Quote from Dr. Garrett Smith on December 19, 2018, 12:48 pm

Original link here:  https://www.novo-argumente.com/artikel/obst_und_gemuese_als_krankmacher .

The reference links below can be found at the original article link, which is also translated in the title link below:

Fruits and vegetables as pathogens?

Since the "5-a-day" campaign, hospitals have recorded 80 percent more gastrointestinal illnesses. Since such campaigns are usually based on scientifically unproven hypotheses, the nutritional blind flight should be stopped.

For more than 13 years, a rule on healthy eating has been burning into the memory of people: "Citizens, eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day!" - this is the official call for collective plant consumption. The Federal Government is trying to improve the dietary behavior of the Germans with such nutritional education measures as 5-a-day or in form. For this purpose, Ilse Aigners (CSU) Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) relies on recommendations of the German Nutrition Society (DGE). But this "alliance" reveals a double problem: First, the recommendations of the DGE are not scientifically substantiated. Second, it is unknown what impact the nutritional campaigns based on it have on the health of the population: There is no evidence that nutritional policies promote the health of Germans. Therefore, a damage can not be excluded - according to the common explanatory models of nutrition research even negative effects are not implausible.

Campaigns such as In Form or 5-am-day are large-scale nutritional experiments that are aimed at all Germans - with a little polemics they can therefore be described as "large-scale experiments". And nobody knows their effects. But this knowledge about the "campaign impact" is essential, because the rich consumption of plant foods can not be checked off as "healthy". Because it is possible that the government call for more fruit and vegetable consumption for collective digestive problems: The clinical cases of diffuse gastrointestinal diseases are, according to health reporting of the Federal since 2000, the beginning of the nutritional campaign 5-a-day, until 2011 to rose about 80 percent. Specifically, since the start of the campaign, the number of cases of constipation and diarrhea has doubled; in the case of the symptoms of belching, bloating and bloating, clinical diagnoses have even risen by more than 150 percent. [2]
The "silence dilemma" of BMELV and DGE

Neither BMELV nor DGE could or would give an opinion on the question of proof of benefits of nutritional rules and campaigns. The State Institute for Efficiency and Quality in Health Care, IQWiG, has reportedly no commission for benefit assessment received - this mandate could, for example, Daniel Bahrs Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) grant, which also participates in the nutritional campaigns. However, it is currently alarming to note that nobody seems to know whether nutritional measures are beneficial to health. If one takes the "fact-setting standards" of nutritional science, one can even guess the opposite: Five times a day fruits and vegetables increase the risk for gastrointestinal diseases by 80 percent! Of course, this hypothesis can not be proven - because there is only one correlation between the two facts, that is, a relationship that never allows a cause-and-effect relationship. The crux of the matter: Exactly on such correlations, however, are based on the usual dietary rules, on which in turn Aigners campaigns are based. Missing evidence is replaced by "plausibilities" to preserve the semblance of scientificity.
Sick by fruits and vegetables? Physiologically traceable!

Of course, such plausibilities, obvious explanatory models, can also be found to support the context of the 5-a-day campaign with the growing number of gastrointestinal diseases: The consumption of a lot of fruits and vegetables is associated with an increased intake associated with hard-to-digest fiber and fructose. This can lead to digestive problems such as bloating, diarrhea or abdominal pain in people with a sensitive gastrointestinal tract. As a "problem amplifier" could be the recommendation to consume milk and dairy products, because even the milk sugar contained therein, lactose, is difficult to digest for many people. In addition, the propagated whole-grain products with their many indigestible components do not get well with every gastrointestinal tract.

The Austrian nutritionist Professor Maximilian Ledochowski addressed this plausible, undesirable side effect "Sick by healthy nutrition" in 2007 with cases from the practice to the public: "The group of patients who do not tolerate fiber, often meets the fate that they go to the doctor, are examined endoscopically, have the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome, and go home with the recommendations to get well nourish. Then follow these recommendations, eat more fiber, and get into a vicious circle out of which they can barely come out on their own. "According to Ledochowski, the" core problem is that a recommendation is made to eat lots of fiber. "[ 4]

When healthy eating becomes compulsory: orthorexia

In addition to indigestion could be another disease in connection with education campaigns for healthy food: Orthorexia - that is an eating disorder in which the affected people eat compulsively healthy. Although Professor Martina de Zwaan, Director of the Department of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy at the Hannover Medical School, only looks after a handful of orthorectics who are new to clinical therapy every year, she makes it clear: "Presumably, many more are affected; they end up with us If they can not cope in everyday life. "An interesting conjecture of De Zwaan, which ensures certainly in the nutrition counseling industry for neat turmoil is:" Orthorectics are increasingly the clientele of nutritionists and dieticians to even more information about healthy eating procure. "[5]

Consistent: Campaign for more coffee consumption and to promote obesity

Orthotics should not only know that healthy doubts about "healthy 5-a-day" are now scientific consensus: nutrition researchers could not even calculate correlations (statistical correlations) that show a cancer protection through fruit and vegetable consumption. Ergo: On the one hand, there is a lack of scientifically proven evidence at 5-am-day, on the other hand, there is not even data available that cancer protection through fruit and vegetable consumption seems theoretically possible. But if politics has to rely on the thin data foundation of nutritional science and hypotheses, Aigner's campaigners should at least rely on observational studies that make promising conjectures - this is where coffee comes in handy, because the epidemiological data on "health promotion" through coffee consumption is enormously. The German favorite drink is, according to findings of numerous observational studies, a true panacea, because coffee "protects" against diabetes, depression, cancer, Alzheimer's, gout, stroke and heart disease. [6] Ideally, the state authorities should combine the "5-a-day Cup of Coffee" campaign with a national "Overweight" action plan, as many studies have shown that people who are overweight live the longest. It was not until the beginning of 2013 that the largest ever analysis of 97 studies with almost 3 million participants confirmed this relationship in the world's leading medical journal Jama. [7] If Aigner's ministry therefore wants to promote the health of the German citizens and extend their life expectancy, but can only rely on DGE hypotheses, then you should think in the BMELV blindfold about a coffee campaign and an overweight action plan. But even then it must be clear: There are no scientific proofs (causalities) before, but only correlations (correlations) that allow only hypotheses.

Nutrition Campaigns: Demonstrate Benefits or Stop

Due to the weak scientific data base, the lack of evidence for rules on "healthy nutrition" and the possible negative consequences such as digestive and eating disorders and the non-existent benefit evidence of food campaigns, one must assume that Germany is a huge experimental laboratory - and the participating German citizens the experimental camarnickel of a "large-scale experiment" whose effects nobody knows. For in the "Gretchenfrage", whether the benefits outweigh the damage, nutrition research can only refer to their standard answer: Nothing precise, you do not know ... Therefore, the appeal to Aigner, Bahr and the responsible officials in the federal ministries: Either a scientific proof on the table, that nutritional rules and campaigns actually benefit the population - or that the "nutritional blind flight" has to be stopped (this is also possible if you have already spent millions of dollars, as the "Maizière à la maizière" shows).