My better half started having dietary issues. It started with a pie: a meat pie from a certain supermarket. The said item would be consumed for lunch and come early evening it would be violently expelled: stomach cramps and faecal urgency! This happened several times and I’m not a great believer in repeated, or even any, coincidences. Savoury pies from the bakery in town have the same effect on the poor lass. Cornish pasties too, from a well-known brand. But not all pies – pies from the butcher, pies from a certain Highland emporium, a pasty from a traditional bakery in Cornwall, all perfectly innocuous and safe. So it had to be something in the pastry, an ingredient, an additive, a process that Linda’s constitution decided that it had taken a dislike to. She has been eating these products all her life so it seems reasonable to assume that something has changed – either Linda’s metabolism or the products themselves. But which?
It all came to a head with a non-pastry product – possibly a home-made trifle containing jelly made from those rubbery cubes that we loved to pinch when we were bairns - highly coloured, flavoured and processed. The violent expulsions from both ends went on for a week. This was no longer an annoying inconvenience but a matter that was rapidly becoming of serious concern. And again, at a friends house, a perfectly acceptable meal of meat and two veg – but with instant gravy granules! Was that the culprit?
We still do not know the causes of all these incidents but it has lead us into a situation where we are reading the ingredient lists of everything we buy and what we are discovering is truly horrendous.
The supermarket pies came from the in-store bakery and were without an ingredient list, so I contacted them and this is the list:
Beef (31%), Wheat flour (wheat flour, calcium carbonate, iron, niacin, thiamin), Water, Vegetable oils (Palm oil, Rapeseed oil), Onion, Modified maize starch, Maize flour, Yeast extract, Malted barley extract, Salt, Sugar, Wheat protein, Beef fat, Spirit vinegar, Potassium chloride, Tomato puree, carrier (Calcium sulphate), Molasses, Black pepper, acid (Citric acid), Tamarind, Beef extract, flour treatment agent (L-Cysteine), Clove, Ginger, Garlic, Colour (Carotenes) (Polysorbate 80, Medium chain triglycerides, Sunflower oil, colour (Carotenes), Tocopherols, Extracts of rosemary).
There are a few ingredients in there that sound like they might be actual, recognisable foods – beef, onion, flour and various spices: the basic ingredients of a meat pie – but in truth it is a list of industrial products from a chemical factory. We first alighted on the blandly-named flour treatment agent but in truth it could be any of those ingredients with names that are either completely unrecognisable or that sound like they may have been extracted from something that might once have been food. These pies are UPF – Ultra Processed Food. What is UPF? Here is a simple definition - if it comes wrapped in plastic and/or involves products and processes that you do not have or cannot perform in your kitchen then it is UPF. Even those meat pies, cooked in-store, presented in a paper bag, and presenting an illusion of home-made-ishness about them are UPFs.
Through our research we have learned many disturbing things. That low-fat is more fattening and unhealthy than the full-fat versions, for example. The fat that is removed leaves the product, let’s say a yoghurt, wet, thin and unappealing. So welcome emulsifiers, thickening agents and stabilisers that add mouth-feel, creaminess and unctuousness and the result is delicious; but it is no longer food. And these additives are more fattening than the removed fat! Empty calories without nutritional value. Food made with normal sugar is healthier than the low-sugar versions. Why? Because the sugar removed, or not added, is replaced with a witch’s brew of chemicals and other industrial products to ensure that the final product is just as appealing and – addictive! We’ll return to this later.
Our general stabbing around has recently received some focus that came from a dearth of our usual entertainment on Radio 4. All that we once found amusing has been dumbed-down, sexualised and just ain’t the same. So in seeking alternatives we alighted upon Chris and Xand van Tulleken. They are doctors and twin brothers who have been featuring on children’s TV for many years and hence known to Linda.
Our introductory series was ‘Planet Chicken’. We all eat billions of chickens every year but where do they all come from? Having spent several years employed at an abattoir, red meat but with a poultry unit across the yard, I thought this might be interesting. There were no startling revelations but some interesting facts and reminders. Poultry birds are called broilers and there are several species, designed with different attributes. One has to feel sorry for the Ross 308. It has to be slaughtered at five weeks. Has to be because it grows so fast and so plump that after five weeks it can no longer support its own weight! It otherwise falls over and dies. There are slower growing birds but they cost more, of course. Most birds are bred indoors but we all love the idea of a free-range chick. Romantic ideas of our meat gaily skipping and strutting around the meadows, in beautiful locations, scoffing tasty worms and slugs, until the inevitable call of the rapture – the great supermarket in the sky. This is lovely, salves our consciences, makes us feel self-righteous, and is a growing market. But – they pooh all over that meadow, it rains, the pooh washes into the river which becomes polluted and dead. The River Wye, amongst others, is lifeless and green for this very reason, suffocated by algal blooms thriving on those avian nutrients. Can’t win, can we? At least the guano from interior birds can be collected and disposed of properly, even brewed up to generate electricity. And most growers look after their birds well because to do otherwise would be harmful to the bottom line.
The other thing that saddened me is that the whole poultry industry here in the UK is now dominated by three mega-corporations (Moy Park, Avara (Faccenda), 2 Sisters). The company I worked for was in Devon and was owned and run by the Maunder family. The directors were all very visible and part of daily activities. We had to call them mister. Not Mr Maunder because there were too many and that would have been confusing. But Mr David, Mr George, Mr Richard, Mr Andrew… doff our caps, tug our forelocks and know our place; all very feudal and of a time of reassuring certainties. Even they have sold out to 2 Sisters.
I appear to have digressed. Following ‘Planet Chicken’ we found a series on exercise. One of the doctors, Chris, had become obese and his brother was wanting him to get off his backside and do something about it. As Linda, too, is losing weight and needs motivation for exercise this series was of great benefit to her. However, this was series three of a wider programme – A Thorough Investigation – and to be found on BBC Sounds. Series one, Addicted to Food, in which Xand is indeed addicted to fast food and generally gives a good impression of being a glutton, is all about ultra-processed food: UPF. It is eye-opening. Episodes 1 to 3 are rather scene-setting, but episodes 4 to 6 are where the real information lies. And lies is the word that we need to focus on!
1. How did we get so different?
2. UPF is not food
3. How to change? Let it go…
4. Building an ultra processed body
5. Building an ultra-processed mind
6. Building an ultra-processed world
Episode 4 - Kevin Hall PhD (Nat Inst Health US).
An experiment was carried out to prove that fat, salt, sugar and a lack of fibre are the main drivers behind obesity. It failed!
Two groups of people were given different but identically matched diets in terms of calories (fat, salt, sugar, fibre). In diet one 80% of the calories came from UPF and in diet two from whole food. The experiment lasted four weeks with the diets being switched halfway through. Everyone was allowed to eat as much or as little as they liked – everything was measured. Those on the UPF diet did not enjoy their food more but they ate more, were hungrier and gained weight. The ‘food’ was addictive and unable to satisfy the brain’s craving for nutrition – mainly because there is very little nutritional value in UPF. Even the missing fibre had to be added in from a UPF source!
A subsequent commentary on this from a Janin Makaronides of University College London explained how UPF affects gut hormones. The level of the hormones that tell us we are hungry rise by 30% and those that tell us we are full fall similarly. In other words UPF is carefully engineered to invite us in and in so doing messes up our natural processes. We think we are hungry and fail to recognise when we are full so we keep eating. All those extra calories and sugar lead to addiction, leaves the body craving nutrition, and screws up the communication between gut and brain. The result? Obesity, diabetes, heart disease – a sick population being killed by the toxic junk that purports to be food!
We also learned about the emulsifiers that are necessary to stabilise foods over their long shelf lives, by preventing otherwise hostile ingredients separating and curdling. Emulsifiers are asymmetric molecules that bind to water on one side and to oils and fats on the other. Now, if I am not mistaken, is that not how soap works?
Episode 5 was largely built around evidence from Prof. Barry C. Smith of the University of London and the fact that the industry spends millions of pounds and thousands of hours making their products irresistible. We know that taste and smell are intimately linked, however the manufacturers take it further to involve all the senses. They know that crisps taste fresh if they sound fresh even if they are stale. The bag is designed to sound deliciously crinkley to give the illusion of freshness. They put odours in the wrappings of ice cream. Frozen products have no smell but getting a waft of caramel when opening your caramel ice draws you in. Fizzy drinks (UPD) are the ultimate in ultra processed. The feel of the cold can, the carefully designed sound of the ring-pull and tearing noise, and the sound of the bubbles make UPDs a sonic experience. These drinks, when flat and at room temperature, are quite unpalatable. Why? Because the carbonisation reduces the sweetness, increases the acidity and thus makes us consume more sugar than our system can cope with. In summary, we get a dopamine hit from the feel, the looks, the desire, the sounds and the smells. It is addictive!
That leads us to the effects of dopamine on the brain which acts like a drug leading people to the misuse of food. Our brains cannot cope with the release of dopamine every time we eat – it’s not natural. Children are especially vulnerable yet it is not until when in their thirties that these metabolic diseases start to manifest themselves, and then it’s really difficult to break their addictions. We learned that sugar is often added purely to mask the taste of the nasty chemicals, without which our brain would discard these substances as truly disgusting. Mentioned too was the aggressive marketing and product locations in shops – usually at children’s eye level! This increased sugar intake increases mortality, is killing us and should be viewed as a vice along with gambling, cigarettes and drug abuse.
The series climax in episode 6 focussed on Marion Nestle, Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at the University of New York, and her book ‘Soda Politics’. She began by lamenting that it took 50 years to regulate tobacco usage and that was a single product. UPF is far more complicated. She mentioned a simple mantra:
She referred to the NOVA Cat 4 group of foods (see links below) that lead to heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes and increased mortality rates. Why can we not do anything about these ‘foods’ that are killing us? Because UPF is a multibillion-dollar industry whose raison d’etre is to maximise the return to shareholders – to make the wealthy wealthier. It is not interested in public health and so its first rule, whenever doubt is raised over its products and morality, is to cast doubt on the science.
She too mentioned UPDs, the sodas of the aforementioned book, that they are all unambiguously bad with no demonstrable nutritional value. She has had correspondents who have lost 30, 40 and even, in one case, 80lbs just by cutting soft drinks out of their lives. She spoke of the ad campaigns directed at kids (she’s a Yank), that they are tax deductible in the US, thus it is the US taxpayer funding their own harm. The industry funds election campaigns and makes political donations to ensure government policies promote UPF. Because UPF is cheap the most vulnerable are the poor and so they do their best to prevent the poor from eating healthfully.
It was noted that new-borns are fed a diet of 100% UPF yet there have been no studies on the effects. In this case the UPF is the bottled milk formula, follow-on milk, rusks and prepared food that are thrust upon baby whether he wants it or not. This all costs money (of course - that’s the whole point), the prep and delivery equipment must be sterilised – a real problem in the third world that leads to higher infant mortality – and is all entirely unnecessary when mother has two breasts full of exactly what baby needs, prepared, packaged and ready to go. But then the wean can’t be shoved off to granny whilst mother returns to her career! Oh, I’m cynical!
There was a comparison between the costs and availability of UPF vs. fresh fruit and veg. The price of the latter has increased far more than UPF making fresh unaffordable – it is expensive to start with, goes off quickly, so is wasted, and in some places there simply are no shops selling actual whole, fresh food, yet UPF is everywhere. The price of fresh should be subsidised to make it affordable.
A suggestion was made for a family experiment. With the whole family, gather together all the UPF in the house, read the ingredients, look at the packaging, the images, the propaganda, and see the lies!
The final line from a van Tulleken: ‘I would like to grab the PM by the lapels and tell him that we must stop children eating this stuff, as if they were smoking’.
NOVA, mentioned earlier, is the food classification that categorises foods according to the extent and purpose of food processing, rather than in terms of nutrients. Here are the links, as promised. It forms the basis of the Brazilian dietary guidelines as four recommendations and one golden rule. I wonder why other countries do not also adopt it. But then again I am also surprised that the industry has allowed a country as large and populous as Brazil to adopt guidelines that promote health over corporate greed – their profits. Whatever the priorities of government and big business, we can all educate ourselves. After all it’s our body we feed and our choice on how we feed it. So I have decided to repeat those recommendations here:
Having come this far and discovered horrendous things, what does this mean in practice for the Smith household? It would be easy to become paranoid and compulsive readers of ingredients lists but the reality is that UPF cannot be completely avoided. In trying we would engage in an all-consuming programme of futility. The fact is that we all have our allotted three score and ten and nothing we do can alter that. However, by being careful, sensible and balanced about what we eat, we can avoid a lot of needless suffering. Diabetes and obesity are unnecessarily self-inflicted diseases. Eating baked beans, pot noodle and crisps every day will demand a heavy toll. The occasional indulgence is mostly harmless. It is actually about educating ourselves and making sensible choices. Seeing through the aggressive marketing that tells us that, for example, low-fat is good for cholesterol and gut health, we can choose the ‘bad’ natural-fat version - a normal unadulterated yoghurt is a simple cultured dairy product and less fattening than the processed alternatives. The low-fat version is full of nasty chemicals that are bad for us and have been masked because they taste disgusting. Sugar too – avoiding the low-sugar versions mean that we avoid the weird chemicals that stand in for normal sugar, a sweetening agent refined from cane or beet.
We could bake our own bread daily from whole grain flour. This would be a highly commendable thing to do. But do we have the time? In France, every village has a boulangerie selling freshly baked baguettes. This has to be the case because Gallic bread purchased in the morning, by evening time has taken on the density of a teak log and requires a chainsaw to slice it! That is exactly what the ultra processing is designed to avoid. But the daily bread routine is a part of their life. A French person walking without a baguette is unheard of. In miserable, anti-social Britain this bread-buying daily activity is not available to most of us. If we are blessed with a local bakery making bread with nothing more than flour, yeast and water the chances are that we would not be able to afford their products. Great if we can, but most of us go to the supermarket and buy a UPF loaf in a plastic bag that does an impression of being real bread but is, in truth, an industrial product derived from ingredients that might once have been food. It is affordable, available, and in a week’s time, will still be edible thanks to all the chemicals, molecules, processing and packaging that has been carefully designed to maximise profit over health. When times are hard, the temptation is great to buy the cheapest. If we can find a product that is less processed and not too expensive, then that seems to me to be a sensible compromise.
Drinks – does anyone need to consume soft drinks? No! They are toxic, acidic and fattening so why run the risk, even though they are ninety-something percent water? Real water, fresh milk, fruit juice (not fruit drink), tea and coffee in moderation, are all readily available. Even wine contains chemical additives to make cheap plonk seem like a fine vintage, or even just palatable, but as yet there is no legal requirement to disclose, so they don’t.
I mentioned fresh milk. Here is a question I have not yet managed to answer. When I was growing up our milk was delivered daily by a milkman. It had to be daily because it would very quickly go off – curdling, lumpiness, and a distinct cheesiness rapidly appeared despite refrigeration. But these days, take a look at the use by dates of fresh milk in any supermarket and it is not unusual to see a shelf life of seven to ten days. How do they do that? I have previously written about standardised, pasteurised, homogenised milk, but what else do they do to it?
Butter or marg? I have always had a preference for butter. Not only does it taste nicer but it is an entirely natural product – buttermilk, churned and sometimes salted – and I like the idea of that. It seems right. Margarine is fundamentally a plastic – oils emulsified, augmented with horrible additives and then coloured to look like butter. The conventional wisdom is that fat is bad and so we are encouraged to endorse the low-fat spread as the healthier option. Is that true? Consider:
Since margarine has a variable but high trans fat level, the consumption of margarine may lead to an increased incidence of heart disease, cancer and other diseases when compared with butter. Hence butter is considered healthier than margarine. In women, according to the latest Harvard Medical Study, the intake of margarine increases the rate of incidence of heart disease by 53% over that associated with the consumption of the same volume of butter. – news-medical.net
So how has this affected Linda and I? Well in the summer of 2023 Linda had a blood test to see if we could find anything that might have lead to the unpleasant reactions noted at the outset. She was told that her blood sugar was too high, that she was pre-diabetic, and that she would need to manage her health if she wanted to avoid medication. So she did! Nine months later, she has lost 20kg in weight and is feeling healthier, more energetic and looks so much more shapely. How has she done this? Primarily by cutting the crap out of her (our) diet. She does a daily exercise routine and goes swimming once a week. She can now do forty lengths - 1km! We eat fresh vegetables, many home-grown, fruit, salad, eggs, meat, porridge, we have reduced our commercial bread consumption in favour of oat cakes and home-made bread, and all-in-all we are both feeling so much better. Yes, we have the occasional sausage, beans and chips and when out and about sometimes succumb to an ice cream, kebab, Chinese carry-out and the like. We enjoy them at the time, sometimes regret it, and ensure that these are rare events.
According to nhs.uk adults aged 19 to 64 need 40mg of vitamin C per day and that taking more than 1g (1000mg) will cause stomach pain, diarrhoea and flatulence. In the US mayoclinic.org recommends 75mg and 90mg for women and men respectively, 120mg for the pregnant and with an upper limit of 2000mg per day. In contrast, what follows are the pertinent points from a feature in the magazine What Doctors Don’t Tell You (wddty.com). The October 2023 edition lead with the article ‘C is for cure-all - How vitamin C heals heart disease’. Firstly I wish to state that I am not endorsing these opinions as I have no means of verifying the facts and their accuracy. However, it gives a very interesting and feasible alternative to the mainstream narrative and what it says has the ring of validity. For example, the article uses the term ‘focal scurvy’. A little knowledge of history will tell us that scurvy was, and is, a deadly disease. Right up until the end of the eighteenth century the Royal Navy would lose more men to scurvy than in action. This in contrast to the Spanish and Portuguese navies which routinely fed their men fresh fruit. The answer for the British was a daily dose of fresh lemon juice. This illustrates just how important vitamin C is in our diet – without it we die. The word ‘focal’ is related to focus, and in this context refers to a limited, small area or to specific parts of our anatomy. If bits of our body have scurvy, that cannot be a good thing, but we do know that the cure is simple and readily available.
So here is what wddty says:
‘For decades, conventional medicine has addressed coronary heart disease by treating symptoms and attempting to limit risk factors without addressing, or even acknowledging, its root cause: a focal scurvy of the coronary arteries.’
‘Americans spend billions of dollars every year on expensive drugs and even more expensive procedures that only retard the progress of this lethal disease. All the while, effective vitamin C supplementation would prevent the disease in many who do not already have it.’
‘If all of us maintained a vitamin C-rich environment in our coronary arteries, the massively lucrative heart disease industry would dry up over night.’
‘Studies show that arterial blockages will start and grow with a vitamin C deficiency alone.’
‘Studies show that vitamin C deficiency can cause and worsen high blood pressure…: vitamin C supplementation lowers blood pressure of hypertensive patients.’
As an aside I checked the RDAs for vitamin C from various mainstream sources as noted above. The questions raised by this, to me at least, are: Why are these RDAs so low? Why such discrepancies? If relatively massive doses are known to be beneficial, why is this not recognised in the RDAs? Why, in the UK, are 1,000mg vitamin C tablets widely available in chemists, health food shops and even supermarkets if we need just 40mg per day? Why would anyone produce a supplement that, according to the brand I am currently consuming, supplies 1,250% RDA?
Back