Cally's working title

Fat gives us energy and is an important part of the daily diet—without it, fat soluble vitamins such as vitamin A cannot be absorbed. There are good fats, bad fats and really bad fats. However much of this information leads to confusion and is often misleading.

When talking about fats, fatty acids are the component parts that are important. They are required by the body for lots of functions other than providing energy.

In the past we’ve read about saturated fats being bad and polyunsaturated fats being good. Now we talk about omega-3 and omega-6, which are, incidentally, polyunsaturated fatty acids. You might see these written as n-3 and n-6 for omegas-3 and -6.

Omega-3 fatty acids can be found in oily fish and to a lesser extent white-and shell-fish, some nuts and seeds such as walnuts and pumpkin seeds, and human milk. Omega-6 is found in most vegetable oils such as safflower, sunflower, sesame, soybean and corn oil … there are others; this is not an exhaustive list.

The average western diet contains much more omega-6 than omega-3; although the amount of omega-6 is in line with current recommendations. Both provide independent health effects however. The problem is that we do not consume anywhere near enough omega-3, and herein lies the problem. It is increasingly being stated that the ratio between omega-3 and omega-6 is the important factor.

There are all sorts of health claims being hailed in the popular press – polyunsaturated oils protecting against heart disease, stroke, arthritis, alzheimer’s disease, cancers, etc. etc. but evidence is still accumulating for many of these claims. These will be discussed in further bulletins.

For the moment it appears we do need to eat more fish, particularly oily fish. This however, poses another current public health problem … that of obesity. If we increase our oily fish consumption without adjusting for the extra calories, then weight gain will result.

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!
www.alprosoya.co.uk
www.columbuseggs.com
www.unilever.co.uk

Cardiovascular disease, which includes coronary heart disease and stroke, causes more deaths throughout the world than any other illness … about 16 million people die each year from its effects. Death rates have reduced over the years, but survivors of cardiovascular disease often develop heart failure or angina, which may result in a poor quality of life.

Main risk factors are:
- high blood cholesterol
- high blood pressure
- low fruit and vegetable intake
- smoking
- lack of physical activity

The different types of fat are often a point of confusion in the fat story. Saturated fat which mainly comes from animal products, that is meat, cheese, cream, etc., clogs arteries and is bad for health.

Monounsaturated fats feature highly in the Mediterranean diet and many studies have found this type of diet to be protective against heart disease (Nurses’ Health Study, Lyon Diet Heart Study). Typically, this type of fat comes in the form of olive oil.

Then comes the essential fatty acids - otherwise known as Omega-3 and Omega-6. The richest source of Omega-3 is from fish oils, while Omega-6 mainly comes from plant oils and nuts.

Omega-3 alters the ratio of LDL (bad) cholesterol to HDL (good) cholesterol, by raising HDL cholesterol. Omega-6 lowers LDL cholesterol

Although it’s a good idea to substitute saturated fat such as butter and hard fats with vegetable oils, recent studies show that if we don’t have the correct balance between Omega-3 and Omega-6 fats we may be putting our health at risk. Professor Tom Sanders from King’s College, London suggests we need to have a ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 in the diet between 5:1 and 10:1. If it is more than 10:1 we should eat more foods such as fish, green leafy vegetables and pulses. Although as a nation we are consuming the recommended levels for Omega-6, we are not doing so for Omega-3.

This may all sound very confusing. Put simply, we need to:
- consume more fatty fish such as fresh tuna, mackerel and sardines.
- make sure we use olive and vegetable, nut or seed oils.
- minimise the use of saturated fats such as fatty meats and cheeses.
- eat whole grain foods instead of refined ones
… and finally, eat lots of fruits and vetables.

NOTE: Although tuna is a fatty fish, the canned variety does not contain Omega-3. It has been refined out of the fish in the canning process. If the can states there is Omega-3 in the product, it will have been fortified.

www.princes.co.uk
www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1490755,00.html

Inflammation is a reaction to tissue damage. It’s a normal response and is there to defend against additional damage. In some situations however, if this response is heightened it results in long-lasting damage.

Quite a few conditions involve inflammation in some form or another:
- rheumatoid arthritis
- Crohn’s disease
- ulcerative colitis
- psoriasis
- lupus
- type-I diabetes
- cardiovascular disease
- some cancers
- adult asthma
and, it is thought, obesity

Some of these conditions such as arthritis and asthma may be helped through tweaking the daily diet. Researchers Backer and colleagues (2004) have found that populations that naturally consume large amounts of Omega-3 fish oils such as Inuit and Japanese, have low rates of these diseases. But surprisingly, researchers (Shoda, 1996) have also found that increased rates of Crohn’s disease in Japan were associated with increased amounts of Omega-6 in the diet.

It seems Omega-6 is converted to a compound that is thought to promote inflammation. This may sound very confusing and disappointing given that Omega-6 helps lower LDL (bad) cholesterol. However, we are back to the old argument about ratios. Omega-3 helps reduce inflammation - it is the ratio between Omega-3 and -6 that is important.

Quite simply, this means more Omega-3, particularly in the form of fatty fish, needs to be incorporated in our daily diet, and excessive amounts of Omega-6 which is in vegetable oils may lead to diseases that involve inflammatory elements.

www.lighterlife.com
www.marks-and-spencer.co.uk

It was with great dismay that I viewed a recent news bulletin of two unhealthy-looking parents ‘pushing’ fish & chips and hamburger packets through a fence railing to eager school children. Their justification was ‘we’re only giving the children what they want’.

The school concerned had adopted a Jamie Oliver style healthy school meals programme and some children were having diffuculty in adjusting to eating proper food. There are several issues involved here:

1. It is in a child’s nature to reject new foods and one needs to persevere - it may take dozens of attempts in some cases.

2. Children also need time to adjust to a different regime. Interfering opportunists are putting the good intentions of the school, and the health of the children, at risk.

3. If a child is asked if he/she would prefer to eat pizza and chips or a healthy meal with vegetables and salad, the answer will of course be pizza and chips. As a species, humans naturally prefer sweet/salty/starchy foods.

4. Only giving the children what they want! Since when have children been given carte blanche to make decisions on health issues? Why should they be given ‘what they want’? Surely as adults we are responsible for protecting the health and welfare of children, not the children themselves. Perhaps the next step for these unscrupulous parents is to offer a delivery service for cigarettes and alcohol, or maybe even recreational drugs. If that’s what the children want, why shouldn’t they supply them?

5. What about the parents of the children buying the junk food? It is presumed most of these parents think their children are getting a good healthy meal at school. We all know most if not all older children have access to money, hence the invention of the term ‘piggy bank pound’. This makes them consumers. It also undermines the parents and teachers of these children who want what is nutritionally best for them.

It has been shown time and time again that nutrition is important not only in terms of weight control and health, but also in enabling children to concentrate and get the most out of their education. The exploitative tactics employed by a group of ‘Waynettas’ has placed children’s health and educational development at risk. In my view, it firmly plants the perpetrators on a parallel with those who push drugs at the school gates. After all, the only difference between the two is that the effects of a high fat and sugary diet occur over time, but both essentially are deadly.

As we all know, the media tend to embellish new discoveries. The headline ‘Clever capsules that boost young brains’ is much more attention grabbing than ‘Fish oils may or may not have an effect on cognitive function - it’s too early to tell’. Scientific studies are not all they might appear to be. www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/dietfitness.html?in_article_id=388428&in_page_id=1798&in_a_source=

To the consumer it’s very confusing and misleading. In a recent advertising campaign, an eminent physician helped promote St Ivel’s ‘clever’ Advance milk. He is a much loved and respected television personality. Viewers believe what he says. Whilst this forum does not in any way imply this physician is lying, the wording of these commercials very often skates on thin ice, and the science behind these claims may be used inappropriately. Indeed enough so that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have criticised the advertisement. As a result Dairy Crest, one of Britain’s largest milk processors, has agreed to stop making these claims. www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?id=68579-dairy-crest-omega-milk

So, where do we stand - where’s the science behind the St Ivel ‘clever’ claim?
The Oxford-Durham Study looked at Omega-3 supplementation on children who experienced learning difficulties. They found that supplementation appeared to help - it’s as simple as that. However, even the makers of the supplements were not happy with the St Ivel claim. The formulation and amount of Omega-3 in Advance milk is different to the study. The makers Equazen told the ASA that for children to get the same amount of Omega-3 from Advance milk they would have to drink at least 5 litres a day. “The campaigns were completely misleading and offered false expectations and hopes to consumers, and particularly parents, that one or two glasses of so-called clever milk would make their child cleverer,” said Kelliher from Equazen.

This is very sad because to the general public, it may negate the positive research on Omega-3 and other beneficial effects such as in heart disease. To many it is simply another case of conflicting information, not knowing who or what to believe.

The bottom line is that research in the effects of Omega-3 and intellect is still in its infancy, but that should not stop people from including 2-4 portions of oily fish in their diets each week. There may be no ‘proof’ that it enhances brain power, but it is still good for us in other ways. www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1868532,00.html

Some time ago the Food Standards Agency (FSA) launched its ‘traffic light’ labelling system on food products to help consumers identify the amount of sugar, salt and fat in the food they buy.

This is a welcome initiative and easy to understand, unlike most food labelling currently seen. Red indicates a high level, amber a medium level and green means a low level. Unfortunately these indicators are still based on the amount of fat, sugar or salt in 100g, and mostly, people do not ‘know’ what 100g is when translated into food on a plate. A ready-made meal is rarely portioned out at 100g and is often twice that amount. Therefore, a green ‘traffic light’ for salt may underestimate the actual amount of salt consumed. However, it’s a good starting point and the FSA should be congratulated for coming up with such a simple idea.

Sainsbury’s www.sainsburys.co.uk, Waitrose www.waitrose.com, the Co-operative Group www.co-op.co.uk and Asda www.asda.co.uk are all supporting the traffic light scheme.

But, and there’s always a but, the adoption of this new scheme is voluntary and many food manufacturers are not supporting the FSA’s initiative.Tesco is not supporting this scheme and, other food companies such as Kellog’s, Danone, Kraft, Nestle and Pepsico are planning to launch their own labelling scheme. This explains the percentage of fat, sugar or salt a product has in relation to guideline daily allowances.

What a shame everyone can’t join forces and come up with a single system that can be used by everyone.

Most people in the UK live in towns and many have no contact with how and where different foods are produced. The global nature of the supermarket ensures availability year round, and a simple glance around the supermarket shelves makes it impossible to determine the seasonality of our food.

The decline of seasonal food is sad for several reasons. Firstly, when faced with an abundance of foods, there is a strong tendency to take them for granted. Remember how exciting is was when, as a child, strawberry season approached. Now they can be bought in the middle of the darkest winter which leads on to the second point. Taste! Year-round food is often a poor replica of seasonal food in terms of taste. Varieties are used to maximize harvest, to survive a poly-tunnel existence or for increased shelf life. The result means that taste is the sacrificial lamb. Thirdly, food miles. By the time year-round food reaches the plate, it has seen hundreds if not thousands of transport miles. This is one of the leading causes of the environmental damage scientists keep talking about.

So what’s the answer? Well, the first step is to try and source food from local suppliers. It’s not good enough just to purchase food that is ‘British’, it must also be grown locally. If your carrots are grown in south Devon yet you live in northern Scotland, they have to travel hundreds of miles, polluting the environment as they travel.

Seasonal food often has an alliance with local food. The closer to home your food is grown, the more likely it is to be seasonal. Currently environmental costs are enormous. A report published in 2005 calculated the financial savings if all food was sourced from within 20 km from where it is eaten. Environmental and congestion costs would drop by £2.3bn to under £230m per year.

Co-author of the report, Professor Jules Pretty from the University of Essex, UK said, “the most political act we do on a daily basis is to eat, as our actions affect farms, landscapes and food businesses”. “Food miles are more significant than we previously thought, and much now needs to be done to encourage local production and consumption of food.”

http://www.localfoodworks.org/
http://www.rivercottage.net/index.jsp
http://www.foodethicscouncil.org/