Cally's working title

You’d think a strawberry milkshake was fairly innocuous when it comes to added ingredients. After all, it mainly consists of milk, a bit of ice cream and a few strawberries. A reasonably healthy, cheap and filling meal. The truth however, is a little more alarming.

Although the big fast food manufacturers should be applauded for publishing the ingredients that make up their foods, a view of these lists makes grissly reading. A medium Burger King milkshake contains a whopping 590 calories, and the following ingredients: milkfat and nonfat milk, sugar, sweet whey, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, natural and artificial vanilla flavour, guar gum, mono and diglycerides, cellulose gum, sodium phosphate, carrageenan and natural flavours from plant sources. Phew! And that’s just the milkshake.

The strawberry shake syrup contains: corn syrup, water, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, artificial flavour, sodium benzoate (preservative) and coloured with red #40. For a simple food like a milkshake, this list is nothing short of monumental. But if you take a closer look it contains the all too familiar ‘flavour’, both natural and artificial.

In his book Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser looks at the typical ingredients in a Burger King strawberry milkshake: amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate, benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl isobutyrate, cinnamyl valerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl acetate, ethyl amyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl heptylate, ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenyl-glycidate, ethyl nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerate, heliotropin, hydroxyphenyl-2-butanone, a-ionone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl butyrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4-methylacetophenone, methyl anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine carbonate, methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl salicylate, mint essential oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin, neryl isobutyrate, orris butter, phenethyl alcohol, rose, run ether, y-undercalctone, vanillin and solvent.

It would appear that underneath the natural and artificial flavours, an abundance of compounds lay. There is nothing illegal going on here. This is all within the law. Likewise with food labels, they too can include all these ingredients and place them under the umbrella term of ‘flavourings’. It’s really rather frightening.

The value of flavourings is of tremendous importance to the fast food industry, which require their foods be standardized, and flavourings can offer a standardized product. In order that artificial flavourings are made believable, the correct ‘mouth feel’ must be gained. This is achieved by the addition of starches, emulsfiers, stabilizers, sugars and fats (Marsili, 1993, Food Product Design).

So next time you pop into your favourite fast food outlet for a milkshake, take a moment and think about what’s really in this stuff.

(Burger King has been used as an example simply for ease of obtaining information. They are not out of the ordinary … any other fast food company could easily be substituted.) www.bk.com/food/nutrition/ingredients.aspx

Increasing evidence suggests nutrition plays an important part in cancer prevention (Chan et al, 2005, Journal of Clinical Oncology). Selenium, an antioxidant, has shown for many to have a protective effect against prostate cancer. Indeed a couple of brazil nuts a day can provide enough selenium to do the job.

Other food elements that may have a protective effect for cancers in general are brassica vegetables (cabbage, broccoli, brussel sprouts, etc), carotenoids (orange fruit & veg), lycopenes (in tomatoes), polyphenols (red wine, tea) and omega-3 (fatty fish) to name a few.

It is commonly agreed however, these elements should be taken in the form of food, and not from a supplement bottle. So next time you’re wondering what to have for lunch or a snack for that matter, pour yourself a glass of wine or a cup of tea if you don’t imbibe, and tuck into a little mackerel pate, some carot & broccoli crudites, roasted tomatoes, followed by a few brazil nuts and mango … delicious!
http://www.nutrition.gov/

Fast foods are standardized foods, they often contain high amounts of sugars, fats and salt. And, they may become habit forming. It is a common theory that (young) childhood is key in establishing good food habits 1. Cues and patterns are taken and established around this time about likes and dislikes, and about how much to eat, i.e. portion sizes.

With this in mind, it is no co-incidence that fast food outlets offer incentives to children in the form of happy meals or promotional toys. What they’re doing is implementing a long-term marketing strategy 2. To the marketers, children represent billions of pounds both now and in the future - brand loyalty is often a lifetime belief, and many people are loyal to their favourite fast food chain 3. Indeed, brand loyalty has shown to be established in children as young as two and three years old 4.

The consequences of bad eating habits established in childhood may result in obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and many other diseases later in life. In the case of diabetes, unfortunately, not too later. Type II diabetes, previously a disease of old age, is now seen in many obese children. Bear this in mind next time you’re planning a ‘treat’ for your child.
www.luscombe.co.uk

¹ Birch, 1998, Children, parents and food. British Food Journal
² Story, 2004, Int. Journal of Behavioural Nutrition & Physical Activity
³ Kraak, 1998, Family Eco. & Nutrition Review
⁴ Nestle, 2002, Food Politics

Hands up all those out there who know what high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is. Any takers? It’s not surprising not too many know, since there hasn’t been a huge amount of publicity surrounding it, at least not in the UK. On the other hand, it is extraordinary that this is so, since HFCS is in many processed foodstuffs and its use as a sweetener is widespread in the soft drinks industry, including Coke Cola.

So, what is it and where does it come from? A few decades ago, food scientists in Japan discovered a way to process a very sweet product out of corn. They called it HFCS. To the food manufacturer it has many attributes… a high level of sweetness; low costs; retention of moisture; gives products a longer shelf life; gives baked goods a freshly baked appearance; controls crystallization in ice cream and has a low viscosity.

Essentially, HFCS has revolutionized the fast and processed food industries, and enabled it to sell the inexpensive food we see today. Although it’s sweeter than sucrose, proportionately more of the product is required to provide a good ‘mouth-feel’, and that means more calories.

There is great debate as to whether this new product is good or bad for our health. Manufacturers say there is no difference between it and sugar, while some studies say HFCS favours lipogenesis, which to you and me means the deposition of fat.

The worrying aspect of HFCS is that its increased use in the United States exactly mirrors the rise in obesity. This may be coincidence … or not. If there’s a slight possibility that HFCS is contributing towards enhanced calorie consumption, more money should be put forward to research this product.

www.food.gov.uk

Bray 2004 Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic obesity, Am. J Clinical Nut.
Critser 2003 Fat Land
Oregon State University 2004

Health and diet are intrinsically linked. With the health gap expanding, there is an association between those at the lower end of the gap and higher risk of disease. Low income groups have been shown to have inadequate nutritional levels in their diets – with affordability cited as the major reason. But is lack of funds the real reason for eating an unhealthy diet?

Many studies place great importance on eating whole grains, low fat foods and a minimum of 5 fruits and veg a day. The antioxidant properties are said to protect against many conditions such as heart disease and cancer. Yet despite public health information many still consume far less than the suggested amounts per day – particularly low income groups. These groups incidentally, tend to eat foods higher in fats and sugars and it is no co-incidence that this profile is consistent with the consumption of fast food. Many believe fast food to be an economical alternative to home-cooked food … this however, is not true.

Lack of knowledge is not the only factor when dealing with inadequate nutrition. A 1994 study on how people adapted to eating on a low income revealed other important factors. Some were concerned about changing the family diet because they worried about waste, due to the family not liking the new food. To avoid waste, some parents provided their children with more of their favourite, unhealthy, food. This discouraged change leading to increased financial hardship. Others experienced feelings of deprivation from having to eat differently, or not being able to socialise in restaurants. Some families even felt under pressure to eat together, because it was cheaper that way. They did not like this and had feelings of resentfulness over not having flexible eating habits like more prosperous households.

It is often reported that accessibility and affordability are the major reasons why low income groups experience inadequate nutrition. Yet research has found this not to be the case. Of those who did not have a car, 71% did not see this as a problem and that going to the supermarket was not difficult. Additionally, two-thirds did not think their current financial situation prevented them from eating healthy food. Indeed the study showed that 73% thought they ate a healthy, balanced diet, despite not consuming current guidelines on fruit and veg consumption.

It seems therefore that for many, food choice has little to do with income and more to do with likes, dislikes, familiarity and sociological factors. A fatty, salty, take away may be considered a healthy option – the only ‘pleasure’ afforded them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/news_and_events/events_student1.shtml
This BBC webpage is for students, but the advice rings equally true for those on a low income. It’s got some good recipes too!

References:
Dibsdall 2003 Public Health Nutrition 6(2), Schlosser 2002 Fast Food Nation, Mann 2002 Essentials of Human Nutrition, Dobson 1994 Diet, choice and poverty.

The causes for obesity are fairly self explanatory—too much food in vs too little going out in the form of physical exertion.

So what’s changed over the previous 20-30 years? Well, for starters we have an abundance of labour saving devices—toasters pop up, refrigerators defrost themselves, we get a ride to school, we don’t even need to drag ourselves up from the sofa to change the television station for pete’s sake! Combine that with current trends in Europe and North America to eat a diet of over half the calorie content coming from fat and sugar, and bang—very shortly we’ll all explode!

The term ‘obesogenic environment’ popped up in the 1990s to describe an environment that encourages the overconsumption of energy-dense foods, that is, foods high in fat and sugar. Eating fat has very little effect on suppressing appetite, nor has sweet foods for that matter. And guess what? Fast foods and processed foods are full of fat and sweeteners. How else do you think you could down a hamburger or two, fries, soft drink and still have room for a desert? For some, an average fast food meal uses up, 100% of their daily calorie requirement. It is little wonder we are getting fat.

In the World Health Organization’s report on Globalization, Diets and Non-communicable diseases, it explains how evidence from research shows the obesogenic environment can be challenged through public health education, labelling and price manipulation. Norway and Finland have each been successful in reversing the trend to eat energy dense diets, which in turn has seen fewer deaths from heart disease. This was done in part by regulating food processing/labelling; ensuring low prices for grains, low fat milk, vegetables and potatoes; avoiding low cost sugar, butter and margarine, and public and professional education.

A lesson to be learnt from the Norwegians and Finns, surely?
www.weightconcern.org.uk