‘Phytosterols’ are compounds that can impair the absorption of cholesterol from the gut. In this way, ‘sterols’ (as their name is often abbreviated to) can reduce cholesterol levels in the bloodstream, which conventional wisdom dictates is always a good thing. Sterols are added to ‘functional foods’ including special margarines that promise cholesterol-reducing and, therefore, health-enhancing properties.
However, the reality is that the impact a drug or foodstuff has on cholesterol levels is quite irrelevant – it’s its impact on health that is important. This distinction is critically important: Arsenic and cyanide might reduce cholesterol levels, but that does not make them healthy things to consume.
I was interested to read about a recent study in which the effect of sterols on rat heart cells was assessed [1]. The cells were exposed to levels of sterols commonly found in the bodies of individuals ingesting sterols. The cells ended up incorporating the sterols at the expense of cholesterol. However, at the same time, the metabolic activity of the heart cells decreased, as did their capacity for growth. In short, exposing heart cells to sterols appears to, err, poison them.
The authors point out, that the results of this study cannot necessarily be translated into conclusions about the effect of these compounds on heart health, but add that the findings “raise[s] concerns about the safety of long-term exposure to physiologically relevant PS [phytosterol] concentrations.”
References:
1. Danesi F, et al. Phytosterol supplementation reduces metabolic activity and slows cell growth in cultured rat cardiomyocytes. British Journal of Nutrition 20 April 2011
Phytosterols: ‘little value’ for metabolic syndrome, toxic to heart cells
April 24th, 2011 by admin No comments »Industrialized Agriculture
April 20th, 2011 by admin No comments »Ever wonder why former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack is now Secretary of Agriculture?
BY TOM LASKAWYSpeaking of Monsanto, it turns out they are playing a role in Iowa’s proposed anti-whistleblower bill — a bill focused primarily on agriculture. Should the bill pass, it will become illegal to produce undercover videos at various types of agricultural facilities (as well as to get a job at a facility with the express intent of producing a video). Sarah Damian of the Government Accountability Project, a “whistleblower advocacy organization,” observes over at the Food Integrity Campaign’s blog that Monsanto has been throwing lobbying dollars behind Iowa’s effort to draw a steel curtain around food production. And not without reason:… Monsanto has more facilities in Iowa than in any other state in the country, with more than 25 offices. The company is heavily invested in the bill’s outcome because “crop operations” are also covered, which would apply to Monsanto’s seed houses, pesticide manufacturing plants and research facilities throughout Iowa. The biotech and crop chemical giant wouldn’t want any undercover videos produced on its clock, apparently.That’s a bit ironic, however, given the fact that Monsanto investigators are notorious for trespassing on farmers’ property and going to extreme measures to produce evidence of seed patent infringement, including posing as land mappers or even joining a local Alcohol Anonymous group to gain the farmers’ trust and gain video access to their fields. Talk about undercover.And don’t think that Monsanto hasn’t planned ahead. According to Damian, there are provisions in the bill that would allow Monsanto to continue snooping around farmers’ fields in its ongoing search for so-called “seed thieves” aka “patent infringers.”Despite occasional setbacks and even uncertainty in the marketplace, let it not be said that Monsanto has lost its taste for playing the heavy.Tom is a writer and a media & technology consultant who thinks that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. Hetwitters and blogs here and at Beyond Green about food policy, alternative energy, climate science and politics as well as the multiple and various effects of living on a warming planet.
