Salt is Salt - Part 2

Almost seven years ago I wrote here about the sea salt scam. In that piece I quoted Mayo Clinic as saying, “Sea salt and table salt have the same basic nutritional value, despite the fact that sea salt is often marketed as a more natural and healthy alternative.” The American Heart Association (AHA) agreed.

But then a few weeks ago, I ran across an article with the headline: “How Pink Salt Took Over Millennial Kitchens.” Immediately it goes on to explain that, like sea salt, it’s not healthier than common table salt. It’s labeled as Himalayan, but does not come from the Himalayas. “Most of that comes from the enormous Khewra Salt Mine, situated between Islamabad and Lahore in Punjab, a bit south of the actual Himalayas in Pakistan.” 

Despite that, it has become another foodie fad, skyrocketing in popularity, featured at Trader Joes with it’s own grinder. The popularity stems not only from the color – it’s prettier than plain old white salt – but because it’s also rumored to be healthier. Take the warnings from the AHA and others about salt consumption, combine that with the fact that salt makes food taste good, mix that with the mistaken notion that this special salt is really healthy because of some mythological “trace minerals” and voila! - gullible people are willing to pay $2.70 a pound at Costco in bulk. For comparison, sea salt at Costco goes for 1.76 per pound and Morton Salt at a restaurant wholesale site is $0.38. Those must be some expensive trace minerals!

Contrary to what pink salt enthusiasts claim, real nutritionists agree that the amount of trace minerals in any salt “is too minuscule to make any difference, and we already get plenty of the same trace minerals from other foods.” Another site confirms that “The ‘84 minerals’ in himalayan salt is an unsupported claim.” It’s all marketing hype.

It’s so easy to go on line, though, to find glowing endorsements of pink salt pushing these imaginary health benefits. This one is a good example: “Many people believe that this pink salt is the purest salt that can be found on the planet.” Maybe so, but many people believe a lot of things that aren’t true.

In case you aren’t convinced by the purity and naturalness alone, it goes on to claim that pink salt stores “vibrational energy,” whatever that is. Supposedly it aids vascular health, supports respiratory functions, reduces the signs of aging, promotes healthy sleep patterns, increases libido, lowers blood pressure, and detoxifies the body of heavy metals – among other benefits. (Apparently, to get some of these benefits, we must add it to our bath water.)

First, the word detoxify should raise warning flags to anyone with any scientific understanding of how the human body functions. Second, the idea that any salt lowers blood pressure flies in the face of all medical understanding. Increased salt consumption increases the risk of high blood pressure. Finally, supports and promotes are words often used by snake oil salesmen regarding all sorts of magical supplements, potions and ointments to cure all sorts of ailments. Promoting and supporting cannot be measured, thus they are meaningless. It’s junk science at it’s finest.

But don’t let that stop Millennials searching for the magic potions allowing them to live forever. Set the grinder of pretty pink salt on the table to impress friends and mix it with the bathwater to increase libido and conquer aging. Then wonder why you are no healthier or younger looking and can’t afford to retire when you expect to. They fall for hype and fads in the same way their parents do. Gullibility must be hereditary.

The Miracle (?) of Homeopathy

One week ago I compared adults’ belief in psychic abilities to children’s belief in the Easter Bunny. But that is not the extent of these false notions. Another subject that adults love to believe in is miracle cures. It reflects a problem in the areas of discipline, not wanting to do the hard work or stick to a routine, and critical thinking, not wanting to accept evidence over stories. A good example of this is homeopathic medicines.

The theory dates back to the 1700s and is based on the idea that the body can be stimulated to cure itself by means of a like-cures-like reaction. In other words, substances that cause an adverse reaction in a healthy person can (supposedly) cause the body of a sick person to fight against the same condition.

Here is how WebMD explains it. “Red onion makes your eyes water. That’s why it’s used in homeopathic remedies for allergies.” Similarly, they may use poison ivy, white arsenic, crushed whole bees, and various herbs to evoke a beneficial effect.

“Homeopathic doctors weaken these ingredients by adding water or alcohol. Then they shake the mixture as part of a process called ‘potentization.’ They believe this step transfers the healing essence [from the ingredient to the liquid]. Homeopaths also believe that the lower the dose, the more powerful the medicine. In fact, many of these remedies [are so diluted that they] no longer contain any molecules of the original substance.”

The theory sounds a little like vaccinations where a small number of living or dead cells are injected to fire up the body’s immune system, but it’s not the same. Vaccines have something in them. Homeopathic medicines are diluted to the point where they contain only water, plus any contaminants the water carries. Therein lies the problem.

Last summer the FDA released a warning about one particular manufacturer saying, “Consumers and pets who use these products could have an increased risk of serious infection, that could require medical attention, due to the high levels of microbial contamination.” They warned three other companies for violations of (1) inadequate investigation of test results that found high levels of microorganisms, (2) lack of quality oversight of ingredients with potentially toxic effects, including snake venom, and (3) having insects in their ingredients.

The usual disclaimer applies to all these remedies: "Products labeled as homeopathic have not been approved by the FDA for any use and may not meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness and quality." 

It strains credibility that medicine containing not a single molecule of the active ingredient would be effective. The doctor who runs this site calls homeopathy “the ultimate fake,” giving a thorough explanation of his position. So if it does actually work, it must be a miracle. But what does the evidence show?

Here is a headline from Science Direct a few months ago: “A randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing antibody responses to homeopathic and conventional vaccines in university students.” Their conclusions from this well designed experiment were four-fold: 

• Homeopathic vaccines failed to elicit an antibody response.
• The antibody response to homeopathic vaccines was similar to placebo.
• In contrast, conventional vaccines showed a robust response.
• These findings suggest homeopathic vaccines should not be licensed.

How does a half-billion-dollar industry react to these facts? They continue to promote their products as “a safe, gentle, and natural system of healing that works with your body to relieve symptoms, restore itself, and improve your overall health. It is extremely safe to use, even with very small children and pets, has none of the side effects of many traditional medications, is very affordable, is made from natural substances, and is FDA regulated.”

Add "holistic" and "alternative" to that sales pitch and people will ignore facts and fall all over themselves trying to obtain some magical relief! Of course, with nothing in it, it is safe and has  no side effects, except possibly from contamination the manufacturer has overlooked. Here’s an idea: skip the trip to the health food store and feed your children and pets tap water. It’s basically the same thing, but even safer. 

Natural Food and Holy Water

True story: Some years ago an older woman visiting her Catholic church noticed the baptismal font was empty. She saw the maintenance worker nearby and told him about it. She was shocked when she saw him run a garden hose through the window to refill it. He explained that the priest would come by to bless it later. 

In a sense natural food is a lot like holy water. It is often as much about faith as anything else. And now people are fighting like a bunch of theologians about what is and is not natural.

The question arises from a lawsuit against LaCroix sparkling water. The company advertises that the beverage contains no calories or artificial flavors and that it is enhanced with natural essences. But what those essences are is a trade secret. Customers don’t have a clue as to the meaning of “naturally essenced” written on the cans. They assume that natural means good. 

But the class-action lawsuit filed last month claims that “LaCroix's all-natural claims are false and that these natural ingredients are actually synthetic.” Although some of the ingredients can be derived naturally, they are listed by the FDA as synthetic and can be found in such products as insecticides. “Popular Science breaks down why the argument doesn't seem to hold up, noting that none of the ingredients mentioned in the case are considered dangerous.”

This is reminiscent of the “devastating news” a few years ago about wood fiber in grated cheese. Actually it was cellulose, but wood fiber sounds scarier. It’s used to reduce clumping, but some companies were adding more than the allowable 4%. No one was hurt and the fuss was far out of proportion to any actual impact. It was more about the principle of purity and the fact that wood fiber in cheese makes a good headline.

Another example comes from the makers of Prevagen, a highly advertised memory supplement derived from jellyfish protein. A minor problem is that they don’t actually get the protein from jellyfish. They synthesize it in the lab. A much bigger problem is that it has not been shown to be effective – it doesn’t do what it claims.

But the natural labelling issue is troubling for some. The main objection is the lack of a clear definition for the term as shown in the following statement. “Although the FDA has not engaged in rulemaking to establish a formal definition for the term ‘natural,’ we do have a longstanding policy concerning the use of ‘natural’ in human food labeling. The FDA has considered the term ‘natural’ to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic...has been added….” 

But does a formal definition make that much difference? There is no question that green tea is natural. BBC Good Food told us about it last July. “With origins going back as far as 5,000 years, green tea is commonly drunk and widely grown in the Far East where the health properties are well regarded.” Later in the same article they say that evidence of its health benefits are "largely inconclusive" and that although “many ‘health’ products now include traces of green tea…there is limited evidence to suggest these products are effective.”

Last week came a sterner warning from BBC Health on the same subject. “When Jim McCants started taking green tea pills he had hoped he was giving his health a shot in the arm. Instead, it appears the pills caused such serious damage to his liver that it required an urgent transplant.” Though this is highly unusual, it can happen.

So natural doesn’t necessarily mean healthy; it doesn’t even always mean safe. Many other substances are natural and not safe, nicotine, for example. The shock when people hear this is like finding out holy water can come from a garden hose. It drives many into denial.

The difference is that holy water is a matter of faith and healthy food is a matter of science. What’s important is whether it is safe and beneficial, not whether it’s natural (whatever that means).

Living Longer (continued) – Are Multivitamins the Answer?

Last time we investigated the headline about how taking at least three weeks vacation was the key to living longer. The bad news is that the study was seriously flawed and the conclusion seemed very questionable. Realistically, there is no need to despair as the three-week-vacation option is out of reach for most Americans anyway. But how about those vitamins so many people take daily? As I wrote last time, “Not so fast!”

Many articles and studies agree that, for the most part, taking multivitamins is a waste of time and money. This recent item from NBC puts it bluntly: “The multivitamin industry rakes in billions of dollars. But science says we're not getting healthier. Unless you have a clinically identified deficiency, the research tells us there is little reason to consume supplements.”

Remember my August 17 entry about what we think we know for sure? This is another subject that falls into that category of believing what we want to despite scientific evidence. About half of all Americans take a vitamin or other supplement with annual spending expected to grow to $300 billion within the next five years. (Reflecting on the Labor Day question of why do we work, imagine if that $300 billion could go into individual retirement accounts instead.)

So people are convinced (by the smooth-talking advertisers), but science continues to tell us the opposite, with reports citing “little evidence” and “no clear health benefit” and that “their use is not justified.” The only upside is that people who fall into the multivitamin trap tend to take better care of themselves in other ways. 

The downside is that these pills, like all other dietary supplements are under-regulated leading to consumers not getting what they pay for. In some cases, it’s not just a matter of throwing money away on ineffective pills. Instead, some contain fillers or substitute ingredients, and tests have found some containing contaminants, which may “pose serious health risks.” 

Even pure vitamins can be dangerous, especially in mega-dose amounts. High doses of vitamin E or A can be harmful, possibly increasing cancer risk. A 2017 study “noted that 20 percent of all cases of liver toxicity are caused by herbal and dietary supplements. Another study found that 23,000 emergency department visits a year are the result of adverse reactions to supplements.”

Well, now that the word is out, can we expect Americans to heed the warnings, make better choices and save their money? It’s doubtful, because this is not breaking news! Besides the fact that I have been writing about it off and on for the last five years, the headlines have rolled in for at least that long and been ignored. See the sampling below.

From earlier this summer: “The truth behind multi-vitamins: You may do more harm than good taking them.” 

“In the recent study published by the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, it says vitamin supplements aren’t doing anything for your health.”

From articles in November 2013 and November 2015: “Even though half the U.S. population pops vitamins in the belief they can help people live longer, healthier lives, a very extensive look at the studies that have been done show it may be a waste of time when it comes to preventing the diseases most likely to kill you.”

From HealthDay News in December 2013: “With three new studies finding that a daily multivitamin won't help boost the average American's health, the experts behind the research are urging people to abandon use of the supplements. The studies found that popping a daily multivitamin didn't ward off heart problems or memory loss, and wasn't tied to a longer life span.”

From WebMD around the same time: “The studies, published in the Dec. 17 issue of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, found that multivitamin and mineral supplements did not work any better than placebo pills.” 

CBS added in 2015, “taking lots of supplements may raise a person's risk.”

The articles and studies have all stressed the futility of using vitamins and other supplements as the magic answer to better health and longevity. The consistent reminder in every one of these reports is that, unless prescribed by a doctor for a specific deficiency, they are ineffective and never a substitute for healthy eating.

So apparently the vitamins are not the answer to health and long life either. But people don’t worry about any of this if they have been blessed with good genes – not so fast! We’ll look at that idea next time.

Paying Attention

It’s hard to use critical thinking unless you are paying close attention. Opinions and feelings try to slide by as facts; some things are brought to our attention and some glossed over or omitted. Questions go unanswered.

Here are a few changes and trends I noticed by paying attention and applying some perspective to note differences. Not all are necessarily bad or problematic, but as we let unimportant things slip by, we also allow the big issues to ride along.

Gradually the vocabulary for describing schools is changing. High schools now have campuses. In news reports the term is commonly used, even in cases where it’s a single building with an athletic field in back – these were formerly referred to simply as high schools. After spending four years being taught by educators, students may earn a high school degree. 

One news item recently reported that Chik-fil-A had moved into third place among quick-service restaurants, as another told us, “Chick-fil-A will become the first quick service restaurant to offer full meal kits.” Eating fast food is a bad habit; does calling it quick service instead of fast food make a difference in the nutritional value or is it just more marketing?

I’ve written before about how realtors have hijacked the word homes. They don’t sell houses anymore; they sell homes. It has gotten to the point where an architectural design formerly known as a townhouse, usually having a small footprint with multiple floors, is today referred to as a townhome. Google the term townhouse and you will see many ads for restaurants and bars. Google townhome and you will see real estate ads – more marketing.

 Health food stores got it right from the beginning.  They don’t really sell food, and much of it isn’t particularly healthful. In fact, it is unregulated and untested so some products can be dangerous without customers knowing. But they got the marketing angle down to the point where so many people put their critical thinking in neutral and believe otherwise.

Finally, the word alleged has somehow changed its nature or definition, or has just become a term thrown around to protect against any misrepresentation. So many times I have heard local news reporters saying something along these lines: “The man was allegedly charged with robbing a Village Pantry.” (Robbing Village Pantries in the wee hours is kind of a hobby for folks around here.) But he wasn’t allegedly charged; he was actually charged for allegedly doing the robbing.

Paying attention and using critical thinking is important. Words can be misused unintentionally, which is usually harmless. But they can also be used by advertisers, politicians and others to manipulate opinions. For example, referring to people who sneak into the country as immigrants is like referring to shoplifters as customers.