Martin Schoenbeck

By Martin Schoenbeck Medical Herbalist & Nutritionist

We’re told of a bright new Brexit future with trade deals from around the world, and ‘The Donald’ is particularly keen we should sign up to increase trade with the USA. However, you may have heard about chlorinated chicken and hormone boosted beef. There are indeed many other issues which might well be equally noteworthy and I will try to look at some of the facts here.

Chlorinated chicken – it sounds dreadful but is it really so bad? The actual process of chlorination isn’t actually a risk factor. We have chlorine in tap water to render it safe, and of course it’s widely used in swimming pools. The question should be: Why is chlorination necessary? This goes to animal welfare standards. Unfortunately, with the intensive farming methods employed in the USA, poultry are intensively farmed and their welfare standards are significantly lower than in the EU.

Indeed as reported in the 2018 Association of Poultry Processors and Poultry Trade in the EU (AVEC) it is stated: “In the USA, there are currently no federal regulations to control or safeguard the welfare of animals.” This means that animals often are fed high doses of antibiotics to reduce disease in awful overcrowded conditions, and birds are kept in unsanitary enclosures, meaning that salmonella and avian influenza are common problems affecting USA intensive farms.

These poor animals are in fact so filthy, that it requires chlorination to make their meat fit for consumption. The EU on the other hand has strict legislation governing all aspects of poultry care which governs such things as cleaning requirements, feed quality, access to light, water and air, just to list a few (E.U. Directive 98/58). 

We do have intensive poultry farms in the UK but they meet much higher welfare standards, and there are strict measures in place to ensure salmonella and avian influenza are all but eradicated. The UK has in fact led the rest of the EU in setting these high welfare standards, but the question is: will the USA be willing to improve theirs before trading with us? 

Hormones in beef cattle are another contentious issue and again EU directives set out strict controls on their use. The hormones banned by the EU in cattle farming are oestradiol, progesterone, testosterone, zeranol, melengestrol acetate and trenbolone acetate. There is unfortunately some controversy in whether these hormones actually present a risk to people consuming the meat. However, we have to ask what’s the reason for the hormone usage?

In the USA, intensive cattle farming provides cheaper beef for the seemingly insatiable appetite from consumers. These animals are reared without ever seeing green grass or having natural sunlight – they are held in pens where they barely have room to move, so muscle development would be poor without the use of these hormones. Furthermore, high use of antibiotics has been blamed for helping to drive microbial resistance and we now face a real threat of “superbugs” which are completely resistant to many commonly used antibiotics in human medicine. There is a similar story for pig farms.

If we are going to do a post Brexit deal with the USA, we really need our government to ensure that our current high food standards are maintained, otherwise our farmers will face a “race to the bottom” in having to reduce welfare standards to meet the USA competition on cost. 

Finally a mention on another toxic substance, which is ubiquitous in USA manufactured foods: high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). This sugar “alternative” was manufactured in their labs when it was realised that there was an over-production of corn following the Nixon initiatives for increasing corn production through subsidies in the 1970s.

However, while HFCS are much cheaper than cane sugar, there are health implications for its use, and it has been indicated as one of the factors in the huge obesity epidemic that the USA faces, because this substance cannot be metabolised in the same way as cane sugar. Indeed, over-consumption of HFCS is directly linked to the higher incidence of non alcoholic fatty liver disease (Steatohepatitis). The EU does not restrict HFCS by banning it as such and there are misconceptions about regulations concerning high fructose corn syrup in the EU.

Referred to as isoglucose or glucose-fructose syrup in this region, use of high fructose corn syrup is restricted because it’s under a production quota. It is therefore much harder for manufacturers to obtain in the EU so its use is limited here by default. However, the issues are the same – and once Brexit opens us up to trade with the USA, this production quota will become irrelevant as we will have to accept goods containing this cheaper sugar alternative flooding in to our shops. 

What can we do to make sure we aren’t eating these things?

Buy organic “free-range” meat where ever possible. Support your local farmers and get locally produced meat and poultry. It is more expensive, but you will see the difference in taste immediately. Think quality over quantity.

Check you ingredients list. If you see High Fructose Corn Syrup or Glucose-Fructose syrup, don’t buy it. Look for naturally occurring sugars where ever possible. 

Consider going vegetarian on some days: we have great British companies like Quorn and Linda McCartney’s producing fantastic meat alternatives. You’ll save some money, help your health and also with a much lower carbon footprint, it helps save the planet too.

— Martin Schoenbeck BSc (Hons) M.N.I.M.H. is a consulting medical herbalist and nutritionist working in Lincoln.

More from Martin:

• The facts about rapid weight loss diets
• Why turmeric is good for you
• Know your chocolate
• It’s not just about how much, but also what you drink

Martin Schoenbeck BSc (Hons) M.N.I.M.H. is a consulting medical herbalist and nutritionist working in Lincoln.

By Martin Schoenbeck Medical Herbalist & Nutritionist

“Father, you have thinned!” Priest Paul Lomas, one of the participants on BBC’s Big Crash Diet Experiment show earlier this year became something of a sensation when he lost an incredible 20% of his body weight and put his type II diabetes into remission, dramatically improving his health and coming off much medication. Other participants in the programme had similar astounding results. But what about the health claims that they made? Can these be substantiated by more solid research? Are these results widely achievable? 

The short answer is YES!  

As a medical herbalist and nutritionist, I first became aware of these very low calorie diets (VLCDs) whilst studying for my degree at the University of Lincoln, back in 2009. As part of my course we had to thoroughly investigate various diets and evaluate their effectiveness, and the diet I chose to look at was a formula food VLCD very much like the one featured in the BBC programme. Back then I had already begun to take an interest in Type 2 diabetes, and its precursor which is known by many names: Metabolic Syndrome X, Insulin resistance, and pre-Diabetes to name a few. I wanted to research a way to control this using a dietary approach, and I was astonished with some of the early results I found. 

There is a strong association with Syndrome X and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease – medically know as Steatohepatits. I discovered that this was being caused by an over-consumption of refined carbohydrates, and the poor liver unable to process the vast volumes of carbs being consumed, begins to form fat deposits which then cause congestion and worsens a list of other symptoms like elevated blood fats (cholesterol) raised blood pressure, tiredness, and increased inflammation. 

You might have heard of the French delicacy called Foie Gras – this is made by force-feeding an unfortunate goose or duck on vast quantities of corn, leading to it have a fatty liver, which is then consumed as an expensive luxury. The same thing happens when humans over-consume refined carbs. Fat is also laid down in the pancreas and this is where the insulin we need to metabolise sugars is made. As the amount of fat increases, the efficiency with which insulin can be made is reduced, and finally (over time) type II diabetes occurs. Metabolic changes also occur at cellular level, so the insulin that is being produced works less effectively around the body, this is known as insulin resistance. 

So how can these VLCD’s help so dramatically where regular diets are less effective? It seems that the rapid weight loss these diets generate are particularly effective in losing fat from the liver and the pancreas. Research carried out at Newcastle University again confirmed what I’d discovered a decade or so ago: Professor Roy Taylor used innovative magnetic resonance methods which supported his Twin Cycle Hypothesis – that Type 2 diabetes is simply caused by excess fat within the liver and pancreas, and he published these findings in 2014. The professor then went on to set up a trial where the use of VLCD’s was used to reverse symptoms. The trial, DiRECT (Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial), found that almost nine out of 10 people taking part who lost 15kg or more put their Type 2 diabetes into remission. The study also found that almost half of those were still off all their Type 2 diabetes medication with normal blood glucose levels after one year.

Fast forward to this year and the BBC’s programme had bought this into the spotlight. Dietary advice given for decades is being challenged, and VLCD diets which were once called “whacky and unsafe” have now suddenly gained a respectability which should have been recognised many years ago. Even the NHS is apparently investigating their use as a primary care treatment via GPs for reversing these chronic diseases. It was reported in September that the NHS is conducting a much larger study to see if this should be rolled out to tackle the nation’s obesity and diabetes epidemic. 

Priest Paul Lomas lost 38kg on the Cambridge Weight Plan.

However, an important factor is missing in both the Newcastle and the NHS research. This is the input from a specially trained consultant, offering one to one support. The latest study called “Doctor referral of overweight people to Low Energy Total Diet Replacement (DROPLET)” has just been published and this shows that these very strict diets require a lot of personal support, and it is not likely that the over-stretched NHS will have the manpower to offer this. This research shows that the best clinical outcomes are achieved by a collaboration between GP’s and a commercial provider of a VLCD like the Cambridge Weight Plan. The TV programme dramatically showed how tough these diets can be, and doing them home alone is a recipe for failure. Furthermore, many people have complicated medical issues and should not attempt to do this plan unaided or unmonitored. 

This latest research which was published in the British Medical Journal on 27^th September clearly demonstrates that GP referral to a commercial provider offering full support like weekly weight ins, one to one counselling, and sound nutritional advice following a stepped plan which reintroduces conventional food in a structured stepped plan was far more effective than the usual care offered by GP surgeries. The DROPLET study results show that with a VLCD and individual behavioural support, there was a 70% greater chance of losing weight and keeping it off after 12 months compared to the regular care for obesity that surgeries offer. Through regular contact and follow up, weight loss can be maintained well beyond this one year shown in the study. 

Below are two photos of Father Paul Lomas featured in the BBC programme, before and after following the VLCD plan. He now happily supports the use and promotion of Cambridge Weight Plan.

— Martin Schoenbeck BSc (Hons) M.N.I.M.H. is a consulting medical herbalist and nutritionist working in Lincoln.

More from Martin:

• Why turmeric is good for you
• Know your chocolate
• It’s not just about how much, but also what you drink

Martin Schoenbeck BSc (Hons) M.N.I.M.H. is a consulting medical herbalist and nutritionist working in Lincoln.