Health Journal Online

Tag: Processed

  • Does Processed Meat Affect Our Lung Function? 

    Does Processed Meat Affect Our Lung Function? 

    If the nitrites in foods like ham and bacon cause lung damage, what about “uncured” meat with “no nitrites added”?

    “Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans.” Also known as cured meat, such as bacon, ham, hot dogs, lunch meat, and sausage, processed meat is definitively cancer-causing. What’s more, “high processed meat consumption has also been associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality”—that is, dying prematurely from all causes put together—“and is a risk factor for several major chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke.” What about lung issues like asthma?

    As I discuss in my video Does Processed Meat Affect Our Lung Function?, nitrites are added to processed meats as preservatives to preserve their pink hue (so the meat products don’t turn gray), keep them less rancid-tasting, and prevent the growth of diseases like botulism. But, if that same sodium nitrite is put into the drinking water of lab animals, they develop emphysema. Nearly all of them develop emphysema. That was the extent of the scientific knowledge we had on the subject going into 2007, then this study was published: “Cured Meat Consumption, Lung Function, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Among United States Adults.” It found that frequent consumption of cured meat is associated with an increased risk of people developing diseases like emphysema, a form of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). As you can see below and at 1:32 in my video, eating it every other day appeared to triple the odds of severe COPD. 

    Since it was a snapshot-in-time study, we don’t know which came first, the sausage or the COPD. For that, we need prospective studies that follow people over time, and the big twin Harvard studies in women and men both found that “the risk of newly diagnosed COPD increased with a greater consumption of cured meats after adjustment for many important confounders.” 

    We now have studies involving hundreds of thousands of people showing that higher consumption of processed meat is associated with a 40 percent increased risk of COPD. It comes out to about an 8 percent higher risk of COPD for each hot dog eaten in a week or each weekly breakfast link sausage. What is going on?

    Yes, there are advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), so-called glycotoxins that “occur naturally in meat and are formed through heat processing,” that may be pro-inflammatory, as well as saturated fat that can also trigger inflammation in the airways. And there’s the high salt content that can present a potential risk for lung inflammation, and the suggestion that processed meat intake may increase systemic inflammation in general. However, the reason attention has focused on the nitrites is because nitrites themselves may be “one of the mechanisms by which tobacco smoke causes COPD” and other diseases like emphysema. “Cured meats are the principal source of dietary nitrites,” but “nitrites are also byproducts of tobacco smoke.” One of the main constituents in cigarettes, besides carbon monoxide and nicotine, are nitrogen oxides that are converted in the lungs to nitrites.

    The way nitrites appear to cause lung damage is by affecting connective tissue proteins like collagen and elastin, which are what help keep the airspaces in our lungs open. But nitrite can modify these proteins in ways that “mimic age-related damage, including elastin fragmentation.”

    With that much lung injury, it’s logical to assume that processed meat consumption could also exacerbate the disease of those who already have it. And, indeed, cured meat consumption increases the risk of people with COPD ending back in the hospital; those eating more cured meat on average have about twice the risk of readmission. It appears the more you eat, the worse it is, as seen here and at 3:56 in my video.

    “Regarding lung health, processed meat intake has been associated with a likely increased risk of lung cancer, decline in lung function and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD),” but what about asthma? High consumption of processed meat has also been “associated with higher asthma symptoms.” 

    We know that “higher maternal intake of meat before pregnancy may increase the risk of wheezing” in her children later on, based on a study of more than a thousand mother-child pairs. (And we aren’t talking about aspirating meat into our lungs and getting misdiagnosed with asthma.) In fact, “those who ate the most cured meats were 76% more likely to experience worsening asthma than those who ate the least.” Since obesity is a likely risk factor for asthma, might meat’s influence be indirect, by contributing to weight gain? That may be a small part of it, but the main effect appears to be direct, “suggesting a deleterious role of cured meat independent of BMI,” body mass index, a weight measurement. Put all the studies together, and “processed meat intake appears to be an important target for primary prevention of adult asthma.”

    Even if you don’t have any lung issues, processed meat consumption was negatively associated with measures of normal lung function, while fruit and vegetable consumption and dietary total antioxidant capacity were associated with better lung function.

    Can we just eat all-natural, uncured hot dogs, with “NO NITRATES OR NITRITES ADDED,” like these see here and at 5:35 in my video? 

    If you use a magnifying glass and peer at the small print, it says “except those naturally occurring in sea salt and cultured celery juice.”

    See, to avoid saying “added nitrites,” food manufacturers may add something that has a lot of nitrates, like celery, and also bacteria, “a starter culture to convert the nitrate to nitrite.” So, nitrites are being added and consumers are being duped.

    The European Union doesn’t allow this kind of consumer fraud and “considers the use of plant extracts containing high levels of nitrate with an intended technological purpose of preservation to be a deliberate use of a food additive,” and manufacturers must explicitly label their products as “containing nitrate or nitrite.” You can’t even call it natural. “In the European Union, ‘natural’ claims are also not permitted….”

    When Consumer Reports put it to the test, it found the nitrite levels in all the products were essentially the same, so “‘no nitrites’ doesn’t mean no nitrites.” Consumer Reports and the Center for Science in the Public Interest have petitioned the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture to stop this misleading practice. Nitrites are nitrites, and “their chemical composition is absolutely the same, and so are the health effects.”

    Yes, processed meat is a known carcinogen, but How Much Cancer Does Lunch Meat Cause? 

    I have many videos on both nitrites and nitrates. I know it can be confusing, so be sure to check them out. 



    Source link

  • Processed Foods and Obesity 

    Processed Foods and Obesity 

    The rise in the U.S. calorie supply responsible for the obesity epidemic wasn’t just about more food, but a different kind of food.

    The rise in the number of calories provided by the food supply since the 1970s “is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity.” Similar spikes in calorie surplus were noted in developed countries around the world in parallel with and presumed to be primarily responsible for, the expanding waistlines of their populations. After taking exports into account, by the year 2000, the United States was producing 3,900 calories for every man, woman, and child—nearly twice as much as many people need. 

    It wasn’t always this way. The number of calories in the food supply actually declined over the first half of the twentieth century and only started its upward climb to unprecedented heights in the 1970s. The drop in the first half of the century was attributed to the reduction in hard manual labor. The population had decreased energy needs, so they ate decreased energy diets. They didn’t need all the extra calories. But then the “energy balance flipping point” occurred, when the “move less, stay lean phase” that existed throughout most of the century turned into the “eat more, gain weight phase” that plagues us to this day. So, what changed?

    As I discuss in my video The Role of Processed Foods in the Obesity Epidemic, what happened in the 1970s was a revolution in the food industry. In the 1960s, most food was prepared and cooked in the home. The typical “married female, not working” spent hours a day cooking and cleaning up after meals. (The “married male, non-working spouse” averaged nine minutes, as you can see below and at 1:34 in my video.) But then a mixed-blessing transformation took place. Technological advances in food preservation and packaging enabled manufacturers to mass prepare and distribute food for ready consumption. The metamorphosis has been compared to what happened a century before with the mass production and supply of manufactured goods during the Industrial Revolution. But this time, they were just mass-producing food. Using new preservatives, artificial flavors, and techniques, such as deep freezing and vacuum packaging, food corporations could take advantage of economies of scale to mass produce “very durable, palatable, and ready-to-consume” edibles that offer “an enormous commercial advantage over fresh and perishable whole or minimally processed foods.” 

    Think ye of the Twinkie. With enough time and effort, “ambitious cooks” could create a cream-filled cake, but now they are available around every corner for less than a dollar. If every time someone wanted a Twinkie, they had to bake it themselves, they’d probably eat a lot fewer Twinkies. The packaged food sector is now a multitrillion-dollar industry.

    Consider the humble potato. We’ve long been a nation of potato eaters, but we usually baked or boiled them. Anyone who’s made fries from scratch knows what a pain it is, with all the peeling, cutting, and splattering of oil. But with sophisticated machinations of mechanization, production became centralized and fries could be shipped at -40°F to any fast-food deep-fat fryer or frozen food section in the country to become “America’s favorite vegetable.” Nearly all the increase in potato consumption in recent decades has been in the form of french fries and potato chips. 

    Cigarette production offers a compelling parallel. Up until automated rolling machines were invented, cigarettes had to be rolled by hand. It took 50 workers to produce the same number of cigarettes a machine could make in a minute. The price plunged and production leapt into the billions. Cigarette smoking went from being “relatively uncommon” to being almost everywhere. In the 20th century, the average per capita cigarette consumption rose from 54 cigarettes a year to 4,345 cigarettes “just before the first landmark Surgeon General’s Report” in 1964. The average American went from smoking about one cigarette a week to half a pack a day.

    Tobacco itself was just as addictive before and after mass marketing. What changed was cheap, easy access. French fries have always been tasty, but they went from being rare, even in restaurants, to being accessible around each and every corner (likely next to the gas station where you can get your Twinkies and cigarettes).

    The first Twinkie dates back to 1930, though, and Ore-Ida started selling frozen french fries in the 1950s. There has to be more to the story than just technological innovation, and we’ll explore that next.

    This explosion of processed junk was aided and abetted by Big Government at the behest of Big Food, which I explore in my video The Role of Taxpayer Subsidies in the Obesity Epidemic.

    This is the fifth video in an 11-part series. Here are the first four: 

    Videos still to come are listed in the related videos below.



    Source link

  • FDA Wants To Further Reduce Salt Levels In Packaged, Processed Food

    FDA Wants To Further Reduce Salt Levels In Packaged, Processed Food

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced a milestone in its voluntary sodium reduction program by completing the Phase I target and issuing draft guidance for Phase II. In this next phase, the FDA plans to further reduce sodium levels in packaged and processed food by 20%, to bring the average intake to about 2,750 milligrams per day.

    According to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, a person should not consume more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium per day, which is about one teaspoon of salt. The FDA launched its sodium reduction program in 2021, setting a 2.5-year target. The goal for Phase I was to lower the average daily sodium intake from 3,400 milligrams to 3,000 milligrams.

    High sodium intake is linked to health issues such as increased blood pressure, a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Studies have shown that reducing sodium intake could prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and illnesses. However, to effectively lower sodium consumption, changes need to be made in the food supply itself, as more than 70 percent of sodium comes from processed and prepared foods.

    “Reducing sodium in the food supply has the potential to be one of the most important public health initiatives in a generation. The early successes we’re seeing with sodium level reduction in certain foods is encouraging and indicative of the impact we believe our overall nutrition approach can have on the wellbeing of society,” FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods Jim Jones said in a news release.

    Phase II will continue to target sodium levels in commercially processed, packaged, and prepared foods in the marketplace.

    “In addition to our sodium reduction efforts, the FDA is also actively working on a forthcoming final rule updating the definition of the claim ‘healthy,’ a proposed rule for front-of-package nutrition labeling and exploring ways to reduce added sugars consumption. The FDA’s sodium reduction and other nutrition initiatives are central to a broader, whole-of-government approach to help reduce the burden of diet-related chronic diseases and advance health equity,” Jones added.

    The American Heart Association (AHA) advises limiting sodium intake to no more than 2,300 milligrams per day, with an ideal limit of 1,500 milligrams for those with high blood pressure. They suggest that reducing daily sodium intake by 1,000 milligrams can significantly improve blood pressure and heart health.

    Source link