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, a scientific group funded by multinational food and agrochemical companies.

Tainted from the beginning. When will industry ever learn.

The review findings immediately questioned

Predictably, the review quickly received sharp criticism from public health experts. It was but the latest effort of the food industry to influence global nutrition advice by supporting prominent academics questioning the role of sugary food and beverages in causing obesity and other health problems.

The review was seen as an attempt to undermine sugar guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) to consume fewer products with added sugar, such as soft drinks, candy and sweetened cereals. It is a classic example of how industry funding is used to influence opinion.

To be fair to the review team, they wanted their results to be used to promote improvement in the development of trustworthy guidelines on sugar intake. They also emphasised that the review findings should not be used to justify higher intake of sugary foods and beverages.

Still, nutrition experts say that the review team ignored the hundreds of randomised controlled trials that have documented the harms of sugar. There are strong scientific evidence that sugar contribute to adverse health conditions like weight gain and Type 2 diabetes. The view is that the review team ignored the real data, created false scores, and somehow got through a peer review system difficult to understand from a reputable journal like Annals of Internal Medicine.

The WHO contrary point of view

So until we have the general scientific opinion swinging over to supporting sugar, it is clearly best to stick to the WHO recommendations.

A WHO guideline of 2015 recommends that adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. WHO also believes that a further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.

Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates. But the guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables, and sugars naturally present in milk.

Contrary to the above review findings, WHO states that they have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay. Based on the quality of supporting evidence, these recommendations are ranked by WHO as “strong”.

So there you have it. And if you embark on reducing your sugar intake remember that much of the sugars consumed today are “hidden” in processed foods that are not usually seen as sweets.

Surprising details about salt

We recently published a blog abut the health impact of high salt intake. We told you that the body relies on sodium from salt for a variety of functions, including blood pressure and the transmission of nerve impulses. And that it is important that the sodium level in blood is carefully maintained.

But there is more.

The conventional wisdom has long been that if you eat a lot of salt you will become thirsty and drink water, diluting your blood enough to maintain the proper concentration of sodium. Ultimately, you will get rid of the excess salt and water through urine. One way of increasing urine production is to increase blood pressure – the negative health impact of too much salt in the diet.

Sounds simple enough, but some of this may be very wrong.

Surprising findings

Two new studies have put part of this simple theory on its head. In long-term studies of simulated space travel the participants were given a well controlled diet with either 6, 9 or 12 g of salt per day. Eating more salt actually made the participants less thirsty, but somehow hungrier despite the amount of food being exactly the same.

Instead of drinking more, the participants were drinking less when getting more salt. But still increased urine production to get rid of the excess sodium. So where was the excreted fluid coming from? Well, the only explanation available would be that the fluid had been generated from existing body constituents.

How bizarre!

To get to the bottom of the findings the scientists repeated the experiments on mice and found that they burned more calories when they got more salt in the diet. Since they had unlimited access to food – in contrast to the humans above – they ate 25% more just to maintain their weight.

The animals were getting water – but not by drinking it. Instead an increased level of glucocorticoid hormones helped break down fat and muscle in their own bodies. This freed up water for the body to use. However, this process requires energy, thus the mice ate more food.

We already know that a starving body can burn its own fat and muscle for survival. That something similar happens on a salty diet was a surprise. But this is what camels do to create water from the fat in their humps when travelling through deserts with no water.

No, it’s no dieting solution

So could this be a new weight loss fad? To eat more salty foods as salt seems to be involved in weight loss. In contrast to the previous opinion that a high-salt diet encourages a greater intake of fluids, which increases weight.

No, the advice is not to increase salt intake for three reasons:

• Firstly, more salt in the diet will make you hungrier and you will eat more unless you have a very strong resolve. This would defeat the purpose of the dieting.
• Secondly, the resulting high glucocorticoid levels are known to cause osteoporosis, muscle loss, diabetes and other metabolic problems.
• And finally, the increased blood pressure due to the high salt intake can cause heart disease and premature death.

So it is a no brainer to still reduce salt intake. But at least now you know more about what happens when you eat too much salt.

Disappointing news – or not – about moderate drinking

Many studies and reviews have supported the notion that moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial for heart health. Why not have a daily glass or two of wine at dinner, as it could ward off disease. And now they come and spoil the fun.

A joint group of Canadian, Australian and US scientists took a hard look at the evidence presented in previously published research and found little support for a heart protective effect of moderate alcohol consumption.

And here you are believing the previously good news, who can you really trust? But not all is lost so read on.

So what did they find?

The new assessment initially agreed with the previous findings as a fully adjusted pooled analysis of all the 45 studies reviewed found significantly reduced coronary heart disease mortality for current moderate drinkers, actually for all current drinkers.  So all good now, can I continue to have a glass or two of wine to dinner and feel healthier?

Unfortunately not, as the researchers found confounding factors in that they could see an influence of age, gender, ethnicity, and heart health at baseline. When correcting for such factors they claim that moderate consumption of alcohol was not significantly protective for people at ages 55 years or younger at baseline, or for studies controlled for heart health at the beginning of the study. They even claimed that the appearance of cardio-protection among older people may reflect systematic selection biases that accumulate over the life course.

Their hypothesis is that non-drinkers may, in fact, be former drinkers who quit or cut down for health reasons. So, of course the remaining healthy drinkers will fair better than their poor abstainers that are already sick. And the seniors who are healthy may be more likely to keep enjoying that glass of wine with dinner thus biasing the results.

However, the researchers stop short of turning the previous findings on its head. They only conclude that there remain grounds for skepticism about the hypothesis that alcohol use can be cardio-protective, and recommend that future prospective studies not only avoid biased abstainer reference groups, but also take steps to minimize other forms of selection bias across the life course, including that from competing disease risks.

So there is still hope?

Yes, there is still hope that a daily glass of wine might keep you healthy longer as the researchers can’t prove it one way or the other. Only that there are grounds for a healthy skepticism as there remain plausible alternative explanations for their observed review findings.

So let’s make it clear. For now, no one is saying that people who enjoy alcohol in moderation should stop. Should there be no direct benefits, at least the risks of low-level drinking would be small.

Let’s drink to that, but only in moderation!