BOOK NOW AVAILABLE FROM AMAZON, WH SMITH, FOYLES ETC (for as little as £9.10 as opposed to rrp of £17.99)
The First Deadly White: SUGAR (pages 18 to 22)
Widespread sugar use, addiction and increasing health problems
Many physicians from the end of the 17th century observed the detrimental health affects caused by the rise in the popularity of sugar, coining the phrase ‘sugar-blues’, which manifested itself in any number of symptoms, from nervousness, depression, insomnia and mental instability. In most instances, it was intolerance to such large inputs of refined sugar, causing havoc with digestion, hormones and mind. This was the first time that sugar had been introduced into the general populations diet and it was clear to see, to those observers at the time, that the before-and-after effects of refined sugar becoming readily available were extremely varied, albeit predominately negative and certainly most worrying. The spread of early sugar addiction was on a comparable level to observing a whole city today getting addicted to crystal-meth or crack cocaine. The effects of sugar were truly monumental. Incredibly, there is very little mention or thought given to this today, hardly even warranting a historic footnote, although the reasoning for this exclusion is answered below. A deadly poison in sheep’s clothing had surreptitiously joined the flock.
It was because of this surge in refined sugar consumption that the establishment of a number of ‘mental institutions’ was made necessary, to take care of those who had been too damaged by this initial flow and public consumption of sugar at the end of the 18th and beginning of (and throughout) the 19th Century. Just as with any other drug, for the first few hits the negative effects had an enormous range of symptoms, then after a month of consumption it became tolerated for the majority, as addiction settled in. For the minority, this addiction was the catalyst to many further psychological problems, hence the requirement of the institutions (although I’m not implicationg sugar as being the only factor involved in mental disorders, it certainly made the situation far worse). When it was a minority of the rich going off their rockers from sugar, they could afford to live with it, as well as them being able to afford a more varied diet; when it affected the minority of the general public, this numbered easily into the 10s of 1000s, if not much more, it became much more of a problem.
Hardly anyone calls it an addiction, but an addiction it is for the vast majority. Just try to cut out all sugar from your diet for a day, and see if you have any cravings for this sugar drug-rush. That is an addiction, both physical and mental. And so it has continued for over two centuries, only now we have sweeteners ten thousand times sweeter than nature has. We have unwittingly assimilated sugar addiction into our culture, weaning children onto it from as young as six to twelve months old, if not before. However, as with any addiction, there is always going to be quite a few contra-indications and these are the very diseases of civilization that title this series of books.
Sugar has absolutely no health benefits, or nutritional content whatsoever. It is actually a poison. If you only had refined sugar and water to survive on, you would die much quicker if you consumed both the sugar and the water, as opposed to just the water. A fact that was noticed as long ago as 1793, when five shipwreck survivors, who only had sugar and rum for sustenance, had in only the nine days till they were rescued, become thoroughly ravaged. It was clear to see, they were in a much worse condition than if just water had been consumed for those nine days. Tests were subsequently carried out on dogs and rats, all of which died in a surprisingly short time when fed just sugar. Unsurprisingly, this alerted the sugar industry to beware of any future scientific meddling in their affairs. Since then, numerous animal experiments, scientific medical evidence as well as anthropological and ethnological comparative analysis, all overwhelmingly shows sugar plays a detrimental role on the human organism. There is nothing positive to read about sugar from any independent sources. This is the reason why the detrimental sociological affects of the introduction of sugar don’t even warrant a historical footnote, because the sugar industry has incessantly undermined the truth with their propaganda, editing and tippexing out the inconvenient truth about their industry, writing in their own version of the truth, exactly as with the case of the Nutrition Society below.
In 1939, dental researcher, Dr Weston Price, published his ‘Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and their Effects’. Travelling the world to make his observations, taking over 15,000 photographs to further substantiate his claims. The results of his research must have come as a bit of a shock to the establishment, as it clearly identified that the general health and wellbeing of some of the most primitive cultures far exceeded that of Europe and America. Indeed, his stunning photographs all show what can only be described as perfect specimens of the human race. Dr Price further noted that when the healthy ‘primitives’ became acculturated (changed from their traditional culture to a ‘civilized’ culture), the physical degeneration was very evident after only a few years. He recorded that the tooth decay rates of those living by eating only wild foods was as low as 0.1% of the population. Amongst some Canadian Inuit who were predominately hunters at this time, the rate was 0.16%, when only a few miles away, the white settlers enjoyed a rate of 25.5%. This makes tooth decay 160X more prevalent amongst the eaters of a western diet, compared to those eating a wild diet. If our teeth and diet had improved since 1939, this comparison would be irrelevant, however, our teeth have not got better and our diets have deteriorated, along with our health, as clearly signified by the emergence of the diseases of civilization.
Needless to say, Price’s meticulous and amazing work found many adversaries in the food industry. His impressive and studious book was replaced amongst much fanfare, in 1957 by Prof McCollum’s ‘A History of Nutrition’. The media buzz surrounding this book stated McCollum was apparently one of America’s greatest nutritionists, drawing from over 200,000 published scientific papers to substantiate and corroborate his work. Within this vast tome, there is not one single mention of any possible deleterious effect that sugar may play upon the human, or even rat for that matter. There certainly had been loads of experiments with rats before 1957, all clearly showing sugar’s negative health impacts, although apparently none in the 200,000 McCollum used, which is extremely unlikely, if not impossible. This ‘History of Nutrition’ was a standard reference book in libraries for decades, with the book only being made possible by the generosity of The Nutrition Society, to whom the author and publishers thank accordingly. Which all appears perfectly in order, as an informative book about nutrition should, after all, be helped along its way into the public consciousness by an organization with such a name as, The Nutrition Society.
Until that is, one realises that The Nutrition Society was a ruse, used by and paid for, by Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Nestle, General Mills and a few other conscious and caring companies, keen and eager to get their point of view across. It seems logical to suggest that the first draft of McCollum’s book would have mentioned the dangers of sugar, only to be removed at the insistence of The Nutrition Society before allowing publication to take place. A manoeuvre that is standard practice for all sectors of industry, hence why McDonalds, Coca-Cola et al, are always involved in nutritional agencies, institutions and conferences, in the same light that petroleum corporations head environmental and climate change agencies. It’s not because they genuinely care about the considerable negative impacts of their industries, it’s just their lofty academic persona allows for better control and censure of the information that gets filtered down to the public about their nefarious, clandestine, money-making activities.
The Second Deadly White : MILK (pages 69 to 72)
Did you hear the one about milk being good for bones?
First off, let’s get to the bottom of this myth, that milk with its rich calcium content, benefits bone growth. As Britain is one of the largest dairy consumers (actually 8th in the world, after Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Holland, Norway, Spain and Switzerland), it would follow that Britain is benefiting from all this milk and cheese in the diet. A good indicator of this would be our exemplary teeth and lack of osteoporosis and weakened bones, where a comparison of our incidence of osteoporosis against a nation that consumes little dairy, would show the palpable health benefits of all this dairy consumption.
Well I hope you are sitting down, because the actual truth is that the nations that consume the most dairy have by far the highest incidence of osteoporosis, whilst those consuming the least dairy have the least incidence of osteoporosis. An illogical outcome if milk were so good for bones. The Bantu of Africa for example, who eat a sparse, mainly vegetarian diet with no dairy, consume just over half the RDA at 400mg of calcium (RDA set at 700mg), only show signs of osteoporosis when they become acculturated (move to the cities and change diet and lifestyle). The Taiwanese also have a particularly low calcium intake, averaging only 130mg, although teeth and bone problems are very rare there. The inhabitants of Pitcairn Island in the Pacific also eat no dairy and they have long been extolled as being some of the healthiest people in the world. So there is nothing illogical, it is just because we assume dairy is good for the bones and this is only because the dairy industry has misled us for generations.
This implies that there is very little connection between calcium intake and osteoporosis or dental problems, which is very confusing, although there are other factors involved, as we will shortly see. One of which includes the Inuit, who average the highest calcium intake of almost triple the RDA at 2,000mg, although they suffer from some of the highest rates of osteoporosis, with up to 15% less bone density than Europeans. The blame here however lies in their high meat intake of 350g per day and not milk intake, as a high meat protein intake (not vegetable protein) significantly raises the blood acid levels and consequently this leads to calcium loss from bones to alkalinize the bodily system. This acidification caused by animal proteins (including the protein from milk) is often neglected, with sugar taking the brunt of the blame for this acidification, when meat and milk proteins are just as liable.
All of this came as a bit of a shock to me. Go and check for yourself, do an internet search for ‘dangers of milk’ and read someone else’s opinion, there are plenty of doctors and professors voicing themselves and none of them appear to be very positive about milk. Conversely, search for the ‘benefits of milk’ and read the opinions, almost exclusively from the dairy industry, as there is no independent optimism, apart from those advocating raw, organic, grass fed cow’s milk, which is immensely hard to find, being illegal to sell in most shops.
And that’s just the start of it
Ready for a real shocker? Research actually shows that dairy consumption can deplete the body of calcium . . . . . What? This is because there are certain nutrients that promote the retention of calcium within the bones and teeth and there are those nutrients that promote the excretion of calcium. Amongst those nutrients that retain it, magnesium, potassium and vitamin D are crucial and it is these three we are often deficient in, in the industrialized world. Particularly important is magnesium (abundant in fresh greens and all but missing in modern milk), which has to be present and eaten in balance with calcium to help with assimilating dietary calcium, controlled by the parathyroid gland, which is already struggling due to our deficiency of dietary iodine and selenium. The nutrients that promote calcium excretion are protein from animals, phosphorus and sodium, all of which the modern diet has a vast excess in. For the body to successfully assimilate calcium it requires not just magnesium, it also needs phosphorus to be consumed in equal proportions. We have a daily excess of phosphorus (phosphates are also added to many foods as an acidity regulator) as well as cow’s milk having 6X the phosphorus found in breast milk, inhibiting the assimilation of calcium further. Further exasperated by the fact that the protein content of cow’s milk is at least 3X that of breast milk (I mention breast milk here because Homo sapiens have evolved on this). This excess of phosphorus and protein in cow’s milk, therefore does not encourage calcium retention, it only encourages its excretion. Also, even with ideal human health and a perfectly balanced diet, only about 20% of the calcium from milk could ever be bio-assimilated. With green leafy vegetables and nuts it is possible to bio-assimilate nearer to 40%, with the best source for calcium being stinging nettles, peppermint and seeds, all more readily utilised and bio-assimilated due to their excellent and balanced magnesium content.
Basically, our diets repetitively have too much of the stuff that removes calcium and not enough of the stuff that stops this thievery, with the widespread deficiency of magnesium preventing bio-assimilation. Calcium is constantly being depleted within the body, removed from the bones and teeth, which of course results in weak bones and teeth, as this imbalance to the homeostasis is never rectified. Calcium’s prime role within our diet today is as an alkalinizing agent for our overly acidic diet, for which milk can’t be solely blamed, it is all the Deadly Whites together causing this increased and sustained acidification.
A curious aside, taken from the world of cheese-making, is that if pasteurized milk is used to make the cheese, calcium chloride has to be added as the heating of the milk makes the calcium unavailable (destroying the enzymes that make the bio-utilisation happen), clearly demonstrating calcium is already deficient and is never going to be found or utilized by the human organism from pasteurized milk.
This in a nutshell underlines one of the major problems with modern dairy products, insomuch as heating negates any benefits it could have had. Emphasis should fall on the word, modern, as consumption of dairy is not new, just as many of the diseases of civilization are not new. What is new is the rise in incidence of a few particularly devastating diseases, such as cancer and heart disease.
Are there any changes in the use and production of dairy that could account for the more recent changes in the type of diseases afflicting us over the past century?
There has been plenty.