Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 > " Misty L. Trepke " <mistytrepke > Fri, 03 Sep 2004 03:27:42 -0000 > [s-A] [VaccinationLiberation] Antioxidants, > Depression, EU Law > > > http://www..com > > Why EU Law Says Food Can't Effect Your Mind > > IN THIS ISSUE > > . EU to rule out making health claims about food > . Proof that food can beat nutrition > . Why antioxidants can help prevent cardiovascular > disease > > WHY EU LAW SAYS FOOD CAN'T AFFECT YOUR MIND > > Saying things like 'fish is good for your brain' may > soon become > illegal, if a draft EU Regulation on Health and > Nutrition Claims get > voted through in Brussels. This further piece of > legislation has the > worthy goal of making sure that health claims made > about foods and > food supplements are true. However, instead of > allowing claims that > are backed up with good science, the EU Regulation > states > that: " There are many factors, other than dietary > ones, that can > influence psychological and behavioural functions. > Therefore, it is > appropriate to prohibit the use of psychological and > behavioural > claims " . > > This argument for the exclusion of psychological or > behavioural > claims is spurious. There are many factors, other > than dietary ones, > that influence physiological functions (exercise, > smoking, > pollution, infection and sun exposure, to name a > few). Food does > effect both psychology and behaviour and the > possibility of such > claims, if scientifically supported, should not be > excluded. Why, > for example, should it be legal to say that 'omega 3 > fats help to > support cardiovascular health' and not legal to say > that 'omega 3 > fats help support a healthy mood', when the science > is there to > support such claims? > > The effect of this clause will not only counter the > proposed intent > of the EU regulation - which is to allow > substantiated health claims > to be made - it will severely hamper attempts to > improve the > public's diet. Since most foods, for example fish or > fish oils, > cannot be patented, there is no possibility - by > virtue of the costs > involved and the lack of return on a non-patented > food - in > obtaining a medicinal licence. Nor should there be > any need > to 'licence' a nutrient and to describe its health > supporting > effects. The very idea would have Hippocrates > turning in his grave. > The net consequence of the inclusion of this clause > would be to > provide a monopoly of psychological and behavioural > health claims to > licensed medicines, such as anti-depressants. This > will have the > effect of pushing the public towards prescription > drugs and away > from choosing health-promoting foods and food > supplements for > supporting mental wellbeing. > > If you disagree with this EU proposal, as I do, then > now is the time > to write to your MEP, whose details you can find at > www.europarl.org.uk or by calling 020 7227 4300. > Attached is an > example letter, which I am sending to mine. Please > feel free to > amend accordingly. MEP Letter > > PROOF THAT FOOD CAN BEAT DEPRESSION > > According to a recent survey of 2000 people, almost > half of adults > in the UK eat to stifle feelings of loneliness, > boredom and stress. > Yet, ironically, eating the right foods, plus > appropriate > supplementation, may be the very answer to beating > the blues. > America's CBS News recently reported on the > breakthroughs being made > in the treatment of depression by us at the Brain > Bio Centre in > London. This short film, which was shown on Sky > News, follows the > success story of a 21-year-old girl who experienced > severe side- > effects and withdrawal effects on anti-depressants > and has found > incredible improvement through the Brain Bio > Centre's diet and > supplement strategy.You can download the film and > see it for > yourself at www.mentalhealthproject.com > > AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION BACK IN THE DARK AGES ON > ANTIOXIDANTS > > Last month the American Heart Association (AHA) > published a review > of clinical trials looking at antioxidant > supplementation in > Cardiovascular Disease and suggested that scientific > data does not > justify antioxidant supplementation to reduce risk. > I strongly > disagree. Why the difference of opinion? > > Firstly, the majority of the subjects in the > clinical trials > reviewed by the AHA already had cardiovascular > disease (CVD) and so > their extrapolation that antioxidant supplements > won't help prevent > disease is highly questionable. To date, the vast > majority of > prevention studies show exactly the opposite. For > example, modest > amounts of vitamin E (135 to 270mg) alone has been > shown to reduce > risk of CVD by 30 to 40%.(1, 2). Another report - > titled 'Multivitamin Use and Mortality in a Large > Prospective > Study' - showed that out of over one million > participants, those > adults who used vitamin E or other antioxidant > vitamins, in > combination with a daily multivitamin, had a 15% > lower risk of dying > from heart disease or stroke than those who did not > take vitamins. > (3) A more recent study showed that even basic > multivitamin use has > been shown to reduce risk by 20%.(4) It is highly > likely > that 'optimum nutrition' style supplementation will > halve risk. > > Secondly, contrary to the AHA's report, many trials > do show that > antioxidant supplements are effective against CVD. > For example, the > Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study (CHAOS) found a > 77% reduction in > heart attacks over two years by giving 270mg of > vitamin E.(5) Those > trials that have not been successful are usually > open to the same > criticisms - too little too late and bad study > designs. > > A classic example is the British Heart Foundation > trial comparing > the effects of statins versus an antioxidant > supplement regime > providing 600mg of vitamin E, 250mg of vitamin C and > 20mg of beta- > carotene.(6) I predicted this trial would may be > ineffective because > the doses are too low for those already suffering > from CVD. Vitamin > C is only in circulation for six hours so I would > give a person with > cardiovascular disease no less than 1g every six > hours (three times > a day). I would give vitamin E in the form of both > natural d-alpha > tocopherol, tocotrienols and other tocopherols, not > synthetic dl- > alpha tocopherol as used in this trial, probably at > 800mg a day. I > would also give Co-Q, at least 100mg, and lipoic > acid, at least > 300mg. > > This trial, and most referred to by the AHA, make > one fatal error. > They fail to measure an indicator of oxidative > stress. In other > words, they fail to measure whether the supplements > they were giving > were effectively acting as an antioxidant in the > body. There is no > question that reducing oxidation reduces risk. Only > by measuring if > you have reduced oxidation can you say whether the > dose, or the form > of the nutrient, was good enough to make a > difference to the people > being studied. Some individuals are more responsive > to lowering > homocysteine with B vitamins, while others respond > best to reducing > oxidation with antioxidants. Without measuring > whether the treatment > has reduced oxidation - which is the mechanism that > damages arteries > and can be reversed with enough antioxidants - or > reduced > homocysteine - another mechanism that leads to > artery damage - you > really learn nothing. On top of this, these trials > skirt around the > fact that the patients are usually on powerful > medication. It is > obviously wrong to assume that vitamin E, which > helps thin the > blood, will have the same effect on someone taking > aspirin or > warfarin, compared to someone who isn't. However, > that's exactly > what almost all the trials referred to by the AHA > have done. > > In truth there are plenty of studies on vitamin E, C > and beta- > carotene - such as the Physicians Health Study 2 > (PHS2) which showed > that beta-carotene supplementation reduced > subsequent cardiovascular > events among 333 men with prior angina or > revascularisation (7) - > plus other important antioxidants such as > tocotrienols, lipoic acid > and Co-enzyme Q10, that show benefit. > > Back in the 1930s, when Drs Evan and Wilfred Shute > from Canada first > showed that vitamin E reduced risk of CVD, the > medical profession > managed to make vitamin E illegal to important into > the US, and > persuaded the Postmaster General to prohibit the > sending of vitamin > E from Canada to US citizens. Today, at least, you > still have the > freedom to choose whether or not to supplement > antioxidants. The > truth is we are still learning what the optimum > intake of > antioxidants may be for those with CVD and there are > many research > questions still to be answered. > > The AHA imply you can get enough from your diet, by > eating five or > more servings of fruits and vegetables each day. I > recommend eight > servings, not five. However, the average person eats > less than three > portions of fruit and vegetables a day. I believe, > on the basis of > the science to date, that supplementing alongside a > healthy diet can > help boost antioxidant intake towards optimum > levels. I hope the AHA > report does not put you off supplementing > antioxidant nutrients, as > I do every day, and I hope it doesn't slow down the > research into > their optimal intake. > > > References: > > 1. Rimm EB et al. Vitamin E consumption and the risk > of coronary > heart disease in men. NEJM 1993, May 20: 1450. > > 2. Stampfer MD et al. Vitamin E consumption and the > risk of coronary > heart disease in women. NEJM 1993, May 20: 1444. > > 3. Christen WG, Gaziano JM and Hennekens CH. Design > of Physicians' > Health Study II - a randomized trial of > beta-carotene, vitamins E > and C, and multivitamins, in prevention of cancer, > cardiovascular > disease and eye disease, and review of results of > completed trials. > Ann Epidemiol 2000, Feb; 10(2): 125-34. > > 4. Holmquist C, Larsson S, Wolf A and de Faire U. > Multivitamin > supplements are inversely associated with risk of > myocardial > infarction in men and women - Stockholm Heart > Program (SHEEP). J > Nutr 2003, Aug; 133(8): 2650-4. > > 5. Stephens NG et al. Randomised controlled trial of > vitamin E in > patients with coronary disease: Cambridge Heart > Antioxidant Study > (CHAOS). The Lancet 1996; 347: 781-786. > > 6. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of antioxidant > vitamin > supplementation 20,536 high-risk individuals: a > randomised placebo- > controlled trail. The Lancet 2002; 360: 23-33. > > 7. As reference 3. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.