organic and nonorganic produce. This is hardly surprising, since taste is largely a result of the genetic makeup of the particular strain of the crop that was planted, the time it has spent maturing before being picked and the climatic conditions during its growth.
Although most produce, be it organic or not, tastes better when freshly picked, the use of preservatives can prolong the freshness of some produce. Some preservatives are available for use in organic foods but they are seldom used in organic vegetables and fruits, which consequently have a short shelf life – as evidenced by wilting lettuces and bendy cucumbers.
Today, the zealots of the cult of organic food are making ever more irrational inroads into the way we live. They are promoting organic clothing and toiletries with the implied assurance that these are somehow less likely to cause allergies and skin disease. There is no evidence to support this claim, which plays on the fears of parents with children who suffer from skin allergies.
So why do people pay up to 40 per cent more for organic products? Is it a cynical confidence trick to exploit consumer ignorance? Is it the belief that, should little Johnny turn out to have allergies/asthma/autism or a brain tumour, this might have been prevented if he had been brought up on organic food and worn pyjamas made from organic cotton? Or is it simply a matter of choice? It is difficult to believe that the proponents of organic produce are all part of an evil conspiracy to defraud the public, although they often use unworthy, unscientific scare tactics, conjuring up all sorts of disasters to frighten the nonbelievers. Most just seem to be victims of their own propaganda, who yearn after bygone days when the sun shone all the time.
However, there is another side to the story. The food industry has to accept some of the blame. It has too often put cost before quality, marketed fruit picked before it has had time to ripen and mature on the tree, and encouraged the production of food that looks good on the supermarket shelf rather than produce that tastes good when eaten. I believe that our memories of apples picked straight from the tree, tasting crisp and juicy, of strawberries that were sweet and succulent and peas that one could not resist eating raw have some factual basis. It is our desire to get back to the days of real, fresh, ripe fruit and vegetables that has encouraged the spurious market for organic food.
BY MALCOLM KENDRICK
‘For every complicated problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, understandable, and wrong.’
H L MENCKEN
THE MYTH: A high cholesterol intake causes heart disease.
THE FACT: Cholesterol levels are not affected by cholesterol intake, and in any case there is no evidence to suggest that cholesterol and heart disease are linked.
If you eat too much cholesterol, or saturated fat, your blood cholesterol will rise to dangerous levels. Excess cholesterol will then seep through your artery walls causing thickenings (plaques), which will eventually block blood flow in vital arteries, resulting in heart attacks and strokes.
Scientific hypotheses don’t get much simpler than this, the cholesterol, or diet-heart hypothesis, which has broken free from the ivory towers of academia to impact with massive force on society.
It has driven a widespread change in the type of food we are told to eat, and consequently the food that lines the supermarket shelves. Many people view bacon and eggs as a dangerous killer, butter is shunned, and a multibillion-pound industry has sprung up providing ‘healthy’ low-fat alternatives.
At the same time, millions of people are prescribed statins to lower cholesterol levels, and each new set of guidelines suggests ever more lowering of cholesterol is needed. When it comes to explaining what causes heart disease, the cholesterol hypothesis reigns supreme.
Landmarks in the development of the cholesterol hypothesis
1850s: Rudolf Virchow notes the presence of cholesterol in atherosclerotic plaques. Suggests excess cholesterol in the bloodstream may be the cause.
Early 1900s: Ashoff feeds rabbits fat and cholesterol, notes the development of atheroma.
1912: First heart attack described by Herrick.
1940s: Epidemic of heart disease hits USA, interest in the area explodes. Many researchers blame high fat/cholesterol diet.
1948: The Framingham, study on heart disease starts. Still running today.
1954: Ancel Key’s seminal Seven Countries Study published. Demonstrates clear links between saturated-fat intake and heart disease.
1961: Framingham confirms link between raised cholesterol levels and heart disease.
1960s: First cholesterol-lowering drugs developed.
1970s: Brown and Goldstein find gene leading to extremely high cholesterol levels (familial hypercholesterolaemia) and premature heart disease.
1980s: Statins launched.
1985: Nobel Prize for Brown and Goldstein.
1990s: Statins trials demonstrate that cholesterol lowering protects against heart disease.
Presented in this way, it’s not difficult to see how the cholesterol hypothesis became the dominant hypothesis, effortlessly swatting alternative ideas into touch. Indeed, to question this theory is to risk being placed on the same shelf as flat-earthers and creationists.
However, all is not what it seems. The cholesterol hypothesis can be likened to a cathedral built on a bog. Rather than admit they made a horrible mistake and let it sink, the builders decided to try to keep the cathedral afloat at all costs. Each time a crack appeared, a new buttress was built. Then further buttresses were built to support the original buttresses.
In a similar way, although direct contradictions to the cholesterol hypothesis repeatedly appear, no one dares say, ‘OK, this isn’t working, time to build again from scratch.’ That decision has become just too painful, especially now that massive industries, Nobel prizes and glittering scientific careers have grown on the back of the cholesterol hypothesis. The statin market alone is worth more than £20 billion each year.
In reality, cracks in the hypothesis appeared right from the very start. The first of these was the stark observation that cholesterol in the diet has no effect on cholesterol levels in the bloodstream:
There’s no connection whatsoever between cholesterol in food and cholesterol in blood. And we’ve known that all along. Cholesterol in the diet doesn’t matter at all unless you happen to be a chicken or a rabbit.
ANCEL KEYS, PHD, PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, 1997
A bit of a blow to a cholesterol hypothesis, you might think,
