Wednesday 30 January 2008

BBC NEWS - EU BACKS RIVAL FOOD LABEL SCHEME

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 30/01/2008

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7217198.stm


BREDA'S COMMENTS IN GREEN
The European Commission has come out in favour of a system of food labelling opposed by the UK regulator.

The commission is proposing it should be mandatory to have guideline daily amounts on the front of packs - a system backed by some UK supermarkets.

But the UK Food Standards Agency favours a traffic light system, where red means fat or sugar levels are high. I agree. Simplicity is they key. This is yet another example of EU telling us how to live our lives. Although I am 'Continental', my mother tells me I am more British than British.... perhaps she is right. I do not like the idea of European bureaucrats telling us what to do. Before we know it, manufacturers will be penalised for helping the public how to read the labels....

Consumer campaigners have criticised the commission's proposal, and said it ignores what works best for the public. Perhaps EU want an ordinary Jo Blogg to have a BSc in nutrition, so they can read and understand the labeling system..... come to think of it, that would not be so bad for BCNH....


Confusing, overloaded or misleading labels can be more of a hindrance than a help to the consumer
Markos Kyprianou, EU Health Commissioner

Tesco, Somerfield and Morrison are some of those who use GDAs.

However, companies including Sainsbury's, Waitrose, the Co-Op and Marks and Spencer use the traffic light system, where red signals high levels of fat, salt and sugar. Congratulations!

Asda and McCains use a hybrid of the two. Luckily I do not shop in there!

The UK government has criticised the existence of multiple schemes, and said it would consider legislation if one system is not agreed upon. I fully support this notion.

'Hindrance'

The commission said the draft regulation was simply setting out general requirements on how nutritional information on calorie content and fat, sugar and salt levels should be displayed.

If approved by EU ministers, the proposal would require that the energy, fat, saturated fat and carbohydrates content of food per 100mg or per portion are displayed clearly on the front of the packet.

The labelling would also have to include the proportion of those contents in relation to the recommended daily allowance of each one. This is fine if you have time & patience to study the packet on each food you buy.

But the commission said there was still scope for each country to promote additional national schemes "provided they do not undermine the EU rules".


These proposals have ignored what works best for consumers and opted for what works best for some sections of the food industry
Sue Davies, Which?

EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou said: "Food labels can have a huge influence on consumers' purchasing decisions. That's why they need to be simple!

"Confusing, overloaded or misleading labels can be more of a hindrance than a help to the consumer."

The proposal may also affect online food shopping. In a statement, the commission said: "Many consumers now buy their food via the internet.

"These consumers have the same need for clear, essential information as those who shop in their local supermarket."

''Not far enough'

A Food Standards Agency spokeswoman said it welcomed the commission's recognition of the importance of clear, front of pack labelling.

She added: "An independent evaluation of the three labelling schemes in use in the UK is now underway. Good.

"The results of this study will tell us what is working best for consumers and will inform future negotiations on this EU proposal."

Jane Holdsworth, director of the Food and Drink Federation's GDA campaign said: "We are delighted that the commission is recommending a GDA-based approach to unified food labelling across Europe.

"It recognises that comparing the nutrient content of a foodstuff to a reference intake enables the consumer to better understand the relevance of the information provided on the label for their overall diet."

The Tories also supported the commission's proposal, warning labelling in the UK was currently "confused and inconsistent."

But UK consumer campaigners criticised the proposal.

Which? chief policy adviser, Sue Davies, said: "These proposals have ignored what works best for consumers and opted for what works best for some sections of the food industry."

And Ruairi O'Connor, of the British Heart Foundation said: "We believe the European Commission should have gone a step further and backed mandatory colour coded traffic lights on food labels.

"Research shows that these are more effective than GDA labels in helping people see what's in the food they buy."

© BBC MMVIII

Has anybody asked the consumers, what they think? I would like to know what you think - I look forward to reading your comments.

Breda

TOP

Tuesday 29 January 2008

HEALTH BENEFITS OF A HUBMLE POMEGRANATE FRUIT


Prostate cancer prevention through pomegranate fruit

Research by Malik and Mukhtar (2006) shows that pomegranate juice has been shown to possess strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.

BREDA'S COMMENTS IN GREEN

Research in mice showed promising results. Pomegranate fruit extract (PFE) has been shown to inhibit tumor growth by encouraging apoptosis (a form of programmed cell death) of highly aggressive human prostate carcinoma PC3 cells, and reduction in secretion of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the serum. PSA is a protein produced by the cells of the prostate gland. It is normal for men to have low levels of PSA in their blood; however, prostate cancer and non-cancerous, benign conditions can increase PSA levels.

Furthermore, as reported in Food Research International, extracts from pomegranate peel can stabilise sunflower oil and protect it form deterioration associated with heating.

Lead author Shahid Iqbal wrote "Therefore, on behalf of this study, pomegranate peel can be recommended as a potent source of antioxidants for the stabilization of food systems, especially unsaturated vegetable oils."

They concluded that
"It improves resistance of sunflower oil against thermal deteriorative changes. Besides this, polyunsaturated fatty acid content is saved appreciably by creating resistance in oil against oxidative rancidity."

However, there is more to the humble fruit. According to nutritiondata, it is also a good source of Vitamin C and Potassium -
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20Ws.html

This is truly good news! I am off to the shop to get some pomegranates - while they are still in season.

References:

Malik A, Mukhtar H. (2006) Prostate cancer prevention through pomegranate fruit. Cell Cycle. Feb;5(4):371-3

Shahid Iqbal, S. Haleem, M. Akhtar, M. Zia-ul-Haq, J. Akbar (2007) Efficiency of pomegranate peel extracts in stabilization of sunflower oil under accelerated conditions. Food Research International (Elsevier) Published on-line ahead of print, doi:10.1016/j.foodres.11.005
TOP

Sunday 27 January 2008

TEENAGERS TO LEARN HOW TO COOK




From January 22, 2008

Cooking lessons to be compulsory for teens

(David Bebber/The Times)

BREDA'S COMMENTS IN GREEN

This is an excellent idea. Unfortunately some of their parents may need cooking lessons, too.

Cooking is compulsory in primary schools, but that will now be extended to secondaries

Read food expert Fiona Beckett's suggestions of eight dishes which should be taught

Teenagers will be given compulsory cooking lessons at school, under government plans to ensure that all pupils know how to make eight different healthy meals.

From this September, every 11 to 14-year-old in the 85 per cent of schools offering food technology classes will be taught practical cookery.

The emphasis will be on making sure that pupils can master simple, healthy recipes using fresh ingredients, the Department for Children, Schools and Families said. The remaining 15 per cent of secondaries – mainly all-boy schools that did not previously teach cooking – will be expected to have installed the kitchen equipment needed to teach the compulsory classes by 2011.
Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, said that he wanted members of the public to come up with ideas for the classic English dishes and international cuisine that children should learn to cook.

He is asking anyone with suggestions to e-mail the Government. They must be healthy, easy to prepare and the kind of meals that teenagers will want to eat.

The announcement comes as part of the Government’s obesity strategy, which Mr Balls will help to launch tomorrow with Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary.

Mr Balls told the Daily Mirror: “Teaching kids to cook healthy meals is an important way school scan help produce healthy adults. My mum was passionate about all this and bought me my first Delia Smith book.”

The 15 per cent of schools that do not offer food technology classes tend to be all-boys’ schools and former boys-only schools. Ministers say that this is an unacceptable throw-back to the days of gender stereotyping.

The new secondary curriculum emphasises practical cooking skills, and will also include diet and nutrition, hygiene and safety and wise food shopping.

From 2011 this will be introduced for all children in state secondary schools. Pupils will learn to cook a variety of dishes, including a “top 8”, officials said. Cookery is compulsory in primary schools.

The Government began an overhaul of school dinners three years ago after Jamie Oliver, the TV chef, campaigned against the poor quality of ingredients being served in canteens.

The e-mail address for the consultation is: getcooking.consultation@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk

January 27, 2008

Healthy lunches turn pupils into banana louts

He writes

BEWARE the banana louts. Healthy school lunches, rich in fruit and vegetables, may make children rowdy in the afternoons if they are not carefully supervised, government school food advisers have found.

The study by the School Food Trust, chaired by Prue Leith, the restaurateur, found children who had eaten a healthy lunch were more than three times as likely as those who ate less healthily to become boisterous. (I would not call a lunch packed with sweet fruits like bananas exactly healthy).

It challenges many assumptions about the differences in the way that healthy and junk food affect children’s attentiveness. The increased boisterousness was seen only when the children were left to study among themselves in small groups in after-lunch classes. If the teacher was directly controlling the class, by contrast, the healthily fed children were far more alert and attentive than the other group.

Judy More, a child nutritionist based in Chiswick, west London, said: “A good meal will make their blood sugar levels steady, meaning they concentrate better when working with a teacher. But with group work they are being stimulated by each other and are simply acting as children do.”

The healthy alertness of well fed children differs from hyper-activity that can be brought on by chemicals contained in fizzy drinks, sweets and cakes. While mental alertness can be channelled into concentration, hyperactive children are often incapable of finishing tasks.

The School Food Trust findings add a new dimension to research showing that healthy school lunches, rather than large amounts of chips and soft drinks, make children’s minds work better as well as improving their long-term health.

Despite the benefits of eating fruit and vegetables, the new study suggests the effect on behaviour is more complex than simply calming children down.

The researchers studied 146 children at six primary schools in Sheffield, observing them over 12 weeks in the lesson after lunch to measure levels of concentration or disruptive behaviour.

The study found that children who had eaten the improved menu “were 5.4 times as likely to be on-task in the teacher-pupil setting compared with the control schools. They were also 3.6 times as likely to be off-task in the pupil-pupil setting”. The researchers say that despite this apparently contrary result, the overall findings demonstrate the benefits of healthier school meals.

The research was consistent with the anecdotal evidence from teachers that pupils are more on-task following a healthier lunch: “Generally increased arousal in pupils who have eaten a healthier lunch may help to explain the increased off-task behaviours when pupils were being asked to work together.”

Leith, a food writer as well as one of Britain’s best-known cooks, is a prominent campaigner for improved school food, along with Jamie Oliver, the celebrity chef.

Last month Leith warned that some of the government’s most expensive new schools were being built without proper kitchens, making it impossible to provide pupils with a healthy lunch. Too much prominence, she said, was being given to deep-fat friers.

More said that whatever effect food may have on children’s paying attention in class, this was not the main reason to encourage them to eat healthily: “It will be fantastic for their long-term wellbeing and, compared with that, the effect on their behaviour does not really matter a fig.”

The government is trying to encourage children to eat more healthily to help to slow the increase in obesity.

It has introduced tighter nutritional guidelines for school meals. Cooking lessons will become compulsory and schools will be expected to introduce guidance on the nutritional content of packed lunches.

TOP

AND MORE POLITICS OF FOOD...







From December 31, 2007

Never mind organic, feel the food print

The latest buzz phrase is "food print" - find out if you've left one

BREDA'S COMMENTS IN GREEN
I have my own view on this, naturally... but my mouth is sealed. It would be interesting to know what are your thoughts on the subject. Please leave a comment bellow.

It’s not easy to do the right thing these days, especially on the food front. Not so long ago, we were happy to load up our trolleys with whatever the supermarkets pushed at us, the more battery reared, industrially grown, air-freighted and genetically modified the better. How carefree that seems now, when a trip to the shops can present enough ethical dilemmas to tax King Solomon. Animal welfare, pesticides, antibiotics, food miles, carbon emissions… there are so many issues to be considered that it can leave the conscientious shopper’s head in a spin.

Do you choose a tomato grown in a heated greenhouse here over one grown in the open air in Spain? Better an English apple kept for six months in refrigerated storage or a New Zealand import shipped by sea? Is an organic leg of lamb from a farm 50 miles away, better than a regular one from the local farm shop?

Problems, problems. And now we have another level of complexity to deal with. The latest buzz phrase is “food print”, the amount of land needed to supply one person’s nutritional needs for a year. With the world population growing by an estimated half a billion every decade, and a concomitant loss of agricultural land to housing and development, it’s not hard to understand why this has become the hot topic de nos jours.

The term was coined by researchers at Cornell University in New York state, who found that a person who followed a low-fat vegetarian diet would need less than half an acre per year to produce their food. A high-fat diet with a lot of meat, on the other hand, needed 2.1 acres. They concluded, however, that the most efficient diet was one that married the two, as raising livestock made productive use of less fertile ground.

Clearly food prints differ from area to area, depending not just on how fertile the land is, but also on the eating habits of the inhabitants. Equally clearly, those who demand less intensive farming techniques – free range, organic, etc – use up more land proportionately than those eating more mass-produced food.

Next year two studies sponsored by the Rural Economy and Land Use programme will report on just such issues in this country. Professor Bruce Traill, at Reading University, has been looking at the potential effects on our landscape if we were all to meet governmental targets by eating five portions of fresh fruit and vegetables a day, while Professor Gareth Edwards-Jones of the University of Wales has been looking at the pros and cons of eating locally produced fruit and veg against those produced abroad.

Could it turn out that by doing the right thing we’ve been doing the wrong thing all along? Whatever the outcome, food prints are here to stay.

For the best local produce in your area visit the Times Real Food Directory

TOP

Friday 25 January 2008

THE POLITICS OF FOOD

Photograph: Linda Nylind

The myths of fruit

This article was published in The Guardian on Wednesday 23rd January 2008.

BREDA'S COMMENTS IN GREEN

Fresh fruit is good for us, we believe - so much so that sales of prepared fruit have almost doubled in the UK in the past two years. But are all those ready-sliced apples, mango medleys and 'superfood' smoothies really such a healthy choice? Aida Edemariam investigates.
Fruit
Sales of chilled, prepared fruit in the
UK have increased by 81% in the past two years.

Not long ago, I popped into a big Sainsbury's near the office for lunch. There, almost the first thing I encountered were three shelves of prepacked fruit salad. You can have Fresh Classic Fruit (melon, apple, pineapple, kiwi and blueberries); Fresh Pineapple Chunks; or Fresh Mango Chunks. The use-by date on the Fresh Melon Selection, "ideal as a refreshing snack", proclaimed that it had another two days of viability, but already the cubes of watermelon were blurring. Apples, as Eve might have said, have to be the original convenience food - pick, wash (or rub briskly along the leg of your jeans), eat. No need to peel, no mess. So, strangest of all were the little pillows of vacuum-packed apple slices, thin wedges of Pink Lady at 59p for 80g, or £7.38 per kg - nearly three-and-a-half times more than it would cost to pick up an intact Pink Lady, a few aisles down.

And yet, increasingly, we don't seem to mind. The idea of fruit being a shortcut to health has taken such a hold on our imaginations that the European market for what the industry calls "fresh, valued-added produce products", almost negligible a decade ago, is now worth €3bn (£2.2bn). Much of that is accounted for by packaged salads, but packaged fruit is quickly catching up. According to the market research company TNS, sales of chilled, prepared fruit in the UK have increased by 80.6% in the past two years (this doesn't include fruit packs not taken home, eg those eaten at work).

"Along with organics and fair-trade, fresh-cut is probably one of the most exciting parts of the fresh produce trade at the moment," says Mike Knowles, editor of Eurofruit magazine, adding, somewhat superfluously, "it's enabling retailers to add value and increase their sales."

But is the fruit boom really so good for our health? There can be few of us who haven't clocked, at some level, that the government wants us to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, and "a lot of the fresh produce suppliers to retailers in the UK have become aware of the growing demand and are really starting to invest in the machinery to cut fruit and prepare it," says Knowles. "Fresh produce tends to be seen as quite a mundane product category, not an exciting or sophisticated market, but in the past few years the kind of value that suppliers can add has made it more exciting for the trade and, I would also say, for the consumer."

Surprisingly, quite a few nutritionists seem to agree, with caveats. Obviously, the ideal is that we buy whole fruit, but, as Richard Faulks, of the Institute of Food Research, argues, packaging fruit salads might entice people actually to eat the fruit they buy. "Certainly in the past, fruit was seen as a necessary purchase, but not as a necessary food item," he says. "It goes in the fruit bowl and [often] sits there until it gets thrown away. Given the option of a plate of meat, potato and two veg, the instruction has always been to eat up your meat, because that's the expensive item. You'd never get, 'Eat up your vegetables, because those will do you good and won't make you fat.' It wasn't seen as providing energy in value-for-money terms by a lot of people - particularly people at lower socioeconomic levels, who can't afford a lot. You go for energy because that's what makes you survive. It's seen as OK to buy a cabbage and then throw it away, or a lettuce and throw it away, but you'd never do that with a joint of beef."

Making fruit more expensive, more of an event, the theory goes, makes it more likely to be eaten. "You'd throw away a mouldy apple, but not a mixed fruit salad. You've paid a bit more for it." Prepackaged, sliced fruit is attractive to children, and to single people, too, who might struggle to get through a whole pineapple or melon or watermelon - and especially all of the above, if they wanted some variety - before it went off.

However, our increasing concerns about food miles, about preservation, about exploitative labour practices, still apply - in fact, apply with a vengeance. Packaged fruit is often not only grown but also cut up abroad (I had mangoes for lunch the other day that were prepared in Ghana). Therefore, the tricky process of slowing down spoilage becomes even more difficult. We should buy, whenever possible, locally produced food. This way we will not only support domestic economy but also our farmers, many of whom sell their produce at Farmers' markets at a very reasonable price. And the flavour of produce bought locally, is just amazing.

A couple of years ago the consumer magazine Which? discovered that Sainsbury's sliced apple bites - sold as 100% apple, no preservative - were being dipped in citrus solution, or AS1 (ascorbic acid), to stop them from going brown. Many manufacturers use lemon juice; others use a treatment called NatureSeal, which contains vitamin C and calcium. Food USA magazine recently reported on the use of bacteria on the cut surfaces of fruit to fight the pathogens than can form there. Frightening!

Guardian journalist Felicity Lawrence, in her book Not on the Label: What Really Goes into the Food on Your Plate, points out that "between 1992 and 2000, the period in which sales of bagged salads took off, nearly 6% of food-poisoning outbreaks were associated with ready-to-eat salads and prepared fruit and vegetables." The Health Protection Agency says it does not track which of these outbreaks applied specifically to fruit, but it is as well to remember that it's less likely to happen to plums, say, than rocket. "The inside of a fruit is sterile," says Faulks. "Once you take the skin off and [as long as] you cut it with a clean knife, you shouldn't have any contamination.

I mention that I have heard that peeling fruit removes much of the goodness available, because most nutrients are to be found near the surface. "No. There tends to be a slightly higher concentration of some things under the skin, but if you eat an apple most of the nutrients come from the flesh, not from the skin," says Faulks. "The skin is a tiny fraction of the whole thing. The concentration [of nutrients] per unit mass might be higher, but the amount of mass overall, by comparison to the whole apple, is very small. It's a misinterpretation."

It is true that there is some diminution for other reasons, however, as Lawrence argues, the concentration of nutrients in fruit and vegetables has dropped with the introduction of artificial fertiliser (because soils fed only with artificial fertilisers containing nitrogen, phosphate and potash gradually lose their vital trace elements). Between the beginning of the second world war and the early 1990s, the iron content of vegetables dropped by 27%, the magnesium content by 24%. Yet another argument why we should buy ORGANIC. And a Which? magazine investigation published in June 2004 discovered that pre-cut fruit and vegetables often suffered marked decreases in vitamin C content. Much was made of Asda sliced runner beans, which contained only 11% of the vitamin C they would have had when fresh, while mango from Marks & Spencer and melon slices from Safeway contained less than half the vitamin C than might have been expected. (The exceptions were apple slices, which, being treated, had eight times the expected amount, and pineapple slices, which appeared to have four times the expected amount.)

The Which? study into this issue seems to be the only known one in the UK, and experts are not entirely convinced of its importance. "Whenever you cut up fruit or put it into cold storage, or whatever you do when you've got a prepared product, you are going to lose nutrients," says Faulks. "There's no question about that. But the level of loss is relatively small." So, in the Which? survey, a Somerfield citrus fruit medley retained 75% of the expected vitamin C, while the kiwis in an Asda tropical fruit salad retained 62%.

"The fact that people are eating more fruit because it's convenient and readily available is the more important thing," says Anna Denny, a nutrition scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation. "The main thing does seem to be that people struggle to eat enough fruit and veg in this country, so any form of pre-prepared fruit and veg is a great way of helping them to reach five a day. "A lot of innovations are seen as totally negative," says Faulks. "This one, I think, in terms of nutrition, is positive."

The one thing that is in nobody's interest to say is this: fruit just doesn't provide that much nutrition in the first place. If you believe the nutrition industry, every week produces some new superfood, often a fruit: blueberries, pomegranates, acai berries. The fact is that fruit consists of water, sugars (normally about 10%), some vitamin C, and some potassium (thought to be good for controlling blood pressure). And that's kind of it. Pineapple, for example, has only got about 10mg of vitamin C per 100g (which means a 80g standard portion would only have about 12% of RDA) and is mainly water and sugar. In a typical supermarket fruit medley of 150-200g, at least 15g will be sugar, and the other major constituent water. If it's a citrus medley, there will be about 40mg per 100g of vitamin C, if not, there will be about 10-20mg.

"It's a myth that fruit is packed full of vitamins and minerals," says Tom Sanders, who is director of the Nutritional Sciences Division at King's College London. I disagree! "The foods packed full of micronutrients are grains, seeds and nuts, the peas and things." Of course - these foods are much more dense! Bagged salad? "It's mainly water. Dark green vegetables are a good source of some vitamins, such as vitamin A (excuse me, Sir, vitamin A comes from animal source only! I guess you are referring to beta carotene...) and folate, but lettuce hasn't got much going for it at all. The really sad thing is that we don't eat enough vegetables, such as cabbage, spinach and broccoli." I agree with the latter.

In May, the Observer reported that dietitians have become so worried about claims being made for so-called superfoods that they convened a debate on the subject at the Science Museum. It may be claimed that particular exotic berries boost IQ, energy and immunity, but the only science even vaguely backing this up is that they contain folic acid, which does boost brainpower, but is present in many foods. The antioxidants in pomegranate juice, which supposedly fight diseases as different as cancer and arthritis, actually only last in the body for an hour. Wheatgrass, that standby of the trendy juicebar, is said to be rich in detoxifying chlorophyll, but every green vegetable and leaf in the world contains cholorophyll - which is not, in fact, absorbable by our bodies. OK. It may not be absorbable by the body but it does have beneficial effects on the gut.

"The term 'superfoods' is at best meaningless and at worst harmful," Catherine Collins, chief dietician at St George's Hospital in London, told the paper. "There are so many wrong ideas about superfoods that I don't know where best to begin to dismantle the whole concept."

Nor do dietitians have much time for the rise of the smoothie, sales of which have increased by 523% in the past five years. They are expensive, says Sanders, "and bloody holier than thou". With whole fruit, the cell structure is still intact, and you swallow pieces. They take longer to digest and the sugar in them is released slowly, rather than the rapid spike in blood glucose produced by drinking juice, or a smoothie. "If you liquidise it into goo it's just like drinking ordinary Coke. Or worse, actually," he says. "It's still a sugary drink. A lot of people on diets don't realise that if they're drinking loads of apple juice or orange juice, it's got a lot of calories in. If you drink a litre of apple juice a day, it'll be 400 calories." Saunders particularly objects to labelling that implies that drinking these concentrates substitutes for three or four portions a day: "They don't. They only count for one."

Meanwhile, the British Dental Health Foundation warns that drinking or eating fruit should be kept to mealtimes, rather than indulged in throughout the day. This is because the sugar (combined with citric acid in oranges, grapefruits or pineapples) attacks tooth enamel, which then needs some time to recover; ie, if you eat many boxfuls of clementines, all the time, you may begin to do actual harm to your teeth. I wish to add is that fruit, which is rapidly digested, is best eaten before the meal, as some individuals can experience bloating (due to fermentation), if fruits are eaten after the meal.

This is not an incitement to throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. The reason apples are good for you is mainly the cellulose and vitamin C; chewing gives a feeling of satiety and promotes saliva secretion, which is good for your teeth; and because, in the real world, they tend to come as part of a deliberate lifestyle. "People who eat apples probably ride a bike and don't smoke," (I LOVE apples, BUT I do not smoke and I do not ride a bike either) says Sanders. Except for the truly fanatic, they are also more likely to eat them in moderation.

The added irony, in the topsy-turvy world of supermarkets, is that rich desserts often cost very little, while fruit, especially organic, fairtrade, and prepared fruit, is marked up. At the Sainsbury's where I got my lunch, I could have had four 100g creme brulees for 44p, two tiramisu for 98p, and six chocolate mousses for 69p - or a grand total of 11.5p each, making those Pink Lady slices, gram for gram, four times more expensive. We are, more or less willingly, paying through the nose for a particularly 21st-century version of virtue. "You're made to feel worthy, and therefore you're made to pay a premium for it," says Sanders. "Supermarkets have a lot to answer for in the obesity debate."

"The way you've got to look at fruit is that it's better to eat fruit than biscuits, cakes and puddings, because there's very little energy value in it and it's not fattening," he says. I do not agree that there is very little value in fruit. FRESH and ORGANIC fruit is packed with VITAMINS, MINERALS & PHYTOCHEMICALS vital for health. "A bit of sugar gives you a lift and takes the pangs of hunger away. But it's not full of all sorts of other nutrients as well. That's a myth". I totally disagree with the last sentence.

Source:The Guardian


TOP


Tuesday 22 January 2008

SALT - THE CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC



Well seasoned: How salt can actually be good for you

By Anastasia Stephens

Health campaigners reckon that it's a recipe for high blood pressure – but some mineral-rich varieties can actually benefit our health.

BREDA'S COMMENTS IN GREEN

When it comes to matters of health, salt has got bad press. It's that cheap condiment and hidden food flavouring with the hidden health risks. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, it can strain your heart and blood pressure, bringing that fateful day a little closer. Studies indicate it might also increase your risk of brittle bones and other ailments.

But some experts argue that salt could be just what we need for healing, health and longevity. Modern salt, they agree, is unhealthy. But common table salt has almost nothing in common with traditional salt, say the salt connoisseurs. Just look at the rose-coloured crystals of Himalayan rock salt, or the grey texture of Celtic salt – both pride themselves on traditional harvesting, avoiding heat treatment or refining methods – and you know you're getting something special, not least that when you taste them, they actually have flavour. And unlike the sodium chloride you find on most kitchen tables, unrefined rock salt contains more than 84 different minerals.

"These mineral salts are identical to the elements of which our bodies have been built and were originally found in the primal ocean from where life originated," argues Dr Barbara Hendel, researcher and co-author of Water & Salt, The Essence of Life. "We have salty tears and salty perspiration. The chemical and mineral composition of our blood and body fluids are similar to sea water. From the beginning of life, as unborn babies, we are encased in a sack of salty fluid."

Historically, these mineral salts were the commodities that trade routes and cities such as Saltzberg grew up around. Once known as "white gold", salt was, and still is, essential for virtually all biological processes. Without mineral salts, says Dr Hendel, there would be no movement, memory or thought and your heart wouldn't beat.

"In water, salt dissolves into mineral ions," explains Dr Hendel. "These conduct electrical nerve impulses that drive muscle movement and thought processes. Just the simple act of drinking a glass of water requires millions of instructions that come from mineral ions. They're also needed to balance PH levels in the body."

Mineral salts, she says, are healthy because they give your body the variety of mineral ions needed to balance its functions, remain healthy and heal. These healing properties have long been recognised in central Europe. At Wieliczka in Poland, a hospital has been carved in a salt mountain. Asthmatics and patients with lung disease and allergies find that breathing air in the saline underground chambers helps improve symptoms in 90 per cent of cases.

Dr Hendel believes too few minerals, rather than too much salt, may be to blame for health problems. It's a view that is echoed by other academics such as David McCarron, of Oregon Health Sciences University in the US.

He says salt has always been part of the human diet, but what has changed is the mineral content of our food. Instead of eating food high in minerals, such as nuts, fruit and vegetables, people are filling themselves up with "mineral empty" processed food and fizzy drinks.

Due to modern farming methods, fruit and vegetables are much lower in minerals than they once were. Meanwhile, table salt is stripped of all minerals save for sodium and chloride. These changes, he believes, are responsible for the current prevalence of high blood pressure.

Nutritionist Patrick Holford goes one step further. He claims that high-sodium table salt has more to account for than just high blood pressure and heart disease and can actually create mineral imbalances that lead to health problems. "Minerals work together and need to be balanced," he explains. "For example, potassium and magnesium works with sodium to regulate water balance and nerve and muscle impulses. The more sodium you eat, the more potassium and magnesium you need. Few of us eat enough of these, yet we eat high amounts of sodium in salt. This leads to potassium and magnesium deficiency, where muscles become tight, nerves become over stimulated and you feel more anxious."

As magnesium is involved in maintaining bone density and hormone balance, low levels may compromise bone strength and lead to premenstrual problems. That's where swapping table salt for mineral-rich salt can make a difference. I agree, but I would not bank on getting a significant proportion of daily magnesium requirement from salt; no matter how mineral-rich it may be. However, I agree, I may get a great deal of trace minerals such as cobalt, copper, manganese, chromium, selenium, etc.

"A lot of people say salt is bad, but bad salt is bad," says Amanda Nelson, founder of The Natural Salt Seller. "If you put a fish in table salt solution, it will die. Good salt, on the other hand, can be wondrous."

But can you have too much of a good salt? Current guidelines on salt consumption are to eat no more than 6g daily. However, most of us eat 10g of salt a day. Nelson suggests lowering your salt intake to 6g, whatever form of salt you eat. One needs to take into consideration factors such as ones lifestyle - a building site worker who is physically active will loose sodium in sweat and will require more than 6g of salt. A sedentary person who perspires very little, may require a bit less.

Holford agrees. "Take care not to use too much salt of any sort," he says. "A large amount of the salt we eat comes from processed food, and it's the unhealthy sodium-rich type. So cut down on processed food as much as possible." I agree.

How it can heal

PMS: Mineral-rich salts can help ease PMS in two ways. The muscle-relaxing effects of magnesium combined with potassium, which helps the body get rid of excess water, can ease water retention and relieve muscular tension.

JOINT PROBLEMS: Minerals have an alkalising effect on the body. Natural health practitioners such as Louise Hay have observed that this has an anti-inflammatory effect, easing painful conditions such as arthritis.

BACK PAIN: Whether you eat or bathe in them, mineral-rich salts tend to relax. This is largely due to magnesium, which is needed for muscles to relax. Low levels of magnesium are associated with muscle cramps. Replacing table salt with a good mineral salt could help alleviate these.

BONE STRENGTH: Unrefined rock salts are rich in minerals needed for bone strength. Apart from calcium, bones use phosphorus, magnesium and other minerals as building materials.

Salts that are good for you

HIMALAYAN CRYSTAL SALT: Himalayan crystal salt contains 84 minerals, all needed by the human body. The rose-coloured crystals are claimed to help digestion, strengthen bones, ease arthritis and relax the nervous and muscular system.

For information, go to www.himalayancrystalsalt.co.uk; tel: 01303 248238; costs £6.99 for 500g

CELTIC SEA SALT: Celtic salt is collected from sea shores around Brittany and dried in the sun and wind. It is grey and moist, reflecting the mineral content and capacity to hold water, and is credited with health benefits such as lowering blood pressure.

For information go to www.naturalsaltseller.co.uk, tel: 01235 838624; costs £7.99 for 8oz

SOLO LOW SODIUM SALT: SOLO is an Icelandic salt containing 60 per cent less sodium than table salt and significant amounts of magnesium and potassium. A study in the British Medical Journal found it lowered blood pressure. Available at Morrisons and health food shops. For information, go to: www.soloseasalt.com; costs 99p for 250g

EPSOM BATH SALTS: Eating too much sodium, combined with too few vegetables leaves us deficient in magnesium, which relaxes muscles. Epsom Bath Salts are rich in magnesium and other minerals which are absorbed across the skin while soaking in a hot bath. Available from chemists nationwide. For information go to: www.epsomsaltcouncil.org

Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3358994.ece

Published: 22 January 2008

TOP

GOVERMENT STEPS IN ON DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS


BMJ 2008;336:111 (19 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.39462.487025.4E

News

MPs’ report criticises influence of drugs industry on GP prescribing

Zosia Kmietowicz

1 London

Too many GPs are influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, which spends £850m ({euro}1130m; $1670m) every year on marketing its products in primary care, says a report from the Public Accounts Committee, the government’s spending watchdog.

And the NHS spends at least £200m more than it should on medicines because GPs do not heed official guidelines and continue to prescribe branded medicines rather than generics, says the report.

The committee’s comments follow a survey by the National Audit Office which found that one in five GPs said their prescribing choices were swayed more by industry marketing that by official NHS advice.

"It’s hard to doubt that the blandishments of the pharmaceutical industry are having an effect," said Edward Leigh, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

The Department of Health should set a minimum level above which gifts and hospitality to GPs from the pharmaceutical industry should be declared to trusts, says the report. It also says that despite increases in generic prescribing in recent years there is a wide variation between primary care trusts in the proportions of generics being prescribed for some conditions. For example, GPs in some trusts prescribe 86% generic versions of statins, but in other trusts the figure is just 28%.

GPs must concentrate more on following official guidelines, increasing the prescribing of generic drugs where clinically appropriate, said Mr Leigh. "The fact that primary care trusts vary hugely in the extent to which their GPs prescribe generic drugs for common conditions shows what can be achieved."

The committee calls on the Department of Health to develop better prescribing indicators to measure the proportion of generics dispensed and the potential savings that could be made by prescribing more effectively. It also says that the "medicines management" indicators in the Quality and Outcome Framework, on which nearly all GPs achieve maximum points, need to be set higher and to include a reward for generic prescribing where appropriate.

The report calls for greater awareness among the public about the cost of drugs to reduce waste, perhaps by displaying the cost of items on the packaging. Most prescriptions—88%—are dispensed free and the standard charge for the rest does not reflect the cost of the items, says the report.

"Unused and wasted drugs cost the NHS at least £100m a year and almost certainly a lot more," saidMr Leigh. "The Department of Health must do more to find out why this is happening."

Trusts should be encouraged to pilot formularies which have been agreed between primary and secondary care to boost cost effective prescribing. And strategic health authorities should work with the National Prescribing Centre to promote agreed formularies across health sectors and trusts, recommends the report.


Department of Health: Prescribing Costs in Primary Care is at www.parliament.uk

TOP

Sunday 20 January 2008

AB MINUTES ARE READY!

Following a very productive (and constructive) AB meeting on Saturday, we have now actioned some of students issues and (hopefully) addressed their queries. AB minutes will be emailed to ALL BSc and Diploma students on Monday 21st January 2008.

The AB wish to thank all students for their valuable contributions and making BCNH better, and better.

Please keep in touch with the BCNH blog and forum to create a strong and vibrant BCNH community.

These are some positive students' comments we've received via Level 1 student rep:

"I have found the lectures and lecturers really good"

"I've found all tutors etc. have been helpful. I think the material is challenging and interesting and I enjoy listening to the lectures."

"I am thrilled with the course and only wish I'd discovered this years ago as it's just fascinating. God willing we'll all be pretty amazing practitioners by the end of it!"

"The standard of the lecturers and the course material in general seem to be very high and I think in this respect BCNH is achieving its goal of creating nutritional therapists with a solid grounding in science. The course is turning out to be all that I hoped for on the academic side."

"I love the lectures and they have all been fascinating so far. The quality of the lecture notes and the lectures given are all very good. I'm very happy that I chose to do this course and that I chose the right college to do it with."

"I think the lectures have been excellent, which includes the lecturers (all of them) and notes. All the lecturers have been enthusiastic, friendly and knowledgeable. Doing it at BCNH, a small college, is nicer and more personal than being at a big university. Overall I'm happy with the course and very pleased I'm doing it."

TOP

WHY DO WE FEEL SO GLOOMY IN THE WINTER?



The latest research shows that lack of vitamin D may be the answer. See the abstract below.

Med Hypotheses. 2007;69(6):1316-9. Epub 2007 May 11.Click here to read

Vitamin D deficiency may play a role in depression.

Berk M, Sanders KM, Pasco JA, Jacka FN, Williams LJ, Hayles AL, Dodd S.

The University of Melbourne, Department of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, PO Box 281, Geelong 3220, Victoria, Australia. mikebe@barwonhealth.org.au

Vitamin D is known to be widely deficient in Western populations. The implications of this in terms of bone health are increasingly understood, yet its impact on other health areas, particularly mental health, is unclear. Recent data suggests that hypovitaminosis D may be common, especially in the elderly. Other studies have suggested that low levels of vitamin D are associated with poor mood. There are a number of trials that have suggested a role for Vitamin D in the supplementary treatment of depression. Dose may be a critical issue, as sun exposure and dietary intake may be low and high doses may be required.

PMID: 17499448 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

TOP