Aldehyde Politics

Aldehydes are a class of potently toxic biochemicals. You might recognize the name from a notorious family member: formaldehyde. Aldehydes have been difficult to study because they are very reactive and therefore don’t hang around long enough to be examined. Nevertheless, it would be reasonable to assume that the extreme reactivity of aldehydes spells bad news from human and environmental health.

That intuition is confirmed in a literature review published in 1991—25 years ago—in which aldehydes are characterized in summary as causing “rapid cell death.” A recent article in the journal Wise Traditions, published by the Weston A. Price Foundation, describes how aldehydes have made their way into our food supply and the bodies of food workers and the patrons of food manufacturers such as fast food restaurants.

Ironically, these toxic exposures resulted from the success shared by the Weston A. Price Foundation with other food activists in eliminating another class of toxic chemicals from our food supply: that would be trans fatty acids.

As I’m sure you know, trans fats are the byproduct of heating hydrogenated vegetable oils. Once FDA accepted the science showing that trans fats are dangerous and banned their use, restaurants and other food manufacturers went scurrying for a substitute. What they landed on was polyunsaturated vegetable oils.

These oils are notoriously sensitive to heat. Since the 1990s, a group of scientists based in Europe and now working worldwide has been uncovering the toxic products of these oils when used in commercial food frying. Those toxicant byproducts not only end up in the food but also in the air of kitchens and other food manufacturing facilities.

From the air, the aldehydes and other toxicants move onto the cloths and skin and into the lungs of food workers. And when the food factory is also a restaurant or other emporium of consumption, the toxicants end up on the cloths and skin and in the lungs of the food factory’s patrons—not to mention what’s delivered to their stomachs.

Despite the substantial science that illuminates the risks of these exposures, the FDA apparently has no plans to investigate. So it will be left to activists such as Weston A. Price to eliminate yet another health threat.

I’m compelled to say that this new exposure to aldehydes from deep frying in vegetable oil is not in any way the fault of food activists. At the most superficial level, it’s the fault of food policy warped by an obsession with cholesterol and saturated fat. After all, as again I’m sure you know, the hydrogenated vegetable oils that are the source of trans fats were introduced into our food supply when consumption of saturated fats (from the consumption of foods such lard and butter) was associated with elevated serum cholesterol which was associated with the epidemic increase in heart attacks during the mid-20th Century.

At a deeper level, the current aldehyde poisoning outbreak is the fault of political actors and the institutions they control who propagate the myth of apolitical science and then use that myth as cover for the very political economic decisions that encourage one area of research and regulation while discouraging others. As I said, the cholesterol and saturated fat obsessions that dominate food science and the failure to acknowledge aldehyde risks are an example. At this deeper level the commercial interests that have grown around these obsessions—the pharmaceutical industry in particular with the proliferation of statins and their descendant drugs—contribute in numerous ways to this myth with money, expert testimony, research (directly and through funding), and services and money to scientific, academic, regulatory, and political institutions.

At an even deeper level, the growing outbreak of aldehyde poisoning is the fault of scientific institutions and personalities who represent those institutions that promote the myth of science as without politics by establishing, promoting, and then clinging to theories and facts like—dare I say it?—ecclesiastical pronouncements despite well-founded doubts. Again, the cholesterol and saturated fat obsessions were criticized from the beginning by a wide variety of scientists—for example, the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics.

Those contrary voices are shut out by the myth of scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is that consumption of saturated fat increases serum cholesterol which increases the risk of heart attack and stroke.However, “consensus” doesn’t mean that every scientist agrees. It means that the big dogs in the scientific field agree.

Why are they scientific big dogs?

Because other scientific big dogs say so, because political and commercial big dogs say so, and because they have the microphone.

In other words, “the science” of health is deeply political—and I don’t mean in the tawdry and frankly uninteresting sense that commercial interests have their hand on the rudder. I mean that groups of men (and women, too) are able to decide what is true and what is not and have it enforced down to what does and does not get into your body.

Aldehyde politics are not the exception. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity, degenerative neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s. They all have their version of aldehyde politics, by which I mean political power used to prevent the use of science contrary the dominant ideology. As a consequence, our health likely becomes worse.

Historically, the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution that came with it provided social force to the idea, gave political force to the idea that there’s an external reality (Nature) that operates independently of human will, knowledge, emotions, morals, or desires. The myth of scientific consensus and the myth of apolitical science are the children of that idea. What’s hidden, quite intentionally, is that a human being—with his or her will, knowledge, emotions, morals, desires, and political commitments—or a group of them have to state what’s true—an inherently imperfect enterprise—as aldehyde politics demonstrate.

Are Crazy People Dangerous?

Are crazy people dangerous?

Much of the politics around gun control contemplate restricting gun ownership based on mental health status. Whenever there’s a mass murder, the heat of that politics increases. Continue reading

Peak Soil

Food is less nutritious than it used to be. Compared to values from 1950 (the first year for which there are data), nutrients in crops have declined up to 40%. For example, a serving of broccoli eaten in 1950 had significantly more vitamin C, B vitamins, calcium, and other nutrients than the same size serving of broccoli eaten today. In other words, to get the same nutrients today, you’d have to eat up to 40% more food. Continue reading

How to Prevent Heart Attacks

Researchers from across the world have launched the Human Early-Life Exposome Project. What they intend to study is “the totality of human environmental (i.e., nongenetic) exposures from conception onward, complementing the genome.” Continue reading

Stressed Out Rats

Researchers at McGill University in Canada report that lab rats and mice are affected by the sex of the people who work with them. When men rather than women work with the animals, they (the animals) show a stress response. It is not a huge response, but enough of a stress to affect experimental results. Continue reading

Risky Business

A recent report from the insurance company Swiss Re says that there’s a lot to worry about. Three of the six high risk areas Swiss Re identifies are endocrine disrupting chemicals, electromagnetic fields, and nanotechnology. The report mentions two other high risk issues that aren’t covered—namely, climate change and gene technology—because they “are already being tackled” by the insurance industry. Continue reading

Green Doesn’t Mean Nontoxic

Happy Earth Day!

It’s one of those mass celebrations that continues to have some meaning. After all, it hasn’t been transformed into a shopping extravaganza.

With all the environmental and ecological horrors we face, I thought I’d mention some good news. And that news is not hard to find, believe it or not. Continue reading

Radiation Experiments

Aiden Fitchett has confirmed the results of a scientific experiment. Aiden is a second grader in Michigan. What Aiden confirmed is that radiofrequency radiation harms the germination and development of Garden cress. Aiden repeated a similar experiment conducted by ninth grade Danish students. Continue reading

Genes Do Not Cause Disease

Great time, effort, and money was spent in unraveling the human genome. A principal justification for that enormous project was the belief that identifying genes would unleash unimaginable health benefits: we (or at least gene technologists) would be able to manipulate defective genes or at the very least find out which gene variations are associated with the risk of disease and disability. Continue reading

Involuntary Medical Experiments

I’m sure you’ve heard about the article written for Mother Jones by Mariah Blake on the dangers of plastics used to replace BPA. After years of protracted struggle, parents and environmentalists managed to get BPA banned from use in a wide variety of products, particularly products that affect children. The concern is that BPA has been shown for many years to be an endocrine disruptor that mimics estrogen. Continue reading