Trans fat Debate Feedback

Trans fat Feedback

Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:24 AM

Subject: RE: Trans Fats

Dear Rolf:

As you know, I did attend the lecture. Your presentation skimmed the surface of the Trans fats issue since you did not present all the facts on the topic. The biological facts, that the hydrogenation process changes the structure of oils to being incapable of transporting nutrients to cells and thus becomes not only useless in the body but also becomes a danger to the body. Like saturated fats, these Trans fats thicken the blood and attach to artery walls, forming plaque. These are the facts, and no amount of mathematical games will change that. To attempt to say that because the mathematics are not there, Trans fats must not be an issue, is not responsible reporting. I would suggest that in light your personal business you may be inspired to over look the real underlying dangers and attempt to present to the public only that which might sway public opinion with the numbers game.

Your comments on cholesterol were ambiguous and misleading. As I understand it the liver produces good cholesterol (HDL) for many purposes…among them the protection of the lining of the blood vessels. We also consume cholesterol (LDL primarily in animal fats which is bad). In an effort to keep cholesterol levels down, cholesterol lowering drugs are prescribed and “tell” the liver not to make cholesterol…but this is the good HDL that we need… It is the imbalance of high bad (LDL) cholesterol over low (HDL) cholesterol that creates the serious risk for heart disease. (One would question whether a change in diet would be much more beneficial than lipid lowering drugs which would reduce the amount of good cholesterol, but that is another topic.)

Viox, Estrogen Therapy, Some Cholesterol lowering drugs, to mention a few, all met the mathematical requirements at one time and were deemed to be safe, but have all been proven to be potentially dangerous and thus pulled from the market for public safety reasons. (I dare say many more will follow). These are pharmaceuticals so people accept such warnings without question. Even reducing the amount of pesticides seems more palatable to the public than suggesting that an invention, a convenience, so widely used as hydrogenated oils, could actually be one of the contributors to our declining health. (We spend the most on health care and on research yet we, with the Americans, are among the sickest nations in the world).

The attempt to ridicule the two politicians, who, in the interest of public health, would put forward a motion to explore more thoroughly the potential dangers of processed oils which result in Trans fats, is unprofessional. Although I am all for corporate profits, as I am certain they are, it can not take precedence over public health and safety. It just does not make sense to knowingly eat that which is toxic when better alternatives are available.

The human body is an amazing creation that has certain requirements of nutrition (what goes in) and elimination (what must come out). It can expel disease creating toxins if we do not overwhelm it or clog it down and if we provide it with nutritional food which is bioavailability (recognizable).

The last few decades have introduced foods loaded with preservatives, void of enzymes, grown in soil void of minerals, to mention a few concerns. Drugs for every ailment are prescribed and then new drugs to cover the negative side effects are added. The toxic load on the body is enormous!! (Yet another topic)

We may have to take a few steps back and re-examine all the potential toxins we have added to our food supply, in the interest of public health. Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Martin have shown a rare honesty in politicians to have undertaken this step. They have nothing to gain politically or financially in doing so, and many Canadians applaud them.

Liisa Johnson, Winnipeg

Rolf Penner responds:

Liisa,

Thank you for coming to the lecture the other morning and asking some good questions. The whole point of the Frontier Centre is to have an independent forum in which to engage the public in a deeper discussion.

You are right that I did not cover everything that there is on Trans Fats and that was due more to time constraints than anything. It would probably take a week of lectures to go over it completely. It really is a broad topic when you dig into it. However I did take on what is widely believed to be the strongest argument\evidence against them.

As to your comment that my "personal business" may be clouding my judgment, as a farmer I am growing the crops that these newer Trans fat free oils come from and am being paid a premium for doing so. If I was motivated strictly by the all mighty buck why would I be shooting myself in the foot by defending Trans fats? And I would respectfully ask that you apply the same level of cynicism and skepticism that you have directed at myself to All of the players in this issue, who by the way, have far more to gain from it. Some have made it their life's work.

What I am looking for is simply that more homework be done, for the contradictions in the evidence to be rooted out before conclusions are jumped to. I do not believe that that is too much to ask. That is after all the job of science and the scientist to root out the contradictions, not ignore them, when they don't fit the hypothesis. I gave numerous examples of this at the lecture. As I said in my presentation, we do have some serious health problems that need to be dealt with and we need to prioritize accordingly. Asthma, antibiotic resistance and influenza come to my mind as examples of this; however this gets off the topic of Trans fats.

I do not believe that I was ridiculing the politicians, though I do admit that I was having some fun with them. And I am sorry that I do not share your view that they have nothing to gain by this.

Kindest regards

Rolf Penner

Ag Policy Fellow

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

I have inserted my responses to your technical points next to them in CAPS FOR EASY REFERENCING.

Dear Rolf;

As you know, I did attend the lecture. Your presentation skimmed the surface of the trans fats issue since you did not present all the facts on the topic.-SEE ABOVE The biological facts, ACTUALLY YOUR TALKING CHEMISTRY NOT BIOLOGY. that the hydrogenation process changes the structure of oils to being incapable of transporting nutrients to cells and thus becomes not only useless in the body but also becomes a danger to the body. THIS IS EITHER A MISUNDERSTANDING AND OR OVERSIMPLIFICATION OF THE CHEMISTRY. YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THIS THE MECHANISM THAT CAUSES HARM. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. TRANS ARE ABSORBED AND TRANSPORTED AROUND OUR BODIES IN THE SAME WAY THAT OTHER FATS ARE. AS FAR AS METABOLISM IS CONCERNED SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE TRANS ISOMERS THAT ARE FORMED DURING HYDROGENATION HAVE POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE DESATURATION OF LINOLEIC AND LINOLENIC ACID. THERE ARE HIGH DOSE ANIMAL AND INVITRO STUDIES WHICH LED TO THIS SPECULATION (HWANG ET AL, 1982 AND SHIMP ET AL, 1982). HOWEVER OTHER ANIMAL STUDIES DONE AT LEVELS OF TRANS FAT INTAKE SIMILAR TO NORMAL HUMAN DIETARY LEVELS DID NOT FIND ANY NEGATIVE RESULTS (BRUCKNER ET AL, 1982, AND ZEVENBERGEN ET AL, 1988) IF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH HIGH DOSE STUDIES, WHEN THEY SAY HIGH DOSE THEY REALLY MEAN SUPER CONCENTRATED HIGH DOSE, SO HIGH THAT NO ONE COULD EVER ACTUALLY CONSUME THAT AMOUNT. Like saturated fats, these trans fats thicken the blood and attach to artery walls, forming plaque. These are the facts, ACTUALLY NEITHER OF THESE FATS THICKEN THE BLOOD THAT IS FALSE. UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES ARTERIES CAN 'CLOG', THE RISK FACTORS FOR THIS HAPPENING INCLUDE DIABETES, SMOKING, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, BEING OVERWEIGHT AND MANY MORE. IT IS A COMMONLY HELD BELIEF THAT SATURATED, TRANS FATS EFFECTS ON CHOLESTEROL ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS, HOWEVER THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STUDIES INVOLVING CLINICAL EVALUATIONS AND AUTOPSIES WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRIDICT THIS BELIEF. (SUCH AS MAREK Z, JAEGERMANN K, CIBA T. AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL 1962; 63, AND CABIN HS, ROBERTS WCAMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 1982 ;) and no amount of mathematical games will change that. To attempt to say that because the mathematics are not there, trans fats must not be an issue, is not responsible reporting.

I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO STARTED THE MATHEMATICS/STATISTICS AS EVIDENCE PHENOMENON YOU CAN THANK THE EPIDEMIOLOGISTS AND THE SOCIAL THEORY OF MEDICINE FOR THAT. AND SINCE IT IS A BIG PART OF THE CASE AGAINST TRANS IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE NOT TO POINT OUT THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS METHODOLOGY AND ALL OF THE PLACES WHERE THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP. I would suggest that in light your personal business you may be inspired to over look the real underlying dangers and attempt to present to the public only that which might sway public opinion with the numbers game. -SEE ABOVE

Your comments on cholesterol were ambiguous and misleading. AS I EXPLAINED AT THE LECTURE THE LINK BETWEEN CHOLESTEROL AND HEART DISEASE, WHICH IS KEY TO THE TRANS FAT QUESTION, IS NOT AS CUT AND DRY AS SOME WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE. THERE IS NOTHING MISLEADING ABOUT THIS AS IT IS THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT AGAINST TRANS. I SHOWED A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES OF THE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE CURRENT ORTHODOXY AROUND THE SUBJECT. I ALSO SAID THAT IT WAS A TOPIC UNTO ITSELF AND REFERENCED THAT FURTHER EVIDENCE COULD BE FOUND IN THE WORK OF DR UFFE RAVONSKOFF (THE CHOLESTEROL MYTHS) THERE IS NOTHING AMBIGUOUS ABOUT THAT. As I understand it the liver produces good cholesterol (HDL) for many purposes…among them the protection of the lining of the blood vessels. We also consume cholesterol (LDL primarily in animal fats which is bad). In an effort to keep cholesterol levels down, cholesterol lowering drugs are prescribed and “tell” the liver not to make cholesterol…but. this is the good HDL that we need… It is the imbalance of high bad (LDL) cholesterol over low (HDL) cholesterol that creates the serious risk for heart disease. (One would question whether a change in diet would be much more beneficial than lipid lowering drugs which would reduce the amount of good cholesterol, but that is another topic.) DIET HELPS BUT EXERCISE IS PROBABLY THE BEST WAY.

FURTHERMORE WHEN WE FIND A PROBLEM WITH A DRUG OR A FOOD INGREDIENT THAT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT ALL OTHERS ARE CULPRITS AS WELL, WHICH IS WHAT YOUR STATEMENT IMPLIES. WE ALSO DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY BAN PENICILLIN OR PEANUTS FOR THAT MATTER BECAUSE THEY CAUSE ALLERGIC REACTIONS IN SOME PEOPLE.

These are pharmaceuticals so people accept such warnings without question. Even reducing the amount of pesticides seems more palatable to the public than suggesting that an invention, a convenience, so widely used as hydrogenated oils, could actually be one of the contributors to our declining health. (We spend the most on health care and on research yet we, with the Americans, are among the sickest nations in the world). THE REASON WE SPEND SO MUCH IS BECAUSE WE CAN, BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO US AND BECAUSE WE HAVE AN AGEING POPULATION. I DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE ARE ONE OF THE SICKEST NATIONS IN THE WORLD AND THAT OUR OVERALL HEALTH IS DECLINING. WHEN MAKING SUCH BROAD GENERALIZATIONS ONE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACTS SUCH AS OUR OVERALL LIFESPAN IS STILL INCREASING AND OUR INFANT MORTALITY RATES ARE LOWER THAN AT ANY OTHER TIME IN HISTORY.

The attempt to ridicule the two politicians, who, in the interest of public health (Re: Getting Votes), would put forward a motion to explore more thoroughly HOW IS A BAN, EXPLORATORY? the potential dangers of processed oils which result in trans fats are unprofessional. Although I am all for corporate profits, as I am certain they are, it can not take precedence over public health and safety. THIS IS AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT SINCE I HAVE YET TO COME ACROSS A SINGLE COMPANY THAT HAS SO MUCH AS RAISED AN EYEBROW IN CONCERN OVER THIS. I BELIEVE THAT IT FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF THE STRAW DOG. It just does not make sense to knowingly eat that which is toxic when better alternatives are available. TRANS HAVE NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO BE TOXIC IN THE SENSE THAT YOU ARE USING IT HERE. THE SCIENCE OF TOXICOLOGY EASILY PROVES THIS.

The last few decades have introduced foods loaded with preservatives, void of enzymes, grown in

soil void of minerals, to mention a few concerns. Drugs for every ailment are prescribed and then new drugs to cover the negative side effects are added. The toxic load on the body is enormous!! (Yet another topic) AND YET WE ALSO CONTINUE TO LIVE LONGER THAN EVER BEFORE.

SINCE THE SUBJECT OF TOXINS AND TOXIN LOAD KEEPS COMING UP I THINK IT NEEDS SOME EXPLANATION. TECHNICALLY EVERYTHING WE EAT IS TOXIC. EVEN THE MOST PRISTINE ORGANIC APPLE FROM THE DAYS OF ADAM AND EVE CONTAINED NATURALLY OCCURRING CARCINOGENS AND TOXINS SUCH AS ARSENIC. OUR BODIES ARE SUPERBLY ADAPTED TO DEALING WITH THESE TOXINS THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. IT IS A MISNOMER TO SUGGEST THAT THE TOXIC LOAD ON OUR BODIES TODAY IS ENORMOUS AS IF THIS IS SOMETHING NEW, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THUS.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF TOXICOLOGY IS THAT IT IS THE DOSE THAT MAKES THE POISON. ONE ASPIRIN AND YOUR HEADACHE GOES AWAY, ONE BOTTLE OF ASPIRIN AND YOU GO AWAY. IF YOU CONCENTRATE ANYTHING ENOUGH IT CAN BE POISON, CONVERSELY IF YOU DILUTE SOMETHING DANGEROUS, ENOUGH IT CAN BE HARMLESS OR SOMETIMES EVEN HELPFUL.

IN THE CASE OF TRANS, NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARE DOSE DEPENDENT. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IN ALL THIS IS ACCURATELY FIGURING OUT HOW MUCH OF THIS WE ACTUALLY EAT ON AVERAGE SINCE FOOD MANUFACTURERS ARE CONSTANTLY REFORMULATING THEIR PRODUCTS AND THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS LABELED APPROPREATLY. ESTIMATES VARY WIDELY AND ARE UNRELIABLE, MAKING BROAD GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FOR THE ENTIRE POPULATION EQUALLY UNRELIABLE.

We may have to take a few steps back and re examine all the potential toxins we have added to our food supply, in the interest of public health. WE KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT WE PUT IN OUR BODIES NOW AND HOW IT WORKS THAN AT ANY OTHER TIME IN HISTORY. THE RESEARCH INTO THIS IS ONGOING AND COMPREHENSIVE THOUGH FAR FROM COMPLETE. UNFORTUNATELY, SINCE THE DESIRE FOR KNOWLEDGE AND THE 'PERFECT DIET' IN THIS AREA IS SO STRONG, IT IS RIPE FOR ABUSE BY JUNK SCIENTISTS, CHARLATANS, AND SNAKE OIL SALESMAN. Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Martin have shown a rare honesty in politicians to have undertaken this step. They have nothing to gain politically or financially in doing so, and many Canadians applaud them.

Liisa Johnson

IN CLOSING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE LATEST FDA\HEALTH CANADA GUIDELINES SPECIFICALLY DO NOT RECOMMEND A DIET IN WHICH ' 0' PERCENT OF THE ENERGY COMES FROM TRANS FATS. TO DO SO WOULD REQUIRE SUCH A RADICAL CHANGE THAT UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS FROM THE INADEQUATE INTAKE OF PROTEIN AND MICRONUTRIENTS WOULD RESULT IN DEFICIENCIES THAT WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT HEALTH. THEY DO RECOMMEND THAT CONSUMPTION BE LOW WHILE BEING PART OF A WELL BALANCED DIET\LIFESTYLE. AS WITH EVERYTHING IT IS MODERATION THAT COUNTS.

THE ENTIRE MATTER IS COMPLEX EVEN ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, LET ALONE ACROSS A LARGE POPULATION. IT CANNOT BE COMBINED INTO BROAD GENERALITIES AND A GENERAL 'COOKIE CUTTER' PRESCRIPTION FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WITHOUT RESORTING TO OUT OF CONTEXT ABSOLUTES WHICH ARE OF LITTLE VALUE. IT IS THEREFORE SOMETHING THAT IS BEST LEFT BETWEEN SOMEONE AND THEIR PHYSICIAN.

ROLF

Trans fat Debate Feedback

Upcoming Events

Upcoming FCPP Appearances