Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) is a school for people with special needs. It has attracted criticism for practices such as the use of electric shocks and the denial of food as aversives or punishments. The diet offered to students has also attracted controversy – blogged on leftbrainrightbrain – as has the use of calorie restriction as an aversive (PDF, pp. 10-1). Although the JRC has no link to Patrick Holford, I therefore decided to take a look at some of the JRC’s information about nutrition and ‘wellness’; what I saw was very worrying.

Matthew Israel (founder of JRC) argues that:

an optimal environment would be one where you’re eating in ways that are helpful to your health…it came as a surprise to me the extent to which the corporate influences are involved in setting health policy in this country.*

We are all in favour of healthy eating. However, in order to promote a healthy diet, one needs an understanding of nutrition – which appears to be lacking at JRC. The JRC’s ‘wellness program’ lists a number of ‘ingredients to avoid’. Some of the inclusions seem – if one is being polite – rather eccentric. The ‘ingredients to avoid’ include:

All oils, especially hydrogenated oils (partially, fully or whatever). Nutritionally bankrupt food that has been shown to cause arterial lesions.

Oils can be very nutritious – for example, rapeseed oil (canola oil, as it tends to be called in the US) is a good vegan food source of omega 3 fats. I am not sure that fish oil counts as an ingredient (in my kitchen, at least, it tends to come included with fish) but the inclusion of oily fish in one’s diet has been linked to health benefits.

Oils are also calorie-dense, which can be useful for those who struggle to consume enough calories to maintain a healthy weight. I am not aware of any good evidence that rapeseed oil, olive oil, fish oil etc. cause arterial lesions.

Artificial colorings (any food dye). Many dyes have been shown to be carcinogens. Any chemical additive is potentially dangerous.

Some dyes are carcinogens. Other products used to colour food – beetroot added to a sauce, for example – can be harmless, or even beneficial. Additives can also play useful roles as preservatives – preventing food spoilage, which is especially useful in large-scale catering (a school, for example).

As for the concern about ‘chemical additives’ – all additives are chemical. Of course, all chemicals can be dangerous – for example, drinking too much H2O can be fatal – but I don’t think that this was what the JRC had in mind. One might also note that – if the JRC can find a non-chemical additive – they stand to win a £1 million prize from the RSC. However, I think the RSC’s money is safe.

Casein. The protein in dairy. Has been linked to the promotion of cancers.

Consumption of dairy has been ‘linked’ to cancers: people have said it is linked to cancers, and there has been some research suggesting that this may be the case. However, this link currently looks unlikely: one might note for example that recent research in Sweden has failed to find an association between dairy intake and bladder cancer, and has actually found an inverse association between the consumption of cultured milk products and the risk of bladder cancer.

Certainly, there is not good evidence that dairy consumption promotes cancer. Dairy products are a significant part of the ‘typical’ American diet, and can contribute significantly to the nutrition of those eating them. There are not good health reasons for eliminating dairy from all diets.

Lactose. Milk sugar. Can cause various reactions due to lactose intolerance.

Absolutely, it can – but that’s no reason why those of us without such an intolerance should avoid it. Most foods can cause serious – even fatal – allergic reactions in some people, but that’s no reason why those who are not allergic should avoid them.

Mycoprotein. A food allergen.

Yes, some people are allergic to this. But see the above on lactose. Also, worth noting that Quorn is a well-known mycoprotein and a popular vegetarian source of protein (especially useful for those who are avoiding animal products).

I could go on – for example, some ingredients (e.g. rennet and gelatin) are apparently to be avoided on ‘wellness’ grounds simply because they are animal products. What jumps out from this list of foods to avoid, though, is that it excludes a number of staple foods without good reason.

It makes me sad when consenting adults choose to subsist on unhealthy, faddy diets because of mistaken beliefs about nutrition but it is – of course – absolutely their right to do so. The JRC, though, can hold and discipline students against their will. It is entirely inappropriate for an institution such as the JRC to impose their eccentric, non-evidence-based, and potentially harmful beliefs about food and healthy eating on vulnerable residents who may be there against their will. Also, while the thought of depriving students of food in the name of discipline is shocking in itself, the JRC’s apparent lack of nutritional knowledge can only add to the risks of doing so.**

* Israel also argues that:

You’ll find in the field of nutrition, how some people have made discoveries. There is one physician who has reversed heart disease, and at the Cleveland Clinic they will not offer that treatment. It’s too politically incorrect, but the clinic still has places like McDonald’s and fast food in their corridors. Yet members of the board of directors of that clinic will come to him privately for help. Every field is probably like that.

** Mike Stanton notes one extremely troubling case at the school, where Linda Cornelison (a non-verbal woman with learning difficulties)

died of causes related to stomach perforations and ulcers. The Center failed to properly diagnose these apparently pre-existing conditions, and failed to provide an appropriate diet and treatment. When symptoms occurred that should have provided an opportunity for further examination, the JRC instead opted to punish her with a plethora of aversive treatments, including 61 which were administered on the day of her death. Linda, who had weighed 120 pounds when she began the Center’s food program, weighed just 90 pounds at the time of her death, which was less than one year later.