June 2010 Health in the News Archive

[ Monthly Index of New Briefs ]

Senomyx and PepsiCo negotiating sweet taste technology deal

June 24, 2010

California-based flavor firm Senomyx has signed a letter agreement with PepsiCo to negotiate a deal for the development and commercialization of new sweet taste technology, Senomyx.

CEO at Senomyx Kent Snyder said: "Senomyx shares PepsiCo's commitment to providing consumers with healthier, great-tasting products. We are looking forward to finalizing our agreement and using our unique technology to help PepsiCo expand its product portfolio."

Senomyx has already had a similar collaborative deal with The Coca-Cola Company for the past eight years for the discovery, development and commercialization of new flavor ingredients resulting from its sweet taste technology.

In October last year, Senomyx said it had received regulatory approval for the use of a sucrose enhancer, S6973, in foods and beverages, which it claims can be used to reduce the amount of sugar in specific drinks such as instant coffee and tea by 50 percent, while maintaining the flavor of sugar.

The company's development of such ingredients is a result of years of research into sweet taste receptors in the mouth. Senomyx says S6973 works by making these receptors more efficient, thereby giving the impression of greater sweetness without increasing sweetener quantity.

While food safety experts applaud efforts to reduce salt, MSG and sugar, they expressed concerns about the new chemicals, saying that more testing needed to be done before these were sold in food.

"We are witnessing the dawning of a sci-fi food revolution," cautions health writer Robert Cohen. "The next time you read 'artificial flavor' on a food label, you should be aware that a component of that new genetically engineered food additive may be embryonic kidney cells from aborted human fetuses. The new high-tech artificial flavors are chemicals which have been engineered to fool human taste buds. Brains will taste things that are not really there. Illusions."

Senomyx revenues increased 120 percent in the first quarter of 2010 compared to the same period last year, as three of its major collaborators simultaneously launched products using Senomyx ingredients.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

Kraft Foods, Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Campbell Soup are all working with this biotechnology company, Senomyx. The food additives developed by this company have no flavor of their own. They work by activating or blocking receptors in the mouth responsible for taste. They can enhance or replicate the taste of sugar, salt, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) in foods. By adding a Senomyx's flavorings to a food products, manufacturers can, for instance, reduce the sugar in a cookie or salt in a can of soup by one-third to one-half while retaining the same sweetness or saltiness. Tempting, but at what price to human health? So much is behind the veil of secrecy.

Senomyx is created by drug technologies and nano technologies. It has been given the label of GRAS (generally recognized as safe), so it won't be labeled like Aspartame (now called AminoSweet). "We're helping companies clean up their labels," said Senomyx's chief executive, Kent Snyder. Interesting point of view.

Because of the GRAS status given by the trade association Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the company is not required to submit to any rigorous FDA testing on this additive. Senomyx maintains that its new products are safe because they will be used in tiny quantities.

History suggests the final outcome may well be otherwise because so many additives have been found to cause problems. This latest additive is coming to market with just a 3 month study on rats – good science calls for a two year study. Fooling Mother Nature may be profitable, but it has proven time and again to be a dangerous business.

---

"Clean" red meat vindicated

June 17, 2010

Harvard researchers found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb. This work is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide evidence for how eating unprocessed red meat and processed meat relates to risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.

"Although most dietary guidelines recommend reducing meat consumption, prior individual studies have shown mixed results for relationships between meat consumption and cardiovascular diseases and diabetes," said Renata Micha, a research fellow in the department of epidemiology at HSPH and lead author of the study. "Most prior studies also did not separately consider the health effects of eating unprocessed red versus processed meats."

Researchers defined unprocessed red meat as any unprocessed meat from beef, lamb or pork, excluding poultry. Processed meat was defined as any meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or with the addition of chemical preservatives; examples include bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs or processed deli or luncheon meats. Vegetable or seafood protein sources were not evaluated in these studies.

The results showed that, on average, each 50 gram (1.8 oz) daily serving of processed meat (about 1-2 slices of deli meats or 1 hot dog) was associated with a 42% higher risk of developing heart disease and a 19% higher risk of developing diabetes. In contrast, eating unprocessed red meat was not associated with risk of developing heart disease or diabetes.

"When we looked at average nutrients in unprocessed red and processed meats eaten in the United States, we found that they contained similar average amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol. In contrast, processed meats contained, on average, 4 times more sodium and 50% more nitrate preservatives," said Micha. "This suggests that differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats."

Dietary sodium (salt) is known to increase blood pressure, a strong risk factor for heart disease. In animal experiments, nitrate preservatives can promote atherosclerosis and reduce glucose tolerance, effects which could increase risk of heart disease and diabetes.

Given the differences in health risks seen with eating processed meats versus unprocessed red meats, these findings suggest that these types of meats should be studied separately in future research for health effects, including cancer, the authors said. For example, higher intake of total meat and processed meat has been associated with higher risk of colorectal cancer, but unprocessed red meat has not been separately evaluated. They also suggest that more research is needed into which factors (especially salt and other preservatives) in meats are most important for health effects.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

This is a landmark study. Too bad the press didn't understand why this was worth at least a couple days worth of headlines. For the first time, the research establishment is being told why they need to study natural meats and adulterated meats as two different entities. When the "experts" tell us that red meat contributes to heart disease and diabetes, they paint with far too broad a brush. Just as there is a world of difference between wild caught salmon and farmed salmon, there is a world of difference between natural meat and meat that comes out of a factory. Kudos to the Harvard research team.

---

Moms' protest ends chocolate milk toddler formula

June 12, 2010

Mead Johnson Nutrition Company announced it will stop production of a chocolate-flavored toddler formula that outraged the mommy blogosphere. Parents said the product would contribute to the epidemic of childhood obesity.

The Enfagrow Premium product, introduced in February, was intended for children aged 12-36 months. The manufacturer said in a prepared statement that it was aimed at children who are picky or erratic eaters who need "nutritional support" after being weaned off breast milk or formula. The company claims the beverage has "a superior nutritional profile to many other beverages typically consumed by toddlers, including apple juice, grape juice and similarly flavored dairy drinks."

"This is a completely unnecessary product," Marion Nestle, professor of food studies and public health at New York University, told ABC News. "It's expensive and the first two ingredients are milk and the third is sugar. They could just add a teaspoon of sugar to the milk and get the same thing. You don't have to train kids to like candy. What I hear is that mothers find it hard to get kids to eat. Of course they aren't hungry because they have been fed so much and kids get used to eating sweet things."

Mead Johnson says Enfagrow Premium will remain on the market in three unflavored versions, along with a vanilla version that contains less sugar than the chocolate-flavored version.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

Perhaps Mead Johnson is thinking those of us who read the press release won't actually look at the product. The chocolate flavor being pulled from the market has 19 grams of sugar; the vanilla flavor that remains on the market has 18 grams of sugar. Come on, one gram does not make a realistic difference. It is still liquid candy.

What strikes me about this whole episode is the power of the consumer. Moms pushed back, and the marketplace responded. Moms can make all the difference in the world when it comes to childhood obesity and diabetes. Mead Johnson inadvertently makes a good point that juice is not a healthy choice for children. The word "juice" sounds healthy, but sugar is sugar. Many of these bottled juices are as sugary as soda. The pulp has been removed so there is no redeeming fiber to slow a rise in blood sugar levels. Many of these juices have been pasteurized, meaning cooked, so the juice in the bottle is not natural; it is missing all its beneficial enzymes. I recommend that moms resist the marketing pressure to bring home foods full of sugar, whether an Enfagrow product or bottle of apple juice. Both are processed foods, not natural.

---

Reports say Swine Flu overblown to sell vaccines

June 6, 2010

Two reports just released accuse the World Health Organization of exaggerating the threat posed by the H1N1 virus and failing to disclose possible influence by the pharmaceutical industry on its recommendations for how countries should respond. The reports are in sync with criticism that has arisen, primarily in Europe, of how the WHO responded to the first influenza pandemic in more than four decades.

At the same time, the Geneva-based arm of the United Nations relied on advice from experts with ties to drug makers in developing the guidelines it used to encourage countries to stockpile millions of doses of antiviral medications, according to the second report.

"For WHO, its credibility has been badly damaged," wrote Fiona Godlee, the editor of the prominent British Medical Journal that published a joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based in London. The report criticized 2004 guidelines the WHO developed based in part on the advice of three experts who received consulting fees from the two leading manufacturers of antiviral drugs used against the virus, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline. The BMJ wrote that the WHO's response caused widespread, unnecessary fear and prompted countries around the world to waste millions of dollars.

The second report came from the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which launched an investigation in response to allegations that the WHO's response to the pandemic was influenced by drug companies that make antiviral drugs and vaccines. It states, "It is particularly troubled by some of the consequences of decisions taken and advice given leading to distortion of priorities of public health services across Europe, waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large."

A spokesman for the WHO, along with several independent experts, however, strongly disputed the reports, saying they misrepresented the seriousness of the pandemic and the WHO's response, which was carefully formulated and necessary given the potential threat.

"The idea that we declared a pandemic when there wasn't a pandemic is both historically inaccurate and downright irresponsible," said WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl in a telephone interview. "There is no doubt that this was a pandemic. To insinuate that this was not a pandemic is very disrespectful to the people who died from it."

Dr. Grout's Comment:

Several key advisors who urged WHO to declare a pandemic received direct financial compensation from the very vaccine manufacturers who received windfall profits from the pandemic announcement. WHO refused to disclose the obvious conflicts of interests. In fact, WHO secretary-general Dr. Margaret Chan defended the secrecy, saying that WHO intentionally kept the financial ties a secret in order to "...protect the integrity and independence of the members while doing this critical work... [and] also to ensure transparency." That doesn't wash. The WHO looks bought and paid for by the vaccine makers.

Throughout the declared pandemic, the natural health community pointed out that vitamin D has been proven to be more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections, but the WHO refused to recommend vitamin D.

The H1N1 pandemic will mark its one-year anniversary on June 11. There are still 71 million doses of swine flu vaccine in the United States alone, and the Health Department is telling clinics across the country to hold onto them, according to recent Congressional testimony. This story may not be finished yet.

---

FDA cannot stop information about benefits of selenium supplements

June 3, 2010

A District Court ruling says the Food and Drug Administration cannot hamstring accurate claims about the efficacy of selenium by adding lengthy disclaimers. To do so, the court ruled is a breach of First Amendment, free speech principles.

The court backed the plaintiffs – the Alliance for Natural Health USA, Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, and the Coalition Against FDA and FTC Censorship – in ordering the FDA to redraft disclaimers for selenium claims in relation to certain cancers and respiratory and digestive health benefits. The plaintiffs contended the FDA was violating freedom of speech by saying that no cancer related health claims about the mineral selenium could be made unless the science was completely conclusive or unless ridiculous and misleading disclaimers were added to the message.

However Justice Ellen Segal Huvelle's judgment denied the plaintiffs' request to prevent the FDA from acting against proposed selenium messaging on all supplement products.

Virginia-based food attorney, Jonathan W Emord who acted as counsel to the plaintiffs, called the decision a "momentous victory over FDA censorship. It reestablishes the supremacy of the First Amendment over FDA. The court held that FDA may not demand conclusive proof as a condition precedent for health claim allowance but must permit claims that accurately represent the state of credible scientific evidence linking nutrients to disease, so long as the inconclusiveness of the evidence is revealed to the public … We wish only that FDA would finally get the message, this being the sixth time the courts have upheld the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims against the agency."

Dr. Grout's Comment:

According to the court, the FDA has to go back to the drawing board to develop language for claims that better reflects the state of the science, while not misleading to consumers. This is no easy task. On one hand, we know for example the statement that "there is no evidence that selenium reduces the risk of certain cancers" – which is how the FDA wanted their qualifying language to read – is incorrect, because there is evidence, although not all studies to date reached the same conclusions. Science is still writing the book on how Mother Nature's nutrients in food keep humans healthy.

Although this court case was focused on selenium, it has much bigger ramifications. The judge was in effect saying that food and dietary supplement producers have a right under the free speech doctrine to talk about the science behind the product so long as they accurately represent that science.

Historically, the FDA has been tough on claims for the healing powers of food and natural supplements. As the plaintiffs in this case pointed out, more than 80 percent of the FDA's funding comes from the pharmaceutical industry and health claims for food and supplements is competition for approved prescription drugs. A Mayo Clinic study found red yeast rice, for example, does as much to lower cholesterol as statins, yet red yeast rice is a natural supplement – no nasty side effects, but not patentable by drug companies.