Until relatively recently the Department of Health was advising us that seafood was bad for our health, but in 2006 government scientists changed their minds and decided it was good for us after all! For over twenty years mussels were considered to be bad for the heart because of high cholesterol levels which are a contributory factor to heart disease. However, research by scientists in America proved this theory to be incorrect and now, in a reversal, we are actively encouraged to consume mussels as being not only good for our health in general, but for our hearts in particular. Full of protein, they are also a good source of  iron -they contain more than twice the amount found in red meat, six mussels rendering half the daily recommended dose for women, and the full RDI for men – as well as zinc, iodine, copper selenium and vitamin B12. Mussels are now known to be low in cholesterol and fat. The fat that they do contain is of the healthy unsaturated kind consisting of omega 3 fatty acids. These are instrumental in bringing stability to the heart muscle. They help make the arteries more elastic, which in turn reduces blood pressure. Some doctors are recommending 2/3 portions a week, and there’s even been a suggestion of adding them to the menu for school dinners!

Since the health advice regarding mussels changed, their consumption has surged. However there are reasons other than those pertaining to health why it’s good to eat mussels. At a time when there are increasing concerns about diminishing fish stocks, exactly the opposite is true with regard to mussels. We produce far more than are required in Britain and many are exported to other countries, mainly France, Belgium and Holland. As a sustainable food source they therefore offer an eco-friendly food supply. This is just as much true of farmed mussels where - unlike other sorts of fish farming – captive breeding is not an issue and no chemicals are used.

Their increasing popularity is also thought to be due in part to their promotion by celebrity chefs, such as Rick Stein. People are far more willing to try them, as well as being more informed about how to prepare and cook them. They are in fact easy and quick to cook, taking only minutes, though the wild ones require scrubbing to remove barnacles and beards – the fibrous threads by which the mussels attach themselves to whatever they are growing on.  When preparing them, any that do not close on tapping should be discarded. Conversely when cooking, any that do not open should be thrown away. For those of us still not feeling brave enough to attempt the process, most of the major supermarkets stock vacuum packed bags of prepared mussels that can be cooked in the bag in a variety of simple ways in a short space of time.

So. There you have it! As long as you don’t use loads of butter and cream in the cooking process,  you can find in mussels the ultimate in healthy, nutritious and sustainable really fast real food. Bon Appétit!

It is twelve years since there was European approval for a genetically modified crop until yesterday when the European Commission in Brussels authorized the cultivation of a genetically modified potato crop. The Amflora potatoes to be produced by the German corporation BASF -  the world’s leading chemical company - will not be used for human consumption. The potatoes are designated as being for ‘industrial use’, which will include animal feed and the production of starch for paper making. However, the fact that the potato is a food crop is seen as significant. BASF first applied for approval more than thirteen years ago. The EU Commission also agreed to the sale of three genetically modified maize products within Europe, although the crops themselves will not actually be grown in Europe.

There has been a long running debate over the potential merits and detrimental effects of cultivating genetically modified crops. One of the major arguments in support of growing genetically modified crops is that they are capable of producing a better yield than and, therefore, address the problem of food supplies for a growing world population. Its claims to be able to do this include the increased ability to resist pests, diseases, and weed killers, its tolerance of drought and high salt levels in soil, and the possibilities of growing nutritionally enhanced crops. There is also the potential to develop edible vaccines, which - with their ability to be more easily shipped, stored, and administered than injectable vaccines - could greatly benefit the third world. Heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil continues to be a problem in many parts of the world. A non-food use  of the genetically engineered ‘crop’ is that plants such as poplar trees have been genetically engineered in order to clean this up.

A diverse collection of organizations and individuals have raised concerns about the genetic modification of crops, particularly food, feeling that not enough is known with regard to the safety of food produced in this way, which could be potentially harmful to human health. There is also a risk that introducing genes into a food plant could increase the risk of allergic reactions among susceptible individuals. Antibiotic resistance is yet another worrying possibility which could pass over into the humans who consume food produced in this way. There are a variety of concerns too regarding hazards to the environment, some of which could result to massive changes in the natural infrastructure. There is a fear that there would be unintended harm to other organisms, reduced effectiveness of pesticides and herbicides, and the transfer of genes to crops that have not been genetically modified, particularly organically grown crops.

Following the announcement on Tuesday, many of these concerns were r forcefully reiterated by opponents of genetically modified crops, including Greenpeace, and Friends of The Earth. Austria’s ministry of health initiated an immediate ban on the cultivation of the crop. Italy too, strongly opposed the decision with the Minister of Agriculture saying that Italy would continue to defend ‘traditional agriculture and citizens health.

Scientific evidence has been evoked and refuted in the ongoing debate. On Tuesday the EU commission said its decision was ‘based on a considerable volume of sound science.’ and the EU Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner declared, “Responsible innovation will be my guiding principle when dealing with innovative technologies…”

When a toilet is flushed, miniscule droplets are propelled into the air outwards and upwards, landing on any available surfaces within approximately six to eight feet. Known as the aerosol effect, the problem was identified way back in the seventies, yet many of us are possibly totally unaware of it. If you stop and think about it, of course, it seems fairly obvious, and as an oral expert from Lloyds Pharmacy recently described it, ‘stomach churning’!

The implications are obvious too. The ‘available surfaces’ alluded to above can be anything from the toilet roll to your toothbrush – most of us leave these uncovered in the bathroom – and even your lungs. It seems that the maximum dispersal is not at the actual time of the flush but shortly afterwards once the water has left the bowl. Beating a hasty retreat after flushing therefore minimizes the chances of the bacteria laden vapour landing on you, though staying long enough to thoroughly wash your hands is advisable too. Apparently many of us either neglect to wash our hands at all or give them a cursory few second rinse under cold water. Ideally hands should be well lathered under hot water and scrubbed vigorously for thirty seconds. The effects can be limited by lowering the toilet lid before flushing which also give you breathing space to wash your hands. Research from Manchester University identified that more than one hundred million bacteria could be living in your toothbrush so these should be kept in a medicine cupboard or otherwise enclosed. Ecoli, candida, streptococcus, staphylococcus, hepatitis A, shigella, and the common cold virus are some of the more ‘familiar’ bacteria identified.

Horrendous as the idea of faecal particles and the attendant bacteria is, with healthy immune systems and good hygiene after a visit to the loo, most of us won’t become sick.

High levels of salt are linked to high blood pressure, and increase the risk of having a heart attack or stroke. There is growing evidence that it is linked to osteoporosis and kidney disease, and recent research indicates that it could also be a contributory factor to developing stomach cancer.

The recommended daily dose of salt for an adult should not exceed 6g according to The Food Standard Agency, though our bodies actually need much less than this.

Soup, often chosen as a healthy option for a light meal, or snack, was found in 99 per cent of the 575 ready made soups analysed in a recent survey by CASH (Consensus Action on Salt and Health), to contain more salt per portion than a bag of crisps. Some of the products, in particular those from high street chains, contained more than the recommended daily dose. EAT for example, a family run company in London who claim to be dedicated to serving quality food, was found to have ten products that fell into this category. Many more contained levels reaching over half the recommended daily intake. Café Nero’s organic carrot and coriander soup might well appeal to those hoping to maximize the nutritional value of their take-away lunch, but at 3.6g per regular sized portion it fell far short of the mark.

Amongst the supermarket brands New Covent Garden Soup (scotch broth flavour) had the highest levels, with Batchelor’s and Heinz not too far behind.

On the whole freshly made soups with a vegetable base tend to contain less salt than creamy tinned soups that might also have bacon or ham among their ingredients, though even some of those considered to be healthier brands contained more than a third of the daily dose.

On the positive side overall levels had dropped by seventeen per cent since the last survey by CASH in 2007. Professor Graham MacGregor, chairman of CASH said that ‘The majority of the food industry is slowly taking out salt from food.’ He said that some companies hadn’t gone far enough, and that some simply weren’t co-operating.

Given that this recent survey only analysed soup, it is obvious that in combination with other foods, many of which - often surprisingly, and quite unnecessarily - contain hidden salt, we need to take more responsibility for checking our salt intake and attempting to cut down on it. Carefully reading food labels as well as making an effort to prepare more of our own meals will help, but with our health at such great risk, it begs the question as to why the government doesn’t resort to legislation to deal with the issue!

Many of us keen to support British farmers, and concerned about animal welfare, opt to buy British products when doing our shopping. However, because of a loophole, where meat has been imported from another country and undergone substantial change within Britain, up until now it has been permissible to label it as being ‘Produced in the UK’. This means that, for example, foreign meat used in making a pie has been transformed by covering it in pastry. This process has happened in Britain and so the pie itself becomes a ‘British Product’, thus misleading the consumer into, not unsurprisingly, assuming that the meat it contains has been farmed in Britain. The benefit for British retailers - and in particular the large supermarkets - in doing this, is that they are able to buy cheap meat from other countries where the standards of animal welfare are lower and the cost of production therefore relatively inexpensive.

The changes that are now proposed with regard to labelling, apply to the sale of pork, bacon and ham. In 1999, after much campaigning, Britain introduced a new set of rules in relation to the welfare of pigs, with particular relevance to overcrowding, and the treatment of pregnant sows. The implications for farmers in terms of extra production costs led to a massive forty per cent decline in Britain’s pig herds, with a consequent soaring in the importation of foreign pig meat.

In the new move to end shoppers being misled about the origins of the meat they buy, the Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, has announced that the big supermarkets (Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose, Morrison, Asda, Marks & Spencer and the Co-op), together with McDonald’s, Wetherspoon and Whitbread, have signed up to a voluntary code of practice stating how foreign meat should be labelled. They have agreed that the country of origin should be clearly displayed. Where relevant a product should denote that an item is ‘Produced in the UK using pork from (country of origin)’

While the move has been welcomed, many feel that a voluntary code doesn’t go far enough, in that it allows meat producers, retailers and caterers to opt out. It is only by introducing compulsory measures that shoppers can be guaranteed that the British label means that what they’re buying truly is British.

A press release by Friends of the Earth in response to the announcement, pointed out that meat labelling was only part of a wider problem. Senior food campaigner Vicki Hird said: ‘labelling meat as British fails to address the damaging impact of imported animal feeds - UK factory farms are driving environmental destruction in South America because rainforests are being cleared to grow soy.

“The Government must support planet-friendly British farming by helping farmers to grow animal feed here in the UK, and provide shoppers with meat that’s UK born, bred and fed.”

About 2 million people in the uk have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. It can lead to serious medical conditions resulting in heart attack, stroke, kidney disease and blindness. Five per cent of deaths worldwide, that’s one  in twenty, can be linked to type 2 diabetes, and there is currently no cure.

Insulin is a naturally occurring hormone which controls blood sugar levels in the body. With type 2 diabetes the body acquires a resistance to insulin, and blood sugar levels can fluctuate widely, high levels resulting in gradual damage to blood vessels and nerves. Now, some new research has discovered that bottlenose dolphins have the ability to produce an insulin resistant state. While such a state in humans is unhealthy, in dolphins it serves a specific purpose and can be switched on and off as required. It is thought that dolphins have developed this capacity to cope with the long periods of fasting which they often experience at night time when they are unable to catch fish. Because the dolphins only eat fish, theirs is a high protein diet low in carbohydrates, yet their exceptionally large brains  create high energy demands. This could make it difficult to maintain their blood sugar levels. The dolphins are able to avert this problem by temporarily inducing the insulin resistant state. Once they have eaten, the period of insulin resistance ends so as not to become damaging to their health. If researchers can work out just how the dolphins manage to do this, then there could be a very real hope of finding a way to control insulin resistance in humans, and ultimately a cure for type 2 diabetes.

Mark Simmonds a spokesperson from the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has questioned the usefulness of using Dolphins to study human disease, saying that they are too distantly related for it to be useful. However the findings are considered to be particularly meaningful because no other animal has been found to so closely mimic the disease that is found in humans. Up until now, research into the disease has relied upon some primates, as well as pigs, rodents and cats which display only some of its characteristics. Mark Simmonds also raised ethical concerns over the possibility of these ‘intelligent and sophisticated animals’ being removed from their natural environment for biomedical research, given the suffering and stress this could induce.
 
Stephanie Venn-Watson, who led the research team, also stressed the unethical aspects to potential research, but felt that important information regarding the biology of diabetes could  be discovered by studying the genetic code and physiology of the dolphins via blood and urine samples.

Hopefully the two stances are not irreconcilable and a way can be found to preserve both the health and dignity of the dolphins while harnessing the secrets they might hold for the benefit of humankind.

The fumes that result from frying food at high temperatures are known to cause changes in DNA  and may be carcinogenic. Professional chefs are particularly at  risk. Lung cancer rates in China, for example are high among chefs, and have been linked to stir-frying food at high temperatures. Past research has shown that cancer levels are higher among chefs who did not use extractors fans in their kitchens than among those who did. As well as being linked with lung cancer, cooking fumes have also been linked with  cervical  and bladder cancer. However, research in Taiwan indicated how, depending on culture and lifestyle, it is not just professional cooks who are at risk. In Taiwan there are very low smoking rates among the female population, but  a very high incidence of lung cancer. This is thought to be because of the amount of time women spend cooking, many on a daily basis. There was an increased risk for women who waited  until the oil was really hot before starting to cook.

Now a new study from Norway has compared the risks  between cooking with gas and electricity, by frying 17 steaks for 15 minutes each, using margarine or soya oil. The results show that cooking with gas produced a higher level of the cancer causing cooking fumes. There were higher levels of toxic and carcinogenic substances, as well as higher levels of ultrafine particles which are able to penetrate deeper into the lungs. This is thought  to be because of the higher temperatures of the gas flame, although it is also possible that it is a result not just of the cooking process, but of the flame itself. The new study was published in the journal ‘Occupational and Environmental Medicine’. One of the authors of the study explained  in the journal that while some substances are below the accepted  occupational safety levels, other components have no identified safety levels, and appear to be increased where the cooking method used is gas.  As a result she says exposure to cooking fumes should be reduced as much as possible.

Following on from the research the public health message is the same as previously; to keep kitchens well ventilated and gas appliances well maintained.

It seems as if a certain amount of risk is unavoidable if we want to continue to eat cooked food. Perhaps the time has finally come to give serious consideration to the raw food diet!

CAN A COMPUTERISED PLATE REALLY HELP TACKLE CONCERNS OVER RISING OBESITY RATES IN CHILDREN?

We know from previous research that people who are overweight tend to eat much more quickly which, in turn, can mean that they eat a lot more food than is necessary before feeling full.

 Now, based on this premise, a new study, recently published in The British Medical Journal, found that overweight children and teenagers can be helped to eat more slowly and reach a healthier weight by using a mandometer – a special plate with built-in weighing scales which is connected to a computer.

Displayed on a monitor, children can see graphs of both how fast they are actually eating, and the speed at which they should be eating. When the child exceeds the latter, the computer asks them to slow down. Whilst they are eating, the children are also able to let the computer know how hungry or full they are feeling.

In this recent trial, children using the device over a period of 12 months substantially reduced both their BMI & the amount of food they consumed at mealtimes. Perhaps of even greater significance was that 6 months after the trial ended these results appeared to have been sustained, indicating that new, healthy eating patterns had been learned!

The increasing prevalence of obesity among children has been linked to various health problems, including high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Recent research has gone so far as to indicate this could reverse the historicaly recent trend in increased life expectancy! With such a prognosis in the offing, anything that might help combat such an outcome has to be seriously considered! The indications are that the results of the recent study are reasonably reliable – it was a large and well organized trial. It would certainly seem to merit further investigation! However, it remains to be seen what steps would be taken in the current financial & political climate to ensure universal access to the mandometer for those of our children who need it!

A report published today, produced by a task force on neonatal care revealed that across England’s 162 neonatal units there are shortages of up to 2,700 nurses and 300 other staff like physiotherapists and dieticians. It was hoped that ministers would back and fund the proposals for the specialist care that is offered to babies in their first four weeks of life.

Sir Bruce Keogh – the deputy chief medical officer is chairman of the task force, which was set up a year ago to try and offer babies the same one-to-one intensive care that sick adults are given. Numerous professional medical organizations have endorsed this proposal for the last 15 years. It was suggested that an injection of £89m a year would be necessary along with one-off costs of £102m.

However ministers are calling for the funding to be obtained from within local health budgets instead.

Figures show that in England in 2007 2,127 babies died within the first 28 days of their lives. Babies are more likely to die in this neonatal period with 60 per cent of infant deaths occurring within this time frame. Research shows that one-to-one nursing would minimize the number of deaths.

Across England, 30 per cent of the 46 neonatal intensive care units are seriously lacking in staff numbers to offer one-to-one care.

Chief executive of the premature baby charity Bliss, Andy Cole admitted the decision to pull funding was a “huge missed opportunity”. He added that estimated costs to offer a “world class service” were as low as £150 per baby. “That is the kind of insurance policy most parents would be prepared to take out to ensure their baby got the best standard of critical care, should they need it. We hope the NHS will find the money to deliver it,” he said.

Ann Keen, health minister, said, “Having a sick baby is very distressing for parents at what should be one of their happiest moments. That’s why we’re providing the NHS with practical guidance on how to make neonatal services even better and take a family-centred approach to care.”

Share and Enjoy:

]]> http://www.ra4food.org/2009/11/04/funding-pulled-to-improve-neonatal-care/feed/ http://www.ra4food.org/2009/11/03/girls-as-young-as-seven-unhappy-with-body-image/ http://www.ra4food.org/2009/11/03/girls-as-young-as-seven-unhappy-with-body-image/#comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:23:17 +0000 rebecca http://www.ra4food.org/?p=389 A survey has revealed the worrying facts that young girls at just seven years old would choose to change the way they look while 50 per cent of 16 to 21 year olds would opt for surgery to attain the ideal figure.

Girlguiding UK undertook the research, which revealed that 95 per cent of 16 to 21 year olds are not happy with their bodies - 33 per cent wanting to be thinner, while another quarter would resort to surgery.

“We all compare ourselves to our peers, whoever they may be and for girls and young women, their peers are usually other young women,” said Dr Kerry O’Brien, a Psychologist at the University of Manchester.

“For them, as with others it is about finding their place in the world and wanting to compare favourably. Unfortunately, considering the approach of the media, that is often not the case.

“Many girls try to measure up to an image which is not a true reflection and can feel that they are coming up short,” he added.

In the 11 to 16 category, 12 per cent said they would opt for a gastric band or cosmetic surgery while five per cent would consider using Botox to attain their ideal look.

Thankfully less seven to nine year olds wanted to lose weight - with just five per cent claiming they wanted to be thinner. However this figure went up to 12 per cent for the 10 to 11 category and 27 per cent for 11 to 16 year olds. In the 7 to 11 cateogory, 72 per cent wanted to change something about the way they looked - with the most common change being their teeth!

Jo Swinson, a Liberal Democrat MP, said that young girls were being bombarded with pictures that are an “unrealistic idea of what is beautiful means” while her party are trying to ban airbrushing.

“This report highlights the worrying number of teenage girls who are going on extreme diets or even considering cosmetic surgery because they’re unhappy with the way they look,” she said, adding, “Airbrushing means that adverts now contain completely unattainable images that no-one can live up to in real life.

“Girls shouldn’t constantly feel the need to measure up to a very narrow range of digitally manipulated images.”

The Girlguiding UK survey asked 1,109 girls a variety of questions on subjects relating to binge drinking, eating disorders, plastic surgery, sexual health and body image. The questionnaire also revealed that over 25 per cent of 11 to 16 year olds had got so drunk in the past that they had been sick or lost control of their actions.

Chief Guide, Liz Burnley said, “Political debate is constantly grappling for solutions to these issues, under the intense scrutiny of the media spotlight, but the one group whose views are not sought are the young women they affect.”