Deep-pocketed researchers are a hazard to your health.
Fake fat made the news recently because it is gaining in the market place, and this makes many health experts question our institutional and conventional sanity.
Olestra is a synthetic sugar and vegetable oil chemical. It was created by Proctor & Gamble (P&G) with an eye to a huge market because Americans are too fat, but they love their fatty snack foods.
Olestra tastes like fat, feels like fat and cooks like fat, particularly when used for frying. When it was finally approved by the FDA a few years ago, the creators stressed that it is delicious and sales will be brisk, which means a lot of this fake food chemical will be consumed.
Approval from the FDA followed the recommendation of a 15-member advisory committee that "reviewed" the developmental research before giving a 10-5 thumbs up to the chemical, providing some kind of a warning label will be attached. The event was so momentous it made the cover of Time magazine.
In essence, 10 members of the committee, who voted for approval, have said that they believe millions of people can ingest this chemical over a period of many years and, despite a few allegedly insignificant problems, it will not be detrimental to the public health. After all, those individuals who may get stomach aches or other intestinal distress will see the warning label and know to avoid the substance.
A lot of money rode on the FDA decision, making approval a foregone conclusion in the minds of cynics.
Did we Americans just experience a rerun? Did we once again bear witness to the power of agenda-driven science as it overcomes good sense and hammers yet another nail in the coffin of general health? Here's the way the public debate on Olestra played out - you be the judge.
Olestra is designed to travel through the bod's digestive tract without leaving any calories behind. The plan is to use it to create "fat-free" potato chips, tortilla chips, french fries, popcorn and other popular snacks.
Proctor & Gamble invested more than $200 million to bring this synthetic food product to the approval stage. Of course, much of that expense came between 1975 and 1985 when the company sought FDA approval for Olestra to be used as a cholesterol, so the company switched tactics and sought approval as a "food additive." The company submitted 150,000 pages of research to support the notion that it is safe for the masses to eat this indigestible chemical in the relatively large amounts that it will be eaten.
Olestra is not digested - that's how it works. It goes through the digestive tract without being absorbed. Therefore, the obvious rationale is - it cannot add fat or do harm to the body.
Many scientists disagree, but their arguments appear to have fallen on deaf ears.
For example, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) took a strong stand against granting approval for Olestra because it is known to block the uptake of fat-soluble vitamins, and nutritious vegetable carotenoids including beta carotene, lutein and lycopene. Beta-carotene is a safe source for vitamin A; lutein is necessary for the macula of the eye and having it in the diet helps prevent macular degeneration and lycopene, the red of tomatoes, is known to support the prostate gland.
CSPI argued that allowing this product to be produced and marketed will lead to a serious depletion of fat-soluble vitamins among the population. Besides, they added, the research shows that many people who ingested the product would up with indigestion and diarrhea.
Proctor & Gamble scientists countered that the indigestion and diarrhea problems, caused by an earlier version of the chemical, have been solve. They said that CSPI was pointing to outdated information.
Then company spokesmen cited a five-month study involving 3,357 consumers that found "no difference in any gastro-intestinal problems between those who ate Olestra based snacks and those who ate full-fat snacks."
We still don't know from the data that people can eat Olestra with impunity and not worry about stomach upset. If the test subjects had consumed Olestra coated snacks daily for five months without nary a belly ache, there might not be so much reason for concern - but that didn't happen.
Now that it's been on the market for more than a year, what do we know about Olestra and gastro-intestinal trouble? Not much. Since a number of gastro-intestinal disorders, such as heartburn, minor indigestion, diarrhea and constipation are virtually the "norm" in our society, it isn't surprising that hardly and difference showed up in the snack testers.
The indigestible fatty chemistry tasted great, consumers say. So what if it has a few gastrointestinal side effects - aren't most Americans full of gas and acid distress anyway?
Don't laugh - as you will see, that is precisely the "reasoning" put forth by the public relations people who have been hired to protect the hundreds of millions P&G has invested in this fake fat.
Olestra made its debut with potato chips, and if the FDA
continues "reasoning" in the same vein it has for the
firs two years, the new chemical, non-food will wind up adding
to the "taste" in everything from donuts to french fries.
All that's keeping them back is further FDA approval.
Since the FDA couldn't say "no" to all that expended
research money, they tried to make up for the approval with a
little "truth in labeling." Proctor & Gamble continues
to be dismayed, they say, because the FDA insists they put a warning
on the labels - something like: beware, this laboratory creation
may cause diarrhea and cramps, but it tastes good!
As for nutrient-deletion arguments, proponents argued that Olestra's interference with nutrients is insignificant and happens only when the fat- soluble vitamins are eaten at the same time as the Olestra-snacks. This may be questionable reasoning since the lengths and size of human intestinal tracts vary considerably and the speed of transit along the tract also varies considerably. Nobody can say with any certainty what nutrient uptake may be blocked in millions of already sluggish intestinal tracts that exist in the modern American junk food culture.
Additionally, the proponents argued that such dietary things as milk, tea and fiber may also interfere with nutrient absorption, so what's the big deal about their product?
Evidently we are to believe that adding another source of nutrient depletion to the long list can't hurt.
That seems to be the reasoning, if such strange thinking may be called reasoning, behind this heavily lobbied approval.
Members of the advisory committee suggested that since vitamins A, D, E, and K may be depleted by the ingestion of Olestra, the snacks should be "fortified" with them.
What an intelligent approach we have here! These public "scientists? Suggested that history should repeat itself. For example, when it was discovered that refined white flour was depleted of important nutrients, instead of returning to the traditional, healthier way to grind the grains and produce bread, our institutions simple called for 'fortification" with synthetic vitamins. There is plenty of general evidence showing that such fortification has not worked, but the authorities cite "lack of proof positive," to deny the evidence. So, here we go again.*