The McCarrison Society - NL 40/1: Special Generating Healthy Brains Edition

NL 40/1: Special Generating Healthy Brains Edition

Article Index
NL 40/1: Special Generating Healthy Brains Edition
Chairman's comments
GHB Special Report On The McCarrison Society
GHB:Report by Conference Organiser Rev Simon House, MA
GHB: Preconception to late adolescence:
GHB: From past to present: evolution and epigenetics
GHB: CLEAVE LECTURE Nutrition, the brain and mental ill health
GHB: Our changing diet; deficits and disorders
GHB: Genomic imprinting for brain development and behaviour
GHB: 'Brainfoods': Modulating brain structure and function
GHB: The effects of maternal anxiety or stress during pregnancy
GHB: Cornerstones in the Psychobiological Development of Mankind:
GHB: A psycho-soma integration perspective
GHB: 'New Parenting', psychotherapy, prenatal
GHB: Attention deficit disorders
GHB: Priorities in Research Funding
GHB:Into the future; avoiding the cost of folly
GHB: References
News
Mind What You Eat
McCarrison meeting with Sustain
Future Events

Page 20 of 22

Mind What You Eat

Why are the effects of food on our mental health not taken more seriously?

Courtney Van de Weyer discovers some frustrating obstacles.

Several years ago, I worked for both a pharmaceutical industry watchdog and a mental health law firm. The watchdog campaigned for public recognition of withdrawal problems with a widely prescribed antidepressant. Following a well-rehearsed and influential script of the pharmaceutical industry, the manufacturer consistently denied any problem.

At the law firm, I assisted clients who had been sectioned. Once on the ward, they were always placed on psychotropic medication – many were helped, but some, unfortunately, were not. One of our clients was such a person – despite being prescribed different types and combinations of drugs, her life had been blighted by years of depression. She asked us to help look into other treatments.

Through this I became aware of the evidence linking food and mental health and, consequently, began working for Sustain. Now that I’ve been able to research the area in depth, I am now firmly convinced that there is a link between what we eat and what we feel.

Moreover, I am convinced that the way in which food is now grown, processed and marketed is contributing to the indisputable rise we are seeing in mental health problems globally (and no, it is not the only factor – but it’s a significant one). Many of the psychotropic drugs prescribed are – in essence – cleaning up the mess caused by the same food system that is contributing to obesity and other food-related ill health.

Despite hundreds of studies, as well as thousands of anecdotes, doubts about the connection are rife amongst policy-makers and health professionals. To address these, we recently published a report that detailed the published evidence. No messy anecdotes were included – just peer-
reviewed research, everything from epidemiology to randomised controlled trials.

Toting these reports round to policy-makers led to one phrase ringing in our ears: “interesting, but needs more research”. But given that diet related poor physical health is more prevalent in mental health patients, it is absurd (if not negligent) not to put greater effort into improving their diets. And if there happened to be an improvement in mental health – well, wouldn’t that just be a bonus?

Yes, it is true that there are still a number of unanswered questions. More research is definitely necessary. But how? Talking with researchers in this area, who continually apply for, and are continually refused funding [emphasis added], it is obvious that there are real problems in obtaining support for research on diet and mental health.

Reasons might include the ignorance of some peer reviewers; often medical professionals who know little about dietary health. There is also the problem of the diet gurus – slickly marketed ‘experts’ spouting questionable evidence can tar the entire area as ‘alternative’ and therefore suspect in the eyes of policy-makers.

But, coming a full circle, there is also the little matter of drugs. Many of the professionals reviewing research applications, along with the funders, are now directly tied to the pharmaceutical industry. Unsurprisingly this can lead to zero interest in approving funding for any research not linked to drug treatment. Given the anonymity of peer reviewers, there is no opportunity to spot conflicts of interest.

Furthermore, government budget concerns mean that research into mental health treatment is increasingly being left to industry. One confidential document I have seen advocates this explicitly. The result is that non-
pharmaceutical treatments are receiving little or no funding.

So, in spite of the wealth of evidence supporting dietary intervention, we’re on the drugs indefinitely until the calls for ‘more research’ are satisfied. And until then, the cost of mental health problems will not be included in the costs of diet-related poor health.

My question is this – what exactly, will satisfy? There are still research trials testing the role of diet in heart disease – yet what doctor does not prescribe dietary improvements to heart patients? The same, at the very least, should be done for those with mental health problems.

Heck, it might even make the drugs work better.

Courtney Van de Weyer runs the Food and Mental Health Project at Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming.

courtney@sustainweb.org

Read Sustain’s new report – Changing diets, changing minds: how food affects mental well being and behaviour – www.sustainweb.org/mhealth_index.asp

Our thanks to Courtney Van de Weyer, Sustain and to the Food Ethics Council for permission to reprint this excellent article www.foodethicscouncil.org

<< Prev - Next >>

[ Back ]