Versión Completa. Mitos y realidades sobre la alimentación saludable. J.M. Mulet, científico

aggressive for the soil. The anti-transgenic campaign begins. Does anyone remember what Greenpeace said 20 years ago about GMOs? That they would cause cancer, mad cow disease, poison us and contaminate everything. None of this has been fulfilled. That is to say, the end of the world that they announced, the apocalypse, we are waiting for it, but it is not coming. Of course, there comes a time when people get tired of that message. It must be changed. Then you say: "if they no longer listen to me with transgenics because everything I say...", if you look at the growth figures, it has been the agricultural technology that has been implemented most quickly, "...we changed the campaign and Let's talk about glyphosate." Because?

Because there are many transgenic crops, and they are the most successful, that are resistant to glyphosate. So, the GMO campaign focused on glyphosate. What happen? That the health authorities, who must give permits for use, who have banned paracuado, atracins because there was a danger, continue to say that there is no danger. That there is no s

cient

ific report that justifies a ban. That's why we continue to use it. In fact, the cancer thing made me very funny. Because? Because this list from IARC, which is an institution that depends on the WHO, is a qualitative list, not a quantitative list.

This means that it is a list that tells you what, but it doesn't tell you how much. Traditionally, glyphosate was in category 4, non-carcinogenic. There comes a time, which I believe is 2015, when a series of new studies are evaluated and it is raised to category 2A, probably carcinogenic. This means that there is no data that it is carcinogenic, but there are some indications in animals. And they say, "No, the reason it should be banned is because it's carcinogenic." Listen, in category 1, as a safe carcinogen, along with alcohol, tobacco and plutonium, is processed red meat. Processed red meat is: hamburgers, ham, mortadella, salami, chorizo, sausage.

We have data that a diet rich in these products is correlated with an increased likelihood of colorectal cancer. Is that the same as smoking? No. And they are next to the list. No, no, smoking... -It's worse. ...multiplies the chances of lung cancer, I think, by 30 or 40%. Colorectal cancer, the association that has been seen is perhaps 1% or less. If the argument you tell me is that it should be banned because it is a category 2A, how can you be selling organic beef that is also in category 2A? How is it possible that you sell organic serrano ham that is in category 1?

Look, it improves the argument, which doesn't work. Related to the topic of vegetables, the phrase circulates: "tomatoes no longer taste like tomatoes." What do you think has happened to the tomatoes? Tomatoes don't taste like tomatoes... When people long for the tomatoes of their childhood, I would ask, especially people of a certain age who are the most annoying, saying that they don't taste like tomatoes, if they remember Raf tomatoes. or the Kumato tomatoes of his childhood. If you remember them, you are creating a false memory because both Kumato and Raf tomatoes are very recent tomato varieties. And they are flavors that they could not have in childhood if they are over 50 years old.

Let's see, the tomato still tastes like a tomato and there are still varieties that are nothing special, and spectacular tomato varieties. What is the problem? The tomato, in order for it to develop all the aroma and flavor, must have been ripened in the tomato plant and must be in season. But many times we buy tomatoes out of season ripened in chambers and sometimes they have been harvested green and have ripened along the way, obviously these will have a worse flavor. But within the season it is relatively easy to get tomatoes at their ripening point. If you live near producing areas and go to markets or many places where the farmer is the one who sells, you will find exceptional tomatoes.

I think that this has already become a cliché that with the time that it has been said, there should be no one left who has tried tomatoes that taste like tomato, it has always been said that they do not taste like tomato. And what do they know about? Cod? From a frying pan? Let them tell me. I already understand it. Returning to the concept of health, there are many families who, let's say, have some misgivings regarding the issue of their children's vaccinations. I would like to know what you think about the topic of vaccines. Nowadays there is no reason not to vaccinate your children.

What's more, not only for the health of your children, it is for the health of the people around you. Because if we have eliminated diseases like smallpox, and we have kept polio, measles and cheeks at bay, it is because we have very high vaccination coverage, and that means they do not spread. What has happened is that in countries where it is fashionable not to vaccinate, these diseases have re-emerged. Now we think that chicken pox or cheeks are benign diseases and nothing happens. No, sorry, they are benign diseases because we are vaccinated. But chickenpox or diphtheria if you are not vaccinated can be fatal.

So, a father who does not vaccinate his children is failing as a father and as a mother. He is failing as if he did not give him food, clothe him or give him education. And not only with his son, he is also failing with his sons around him. We have a legal framework, and this is curious, in which it is mandatory to vaccinate the dog, but it is not mandatory to vaccinate the children. This is outrageous, the law should be changed. I think vaccines should be mandatory. Because? Because we are already seeing that two years ago, due to parents who had not vaccinated their child, we had a case of diphtheria in Olot.

The first death from diphtheria since the 80s, a practically eradicated disease has returned, adding to the problem and pain for the family. Please, let's stop the nonsense. If anyone believes that vaccines are bad, they are wrong. It is irrefutable and we have the data to support it. Today, believing that they are dangerous is like believing that the Earth is flat. I know there are people who believe that, but they are not right, I'm sorry. I would like to discuss with you the issue of pseudoscience, pseudotherapy. I would like to know what you think. Here there is a very clear red line, when you go to the doctor and he gives you a treatment or recommends a therapy, it is assumed that they have done a series of trials, they have seen that it works better than the controlled one, what is called the placebo, which It's something they tell you works, but it really has no effect.

So, the type of trials that are done when you want to see if a therapy works or not, you take a group of patients, one is given the therapy and another is given what they think is the therapy, but it is not. And it is called "double blind" because neither the doctor knows which patient has the therapy and which patient does not have it, nor does the patient know if he has the therapy or not. When it is shown that a treatment works better than a placebo, the therapy is considered valid or has objective s

cient

ific evidence supporting it.

And this is what is called therapy and it is what is included in all medical protocols and it is the treatments that are administered and all this. What happen? That there are many supposedly medical practices, or that in theory have an effect on health, but that have never passed a trial and have never been proven to be effective. Be careful, this does not mean that they have not been tried, in many cases they have been tried and the result has been negative. There are people who insist on using these therapies, although there is no evidence. Therapies such as homeopathy, acupuncture, and many Eastern practices are being given that there is no evidence that they work.

And they are selling and getting paid. From a consumer protection point of view, you come up with something with properties that have never been demonstrated. And in some fields like psychology, I suppose you know, there is a dark world where the patient often does not know how to distinguish the serious psychologist from what is selling smoke. The problem is what is allowed. The problem is not just money, it is that if you have a serious health problem and you put yourself in the hands of a therapist, the problem is that they give you an ineffective treatment while your health worsens.

We have had examples. In Valencia we had the case of Mario Rodríguez, who tried to cure leukemia with vitamins. Or we had the famous case of Steve Jobs and many more cases. Recently, Dr. Bosch-Barrera, an oncologist, in Catalonia, took a chilling photo of a person who had breast cancer and had been treated with juices, fruits and all this. The cancer had been growing and in the end, the lady died. That is to say, we are not just at risk for money, we are at stake to protect people's health. How could we push adolescents who are deciding what career to choose towards science, which is very interesting and has opportunities, into the uni

versi

ty world?

You have to like him. Because? Because it is a career that requires a very considerable effort to study and you will have working conditions that will not make you a millionaire. In the current context it is very difficult to pursue a scientific career in Spain. Another issue is that you like to travel, if you leave Spain you have many opportunities, more than in Spain. In Spain we have the problem that we come from governments that are not that they have not invested in science, but that the surrounding countries raise the budget, and in Spain we lower it, which is suicide, I think.

That said, when I said I wanted to be a scientist, people around me, in my family, told me not to do it, and I did it because I wanted to and I don't regret it. Would you have earned more money with another profession? Maybe yes. Or not. I don't know. Would I have been happier? I don't believe it. So, if someone wants to study science, I would tell them to be encouraged, to do it, to be clear that it will not be easy, but hey, nothing is easy in this life. And there are few professions or few activities that create as much satisfaction for yourself as when you make a new discovery, when you finally see the result of an experiment that cost you a lot, or when a hypothesis is confirmed.

So, despite all the bad, you know, if you like it, you like it. And that's it. Well, J.M., thank you very much. It has been a very sincere conversation. It has been instructive, and also thoughtful, on some points. I thank you very much for everything we have talked about, and nothing more. Thank you. -I hope you find it useful.