Why was I not planning to comment? For one thing, neither story is really all that newsworthy. In both cases, the conclusions were surprising, in that they ran counter to what everyone expected and counter to the numerous studies that preceded them. They made no sense, could not be explained, and the nature of the study was such that much room was left for controversy as to whether the results were actually valid and meaningful. This leads to the first important observation I want to call to your attention:

The fact that a study is prominently featured on a news broadcast does not necessary mean it is a valid study. Instead, it just means that it is newsworthy. Unfortunately, newsworthy these days usually translates into “sensational,” “controversial,” or “sexy.” While these vitamin studies may not satisfy the “sexy” requirement, they certainly do satisfy the other two.

Another reason I was not going to comment is that few people really care. Most people who watched the news broadcast, or read about the studies in the newspaper, fall into one of three groups–those who are pro-vitamin supplement, those who are anti-vitamin supplement, and those who don’t really care either way.

There is no need to address comments to the first group, those who for various reasons are convinced of the value of nutritional supplementation, because they dismiss this kind of news as biased, illogical, politically motivated, etc. Their faith remains unshaken. Similarly, those at the other end of the spectrum are quick to embrace anything that seems to support their position that nutritional supplements are unnecessary, evil, a waste of money, etc.

No amount of positive data on vitamins will shake the skepticism of the anti-vitamin folks, and no amount of negative data on vitamins will undermine the optimism of the pro-vitamin folks. Certainly, nothing I say–no critique of the study’s methodology, no suggestions as to why the results were flawed–will change their minds. So, the second observation is as follows:

Few people really care. Those who understand the value of nutritional supplementation will be unimpressed with this type of news headline. Those who are anti-vitamin will gleefully accept the negative headlines, no matter how flawed the study and how illogical the results. And those who do not really care just, well, do not care.

Now, there are many flaws and there are many observations that can be made which diminish the significance of these studies. For those of you who really want to look at that, I will append a collection of such comments at the end of this story. For me, however, the bottom line is this. Studies like these should not be dismissed out of hand. But they have to be taken in context. If something does not make sense, seems illogical, cannot be explained, and runs counter to numerous previous studies, why would it be considered newsworthy?

Many of the “revelations” in these two studies actually support the information I have been giving for years. For example:

• Don’t take isolated nutrients. We always emphasize the importance of a balanced, comprehensive multivitamin-multimineral blend as the cornerstone, or foundation, of any nutritional or therapeutic regimen. I have never recommended an isolated dl-alpha tocopherol 400IU supplement.

• Don’t take high dose iron supplements unless under medical direction, especially if you are menopausal or male. I do not recommend total avoidance of iron, but typically suggest one-half the daily value (9 mg) for those who do not have need for a more therapeutic dose.

• Food is always the ideal way to get your vitamins and minerals. But lets not ignore the fact the few of us eat a sufficiently well-balanced diet to guarantee this. Research clearly shows that the average American is clearly deficient in one or more essential nutrients.

• Moderation is the key. Therapeutic use of vitamins, minerals and herbs is without question beneficial. But use common sense. Anything when taken to extremes can become dangerous.

A little common sense can go a long way when it comes to vitamin supplementation. Common sense, and guidance from qualified, educated health professionals. There is a lot of good information available, but there is also a lot of self-serving misinformation. If you think your supplement regimen may not be safe and optimal, I suggest you come by one of the Willner Chemists stores and talk to our pharmacists and nutritionists.

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence, scientific and anecdotal, supports the value of nutritional supplementation. These recent studies do not change that.

As promised, I will append a collection of comments and critiques to the two recent studies.

——————————————–

An increase in cancer was originally noted in the vitamin E-only group, but the results weren’t statistically significant.

The follow-up, however, which tracked the health of about half the trial’s original 35,000-plus participants, found a 17% increase in prostate cancer, compared with men who took a placebo. For every 1,000 men, 76 who took vitamin E supplements got prostate cancer, compared with 65 men who took placebo.

Dr. Minasian said the Select trial, which began in 2001, was prompted by animal studies, observational studies and secondary findings from other trials suggesting selenium and vitamin E protected against prostate cancer, which causes nearly 34,000 deaths in the U.S. a year.

It wasn’t clear why vitamin E might lead to an increase in prostate cancer, or why earlier studies suggested the opposite, Dr. Minasian said. More needs to be learned about how the nutrient acts at various steps on the progression from normal to cancerous tissue, she said.

New study on supplements’ effects on older women flawed, nutrition experts say

Caren Baginski, newhope360

Oct. 11, 2011

New study on supplements’ effects on older women flawed, nutrition experts say

Industry experts dissect supplement study’s flaws

The natural health industry rallies to respond to a controversial study published yesterday in the Archives of Internal Medicine that found that dietary supplements don’t contribute to lower death rates in older women. Natural health experts and the supplements industry weigh in on the flaws and biases they find in the research.

A new study published yesterday in the Archives of Internal Medicine titled “Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women” claims that dietary supplements overall are not helpful for increasing longevity in older women. The findings have natural health experts rallying to respond to what they say is a biased and scientifically skewed study on dietary supplements.

The study tracked the use of vitamin and mineral supplements in relation to total mortality in nearly 39,000 older women in Iowa from 1986 to 2008. Researchers found that dietary supplements, with the exception of calcium, do not reduce the death rate in older women. Calcium is by far the top-selling mineral supplement, accounting for 54 percent of the $2.2 billion in 2010 mineral supplements sales, according to Nutrition Business Journal.

The study’s conclusion went on to say that “in older women, several commonly used dietary vitamin and mineral supplements may be associated with increased total mortality risk [emphasis added].” The researchers associated use of multivitamins, vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc and copper with increased risk of total mortality when compared with groups that did not take supplements.

“It’s important to keep in mind that this is an associative—not a cause-and-effect—study,” said Duffy MacKay, vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), in a statement. “This study … attempts to tease out one piece of the healthy equation for good health—dietary supplements. CRN maintains that nutrients may be robbed of their beneficial effects when viewed as if they were pharmaceutical agents, with scientists looking to isolate those effects, good or bad.”

Industry experts dissect supplement study’s flaws

How does the industry, which regularly comes across studies such as, “Vitamin D reduces mortality rate by 20 percent,” respond to research that paints an entirely different picture of supplements’ benefits?

The same way it always does: consumer education—and pointing out precise biases and flaws in the “Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women” study.

“What the researchers and editors seemed to miss is that older women (or men) have a greater risk of death simply because of their age, their greater likelihood of having serious diseases, and their use of multiple drugs, a common cause of illness (from side effects),” said Jack Challem, The Nutrition Reporter.

Jacob Teitelbaum, MD, a holistic physician and coauthor of Real Cause, Real Cure (Rodale, 2011), said the researchers ignored a key point of the study: the fact that women who took supplements before the study were healthier than those who did not.

“One could come to the same conclusion about exercise not being helpful using this same statistical approach,” he said. Take for example a study with two control groups: those who exercise and those who do not, but both of which are put on a new exercise program. At the beginning of the study, those who already are exercisers are healthier than those who are not. By cancelling this fact out, and negating the prior health of the exercisers, you can find that exercise is not beneficial, he said.

That’s what the researchers did in this supplements study, Teitelbaum said. “The people taking multivitamins at the beginning of the study were statistically doing a lot better—there was less high blood pressure, less diabetes [than the non-supplement users]. The researchers totally ignored that.”

Teitelbaum adds that the omission of these facts wasn’t the only flaw in the study: “The hypothesis wasn’t to state whether supplements will harm or help. It was to see if they would harm, which gives you an idea of what their study was about.”

In a statement, Steve Mister, president and CEO of CRN, pointed to another flaw: The publication invited a scientist whose opinion is already controversial toward supplements to comment on the study.

“In the spirit of true scientific discourse, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to invite commentary from a researcher who might have looked at the data in its entirety, with sufficient lead time, and provided a different perspective?” Mister asked. “It’s time scientific journals acknowledge they have some biases, just like industry.”

JAMA Article Is No Reason Not to Take Your Multivitamins

I want to share a statement from Natural Products Association (NPA) Vice President of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Cara Welch, Ph.D., about recent concerns regarding the alleged risks of dietary supplements in the Archives of Internal Medicine:

“The Natural Products Association advocates that consumers use dietary supplements as part of a healthy lifestyle. Most vitamin and mineral supplements are taken to address or prevent deficiencies. While we would prefer that Americans get these nutrients from their diet, studies have consistently shown that they do not take in the essential compounds they need.

I’m always pleased to see analysis on the long-term effects of supplementation. This study, however, is quite limited in scope; the data is observational and self-reported so contributing factors are not addressed. Subsequently, the authors cannot conclude any cause and effect and there is no reason why women should change what they’re doing based on this report.

There are plenty of studies published that demonstrate the benefit of supplementation and fortification. This specific study should not dissuade the general public from the benefits of addressing a vitamin or mineral deficiency with dietary supplements. As always, consumers should discuss their supplement usage with their health care professional.”

The statement is being delivered to all trade publications and the mainstream press. Feel free to share it with your customers and colleagues.

Sincerely,

John Gay, CAE

Executive Director and CEO

In response to these study findings, Steve Mister, president and CEO, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), commented: “Consumers continue to look for the best way to live long and healthy lives, and as much as we would like for science to easily give us answers, the fact is science is not black and white. But even more concerning is the recent drive to combine political agendas with what should be pure science. The supplement industry regularly gets accused of this practice—in some cases rightly so—yet medical journals seem to be given a pass, as if somehow they held no bias whatsoever.

“Within the article itself are a number of opinions, including: ‘Also, cumulative effects of widespread use, together with food fortification, have raised concern regarding exceeding upper recommended levels …’ It’s quite popular these days to talk about over nutrification, but in fact research consistently shows most people are falling short in several key nutrients.

“The authors advise that dietary supplements only be used ‘with strong medically based cause, such as symptomatic nutrient deficiency …’ Given the high dosages of iron reportedly being used by the women in the study, it is highly likely the participants were taking the high dosage of iron reported in the study under a physician’s care for an iron deficiency, which may itself have resulted in a shortened lifespan. But the piece purports to warn against over-the-counter (OTC) use of vitamins.

“The publication invited a commentary from a scientist whose opinion on supplements and their potential role in good health is already well-known, and whose own work has been the subject of controversy in scientific circles: ‘…Therefore, we believe politicians and regulatory authorities should wake up to their responsibility to allow only safe products on the market.’ In the spirit of true scientific discourse, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to invite a commentary from a researcher who might have looked at the data in its entirety, with sufficient lead time, and provided a different perspective?

“Critics of dietary supplements will continue to advocate vitamins and minerals should be regulated like drugs, but even they should realize that although drugs undergo rigorous RCT testing, many safety issues for drugs still do exist. Furthermore if nutrients were regulated like drugs, the cost and availability of supplements would make it difficult for average consumers to make these products part of their healthy lifestyle.

“It’s time scientific journals acknowledge they have some biases, just like industry.”

Duffy MacKay, N.D., vice president, scientific and regulatory affairs, CRN, also commented, stating: “Dietary supplements are used by more than 150 million Americans in combination with other healthy lifestyle habits. This study, however, attempts to tease out one piece of the healthy equation for good health—dietary supplements. CRN maintains that nutrients may be robbed of their beneficial effects when viewed as if they were pharmaceutical agents, with scientists looking to isolate those effects, good or bad.

“It’s important to keep in mind that this is an associative—not a cause and effect—study. Further, the authors themselves have noted additional limitations. In fact, when the authors did their initial [minimum adjusted] analysis, it appears they actually found benefit for many of the supplements, not just calcium; yet instead of stopping there, they went on to ‘further adjust’ the data, possibly until they found statistics worthy of this publication’s acceptance. The study may make for interesting scientific water-cooler discussion, but certainly does not warrant sweeping, overstated concerns for elderly women.

“Further, the authors show their own bias with this statement: ‘We recommend that [dietary supplements] be used with strong medically based cause, such as symptomatic nutrient deficiency…’, which basically means these researchers would rather wait till we all get scurvy before acknowledging any need for supplemental nutrients.

“Our advice to consumers: your best chance for living a long and healthy life is to engage in healthy lifestyle practices, and many in the scientific community maintain that rational, reasonable use of vitamins and other supplements is part of that equation.”

Cara Welch, Ph.D., vice president, scientific & regulatory affairs, Natural Products Association (NPA), concurred with CRN’s comments, adding: “The majority of vitamin and mineral supplements are taken to address or prevent deficiencies. While we would prefer Americans get these nutrients from their diet, studies have consistently shown they do not take in the compounds essential for their health and supplementation can help. I’m always pleased to see research done on the long-term effects of supplementation; but this study is limited in that it is observational and self-reported so contributing factors are not addressed. There are plenty of studies published that demonstrate the benefit of supplementation and fortification, this specific study should not dissuade the general population from the benefit of addressing a vitamin/mineral deficiency with dietary supplements. And as always, consumers should discuss their supplement intake with their health care professional.

_____________________________

. . . about the study:

The use of dietary supplements in the United States has increased considerably over the last decade, according to background information in the article. Jaakko Mursu, Ph.D., of the University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland, and the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues used data collected during the Iowa Women’s Health Study to examine the association between vitamin and mineral supplements and mortality (death) rate among 38,772 older women (average age 61.6 years). Supplement use was self-reported in 1986, 1997 and 2004 via questionnaires.

Among the 38,772 women who started follow-up with the first survey in 1986, 15,594 deaths (40.2 percent) occurred over an average follow-up time of 19 years. Self-reported supplement use increased substantially between 1986 and 2004, with 62.7 percent of women reporting use of at least one supplement daily in 1986, 75.1 percent in 1997 and 85.1 percent in 2004.

Miriam Pappo, director of clinical nutrition at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, N.Y., said the findings likely won’t drive doctors to stop recommending multivitamins to help patients get all the nutrients they need.

“No one disputes that oral intake of food to get your vitamins and minerals is the way to go,” said Ms. Pappo. However, “in reality, most of us don’t make it up to the nine [servings] a day of fruits and vegetables.”

Susan Fisher, chairwoman of the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry’s Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, noted that the study looks at deaths and not debilitating health conditions that vitamins can help prevent. “If your doctor suggests you should take supplements, it is still wise to follow that direction,” Dr. Fisher said.

Playing with Statistics

Two negative studies on supplements deserve brief comment. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that men who had taken vitamin E supplements had a greater risk of developing prostate cancer, compared with men who did not take the vitamin. First, the vitamin E used in the study was synthetic, which is very different from the natural form. That alone could account for the finding. Second, the diagnoses of prostate cancer were made years after the men had stopped taking vitamin E supplements, which to me would suggest some other cause or combination of causes. Furthermore, prostate cancers are typically so slow growing that many of the cancers were probably undetectable when the study began, which would have further skewed the findings.

A second article in the Archives of Internal Medicine reported that older women who took a variety of supplements, including multivitamins, had a greater risk of death from disease. The only really significant association was between iron supplements and a greater risk of death, which has been known for years. What the researchers and editors seemed to miss is that older women (or men) have a greater risk of death simply because of their age, their greater likelihood of having serious diseases, and their use of multiple drugs, a common cause of illness (from side effects) and of death. For all we know, the risk of death might just as well have been associated with the use of the internet or cell phones.

These reports made for great headlines, but very poor science.

————————————–

Multivitamins and mortality: ‘Seeing-what-you-want’ science

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Multivitamins-and-mortality-Seeing-what-you-want-science?utm_source=AddThis&utm_medium=More&utm_campaign=SocialMedia%23.Tph-yPPwoxE.printfriendlyOctober 14, 2011

During a week when the industry gathered under clear blue skies in Las Vegas to celebrate 15 years of SupplySide West, black clouds rolled in and unleashed a short sharp downpour: I am of course referring to the articles published on multivitamins and vitamin E.

First of all, research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine (a journal from the American Medical Association) concluded that older women who take multivitamins and copper supplements are at greater risk of dying from heart disease, cancer and other causes than women who don’t take them.

And then the headlines followed: Your Multi-Vitamin May Be Killing You (Shape Magazine) and Study: Vitamins may increase death risk in older women (USA Today).

We’ve seen similar studies before (more often than not published in journals from the American Medical Association) but what was different this time was the industry was ready, it had advanced warning and reacted immediately to their publications – this is progress.

Comments came in from the Natural Products Association (NPA), the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), and the United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA) to put the studies in context, to highlight their limitations (which just isn’t done in the main stream media), and for this I would commend the associations.

I would also suggest that the industry gather a team of academic champions to support their comments, much like it has champions in the Senate and elsewhere: A reaction from a trade association, no matter how measured and insightful, will always be seen by some as ‘damage control’ (as someone remarked on Twitter in relation to my coverage of the studies ).

Multivitamins

Which leads me on to the studies themselves. The multivitamin study was observational, and relied on questionnaires – so it was always going to show correlation and not causation.

The researchers did tweak their results to account for a number of potential confounding factors, such as BMI, use of hormone replacement therapy, smoking status, alcohol intake, exercise levels, intakes of saturated fatty acids, and so on, but you can never fully remove the suspicion of confounding.

My one big question is over compliance – just because the women said they were supplement users, does not necessarily mean they were actually taking supplements. Compliance is notoriously low even in clinical trials where participants have signed up and agreed to swallow a capsule every day.

Just because these ladies ticked the box on a questionnaire that came in every 10 years does not mean that they were taking supplements – and the same supplements – everyday for all that time.

In addition, the researchers provide no information whatsoever about actual nutrient levels. No blood samples were taken and so we have no idea – none whatsoever – if the women had high levels of vitamin B6, for example, flowing through their veins. For all their posturing on the questionnaires, they may have been vitamin B6 deficient for all we know.

What did Twain say about statistics?

Also, if you look at the statistics, only copper and the multivitamins actually had a statistically significant association, and even then the one for multivitamins was relatively small.

The copper one was large, and you’d be hard pressed to find people to argue against excessive intakes of copper. Or iron, for that matter. There is too much of a good thing, as I shall come on to in a moment.

On the other hand, the apparent benefits for calcium supplements remained statistically significant, a result that may raise eyebrows for some in the medical fraternity following a high-profile meta-analysis in the British Medical Journal that concluded that calcium supplements may be dangerous.

Observational studies show correlation and not causation and headline writers running with Your Multi-Vitamin May Be Killing You (Shape Magazine) is irresponsible and naïve.

But the study should not be dismissed. It adds to the debate and perhaps does raise questions over when supplements should be used: And so on to the vitamin E-prostate SELECT study: A well-designed study, by all accounts, that shows the benefits of longer term analysis of study cohorts. However, an interesting comment by Bill Sardi, a well known personality in the industry, posted on NutraIngredients-USA today adds some nice context:

“The problem with these studies is that they don’t show cause-and-effect. The researchers could not surmise any mechanism for the increased deaths related to vitamin E use. The problem is that men with prostate cancer take more supplements and in higher doses. They may have also been wearing tennis shoes. But obviously these are only associated factors, not causal factors.”

Take home

So what to make of all this? It’s a high profile journal with a reputation of only publishing damning studies about supplements – look to the likes of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition or the Journal of Nutrition and you will see tens, even hundreds of studies reporting benefits of good nutrition, of which supplements play a role. JAMA has a better PR department, it would seem, and the medical community looks to it with reverence – don’t get me wrong, it is a great journal… for medical research.

The comments from the supplement trade associations have a lot of wisdom about them. Their comments cannot be simply dismissed as spin or damage control (as someone on Twitter suggested), but they provide some balance to the JAMA articles. Supplements, as the name suggests, supplement the diet, and people with poor diets may benefit greatly.

A wider problem may be that the public view supplements as a fix-it for poor lifestyle. Perhaps industry and academia should work even harder on explaining that supplements should not be expected to undo a lifetime of poor habits or diet: Black clouds will always appear in the sky, but it doesn’t hurt to have an umbrella ready.

——————————-

Be careful not to draw big conclusions from this study. Yes, the study was large—it included nearly 40,000 women. But it was an observational study. In other words, the study observed patterns. It did not randomly divide women into groups and assign them different combinations of vitamins to take. Randomized studies give us much cleaner science, without muddy conclusions.

For example, in this study it is possible that many of the women who were taking vitamins were more often feeling unwell in some way, or were seeing doctors more frequently, compared with the women who did not take vitamins. Women may have been taking vitamins in an effort to improve symptoms. If this is the case, who is to say that the vitamins were responsible for the difference of death rates? Other factors may have been to blame.

. . . News Review from Harvard Medical School – Do Vitamin Supplements Help or Harm?
By Mary E. Pickett, M.D.
Harvard Medical School

“Is there anything else that I should do……I do not believe that I came in direct contact with the mercury. Does it burn your skin on contact? Should I now eat any certain foods or take any supplements to make sure that my body is ok?”

Answer: Emma, you were wise to use caution in cleaning up the mercury. Mercury is a toxic, heavy metal, that can cause serious damage to the body, including our nervous system. Mercury is not only easily absorbed through the skin, but it is also absorbed when we inhale the vapor.

I remember, as a child, playing with mercury. We did not understand the danger back in those days. Exposure today is less direct, with the primary problem being a result of industrial, environmental contamination.

Mercury is one of many “heavy metal” toxins. Some of the others are the following: lead, cadmium arsenic, nickel and aluminum. These toxic metals can accumulate in the body, leading to cumulative, chronic damage.

Your experience, as an isolated incident, certainly does not compare in seriousness to children playing with mercury. I do not think you need to treat this as a medical emergency. Depending on your long term exposure to heavy metal contaminants–in the air you breath, the water you drink, and the food you eat–you might want to indeed take some precautionary actions.

There are certain nutritional and herbal supplements that might be helpful. Here are my suggestions:

(1) If you are not already doing so, take a high potency, broad spectrum multivitamin and multimineral supplement. If you are already doing so, increase the dosage for a couple of weeks.

It is important to note that I included “multimineral” in the description. This is important, and means not only calcium and magnesium, in therapeutic dosages, but also zinc, iron, copper, chromium and other trace minerals. High levels of “good” minerals can often counter the effects of bad minerals.

The easy way to do this is to use products such as Willvite, from Willner Chemists, Multigenics, from Metagenics, or My Favorite Multi, by Natrol. These products contain not only a full, balanced spectrum of vitamins, but also a full dose of calcium, magnesium and the trace minerals, all in one product. The recommended dosage, because of that, is four to six per day, depending on whether you are using the tablet or capsule form.

If you prefer a separate multivitamin, such as Solgar’s VM2000, or Omnium, you will need to take a separate multimineral formula as well. Any of the popular calcium, magnesium (and Vitamin D) formulas will do, as long as you double check that the combination of products is supplying the proper amounts of trace minerals–zinc, copper, iron, chromium, selenium, etc–as well.

(2) Many nutritionists recommend increased levels of vitamin C and B-complex vitamins. In addition, supplementation with sulfur-containing amino acids (cysteine, methionine, taurine) and foods rich in these amino acids (eggs, garlic, onions) is recommended.

My favorite is the nutritional supplement, NAC (N-Acetyl Cysteine). NAC is a powerful antioxidant amino acid and a precursor in the body to the critical antioxidant glutathione. Glutathione exerts a variety of protective effects, including detoxification and intracellular defense against oxidative stress. NAC supplements are available from most reputable supplement manufacturers.

Because of their chelating action, water-soluble fibers such as pectin, guar gum, oat bran, psyllium and various alginate are helpful. The product mentioned below, Toxguard Heavy Metal Detox, contains these agents.

(3) Heavy Metal Detox Formulas. There are also special products that have been designed to assist in heavy metal detoxification. Using such products under these circumstances is highly recommended. Products of this type are usually designed to facilitate the “chelation” or enhanced excretion of heavy metal toxins. I will suggest two good examples:

(A) MetalloClear, from Metagenics. MetalloClear is a novel formula designed to naturally enhance the body’s clearance of specific heavy metals that can negatively impact health and vitality. Based on exciting new research, this formula contains ingredients that offer specialized nutritional support designed to enhance heavy metal metabolism. It contains Zinc (as zinc citrate), Andrographis (Andrographis paniculata), Turmeric (Curcuma longa) Rhizome Extract, and a blend of Hops (Humulus lupulus) and Luduxin

(B) Heavy Metal Detox, from Jarrow Formulas. Toxguard® Heavy Metal Detox contains PectaSol® Chelation Complex, a complex of modified polyuronide dietary fibers (citrus pectin and alginate) that have been specifically designed to tightly bind heavy metals and increase their clearance from the body while having a reduced affinity for most nutritionally essential elements. PectaSol’s modified citrus pectin (MCP) has a unique chemical structure and optimized molecular weight that allows for maximized absorption, systemic chelation of toxic metals, and facilitation of their removal. PectaSol’s modified alginate complements MCP by chelating toxic metals within the digestive tract and preventing their reabsorption.

These are two excellent examples of this type of product. They function through somewhat different mechanisms, and, in acute situations, can be used simultaneously.

(4) Liver Support. While heavy metal exposure may not directly impact liver function, it is not unusual that people with concerns about heavy metal exposure also have concerns about other toxic chemicals, drugs, solvents, pesticides, food additives, and alcohol. The liver plays a key role in metabolic detoxification. Liver support, therefore, is something that should be considered, even in cases where heavy metal contamination is the main problem.

There are many specialized products for liver support and detox (AdvaClear, by Metagenics. Liver PF, by Jarrow Formulas, and others). There are many individual nutrients and herbs (Milk Thistle, Artichoke Leaf, NAC, etc).

Under these conditions, where we are concerned about an isolated exposure, and prevention, a general liver support formula may be more appropriate. I suggest the product Liver Support, a PhytoTech supplement in the Willner Chemists line, for this purpose.

PhytoTech Liver Support is a herbal blend with a systemic detox action, supporting liver function and blood cleansing, protecting the body from environmental and dietary toxins. It is intended for those who feel they would benefit from:
- a systemic cleansing stimulant
- a specific liver function stimulant
- protecting the liver from exposure to toxins
- skin cleansing via liver detox
- bile stimulation

Phyto-Tech™ Liver Support comes in a liquid herbal form, regular and alcohol free, as well as a standardized liquid filled Veggie Cap. The latter is standardized to Silymarin content.

The liquid supplement contains the following herbs: Fresh Dandelion Root, Red Root, Oregon Grape Root, Milk Thistle Seed, Yellow Dock Root, Fresh Ginger Root, Fringe Tree Bark.
Each Phyto-Tech™ Liver Support Standardized Veggie Cap contains the following: Oregon Grape Root, Milk Thistle Seed, Yellow Dock Root, Burdock Root, Dandelion Root, Red Root, Fringe Tree Bark, and Silymarin (Milk Thistle) 80 mg.

Don Goldberg

Products Mentioned:
Willvite (Willner Chemists)
 My Favorite Multi, Natrol
MultiGenics, Metagenics
VM2000 and Omnium, Solgar
N-Acetyl Cysteine NAC
MetalloClear
Heavy Metal Detox
Liver PF, AdvaClear
Liver Support, PhytoTech
Heavy Metal Support, Captomer, Basic Detox Nutrients

Why? Well, over the years, I have pretty much weaned myself from sugar. I know we have some in the kitchen, but in all honesty, I could not tell you where it is.

It’s not that hard to eliminate sugar if you really want to. I started with coffee. When I was young, like most people, I routinely put two spoonfuls of sugar in my cup of coffee. And milk. I decided to cut back, and switched from two spoonfuls to one. After a week or so, I got used to the taste. So then I switched from one spoonful to none. After a few more weeks, I was happy with the taste of coffee totally unsweetened. I switched from whole milk to skim milk. Now, I rarely even put milk of any type into my coffee. And I drink a lot of coffee. In fact, I drink strong coffee, having switched to one of those “espresso” type machines with the encapsulated coffee doses.

So I drink my espresso black and unsweetened, and I enjoy it that way.

Another weakness recently overcome was our long-time use of artificially sweetened soda–cola, lemon-lime, etc. In recent years, we had been cutting back on this type of beverage, switching to iced tea and plain water, but we still wanted that carbonation “kick.” So we bought one of those devices that utilizes a container of carbon dioxide gas to let you make your own “seltzer water.” We have had it for several weeks now, and it seems to work fine. We no longer buy artificially sweetened soda.

I feel good about this, for two reasons. On the one hand, I have eliminated many unhealthy items from my diet–sugar, artificial sweeteners, artificial flavors, phosphates, etc. On the other hand, at the same time, I am maintaining, if not increasing, my daily fluid intake. This is important, as many of us fail to drink the proper amount of fluids. The importance of this was made painfully clear to me when I had a couple of experiences with kidney stones some years back.

Which leads to another change I have made. I now keep a bottle of water, or an oversized cup, with me at my desk throughout the day. It reminds me to drink, and maintain optimal hydration. I’ve mentioned this before, as I use this as a way to increase my daily antioxidant supplementation as well. Each time I fill up the bottle, I squirt one dropper full of Phyto-Tech Antiox Phyto Blend into the water. This product consists of a blend of antioxidant-rich extracts of acai, mangosteen, pomegranate, and goji. As you might expect, it imparts a slight, mild berry-fruit flavor to the water, and is an excellent way to squeeze additional vitamins and antioxidant supplementation into your daily regimen.

I think it tastes fine just as it is. But, to my surprise, my wife doesn’t like it. Which brings me back to Stevia.

We recently expanded our line of Stevia products at Willner Chemists, adding six flavored liquid Stevia products–vanilla, chocolate, cinnamon, lemon, orange and peppermint. As I said, I had never even tried Stevia–flavored or unflavored. But now I was curious. Would the addition of Stevia to my antiox cocktail make it more palatable to my wife and others? Would stevia make my espresso taste better? Would a few drops of flavored Stevia turn my home made seltzer water into a tasty beverage?

So I began to experiment with Stevia. My first mistake was to underestimate it’s potency. I used too much, and found that, for my taste, anything more than one or two drops was too much. It’s amazing just how effective Stevia is as a sweetener.

I’m sipping an espresso (Fortissio Lungo) right now, sweetened with 1-2 drops of the Phyto-Tech Stevia-Vanilla. It’s just right, with just enough sweetness to mellow out the strong coffee, but not too much.

The same can be said for my Antiox Phyto Blend dilution. Adding one or two drops of Stevia (I like the Cinnamon flavor for this purpose) to the bottle of water with a dropper full of Phyto-Tech Antiox Phyto Blend, brings out the nice berry flavor.

For me, one drop of the Stevia is fine. If you are accustomed to more sweetness, you might need more. It will take some experimentation for you to find the amount, and perhaps the flavors, that suite your taste. If you have not tried Stevia, I urge you to do so. Check out the special offer in the reference notes below.

Don Goldberg

Notes:
(1) For those of you who, like me, enjoy a good espresso, but do not have any interest in cappuccino, frappuccinos, frothy milk, warmers or similar bells and whistles, take a look at the Nespresso Essenza model. It makes a true espresso, in regular and “double” (Lungo) sizes, using their capsules, at a relatively moderate price. Shop around. I bought mine at Amzaon, when it was on sale.
(2) The seltzer machine is called “Sodastream.” We have had it for several weeks now, and it seems to be working fine. Like the espresso machine, where you have to buy the capsules, in this case you will want to buy spare plastic bottles, and you have to purchase carbon dioxide refills. But it is cheaper, and more convenient, in the long run, than buying bottles of soda from the grocery store.
(3) To encourage you to try the new flavored Stevia products, Willner Chemists is running a limited time deal. It is a true “buy one, get another at half-price” deal. Why do I say “true?” Usually, when you see a deal like this advertised, they base it on the list, or suggested retail pricing. Well, our normal pricing on these items at Willner Chemists is 20% off list price. So our “buy one, get another at one-half price” is based on our usual, discount price, not the retail price! It really is a good deal. Try it, you’ll like it.
Here is a link to the details. (http://www.willner.com/news.aspx?id=43)

Hibiscus Tea has been used traditionally, for various purposes, including a purported blood pressure lowering action. “Due to their soothing (demulcent) and astringent properties, the flowers and leaves have been traditionally used to treat conditions such as cancer and gallbladder attacks, to lower blood pressure, to relieve dry coughs, and topically to treat skin afflictions.”
If you are taking medication to control blood pressure, do you need to exert caution when considering taking an herb (or a vitamin, food or any lifestyle modification for that matter) that may exert the same action as the drug? Of course. Regardless of what health problem or medication we are talking about, common sense would tell us that adding an additional agent that would have an additive therapeutic action is a potential problem. You don’t want to lower blood pressure too much. You don’t want to lower cholesterol too far. You don’t want to thin the blood too much. You don’t want to take too many sleeping pills, or two many drugs, herbs, and foods that all have sedative actions for fear of overdosing. All of this should be pretty obvious.
At least, it should be. Why then is it the source of so much concern and so many questions? The reason is that to a great extent conventional medicine has tried to scare everyone into thinking that nutritional supplements represent a significant potential for interactions of this type. There are two things you need to keep in mind:
First, consider this. If an herb like hibiscus was powerful enough to significantly lower blood pressure, why not use it instead of the drug? The fact is, they do not consider it’s effect on blood pressure to be significant. In my experience, this is the view of most herbalists as well. There are many supplements available that can have a significant effect on blood pressure, but hibiscus is not generally considered one of them.
If anyone on blood pressure medication did want to try such supplements, the best advice is to alert your physician so that you can be monitored. Wouldn’t it be great if they worked, and the pressure dropped–he could reduce your dosage of the drugs!
I wonder how many folks would ask the same question if they decided to begin an exercise regimen, or to lose weight, or take up meditation and yoga, or to make dietary changes such as reducing salt and/or increasing their intake of fruits and vegetables. After all, each of these changes can have a significant impact on blood pressure. Do we call our doctors and ask if it’s ok to start eating more tomatoes because a double blind study showed that supplementation with a tomato extract “significantly lowered both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, compared with a placebo, in people with hypertension?”
Second, the real problem is change. Whether we are talking about blood pressure medication, blood thinner medication, sedatives, and most other types of therapeutic supplements, the main thing to keep in mind is that you do not want to make any major changes without alerting your physician. If you are taking omega-3 fish oil supplements, garlic, vitamin E and ginkgo biloba, for example, and you are also under a doctor’s care, taking blood thinning medication, everything should be fine–unless you suddenly decide to stop all of your supplements. Or unless you suddenly decide to triple the dose of supplements. If you are on blood pressure medication, and you have also been taking hibiscus tea, hawthorn, coQ10 and fish oil, everything is fine. Your readings have been monitored, and are stable. But if for some reason you decide to stop taking the supplements, you should tell you doctor. Perhaps the dosage of medication will have to be adjusted.
Just use common sense with these types of questions. On the one hand, I guess it is nice that people attribute such powerful actions to supplements that they worry about them as if they were drugs when it comes to side effects and interactions. On the other hand, let’s not forget that these are not drugs–they are food supplements.
In the case of blood pressure, what is nice is that the patient can easily monitor it themselves. There are many types of “home” blood pressure test kits available, and it is something I strongly suggest you get. There are several reasons for this. It allows you to take frequent and regular readings, so that you know exactly whether or not anything is effecting the pressure. And the readings in the doctor’s office are not always accurate. Higher readings due to stress and anxiety in the doctor’s office (“white coat hypertension”) is a well-recognized problem.
Don Goldberg

Best Curcumin C3 Complex® with BioPerine® contains a potent standardized extract of Curcuma longa root, commonly known as turmeric. Turmeric is the yellow spice that gives flavor to curried dishes. The herb has been used in the Ayurvedic healing tradition for centuries as a folk remedy. The active ingredients in Curcuma longa are plant substances called curcuminoids, compounds that demonstrate potent antioxidant properties in scientific studies.* Curcuminoids may benefit the joints, brain, heart and the circulatory system by helping to neutralize free-radicals.*
Best Curcumin C3 Complex® supplies 95% total curcuminoids, including curcumin, bisdemethoxy curcumin and demethoxy curcumin. BioPerine® is an extract of Black Pepper fruit that contains 95-98% piperine. BioPerine® is added as a natural bioenhancer to promote absorption.*
Suggested Adult Use: Take one tablet two times per day, or as directed by a nutritionally informed physician, with or without food.

And here is the description information on the Doctor’s Best Meriva® Phytosome Curcumins Veggie Caps:

Curcumin nutrients (curcumin, demethoxycurcumin, bisdemethoxycurcumin) are usually poorly absorbed when taken by mouth. Phytosome proprietary technology solves this problem. In Meriva® Phytosome Curcumins, each curcuminoid molecule is individually complexed with molecules of the vital cell membrane nutrient phosphatidylcholine (PC). By facilitating curcumins’ entry into human cells and tissues, PC gives this product superior bioactivity over non-phytosome curcumin supplements.
Meriva® is a registered trademark of Indena S.p.A., Milano
Suggested Use: Take 1 capsule per day, preferably with a small meal. For better joint support, take 2 – 4 per day, or more, as recommended by a nutritionally informed physician.

For the answers to these questions, read the transcript of TheWillner Window Radio Program broadcast on January 16, 2011.

 There are several things to bear in mind, right off the bat. First, the headlines in some of the newspapers and news broadcasts do not accurately reflect what was actually contained in the study. You can easily see that this is the case by merely comparing the headlines from The New York Times with that of The Wall Street Journal on the morning of November 30^th. “Extra Vitamin D and Calcium Aren’t Needed” was the headline in the Times, while “Triple That Vitamin D Intake, Panel Prescribes” was the headline in The Wall Street Journal.

Could they have been talking about the same study? Yes, they were. Hard to believe, isn’t it? This is an excellent example of letting your agenda dictate your reaction.

So which is it? Does the study say you don’t need vitamin D and calcium, or your need more? The answer is yes. You have to bear another thing in mind, and that is the identity of the authors–The Institute of Medicine. Wonderful folks, I’m sure, but these are the people responsible for determining those levels of vitamins and minerals necessary to prevent deficiency diseases–scurvy, pellagra, beri-beri, rickets, etc. They create the data (DRI’s, etc) historically utilized in setting the MDR’s, the RDA’s, and the DV’s.

There is nothing wrong with this, of course. But that is not what most of us taking supplements are concerned about. We are not looking to take just enough supplemental vitamins to prevent overt deficiencies. Instead, we are taking supplements in an attempt to achieve optimal health, to prevent various other types of disease, aging and deterioration, and, in some cases, we take supplements for their therapeutic value.

If you do not bear this distinction in mind, you risk missing the point of the study. Saying that we need to increase the amount of vitamin D by three-fold, but do not need more–which is what the study recommends–can be interpreted differently, as it suits you purpose.

Everyone agrees that vitamin D is essential to maintaining strong bones. But hundreds of studies in recent years have linked low vitamin D levels to a higher risk of chronic health problem such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, prostate cancer, breast cancer, colon cancers, auto-immune diseases, infections, depression and cognitive decline. At the same time, concern about levels of vitamin D have increased because of the increased use of sun screen and reduced exposure to sunlight.

The Institute of Medicine based its new recommendations on the levels needed to maintain strong bones. They said there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that low vitamin D causes such chronic diseases. The key word here is “prove.”

“The evidence for bone health is compelling, consistent and gives strong evidence of cause and effect,” said Patsy Brannon, a professor of nutritional sciences at Cornell University and member of the IOM panel. For the other health problems, she said, “there are relatively few randomized controlled trials, and even in the observational studies, the effects are inconsistent.”

When is “proof” necessary? Do I need “proof” to conclude that jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is not good for my health? If there are hundreds of studies that indicate that high levels of vitamin D may prevent or treat heart disease, enhance immune function, prevent various cancers, depression, and diabetes, and no evidence that these levels are harmful, and at little cost to me, just how much more “proof” do I, or any reasonable person need?

Maybe not all of those studies are “randomized, controlled trials.” Maybe the effects are “inconsistent.” But maybe, in a case like this, that is good enough. It may not be good enough for the Institute of Medicine, but it is good enough for you and me.

Good enough, because that may be the best we can get. Be wary of those who imply that all medical studies, such as those supporting the approval and use of conventional pharmaceutical drugs are ironclad “proof.” We know that is not the case. The type of studies that would provide the proof we are looking for are difficult to design, and expensive to run. There is little incentive for anyone to do so.

Even those who worship at the alter of “proof” often do so only when it suites their purpose. This, it seems, is the case for the Institute of Medicine as well. If you read the article in The New York Times carefully, you will see the hypocrisy:

“After reviewing the data, the committee concluded that the evidence for the benefits of high levels of vitamin D was ‘inconsistent and/or conflicting and did not demonstrate causality.’” So all of these studies are dismissed. Yet they go on to say “Evidence also suggests that high levels of vitamin D can increase the risks for fractures and the overall death rate and can raise the risk for other diseases. While those studies are not conclusive, any risk looms large when there is no demonstrable benefit. Those hints of risk are ‘challenging the concept that ‘more is better,” the committee wrote.”

So “inconclusive and inconsistent studies” are dismissed when they do not agree with your position, but similar studies are accepted when they do support your agenda?

This comment at the end of the report in the Wall Street Journal sums it up nicely: “I supplement patients who are deficient and they feel better. They come in and say, ‘I’ve been much less achy and stiff or my mood’s been better since I’ve been taking the vitamin D,’ said Alan Pocinki, an internist in Washington D.C. Most of his patients are office workers, and 75% of them are below the 30 ng/ml level he considers necessary. “

“Do we have the data to prove this conclusively? No. We don’t have evidence for much of what we do in medicine, but if you wait for the evidence, you may be depriving your patients of beneficial treatments,” Dr. Pocinki said.

Don Goldberg,

December 4, 2010

This question is an interesting one because it is an excellent example of misinformation and misdirected concerns.

First, “acrylamides” do not “come from eating meat.” Acrylamides result from the combination of high temperature, certain simple carbohydrates, and an amino acid, asparagine. Thus, the most common foods typically associated with risk of acrylamide formation are potato chips and French fries. So to avoid acrylamides in food, avoid carbohydrate-rich foods that are cooked at high temperature. Another source is cigarette smoke.

The person asking the question was probably concerned about substances such as nitrates, nitrites, heterocyclic amines, etc that are sources of concern as potential carcinogens in cooked and processed meat.

Is this a cause of concern, in either case? Yes and no. As researchers looked into this, the list of potential carcinogens and mutagens started to grow, with no end in sight. The list of substances that showed potential toxicity in animal studies became longer and longer.

So what do we do? I think the answer is that we have to use a little common sense. We have been cooking our food ever since our cave-man ancestors discovered fire. We have been eating charred polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-rich meat on toasted acrylamide rich-sesame seed buns ever since Nathan the Neanderthal set up his first trail-side dino-burger joint.

Moderation may be the key. You could eat only raw meat, and cut the crust off your bread, but there is no end to finding substances that are potentially bad for you. Instead, using this information, modify your diet and eating preferences to minimize these less healthy foods, and less healthy methods of food preparation. Increase your intake of healthier foods.

“The effects of many of these toxins can be mitigated through the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables. Foods high in antioxidants like garlic, green tea, berries, and cruciferous vegetables should be eaten daily. A large percentage of the diet should be fresh fruits, vegetables, and boiled or steamed grains . . . Fried and baked foods should be avoided or minimized. Since dry cereal can have a high acrylamide content, oatmeal or other boiled hot cereal is a healthier substitute. Steaming foods is preferable to baking, frying or broiling. When eating baked breads, removing the crusts will minimize the acrylamide content. Avoidance of heated or cooked nuts, seeds and unsaturated oils (especially those high in omega-3 like flax and walnuts) is highly recommended. If oil is necessary when cooking, coconut oil, a stable, saturated oil with added health benefits, is a better choice. Oils should be packaged in dark glass and be within their expiration date. In addition, olive oils that list a high phenolic content can help prevent LDL oxidation.”(1)

This leads to the second part of the question, concerning the proposed use of flax seed oil to, apparently, counter or protect against carcinogens such as acrylamides. Peter is concerned, however, that flaxseed oil “is not good for the male prostate.” This may be another example of a little knowledge gone awry. There indeed is some controversy over the role that flax seed oil may play in prostate cancer. Some evidence suggests it is helpful, and other evidence suggests it might not be. Here is the summary offered by one source: “Use cautiously in patients with prostate cancer. Due to some conflicting reports associating alpha-linolenic acid intake with the development of prostate cancer, there was a tendency to avoid flax in prostate cancer in the past. Recent reports show the opposite with promising results on the benefits of flaxseed use.”(2) On the other hand, omega-3 rich oils have been shown to be beneficial to other types of prostate conditions (benign prostatic hypertrophy, prostatitis). So Peter’s concern may be valid to some extent if he is worried about prostate cancer, but not valid if his concern is BPH.

More to the point, however, is this question: What does flax seed oil have to do with acrylamide, or other carcinogens? And, if you are concerned about food-derived toxins and carcinogens, why choose a food/supplement that is one of the most highly poly-unsaturated oils you can get? Flax seed oil is very easily oxidized, with a very short shelf life. It is not a supplement for use by someone worried about toxins in food.

That leads up to the final question. Is there something one can do, other than avoidance of cooked food, bread crust, potato chips and fries. The answer is yes.

Supplement with anti-oxidants, especially “whole food” or phyto antioxidants. I take 1-2 Antiox Phyto Complex capsules with each meal. This supplement, from Willner Chemists, contains a blend of several plant derived phyto-antioxidants–Acai Berry, Mangosteen , Goji, Pomegranate, Green Tea, Grape Skin and Grape Seed. (Product Code: 57091) I also use the companion product, Antiox Phyto Blend, which is a liquid version of the same thing. I place two dropper fulls in my water bottle. I squirt a dropper full into my margarita at dinner time, etc. (Product Code: 57551).

Take supplements that support liver function. The liver has a wide range of functions, including detoxification. This is an important part of our body’s mechanism for protecting against environmental and dietary toxins. Individual supplements–artichoke extract, milk thistle extract, curcumin, and alpha-lipoic acid are very important.

A study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, for example, concluded that “consumption of curcumin may be a plausible way to prevent acrylamide-mediated genotoxicity.”(3)

Many supplement companies have combination products designed to enhance and protect liver function. Jarrow Formulas has a product called Liver PF (Product Code: 52813). Willner Chemists has a product called Liver Support (Product Code: 56948 and Product Code: 56971 for the liquid drops), and Liver Support Capsules (Product Code: 57048). Solgar has a nice herbal blend, Herbal Liver Complex, in Vegetable Capsules (Product Code: 28289). Doctor’s Best has a good Curcumin product called Best Curcumin C3 Complex Tablets (Product Code: 56393) and Willner Chemists has a liquid curcumin, Phyto-Tech Turmeric Root 1:1.5 (Product Code: 57016). Doctor’s Best also has the Meriva Curcumin Phytosome complex (Product Code: 58527).

Antioxidant Optimizer, from Jarrow Formulas, contains a nice blend of phyto-antioxidants and liver protectant herbs in one combination formula (Product Code: 23113).

While on the subject of detoxification, if you are concerned about heavy metal contamination, several companies have products for this purpose, including Jarrow Formulas’ Heavy Metal Detox, which contains a PectaSol Chelation Complex (Product Code: 52692).

In summary, it is important that we recognize the dangers of toxins generated in cooked foods. It is also important, however, that we keep this in proper perspective. Total elimination of these toxins is probably not necessary, but prudent reduction in exposure is indeed called for. Moderation is the key. Along with modification of our food and cooking choices, nutritional supplementation is an effective measure as well.

Don Goldberg,

References:

(1) Reeve, Wendy, MS. Focus On Health, Vol 34, No. 1

(2) Natural Standards

(3) “Curcumin Attenuates Acrylamide-Induced Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity in HepG2 Cells by ROS Scavenging” J. Cao, et.al. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

According to this study from China. Curcumin, the natural pigment that gives the spice turmeric its yellow colour, may reduce the potential detrimental effects of acrylamide. The compound curcumin may exert an antioxidant effect and prevent the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of acrylamide, according to findings of a cell study with human cells.

“Consumption of curcumin may be a plausible way to prevent acrylamide-mediated genotoxicity,” wrote lead author Jun Cao from Dalian Medical University.

Acrylamide is a potential carcinogen that is created when starchy foods are baked, roasted, fried or toasted. It first hit the headlines in 2002, when scientists at the Swedish Food Administration first reported unexpectedly high levels of acrylamide, found to cause cancer in laboratory rats, in carbohydrate-rich foods. Despite being a carcinogen in the laboratory, however, many epidemiological studies have reported that everyday exposure to acrylamide in food is too low to be of concern.

Commenting on the mechanism of action, the researchers noted that it was probably due to the antioxidant effects of curcumin.

Previous research from China has reported that extracts of green tea and bamboo leaf may also reduce acrylamide formation in foods. Researchers from Zhejiang University’s Department of Food Science and Nutrition reported that extracts from bamboo leaves and green tea could reduce the formation of acrylamide by 74.4 per cent and 74.3 per cent, respectively, when used at a level of 0.1 micrograms.