Homeopathy doesn't work

As if it needs restating, there is no evidence that homeopathy works.

This fact has been reconfirmed by a recent report by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Having reviewed the scientific evidence they found that:

• There was no reliable evidence from human research that homeopathy was effective for treating a range of health conditions.

• For some conditions, the placebo was more effective than homeopathy.

• People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.

You can read the full report here.

Why organic must turn to science to survive

According to a couple of recent news stories, organic food is no better for you or the environment than conventionally farmed food. While growers and consumers would do well to take a closer look at the findings before making up their minds, the organic sector needs to turn to science if it is to remain relevant.

The big organic story of the week is a Stanford University meta-analysis which has variously been reported as showing that "Organic food no healthier" (Irish Times), "Why organic food may not be healthier for you" (NPR), and "Organic food is 'not healthier'" (Telegraph).

According to the study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, there is little evidence from 237 existing studies that suggest organic foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives. The authors do acknowledge that consumption of organic foods "can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure". Clearly the healthiness of a foodstuff is more than just its nutritional value, so the reduced pesticide use on organic foodstuffs is worth noting.

“Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious,” said Crystal Smith-Spangler, co-author of the report. “We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.” Perhaps they shouldn't have been given that a 2009 analysis of 50-years of research showed similar results.

Some commentators have mentioned that they don't purchase organic because it is better for them, they shop organic because it is good for the environment. It seems, however, that this claim may not live up to further scrutiny.

The second, and less widely reported organic story of the week is a study by Oxford University scientists which suggests that while organic farming is good for biodiversity, it does not necessarily have a lower impact on the environment than conventional food production.

The Oxford study, published in the Journal of Environmental Management, is a meta-analysis of 71 peer-reviewed studies conducted in Europe. The authors report that "whilst organic farming almost always supports more biodiversity and generally has a positive wider environmental impact per unit of land, it does not necessarily have a positive impact per unit of production."

The study showed that organic production generally needed less energy, but more land than the same amount of conventional produce. While biodiversity was 30% higher on organic farms, the production of organic milk, cereals and pork all generated more greenhouse gases than the conventional alternative.

"Many people think that organic farming has intrinsically lower environmental impacts than conventional farming but the published literature tells us this is not the case," said Dr Hanna Tuomisto, who led the research at Oxford University's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU). "Whilst some organic farming practices do have less environmental impact than conventional ones, the published evidence suggests that others are actually worse for some aspects of the environment. People need to realise that an "organic" label is not a straightforward guarantee of the most environmentally-friendly product".

an organic stamp should not be seen as the pinnacle of achievement in terms of sustainable food production What these two studies clearly show is that an organic stamp should not be seen as the pinnacle of achievement in terms of sustainable food production. On the other hand there are clearly some advantages of growing organically - increased biodiversity on farms and a decreased use and exposure to pesticides being just two highlighted in these studies. While these are positives, as conventional agriculture slowly moves away from the worst excesses of pesticide use, the importance of purely organic production may wane.

I've long argued for a third way - an agricultural system based on science where what works and is safe from all systems of agriculture can be used together to get the best results for growers, consumers and the environment.

If organic farming is to remain relevant in an era of growing food insecurity, it must be based on rigorous science and clear evidence. The organic sector must also begin to pick its battles. Organic is not the answer to all of the worlds problems. It does however have real contributions to make in terms of biodiversity and sustainable pest management.

As if you needed telling - eat more fruit and vegetables and live longer

Two pieces of research out this week have confirmed what your mother always told you - eat your fruit and veg!

Scientists have shown that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables can overcome a genetic predisposition to cardiovascular disease (CVD) in some people.

The Canadian study looked at the interaction between genetics and the environment and their effect on heart health. In particular, the study focused on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are differences in single building blocks of DNA or nucleotides.

Previous studies have shown a link between an increased risk of heart problems, (heart disease, heart attacks, strokes, etc.) and a cluster of these SNPs in a chromosomal region called 9p21. In this new study, the researchers investigated the link between 9p21 and CVD in a range of people of different ethnicities and diets.

Overall, the study looked at over 27,000 people and found that the negative effect of the 9p21 SNP could be mitigated by consuming a diet rich in fruits and vegetables.

Meanwhile, scientists in Oxford have shown that people in Scotland, wales and Northern Ireland would do well to follow their English neighbours and eat more fruit and vegetables. The study says that over the three-year study period 22,000 excess deaths caused by heart disease, stroke and 10 cancers occurred in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland compared to England.

The researchers say that consumption of fruit and veg in Northern Ireland is about 20% less than in England. Salt and saturated fat levels are also higher in the parts of the UK outside England.

Changing to an 'English' diet - although it's far from perfect, say the authors of the report, could save about 4,000 lives a year in the rest of the UK.

References:
Do et al., The Effect of Chromosome 9p21 Variants on Cardiovascular Disease May Be Modified by Dietary Intake: Evidence from a Case/Control and a Prospective Study. PLOS Medicine 9(10): e1001106. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001106 LINK


Scarborough P, Morgan RD, Webster P, et al. Differences in coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer mortality rates between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: the role of diet and nutrition. BMJ Open 2011;1:e000263. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen- 2011-000263 LINK

Potato Could Reduce Blood Pressure

Scientists report that just a couple servings of spuds a day reduces blood pressure almost as much as oatmeal without causing weight gain. Scientists reported on the research, done on a group of overweight people with high blood pressure, at the National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS), in Denver, Colorado this week.

The bad news is that the research was not done with chips or fries, but with potatoes cooked without oil in a microwave oven. Although researchers used purple potatoes, they believe that red-skin potatoes and white potatoes may have similar effects.

"The potato, more than perhaps any other vegetable, has an undeserved bad reputation that has led many health-conscious people to ban them from their diet," said Joe Vinson, who headed the research. "Mention 'potato' and people think 'fattening, high-carbs, empty calories'. In reality, when prepared without frying and served without butter, margarine or sour cream, one potato has only 110 calories and dozens of healthful phytochemicals and vitamins. We hope our research helps to remake the potato's popular nutritional image."

In the new study, 18 patients who were primarily overweight/obese with high blood pressure ate 6-8 purple potatoes (each about the size of a golf ball) with skins twice daily for a month. They used purple potatoes because the pigment, or coloring material, in fruits and vegetables is especially rich in beneficial phytochemicals including phenolic acids, anthocyanins and carotenoids. Scientists monitored the patients' blood pressure, both systolic (the higher number in a blood pressure reading like 120/80) and diastolic. The average diastolic blood pressure dropped by 4.3 percent and the systolic pressure decreased by 3.5 percent, said Vinson, who is with the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania and has done extensive research on healthful components in foods. The majority of subjects took anti-hypertensive drugs and still had a reduction in blood pressure. None of the study participants gained weight.

Vinson said that other studies have identified substances in potatoes with effects in the body similar to those of the well-known ACE-inhibitor medications, a mainstay for treating high blood pressure. Other phytochemicals in potatoes occur in amounts that rival broccoli, spinach and Brussels sprouts, and also may be involved, Vinson added.

high cooking temperatures seem to destroy most of the healthy substances in a potato Unfortunately for French fry and potato chip fans, those high cooking temperatures seem to destroy most of the healthy substances in a potato, leaving mainly starch, fat and minerals. Potatoes in the study were simply microwaved, which Vinson said seems to be the best way to preserve nutrients.

The purple potatoes used in the study are becoming more widely available in supermarkets and especially in specialty food stores and farmers' markets. Vinson said that he strongly suspects a future study using white potatoes, now in the planning stages, will produce similar results.

Chocolate & the Heart

I've currently got a large box of milk chocolates in my office. I'm being very good and limiting myself to a few every day. I know they aren't much good for me, but they are very tasty!

To attempt to use the recent chocolate research that says it is good for your heart as an excuse to eat the whole box here and now is missing the point completely.

The results of a 'meta-analysis' - i.e. combining the results of a number of studies, in this case seven, allowed the researchers to look at the chocolate consumption of 114,009 individuals along with their overall health. In this case, they looked at heart disease, diabetes and strokes.

The results show a 37% decrease in the incidence of cardiovascular disease in people who eat a high level of chocolate compared to people who eat a low level of the stuff. Although the work does not go into why this would be the case the authors note that this association may be due to "the high content of polyphenols present in cocoa products".

The authors are quick to caution against deciding that chocolate is the way forward for a healthy diet noting that commercially available chocolate is chock full of calories meaning that weight gain, hypertension and diabetes may be the side effects.

They suggest that we might look at the high levels of sugar and fat in commercially available chocolate and reduce it. This would allow us to be exposed to the beneficial effects of 'pure' chocolate, without too much of the nasty fats and sugars.

This is backed up by the British Heart Foundation. Their Senior Dietitian Victoria Taylor warned that "We can’t start advising people to eat lots of chocolate based on this research. It didn’t explore what it is about chocolate that could help and if one particular type of chocolate is better than another.

"there are much better places to start than at the bottom of a box of chocolates" - British Heart Foundation “If you want to reduce your heart disease risk, there are much better places to start than at the bottom of a box of chocolates. You can still eat chocolate as part of a balanced diet but moderation is key because this sweet treat is usually packed with saturated fat and calories.”

The authors noted that the studies they looked at in their meta-analysis didn't allow them to look at the differences between 'good' and 'bad; chocolate and the association with heart problems.

There are also problems with the use of such observational studies. As the authors themselves note: "Chocolate intake is likely to be underestimated by consumers". Now, where was that box of chocs?

The research is Open-Access and free to view by all here.

A weighty matter

I think we all recognise that over the past few decades, the average person has become a more sedentary creature. It's nice then to get some data to back it up.

Researchers have looked at US data on occupations and physical activity and shown that, since the 1960's, the estimated mean daily energy expenditure due to the job we do has dropped by more than 100 kcal.

While this is US data, it should inform the obesity debate in this part of the world. A recent report from the European Commission found that 23% of Irish adults are considered obese. While an OECD report in 2010 found that Ireland was the second most overweight country in Europe.

The researchers used data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

The findings suggest that this significant reduction in calories expended daily accounts for a "significant portion of the increase in mean US body weights for women and men".

Figure 1. Service, goods producing and agriculture jobs in US from 1960 to 2008.

The proportion of Americans in 'service' jobs as opposed to manufacturing, construction and agricultural jobs has increased hugely since 1960. (Fig 1)

As you might expect, the amount of physical activity involved in something like financial services or teaching is much less than that required for agricultural or construction (the most energy intensive) jobs (Fig 2). Hence, the fall in average daily energy expenditure.

Figure 2. Estimated median and range of physical activity intensity (METs) as well as the estimated caloric expenditure of each occupation.

Employment is, of course, not the only factor involved here. For example, the authors note that since 1960, the amount of energy spent on housework has 'greatly decreased' for women and slightly increased for men.

Diet and exercise probably remain the two most important factors which we can influence but it is interesting to see that the job we do also influences our likelihood to be overweight.

Things like how we travel to work, whether we use stairs or not were not considered in the study and it is unlikely to be as clearcut as we might like to think.

The results come as Safefood Ireland launch a two-year Stop the Spread campaign to encourage Irish people to measure their real waist size.

Safe Food say that only 38% of adults believe they are overweight. In fact, 66% of the public are overweight. The other 285 just don't know it or are in denial!


Reference: 
Church TS, Thomas DM, Tudor-Locke C, Katzmarzyk PT, Earnest CP, et al. (2011) Trends over 5 Decades in U.S. Occupation-Related Physical Activity and Their Associations with Obesity. PLoS ONE 6(5): e19657. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019657

Christmas Science 16: Orange

Tory Parker (Credit :Mark Philbrick)

In the run up to Christmas, Communicate Science offers you 20 Christmas Science Facts. We'll post one every day until the 25th December.

Orange
Scientists in Utah are taking the humble orange - that classic Christmas stocking filler and trying to find the right mixture of its healthy compounds responsible for their age-old health benefits.

The popular stocking stuffer is known for its vitamin C and blood-protecting antioxidants, but researchers wanted to learn why a whole orange is better for you than its components when taken separately. The ultimate outcome of the research could be a super-supplement that captures the best health benefits of eating oranges and drinking orange juice.

"There's something about an orange that's better than taking a vitamin C capsule, and that's really what we're trying to figure out," said Tory Parker, the Nutritionist that led the study. "We think it's the particular mixture of antioxidants in an orange that makes it so good for you."

The research, carried out at Brigham Young University has just been published in Journal of Food Science.
Parker noted supplement companies often mix "high concentrations of extracts from blueberry and blackberry and orange and throw them all together and hope it's good."

He wanted to avoid such assumptions by testing dozens of combinations of the antioxidants found in an orange at the same proportions they occur naturally. 

They identified several combinations of antioxidants that were the most synergistic - the compounds hesperidin and naringenin, in particular, appeared to contribute the most punch in the combinations.

Those are the mixtures Parker will continue to research in human studies to evaluate whether their health effects mimic those of eating an orange. He and his students are also conducting similar work with blueberries and strawberries.

"I'm really most interested in protecting healthy people and keeping the healthy, healthy," Parker said. "And no matter what our research finds, it's very clear that a great way to do that is to simply eat more fruit."

UCD and Trinity lead way in Autism research

A huge study into the genetics of autism has found that some genetic variations are more common in autistic children. Scientists from University College Dublin and Trinity College Dublin are amongst a group of 50 collaborating institutions who made the discovery.

The findings, published this week in Nature included the Irish component of the work which focused on the identification and study of children with autism across Ireland and the study of the genetic variation between autistic individuals and their families.

Researchers compared genetic variation in 1,000 individuals with autism plus their family and compared this information to a control sample of 1,300 people without autism.

Individuals with autism were shown to have submicroscopic sections of DNA that occur more often (duplications) or less often (deletions), called copy number variants (CNV) in their genome. These are also found as frequently as individuals with no autism, but in autism they are more likely to disrupt certain genes and in particular those previously reported to be associated with autism or intellectual disabilities.

The researchers also identified new autism susceptibility genes. A spokeperson for UCD said these results would have a positive impact on the treatment of autism: "These findings will help researchers better understand the brain mechanisms involved in autism and could become targets that may lead to the development of new treatment approaches".

Dr. Sean Ennis of UCD noted that "because of matching investment by the Irish government through the Health Research Board, over half of the laboratory work for this project was carried out in Ireland.

"The results show that Irish researchers and Ireland can truly contribute to scientific discovery on the global stage", continued Dr.Ennis.

Number of the Week: £20 million

The amount spent by the British NHS on refurbishing the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital despite the complete lack of scientific evidence to suggest that it works any better than a placebo. A commitee of British MPs have urged that homeopathic medicine no longer be funded by the taxpayer. In a dig at the Prince of Wales (whos Foundation for Integrated Health funds homeopathy) Edzard Ernst, a long standing critic of homeopathic medicicine told New Scientist this week: "Either we are governed by evidence and science, or by Prince Charles."