Regulations and Processing Decimating Consumer Health, Researchers Argue

Dr. Paul Clayton’s talk at the Healthy Foods Summit in London was followed by a controversial presentation by Dr. Stig Bengmark, who argued that food processing techniques contribute to the development of chronic diseases and premature aging.

08/10/08 A profound mutual ignorance on the part of regulators and the food industry has led us down a path whereby consumers are consuming “foods and supplements with a completely useless formulation devoid of enough micro and phytonutrients”, Dr. Paul Clayton of Oxford Brookes University has claimed. “We have a far lower level of calorific intake compared to Victorian times, but a far, far lower use of energy. We are eating less food and making poor food choices, with food that is low in every vitamin and mineral and fibre type”, he said.

He partly blamed the food industry and regulators for not fortifying food intensively enough and basically putting highly stringent food risk safety laws ahead of the general benefits that could be drawn from highly concentrating nutritional benefits. “The food industry and regulators are ten years behind the curve. I don’t see any enlightenment at all. Possibly probiotics are a step in the right direction but the majority are not effective at all. Meat and dairy require a lot of calories to produce – if we go back to plants we may see a reduction in degenerative diseases,” said Clayton.

Clayton’s talk at the Healthy Foods Summit in London was followed by a controversial presentation by Dr. Stig Bengmark, Professor Emeritus, Lunds Universitet Sweden, who argued that food processing techniques contribute to the development of chronic diseases and premature aging. The presentation, which was particularly critical of the amounts of cow’s milk in the diet sparked a heated response from food industry companies, who argued the benefits that food processing and food safety techniques have brought to the world and that the demonization of milk in this way was irresponsible.

Earlier Clayton had argued that while life expectancy has increased throughout this century, it is actually at pretty much the same level as it was in Mid-Victorian times, if the dangerous period of 0-5 years is discounted. Industrial diseases such as obesity, dementia, hypertension and pre-hypertension were pretty much unheard of in those days, while there was a 90% lower incidence of cancer. “How did it go wrong?,” he asked. “A combination of history and politics. The growth of the Empire led to the mass imports of salted meats, cheap sugar, fruits in syrup and condensed milk,” Clayton said.

A Mid-Victorian working class man had a life expectancy of 75 (discounting the first five years of life), while in the 21st century this is 72. A Mid-Victorian working class woman had a life expectancy of 73, while in the 21st century this has risen to 76, although issues like death during child-birth in Victorian times had a major effect on this. All this, despite the fact that some 11-12% of UK GDP is spent on healthcare, compared to less than a single percent in Victorian times.

The rise of urbanization after 1885 and the introduction of automated transport and an increasingly sedentary lifestyle were coupled with a dramatic decrease in the quality of the types of food being consumed. For example, the height of an average male in England and Wales grew to 1.68m in 1880 and fell to 1.60m in 1885 before declining to 1.52m in 1900, which is what Clayton termed a “clear sign of severe malnutrition.” While life expectancy continued to increase throughout the 20th century, Clayton pointed to a doubling in all cancers since the 1940s.

The change has been down to the diet and the lifestyle, claimed Clayton. Working class Victorians were completing manual labour for 10 hours a day for 5.5-6 days a week and eating in excess of 4,000 calories a day to maintain their energy. This intake was high in omega 3, prebiotic fibres and wholegrain. They also ate in excess of 10 portions of fruit and vegetables a day (compared to less than 3 nowadays) and had a low intake of alcohol and processed foods. Key to the diet were the levels of anti-inflammatory compounds.

Dr. Stig Bengmark looked at the role that industrialization has had on nutrition being consumed and the role that this has had on longevity. He argued that we should reduce/avoid foods that are cured, microwave heated and calorie dense. He pointed to ingredients such as curcumin and specific probiotics like Lactobacillus Paracasei as well as glutathione rich foods like brocolli as promoting longevity.

For Bengmark, the lack of diversity in the modern diet has led to a strong deficiency in components such as zinc and vitamin D. He noted that currently 80% of food intake comes from just 17 plants, while 50% of calorie intake comes from just 8 cereals. He pointed to a study showing that women consuming cola for 3 or more times per week showed a significant reduction in bone density. The high temperatures being used by the food industry damaged the amount of nutrients in the food and also led to new concerns such as acrylamide in baking for example.

With 80% of modern milk now coming from pregnant cows that has been pasteurised, a milk with 100 times more hormones than normal is now typically being consumed. He argued that there were links between the high intake of fat from cow’s milk with prostate cancer. He called the cow a “great polluter”, emitting 18% of green house gases than the 13% produced by cars and argued that oat, soy and rice milk could be used as alternatives instead.

Gerd Harzer of Kraft Foods responded by saying that it was the responsibility of the food industry to provide safe food. “Food needs to be heat treated in order to be safe. Healthy eating is the responsibility of the individual. It is irresponsible to put milk in this place especially in the light of the benefits it has brought to infants whose mothers cannot breast feed,” he argued.

Maurice Keane of Glanbia Foods said that “We don’t believe that we should read backwards, we should be thinking of how we go forward. Victorians spent 50-60% of their income on food – today consumers have decided that they are not willing to spend more than 10%. Consumer education on what are healthy foods is very important as some products are healthier than others”.

Gert Meijer of Unilever R&D commented on future pathways, "We have to get back to the basics of nutrition and keep it in balance and make sure it's neither too little nor too much. At the same time we must work on food hygiene as it is our belief is that it's the right thing to do." "There is a lot of discussion around minimal processing and we are learning there. I think we need to look at balanced rather than super food," he concluded.

by Robin Wyers in London