ADNC - Association des Diététiciens et Nutritionnistes Critiques

Janvier 2014


Quelques liens sélectionnés à partir de notre page facebook :


Pétition que nous soutenons pour modifier l'étiquetage des produits :

www.lemonde.fr/sante/article/2014/05/13/une-petition-pour-mettre-en-place-un-etiquetage-simple-sur-les-aliments_4415445_1651302.html#9P0Efei4Q1d1qFFk.99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAwTyEEHnOs



La question des brevets et le poids de Monsanto encore :

http://www.bastamag.net/Brevet-sur-des-tomates-la


L'ADNC a répondu à l'appel public de l'Agence Européenne de Sécurité Alimentaire (EFSA) sur les besoins en calcium, vous trouverez ici les commentaires postés, en anglais comme demandé, avec un petit argumentaire en français différent que nous avions fait à l'occasion d'une pétition lancée pour demande justement la révision de ces besoins estimés :


Section 4 Overview of DRV... and section 5 Criteria

Walter Willett, among others, published remarks some years ago on limits and « serious » flaws concerning the studies on which the experts panels based their reports. The same remarks seem to be equally valid for the studies chosen by the EFSA panel. Does it make sense in this context to make recommandations based on such materials ? Is the intake of calcium not secondary compared with other factors (like exercice or gettng enough vitamin D, see comment for lines 43-46), when the capacity of adaptation of the body to excrete/retain clacium mentionned below is considered ? Should we not see if there are really more broken bones in countries consumming low diet in calcium (see comment for lines 43-46 also for this point) ? Would it not make sense to rather put a stress on recommandations for reduction of salt and animal proteins (see comment lines 60-63), both desirable for health and environnemental issues ?

« The expert panel that established the latest (1997) dietary reference intake (DRI) for calcium used information from these kinds of studies [balance studies, maximal retention study, measurements of bone density] to set the target at 1,000 mg/day for adults up to age fifty and 1,200 mg/day for those over age 50. This « overrecommendation » is one way to make sure that 95 percent of people are covered by the recommendation. (…)
But there are two big related problems with the studies on which the standards are based. The first has to do with the nature of bone itself. A small part of bone, essentially the part that is most able to grow and change, usually contains little calcium. This is called the remodeling space. If you were to greatly increase your calcium intake – by adding several glasses of milk a day or taking calcium supplements – for a year or so, this space would sponge up extra calcium. Your bone's calcium content would increase by a small amount, about 2 percent, but only temporarily. After the first year, the filled-up remodeling space couldn't hold any more calcium, so continued calcium intake stops. The second problem is that most studies last just one or two years and so observe ony what is happening in the remodeling space and not what is really happening in the big picture of overall bone strength.
What these short-term studies fail to caapture is the body's remarkable capacity to adapt. A unique study of Scandinavian prisoners, all men, shows that their bodies were still adapting after several years on a lower-calcium diet (500 mg/day), mainly by excreting less calcium and using calcium more efficiently.
In real life, broken bones are a better test of desirable calcium levels than the short-term flow of calcium in and out of the body or measurements of bone density. »
Walter C. Willett, Eat, Drink, and be Healthy – The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating, Free press, 2005, p.164


2.2.2.1. Deficiency

The report links insufficient dietary intake of calcium with osteopenia, osteoporosis and an associated increased risk of fracture. However, this link does not seem clear for some scientists like Walter Willet. So, is there a real risk not to have enough calcium in our western countries ? Is it not an unfounded fear ? Some countries like Peru, Japan, India with an intake of 300 mg/day of calcium do not show especially high rates of fractures (second quote).

« The main reason for all the concern about too little calcium is the frightful prospect of osteoporosis, the gradual and insidious loss of bone that often comes with old age. In the United States alone, osteoporosis affects ten million women and men. Each year osteoporosis leads to more than 1,5 million fractures, including 300,000 broken hips. Breaking a hip in old age can be disabling, even deadly – almost one-quarter of older people who break a hip die in the following year, often from complications caused by their injury.
Unfortunately, there's little evidence that just boosting your calcium intake to the high levels that are currently recommended will prevent fractures. And all the high-profile attention given to calcium is distracting us from strategies that really work – like exercise, getting enough vitamin D, avoiding too much vitamin A, and taking certain medication. »
Walter C. Willett, Eat, Drink, and be Healthy – The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating, Free press, 2005, p.159

« One good starting place is to look at the connection between calcium intake and fractures in different countries. Around the world there's a huge variation in average daily calcium intake, from 300mg/day in India, Japan and Peru to 1,300+ mg/day in Finland and some other Scandinavian countries. Curiously, countries with the highest average calcium intakes tend to have higher, not lower, hip fracture rates (Figure 19). There are also important differences in physical activity levels, sunlight, and other dietary factors that could obscure the rela relationship between calcium and fractures. »
Walter C. Willett, Eat, Drink, and be Healthy – The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating, Free press, 2005, p.162-163


2.2.2.2. Lines 289-314 section 2.2.2.2 Excess

The report mentions the UL of 2500 remains safe, I would like to draw attention on the position of Walter Willett on the subject, and would like to question if it would not be safer to adopt a position more based on the precaution principle in this case ? The report mentions the case of the recommandation of Great Britain of 700 mg/day for the adult population, could it not be in this view a more balanced proposition compared to the 950mg/day selected by the panel ?

« How much calcium or milk is safe ? Nutrition experts have long assumed that calcium is a lot like vitamin C – your body merely excretes what it can't use. But it's beginning to look as though too much calcium might be a bad thing. For men, a high calcium intake seems to increase yhe odds of developing fatal prostate cancer. For women, drinking a lot of milk has been linked with higher rates of ovarian cancer. In both cases the evidence isn't conclusive, but it is enough to sound a warning about possible negative effects of getting too much calcium and drinking too much milk. »
Walter C. Willett, Eat, Drink, and be Healthy – The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating, Free press, 2005, p.159

« If no one really knows the best daily calium target, then why not play it safe and boost your calcium by drinking three glasses of milk a day ? Here are six good reasons : lactose intolerance, saturated fat, extra calories, unneeded hormones, a possible increased risk of prostate cancer, and a possible increased risk of ovarian cancer. »
Walter C. Willett, Eat, Drink, and be Healthy – The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating, Free press, 2005, p.165


Abstract Lines 60-63

The report bases its recommandation of 950mg/day for the adut population on « carefully controlled metabolic studies » undertaken in North American adults. A question which raises for me, would be to know if the result of 715 mg/day woud have been the same in population of other countries, especially european because of the statuts of EFSA, with other dietary habits. Americans have a consumption of animal proteins and salt (both play a great role in calcium excretion (1)) which seems to me more important than in Europe, could it lead to an inadapted measure for the europeans, although these studies may have been carefully conducted ?

(1) « From the available data, we can calculate what the calcium requirement might be at different animal protein or sodium intakes. These calculations show that a reduction in animal protein intake from a reference value of 60 to 20g/d or a reduction in sodium intake from 150 to 50 mmol/d reduces the theoretical calcium requirement from 750 to 550 mg/d. The combination of both restrictions would reduce the calcium requirement to 400 mg/d »
Nordin B.E. Christopher, « Calcium Requirement Is a Sliding Scale », American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol.71, juin 2000, p.1381-1383


Abstract Lines 60-63

The report bases its recommandation of 950mg/day for the adut population on « carefully controlled metabolic studies » undertaken in North American adults. A question which raises for me, would be to know if the result of 715 mg/day woud have been the same in population of other countries, especially european because of the statuts of EFSA, with other dietary habits. Americans have a consumption of animal proteins and salt (both play a great role in calcium excretion (1)) which seems to me more important than in Europe, could it lead to an inadapted measure for the europeans, although these studies may have been carefully conducted ?

(1) « From the available data, we can calculate what the calcium requirement might be at different animal protein or sodium intakes. These calculations show that a reduction in animal protein intake from a reference value of 60 to 20g/d or a reduction in sodium intake from 150 to 50 mmol/d reduces the theoretical calcium requirement from 750 to 550 mg/d. The combination of both restrictions would reduce the calcium requirement to 400 mg/d »
Nordin B.E. Christopher, « Calcium Requirement Is a Sliding Scale », American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol.71, juin 2000, p.1381-1383


Line 157 Introduction

The report is based on the latest science, but the latest signifies the best ? Studies conclude that research granted by the private sector (industries) had more results in their favor compared with independent ones. The results were fast 8 times more likely to be in favor of the sponsor also for diary products in a paper of 2007 (1). Studies concerning calcium may be funded by the diary industry leading to situations of conflicts of interests whose negative consequences for the quality of the research have also been underlined by the rapport of the Institute of Medicine conducted on the subjet (2). At that point, did the panel pay attention to the source of financement of the studies selected for the report, and did it choose the most independent ones first to obtain the best and not only the last science ?

(1) Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS. « Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles ». PLoS Med. 2007 Jan;4(1):e5.
(2) Lo B, Field MJ, Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, 2009


Lines 973, Section 4.1

The french recommandation is based on the calculation established by Leon Guéguen. Investigations have revealed that this scientist has strong ties to the dairy industry (Institut Candia) (1).
The potential negative impacts of conflicts of interests on the quality of research have been reported in many publications, which have called for strong protective measures (2). In that extent, some concerns can be raised on the quality of the research led in France for this subject.

(1) Thierry Souccar et Isabelle Robard, Santé mensonges et propagande, le seuil, 2004 p.68)

(2) Lo Bernard and J. Field Marilyn, Conflict of Interest in medical research, eductaion, and practice, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press, Washington, 2009


Argumentaire en quelques points en français : (non équivalent aux commentaires postés en anglais ci-dessus, mais présentés ici pour rappel, comme expliqué plus haut)

>900mg/jour de calcium sont conseillés en France pour la population adulte contre 700mg en Angleterre et même 500mg pour l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (Pr Willett Walter, Eat, Drink and Be Healthy, Free Press, 2001, p. 158)

> ceci entraîne presque de facto le recours aux produits laitiers, 3 à 4 par jours recommandés actuellement par le Programme National Nutrition Santé (PNNS).

> cette recommandation française a été émise par un chercheur ayant des conflits d'intérêts (CI) en tant que consultant pour L'institut Candia
(Thierry Souccar et Isabelle Robard, Santé mensonges et propagande, le seuil, 2004 p.68)
Les CI sont reconnus par le prestigieux Institute of Medicine américain pour être une source possible et répandue de biais dans l'expertise scientifique.
(Lo Bernard and J. Field Marilyn, Conflict of Interest in medical research, eductaion, and practice, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press, Washington, 2009)

> une forte consommation de calcium ne protégerait pas contre les fractures osseuses et l'ostéoporose.
(Cumming RG, Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Scott J, Ensrud KE, Vogt TM, Fox K. Calcium intake and fracture Roux C, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Papapoulos SE, de Papp AE, West JA, Bouillon R. New insights into the role of vitamin D and calcium in osteoporosis management:an expert roundtable discussion. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 May;24(5):1363-70.risk: results from the study of osteoporotic fractures. Am J Epidemiol. 1997 May 15;145(10):926-34.

Bischoff-Ferrari HA et al. Calcium intake and hip fracture risk in men and women: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1780-90.)

L'OMS ne prend d'ailleurs pas en compte la densité minérale osseuse, et du coup la consommation des laitages ou du calcium, dans son outil de dépistage de l'ostéoporose appelé FRAX développé depuis 2008
(Thierry Souccar, « Le beurre et l'argent du beurre », Pratiques n°56, janvier 2012, p.42)


> un excès de calcium pourrait être au contraire néfaste selon le professeur de nutrition d'Harvard Mark Hegsted
(Thierry Souccar, Lait, mensonges et propagande, Thierry Souccar Edition, 2008, p.79)
> De nombreuses études évoquent des risques sanitaires associés le plus souvent à une forte consommation de produits laitiers, et qui concernent l'intolérance au lactose, le cancer de la prostate, le diabète de type 1, la sclérose en plaques, et certaines maladies cardiovasculaires.
(Thierry Souccar, Lait, mensonges et propagande, Thierry Souccar éditions, 2e édition, 2008)

> les besoins en calcium dépendent notamment de la consommation en protéines animales et en sel, une réduction de 40g de protéines animales par jour et de 2,3g de sodium par jour également équivaut à 400 mg de calcium nécessaire en moins (200 mg pour chacun de ces mesures), ce qui laisse entendre qu'une recommandation unique n'est sans doute pas adaptée pour tous, surtout celles et ceux ayant une faible consommation de protéines animales et de sel.
(Nordin B.E. Christopher, « Calcium Requirement Is a Sliding Scale », American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol.71, juin 2000, p.1381-1383)

> d'un point de vue environnemental, ce serait 5 à 8 millions d'hectares qui seraient libérés pour d'autres productions si l'on fixait à 200 mg par jour et par personne les apports en calcium par le lait, soit un à deux produits laitiers par jour.
(Charru Madeleine, « Du champ à l'assiette... et de l'assiette aux champs », Pratiques n°56, janvier 2012, p.52)





Qui sommes-nous ?

Publications ADNC

Colloques de l’ADNC

Actualités de l’ADNC

Autour de l’ADNC

Ce site refuse de cautionner le label HONcode
Ce site refuse de cautionner le label HONcode.