Posts filed under 'Nutrition News'
by: Davinos Greeno
The Fairtrade Foundation exists to ensure that producers are guaranteed a minimum price for their goods irrespective of world prices.
This means that Fairtrade goods are often more expensive in the UK than those without the Fairtrade logo. Although people are now arguing that supermarkets are fuelling their excessive profits by adding large mark-ups to these products This premium that the producer charges covers the basic food, housing, health and education needs of the local communities in countries such as India and Brazil. The Foundation awards a consumer label, the Fairtrade Mark, to products which meet internationally recognised standards of Fairtrade. It is the only such certification in the UK.
Examples of products:
• Fairtrade coffee
• Fairtrade Tea
• Fairtrade Chocolate
• Fairtrade Bananas
• Fairtrade Honey
• Fairtrade Sugar
• Fairtrade Fruit Juice
• Fairtrade Wine and Snacks
The list of goods certified Fairtrade is growing daily as is the range of products available. The co-op changed all their own brand chocolate to Fairtrade a few years ago and now all the other big supermarkets are beginning to move into the Fairtrade market. Nestle have just released a Fairtrade brand. There has been huge controversy over this as many people are asking how a company that is subject to a boycott can pertain to have Fairtrade and therefore ethical principles?
Why buy Fairtrade?
Millions of small farmers around the world cannot get enough money to feed their families, send their children to school or invest just a few pounds into their farm. This is because people want to buy the cheapest goods possible and don’t think about the people that working in poor condition and often receive less than £1 per day in wages.
Buying products that display the Fairtrade logo ensures that the producers of products such as tea, coffee and chocolate receive a decent income. Rather than being hit by the ever-changing price of their product on the world market, or being fleeced by a middleman who takes a chunky share of the profits, producers in a Fair Trade scheme are guaranteed a decent, stable price for their produce.
By buying Fair trade products that buy direct from farmers at better prices, consumers are improving the lives of producers all over the world. In Eithiopia, farmers can often get more then twice the price for their fair trade coffee then those that sell it on the open market. This extra money enables the farmers to educate their children and to break the cycle of poverty.
Many people struggle to find a reason not to support Fairtrade. Fairtrade is about better prices, decent working conditions, local sustainability, and fair terms of trade for farmers. Fair trade is not about charity, it is about settling the imbalance which exists.
How do I know its Fairtrade?
Look for the Fairtrade Mark when you shop and make the choice to support small farmers and workers in the developing world, and encourage your workplace to switch to Fairtrade tea and coffee.
About The Author
Davinos Greeno - I work with the Green and Ethical directory http://www.guidemegreen.com This growing green resource lists 100s of Organic, Fairtrade, Eco and Ethical companies and Articles at http://articles.guidemegreen.com/ We also have loads of jobs at http://jobs.guidemegreen.com/
January 18th, 2007
Throughout centuries, people have searched for a proverbial Fountain of Youth, a fountain whose water can actually slow down the aging process. From Juan Ponce de León to the modern day seeker, the search for the Fountain of Youth, much like the fountain itself, springs eternal.
While this fountain’s location has proven elusive, it’s believed to be somewhere near Florida, causing hopeful searchers to leave no Cadillac unturned: as the Atlantic winds blow onto the shores, the sounds of “here fountain fountain fountain” are often heard from afar.
The reason for this extensive hunt is simple: when it comes to life, everyone hopes to find an extension cord.
Though the Fountain of Youth hasn’t provided us with this extension - as its waters have yet to be packaged, labeled, and displayed in the vitamin aisles of the local market - there is something that may serve as a close second: red wine.
Red Wine Slows Down Aging
Most of us are aware of the health benefits of red wine. From lowering blood pressure to helping cardiovascular health, red wine is giving all sorts of diseases something to whine about. However, recent discovery has led scientists to believe that, in addition to increasing health, the consumption of red wine may single handedly decrease the mortality rate and slow the aging process: belly up to the bar and order a Merlot, with an added dash of lifespan.
Calorie Restriction
There are a lot of things that a person can do to increase the years they will live. From lowering cholesterol to working out on a daily basis, several practices work together to give the average person more years of living. Yet, nothing increases a human’s lifespan quite like the act of calorie restriction, limiting caloric intake to a minimum. Some researchers estimate that calorie restriction can increase lifespan by as many as 50 years.
However, from Alfredo sauce to zucchini bread, our world is a world that loves to eat. Because of this, restricting calories isn’t very feasible; we have a better chance at actually finding the Fountain of Youth than we do of not consuming the T-bone steak sitting on the dinner table, begging us to stick a fork in it. .
Taking into consideration the fact that humans aren’t likely to engage in caloric limitations, scientists began looking for a way that people could have their cake, and literally eat it too.
The Sirtuin 1 Gene
Calorie restriction activates the Sirtuin 1 Gene, a gene that is known to heavily influence the continued existence in all living cells. Once this gene is activated, cells go into survival mode, putting more effort into longevity. This ultimately, as cells fight harder to stay alive, increases lifespan.
However, calorie restriction, as scientists have discovered, is not the only thing that can activate the Sirtuin 1 Gene. Recent studies have found that red wine also possesses this talent. Due to the fact that red wine contains Resveratrol, a class of antibiotics produced by plants that activates the Sirtuin 1 Gene, drinking it can add years to life. With each glass of red wine consumed, a cell’s urge to exist becomes stronger, the body is filled with antioxidants, and Gloria Gaynor’s “I will Survive” is heard, reverberating off the strands of DNA.
The Data Speaks
After discovering that Resveratrol lengthened the life of fruit flies and roundworms, Dr. David Sinclair and a team of Harvard researchers began to see if Resveratrol had the same affect on mice. While the concept of giving a red wine molecule to a group of mice may seem odd - leaving the mice inebriated and surrounded by relatives begging them not to get behind the wheel…of cheese - the study actually drew conclusions that could leave Dr. Sinclair and his team sitting next to Jonas Salk on the spectrum of important scientific discoveries.
The researchers found, after a 110 week study of mice placed on a high fat diet, that the mice who took Resveratrol lived longer than the mice who did not. Despite ingesting foods that were high in fat, the mice who took Resveratrol had a mortality rate of 32 percent, while the mice who didn’t take Resveratrol had a mortality rate of 50 percent.
The reasons for this, the researchers concluded, is that Resveratrol essentially copies calorie restriction, giving those who ingest it the same benefits of those who restrict their food intake. In sum, Resveratrol ignites the will to survive in the cells, rewarding the person who ingests it with a longer life.
Could it be the Same in People?
While mice - living an average of 2 years - were an ideal subject matter for the Resveratrol study, testing in people, because our lifespan is about 40 times that of a mouse, is not as convenient. Therefore, human testing has yet to be done. However, it’s highly theorized that a Resveratrol study would find a similar outcome, whether the test is performed on mice or men. . The main reason for this prediction is the French.
The French are a culture bent on poor eating - consuming foods high in fat and calories - and inactivity. Despite having a lifestyle that serves as a manual for a heart attack, heart disease is not an enemy of France. The majority of the French simply do not get heart disease. The reason for this is because they, in addition to being a culture who consumes foods high in saturated fat and fails to exercise, are also a culture that consumes a lot of red wine. This red wine has proven to be the one variable that seems to enable them to sidestep death, allowing them, despites some vices, to live a great deal of years. In fact, in areas of France where wine is grown, citizens live 35 to 65 percent longer than citizens residing in a non-growing district.
How much Red Wine Should People Drink?
While this “Fountain of Youth” discovery is great news for wine lovers, it has the potential to perpetuate the wrong idea, with some people locking themselves in a liquor store, grabbing a corkscrew, and drinking all the wine on the shelves in a quest to live forever. Like all of the benefits of red wine, the key is moderation.
Right now, it is recommended that people hoping to consume Resveratrol drink one or two glasses of red wine a day. Because the air can alter Reservatrol’s potency, it’s best to drink red wine that has been recently opened. While white wine has some Resveratrol, red wine has about ten times more. Along these lines, wines grown in cooler climates - such as New York - have more Resveratrol than wines grown in hot climates, such as Australia. Pinot Noir is believed to be among the wines with the highest levels.
While the Fountain of Youth may not have technically been found, this red wine discovery is allowing us to feel its mist. By igniting our cells will to survive and filling our body with life preserving antioxidants, red wine may slow down the aging process, allowing humans to stay younger and live longer than they ever thought possible.
Somewhere Juan Ponce de León is smiling.
January 18th, 2007
WASHINGTON: Sunflower seeds and pistachios are the top among nuts and seeds that contain the highest levels of phytosterols, a compound that reduces cholesterol levels and improves heart health, according to a study.
Chemists at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University analysed some 27 nut and seed products in what is believed to be the most comprehensive analysis to date, science portal EurekAlert reported.
They found that pistachios and sunflower kernels had the highest levels of phytosterols among nuts and seeds most commonly consumed as snack foods in the US.
Sesame seed and wheat germ actually ranked highest, but are not consumed as frequently as individual foods. Similarly Brazil nuts and walnuts ranked the lowest in phytosterols, the researchers reported in their study that appeared in the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
However, they cautioned that phytosterols are not the only food component involved in lowering cholesterol and that other compounds may also play a role. A well-balanced diet and frequent exercise are important keys to good health, they stressed.
Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com
December 9th, 2005
By Zhang Feng (China Daily)
Updated: 2005-12-09 06:05
Chicken and other poultry carry no risk of passing on bird flu to people if cooked properly, according to a recent joint statement by world health leaders.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) offered the advice to national food safety authorities amid growing concern over the avian influenza outbreak.
It warned birds from flocks carrying with the disease should not be allowed to enter the food chain.
Bird flu has infected millions of poultry in the world this year and at least 133 people, including 69 deaths.
In areas without outbreaks of avian influenza in poultry, there is no risk that consumers could be exposed to the virus via the handling or consumption of poultry or related products, the statement said.
In areas where poultry has been infected, consumers are being advised to cook meat such as chicken, duck, goose, turkey and guinea-fowl at or above 70 C.
Health leaders said the higher temperatures would kill any traces of the H5N1 virus and make the meat safe to eat.
To date, there is no evidence that people have become infected after eating contaminated poultry meat that has been properly cooked.
Infection channels
From the information currently available, a large number of confirmed human cases of bird flu came during the home slaughtering and subsequent handling of diseased or dead birds prior to cooking.
FAO and WHO emphasized that slaughtering infected birds poses the greatest risk of the virus being passed on to humans.
Most strains of avian influenza are mainly found in the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts of infected birds, and not in the meat itself.
However, highly pathogenic viruses, such as the H5N1 strain, spread to virtually all parts of an infected bird.
Infected poultry also excrete the virus in their faeces.
Exposure to humans, such as slaughterers, might also occur when the virus is inhaled through dust and contact with surfaces contaminated with the virus.
People are being warned that in areas where birds are often sold alive, the practices of home slaughtering, defeathering, and eviscerating can increase the exposure to potentially contaminated parts of the poultry.
It is not always possible to differentiate infected and non-infected birds in areas that have outbreaks.
Some, such as domestic ducks, may harbour the virus without displaying symptoms.
People are being urged to be fully informed about preventive measures, including the use of protective equipment.
Good hygienic practices
The FAO and WHO are urging the practice of slaughtering and eating infected birds in households, whether diseased or already dead, to be stopped.
The birds should also not be used for animal feed.
Even in areas or countries suffering outbreaks, the likelihood of infected poultry entering an industrialized slaughtering and processing chain, and eventually being marketed and handled by consumers or restaurant workers, is considered to be very low, FAO and WHO said.
They added that good hygienic practices, such as high cooking temperatures, will further contribute to the safety of cooked poultry meat.
Proper vaccination of domestic poultry is considered to be a useful tool by health leaders as part of an overall integrated strategy for the control of highly pathogenic avian influenza strains.
But it must be implemented in accordance with existing standards and procedures for vaccination, they added,
With appropriate monitoring programmes in place, vaccinated poultry can enter the food chain without particular risk for the consumer.
Highly pathogenic strains of the avian influenza virus can also be found inside and on the surface of eggs laid by infected birds.
Although sick birds will normally stop producing eggs, eggs laid in the early phase of the disease could contain viruses in the egg-white and yolk as well as on the surface of the shell.
Proper cooking, however, inactivates the virus present inside the eggs.
Pasteurization used by industry for liquid egg products is also effective in inactivating it.
But eggs from areas with outbreaks in poultry should not be consumed raw or only partially cooked, such as with runny yolk, FAO and WHO said.
However, as with meat, there is no evidence to date to suggest that people have been infected with bird flu by eating eggs or egg products if cooked properly.
Recommended practices
Recommended good hygienic practices that have been issued to reduce exposure to the virus in areas with outbreaks in poultry are:
No birds from flocks with disease should enter the food chain.
Do not eat raw poultry parts, including raw blood, or raw eggs in or from areas with outbreaks in poultry.
Separate raw meat from cooked or ready-to-eat foods to avoid contamination.
Do not use the same chopping board or knife.
Do not handle both raw and cooked foods without washing your hands in between and do not place cooked meat back on the same plate or surface it was on prior to cooking.
Do not use raw or soft-boiled eggs in food preparations that will not be heat treated or cooked.
Wash your hands and keep them clean. After handling frozen or thawed raw poultry or eggs, wash your hands thoroughly with soap.
Wash and disinfect all surfaces and utensils that have been in contact with the raw meat.
Cook thoroughly: Thorough cooking of poultry meat will inactivate the virus.
Either ensure that the poultry meat reaches 70 C at the centre of the product (”piping” hot) or that the meat is not pink in any part.
Egg yolks should not liquid.
Source: chinadaily.com.cn
December 9th, 2005
JO EWART MACKENZIE
THE British organic egg market is booming. According to the Soil Association’s Organic Market Report 2005, published earlier this year, the sector is worth £17 million annually, with some egg packers reporting double-figure sales increases to the big retailers during 2004.
However, the growing army of converts could face problems finding home-grown organic eggs in the new year with the introduction of new government legislation. This will set out new requirements for the raising of organic pullets (chicks reared to lay eggs).
While the rules are designed to raise standards in the sector, in the short term at least, it seems consumers might lose out.
Here we take a look at why you might struggle to whip up an organic omelette in 2006 - and what you can do to help turn the situation around.
WHAT’S AN ORGANIC EGG?
An egg that has been laid by an organic pullet which has been fed a natural, GM-free diet and not routinely treated with antibiotics.
Organic egg producers must be registered with one of the ten approved British certification bodies, which adhere to strict EU-enforced regulations.
WHY SHOULD I EAT THEM?
Organic eggs come from free-ranging hens whose flock size is restricted and the birds have access to fresh air and either pastureland or runs on which vegetation grows. Their organic diet also means that their eggs are free from any chemical nasties.
HOW IS THE LAW CHANGING?
Under current regulations, non-organic pullets can be brought on to organic holdings and converted once they are there. However, new legislation to be introduced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on 31 December requires any pullets destined for an organic farm to be certified organic prior to arrival, and ideally they will have been reared organically from hatching.
SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
Organic Farmers & Growers (OF&G), a UK organic accreditation body which certifies about 70 per cent of British organic poultry, fears egg producers have not got the message that they will no longer be able to introduce non-organic pullets into their units, and so have not put pressure on pullet rearers to supply birds raised under the new rules. OF&G believes that most rearers may be holding back from adopting the new systems because they are uncertain of demand. So the risk is that organic pullets will be in short supply next year.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO ME?
Fewer organic pullets in the UK means fewer home-grown organic eggs. Richard Jacobs, chief executive of OF&G, explains: “The rearers are not being made aware of the full level of demand there will be… If this doesn’t change we could be looking, by spring of next year, at having to de-certify egg producers because they cannot get the pullets they require.”
CAN’T WE IMPORT ORGANIC EGGS?
Yes. But more imported produce means more food miles, more greenhouse gas emissions, damaged livelihoods and fragile local economies. Some retailers say they won’t be affected. Marks & Spencer for one doesn’t foresee any issues in availability of home-grown eggs because their producers are British and have been complying with the new regulations for several years.
HOW CAN I SECURE MY SUPPLY?
Demand leads to supply, so if your retailer starts offering only imported stock, lobby them to get home-grown organic eggs back on the shelves. Alternatively, seek out a local egg supplier you trust.
Source: news.scotsman.com
December 7th, 2005
By Caroline E. Mayer
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — Advertising junk food on television has enticed children into eating massive amounts of unhealthful food, leading to a sharp increase in obesity and diabetes, according to a report issued Tuesday by a prestigious national science advisory panel.
The Institute of Medicine, a government-chartered institution that studied the health effects of food advertising on children for Congress, said most foods and beverages introduced and marketed to children are high in calories, sugar, salt and fat and low in nutrients.
“There is strong evidence that exposure to television advertising is associated with” obesity, the report said.
The institute called on food and beverage manufacturers and restaurants to create more healthful products, and to shift their advertising emphasis to promote them. If these companies fail to do so, the report added, Congress should step in and mandate changes, especially for ads aired on TV.
The institute also called on Congress to enhance nutritional standards and create incentives, including awards and tax breaks, to encourage companies to develop and promote healthful products for children and adolescents.
“There is growing evidence that the early life environment is an important determinant of obesity later in life,” so significant changes are needed to reshape children’s attitudes and practices, the report said.
The report is in response to a congressional directive to review the influence of food marketing on the diets and health of children, after the government reported a sharp increase in the number of obese children and teens. Childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past 40 years, and the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes among children and youth has more than doubled in the past decade.
“The dietary patterns of our children and youth put their health at risk,” the report said. These patterns “have been reinforced if not encouraged by prevailing marketing practices,” and any turnaround has to depend on aggressive and sustained leadership from the government, parents, schools and the food and beverage industries, the report said. “This is a public health priority of the highest order.”
The institute found that children between 2 and 15 influence about $500 billion of purchases a year, compared with $295 billion in 1993. In 2004, food and beverage companies spent an estimated $10 billion to market foods to America’s youth. The number of new food products aimed at kids is growing at a far faster rate than new food products in general, and for the most part these new kids’ products were high in total calories, sugar or fat, the report found.
The long-awaited report represents a consensus of a panel of 16 members who came from varied backgrounds: nutritionists, advertising and marketing experts, child and adolescent development professionals and entertainment executives. Panel members, in interviews, said they were surprised they were able to agree on their strong findings, given that wide divergence of backgrounds.
The American Advertising Federation, which represents food marketers, advertising agencies and media firms, criticized the report for failing to note many of the changes food companies have taken in the past year. Some fast-food restaurants have added more healthful alternatives to their menus, including milk and apples in kids’ meals. Pepsico has mandated that half of its new products be healthful, while Kraft Foods announced this year that it would stop advertising its less nutritious products on TV and radio and in magazines aimed at children under 12.
Many food companies also have sponsored fitness campaigns and curricula at schools and youth clubs.
“It’s disconcerting that the report doesn’t bother to recognize the specific industry initiatives that have been under way for the past year to combat childhood obesity,” said Wally Snyder, the federation’s president.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who pushed Congress to approve $1 million for the institute’s study, said, “This landmark study comes as no surprise to me, and it will come as no surprise to the junk-food industry.” Harkin said the industry doesn’t spend billions a year “marketing junk food to kids in order to waste money.” They do it “because it works brilliantly.”
The institute’s report was based on a review of more than 120 studies of the effects marketing may have on children’s diets and health.
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
Source: seattlenews.nwsource.com
December 7th, 2005
(Reuters)
7 December 2005
WASHINGTON - Most food and drink advertising to children promotes unhealthy choices and the government should step in if the industry fails to improve the situation, an experts’ report said on Tuesday.
“There is strong evidence that television advertising influences the diets of children” said Dr. Michael McGinnis, a senior scholar at the Institute of Medicine, which conducted the review.
Studies also suggest marketing can lead to higher rates of body fat, though more evidence is need, said the institute, an independent, nonprofit body that advises the government.
The group called for a nationwide campaign to educate families about healthy foods, national standards for food offered at schools, and expanded industry guidelines to monitor the Internet and other nontraditional ad venues.
If industry efforts fail, Congress should force companies to advertise healthier choices, it said. US officials should monitor progress and update lawmakers in two years.
“We think that the issues confronting the health and well being of America’s children, particularly with respect to childhood obesity … require an ’all hands on deck’ effort,” McGinnis told reporters.
Food and beverage industry groups have rejected the idea of government restrictions, saying consumers should make their own choices.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association said many of its members have already improved food labels and promoted healthier lifestyles. But the industry-funded Center for Consumer Freedom rejected the study’s findings, saying a lack of exercise, not food, was to blame for rising obesity.
Last year, the food and beverage industry spent about $11 billion in advertising, including $5 billion on television commercials, mostly for high-calorie products with little nutritional value.
Promotions led children ages 2 to 11 to ask for certain products, and kids aged 4 and younger could not tell the difference between television advertisements and programming, the report said. Those 8 and younger did not understand that commercials are meant to persuade.
The impact on teen-agers was less clear, because too little research has been done, the report found.
Experts also found companies were increasingly targeting children through the Internet, product placement and other activities.
To reach its conclusions the team of media and health experts reviewed 123 published studies and industry information at a time when more Americans of all ages are getting fatter.
About 9 million US children and teen-agers, or about 16 percent, are obese compared with 5 percent in the 1960s. The number of young people with type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, also is on the rise.
Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who pushed legislation requiring the $1 million study, said the “report proves that the onslaught of junk-food marketing is endangering the health of our children.”
Consumer groups welcomed the findings, but some expressed doubts about whether companies would risk profit by curbing junk food ads. Others, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest, called on Congress to act immediately.
Source: khaleejtimes.com
December 7th, 2005
12/07/2005
The Asahi Shimbun
The government Monday will lift the two-year ban on U.S. beef imports despite consumers’ doubts that U.S. measures can eliminate the risk of meat tainted by mad cow disease.
Officials said once the decision is finalized Monday, importers will be allowed to start buying U.S. beef, making it available to Japanese consumers around the Christmas holidays.
The Cabinet Office’s Food Safety Commission on Thursday is expected to report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare that the risk of mad cow disease in the U.S. beef imports “is extremely low.”The government will only allow U.S. beef from cattle 20 months old or younger, as long as safety measures, including the removal of high-risk parts, are observed.
Despite the commission’s report, consumers are wary.
According to an Asahi Shimbun survey in late October, 67 percent of consumers said they would not eat U.S. beef if the ban is lifted.
Even the Food Safety Commission has heard the safety concerns directly from the public.
The commission received several thousand responses by Nov. 29 after soliciting public opinions about U.S. beef imports.
Many consumers questioned if the United States and its safety measures can ensure its beef carries no risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, the officials said.
Critics have said Tokyo’s move to lift the ban despite such concerns shows that it is simply kowtowing to U.S. pressure.
Tokyo intends to reach an agreement on the beef imports with Washington by Sunday, the officials said. In fact, Japan already informed the United States about the resumption schedule for U.S. beef imports during working-level talks, and has unofficially concluded talks about the conditions for lifting the ban.
The government will explain the contents of the Food Safety Commission’s report to the ruling coalition parties on Friday, the officials said.
After the announcement is made Monday, the government will immediately dispatch experts on animal quarantine and food hygiene to conduct safety checks at several meat-processing plants in the United States, the officials said.
The central government also intends to hold meetings at nine locations nationwide by Dec. 16 to explain the decision to resume U.S. beef imports.(IHT/Asahi: December 7,2005)
Source: asahi.com
December 7th, 2005
(Reuters)
Updated: 2005-12-06 09:18
Previous reports have shown that early dietary interventions can improve cholesterol levels in children, and now new research adds to this by showing that blood-vessel function is also enhanced, at least in boys.
The findings, which appear in the American Heart Association’s journal Circulation, are based on a study of 1062 healthy 11-year-old children who were either put on a low saturated fat diet or and unrestricted diet starting in infancy.
Somewhat fewer than 200 children in each diet group had the elasticity of the interior walls (or endothelium) of their veins and arteries measured by using ultrasound to look at dilation of the blood vessels under various circumstances.
The low-fat diet was associated with better endothelial function in boys and girls, but this was significant from a statistical standpoint only in boys, Dr. Olli T. Raitakari, from the University of Turku in Finland, and colleagues note.
“Early nutrition may play an important role in the later vascular health of males,” Raitakari said in a statement. “It may be associated with less atherosclerosis and a lower future risk of cardiovascular diseases.”
As to why a significant association was not seen in girls, Raitakari said it may relate to “differences in sex hormone levels.”
Source: chinadaily.com.cn
December 7th, 2005
December 6, 2005
BY JANET RAUSA FULLER Staff Reporter
One of the most popular items on the children’s menu at Chicago’s Wishbone restaurant is something called the Rabbit Patch — a choice of three sides from a vegetable-heavy list of more than a dozen offerings, plus a corn muffin.
Co-owner Guy Nickson said kids who order the dish tend to pick one starch such as mashed potatoes and then “something a little more intrepid” — often sauteed green beans or asparagus.
Wishbone’s pint-sized customers may have the opportunity to go for the greens, but variety and vegetables are still lacking in children’s menus, a report from a Chicago restaurant consulting firm shows.
Chicken fingers, pizza, burgers, mac ‘n’ cheese and grilled cheese are the five most common entrees on kids menus at chain restaurants, according to the report by Technomic Information Services.
The report surveyed the 250 top restaurant chains, 161 of which had separate kids menus, and found a vegetable entree offered by only one restaurant, Cracker Barrel. Salads were listed 25 times on the menus surveyed, usually as a side.
Kids menus offer on average seven items. Chicken entrees, pasta dishes, burgers and sandwiches account for nearly half of all items, the report found.
The tally of menu items doesn’t surprise Diane Quagliani, a registered dietitian and nutrition consultant in Western Springs.
“These are kid-friendly foods and foods that kids really like and restaurants don’t serve foods that their customers won’t order, and that’s the bottom line,” she said. “And actually, these are a lot of the same foods kids are eating at home, too.”
Indeed, another survey by Technomic done earlier this year showed that chicken fingers were what parents said they ordered most often for kids, said Eric Giandelone, editorial manager at Technomic.
‘Children’s miserable diets’
There has been a move toward healthier items and preparations on kids menus in recent years in response to rising obesity rates, experts say. Obesity among children has more than tripled over the past four decades, according to an Institute of Medicine report on food marketing to kids to be released today.
The Technomic report cites the addition of grilled chicken at several chains, including Houlihan’s and Outback Steakhouse, and the much-publicized rollout of fresh fruit sides at McDonald’s and Wendy’s.
But eateries still should be doing more, such as using reduced-fat cheese and whole grains, “to make these mediocre foods less bad,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The center did a nutritional analysis of typical fare on kids’ menus in February 2004 and found calorie and fat counts comparable to adult meals.
“Restaurants should see it as a responsibility to be part of the solution to children’s miserable diets,” he said. “I recognize they can’t turn their restaurants into a health food operation, but they can certainly do a lot better than they’re doing now.”
jfuller@suntimes.com
Source: suntimes.com
December 7th, 2005
By Jessica Heslam
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Mothers who frown upon those extra pounds take note:
Youngsters whose moms worry about their kids’ weight are more likely to diet and obsess about being thin, a new Hub study found.
But don’t just blame mother. Thin celebrities and peers had a bigger influence on the youngsters’ diet and desire to be skinny.
“It’s important for parents to realize that their own weight concerns may be transmitted to their children,” said lead author Alison Field, a researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Children’s Hospital.
“It’s important to get children away from the dieting mentality when they are young,” Field said.
The researchers studied data from more than 5,300 adolescent girls and nearly 4,000 boys who took part in the Growing Up Today Study.
About half of the mothers said it was important that their daughters and sons not be fat. About 4 to 5 percent of the youngsters “accurately perceived” that their weight was important to their mother.
The boys and girls who knew weight was important to their mother were more likely to diet and think a lot about wanting to be thinner, the researchers said.
Dieting is among the top New Year’s resolutions. But instead of making a resolution to diet, mothers should adopt healthy eating habits and exercise for a “healthier lifestyle,” Field said.
Children who diet gain more weight than those who don’t, previous research has found.
“It will send a much better message,” Field said. “We need to get away from talking about losing weight all the time.”
The findings appear in this month’s Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine.
jheslam@bostonherald.com
Source: theedge.bostonherald.com
December 7th, 2005
By Katherine Hobson / US News and World Report
Pick your point of view: Salt is a poison that brings on high blood pressure, which in turn kills via heart attack and stroke. Or, salt is no big deal. It raises blood pressure in only some people, and for everyone else there’s no reason to cut it from your diet.
As with many medical debates, there is no absolute answer, though the negatives about sodium — a key element of salt — are well known. It can boost blood pressure by causing people to retain water. The government now tells healthy adults to cap sodium consumption at 2,300 milligrams (per day) — well under the 4,000 or so Americans now take in on average.
But the logic isn’t ironclad. No one really knows if salt causes the most common form of high blood pressure. Studies suggest that it’s a culprit but also that it’s aided and abetted by a lack of potassium and calcium, too much stress, and obesity. Research hasn’t settled the issue because it’s hard to count every grain that crosses people’s lips, and you need a huge number of participants, tracked for many years, to statistically settle the question of whether excessive salt equals death. One recent review of nearly 30 trials found that cutting salt for at least a month reduced blood pressure by a small amount in people with high blood pressure and an even smaller amount in healthy people. That’s in line with the results of most other studies, though a handful have shown no benefit at all to salt restriction.
The findings probably mask the fact that some people’s genes and lifestyles mean their blood pressure will spike at the slightest whiff of soy sauce, while others can gulp the stuff without a budge in their numbers. Ditch diggers working in the sun all day probably need more salt than a petite office worker does, notes Michael Alderman, former president of the American Society of Hypertension.
A pragmatic recommendation on salt restriction for those of us who aren’t hypertensive comes from Charles Hennekens, an epidemiologist at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton: “In my own view, the preponderance of evidence is that too much salt is harmful, or at least not helpful.” In other words, to be safe, it probably doesn’t hurt to follow the government’s advice.
But focusing the entire blood-pressure message on salt is misguided. It ignores, for example, a recent study showing that not only did cutting sodium help blood pressure regardless of diet but that the converse also held true. Eating a lower-fat diet rich in fruits, veggies, and low-fat dairy products also improved blood pressure, regardless of sodium levels.
The point is that cutting salt is not the only route to lowering blood pressure. “We’re trying to give people a palette of options,” says William Vollmer, senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (Portland, Oregon) and one of the study’s authors. Most processed and fast foods aren’t a big part of either a low-sodium or a generally healthy diet. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (Washington, D.C.) is focusing its anti-salt ire on processed and restaurant foods. Swanson’s Hungry Man XXL roasted carved turkey dinner tops its hit list, with 5,410 milligrams of sodium.
If you’re concerned about your overall health and weight (and who isn’t?), the best bet is to avoid most processed foods and instead focus on a broad, nutritious diet, including lean protein.
Source: detnews.com
December 6th, 2005
By Alice Lesch Kelly and Rosie Mestel / Los Angeles Times
Tea, to China’s 18th-century Emperor Chien Lung, was more than a whistle-wetting pick-me-up: It was “that precious drink which drives away the five causes of sorrow.”
Western businesses are banking on our buying into Chien Lung’s sentiments. In addition to selling a cornucopia of loose green teas, they have distilled the brew’s essence and added it to health bars, supplements, diet aids, gum, soft drinks and skin creams — even, in Asia, to Kit Kat candy bars.
Green tea is good for us: That mantra has been chanted in the West since the early 1990s, when studies reported that the infusion, sipped for centuries in China and Japan, appeared to help fight off cancers when drunk by lab mice or rubbed on their skin. Enthusiasm intensified after other studies revealed that green tea contained certain chemicals with cancer-fighting clout. Scientists rolled up their sleeves to figure out how it works.
Today, green tea imports are soaring.
“Ten years ago, 3 percent of imported tea was green tea. Now it’s 12 percent,” says Joe Simrany, president of the Tea Association of the U.S.A.
So confident was one doctor-turned-green-tea businessman that in 2004 he decided to petition the Food and Drug Administration to permit green teas to sport cancer-fighting health claims on their packages.
The FDA’s response: tepid. At best.
In June, the agency ruled that there was “no credible evidence” green tea fights cancers of the stomach, lung, colon, esophagus, pancreas or ovary. The agency acknowledged that the evidence for tea fighting breast or prostate cancer was somewhat better, although it also said the link was “highly unlikely” because the evidence on humans wasn’t conclusive enough.
Scientists say that despite the unanswered questions, green tea still shows promise not only as a potential cancer-protector but also against other health threats, such as cardiovascular disease and possibly Alzheimer’s. But they also are mindful that many a cell in a dish has been vanquished, and many a mouse cured of cancer, from therapies that don’t ultimately pan out in humans.
“You can build your case in cell studies and animal studies but ultimately you have to do it in humans or you can’t make a case that it works,” says Balz Frei, a professor of biochemistry at Oregon State University.
How the tea is processed
Green tea is made from the dried leaves of Camellia sinensis, an evergreen shrub native to Asia. The plant is harvested and treated in different ways to produce green tea or black tea.
Green tea is made by steaming the crushed leaves shortly after harvest, destroying enzymes so that chemicals aren’t oxidized very much.
Leaves used for black tea ferment for days before they’re heated, causing the leaves to blacken and many chemical changes within them.
Those processing differences may be medicinally important. Both types of tea are abundant in certain antioxidant chemicals called flavonoids, which obstruct the action of cell-damaging free radicals. Green tea, because it doesn’t ferment, has much higher levels of a group of flavonoids called catechins. A potent catechin, epigallocatechin gallate, or EGCG, is three to four times more abundant in green tea than black.
Anti-cancer evidence
Scientists cite three lines of green tea anti-cancer evidence.
First, there are test-tube studies. Green tea’s flavonoids interfere with cancer-related biochemical reactions: They may cause cancer cells to grow sluggishly, cease dividing or even self-destruct. Flavonoids also impede formation of carcinogens known as heterocyclic amines.
Then there are studies in rodents. In one fairly typical study, mice were injected with a tobacco carcinogen that caused them to develop lung tumors. Some of the mice drank green tea, and others did not. The tea-drinking mice got fewer tumors.
Similar studies have linked green tea to protecting against a range of cancers — such as those of the lung, skin, esophagus, colon, bladder and possibly the mammary glands.
EGCG isn’t the only thing having an effect. Caffeine is probably providing the lion’s share of protection in the case of the skin cancer experiments, and plays a big part in the lung ones, says green tea researcher Chung S. Yang, who chairs the chemical biology department at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
The third line of evidence is the one people care most about: What happens to humans when they drink tea? Such studies, because they’re usually not done in controlled groups, are tricky to interpret, partly because it’s hard to measure how much tea people drink, and partly because tea-drinkers do a lot of other things. For example, it’s common in China that men who drink a lot of tea also smoke, Yang says.
Studies look promising
The few human studies that have been done have produced mixed results. But despite the complexities, some studies do look good, scientists say.
For example, in an article published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2003, scientists looked at the eating and drinking habits of more than 1,000 Chinese-, Japanese- and Filipino-American women in Los Angeles. They reported that women who drank green tea had a 43 percent lower risk of getting breast cancer compared with women who drank no tea. The more green tea the women drank, the lower their risk of breast cancer, according to the study.
Studies like these were enough to persuade Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a doctor in Connecticut, to start Dr. Lee’s TeaForHealth, a company that sells organic green tea, and to petition the government in January 2004. Lee asked that the FDA allow green-tea producers to label their products with a claim — known as a “qualified health claim” — stating that drinking 40 ounces a day of green tea containing specific amounts of EGCG may reduce the risk of certain forms of cancer. Lee’s FDA petition included stacks of green-tea studies.
When the FDA rejected Lee’s petition, it denied outright any claim for some cancers and awarded decidedly limp qualified health claims for breast and prostate cancer.
The FDA isn’t alone in its skepticism. The American Cancer Society also concluded that more research is needed to show that green tea helps prevent cancer, and many other scientists concur.
Population studies also are intriguing: Last year, for instance, a Chinese study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine reported that people who drank green or black tea had a 46 percent to 65 percent lower risk for high blood pressure.
As for fighting cancer, other human clinical studies are underway in the U.S. If these find evidence that green tea prevents cancer, tea producers say they will petition the FDA again.
If stronger evidence came to light, “we’d re-evaluate the evidence,” the FDA’s Elwood says. “Science evolves.”
Source: detnews.com
December 6th, 2005
Laboratory research indicates that cholesterol plays a role in the development of the waxy deposits, or plaques, that clump together in the brain and characterize Alzheimer’s. Leaping from the petri dish to the body, might lowering cholesterol through medication affect the development of the disease?
This study monitored the progression of dementia in 342 people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. About 68 percent of them had high cholesterol, and more than half of that group was taking a cholesterol-lowering drug (mostly statins). After nearly three years, Alzheimer’s had progressed more slowly in people taking the drugs than in those with untreated high cholesterol or normal levels. Scores on a standardized exam (with a 30-point scale) used to test dementia declined 1.5 points a year for those taking cholesterol medication, compared with a drop of 2.4 points for the untreated high cholesterol group and 2.6 points for those with normal levels.
Who may be affected by these findings? Anyone with Alzheimer’s disease, which affects about 4.5 million Americans — a number that is projected to climb to nearly 16 million in 15 years.
Source: detnews.com
December 6th, 2005
By a correspondent
HYDERABAD: Properly cooked chicken are safe to eat with no threat of bird flu virus said a joint statement by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) specialized body of United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO) issued to national food safety authorities across the globe.
“However, no birds from infested flocks should enter the food chain,” a copy of the statement received by The News on Monday said.
The FAO and WHO made the statement to clarify food safety issues in relation to the current bird flu crisis.
The statement has been issued through the International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN) and is available in six languages.
In areas where there is no bird flu outbreak in poultry, there is no risk that consumers will be exposed to the virus via the handling or consumption of poultry and poultry products.
Cooking of poultry (e.g. chicken, ducks, geese, turkeys and guinea-fowl) at or above 70 Celsius throughout the product, so that absolutely no meat remains raw and red, is a safe measure to kill the H5N1 virus in areas with outbreaks in poultry FAO/WHO said.
Cooking at high temperature ensures that no active virus remains if the live bird had been infected and had mistakenly entered the food chain. To date, there is no epidemiological evidence that people have become infected after eating contaminated poultry meat that has been properly cooked.
According to available information, a large number of confirmed human cases acquired infection during the home slaughtering and subsequent handling of diseased or dead birds prior to cooking.
FAO and WHO emphasize that in the process of killing and preparing a live bird for food, slaughtering poses the greatest risk of passing the virus from infected or diseased birds to humans.
Most strains of avian influenza virus are mainly found in the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts of infected birds, and not in meat. However, highly pathogenic viruses, such as the H5N1 strain, spread to virtually all parts of an infected bird, including meat. Proper cooking at temperature at or above 70C in all parts of the product will inactivate the virus.
It is not always possible to differentiate infected and non-infected birds in outbreak areas. Some avian species, such as domestic ducks, may harbour the virus without displaying symptoms.
Therefore, people need to be fully informed about preventive measures, including the use of protective equipment. The practice of slaughtering and eating of infected birds, whether diseased or already dead, must be stopped, FAO and WHO warn. These birds should also not be used for animal feed.
Highly pathogenic avian influenza virus can be found inside and on the surface of eggs laid by infected birds. Although sick birds will normally stop producing eggs, eggs laid in the early phase of the disease could contain viruses in the egg white and yolk as well as on the surface of the shell.
Proper cooking inactivates the virus present inside the eggs. Pasteurisation used by industry for liquid egg products is also effective in inactivating the virus.
Eggs from areas with outbreaks in poultry should not be consumed raw or partially cooked (i.e., with runny yolk), FAO/WHO advise. To date, there is no epidemiological evidence to suggest that people have been infected with avian influenza by consumption of eggs or egg products.
Source: jang.com.pk
December 6th, 2005
Previous Posts
