By James Spounias —
It’s a story that never gets old. The presence of partially hydrogenated oils, known as trans fats, in America’s food supply is an example of industry and government collusion at its worst. When a known cause of death, heart attacks and other detriments to health is treated so casually, alarm bells should deafen Americans.
Trans fats are man’s way of tinkering with nature. Hydrogenation involves adding hydrogen atoms to oils, making them as light as Crisco or as hard as margarine. Manmade trans fats are dangerous. Even though trans fats may exist naturally in small amounts in foods, they do not have the same biological effect as manmade trans fats. The discovery of hydrogenated oils spurred a whole industry of packaged junk food items, which would last for a long time on the shelves.
Early health advocates, such as John Tobe in Canada and Dr. Royal Lee, “all protested the hydrogenated oils and forecast dire human health consequences,” according to legendary health journalist Tom Valentine.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) got interested in trans fats officially in 2002 when establishment-sanctioned public interest groups warned about the danger, prompting efforts to label, not ban, trans fats. Yes, they only wanted to label trans fats, even though they admit that trans fats result in 7,000 deaths and 20,000 heart attacks every single year.
In 2006, the FDA announced it would require the labeling of trans fats, and by 2013 the agency initiated another round of public and industry comment that resulted in a June 2015 conclusion that by 2018 trans fats should be banned outright.
In 2006, the labeling of trans fats was a travesty because it required manufacturers to declare the presence of trans fats for amounts only more than 500 milligrams per serving. What that meant is that if a product had less than 500 milligrams per serving it could be labelled “zero trans fats.”
This is outrageous. Does the average American really have just one serving per day of junk food? The health dangers of trans fats were well known long before the food industry was forced to label significantly high levels of trans fats in food.
In the December 2004 issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a paper entitled “Trans fatty acids and systemic inflammation in heart failure” influenced the FDA’s 2006 decision.
The study authors, heavyweights from Harvard Medical School and the University of Washington, reported:
“A recent observational study and short-term randomized trial indicated that the TFA (trans fatty acid) intake increases systemic inflammation in generally healthy persons. Because systemic inflammation is an independent risk factor for future heart disease, these findings suggest a novel potential mechanism whereby TFAs may affect the cardiovascular health of generally healthy persons.
“Compared with healthy persons, patients with established heart disease often have much higher concentrations of systemic inflammation. . . .
“To determine whether TFAs are related to systemic inflammation in patients with heart disease, we investigated the association between TFAs, as assessed with a biomarker of dietary intake and systemic inflammatory markers in patients with established heart failure. Our hypothesis was that TFA levels would be associated with higher concentrations of inflammatory markers in these patients. “. . . Our results suggest that TFAs are strongly associated with systemic inflammation in patients with chronic heart failure. . . .”
The paper noted that as trans-fatty acids in blood cells increased, so did markers for inflammation, a known risk for heart disease, even after factoring out body mass index, smoking and the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs.
Long before the 2006 labeling requirement, research confirmed the dangers of trans fats.
In 2005 Valentine wrote in his True Health Newsletter, “In 1971, and confirmed in 1972, animal studies showed that rats fed hydrogenated trans fatty acids accumulated 30% more fat in their hearts than rats fed beef tallow.”
Valentine continued: “In 1979 one of the researchers, [Fred A.] Kummerow, reported that certain trans fatty acids oxidized more slowly and were shown to accumulate in heart tissue. He felt there was a definite need for more study. A few years later Schiefer reported ‘severe myocardial inflammation and scarring in rats fed partially hydrogenated herring oil.’ ”
It’s worth noting that an all-out attack on “saturated fats,” such as coconut and palm oil, occurred at the same time trans fats and low-quality “polyunsaturated” fats, such as soy and canola oils, were in full bloom.
Valentine further surmised: “In 1992, Zock and Katan confirmed the earlier findings and concluded that increasing the consumption of fatty acids containing trans double bonds at the expense of cis double bonds (unnatural vs. natural) increased concentration of total and LDL cholesterol and decreased concentrations of HDL cholesterol. HDL cholesterol is the so-called good cholesterol.”
Cis fatty acids are considered to be beneficial fatty acids that promote good health.
Valentine stated, “In 1993, Dr. Willett at Harvard investigated the development of heart disease in 85,000 women relative to their intake of trans fatty acids from partially hardened vegetable oils and ruminant (cow) fats. His group found a significant risk associated with trans fatty acids from hydrogenation, but no such risk associated with natural trans-fatty acids.”
Betting people wouldn’t expect a much different outcome in 2018, given the fact that the known danger of trans fats was ignored for decades, and when “regulated,” anemic labeling requirements were put in place.
It is standard operating procedure for the revolving door of government and industry, but if you or a loved one is an unlucky victim of trans fats, chalk it up to living in corporatist America.
James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine and his wife, Carole. To receive a free issue of Carotec Health Report—a monthly newsletter loaded with well-researched and reliable alternative health information—please write Carotec, P.O. Box 9919, Naples, FL 34101 or call 1-800-522-4279. Also included will be a list of the high-quality health supplements Carotec recommends.
World Awakening to Dangers of Fluoridation
By Victor Thorn
Health-conscious individuals have long realized the threats posed to our bodies by continued exposure to fluoride. Fortunately, the tide may be turning against this toxic substance.
During an October 7 interview, documentary filmmaker Paul Wittenberger told AMERICAN FREE PRESS: “Since 2010, over 150 U.S. communities have rejected the practice of fluoridated water. Some of these cities include Portland, Wichita, Albuquerque, and Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Although 70% of American municipalities still use fluoridated water, over the past five years there has been a 2% drop.”
On the heels of his recently released film, Fluoride: Poison on Tap, Wittenberger related more good news: “98% of European countries don’t fluoridate their water, and over a dozen nations have recently banned fluoride’s use. Last year, Israel also discontinued water fluoridation. Today, only seven major countries still engage in this practice. Regrettably, one of those is the U.S.”
When further questioned about fluoride’s dangers, Wittenberger was perfectly clear: “Fluoride has been a fraud, a scam from the beginning. It’s one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated in human history, just like 9-11 and vaccines.”
He added more details.
“Most people don’t realize that fluoride isn’t a naturally occurring substance,” he said. “It’s a toxic waste byproduct derived from the phosphate fertilizer industry. As a deadly poison, it wreaks havoc on and affects every part of the human body. Evidence now links fluoride to arthritis, thyroid problems, kidney failure, cardiovascular difficulties and the calcification of our body tissue.”
To illustrate his point, Wittenberger told AFP, I’m holding a bottle of sodium fluoride in my hands right now, and a label on its front states, ‘Caution: poison, harmful or fatal if swallowed.’ If fluoride is safe, why can’t we walk into a drugstore and purchase it over the counter like other products? If we are compelled to add substances to our drinking water, why can’t it be an essential mineral like magnesium?”
Wittenberger continued: “Fluoride results from a chemical called hydrofluorosilicic acid, which eats through concrete, glass, stainless steel, fiberglass and plastic. If ever spilled in public, emergency crews must wear hazmat suits to clean it. Can you believe that 250,000 tons of fluoride is annually poured into America’s water supply? Not only does it contaminate what comes out of our faucets, fluoride is also in packaged foods and the meals we eat at restaurants.”
Naysayers will undoubtedly cite the supposed benefits of fluoridated water on our teeth.
But Wittenberger argued: “If you study old books concerning fluoride, you’ll discover that numerous dentists initially spoke out against its use on teeth. Dentists originally opposed to fluoride lost grants or were blackballed by the [American Dental Association]. Basically, if they wanted to keep their jobs, they had to become a part of the fluoride club.”
Wittenberger warned: “For decades, sodium fluoride was used to eradicate vermin. Although fluoride as a roach poison came in a more concentrated form, if we dilute it in water, it’ll still kill us, only over a longer period of time.”
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 50 books.
Science is a process by which the scientific community reaches a consensus (a communal agreement) about specific issues that is based on a complete evaluation of all the evidence that’s available. As you read the claims of fluoridation opponents (FOs), consider the fact that thousands of expert representatives from over 150 national and international science and health organizations (and others), have exhaustively analyzed evidence used by FOs to support their claims (as well as all evidence suppressed by the FOs).
In over 70 years NOT ONE of those organizations has determined the evidence is sufficient to change the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public dental health program.
Ask the FOs to explain this incontestable fact. Is their explanation even remotely plausible?
For those who are concerned about fluoridation because of all the complete falsehoods and twisted truths spread by fluoridation opponents (FOs), I put together a web page to provide evidence in support of the safety and effectiveness of drinking water fluoridation that is conveniently missing from the FOs’ propaganda. Don’t buy into the fear without doing your own research. If there are not enough references to convince you the FOs are distorting the evidence, simply go to the entire body of published evidence at Pubmed.gov and do your own examination of the research. Other helpful sites that provide evidence to refute specific claims of FOs are The Debate Over Fluoridated Water and FLUORIDE INFORMATION: IS FLUORIDE GOOD TO HAVE IN YOUR DRINKING WATER?
It is very easy as you examine the resources above to discover where the FOs have distorted the evidence to create fear using studies where the actual conclusions are completely contrary to how they have been presented. The 2012 ‘Harvard IQ’ study by Choi, et al. and the 2015 Cochrane review of water fluoridation are excellent examples.
The only way FOs can promote their agenda is to try and convince the public that fluoridation is ineffective and harmful to health. And the only way that can be accomplished is to:
(1) Reference poor quality research that has been dismissed by experts in the field.
(2) Claim that known detrimental effects of exposure to high levels of fluoride automatically means low level exposure is also harmful.
(3) Manipulate the conclusions of legitimate research to imply the practice of fluoridation is harmful.
(4) Use fear instead of valid evidence to try and convince people the FOs’ position is valid.
(5) Try and suggest that fluoridation is forced medication instead of a beneficial water treatment process—like chlorination and the addition of various other chemicals.
(6) Try and discredit the respected science and healthcare professionals, and the highly respected science, healthcare, and regulatory organizations supporting fluoridation as being corrupt, inept, conspiracy laden, etc.
It is ironic that FOs attempt to use the methods of science to justify their strongly held biases, but the only way that they can do that is to deny one of the key components of the scientific method—consensus of the experts.
Many have asked forced-fluoridation promoters to tell how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question. So, elder citizens in these fluoridated communities end up with more brittle bones, fractured hips, arthritis, thyroid damage and cancer.
People are learning the truth about this big money scheme, so it is not surprising that only 5% of world populations and only 3% in Europe fluoridate their drinking water instead of the 74% in the U.S. Also, 200 communities worldwide have voted it out in the last five years.