A Cereal Tale
© Robert Anderson PhD
© Robert Anderson PhD
When "enriched" beware
I have always been partial to a bowl of cornflakes, especially when viewing television. Recently, a medical friend showed me a CD[i]brought from the US demonstrating a particular aspect of the term “vitamin and mineral enriched foods.” In this particular case, it was cornflakes “enriched with iron.”
I have always been partial to a bowl of cornflakes, especially when viewing television. Recently, a medical friend showed me a CD[i]brought from the US demonstrating a particular aspect of the term “vitamin and mineral enriched foods.” In this particular case, it was cornflakes “enriched with iron.”
A Dr Thomas Levy demonstrated. He took a packet of corn flakes (brand name disguised) and homogenized about half the packet with water in a food processor. He poured the resultant slurry into a plastic bag to which a magnet was attached. After shaking, the contents were poured into a bowl leaving the magnet and plastic bag empty; or so you would think. In fact, the magnet had a pile of iron filings sticking to it. Dr Levy said: “It defies all logic and common sense to think that grinding shavings off of a bar of iron onto your food - analogous to shredding cheese onto your Italian food - could be anything less than toxic. Yet that appears to be exactly the form of iron that is routinely added to many of the ‘enriched’ food products that we eat today.”
A cereal food that I cherished as a young boy growing up in England was puffed wheat. That was subject to misgivings as I familiarized myself with the chemistry of the food industry. In 1942, a food biochemist, Dr Paul Stitt, came across a study in which rats fed on Puffed Wheat died after just two weeks. He implored the company not to produce this product because it showed poisonous effects on animals, but without result.[ii] The president of the company said: “If they insist on sticking it into their mouth, can I help it? Besides we made $9 million on the stuff last year.” Some proteins are similar to certain toxins in their molecular structure. Subjecting them to huge pressures, 1500 lb-per-square-inch in this case, and then releasing it, can turn the nutrient components into poisonous ones.
Making cute shapes for children’s foods involves an equally unappetising industrial process. Put simply, a slurry of foodstuff is forced through small dies at one end of an extruder, and the material is heated to a high temperature while passing through it. This heat denatures much of the nutritive value originally present. Spinning blades chop off the shapes, which are then carried by a stream of hot air through another machine coating them with sugar and oil. Many of the essential nutrients, particularly the crucial amino acid lysine, are severely damaged by such processes. “Appeal” and “crunch” have become an all-important aspects of food products.
It is no secret that breakfast cereals contain more sugar than the majority of other foods we eat. A popular brand of corn flakes sold in New Zealand, for example, shows 8.6 gm of sugar per 100 gm of flakes, some of which could be the ‘natural’ sugar content of the cereal (corn in this case), but there is no way of knowing that by reading the label. Another brand of cereal, lists 30 gm per 100 gm. On top of this sugar content, most people sprinkle on a spoonful or more of sugar. The sugar industry has been fighting to avoid having to print the actual added sugar content on labels. A recent Panorama programme shown on TV One[iii]exposed the deception of the industry when top scientists from all over the world, including New Zealand nutritional expert, Professor Jim Mann from Otago Medical School, gathered to investigate carbohydrates and sugar in foods.[iv] The scientists went to the conference in good faith, expecting to make inroads into the acknowledged obesity problems First World countries especially are facing. Immediately their findings were revealed, they were altered so as to avoid showing sugar as the main culprit. Statements such as “Experts see no harm in sugar” – a complete turn-about-face – were used as a PR exercise. Only afterwards did scientists like Dr Mann realise that the entire conference was hosted and paid for by industry.
Like the tobacco industry, the sugar industry is being challenged: added (especially white) sugar is a danger to our health. Although we may try to cut down consumption, what is not immediately apparent is that most of our sugar consumption comes from sugar added to processed foods, and that includes cereals.[v] The NZ Consumer[vi]gave the following advice on children’s breakfasts: “It’s good to eat breakfast. But it’s important to eat a good breakfast. Our analysis shows which cereals are best, and which are full of sugar.” It went on to alert consumers to the sugar danger in many cereals, warning that: “Some of the worst offenders are the cereals with a ‘sporty’ image, like Kellogg's Nutri-Grain and Signature Range Power Stars. They contain nearly a third sugar.”
Its advice on the ‘added vitamins’ was also meaningful: “Many cereals have vitamins and minerals added. Some replace the nutrients lost during processing, others were never there in significant amounts in the first place.” And that, “Sports-focused cereals like Nutri-Grain promote their vitamin claims strongly. But as cereals go, they’re not particularly healthy. Whatever positive effects you might get from the added vitamins are well outweighed by the negatives - high sugar content and low amounts of dietary fibre.”
Its final comment was that, “Most people can get the vitamins and minerals they need from a normal, varied diet.” Unfortunately, due to our badly depleted soils and production methods, I doubt the veracity of those claims. Unless good quality organic foods grown in rich, cared-for soils are consumed, I seriously doubt that our vitamin and particularly mineral intake is now adequate long term. Most soils are deficient in some minerals, especially where the same crops are grown year in year out with the application of artificial fertilizers. For example, New Zealand soils are particularly short of selenium.
The fight for shelf life
One of the top priorities of the food industry is shelf life. The longer products stay usable on the shelf the better. Many of the cereals that we now buy are well laced with “preservatives.” To what purpose? They ensure that microorganisms do not feed on the contents and denature them while on the shelf. Is this significant? Very, from the consumer’s point of view. Many of these bacteria are similar to those that reside naturally in the human digestive tract, aiding our digestion and food breakdown processes. It is logical, therefore, that if these microorganisms are not able to break down the so-called “fresh” foods, then humans cannot break them down either. So industry boasts that food remains fresh after a year on the shelf is nonsensical. The truth is that around 80% of foods on supermarket shelves are stale. Moreover, according to official reports,[vii]70 to 80% of all additives in foods are cosmetic. One researcher found that the artificial flavourings and colour additives present in some foods may well cause 50% of the hyperactivity in children.[viii]
One of the most dangerous additives is monosodium glutamate (MSG); linked to brain damage in infants.[ix] In today’s supermarket, it is very difficult to avoid packaged foods labelled “enriched” or that contain additives. Some enrichments may add to the foods’ value but in many cases, such as MSG, they do the very opposite. Often the least expensive ‘plain label’ brands have fewer additives than the more expensive lines.
An interesting contrast is evident in food safety. Companies are required to test dog and pet food thoroughly to ensure the food is good for them, yet human food often undergoes no such testing, on humans or animals. Generally, human food products are simply governed by consumer demand. Customers buy food that tastes good and makes them want to eat more, while in the process they often do not get the nutrients their bodies actually need.
I have never agreed with the NZ government’s claim that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is looking after consumers’ interests adequately. It cannot support the consumer and at the same time care for the interests of the food industry. FSANZ’s claim, for example, that, “labelling could be a source of misinformation to the public” is spurious. It appears to promote the belief that many novel foods, such as genetically engineered (GE) corn and the like, should be regarded as “substantially equivalent” to natural products, and/or that a certain percentage content of a given substance is not going to harm consumers. Independent researchers have not adequately tested GE foods and has anyone looked at the cumulative effect of all these little extras in our food: additives, enzymes, preservatives, chemicals, etc? Do they come from a natural product or are they engineered or otherwise produced? Their effects, particularly on children, are largely unknown. FSANZ has argued, for example, that it would be inappropriate to test GE foods for toxicity because such lengthy procedures would impede marketing. Sensible?
As more ‘fiddling’ with food takes place, it will become increasingly difficult for the consumer to tell what goes into cereals and other foods. This being the case, I shall be looking for some other fare than corn flakes to enjoy while viewing TV.
Robert Anderson BSc (Hons), PhD - 4 February 1942 to 5 December 2008
Robert Anderson was a Trustee of Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (formerly Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics) www.psgr.org.nz. He authored The Final Pollution: Genetic Apocalypse, Exploding the Myth of Genetic Engineering and several other publications on environmental, health and social justice issues.
View his lectures on this website
Address enquiries for Robert Anderson's publications currently in print to naturesstar@xtra.co.nz.
Address enquiries for Robert Anderson's publications currently in print to naturesstar@xtra.co.nz.
References:
[i] Iron in your corn-flakes. http://www.tomlevymd.com/
[ii] Beating the Food Giants. Stitt P., ISBN 0-939-956-06-6 pp42-43
[iii] “The Trouble With Sugar” TVNZ
[iv] 1998 Rome ‘Carbohydrate Consultation’
[v] Select Committee on Nutrition p 43
[vii] US General Accounting Office food reports.
[viii] Hightower J., Eat Your Heart Out NY Crown Publishers 1975 p88
[ix] http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Dang.html