I published a video about a week ago in which I said that I did not think that Ozempic, Wegovy and other GLP-1 group drugs were the wonders that the Economist and other pro-business publications have claimed them to be.
My reasoning was remarkably straightforward. It was that if we have an obesity crisis resulting in diabetes, dementia, heart conditions and more, then the answer is to get rid of the drug that has clearly created this crisis, which drug is the harmful sugar content included in ultra-processed food that is designed to addict people to that product.
Perpetuating the continued production of those addictive so-called food products and then treating those suffering with the consequences of their addiction to them with expensive and potentially harmful drugs is about as economically stupid as continuing to permit the production of harmful greenhouse gases and then hoping that the resulting harm might be addressed through the use of carbon capture and storage techniques.
It has to be said that not everybody agreed with my suggestion, even though I made it clear that the enormous sums that could be saved by going down the path I suggested could be used to ensure that those who are currently dependent upon ultra-processed foods for their calorific intake could be provided with financial support to ensure that this no no longer need be the case.
So why am I mentioning this again? That is because I noticed the report in the Guardian that says:
A weight-loss drug recently approved for use on the NHS contributed to the death of a 58-year-old nurse from North Lanarkshire, according to a report.
Susan McGowan took two low-dose injections of tirzepatide, under the Mounjaro brand, over the space of a fortnight before she died on 4 September, the BBC reported.
Her death certificate, seen by the broadcaster, lists multiple organ failure, septic shock and pancreatitis as the immediate cause of death – but “the use of prescribed tirzepatide” is recorded as a contributing factor.
There is also this report:
As of October 28 2024, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has received 10 UK spontaneous reports with GLP-1RAs indicated for weight management that report a fatal outcome, it today (November 1) told C+D.
However, the medicines regulator stressed that it is not possible to determine whether the GLP-1RA was responsible for a death reported.
These reports do not, of course, prove that these drugs are necessarily harmful. What they do prove is that it is reasonable to have doubts about their use when a safe, economical and entirely certain alternative is available to their use, which simply requires that we regulate the production of ultra-processed foods.
So, why not, Wes Streeting?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There are many physiological reasons for banning – or heavily taxing – UPFs. Solid scientific research by Dr Michael Mosley (‘Just one thing’ on Radio 4), Prof Tim Spector (founder of the Zoe project and author of ‘Food for life’ and ‘The food for life cookbook ‘), as well as Dr Chris van Tulleken (‘Ultra-processed people ‘) all point the way
Indeed. A good lecture by Dr Chris van Tulleken, given for the Royal Institution, is available on YouTube, online – https://youtu.be/5QOTBreQaIk?si=spRnCShDBJbiqYMm
He makes the point in this that “ulta-processed food” contribution to obesity epidemic is not a simple equation of sugar/calories in energy out, or energy in consumption v. energy spent in activity, but the nature of processing.
Thanks
Chris van Tulleken Is also giving the RI Christmas Lectures – https://www.rigb.org/christmas-lectures/2024-christmas-lectures – They must have wanted to hear more!
Thanks
It’s worth listening to
Ultraprocessed food is all about manufacturing products for consumption that are addictive and profitable, and stuff the health consequences, because they can be addressed with drugs. One of the consequences of this is the demonisation of healthy foods in order to persuade people to eat ultraprocessed.
There are many health professionals who are recognising that butter and eggs are not the problematic foods they are often portrayed as, but some food companies want you to eat their frosted flakes instead.
The Tufts University Food Compass gives the impression that Frosted Mini Wheats are a better option to Whole Eggs cooked in butter. https://quota.media/flawed-food-compass-could-misguide-tax-and-investment-decisions/
Recommended reading
The Big Fat Surprise: why butter, meat, and cheese belong in a healthy diet (2015) by Nina Teicholz
https://amzn.eu/d/eImbSiC
The ‘fat lie’ was promoted by big sugar
Fat is not the problem
Sugar is
Yes, The sugar industry paid scientists to understate the problems with sugar, and point the blame at saturated fats (ie. butter).
Source: “Harvard’s Sugar Industry Scandal Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg”, HuffingtonPost (2016)
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sugar-harvard-scandal-nutrition-study_n_57d8088ee4b0aa4b722c6417
“American Heart Association Was Paid Off By Procter & Gamble To Say Heart Disease Was Caused By Saturated Fat, Not Seed Oils”, eviemagazine (2022)
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/american-heart-association-was-paid-procter-gamble-heart-disease-saturated-fat-seed-oils-sugar
It is this kind of behaviour that Robert F. Kennedy Jr says that he is going to clean up.
Overconsumption of sugar is a problem. So is overconsumption of fat, or anything else, from eggs and cheese to cabbage and carrot. Or indeed overconsumption of energy or of the natural resources of the earth.
To quote Hesiod, moderation is best in all things. We can all have a good quality of life, and health happiness, with much less consumption.
I think Trans – fats, that industrially ‘ultra- processed’ fat group… are pretty bad for you.
Agreed
Technically they are banned, but some oils convert to them on cooking still
I agree with Richard and pretty much all the comments. If we can restore heathy food it is much much better than trying to combat the problem with drugs.
I see some difficulties with that approach. To take a trivial example. What about the Mars bar? Should it not be allowed? It’s been around for a long time. In my youth we might have a bar divided between the family for a treat. Arguably that’s OK. But if one eats multiple bars per day it is unhealthy. Should the bar be banned? I don’t know.
The are hundreds of millions of obese people now. Reforming our food system will take time. Until then should people not be treated for obesity? There are, of course, risks with obesity drugs, just like any other drug. There will be adverse side effects and, sadly, deaths, just as there are with other beneficial drugs such as vaccines. But we don’t ban drugs even when we know there are sometimes adverse effects. We way up risk versus benefit. For many obese people, now, the risk from obesity drugs is outweighed by the benefits.
Ultimately we need to reform our food system. Until then, regrettably,I think obesity drugs will be needed.
Do we ban the Mars Bar, created as I recall to provide sugar hits for rear gunners in bombers in WW2 who could not otherwise access food? Yes, why not? We’re banning high salt foods. We’re banning tobacco. We’re successfully limiting access to alcohol. Why not ban sugar hits? Isn’t it the job of government to prevent addiction in the social interest, and this one is now proving massively destructive. Of course we should ban it.
I don’t think banning foods is the right approach. I still like my chocolate, others like their booze.
All I would like is accurate information. Many dietary guidelines are wholly misleading.
Why do we ban addictive substances then? Is it because society cannot afford the harm they cause? Why should we permit that harm in the case of ultra-processed food? Isn’t it the most basic duty of a state to protect people from harm? In this case, these things aren’t even food. Foods meet a craving. These create them. They can’t even be described as food as a result. So, perhaps I agree with you. We shouldn’t ban foods. We should ban things that are not food but claim to be so.
My suggestion might be
1. Sugar Duty payable on sugar and synthetic sweeteners
2. A steadily reducing limit on sugar and synthetic sweetener consumption in the UK
3. Stricter controls and again quotas on the sorts of synthetic ingredients that are used in UPF’s – colourings, flavourings, etc
4. Possibly some sort of control/licensing system that will restrict the introduction of new UPF products
John, “Sugar Duty payable on sugar and some synthetic sweeteners”. Yes, SOME, because some are very healthful and can provide important health benefits – e.g. xylitol (yeah, don’t give to dogs). Humble xylitol played an important role in combatting the chronic fungal overgrowth I experienced because of liver problems, which , sadly, SOME prescription anti-biotics severely worsen and embed.
Worrying – the implications are that they are testing as widely as they should do.
This is a very investor friendly way to introduce a new product – I’ve seen it on the railways when the old BR used to test things to death before introducing new rolling stock or motive power to a service. These days it is quite acceptable for new trains to reveal their faults in service and with passengers on board. Bad ideas across service industries always end up causing even more misery.
My wife is obsessed with challenge of removing UPFs from the food chain. Perhaps because I worked in the confectionery industry for a decade. I think she may be addicted to the Zoe app and podcasts.
One problem that banning, prohibition by another name, potentially raises is that sugar is only slightly harder to manufacture than alcohol. Some lessons need to be learnt from the abandoned attempts to eliminate booze from our lives.
Punitive taxation is probably the best way forward with the revenues spent entirely on improving the diets of those who struggle with good nutrition. For whatever reason. I don’t envy any one Government trying to take effective measures. It would need to be a multi-party policy to stand any chance of surviving an election.
Much to agree with
Richard, Streeting will never regulate UPF or even resurrect the Conservatives’ hint of a possibility of imposing punitive sugar taxes when he enthusiastically enters and agreement with Eli Lilley, the patent holder of, a synthetic GLP-1 receptor agonist, tirzepatide, to roll it out to unemployed people “to help them return to work”. His five-year ‘trial’ whereby 3,000 unemployed people will receive the jab raises a “jabs for Jobs” allegation and the fear that he could impose a work-fare like condition whereby no jab = no benefit. (Remember, Starmer’s Labour wanted to impose mandatory vaccination on NHS staff in 2020)
A Health Secretary who enters such an arrangement is clearly not prioritising the improvement of peoples’ health per se.
Agreed
Maybe that is why I am so aware of and concerned about the issue .
Wes doesn’t want to risk limiting the lucrative directorships offered to him when he gets bored of playing at being an MP. When he does leave Parliament, no doubt he will feel immense relief at no longer having to mask the unfettered Thatcherism within his soul.
Sadly Howard, when elected politicians perform their duties in the service of corporate objectives/interests, like Streeting giving Eli Lilley 3,000 overweight job-seeker slots for 5 years (at £50 or more per ‘patient’ week), it quickly draws-in other stakeholders and more harm is done.
When I read the slef-interest PR-dressed-up-as-a scientific method which The University of Manchester issued on this I despaired. https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/new-study-to-deepen-understanding-of-a-weight-loss-medication/
I wonder what the numerous doctors who ‘yellow-card’ or report adverse drug reactions against tirzepatide make of Professor Martin Rutter, a professor of Cardiometabolic nedicine at Manchester. He’s playing a very dangerous game by becoming the biochemical “expert” seemingly promoting Eli Lilly’s product here, I’d say.
“Do we ban the Mars Bar, created as I recall to provide sugar hits for rear gunners in bombers in WW2 who could not otherwise access food?”
Your recall is wrong, the mars bar was actually invented in 1932.
Another myth bites the dust
There has been a fair amount of coverage of the study conducted by the University of California into the effects of sugar rationing on health outcomes on people born 3 years either side of its ending in September 1953, when sugar intake doubled almost overnight.
It was found that those whose sugar consumption had been restricted for 1,000 days from conception were 30% less likely to become obese, 35% less likely to develop type-2 diabetes, and 20% less likely to develop heart disease (e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qlyp42jyo).
Hence the introduction of bold health warnings on high sugar content foods, together with an annually increasing tax, and their banning from prominent positions in store; would appear to be a complete no-brainer. I mean, it’s not as if such measures are something new.
But I despair of Streeting and Starmer who are only too willing to piss away billions on technical fixes like ‘wonder drugs’ and ‘carbon capture and storage’.
Fascinating
Thank you