Cally's working title

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

Dug asks whether or not polyunsaturated fats are good for you. He quotes a site he has been working on, and in particular, the page about fats from the same site.

Well…

About polyunsaturates. I wonder if the bad stuff is actually about hydrogenation, which is the process used to increase shelf-life on polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs)—it creates trans fatty acids which are bad. Also, when some polyunsaturated fats are heated to a high heat, the chemical structure changes and they act like saturated fats, which is also bad. But, n-3 fatty acids are PUFAs (in fatty fish such as mackerel, sardines, tuna, cod, etc.) and in some circles, they are thought to be the new wonder nutrient, and wide ranging. Involving blood pressure, cardiac function, cardiac electrophysiology, anti-platelet and anti-inflammatory—all of which are good. I’m convinced I must say.

It might be the trans fat issue that some have been worried about.

Legislation has recently come about in the U.S.—trans fats now must be recorded on all some food labels. However, yes, there is a loophole. Evidentally restaurants don’t need to display same which means FAST FOOD restaurants such as you know who, can pretend the new law doesn’t exist!

Having said all that, caution still needs to be heeded with the consumption with n-3s, because although n-3s are good, they are still fats and if too much of them are consumed there’s the whole obesity argument to contend with.

So that’s that really.

For some time now, saturated fats have taken over as the big bad nutrient we should all avoid—and we should I hasten to add. However, the last few years have seen new research on the deadliest white substance of them all … sugar!

The issue here is not so much natural sugars within the food, but added sugars—these are also called free sugars. A World Health Organization Expert Consultation on nutrition recommends that free sugars should be limited in the diet to less than 10% of overall energy intake. As you can well imagine, the sugar industry particularly in the U.S., is doing its utmost to discredit the WHO’s findings and ensure we continue to consume over and above the recommended 10%.

You may find arguments put forward stating less sugar is now being added to the diet than ever before. For the sugar farmers, this may or may not be the case. We’d need to look at the balance sheets for evidence. However previously, sugar was understood to mean the pure, white and deadly substance mentioned above—sugar processed from beet or cane. Now of course, it may also mean high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, glucose and a dozen other different names.

The smartest trick up the food industry’s sleeve however is the addition of fruit juices, usually in the form of apple juice, which you’ll often see on labels of ‘healthy’ foods. This would appear to be a healthy option after all, fruit juice is good for you! The label may also read ‘no added sugar’. Alas, a little known fact is that when juice is extracted from fruit, the sugar in it becomes free (added) sugar. The only difference being a few extra vitamins and minerals. To the body, the free sugar from the juice will behave in the same way as eating sugar in a biscuit or chocolate bar. There will be a quick peak in sugar levels, providing instant energy, followed by a sudden drop, triggering hunger, maybe headaches, irritability, tiredness… and all those other symptoms associated with the highs and lows of blood sugar.

The question therefore is… should the food industry include fruit juice as an ‘added sugar’?

http://www.lymeregisfoods.com/nosugar.htm
http://kidshealth.org/parent/nutrition_fit/nutrition/sugar.html

We all know vitamin E is a very good antioxidant, it is also used by many to treat burns. It may also be useful as an internal sunscreen. An eminent American nutritionist once recalled a story where he was told - by his nextdoor neighbour - about the miraculous sunscreen properties of vitamin E. This guy loved to tend his garden in the middle of summer but had a fair complexion and was very pale … he subsequently used to burn to a crisp by the ferocious midday sun. It was recommended that he take a vitamin E supplement … he did and the next day he burnt to a crisp. On complaining to the neighbour, the response was “don’t be so stupid, this is a fat soluble vitamin, you need to take it over a period of weeks/months for it to build up in your body”. Which makes sense. So the next summer season he did just that and low and behold, the result was less burning, little if any peeling and the skin turned brown very quickly!

On delivering a lecture, the nutritionist once again recalled this story. To his surprise a member of the audience confirmed his story. She was a nurse and worked on cruise ships in Canada. For years she had been treating people for extreme sunburn. Someone had told her about the miraculous sun protection properties of vitamin E and from that point on, the cruise liner people recommended to prospective travellers take 400-800 units of vitamin E daily, 8-10 weeks before going on holiday. The result was that they had fewer people in sick bay with extreme sunburns - all round, people had a better time!

If this really works - wow, what a discovery! However, it is anecdotal evidence. Nothing has been established in a laboratory situation - no trials have been done. But seeing that summer is on our doorstep, it might be worth a try.

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.

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.