Trudy & Fei

We are two curious nutrition students from Ryerson University who are exploring our interests in issues related to people, food, health, policies and the environment. The blog name fat fat tomatoes was borne out of Fei's undying love for tomatoes and a tribute to the now most commonly consumed vegetables or fruits, which were once considered an elegant, luxurious, and dangerously mysterious ornament plant.

Finally, we have many thanks to Martin, who helped us set up the blog.

Milk, (Not) For Everyone?

Having heard enough on the debate of whether milk is good for people or not, we decided to look into this topic ourselves. We have summarized findings of the pros and cons from various studies as follows and would like to touch upon the benefits of milk consumption as well as its associated risks.

Calcium and Milk

Calcium is a major component of a healthy diet. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of calcium is approximately 800-1000mg, and 1200mg ideally according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Calcium is crucial to the normal functioning of our bodies in a number of ways: muscle contraction, bone health, neurological functions, vascular and granular functions. It is for the exact reason that a large part of the ongoing milk advertisement campaign is focused on persuading people to increase milk consumption for its calcium content (Lee and Wei, 2002). How much calcium is there in a cup of milk? Is milk really the best source to provide the majority of calcium that our body needs? According to the “Not Milk” campaign, milk contains less calcium per given amount than green leafy vegetables and grains (Lee and Wei, 2002). A typical 100g portion of 2% fat milk sample contains a surprisingly low value of 33-35mg of calcium compared to 234mg of calcium in the same portion of almonds (Lee and Wei, 2002). The better alternatives for calcium intake are raw turnip greens or cooked turnips, watercress, seeds such as sunflower or sesame and grains that do not have the uncomfortable side effects that are normally associated with milk consumption (Lee and Wei, 2002).

Lactose Intolerance and Milk

Milk causes bloating, gas, cramping and diarrhea in an estimated 50% of the adult population (Lee and Wei, 2002). Lactose intolerance results from a deficiency of lactase, a natural enzyme required to break down the lactose in milk and milk products. The production of lactase declines gradually in the intestines of people after weaning and may eventually stop if lactose is not continually and regularly consumed to signal the intestinal brush border that lactase is needed (Lee and Wei, 2002). The natural tendency of producing less and less lactase in the majority of world adult populations precludes the practical option of milk consumption as a source of nutrients for many adults (Lee and Wei, 2002).

Allergies and Milk

Milk allergy is another barrier to the daily consumption of milk in addition to the problems associated with lactose intoleration. Milk allergy occurs when our bodies react to the proteins in cow's milk, such as casein and whey, as if they were foreign substances. Interestingly, it is the young children who are most affected by milk allergy as opposed to adults. About 3% of infants are allergic to milk proteins, however, 80% of these allergic children become resistent to it by six years of age (Steinman, 2002). Adults may acquire the allergy in their 30s and 40s. There are three types of milk allergy symptoms:

1. Immediate symptoms develop shortly after consumption of cow's milk. Reactions affect the skin, causing eczema or hives.
   
2. Symptoms begin a few hours after consumption of cow's milk including diarrhea and vomiting.
3. Symptoms such as diarrhea develop over 20 hours after ingestion.
   

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and Cow’s Milk

Monsanto’s rBGH is commonly used as a way to increase milk production up to 20% more in cows (Epstein, 1998). The hormone causes udder inflammation in cows (Epstein, 1998). As a result, antibiotics are used to treat the inflammation in cows, which in turn are passed on to humans as people consume milk produced from these treated cows (Epstein, 1998). In addition, milk produced by rBGH-treated cows has higher concentrations of insulin-like growth-factor-1 (IGF-1) (Epstein, 1998). Higher levels of IGF-1 are associated with a risk factor in certain cancers (Epstein, 1998). A Harvard School of Public Health study has shown that people with higher IGF-1 levels were more likely to develop breast, prostate, and colon cancer (Epstein, 1998). To protect consumers from the IGF-1 harzards, European nations and Canada have banned sales of rBGH milk as of 2000 or ealier (Epstein, 1998).

Kidney Stone from milk overconsumption?

Contrary to the common belief that milk overconsumption leads to the formation of urinary stones or mineral deposits in the kidney, studies have shown that even calcium-sensitive patients were able to consume milk without increaing their risk of stone formation (Lee and Wei, 2002). Some studies have even indicated that the risk for kidney stones can be lowered by increasing your intake of dairy products.

References

Epstein, S. S. (1998). Monsanto's Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks of Breast Cancer, Besides Other Cancers, Warns Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. Cancer Prevention Coalition. Retrieved Feb 28, 2010, from http://www.preventcancer.com/press/releases/july8_98.htm

Lee, J. and Wei, R. (2002). Milk, Doing Your Body Good? Journal of Young Investigators, 6 (3). Retrieved Feb 28, 2010, from http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume6/issue3/features/lee_and_wei.html

Steinman, H. (2002). Milk Allergy and Lactose Intolerance. Science in Africa. Retrieved Feb 28, 2010, from http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/may/milk.htm

Supplements: The Fountain of Youth?

Vitamins B1, B3, B6, B12, C, D and E, beta carotene, folic acid, ginkgo biloba, green tea extract, need we go on! These are just a few of the ingredients being tested by a research team at McMaster University studying a supplement cocktail that is thought to fight aging. The diet they are recommending is believed to add 10 to 15 years to your life, and slow the onset of chronic diseases. Too good to be true? Well it has not been tested on humans yet, just mice and crickets, but it increased the life span in these two critters. The researchers found that the supplements, which contain around 30 ingredients, altered the mitochondria, the energy houses of the body, ultimately leading to a decrease in free radical production. As you may know, free radicals can damage cells in the body leading to aging.

Some time ago, resveratrol, an extract from red wine, was reported to be a potential wonder anti-aging ingredient by researchers from Harvard. Previous to this discovery, resveratrol was thought to be beneficial to the heart, but in high concentrations it may also slow the aging process. However, the level of resveratrol in a glass of red wine is likely too miniscule to have an affect on aging. So, resveratrol in a supplement form has been created. The very nature of taking a supplement that has not yet been proven to slow aging in humans seems rather expensive to us. However, for a society that prides itself on youthfulness and beauty it may create a sense of hope that one day a proven anti-aging supplement may exist.

As for the general supplement debate, we decided to list some pros and cons. Some of the points we came up with are listed below:

PROS

• It can be difficult to obtain all of the nutrients we need with our busy lives, budgets, and food availability, so maybe taking an all-in-one supplement would be beneficial.
  

• Some vitamins, like vitamin D, may be harder to obtain in the winter, so supplements may be advantageous (depending on age, gender, race).
• Supplements may increase the likelihood that one is meeting daily recommendations of nutrients (particularly micronutrients)
• Some populations may benefit from taking supplements, such a pregnant women (folic acid) or a person with a medical condition.
  

CONS

• What ever happened to eating a well balanced diet? Do people that try there best to eat a well balanced diet have age related benefits? It has been found that people who consume more fruits and vegetables are less likely to develop a chronic disease, like heart disease. So why should a healthy individual need supplements?
• Some supplements are very expensive and not ‘proven’ to work, so you could be wasting your money. It may also be more cost effective to make a healthy meal.
• Overdose may occur, especially for fat soluble vitamins (ex. vitamins E, K) because they are stored in the body longer than water soluble vitamins.

• Certain vitamins and minerals may block the absorption of others into the body. For example, zinc may interfere with the absorption of iron. Additionally, some foods and beverages taken with supplements may alter their absorption by the body.

In a society where convenience dominates could a magical supplement cocktail be the fountain of youth?

The complete list of ingredients in the supplement cocktail included: Vitamins B1, B3, B6, B12, C, D and E, Acetyl L-carnitine, Alpha-lipoic acid, Acetylsalicylic acid, Beta carotene, Bioflavonoids, Chromium picolinate, Folic acid, Garlic, ginger root extract, Ginkgo biloba, ginseng, Green tea extract, L-Glutathione, Magnesium, Manganese, Melatonin, N-acetyl cysteine, Potassium, Rutin, Selenium, Cod liver oil (Omega 3), Coenzyme Q10, Flaxseed oil.

Check it out:

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/yourhealth/agingwell/article/770382--you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu87vid-uK8&feature=related

Health Check? Smart Spot? Blue Menu?

Between the Heart and Stroke Foundation’s Health Check, Pepsico’s Smart Spot, and President’s Choice’s Blue Menu, one would think that making healthier food choices would be a breeze. Personally, we find all of these different labeling systems confusing. For instance, when we went to the store the other day we saw Pepsico’s Smart Spot symbol on a bag of Ruffles potato chips. We decided to look at the label to see why these chips received the Smart Check of approval. It turns out that they contained 25% less fat than the original Ruffles chips. Does this really mean they are a healthy choice though?

This brings us to a conundrum as to whether or not these symbols actually help the general public make healthier choices? On one hand, offering the public healthier options compared to the original product can be beneficial, but what if people believe that eating a food with a healthy label means that they can eat more of that food? Wouldn’t this take away from the purpose of the label in the first place?

In order for these labels to work we think the general public first has to learn about and understand portion sizes, ingredient lists, and the nutrition labels on food products. By doing so, they may be less likely to eat the whole bag of chips with the Smart Check label on and leave thinking that they just consumed a rather healthy snack.

Another issue we came across involved the Heart and Stroke’s Health Check. Early last week we read that Health Check was going to be placed on selected McDonald’s products and it already exists on some Pizza Hut products. It seems as though the rational behind this initiative is that when people go to eat out, they will see this label and feel as though they are making a 'healthy' choice. Showing people “smarter” options on the menu may lead them to make wiser choices, however, what if people do in fact believe that these options are healthy? Sure it is fine to eat out once in awhile, but some people may get the wrong idea. What if they fail to read the small print indicating that the Health Check portion size is only two slices of pizza? Additionally, on the Health Check website a ‘’large entree’’ can have up to 960 mg of sodium! Considering that the recommended intake of sodium is between 1500-2000 mg/day, this entree could be at least half of the daily requirement.

Additionally, these ‘healthy’ labeling systems are either owned by large companies, such as Pepsico, or purchased by a large company, such as Dempster’s, from the Heart and Stroke Foundation. What if a smaller company has the same type of product, at the same price, but they cannot afford to have a labeling system? Consumers may be more inclined to buy the product with the healthy choice/smart label than the other product. Thus, although the products are the same, one may be viewed as a less healthy/smart choice. Maybe a standardized labeling system is needed? We think it would make the market more fair for both consumers and corporations.

References:

http://www.healthcheck.org/

http://www.presidentschoice.ca/LCLOnline/products.jsp?brandId=2&type=browse

http://www.smartspot.ca/terms.aspx