Daily consumption of nuts and peanuts linked to lower mortality rates 
 
 11 June 2015 
 
 Nuts and peanuts, but not peanut butter, may protect against death from cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease and other major causes, new study finds 
 
 
 
 A paper published today in the International Journal of Epidemiology confirms a link between peanut and nut intake and lower mortality rates, but finds no protective effect for peanut butter. Men and women who eat at least 10 grams of nuts or peanuts per day have a lower risk of dying from several major causes of death than people who don't consume nuts or peanuts. The reduction in mortality was strongest for respiratory disease, neurodegenerative disease and diabetes, followed by cancer and cardiovascular diseases. The effects are equal in men and women. Peanuts show at least as strong reductions in mortality as tree nuts, but peanut butter is not associated with mortality, researchers from Maastricht University (the Netherlands) found. 
 
 
 
 This study was carried out within the Netherlands Cohort Study, a study running since 1986 among over 120,000 Dutch men and women 55-69 year old. Nut consumption was assessed by asking about portion size and frequency of intake of peanuts, other nuts (tree nuts) and peanut butter. The researchers from Maastricht University analyzed the relationship with overall and cause-specific mortality since 1986. 
 
 
 
 The associations between nuts and peanuts intake and cardiovascular death confirm earlier results from American and Asian studies that were often focused on cardiovascular diseases. However, in this new study, it was found that mortality due to cancer, diabetes, respiratory and neurodegenerative diseases was also lowered among users of peanuts and nuts. Project leader and epidemiologist Professor Piet van den Brandt commented: “It was remarkable that substantially lower mortality was already observed at consumption levels of 15 grams of nuts or peanuts on average per day (half a handful). A higher intake was not associated with further reduction in mortality risk. This was also supported by a meta-analysis of previously published studies together with the Netherlands Cohort Study, in which cancer and respiratory mortality showed this same dose-response pattern.” 
 
 
 
 Peanuts and tree nuts both contain various compounds such as monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids, various vitamins, fiber, antioxidants, and other bioactive compounds, that possibly contribute to the lower death rates. In contrast to peanuts, no association was found between peanut butter intake and mortality risk. However, besides peanuts, peanut butter contains also added components like salt and vegetable oils. In the past, it has been shown that peanut butter contains trans fatty acids. The composition of peanut butter is therefore different from peanuts. The adverse health effects of salt and trans fatty acids could inhibit the protective effects of peanuts. ||||| Well, wouldn’t ya know. The day I finally do a Facebook post on a press release I’ve received at least 10 times — that walnuts are good for you! — I take a peek at the NYTimes Well blog, and there’s a whole piece on nuts. 
 
 I used to hesitate about eating nuts and peanuts (which are legumes, not nuts). They were just so fattening; at that point in my life, food was only measured in calories. Then I began loosening up a bit on caloric neuroses, instead focusing more on nutrition and overall health benefits. I eat walnuts and almonds every day, plus probably more than my allotted share of peanut butter. 
 
 Anyway…enough about me. Here’s some more info on the benefits of nuts. First, they help fight heart disease. 
 
 A series of studies published in JAMA Internal Medicine (and including the oft-quoted Nurses’ Health Study of 76,464 women and the not-as-oft quoted Health Professionals Follow-Up Study of 42,498 men) found that the more nuts people eat, the less likely they are to die at any given age — especially of those top killers, heart disease and stroke. This, by the way, is true of any socio-economic group; including people with not-so-healthy habits or lifestyles. 
 
 More specifically, says Today’s Dietitian.com those who ate more than one ounce of nuts per day not only had a lower mortality risk than those whose consumption was on a weekly basis; they also were less likely to be obese. 
 
 We’ve all heard about how good the Mediterranean Diet is, right? Well, those in a clinical trial conducted in Spain who added extra nuts to theirs had lower death rates. 
 
 The California Walnut Commission‘s email referenced a study from the University of California Davis, involving short-term benefits of walnut consumption among postmenopausal women with high cholesterol. Those who ate 1.5 ounces of walnuts per day saw improved vascular function, due to the effects of the walnut-derived fatty acids. 
 
 OK, the next-to-last-word in that previous sentence, which may drive people — as it did me for awhile — away from nuts. Sure, they have a decent amount of calories. But really, 185 calories for 14 walnut halves isn’t bad at all. They have fiber, protein and good fat, to name but a few attributes. Plus they, like other nuts and peanut butter, keep your hunger at bay. It’s that protein thing, ya know. 
 
 But only 4 in 10 American adults eat nuts every day — more women than men, which surprised me – according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those, only 12 percent of women and 14 percent of men eat the required amount to strengthen cardiovascular health. 
 
 So what to do? Make a point of adding them — about 1.5 ounces total — to your daily diet. But remember, chocolate-covered don’t count. ||||| KIND Snacks, the company behind fruit, nut and grain bars (tag line: “ingredients you can see & pronounce”) have been asked by the Food and Drug Administration to strip any mention of the term “healthy” from its packaging and website, as well as the “+” symbol. 
 
 Why? It turns out that the FDA actually regulates which packaged foods get to use the word “healthy” and the symbol “+” for marketing purposes. Though these terms sound squishy in everyday use, they actually have very specific nutritional meanings when it comes to food regulation. 
 
 A letter explaining all of the FDA’s objections was posted on the agency's website Tuesday. For one, the term “healthy” means that the product has one gram or less of saturated fat, and that no more than 15 percent of the calories are from saturated fat. The FDA has identified at least four bars -- Kind Fruit & Nut Almond & Apricot, Kind Fruit & Nut Almond & Coconut, Kind Plus Peanut Butter Dark Chocolate + Protein, and Kind Plus Dark Chocolate Cherry Cashew + Antioxidants -- that contain 2.5 grams or more of saturated fat per bar. 
 
 Use of the symbol “+” for the bars Kind Peanut Butter Dark Chocolate + Protein and Kind Dark Chocolate Cherry Cashew + Antioxidants is also a violation, according to the FDA. Officially, use of the symbol “+” means that the food contains at least 10 percent more of the daily recommended intake for vitamins and minerals as compared to an appropriate reference food, or that the food is fortified with vitamins and nutrients in accordance with certain FDA policies. The KIND bars comply with neither, states the FDA letter. It also brings up concerns over claims about antioxidants, fiber, the lack of trans fat, and various ingredient mislabeling violations. 
 
 Dated Mar. 17, the letter concluded by saying that KIND snacks had 15 days to respond with a plan of action for correcting the nutrition label violations. KIND Snacks responded with a blog post on their own site the same day the letter was posted, noting that nuts were a major component of the bars in question, and stated that the nuts themselves are what exceed the FDA’s saturated fat limits, in the same way that avocados, salmon and eggs also have a lot of fat but are still considered good for you. 
 
 "Most of the fats in our bars come from nuts and are actually monounsaturated fats (good fats),” Joe Cohen, senior vice president of communications told The Huffington Post. "Nuts do contain a small amount of unsaturated fats. The saturated fats in our bars come from a mix of ingredients nuts, coconut or palm oil." 
 
 The FDA’s crackdown on KIND Bars for saturated fat is “well-intentioned but absurd,” according to Dr. Walter Willett, Chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 
 
 “It’s a bit ridiculous that saturated fat from nuts should be counted against a product, because nuts are about one of the healthiest choices you could possibly make,” Willett told The Huffington Post. "This is an example of something with good intentions based on concepts that are hugely obsolete." Willett’s past research includes a study that replicated the results of past analyses that found consumption of nuts is linked to lower rates of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and total mortality. 
 
 But beyond the nutritional value of nuts, the concept that fat consumption is a meaningful contributor to poor health has been taken down several pegs with the recent publication of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s 2015 report, meant to advise the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services on future food policy. The recommendations, which were compiled from a committee of top nutrition experts and reflect the most up-to-date nutrition research, actually dropped previous recommendations for Americans to limit their total fat intake to 35 percent of daily calories, noted The New York Times back in February. The committee also encouraged people to eat good sources of unsaturated fat, like nuts, olive oil and fish (though it should be noted that they also advised against eating too much saturated fat and sodium). In other words, the FDA used previous DGA requirements, some of which may be outdated, in their analysis of the bars. 
 
 Willett said that the DGA report's lack of restrictions on total fat means that products like KIND Snack bars perhaps shouldn't break out fat nutrients on their labels. “Maybe on these individual foods, it’s better to get rid of the saturated fat criteria entirely,” suggested Willett. "They are made from healthy foods and [the company] should be able to say that their product is healthy.” 
 
 Despite his counter perspective, Willett sympathized with the FDA’s mandate. In addition to regulating food based on outdated nutrition information (public commentary on the advisory committee’s 2015 report is still ongoing), nutrition regulation is simply a complex task. For instance, in addition to nuts, the other snack bar ingredients that could contribute be contributing to total saturated fat are dark chocolate, coconut and palm oil. It’s tough for the FDA to parse how much saturated fat comes from nuts versus added oils, said Willett. After all, he said, “we wouldn’t want to see a product loaded up with palm oil.” 
 
 But food policy expert Marion Nestle, Ph.D. of New York University agreed with the FDA’s statement that the snack foods are too high in saturated fat and too low in natural antioxidant vitamins to warrant the company’s health claims. She also said that the amount of chocolate in KIND bars “makes them look like candy bars.” 
 
 "I recognize that the FDA’s rules appear absurd, but that’s what the FDA has had to do to prevent makers of candy-like products for making health claims for them,” Nestle wrote in an email to HuffPost. "If it were up to me, the FDA would not allow health claims on any food product, except perhaps for foods that are minimally processed, but that’s just me." 
 
 For his part, Cohen emphasized the company's positive and open relationship with the FDA, noting that in addition to the four bars the FDA called out, KIND Snacks also planned to thoroughly examine the marketing and nutrition claims of each product, in order to make sure they were compliant with the FDA’s regulations. He also brought up the company's voluntary recall of certain products over allergen concerns in 2014 after they found that a supplier had roasted some ingredients with the same equipment that had been used to roast peanuts. KIND Snacks is working with the agency to outline a timeline for the process, Cohen added. 
 
 This story was updated to add commentary from Marion Nestle.
– Previous studies have documented that scarfing down peanuts or nuts every day can lead to better cardiovascular health. But now research is suggesting that eating peanuts and tree nuts like almonds, cashews, and walnuts are linked to lower mortality rates, per a Maastricht University press release. The study, published online today in the International Journal of Epidemiology, found that both men and women who ate at least 10 grams of peanuts or nuts daily saw a reduced risk of dying from not only heart disease, but also from respiratory illnesses, cancer, diabetes, and neurodegenerative diseases. The only disappointing result, expressed in the saddest sentence you may read all week: "[The study] finds no protective effect for peanut butter." The press release notes that the health benefits of peanuts and nuts are probably due to what they're harboring inside their shells: an amalgam of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (the so-called "good" fats), fiber, antioxidants, vitamins, and other compounds. And it's not like you have to go overboard in your nut-eating habits: Researchers in the Maastricht University study found that eating more than an average 15 grams per day—or half a handful—didn't confer any lower mortality risk. So what gives with peanut butter, which ostensibly contains those same ingredients? Researchers speculate it's all the other stuff peanut butter has added, such as salt and vegetable oils, that may prevent the tasty spread from being more healthful. (Peanut butter may be able to help in the fight against Alzheimer's.)