Caffeine Blues_ Wake Up to the Hidden Dangers of America's #1 Drug ( PDFDrive )

by Неизвестный

  CHAPTER 7

  Politics and Pushers

  The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to make money do more for the betterment of life

  —HENRY FORD

  A Marketing Dream Come True

  If all you wanted to do was make money, how would you design the perfect product? Well, it would be incredibly cheap to make, and the market would be enormous: basically every man, woman, and child. It would be consumable, something people would buy every day. But to be the perfect product, it would have to be addictive. People would crave the product for its effect but, more important, they would suffer if they did not buy it. Importantly, this addiction would be firmly established by age seven or eight for maximum lifelong consumption. With a product like that, one could make billions.

  Did you know that two of the most profitable companies in the world are the leading cola companies? And that some of the fastest-growing corporations today are the coffee bar chains? These companies produce mostly beverages with no nutritional value—and yet the explosion in the caffeine industry is unparalleled in the history of commerce. It has to do with the fact that caffeine is addictive, unregulated, and cheap.

  Which is why companies are tripping over each other trying to get more caffeinecontaining products on the market. Nineteen ninety-seven was a banner year, with the launching of coffee sodas, canned and bottled coffees, caffeinated water, and even coffee beer. It seems that America’s thirst for caffeine is nearly

  water, and even coffee beer. It seems that America’s thirst for caffeine is nearly unquenchable and, as the success of caffeinated water illustrates, it’s fueled by addiction more than by taste. In a way, these are the perfect products, brought to you by companies whose only concern is that you keep buying their brands day after day, who are confident you’ll feel miserable if you don’t The True Nature of Addiction

  Research has proven that people acquire tastes and preferences based on the psychopharmacological action of caffeine.1 In other words, people may wax poetic about the aroma and taste of coffee or the flavor of a particular soft drink, but it appears that these preferences are formed subsequent to and based upon the addiction phenomenon. You may tell yourself that the craving you feel for a cup of coffee is based upon discriminating taste, but that’s simply the rationale your mind has created to move you toward getting your fix. Research suggests that the beverage could taste like dirty socks and you would ultimately enjoy the taste. Why? Because consuming the beverage alleviates the adverse effects of withdrawal, even if the period of abstinence has been just a few hours.2 Notice that the strongest craving for coffee is in the morning, corresponding to the longest period (overnight) of caffeine abstinence.

  In the Name of Science

  Caffeine industry corporations are listed as sponsors of numerous nutritionrelated institutes and foundations, even though most of their products provide no essential nutrients—and even though their products have clear, welldefined, and proven antinutrient side effects. These nutritionally worthless products replace nutrient-rich beverages in ever-greater amounts for everincreasing numbers of people. Their influence is pervasive. The caffeine industry funds “public service” programs and prints brochures ostensibly to “educate” the public about caffeine. The relationship between coffee and colas is a strong one because the decaffeination of coffee provides the caffeine for sodas. Keep those consumers addicted to caffeine and, whether they like it hot or cold, one or the other of these very compatible bedfellows will get the business.

  Serving Size Shenanigans

  You may recall from Chapter 1 that the caffeine industry would like you to believe a serving of soda equals six ounces and a serving of coffee equals five ounces. So-called safety recommendations are therefore based on consumers drinking half a can of soda or half a cup of coffee. Another tactic used by caffeine promoters is to translate dose amounts incorrectly. For example, they will report that a caffeine dose of ten mg./kg. (milligrams per kilogram body weight) causes significant harm to a rat. But then they claim that such a dose is the equivalent of twelve cups of coffee to a seventy-kilogram (165-pound) man.

  The reader (including other scientists, who do not question the data) therefore reasons that there is little risk.

  In fact, you cannot simply compare the weight of a rat to the weight of a man and arrive at an equivalent dose. Rats and men have far different metabolic rates.

  Scientists working on this problem long ago arrived at a more accurate way of comparing people to rodents using what is termed metabolic weight.3 When this important factor is considered, the ten mg./kg. dose translates to four six-ounce cups of coffee, or two mugs—quite a different story. One leading researcher made the assertion that these errors (intentional or unintentional) “perpetuate misleading impressions about the safety of caffeine.”4

  RESEARCH CAPSULE

  A study titled “Caffeinecontaining Beverages and the Prevalence of Hypertension” appeared in the Journal of Hypertension5 Ninety percent of readers only skim the summary or abstract, which states: We found evidence that caffeine intake was positively related to an increased blood pressure but the effect was small. … There was no evidence that regular caffeine intake increases the risk of being classified as hypertensive.

  This information is then picked up by the media, and millions of people read that “regular caffeine intake” is not a risk factor in hypertension. But what did the study really prove? Nothing, except that poor research can get published in good journals.

  A careful read of the entire document reveals that the

  investigators in this study did not measure “normal” caffeine intake at all. The mean intake of their subjects was calculated to be only 181 milligrams per day (the equivalent of one strong mug of

  181 milligrams per day (the equivalent of one strong mug of coffee), far below the 250 to 300 milligrams per day considered “normal” by other researchers and surveyors. What’s more, there is no reason to believe that this calculation is anywhere near accurate. That’s because they didn’t measure caffeine intake at all, but rather intake of coffee—and they did not discriminate between regular and decaffeinated coffee!

  Reliable data from other surveys tells us that approximately 20

  percent of these subjects were actually drinking decaf. No wonder the increase in blood pressure was “small.” The final flaw in this research is revealed when you learn that blood pressure readings were taken without determining the time of the subject’s last intake of caffeine.

  The FDA and the Caffeine Industry

  Imagine if the FDA allowed manufacturers to put an undisclosed amount of a mild amphetamine in foods and beverages. Think of the wide range of sensitivities and reactions that would arise in a population consuming such products if everyone from toddlers to seniors were eating and drinking these products with no knowledge of how much or even if the amphetamine were present. Sound absurd? This is exactly the situation with caffeine. Because it has been scientifically acknowledged that caffeine is addictive, the FDA is coming under pressure to rein in the “carte blanche” permission for manufacturers to dump caffeine in whatever food, beverage, or over-the-counter drug they choose at whatever dose they desire.

  In July 1997, on the heels of revelations about how tobacco manufacturers have manipulated the level of nicotine in cigarettes to increase consumption, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a petition urging the FDA to force manufacturers to label their products for caffeine content. (Although FDA was obliged to act within six months, as of March 1998, they were still evaluating the issue.) CSPI pointed out that a cup of Dannon Light Coffee Yogurt has as much caffeine as a twelve-ounce can of Coca-Cola, while Dannon Light Cappuccino Yogurt is caffeine free. Sunkist Orange Soda, according to CSPI, has more caffeine than a Pepsi, while Minute Maid Orange Soda has none.

  If you thought root beer was safely caffeine free, think again. Some brands contain a significant amount. Coffee ice cream can have as
much as forty milligrams of caffeine per serving, and the drug is showing up in more and more

  milligrams of caffeine per serving, and the drug is showing up in more and more foods and beverages, none of which disclose to consumers (who may be pregnant) how much caffeine they are ingesting.

  Joining CSPI in support of this petition were ten health and consumer groups, as well as thirty-four scientists from Johns Hopkins, Yale, Harvard, Duke, the University of Michigan, the University of California at Berkeley, and other institutions. John Hughes of the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont organized a coalition of scientists concerned about caffeine, and in a separate action, the American Medical Association has called upon the FDA to require caffeinecontent labeling.

  Will it happen? Don’t hold your breath. In 1981, after legal action by CSPI, the FDA finally issued an advisory warning: “Pregnant women should avoid caffeinecontaining foods and drugs, if possible, or consume them only sparingly.” That “if possible” is the problem. How can you avoid a substance that is hidden, whose bitter flavor is masked, and that appears in products you wouldn’t suspect? It certainly seems logical to me that the FDA, whose mission is to protect the health of American consumers, would finally issue some controls regarding caffeine, the last unregulated addictive drug in our food supply. Hopefully that day will come sooner rather than later.

  Diet Pills: Caffeine and Its Cousins in Capsules

  The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 put most amphetamine manufacturers out of business—and with good reason. Amphetamine 舠pep pills舡 were being abused by large numbers of people, with disastrous consequences.

  Amphetamines are powerful central nervous system (CNS) stimulants that suppress appetite and give one the feeling of being “wired” The street name for these drugs is speed. Truck drivers and students used them to stay awake.

  Housewives and businesspeople used them to get through the day, and countless thousands used them for weight loss.

  The problem was that speed damaged the adrenals and nervous system. When users stopped taking the drug, they experienced a “crash” rebound of profound fatigue and almost uncontrollable depression. Most who made it through this withdrawal eventually regained their health, but many others did not.

  After amphetamines were banned, manufacturers started producing a combination of caffeine and related stimulants like ephedrine, together with a popular appetite suppressor found in diet aids known as phenylhpropanolamine

  (PPA). All of these drugs are adrenal and CNS stimulants, and when combined, they produce effects and dangers very similar to those of amphetamines.6 In 1982, the FDA caught on and banned the triple combination of caffeine, ephedrine, and PPA.

  Manufacturers continued to market caffeine-PPA combinations until 1991, when this combination was also banned. Importantly, the reason given for the ban was safety and lack of efficacy. People were experiencing dangerous side effects, such as increases in blood pressure, anxiety, insomnia, and heart palpitations. Reports in the medical literature presented cases of cerebral hemorrhage from these products.7 Regarding efficacy, it was determined that caffeine does not foster weight loss.

  In the 1990s, in a cat-and-mouse game with the FDA, manufacturers started marketing caffeine-ephedrine combinations as herbal weight loss and energy pills. Herbal sources of caffeine include guarana, bissy nut, maté and kola nut.

  The herbal source of ephedrine is ephedra, also known as ma huang. Some manufacturers hide these ingredients even further by using the botanical name of the herb in Latin, such as Ilex paraguayensis instead of matß Manufacturers have also tried to claim that matß doesn’t contain caffeine, and that the caffeine in guarana is somehow “different” from that in coffee. These assertions are patently false and disregard the chemical composition of the plants. How do manufacturers get away with this? Remember the FDA doesn’t require labeling of caffeine content.

  These manufacturers take advantage of the popular notion that herbs are somehow safe because they’re “all natural. ” But whether you use herbal sources or the refined drug, these stimulants will still stress your adrenals and nervous system. They still increase your heart rate, blood pressure, and your risk for stroke, heart attack, and other disorders. Ephedra, which has been used in China for thousands of years, dries the mucous membranes so effectively that it brings relief to people suffering from upper respiratory problems such as asthma, bronchitis, and sinus congestion. But combined with caffeine (which acts as a catalyst for ephedrine’s stimulating properties) and taken at high dosages for weight loss, ephedra-caffeine combos cause extreme jitters, muscular and nervous tension, accelerated and abnormal heartbeat, and insomnia. Concerning these stimulant combinations, an important medical study noted: “This finding … clearly suggests that these caffeine/phenylethylamine combinations are potent CNS stimulants with behaviorally disruptive effects and abuse potential similar to that of amphetamine. … In addition, it strongly suggests that there is a

  potential for dangerous interactions among these drugs when any combination of caffeine plus phenylethylamines are ingested together. ”8

  Caffeine Does Not Help Weight Loss

  While there are studies suggesting that CNS stimulants can enhance weight loss, there is no long-term evidence of benefit. In fact, recent research shows that they may instead foster weight gain. Dean Krahn, M.D., lead researcher in a study conducted at the University of Michigan Medical Center, explains that people are more prone to binge-eat when they are anxious, and CNS stimulants cause anxiety.9 Recent research supports Krahn’s concern. In a study evaluating caffeine intake among patients with eating disorders, caffeine consumption was associated with an increased tendency to binge and abuse laxatives and diet pills.10 Moreover, data published in the medical journal Brain Research Bulletin shows that people tend to crave fat when their stress hormone levels are elevated.11

  Is caffeine a “fat-burner”? Only insofar as stress accelerates the conversion of fat to fatty acids. Remember, this reaction is part of the fightor-flight response.

  But unless that conversion is followed by strenuous exercise, the fatty acids will simply be redeposited in adipose tissue when the caffeine wears off.

  What about the claim that caffeine raises metabolic rate? Once again, caffeine promoters are using half-truths to push their product. Caffeine will increase metabolic rate, but only to the extent of burning an extra fifty to seventy-five calories a day. And even that effect requires more caffeine than most people would normally consume.

  Still, to this day, manufacturers continue to make weightloss claims for caffeine combination pills and a variety of caffeine-ephedrine teas. As usual, the FDA has been monitoring reports of adverse effects. The March 2, 1995, issue of Food Labeling News reported an FDA action against a company selling a caffeine (source: kola nut) and ephedra combination. According to the article, the FDA determined that:

  The product can cause severe injury or death in some people who consume them. … Reported reactions range from serious, life-threatening conditions such as irregular heartbeat, heart attack, stroke, seizures, hepatitis and psychosis to relatively minor and temporary conditions such as dizziness, headache and gastrointestinal distress. Several deaths have

  been associated with the products. FDA and outside medical experts have determined that the products represent a threat to health because the combination of Ma Huang, a source of ephedrine, and kola nut, a source of caffeine, can cause severe injury to people even under conditions of usual or recommended use.12

  The HealthFood Hustle

  I have watched the shift in the healthfood industry with amazement. Instead of providing a “natural choice, ” there is, in some cases, a wholesale endorsement of caffeine and other CNS stimulants. It’s now common to find coffee bars in healthfood stores and shelves of herbal pep pills loaded with caffeine and ephedra. Herbal weightloss programs, often accompanied by very scientificlooking literature, keep their adherents hyped up on quasi-legal stimulants t
o produce appetite suppression. When the users decide to stop taking the pills, their appetites return with a vengeance, and the lost pounds are rapidly regained.

  In the meantime, their health may suffer tremendously.

  Until the 1990s, caffeine was one of the no-nos of the healthfood industry, like sugar and white flour. Caffeine-free herbal teas got their start in the healthfood industry, where caffeine-free products have traditionally been the hallmark of natural food choices. Now those same stores have huge display bins full of coffee beans and many have coffee bars serving pumped-up caffeine concoctions. How did this happen?

  It began in the early 1990s, when consumers started to buy organic foods in earnest. The fledgling organic industry accelerated at a rate of 25 percent per year to reach sales of $4.2 billion in 1997. Natural food companies began to look at every agricultural product—including coffee—to see if an organic source could be found. At first there were only one or two small brands of packaged organic coffee grown on estates in Mexico, where the owners adhere to traditional organic practices such as improving the soil with compost and using natural pest control techniques. But then it was discovered that much of the highaltitude coffee in Central America is grown by small landholders living in very rural communities with limited funds for commercial fertilizers and pesticides.

  These farms were declared “organic by default. ” In other words, no fertilizers or pesticides had been used on the coffee beans, so the crop was labeled organic.

  Unfortunately, the tenets of organic agriculture—conservation, soil improvement via compost and companion planting, and natural pest control—were not part of this scenario, nor are they likely to be given the difficult

  were not part of this scenario, nor are they likely to be given the difficult conditions under which the small landholder ekes out a living.