Latest news with #humantrial
Bloomberg
02-06-2025
- Health
- Bloomberg
Neuralink Rival Paradromics Tests Brain Implant in First Human
Takeaways NEW Paradromics Inc., a brain implant company and rival to Elon Musk's Neuralink, tested its device in its first human patient last month. Neurosurgeon Matthew Willsey put a chip smaller than a penny on the patient's brain while the person was undergoing surgery for epilepsy and left it there for 10 to 15 minutes. Needles half the diameter of a human hair poked into the brain tissue, aiming to pick up electrical signals from individual neurons.
Telegraph
21-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Prof Tim Spector: ‘Big Food flings around health halos with impunity'
At Zoe, the personalised nutrition company that I co-founded, we've consistently faced challenges in communicating the science behind what we do. Terms such as 'personalised nutrition' or 'evidence-based' are often met with scepticism – not because they lack substance, but because they don't slot neatly into outdated regulatory frameworks. The wholefood fibre supplement that we've created, the Daily30+, does contain some very minimally processed ingredients, namely chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast (both of which are widely accepted as beneficial for health and as culinary ingredients – both nutritious and helpful). And, because of this, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have upheld that we were misleading customers by using the phrase 'no ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food' in one of our ads. Daily30+ is an innovative supplement designed for public health and tested for efficacy in a human trial. It is the first of its kind, so naturally, we face scrutiny. While other companies produce concoctions and powders with no evidence to support their benefits, Zoe ran a randomised controlled trial with 399 participants to test our product – we put our money where our mouth is. Yet, we are the ones facing backlash as huge food companies use labelling and marketing tactics to actively mislead consumers into buying unhealthy products dressed in health halos – wolf in sheep's clothing on every aisle. I won't dwell on the details or relitigate the matter further. Instead, I want to use this wrong-headed decision to frame one of the many issues with our broken food system: While a product that is high in fibre (something more than 90 per cent of us are deficient in and we're all desperately lacking) gets penalised, other brands (particularly the big food companies) are free to make blatantly misleading claims on categorically unhealthy products with no pushback whatsoever. Next time you're in a supermarket, look at the claims on highly-processed pre-packaged food items. You will soon see that virtually all of them carry vague or misleading health claims on the front of the pack with bright colours and fancy fonts. For instance, the trendy 'high in protein' claim is almost ubiquitous alongside 'only 99 calories' on unhealthy snacks. When a consumer reads this on a label, they are hoodwinked into thinking that if it's higher in protein or lower in calories, it must be healthier and better to eat than other foods. What you are not told is that the average person in the UK already consumes more protein than they need: protein deficiency is not an issue in the UK or most of the developed world. Unless you have a specific health condition, are an older adult, or are working incredibly hard at the gym, you probably get enough protein. Importantly, these food labels don't tell you that when you consume much more protein than you need, some of it is converted into energy, which, if it isn't used, is stored for later use as body fat. Before the advent of the high-protein craze, you probably remember the shelves overflowing with 'low-fat' products. Again, in the consumer's mind, fat is the enemy – 'fat makes you fat' is the common misconception. Meanwhile, these low-fat products are often worse than the full-fat versions and high in added sugars, emulsifiers, and other unhealthy additives. Casting our minds even further back, you may remember the 'low-sugar' craze. Again, these products were often high in unhealthy fats, sweeteners and other chemicals that do not support good health. Take CocoPops, for example, where the front of the box promises to 'support your family's health' yet it contains around 20 per cent of your child's added sugar intake in a tiny portion. How absurd. We refer to these claims as 'health halos'. They signal to the consumer that a product is healthy when the reality is often the opposite. This is what regulatory bodies should be tackling head-on. Health halos mislead customers who want to eat well, but are confused by the bombardment of mixed messages. We saw this cause absolute outrage following a BBC Panorama investigation which highlighted how baby food pouches and snacks are lacking in key nutrients and can be as high in sugar as Coca-Cola, all the while marketing themselves as 'ideal as finger food' or as a good 'first taste' from four months old, before children should start complementary feeding. Food labelling, marketing and advertising are not delivering the right guardrails to protect public health, even for the most vulnerable groups like babies, so consumers have no choice but to take matters into their own hands, and spend their hard earned money on foods that will actually support their health. The ASA is an important body; it intends to ensure transparency in advertising, which is vital work. Manufacturers are free to use health halos with wanton abandon demonstrates that the food industry and its regulation is not set up with consumers' health in mind. People are vulnerable to misinformation, and Big Food capitalises on it. With obesity and diabetes rates on the rise, we sorely need change. Today, there is a substantial disconnect between the rules that guide food advertising and the recent advances in nutrition science. The ongoing debate surrounding processed and ultra-processed foods is highly nuanced, and scaremongering doesn't help. The latest research shows that some ultra-processed foods are robustly associated with health risks, including fizzy drinks and processed meat products. However, other ultra-processed products, such as wholewheat bread or fortified, low-sugar and high-fibre breakfast cereals, can support health. Blanket bans and demonising all processed foods are unhelpful and simply miss the mark. This is what happens when we're still tied to old-fashioned rules – unlike Switzerland, for example, who have updated their frameworks, the UK has missed the chance to modernise. It's a classic case of clinging to an old system and outdated science instead of embracing the rare opportunities Brexit could offer to improve our food system and labelling. At a time when our national health is in serious decline, it's deeply frustrating to see truly nutritious, health-promoting products being treated in the same way as processed junk such as sugary cereals, synthetic energy drinks, protein bars and sweets devoid of any nutritional value. Once again, we're seeing how regulation fails to keep pace with science or to serve public health. It's time for a change.
