Watch your body change with Hoodia!
by Jason Godesky
That was the subject line of one spam email I recieved with “real testimonials” like “I was originally amazed that the first two pills I took of Hoodia 920+, almost immediately took my cravings away. Now 4 weeks later, 3 belt holes later, I have become an advocate for this awesomely powerful, natural supplement!” I think my spam filter has learned that anything that contains the word “hoodia” must be spam, but there’s an interesting story behind this latest dieting fad–one that speaks to the very heart of cultural appropriation.
Hoodia is the name of a genus of plants in the family Apocynaceae, but the term is most often used to refer to Hoodia gordonii specifically, a flowering cactus native to the Kalahari Desert, ranging from central Namibia to southern Angola. Westerners have called this plant the “Bushman’s Hat,” and “Queen of the Namib,” but to the indigenous San, it’s Xhoba (pronounced GO-BUH), and it’s essential to their way of life.
Forager life is easier and more certain than agricultural life, but it’s also subject to the cycles of wax and wane that agricultural struggles in vain to rid itself of. Some times are leaner than others, and there’s no way for even a forager’s life to mitigate the fact that the Kalahari is a difficult place to live. When times are lean, all foragers have had starvation foods, sub-optimal foods that may not taste very good, but will keep you alive through the lean times. For the San, Xhoba is such a food. It’s usually bitter, but according to Toppies Kruiper, a San Bushman, speaking through interpreter Nigel Crawhall, “I really like to eat them when the new rains have come. Then they’re really quite delicious.”1
It seems that Hoodia gordonii contains a compound called P57 that suppresses appetite.
Phytopharm’s Dr Richard Dixey explained how P.57 actually works: “There is a part of your brain, the hypothalamus. Within that mid-brain there are nerve cells that sense glucose sugar. When you eat, blood sugar goes up because of the food, these cells start firing and now you are full. What the Hoodia seems to contain is a molecule that is about 10,000 times as active as glucose. It goes to the mid-brain and actually makes those nerve cells fire as if you were full. But you have not eaten. Nor do you want to.”2
When Phytopharm PLC isolated the compound, they believed they’d discovered a “miracle cure” for Westerners grown fat on a diet of grains and breads. Phytopharm’s stock price shot up, and they eventually sold the rights to produce Hoodia to Pfizer for $21 million.
The spam that’s filled all of our emails with ads for Hoodia aren’t coming from Phyopharm or Pfizer, though:
“This is just straightforward theft. That’s what it is. People are stealing data, which they haven’t done, they’ve got no proper understanding of, and sticking on the bottle,” says Dixey. “When we have assayed these materials, they contain between 0.1 and 0.01 percent of the active ingredient claimed. But they use the term hoodia on the bottle, of course, so they — does nothing at all.” 3
There is a certain irony in Phytopharm’s protestations of theft, though….
But it appears that while the drug companies were busy seducing the media, their shareholders and financiers about the wonders of their new drug, they had forgotten to tell the bushmen, whose knowledge they had used and patented.
Phytopharm’s excuse appears to be that it believed the tribes which used the Hoodia cactus were extinct. Richard Dixey, the firm’s self-proclaimed Buddhist chief executive, told the Financial Times : ‘We’re doing what we can to pay back, but it’s a really fraught problem… especially as the people who discovered the plant have disappeared.’
Yet this weekend leaders of the people Dixey believed had disappeared are having their annual gathering at a farm 45 miles north of Cape Town. One of the top items on the agenda is to plan their strategy against Phytopharm and Pfizer. They are angry, saying their ancient knowledge has been stolen, and are about to launch a challenge and demand compensation.4
Oops.
When presented with news of this weekend’s tribal gathering and the bushmen’s anger about what has happened, Dixey reacted with genuine astonishment.
He claims that one of the reasons he set up Phytopharm was precisely to help tribal people profit from their ancient medicinal knowledge of plants. He said: ‘I honestly believed that these bushmen had died out and am sorry to hear they feel hard done by. I am delighted that they are still around and have a recognisable community. The ownership of medicinal plants is extremely complex, but I have always believed that this type of knowledge is the most valuable asset of indigenous tribes. Instead of weaving baskets and taking tourists around, royalty payments from medicines could transform their prospects.’
Dixey, who insisted that he would now be happy to enter into talks with the bushmen community, said that Phytopharm was approached with the deal by the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which had been investigating the properties of the Hoodia cactus.
He claims it was the CSIR that told him the bushmen tribes who used the cactus no longer existed and assured him that agreements were in place to help local communities.5
The Hoodia tale ended in an unusual way for such accounts of biopiracy: happily. South African lawyer Roger Chennells pressed the San’s case, and won.
It was a simple ceremony in a remote corner of the Kalahari desert, but a landmark event for the rights of indigenous people worldwide. Some singing and dancing by children, four brief speeches, and an intense sense of pride as San elders watched their leaders sign an agreement between the South African San Council and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of South Africa. In an historic moment, they agreed to share the profits from developing an anti-obesity drug from a cactus the San have used for centuries to stave off hunger and thirst. The CSIR will pay the San eight percent of milestone payments made by its licensee, Phytopharm, during the drug’s clinical development over the next three to four years. The San could earn six percent of all royalties if and when the drug is marketed, possibly in 2008. Already R259,066 (US $32,000) has been paid. Milestone payments for the San could reach between R8 to R12 million (US $1 million to US $ 1.4 million) while royalties could top R60 million (US $7.4 million) annually during the 15 to 20 years before a patent expires. It took three years of “tough negotiations”, in the words of San Council chairman Petrus Vaalbooi, to reach a deal. “Today we celebrate that the government and the country’s highest scientific authority have taken on the bushmen as equal partners,” said a beaming Vaalbooi, a small wiry man wearing a chief’s traditional loincloth and an animal fur draped over his bare chest.6
Mr. Chennells is ecstatic: “The San will finally throw off thousands of years of oppression, poverty, social isolation and discrimination. We will create trust funds with their Hoodia royalties and the children will join South Africa’s middle classes in our lifetime. I envisage Hoodia cafes in London and New York, salads will be served and the Hoodia cut like cucumber on to the salad. It will need flavouring to counter its unpleasant taste, but if it has no side effects and no cumulative side-effects.”7
That was in 2003. Three years later, thanks to the genocidal greed of “Debswana” (an alliance between DeBeers and the Botswana government), the San are closer to total annihilation now more than ever (see “Ancient History” and “Endgame for the Bushmen.”) Obviously, Xhoba failed to make all the Bushmen “millionnaires” as Chennells–and many others–had hoped. The victory Chennells won for the Bushmen ultimately proved to be a mixed one, in itself.
After the appetite-suppressing ingredient of Hoodia had already been patented,they managed to conclude an agreement assuring them of a share in any future profits generated by the slimming aid.Unfortunately, full recognition oftheir rights to land and cultural self-determination was not part ofthe deal. Today the active ingredient of Hoodia belongs to the owners of patents and licenses, and is no longer owned by the San. They are very dependent on those who hold the patent, and hence the exclusive rights to the use of Hoodia.8
Even in the best cases, we find ways to exploit indigenous peoples. Tom Mangold’s exuberant article for the BBC ends with some notes:
Unfortunately for the overweight, Hoodia will not be around for several years, the clinical trials still have several years to run. Do not travel to the Kalahari to steal the cactus as it is hard to find and illegal to export. And beware internet sites offering Hoodia “pills” from the US as we tested the leading brand and discovered it has no discernible Hoodia in it.
Big pharma is a scam through and through!
I applaud your blog,mental health consumers are the least capable of self advocacy,my doctors made me take zyprexa for 4 years which was ineffective for my symptoms.I now have a victims support page against Eli Lilly for it’s Zyprexa product causing my diabetes.–Daniel Haszard http://www.zyprexa-victims.com
Comment by Daniel Haszard — 2 June 2006 @ 12:04 PM
Uhhhh … no, it’s not. Western biomedicine is our ethnomedicine. It’s no better–but also no worse–than any other ethnomedicine. There’s no denying that it’s very effective on a purely physical level. Its systemic ignorance of psychological and psychosomatic connections means that it is incapable of leveraging the same benefits used by, say, shamanism or other such techniques, but it is undeniably effective in its own terms. Noting that Western biomedicine is not the be-all and end-all of healing possibilities need not lead us all the way to the opposite and equally foolish extreme that it has no value whatsoever. There’s a lot of ineffective and downright harmful drugs that are over-prescribed, but that just goes to show that Western biomedicine, like all ethnomedical systems, has its failures.
(Then again, I’m not entirely sure if I’m arguing with a spam-bot here … I knew an article on hoodia was bound to garner some unwanted attention,,,,)
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 June 2006 @ 12:10 PM
You just don’t understand the history of psychiatry.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 2 June 2006 @ 12:14 PM
Pyschiatry’s history is filled with infamy. From using electroconvulsion ‘therapy’ on nearly any disorder considered severe, to prefrontal lobotomies, to the high dosages of psychotropics which basically caused vegatative states in patients.
I personally have great respect for the thoughts of many Pyschiatrists, the old school MD’s such as William James, Carl Whitaker, Alfred Adlers, and even contemporary people such as William Glaser.
Some great thoughts, theories, and experiential psychotherapeutic ideas. But these individuals are remnants of the days when MD psychiatric training still included heavy doses of psychotherapy training.
Currently most programs, have no counseling/therapy components. Biological reductionism rules the day in psychology as well. Although the total disregard for placebo effect, and some of the newer neurophysiological research on the re-wiring of the brain & corresponding change in neurotransmitter functioning within the brain,by things such as experience, training, exercise etc. are utterly disregarded. Pills have become the first line of treatment, for what most often are life problems & they psychological & culture innefective ways that we deal with our life challenges.
A checklist approach to a so named physiological issues (DSM IV) that cannot be validated by any empirical evidence… is suspect. Not that people don’t need help, but automatically jumping to the biochemical causation issue, is another form of external locus of control philosophy that does not help people deal with their own psychological issues. This is not to say that some people don’t suffer from severe brain issues, but these have been rare and continue to be so.
But anyway, the western medical profession can claim victory on some of their methods of dealing with purely phsyical issues, but their history in the dealings with psychological issues remains an open wound. But people are looking for excuses, or quick term “solutions” to long term challenges—I.E. the environment, perhaps?
Comment by Bubba — 2 June 2006 @ 12:30 PM
First, Mike was having a joke at Mr. Cruise’s expense.
But, you’re right that like most of our medical sciences, psychiatry’s history is one of basically bumbling along in the dark. The history of how we discovered blood types and Rh factor is a similarly cautionary tale (wherein we started doing blood transfusions, and slowly pieced it together from how people kept dying). That said, Michael has a degree in psychology, and I chugged along in it long enough before switching over to anthropology to know that–as you’d expect from any field as large and diverse as psychology–your treatment speaks to a certain tone that’s mainstream, and may even be accurate of a certain segment of psychology, but there’s far too much diversity in the field to pretend that something like “[a] checklist approach to a so named physiological issues (DSM IV) that cannot be validated by any empirical evidence” is far, far too simplistic. These are the suspicions one can rightfully walk away from an Intro to Psych. class with, but dealing with the issues you raise are precisely the most defining activities of their field–and they deal with them honestly, effectively, and at great length.
There are systemic shortcomings inherent to the strict materialism and Cartesian dualism of Western biomedicine, and I would agree with you that behavioral models probably recieve too much pride of place in modern psychology, but there’s far more to it than simply that. I’m typing this just a few blocks from the office of a Jungian psychoanalyst. Behaviorialism may be “first among peers,” but it’s not the only game in town. Nor is it without its benefits.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 June 2006 @ 12:45 PM
My personal favorite psychiatric lunatic is Freud. I just cannot understand how anyone can believe a guy who was abstinent the first 13 years of marriage, b/c his wife’s pubes scared the shit out of him. ROFLMAO. And people say I’m wwweird
Comment by Rory — 2 June 2006 @ 1:13 PM
Oh, I’m aware of the history. There were many jokes in my college psychology classes about SSRI standing for Somewhat Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Some of the Time and about the difference between psychology and psychiatry being that psychiatrists hand out drugs like they’re M&M’s. But in all seriousness, it’s just two different approaches to the same problems. Yeah, there are some cases in which counseling may be better than drugs, but there are also some people who need medication. Psychiatrists tend to focus on the biological and chemical elements of psychological problems simply because they’re coming from a medical background. But it’s not as though that’s the only method available in the mental health community. Cognitivism, for instance, is huge in psychological circles these days.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 2 June 2006 @ 1:17 PM
It should be noted that, contrary to popular imagination, no one in psychology actually takes Freud seriously anymore.
I mean, penis envy? C’mon.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 June 2006 @ 1:17 PM
:::heavy sigh::: Man, I so wish I had a penis right about now…
Hm? Sorry, what were we talking about again?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 2 June 2006 @ 2:28 PM
Neo-freudism is actually making a strong re-emergence. Freud is more known for his ‘pop culture psychology stuff’ rather than some of his more useful work. Freud’s ideas perculate throughout pscychology regardless–his defense mechanisms are borrowed by most other theoretical branches, and often used in common lingo “kick the dog etc”.
I have worked in the mental health field for many years now, and its more than a matter of perspectivism. Pressure from schools/parents/and HMO’s have driven psychotropic drugs to become the main ‘therapeutic’ practice in psychology. I have now seen children as young as 4years old diagnosed with ADHD and put on psychostimulants. Although, there is some backlash now again Ritalin etc, because of the dangers (not to mention the shrinkage of the frontal cortex over time, which is associated with thinking/concentration/planning etc).
I don’t see anyone re-visit diagnoses in the mental health field, once you have something it sticks.
I’ve seen people in clinical work talk about a client, as if their biochemistry is the the cause of all ther problems (we can avoid the possibility that trauma, sexual abuse, death of loved one’s, etc etc may have something to do with their depression & other symptomology)
Often times, I see clients after they have been on drugs for a decade and are still miserable.
Most of the time, diet, exercise, and counseling will work for the vast majority of folks to help improve themselves. Nothing much better than exercise for helping to create neurogenesis in the hippocampus, and thus a corresponding increase in serotonin. Although, the Neurotrasmitter model of causation is lacking in data once again. The peptides aren’t taken into accout etc., its still just a step better than tricylics. Its more of “if you only have a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail” type problem in psychiatry.
Its true Mike, that counseling’s effectiveness is far from perfect. Tis hard to enact change upon someone, you must work with them. Plus people exist within this messed up culture that continually re-inforces a plethera of mentally & physically unhealthy habits. Social conditioning is alive and well. I feel sorry for the person, or family that reaches for a pill first (may as well start with a plecebo since they are almost equally as effective in all the studies.) Peter Breggin, M.D’s meta-analysis from Toxic Psychiatry is a good read. The flux continues, and most drugs today continue to numb the creative part of ourselves.
I’ve met a person with nearly every label in the DSM IV at this point in my career, and even the conditions considered highly severe, can often be remediated. Most people would think foraging, or peak oil etc., collaps-ism is “crazY” but I suppose that remains to be seen. But there is at least more evidence for the effectiveness/reality of those topics, than any true scientific evidence that biochemicals are the cause, rather than the effect of experience/thoughts/behaviors.
If we really holograms in the flux, perhaps we can choose different realities…I’m going to go back to trying to move my pen cap with subquantum energy again. Everyone have a great weeekend!
Comment by Bubba — 2 June 2006 @ 2:40 PM
There were a few ideas of Freud’s that weren’t total garbage. He was the one who came up with the subconscious, and not everyone thinks that’s BS (I don’t). Still, mentioning Freud’s name in the midst of psychologists always gets them giggling.
In one sense, it is. Are emotions the result of biochemistry, or is biochemistry the result of emotions? It’s my own opinion that they create each other, and most problems can be solved through therapy or drugs. And, probably, some problems are easier to treat with one or the other.
You say you’re in “the mental health field,” Bubba, but you don’t say you’re a psychologist or psychiatrist? Does that mean you’re a counselor or social worker? If so, I can certainly understand your perspective, but then again … you’re hardly a bystander. There’s a long-standing and bitter rivalry, as I’m sure you know, between psychology and psychiatry, and each one has some very nasty things to say about the other. Both make the other seem like the only thing that matches their stupidity is their prevalence. It sounds like you have a horse in this race, so to speak. I know that a lot of the things you mention go on–but I also know that they aren’t as one-sided, or as prevalent, as you make them sound. I can also understand why you would feel otherwise–because we all remember the times we’re put down much more keenly than the times we’re affirmed.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 June 2006 @ 2:56 PM
I’m not a licensed psychologist, but have a counseling psychology MA.
I don’t see too many folks that are “cured” by psychotropics, although occasionally the anti-anxiety meds & anti-depressants can be very helpful (at least early on).
I have worked in the more social work oriented field, private practice, and other venues. The problem lies with biochemical causation being the predominant concern for treatment. Often times poorer clients cannot get served unless they are on psychotropics. This country is quickly moving towards the ‘brave new world’, except we don’t have anything as wonderful as soma.
Although some of the newer drugs such as modafinil, are potent. Therapeutic value with psychotropics is relative. If your choice is talk therapy, or a pill, most people will choose the pill. There is proof that amphetatmines destroy synapses over time, and often you see decreased responsivity in the associated brain region. In addition all these substances need filtered by you liver, and a small percentage of people have some serious side effects. The most serious side effect of talk therapy, typically is when it doesn’t work! I promote short-term usage for suicidal patients etc., but things should be re-evaluted.
Psychiatry is doing what could be likened to>>>you going to the MD, you list symptoms he says hmmm, you may have cancer, or a thryoid problem? How about we give you some low-level radiation, it won’t hurt much and it may get rid of your cancer? You say, Um, how about a test beyond your checklist there doc? The MD replies, no need, it may be one of twenty other similiar things, but it fits closest to the criteria for cancer. So I will diagnosis you, and begin treatment.
Can’t we test people to see how the metabolize drugs (too much time/expense). Can we revisit the diagnosis (review the checklist, lol)? Psychiatry is treated like an empirical science, yet most of its practitioners are anyting but. Pharma companies sponsor most of the research (hmm, vested interest?). Honestly, I don’t want to put down psychiatry as a whole, they still do some good work, and I’m sure many believe they are being helpful (diagnosing and giving pills, like they are trained to do)
I suppose within a decade or so this will all be mute anyway…
But if you want to see it in action, go get diagnosed with clinical depression, its easy enough, just talk about fixating on the collapse of civilization & mass die offs that sound kinda un-appealing. Then, make sure to get 60mg of prozac, and for good measure may as well take some Wellbutrin to help with weight loss, 20mg should do it. Then see how creative & imaginitive you feel.
Tis hard to be continually unhappy, unless you are thinking about things that ‘make’ you unhappy.
How about everyone hikes in the woods x1 week, quits eating Cheese dip with Fritos, and learns that most of us were born luck enough not to be the victim of biological illnesses, we mostly are taking them upon ourselves. Then perhaps we could spend more time helping those unfortunate enough to be born with epilespy, diabetes, cancer, etc etc?
Oh well, lots of opinions, I’m biased, more so by experience…I used to believe more in drugs efficacy, I’ve lost faith in that. I’m for more placebo’s, the drug companies don’t do tests with placebo’s with active effects (people tend to believe more in drugs, if the “feel” something–fatigue, jittery etc). The few studies done with active placebos vs. Drugs, don’t show a powerful effect.
Humans will continue to seek out external solutions to internal problems.
Good old Abe said, “he who leaves his house in search of happiness, pursues a shadow.” Unfortunately society hasn’t found a way to make a large profit of healthy people, or sustainable communities, thus we continue to suffer yet another more modern permatation of the flux.
Unplug yourself if you choose…it might set you free.
Comment by Bubba — 2 June 2006 @ 3:47 PM
Interesting, though, if Freud is so… sniffed at, that when an anthropologist I know quoted some Freud in his dissertation it got waved through, but when he tried Jung it got chopped to bits (you know, considered too “out there”). Academics somewhat removed from the psych/disciplines seem to respect Freud fiercely still.
Comment by neighbor — 2 June 2006 @ 4:15 PM
He’s got name recognition. Jung’s always been associated with things that are a little less … rigorous. He never had the cachet to lose. But yeah, non-specialists can sometimes lag behind.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 June 2006 @ 4:23 PM
Well, Freud also formed the basis for a lot of more rigorous and accepted scientific research. All Jung really formed the basis for was science fiction stories.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 2 June 2006 @ 4:33 PM
Jung = collective unconscious
This alone loses many academics. Its like talking about the mysteries of the quantum world, or shamanism, its lost. People’s preconvieved notions/ideas filter out much of what they “believe”, tis hard to be truly open minded. Filtering, is on the 8 main cognitive distortions, and its used in abundance, whether we like it or not often times (damnit, there goes another subconscious Freud reference).
The 1990’s was noted the decade of the Brain. Neurophysiology has become the paradigm discussed by many academics in the field of psychology of late. People like it when ‘reality’ fits neatly into a cartesian manner. Some areas are just so complex, that its hard to speak in a coherent manner, since nearly anything stated ends up being an overgeneralization. Psychology is one such field, a quadrillion synapses, Alpha through Gamma (tibetan monks) brain waves, variances in neurtransmitters across the brain, hormone receptivity, number of dendritic connections per neuron, amount of myelinated axons per proximic area, axon hilock sensitivity rates, etc etc. makes us human psychology VERY complex, not even getting into the quantum phsyics of brain/mind functioning.
Rigorous scientific research led to an overemphasis on behaviorism, and the endless comparisons from Rats/monkeys to humans, which don’t always equate. No matter how you are reinforced or punished, you still have a choice–just like if someone puts a gun to your head, and tells you to do something that sounds horrific, you still have a choice, you just may not like the outcome of your decision.
Comment by Bubba — 2 June 2006 @ 5:02 PM
Patience, patience. You will soon enough - in about a month…
Comment by JCamasto — 2 June 2006 @ 5:37 PM
Oh, so it’s in the mail?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 2 June 2006 @ 5:55 PM
Last Fall, the NY Times had a short piece on a new diet discovered by Seth Roberts, which involves simply taking a tb spoon of extra light olive oil three times per day to suppress the appetite. It works wonders. The effect takes about a day to become noticeable. Then you begin to look at your normal meal portions and wonder how you ever ate so much.
You can also sip sugar water very slowly instead of the oil. One tb of sugar per 32 oz water bottle. Sip it over at least an hour.
Canola and safflower oil also work very well at suppressing the appetite, and they are very cheap to use at pennies per tb spoonful. If you go with olive oil, just be sure to use the extra light variety which is yellow and not green in color.
You can use both sugar water and oil, just make sure the total calories from both don’t exceed 400 per day.
This diet is very effective and has two big benefits:
1. Using oil or sugar water costs just pennies a day.
2. You don’t have to worry about any of the above mentioned ethical issues.
Any diet requiring that one through go through induction is going to have a high (+90%) failure rate.
Comment by Peter — 3 June 2006 @ 8:35 PM
Do you think, as with other substances, a person will develop a tolerance for hoodia and it will take ever-increasing amounts to achieve the same level of appetite suppression?
Comment by Regis — 4 June 2006 @ 11:37 AM
*shrug* I have no idea.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 June 2006 @ 10:50 AM
Very good reading. Peace until next time.
WaltDe
Comment by WaltDe — 31 August 2006 @ 6:08 PM